Updates
WP
WP Now - Republicans warming up to it
Wingfield and Litvan 7-31 (Brian and Laura, Ex-Im Bank Gains Support as U.S. Lawmakers Seek
Oversight”, Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-31/ex-im-bank-gains-support-as-u-s-lawmakersseek-oversight.html)//DLG
Support for the U.S. Export-Import Bank gained momentum yesterday as some opponents said
they would consider reauthorizing the agency and lawmakers sought ways to increase its
oversight and aid to small businesses.¶ Republicans led by Representative Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, who voted against
reauthorizing the bank in 2012, plan to introduce a bill that would renew it, while mandating
changes in its business practices. In the Senate, a new bipartisan measure would require the bank to report more about its operations to Congress.¶ Without congressional
action, the bank’s charter will expire at the end of September. Congress, which begins a five-week recess at the end of this week, will have 11 working days to act.¶ “It’s unreasonable to think that the bank is just
going to end Sept. 30,” said Fincher, a member of the House Financial Services Committee that is debating the 80-year-old bank’s renewal, in an interview.¶ Incoming House Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, a California Republican and member of the financial services panel, made clear last month he wanted to let the bank’s
charter lapse. Yesterday, he wasn’t so adamant.¶ Asked in an interview whether he might back a plan to alter the bank’s business practices, he said, “The
best part is, we’re working through committee. And I’d love to see a bill come out of the committee.”¶ ‘Crony Capitalism’¶ Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee who has
called for the elimination of a bank he criticized as “crony capitalism,” yesterday said he would consider reauthorizing it with changes to its
charter.¶ “Could the thing be reformed? Of course,” Ryan of Wisconsin said at a media breakfast in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. Still, he said, “there are so many more things we
should be dedicating taxpayer resources to than handing it out to some select companies.”¶ Speaker John Boehner of Ohio hasn’t said how he’ll vote on the bank, which provides financing for foreign companies to
buy U.S. goods.¶ In the Senate, a bipartisan group of eight led by Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, and Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, yesterday introduced a bill boosting reporting requirements for
Ex-Im while also authorizing the bank for five years and gradually increasing its lending authority to $160 billion. ¶ ‘Very Hard’¶ The Business Roundtable will push “very hard” to support the Senate bill, John
Engler, president of the Washington-based group for corporate chief executive officers, said today in a meeting with Bloomberg News editors and reporters in Washington.¶ “I’d like to see the Senate act,” he said.
there’s a lot of support in the House, regardless of McCarthy’s position.”¶ The Manchin bill is
in line with what President Barack Obama said he wants: a five-year reauthorization, with a
gradual increase of its lending limit to $160 billion from $140 billion.¶ “We need to find a way forward on this,” Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said
“I think
today on the Senate floor. He said the “no-government crowd” of Republicans mostly in the House were making that difficult. “It would be a shame if we weren’t able to renew this,” he said.¶ Winnowing List¶
Fincher said he and a number of House Republicans, who he declined to name, are winnowing a list of about 60 proposed changes to 20 or 25. The bank would have a five-year reauthorization and a limit on
lending higher than $95 billion and lower than the current $140 billion. The exact level hasn’t been determined, he said. ¶ Other potential changes being considered are the inclusion of an independent auditor for
aircraft financing, a provision that would let qualified commercial lenders support small-business lending and changes to the bank’s accounting practices, Fincher said. He said his group is trying to increase
participation for small businesses in a way that doesn’t squeeze out the bank’s assistance for larger corporations, such as Boeing Co. (BA), that receive the bulk of the lender’s financial support.¶ “As conservative
Republicans, we don’t want to disincentivize growth,” Fincher said. “We think there’s room for everybody.”¶ Boeing, GE¶ Bank opponents, including House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling
of Texas, have sought to abolish it on grounds that it benefits companies including Boeing and General Electric Co. (GE), which they say don’t need government support.¶ About 89 percent of the Export-Import
Bank’s 3,842 deals during the past fiscal year benefited small businesses, according the lender’s annual report on $27.3 billion in financing. Of long-term loan guarantees, 65 percent involved sales of Boeing
aircraft, according to a June 3 report by the independent Congressional Research Service.¶ “Chairman Hensarling is for letting Ex-Im’s authorization expire on schedule,” said Jeff Emerson, a committee
spokesman, in an e-mail. “That would allow for an orderly wind down of Ex-Im.”¶ Renewal Opposed¶ Other conservatives are skeptical of changing the bank.¶ “The same people who have been talking about
reforms for a while continue to” do so, said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action for America. He said the Washington-based limited government group continues to oppose the bank’s renewal in part
because it provides unnecessary support for large corporations.¶ The Manchin-Kirk measure submitted yesterday would require the bank to provide Congress with reports on its business plan, including its efforts
to support small-business exports, and it limits the lender’s exposure to loan defaults.¶ Manchin, from a coal-producing state, plans to introduce an amendment to allow exports of clean-coal technology, the
senators said in a statement.¶ A senator from a state with a large number of Boeing workers, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, said, “I’m 100 percent for reauthorization for five years.”¶ “I’m for
straight-up reauthorization, and I don’t mind reforms as long as they don’t gut the program,” Graham said. “If you could construct a world where nobody had an Ex-Im Bank, count me in. But our competitor
Graham said the bank has enough bipartisan support in the Senate for
reauthorization, although it’s obvious changes are needed to get the bill though both chambers.¶ Changes that he might consider acceptable
nations all have Ex-Im banks.”¶ Bipartisan Support¶
include a boost in the bank’s lending cap, more transparency about the bank’s lending decisions, more oversight authority for its in-house watchdog, and perhaps limits on which industries can and can’t benefit
the chamber’s top Republican hasn’t ruled out a
reauthorization. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, is waiting to see what measure emerges
and what types of changes it recommends before he commits, said Don Stewart, his spokesman.
from the bank’s financing.¶ Aiding prospects in the Senate for a bipartisan bill,
Ukraine More Cards
I/L
Energy independence key to check Russian explansion in Ukraine
Ford 14 (Matt, “Russia Is Crushing Ukraine's Hopes for Energy Independence”, 4-18, The Atlantic,
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/russia-is-crushing-ukraines-hopes-for-energyindependence/360281/)//DLG
Energy politics and Ukrainian politics are often the same thing. Around 40 percent of the energy Ukraine consumes
comes from natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Three-fifths of the 50 billion cubic
meters of natural gas Ukraine uses each year is imported from Russia, with the rest domestically produced. This gives
Russia a significant bargaining chip in its relations with Kiev—one that Moscow isn't afraid to use. Gazprom, a
Russian energy conglomerate with close ties to the Kremlin, raised gas prices for Ukraine by 81 percent earlier this
month, prompting Ukraine's interim prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to accuse Russia of "economic aggression."
Even ousted President Viktor Yanukovych tried to make Ukraine less dependent on Russia for energy.
Even ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's pre-revolution government sought greater energy
independence from Russia after bitter price disputes with Moscow and two gas-supply shutdowns in 2006 and 2009.
A 2011 OECD analysis identified three major objectives for Ukraine's energy strategy: doubling electricity production
between 2005 and 2030, shifting thermal power plants from gas-fired units to ones fueled by domestically produced
coal, and increasing nuclear-power generation. Last August, Kiev approved a new energy strategy through 2030 to
reduce its dependence on foreign-energy sources through investment in renewable-energy sources and greater
utilization of domestic energy reserves.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, the Crimean peninsula was crucial to the country's energy-diversification plans.
Yanukovych had opened negotiations with Azerbaijan, Russia's last remaining ex-Soviet energy rival, as part of his
effort to build a liquid-natural-gas pipeline terminal on Crimea's Black Sea coast. The peninsula also sits atop vast
underwater gas basins in the Black Sea, estimated to contain between 4 and 13 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. As
Ukraine's southernmost territory, the peninsula has the highest solar-energy potential in the country and already
featured one of Europe's largest photovoltaic parks. Its mountainous coastline holds strong wind-energy potential,
with seven wind plants already built there and more planned before the crisis. But all of that infrastructure and
investment now rests in Russian hands.
The loss of Crimea only further weakened Ukraine's already-tenuous energy security. Almost all of the fuel for
Ukraine's 15 state-owned nuclear reactors, which accounts for almost half of the electricity the country generates,
comes from Russia. Ukraine's domestic reserves of uranium are paltry, and it lacks the enrichment capacity to turn
what it does have into usable fuel. Russia, by comparison, is a net uranium exporter to Europe and owns nearly half of
the world's enrichment capacity.
Ukrainian dependence on RS leaves it powerless
Nowak 7-3 (Zuzanna, “In the Shadow of Russia? Nuclear Power in Ukraine”, The Polish Institute of
International Affairs, http://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=17729)//DLG
Nevertheless, the gas crises of 2006 and 2009, and especially the
current destabilisation of the country, have ¶
highlighted Ukraine’s excessive and problematic dependence on energy from Russia. While Ukraine
is 60% dependent ¶ on Russian gas, its nuclear industry is virtually dominated by Russia. Russians provide most
of the equipment to ¶ Ukrainian nuclear power plants, and participate actively in the Ukrainian fuel cycle. This almost
monopolistic position ¶ allows Russia to exert strong pressure on price in its dealings with the Ukrainian
state nuclear company Energoatom. ¶ During the past nine years, the cost of supply of Russian fresh fuel to Ukraine has
increased from approximately $350 ¶ million to $600 million per year; the cost of removal of spent nuclear fuel from Ukraine to
Russia has also increased, ¶ reaching its current level of $150–200 million annually. Simultaneously, Russia is trying to gain more
and more ¶ interests in Ukrainian nuclear companies.
EU Dependence Bad
Most of Easter Europe dependent on Russian nuclear energy
Sparks 14 (Kathryn, “Europe’s Dependence on Russian Energy: Deeper Than You Think”, 3-27, Atlantic Council,
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/eastern-europe-s-russian-energy-dependence-deeper-thanyou-think)//DLG
As European nations decide how staunchly to oppose Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, they have been pondering uneasily
the prospect that Moscow could cut off the Russian natural gas supplies upon which many of them depend. Foreign
policy specialists across the transatlantic community have scurried to promote ideas, such as a US promise to export
gas to Europe, to reduce Russia’s leverage.¶ Some bad news for this effort is that, across much of Eastern Europe, from
Bohemia to the Black Sea, Russia holds a second ace in the energy politics game: nuclear fuel. Five countries –
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Ukraine – rely almost entirely on Russian state-owned
companies to fuel their nuclear power plants. For these 80 million Europeans, the Russian state provides services
essential to some 42 percent of electricity production.
Nuclear energyygyy solves EU dependence
Nuclear energy solves dependence
Mcnamara 9 (Sally, “Europe Should Reduce Dependence on Russian Energy and Develop Competitive
Energy Markets”, 1-8, Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/01/europe-shouldreduce-dependence-on-russian-energy-and-develop-competitive-energy-markets)//DLG
Apart from the fact that diversifying suppliers and routes will take time, it would be incredibly unwise to put all
European eggs in one energy basket. The International Energy Agency, reporting on EU energy policy, recommended
the continued use of nuclear power to realize European energy goals, and a more diversified energy portfolio will
certainly be needed if Europe is to even come close to having sustainable and clean energy supplies in the long
term.[16]
Impact
Increasing Ukraine independence key to prevent conflict – nuclear
escalation
The News International 3/17 The News International is a Pakistani news agency that covers
international news, “US-Russia standoff over Ukraine may trigger nuclear attack”, 3/17/14,
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-141395-US-Russia-standoff-over-Ukraine-may-trigger-nuclear-attack-\\CLans)
UNITED NATIONS: The
US-Russian confrontation over Ukraine, which is threatening to undermine
current bilateral talks on North Korea, Iran, Syria and Palestine, is also in danger of triggering a
nuclear fallout.¶ ¶ Secretary of State John Kerry told US legislators early this week that if the dispute results in punitive
sanctions against Russia, things could “get ugly fast” and go “in multiple directions. ”Perhaps one such direction could lead
to a nuclear impasse between the two big powers.¶ ¶ According to a state agency news report from Moscow, Russia has
threatened to stop honouring its arms treaty commitments, and more importantly, to block U.S.
military inspections of nuclear weapons, if Washington decides to suspend military cooperation with Moscow.¶ ¶
These mostly bilateral treaties between the United States and Russia include the 1994 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), the
2010 new START, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and the 1970 international Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).¶ ¶ A nuclear tug-of-war between the two big powers is tinged in irony because post-Soviet Ukraine undertook one of
the world’s most successful nuclear disarmament programmes when it agreed to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs).¶ ¶ Dr. Rebecca E. Johnson, executive director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament and Diplomacy, told IPS,
“Clearly the situation between Ukraine and Russia is deeply worrying.¶ ¶ “Without going into the politics of
the situation on the ground, as I don’t have the kind of regional expertise for that, this is not a place for issuing nuclear threats or
scoring nuclear points,” she said.¶ ¶ “I’ve been disgusted to see some British and French representatives try to use Ukraine’s crisis to
justify retaining nuclear weapons in perpetuity.”¶ ¶ Russia is not directly threatening to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, and no
one believes it would be useful for the United States and countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) to threaten
Russia with a nuclear attack, no matter what they do, said Johnson.¶ ¶ Ukraine, which was once armed with the third largest nuclear
arsenal after the United States and Russia, and possessed more nukes than France, Britain and China, dismantled and shipped its
weapons to Russia for destruction beginning in 1994.¶ ¶ Dr. Ira Helfand, co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention
of Nuclear War (IPPNW), said Ukraine is commendable in being one of the few states to have given up its nuclear weapons
peacefully, and the people of Ukraine should not have to fear nuclear weapons ravaging their country.¶ ¶ “Any war involves a terrible
and lasting human toll, risks spreading and harming people’s health in the region and beyond,” he warned.¶ ¶ In a statement released
last week, IPPNW said it underscores the absolute imperative to avoid the possibility of use of nuclear weapons.¶ ¶ “This danger
exists with any armed conflict involving nuclear armed states or alliances, which could escalate in uncontrollable, unintended and
unforeseeable ways,” it warned.¶ ¶ Dr Tilman A. Ruff, co-chair, International Steering Group and Australian Board member of the
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, told IPS the current agreements (e.g. START, New START and INF) are
probably most important in that they demonstrate that verified reductions and elimination of whole classes of nuclear weapons are
feasible, and hopefully reduce the risk of nuclear war between Russia and the United States.¶ ¶ However, continuing massive nuclear
arsenals on both sides; the
retention of almost 1,800 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert missiles,
ready to be launched within minutes; the aggressive eastward expansion of NATO, contrary to
what Russian leaders were promised; and the rapid escalation of tension over recent events in
Ukraine demonstrate the Cold War has not been firmly laid to rest.¶ ¶ “Any confrontation between nucleararmed states runs the risk of escalating to the use of nuclear weapons, whether by inadvertence, accident, or bad decision-making,”
said Dr Ruff, who is also an associate professor at the Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health,
University of Melbourne.¶ ¶ He said currently all the nuclear-armed states are massively investing in keeping and modernising their
nuclear arsenals, and show no serious commitment to disarm, as they are legally bound to do. As long as nuclear weapons exist and
are deployed, and policies countenance their possible use, the danger they will be used is real and present.¶ ¶ “The
dangerous
and unstable situation in Ukraine highlights this starkly, and should dispel any notion that
nuclear danger ended 20 years ago with apparent end of the Cold War,” he said.¶ ¶ Dr Johnson told IPS
Russian and US nuclear weapons in the region are demonstrably not contributing to deterrence.¶
Clutter
Notes
Cites
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/house-probes-corruption-ex-im-deadline-nears/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/29/house-probes-corruption-ex-im-deadline-nears/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-31/ex-im-bank-gains-support-as-u-s-lawmakers-seek-oversight.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-29/ex-im-bank-watchdog-pursuing-40-fraud-cases-lawmaker.html
http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20140729/ARTICLE/140729308/1103
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-07-28/export-import-bank-to-win-renewal-with-changes-republicansays
Sorting
TOA/Obama Push
July 17, 2014, 7:30 a.m. EDT
“Battle over government-run bank roils D.C.” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/battle-over-government-runbank-roils-dc-2014-07-17
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — While Americans head off to relax for summer vacation, U.S. lawmakers are
engaged in a surprisingly tense struggle over a little-known government-run bank that helps companies sell products
to foreigners.
The Export-Import Bank, an institution created during the Great Depression in 1934, could close its doors soon if the
House of Representatives fails to reauthorize its charter. Critics say the bank is form of corporate welfare run mainly
for the benefit of large politically-connected firms. Supporters say it helps keep U.S. companies in business and puts
Americans to work.
The fierce battle over a bank many Americans have never heard of has created strange political alliances. The Obama
White House and most Democrats, who’ve often been at odds with corporate America, are staunchly in the bank’s
corner. The bank would live on if the Democratic-run Senate had its way.
Yet the Republican party, normally a devout ally of business, is a house divided. Although many Republicans in the
lower chamber back the bank, they may be outnumbered by a large swath of conservatives infused with Tea Party
support.
The brouhaha has not garnered much attention outside of Washington, but it’s created a frenzy of lobbying inside the
nation’s capitol and is turning into a key test for Republican leaders. Back big business or side with those who want to
rein in the federal government and claim a small but significant political scalp.
House Speaker John Boehner, a previous Ex-Im supporter, is wary of alienating conservatives and has declined to
take a public position. His second in command and another former supporter, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, is
now siding with the opposition.
With time running out, powerful corporate lobbyists in Washington and even some executives at smaller businesses
around the country have intensified pressure on Republicans to save the bank.
What’s complicating matters is the fast-approaching mid-term elections in November. Conservatives against the bank
— and those sitting on the fence — don’t want to cave in and alienate a vital segment of the Republican base as the
party strives to recapture control of the Senate.
Battle flares into open
For most of its history, the Ex-Im bank has faced little scrutiny. Created during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New
Deal, the institution has been regularly rechartered every few years, sometimes with just a voice vote.
The bank’s job is to promote U.S. exports by providing loan guarantees, credit insurance and in some cases even
direct loans to foreign companies that buy American goods and services.
Ex-Im claims its loans support more than 200,000 U.S. jobs that could be endangered if the agency is closed. The
current law authorizing the bank expires at the end of September.
Supporters say the Ex-Im Bank is necessary to help American companies compete with foreign rivals that receive
subsidies or other financial assistance from their own governments. Otherwise U.S. businesses could lose out to
European, Chinese and Russian companies.
“The Export-Import Bank is a reliable way for American business, including many small businesses, to sell their goods
and services into the world marketplace,” said Rep. Denny Heck, a Washington state Democrat in a recent speech.
He’s pushing a bill in the House to reauthorize the bank for seven years.
More Marketwatch
AT Private Sector Solves
Yet it’s unclear how many private lenders would jump in to offer long-term loans directly if the Ex-Im Bank was killed
off. Many private lenders that offer financing for large foreign purchases of U.S. goods do so because the government
backs the loans, especially to buyers in politically unstable or economically depressed parts of the world.
“It’s the private lenders who actually do the lending,” said Francis Creighton, a spokesman at the Financial Services
Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents banking interests. He argues that fewer loans would be made absent
government guarantees, costing U.S. companies sales and profits.
Among a handful of large banks that work closely with the Ex-Im bank are Wall Street heavyweights such as J.P.
Morgan Chase JPM -0.79% , Citigroup C -0.40% and Wells Fargo WFC +0.64% . Chase is the leader in Ex-Im
related loans at $5.1 billion, according to Veronique de Rugy, a bank critic and senior researcher at the Mercatus
Center of George Mason University.
De Rugy warns U.S. taxpayers would be on the hook if the loans went bad. Yet the Ex-IM bank was largely untouched
by the worldwide recession in 2008-2009, perhaps the worst global downturn since the 1930s. Bank backers say
those fears are overblown.
XM
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes Nicole Gelinas: Searle Freedom Trust Fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Securities Analysts, “The
pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington Examiner,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Gelinas: I don't think it's going to be a headline divisive issue because not many voters know what this is. It's not
going to be on the level of Obamacare or the stimulus or the other issues that really get people interested, but I think
it could be a niche issue.
It's more the Tea Party-type Republicans and the Occupy Wall Street people who don't want the government
subsidizing big business. So for the people who are paying attention to the issue of government subsidy of big finance,
this is another plank for them to say, ”We have a real problem here.” The government is heavily subsidizing and
distorting the financial industry, whether it's Fannie and Freddie for the mortgage industry or the Export-Import
Bank for the industrial export sector.
UQ XM
"To some exporters, it's a big deal — and they are lobbying hard to save it," Carney said, sounding almost resigned to
the inevitability. "So none of you guys, despite how convinced you are about my arguments, ought to go out and bet
on Ex-Im ending."
For now, Fratto sees a short-term reauthorization — which probably, as some congressional Democrats have hinted,
will be included in the continuing resolution that keeps the government funded and from shutting down.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ex-im-bank-debate-tim-carney-v-tony-fratto-2014-7#ixzz390307ViS
*****AFFIRMATIVE********
General
UQ
Bergdahl Gaucho
Bergdahl thumps
House 7-24 (Billy, “House GOP and Some Democrats Preparing to Slam Obama for Bergdahl Swap”, National
Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/house-gop-and-some-democrats-preparing-to-slam-obama-forbergdahl-swap-20140724)//DLG
House Republicans
are set to open another front next week in their efforts to publicly repudiate President
Obama—this time for his decision in May to exchange five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay
for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.¶ Only this time it won't be a purely partisan assault. Some Democrats have signed
on with Republicans to condemn Obama for approving the prisoner swap.¶ House Armed Services Committee
Chairman Buck McKeon says his panel will mark up a bipartisan resolution on Tuesday that accuses Obama of
disregarding "America's long-standing policy against negotiating with terrorists."¶ The resolution will
further declare that the transfer was in violation of a section of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2014, which requires the secretary of Defense to notify Congress at least 30 days before the transfer of a Guantanamo detainee.¶
Republican Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia is the sponsor, along with GOP Rep. Reid Ribble of Wisconsin and Democratic Reps. Nick
Rahall of West Virginia and John Barrow of Georgia.¶ "When the president takes his oath of office, he is duty bound to follow the
laws set by the American people," McKeon said in a statement. "Here, his office broke a law that was originally adopted by his own
party in the Senate, passed by a large bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by the president himself." ¶ McKeon added: "Just as
the president must do his duty, so must Congress. Congressman Rigell's legislation sends the clear message that following
the
law isn't optional."¶ The administration says that concerns about Bergdahl's deteriorating health played a role in its thinking.¶
Bergdahl, 28, went missing on June 30, 2009, in Afghanistan's Paktika Province, where his battalion was deployed. He had spent
five years in captivity until his release on May 31 in exchange for five Taliban prisoners transferred from the U.S. prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.¶ In his own statement Thursday, Rigell said his resolution will be an official, bipartisan repudiation of
Obama's actions.¶ Although the action was not announced until Thursday, it
has actually been in the planning stages
since June. In fact, House Republican leadership aides back then confirmed that closed-door strategy sessions
by top Republicans were already underway on how to best seize on the Bergdahl swap, seen as
angering members of both parties. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul was even saying in
June that the issue would have a long shelf life politically.¶ "Not only is it a winner because it was horrible foreign
policy," McCaul said. There are also a lot of elements for lawmakers to cover in the Bergdahl controversy, he
said.¶ McCaul said those include the risks of negotiating with terrorists, why Congress wasn't kept in
the loop, and whether this swap signals plans by the Obama administration to release all prisoners and
close the Guantanamo prison over congressional objections.¶ "You know me, I'm pretty much more of a national
security kind of guy and I don't really engage in a lot of partisan politics," McCaul said. But still, he said, "I think this probably
has more legs than any other story I've seen."
FoPo Gaucho
Heightening crisis in Iraq and Syria will require all of Obama’s PC and
focus
Oliphant 6-30 (James, “Obama’s Going To Have To Get His Hands Dirty To Save Iraq”, Defense One,
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/06/obamas-going-have-get-his-hands-dirty-save-iraq/87583/)//DLG
The deepening crisis in Iraq may be shaping up to be President Obama’s biggest test—and not only because of the risk of the country
fracturing along sectarian lines and the potential for the rise of a new jihadist terror state.¶ Few, if any, challenges faced by this
White House have cut so forcefully against the president’s own personal and political instincts. If
Obama is to help bring
stability to the region, experts say, then he will have to do the kinds of things he has long resisted: Get
his hands dirty, go it alone, admit his mistakes, and dig in for the long haul.¶ This is a president, after all,
who has made winding down conflicts—not escalating them—the hallmark of his foreign policy. And in other arenas—Syria, Ukraine,
Iran—to name just three, he has shown a preference for a deliberative approach, for soft power and sweet reason. Politically, he has
liked to operate with public opinion on his side; indeed, in everything from health care to immigration to gay rights, White House
aides have often used shifting public attitudes as justification for the president’s actions. And it goes without saying that this is a
White House that rarely concedes its missteps.¶ Iraq scrambles all of that. The electorate is dead set against further U.S.
involvement. The forceful march of ISIS, as well as increasing Iranian influence in the region, cries out for urgent action. Allies in the
fight willing to commit resources are scarce. And nothing about the theater suggests the kind of surgical and consensual approach
that worked for Obama in, say, Libya. Obama is like an NFL coach whose playbook no longer works.¶ Because of the president’s
hands-off style, critics worry that the White House won’t engage on the level needed to stave off the defeat of the Iraqi government.
“The idea that he’s now prepared to acknowledge the collapse of one of the foundational pillars of his foreign policy, and invest his
personal prestige and political capital in the difficult, messy, and risky business of stabilizing Iraq’s dysfunctional politics and
reversing the emergence of an al-Qaida proto-state in Mesopotamia is almost preposterous,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “I hope he proves me wrong.”¶ Hannah was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Dick Cheney, so his skepticism comes naturally, as it does for House Speaker John Boehner, who, his aides say, doubts the
president’s commitment on Iraq. But even former members of the Obama administration see the White House as just beginning to
realize the enormity of the challenge on its hands—and that it’s one that, even after all his years in office, could shape the president’s
legacy.¶ “I think the president is finally grasping that this is the problem that he will be judged by,”
said Douglas Ollivant, former Iraq director on the National Security Council under both Obama and George W. Bush. ¶ The war in
Afghanistan—and the “surge” there that Obama endorsed before his decision to exit the country—was premised on the idea of
denying a safe haven for al-Qaida. Last week, in announcing he was sending 300 U.S. military advisers to Iraq, Obama declared that
it was in America’s best interests to prevent a similar haven for terrorists from developing in the borderlands between Syria and
Iraq. But Ollivant and others say that haven already exists—and is a burgeoning threat to the rest of the Middle East, especially
Jordan and Lebanon. “I call it Somalia without a coastline,” Ollivant said.¶ If Obama were to leave office with that kind of threat
intact, all of his efforts to battle terrorism worldwide could pale in comparison. Indeed, even if the administration succeeds in its
long-shot bid to persuade Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki to form a more inclusive government, an immediate question that
will face Obama will be whether to help that new regime push ISIS back out of Iraq, something that experts say Iraqi security forces
cannot do on its own and something on which it may look to Iran for help instead.¶ Retired Gen. David Petreaus, the former allied
commander in Iraq, and others have warned about the risks of the U.S. appearing to take sides in a Sunni-Shia conflict—which
means that it may become critical for Sunni moderates to be persuaded to side with the Iraqi government, and not the jihadist
insurgency, in a bid to at least defuse the threat if not directly combat it. Here, too, the United States can play a role that Obama may
find uncomfortable, analysts say.¶ “There’s dirty, on-the-ground work to be done,” said Kimberly Kagan, president
of the Institute for the Study of War, which has been tracking the movements of ISIS across Iraq. “This is a classic mission for special
operators or other elements of the U.S. government”—by which she meant intelligence agents.¶ “This is the hard stuff. This is totally
dirty stuff. You have to be out there with the tribes,” Kagan said, adding that those American forces would have to be protected by a
larger unit than Obama has committed. “You have to have freedom of movement, which requires a heavier footprint. I don’t see a lot
of willingness to do that.Ӧ Beyond halting the advance of ISIS toward Baghdad, Hannah and Ollivant say Obama will need to be
prepared to utilize U.S. airpower, including drones, to mount attacks within the territory controlled by ISIS both in Iran and Syria to
knock out training camps and command centers, provocative actions that Obama has so far resisted even as the terrorism group has
swelled in manpower and resources. Hannah, in addition, says Obama may have to reconsider its diplomatic position toward Iraqi
Kurds in order to secure their support—another issue on which the White House has sent conflicting signals.¶ There
are,
that the administration is tossing its playbook, rethinking its approach, and
beginning to see the problems in Iraq and Syria as linked. Obama on Thursday called on Congress to approve $500
million to train moderate rebels in Syria. “What they really ought to be doing is looking at this problem in a broader
however, indications
dimension in Iraq and Syria,” said Frederic Hof, who was Obama’s special adviser on Syria and is now with the Atlantic Council.
“Fending off attacks [in Iraq] is not enough.”¶ Hof, too, mentioned the kind of dirty work that needs to be done by Obama in Syria—
to try to “very, very carefully” focus on the thousands of defectors and deserters from the Syrian army to put together a national
resistance force to battle ISIS and move toward regime change in that country. ISIS could then conceivably be pinned down between
Damascus and Baghdad.¶ But, he cautioned, “this is not something that’s going to be accomplished in the next 20 minutes.”
And that’s what lies at the heart of the challenge facing the president. It’s not going to be quick. It’s going to be dirty.
The public doesn’t want him to be the one to go in and clean up the mess. There’s every political reason to sit tight and
let events play out without him. It’s possible that Obama has never been in a tougher spot—and what he does in the
next few weeks and months will say much about his presidency.
Iran
Lee 7-16 (Carol, “Obama Still Hoping Iran Investment Pays Off”, WSJ,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/07/16/obama-still-hoping-iran-investment-pays-off/tab/print/)//DLG
The U.S. is trying to broker a trio of high-stakes foreign-policy deals over the next few days, but just
one of them – a nuclear agreement with Iran – is of particular importance to President Barack Obama.¶
For Mr. Obama, a deal with Iran is one of the only major planks in his foreign-policy agenda that is still
within reach. Middle East peace talks, for instance, have so collapsed that the president is now merely seeking a
ceasefire to quash the current flare up of violence between Israel and Hamas.¶ And unlike the two other efforts the
administration is pursuing this week – a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and a new coordinated package of U.S.
and European sanctions against Russia over its intervention in Ukraine – the Iran negotiations are a rare
place where Mr. Obama is shaping events rather than reacting to them.¶ From Ukraine and
Russia to Syria, Israel, Gaza and Iraq, and even the crisis at the southern U.S. border – all of the issues flaring up in
recent weeks have put the president in a reactive, not proactive position. Iran, on the other hand, is a piece of the
foreign policy portfolio Mr. Obama has sought to shape since entering the White House in 2009.¶ So it’s hard to
imagine talks would get this close to the July 20 deadline and the White House would end negotiations without
adding time on the clock.¶ Mr. Obama has invested a tremendous amount of personal time in rapprochement with
Tehran.¶ He pursued secret backchannel U.S.-Iran talks knowing they would strain relations with key allies, including
Israel and Saudi Arabia, once they became public. And he’s burned domestic political capital to keep Iran
talks going by holding off members of his own political party who want additional sanctions
against Tehran .¶ Inside the White House the Iran issue is treated as a coveted part of Mr. Obama’s would-be
presidential legacy. An Iran deal is, essentially, viewed as the Obama foreign policy brass ring. Administration
officials half-jokingly muse about Mr. Obama flying on Air Force One from Tel Aviv to Tehran before leaving office in
2017.¶ White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Mr. Obama will decide on a path
forward in coming days, after discussing the issue with Secretary of State John Kerry, who’s said talks in Vienna had
made progress but significant gaps remain, and consulting lawmakers in Congress.¶ “I’m not in a position to speculate
about which path will be taken at this point,” Mr. Earnest said, “but that will be the subject of a number of discussions
in the days ahead.”¶ Despite the discussions, one thing is certain: this is purely Mr. Obama’s call.
Laundry list Gaucho
Too much on agenda
Kollipara 7-28 (Puneet, “Wonkbook: With four days until recesss, a breakthrough on VA reform”,
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/28/wonkbook-with-four-daysuntil-recesss-a-breakthrough-on-va-reform/)//DLG
Don't get too excited. Congress
has a lot left to do in four days... "Congress has a crammed getaway agenda
border crisis, to finalizing a patch for the Highway Trust Fund, to suing President
Obama. There also is optimism — but not necessarily confidence — that a House and Senate conference agreement
can finally be reached on reforming the embattled Veterans Affairs Department. Both chambers
have Thursday scheduled as their final legislative day before the break, which will extend
through August and into early September, providing a key period of campaigning in a midterm
election year." Michael Catalini and Billy House in National Journal.¶ ...and then some. "Lawmakers...still must
approve spending bills or a stopgap measure before the end of September to keep the
government running....Also expiring is the authorization of the Export-Import Bank, which helps support U.S.
export sales....Similar GOP concerns have clouded the path forward on extending the federal
backstop for terrorism insurance, set to expire at year-end. The immediate problems have made it
that much harder to tackle thornier issues like overhauling the tax code. A push by Democrats to block
— from dealing with the
companies from reincorporating overseas for tax purposes is unlikely to advance soon. Lawmakers are expected to renew funding for
highway programs, but this time only for several months." Kristina Peterson in The Wall Street Journal.
Tax Reform Gaucho
Obama pushing for tax reform now
Cirilli 7/24 (Kevin, “OVERNIGHT FINANCE: Obama pushes to close tax loophole”, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/overnights/213300-overnight-finance-obama-pushes-to-close-taxloophole)//DLG
TOMORROW STARTS TONIGHT – OBAMA: BIG BIZ ‘GAMING THE SYSTEM.’ In a rare interview with CNBC, President
Obama blasted companies that “game the system” with so-called tax “inversions.” He criticized U.S.
companies that start or acquire a foreign company and then change their tax address to an overseas location to dodge U.S. taxes. In a
speech in Los Angeles earlier today, Obama called for companies to have “economic patriotism.”¶ ADVERTISEMENT¶ Three points:¶
1.) What Obama said: “I think most people would say if you’re doing business here... but you’re simply changing your mailing
address in order to avoid paying taxes, then you’re really not doing right by the country and by the American people... You’re just
gaming the system.Ӧ 2.) What Obama
wants: The White House wants Congress to pass a tax inversion
fix-it bill ASAP that’d retroactively make any company that dodged taxes since May 2014 (hence
the name “retroactive inversions”) fork-up the cash. Republicans are critical of passing any type of legislation
that’s retroactive.¶ 3.) Dems are divided. While many Dems cozied-up to big business recently on issues like reauthorizing
both Ex-Im and Terrorism Risk Insurance, Obama’s new push for retroactive inversions could cause a
headache for some 2014 Dems. Case-in-point: Finance Committee member Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who dodged questions
today about whether he would support a retroactive inversion bill. Still, even if the Senate did pass the bill, it’s unlikely the House
pass the measure.
No PC
No PC left – Obama’s run himself dry
Koffler 7-18 (Keith, “Why Obama’s Remarks Hardly Matter”, White House Dossier,
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/07/18/obamas-remarks-matter/)//DLG
Well, President Obama finally got serious about the downed civilian airplane. But this
president cannot be taken too
seriously, unfortunately.¶ Fox News digital politics editor Chris Stirewalt Thursday passionately described a key reason why
Obama is unable to make authoritative statements anymore, noting that a president who is always
trying to throw PR bling at the country gets lots of attention but entirely dilutes himself.¶ Obama of
course starts out rather diluted to begin with. And his constant appearances are often goofy or demeaningly
political. And then there’s the matter of his failed policies, indecision and empty threats.¶ But I digress.¶
According to Stirewalt:¶ His endless talking, his endless fundraising, his endless effort to control every fifteen
minutes of every news cycle saps him of the ability to speak with authority and resolution when
he needs to.¶ This president is not only spent – he’s sick of the job – but he’s also broke. That is, he has
spent down all his political capital – nobody wants to work with him –
and he is in the process of completing what seems to one of his main projects: Totally
office.
depleting the stature of his
PC
PC Fails
PC fails in the current political climate – VA legislation proves
Breitman 7-28 (Kendall, “Karl Rove: Deals happen without President Obama”, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/karl-rove-veterans-affairs-va-deal-obama-harry-reid-109448.html)//DLG
A new agreement to reform the Department of Veterans Affairs may end up being a good lesson
for President Barack Obama and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), according to Karl Rove.¶ “Maybe there’s a lesson in [the new VA
legislation] that the administration ought to play less politics and let Congress go forward , and Harry
Reid ought to allow the House and Senate to work together and maybe they’ll get a few more solutions,” Rove
said on Monday on Fox News.¶ Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), the chairs of the House and Senate Veterans
Committees, announced on Monday that they have reached a $15 billion agreement to reform the broken VA system, according to a
draft of the agreement. The legislation, set to be unveiled later on Monday, will assign $5 billion in new doctor and nurse hires and
will allow veterans to seek private doctors if they do not receive treatment at a VA facility within 14 days.¶ “We need to see the
details, but the broad outlines look like Congress…[has]
made a good faith effort to attack the problem,
which is a huge backlog of veterans attempting to get access to the VA system,” Rove said. “I think it’s a
very smart move and it’s the quickest way to address this backlog.”¶ (Also on POLITICO: VA bill to be unveiled)¶ But, for Rove,
what is more important to note in the legislation is not what it is proposing as negotiations for reform, but who was
not involved in the negotiations.¶ “What’s also interesting to me is who is not participating in this process,” Rove said.
“The administration has largely been absent from negotiations, and has played no significant role in this…we
don’t have Harry Reid intruding in this process like he has done in all the other negotiations and all the other
attempts to have the House and Senate arrive at legislation.”¶ He continued, “It was done by the Chairmen of the
respective committees and representatives form the House and Senate, but without the administration
holding a…political 2 by 4 over them and without Harry Reid obstructing the resolution of a problem.”¶ ©
2014 POLITICO LLC
Will Use XO
Can still do stuff
Zelizer 7-28 (Julie, “Is Obama a powerless lame duck?”, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/28/opinion/zelizer-lame-duck-presidents-obama/)//DLG
Finally, part of how the lame duck period unfolds will depend on how much political risk President Obama is willing
to take to get things done, either through executive action or the legislative process. It is possible that in these final
years a president can lose some of the inhibitions that shaped his time in office to take a chance on bold moves that
upset his own party.
In 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson was trying to get a 10% tax surcharge through Congress that would help
finance the Great Society even while continuing the war in Vietnam, congressional conservatives insisted on steep
spending cuts that were intolerable to liberals.
After announcing in March 1968 that he would not run for re-election, Johnson agreed to the cuts and obtained the
revenue he needed. In 1980, after having lost to Ronald Reagan, Senate Democrats agreed to a series of compromises
on legislation to protect 100 million acres of land in the Alaska wilderness, realizing they would get a much worse deal
after Reagan was in the White House, to pass a bill that became a landmark of environmental protection.
As his second term begins to wind down, President Obama could, for instance, continue to move aggressively by using
executive orders to achieve more progress on climate change. He could also return to discussion of some kind of deal
on Social Security and Medicare that he has been talking about for years, even though it would certainly anger the
base of his party. He could tackle some issues, like urban poverty or campaign finance reform, that he has mostly put
aside since taking office.
So watch out for the lame duck period: President Obama's supporters should be a little more optimistic about what
can happen in the next few years; while his opponents shouldn't be so confident that they will rule the roost.
History shows that the next few years could be a highly creative and significant period in Obama's presidency. Just
when things seem most desperate, presidents have sometimes found the space they need in the closing months of
their term to make gains.
Immigration
Uniqueness
Dead in the water
Harrison 7-28 (JD, “Obama’s State of the Union goals, six months later”, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obamas-state-of-the-union-goals-six-monthslater/2014/07/28/b864a6e4-15d9-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html)//DLG
Despite ranking at or near the top of priority list for both parties, efforts to pass comprehensive
immigration reform have run out of steam in Congress.¶ House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) put
the nail in the coffin a few weeks ago when he told Obama that Republicans would block any
further attempts on immigration reform for the remainder of the year, saying his party has little
confidence in the administration’s ability to enforce existing laws. It appears both sides are now
ready to throw in the towel until after Obama leaves office.
PC Fails/Not Key
XO and PC fails
CBS DC 7-28 (“Several Dem Lawmakers Baffled By White House’s Tactics In Handling Border Request
Money”, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/28/several-dem-lawmakers-baffled-by-white-houses-tactics-inhandling-border-request-money/)//DLG
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — President Barack Obama’s request for billions of dollars to deal with migrant
children streaming across the border set off Democrats and Republicans. Lawmakers in both parties complained that
the White House — six years in — still doesn’t get it when it comes to working with Congress.
Top GOP leaders got no notice of the $3.7 billion emergency request. The administration sent contradictory messages
about what it wanted to deal with the border crisis. And as the proposal drew fierce criticism, the White House made
few overtures to lawmakers in either party to rally support.
House and Senate lawmakers in both parties plus several senior congressional aides said this past week that the
handling of the proposal by Obama and the White House is emblematic of the administration’s rocky relationship
with Congress: an ad hoc approach that shuns appeals to opponents and doesn’t reward allies.
Combined with a divided Congress — GOP-led House and Democratic-controlled Senate — and election-year
maneuvering, neither basic nor crisis-driven legislation is getting done.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., described the lack of communication between the White House and
Congress as “stunning.” He said he first learned many details of Obama’s border request from news reports.
Obama is the “only person in America who can sign something into law and help bring members of his party on board
for an outcome on a given piece of legislation that requires bipartisan support,” McConnell said in an interview. “So
it’s a mystery, but that’s the way they operate.”
Several Democratic lawmakers echoed McConnell but spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid alienating the
president of their party. They said they were baffled by the White House’s tactics in handling the border request.
Several Democrats expressed frustration that the president and administration officials weren’t more involved in
legislative fights.
Obama’s hands-off approach was evident in June.
At a private White House meeting Obama held with the top four Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and
Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appealed to the president to intervene in pressing McConnell to allow
speedier approval of the president’s dozens of ambassadorial nominees.
Obama said it was a matter for Reid and McConnell to work out, an answer that left Democrats flabbergasted,
according to participants in the meeting. Finally, more than a week later, Obama called McConnell to urge him to
break the logjam and get ambassadors confirmed.
McConnell said the conversation — one of the few he has had with Obama in recent months — was limited to
ambassadors.
White House officials rejected the criticism, insisting that they have been regularly consulting with lawmakers.
While frustrated with the administration, Democrats also sympathized. They described Obama’s untenable position
of trying to work with Republicans unwilling to give him any legislative victories, especially the Tea Party class of
2010. The White House has argued that even if it tried to cut a deal with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio — as it
did in 2011 on entitlements, spending and taxes — there was no assurance Boehner could deliver his rambunctious
caucus.
“You’ve got a core group of the House Republican caucus that has run on a platform of ‘no compromise’ — if the
president’s for it, they’re against it,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
Several Democrats said Obama must contend with GOP animosity, but so did former President Bill Clinton, who was
undeterred through two terms.
Obama held a few dinners with Senate Republicans last year, discussing budgets, entitlements and immigration over
steak and coconut sorbet. Hopes for keeping a constructive conversation going have faded more than a year after the
last dinner and several participants have had little contact with Obama since.
Faced with the arrival of more than 57,000 minors since October, mostly from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador,
Obama proposed $3.7 billion in emergency spending to deal with the influx. Republicans pressed for changes to a
2008 trafficking victims law that would speed deportations of children from Central America.
For days, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson privately told lawmakers he supported such a change, but the
White House never pressed congressional Democrats about following through.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., criticized the White House strategy. “I try never to negotiate against myself, that’s all I can
tell you,” he said.
More recently, the administration reached out to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., with a few suggested changes to the
2008 law. It’s doubtful the issue will be resolved before Congress recesses for August.
Congressional frustration with the administration is not limited to the White House.
Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly implored the State Department last month to weigh in on a bipartisan resolution
calling on Turkey to return confiscated Christian property before a House panel voted on the measure. The Virginia
lawmaker complained the resolution included “gratuitous Turkey-bashing” and wanted State Department officials to
help persuade lawmakers to support a toned-down version.
None of his House colleagues heard from department’s legislative liaisons.
“The State Department was missing in action,” Connolly said in an interview. “They have to professionalize their
operation.”
Obama has vowed to take executive actions in an effort to fix the immigration system.
Midterms
Can’t predict
Midterm predictions fail – Black Swan theory
Delamaide, 2/12
Darrell Delamaide, political reporter for the Wall Street Journal, author of the weekly column “Political Capital”;
“Republican hopes run high, but beware the black swans,” 2/12/2014,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/republican-hopes-run-high-but-beware-the-black-swans-2014-0212?pagenumber=2 // MS
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Pundits
are giving favorable odds for Republicans to pick up
the six seats they need for a Senate majority in midterm elections this year, but a
volatile political environment might produce some “black swan” events that
confound these forecasts.¶ The biggest black swan so far this year — though not regarding a midterm
contest — is the damage done to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s presidential aspirations by the
mushrooming “Bridgegate” scandal after disclosures that his aides apparently engineered a
monster traffic jam at the George Washington Bridge to punish a recalcitrant mayor.¶ Fresh off a
landslide re-election victory and touring the country as chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie is now in full
crisis-management mode as subpoenas are flooding in and every action of his in public office is coming under new scrutiny. ¶ It’s too
early to say if revelations that Republican Sen. Pat Roberts doesn’t really live in Kansas any more will be another black swan. A New
York Times report over the weekend said his only residence in the state he has represented in Washington since 1981 is a rented
room in the house of some donors on a golf course in Dodge City.¶ The plot thickens not because a Republican can lose in Kansas,
but because Roberts faces a primary challenge from a tea-party activist, Milton Wolf, who happens to be a cousin of President
Barack Obama’s through the family of his Kansas-born mother.¶ Who saw that one coming?¶ The
conventional wisdom is
that Democrats have to defend 21 of the 36 Senate seats up for election this year, and there’s a
good chance, given Democratic resignations and retirements in several “red” states, that the
Republicans will be able to swing the half dozen they need to gain a majority.¶ Very little
attention is being paid to seats that might switch in the other direction. Despite the hullabaloo over the
primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, and the favorable polling for his Democratic challenger,
Alison Lundergan Grimes, few seriously believe that McConnell, given his stature in Washington and his funding advantage, could
actually lose.¶ In the Kansas case, there is not even a full-fledged Democratic challenger for Roberts or Wolf as Shawnee County
District Attorney Chad Taylor is still “exploring” the possibility of running for the Senate.¶ Roberts, who is now spending a lot of time
in his home state, may be able to easily fend off the embarrassment of having decamped to Washington, though former Indiana Sen.
Richard Lugar, who lost a primary challenge in 2012 on similar grounds, serves as a cautionary tale.¶ With Republicans given good
chances to pick up Democratic seats in Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, close races for Democratic incumbents
in Louisiana (Mary Landrieu), North Carolina (Kay Hagan), and Alaska (Mark Begich) are seen as the key to GOP hopes by
forecaster Larry Sabato and others. ]¶ Unless more black
swans come along to upset these predictions.¶ The
concept of a black swan event was popularized in the 2007 best seller by Nassim Nicholas Taleb,
who used it as a metaphor for unforeseen events that can disrupt forecasts and expectations.¶ By
definition, these events are impossible to forecast. Taleb’s recommendation is to be ready to counter the negative
surprises and exploit the positive ones.¶ The 2014 midterm campaign may provide opportunities for both.¶
Barbara Buono, for instance, the Democratic state senator who had the audacity to run against the
Christie juggernaut in last year’s election campaign, is now basking in a certain amount of
schadenfreude.¶ She had to conduct her uphill campaign without much help from her own party, which in its wisdom decided
that money and effort would be wasted in trying to beat the popular incumbent governor.¶ No amount of support would have
boosted Buono to a win, but some backing — especially the cheap kind like an endorsement or stumping for her — would have made
Democrats look a whole lot smarter now.¶ As it is, the pliant New Jersey Democrats were afraid, we understand now, of a victorious
Christie’s retaliation if they had supported their party’s candidate. They have belatedly rediscovered their courage and are now
conducting a vigorous investigation of the governor’s office.¶ It should be a lesson for voters, pundits and the
parties themselves as the midterm election campaign moves into high gear — don’t write off
anything, keep an eye out for potential black swans.¶ Democrats have a special opportunity with
tea-party challengers seeking to primary several incumbents. In addition to Kentucky’s
McConnell, Mississippi’s Thad Cochran and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham are among those
who face credible primary challenges.¶ Republicans have chances, too. Sabato and other pundits
are treating Virginia Democrat Mark Warner’s re-election to the Senate as a done deal, but can
Warner, who has coasted easily in previous elections, muster the energy to fend off a strong
attack from Republican challenger Ed Gillespie?¶ Any of these races, as well as those drawing
little attention right now, could produce surprises and upsets in what could become the Year
of the Black Swan .
N/U – Dems Lose Now
Obama XO on immigration hurts Dems in elx
Brown and Kim 7-30 (Carrie Budoff and Seung Min, “At-risk Democrats stress over Obama and
immigration”, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/democrats-immigration-obama-urge-restraint109541.html)//DLG
The Senate’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, caught in the crosscurrents of immigration reform,
are urging President Barack Obama to show restraint in using his executive powers to slow
deportations.¶ Obama is locked between a progressive base demanding aggressive action and voters in conservative
states that will decide the fate of the Senate and hold outsized importance in shaping the final two years of his
presidency. The White House is weighing how far it can go, legally and politically, in delaying deportations for
millions of undocumented immigrants.¶ His decision will be announced just weeks before Election Day,
and the timing is precarious for Democrats running in conservative states, where any reminder of
their ties to the unpopular president is problematic — let alone for a decision as sweeping and controversial as what
the White House is considering.¶ A White House official said the president didn’t choose the timeline. Senate
Democratic leaders, facing pressure from immigrant rights groups, began insisting in February that Obama act on his
own by the summer if overhaul legislation remained stalled in the House.¶ At-risk Senate incumbents will be
consulted along with other congressional constituencies such as the Hispanic caucus and Democratic leaders,
administration officials said. But Obama isn’t planning to moderate his approach based on what plays
best in Anchorage or Little Rock because Republicans will attack any executive action, ambitious
or restrained, as an abuse of presidential power, the officials said.
HTF
U Overwhelms
Ready to pass – just waiting for Senate approval and Obama’s
signature
Harrison 7-28 (JD, “Obama’s State of the Union goals, six months later”, Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-business/obamas-state-of-the-union-goals-six-monthslater/2014/07/28/b864a6e4-15d9-11e4-9349-84d4a85be981_story.html)//DLG
On the verge of a potentially crippling shortage of highway and transit funding, Congress appears ready to
temporarily refill the Department of Transportation’s Highway Trust Fund. Without action, the fund would
have run dry in August, and it briefly appeared as though Democrats and Republicans were readying
for a standoff over how long to extend it.¶ But the Senate last week passed an $11 billion proposal
similar to one approved recently in the House, which would carry the fund through May. It’s likely
that senators will in the end simply adopt the House measure, which will then head to the president
for his signature, averting a major spending crisis just before the midterm elections.
XM
XM Bad – Econ
Distorts the market
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes Nicole Gelinas: Searle Freedom Trust Fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Securities Analysts, “The
pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington Examiner,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Gelinas: The risk isn’t that we’re going to have this huge new presence taking over the private sector. Rather, it’s a question of what
would happen if things stay the way they are versus what would happen if the Ex-Im Bank went away. It’s really a question about
what is the purpose of this financial industry.¶ ¶ Global
banks are supposed to do things like assess risk and
cross-border deals. Ex-Im Bank's biggest customer is Boeing, and these are aircraft-asset secured loans
to many airline customers in developing countries. Would the private sector make these loans? If
not, then why isn't the financial system doing what it is supposed to do, which is to provide export credit? They have to
charge a higher interest rate, because it's riskier than lending into a domestic industry, which is something they should be
doing.¶ Of course, Ex-Im customers say we need this because you’d rather have something done cheaply and easily than have to
work with the more expensive private sector. Frankly,
the loans that wouldn’t be made — maybe they shouldn’t
be made. Some of the airlines — Delta in particular — have been complaining that the Export-Import Bank is
subsidizing its global competitors by financing their cheap purchases of American airplanes.
Should non-American-based airlines use these loans to buy their aircraft using U.S. government-subsidized rates? Should these
loans be made at higher rates, or should they not be made at all?¶ The government
presence just distorts the
market. So although the problem isn’t a government takeover, these loans are already distorting the marketplace.
AT Boeing
XM not key to big companies like Boeing – private sector solves
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes Nicole Gelinas: Searle Freedom Trust Fellow at the Manhattan Institute,
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) charterholder and a member of the New York Society of Securities Analysts, “The
pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington Examiner,
http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Gelinas: I think it clearly provides a welfare benefit for these large corporations that already, because
of their size, have access to cheap private-sector financing. It’s not so much the venture that’s risky — it’s
the particular customer. If you’re selling to an upstart airline in a country that the lender is afraid might just abscond
with the airplane and not be able to pay back the debt, then Ex-Im might make sense.¶ But normally, if Delta gets
an airplane, they lease it and it’s an asset-backed security; if they don’t pay for it, the lender can seize the
aircraft and sell it to somebody else. The Ex-Im means there’s a little less risk than if you’re selling your airline in a
country where you can’t go there and get your asset back.¶ Ironically, the risk of a glut of airplanes is probably
bigger with the Ex-Im Bank financing. When the government subsidizes something, you get
more of it. When you subsidize exports in certain industries that lend themselves to this type of
business, you eventually subsidize too much of it and help cause a market decline.
PC not key – Business Push
Business push will force GOP to reauthorize
Crittenden 7/6
Michael, Wall Street Journal Correspondent, “Political Battle Over Export Bank Heats Up”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/political-battle-over-export-bank-heats-up-1404690386
WASHINGTON—Lawmakers
at a recent House hearing on the future of the Export-Import Bank were
given an extra piece of reading material: a personalized index card laying out exactly which companies in
their districts benefit from the financing agency and how many people they employ.¶ The cards, which
supporters of the bank plan to give to every member of Congress in coming weeks, are part of a lobbying push by
corporations such as Boeing Co. BA +0.61% and General Electric Co. GE -0.43% , and business groups such as
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers. Their goal is to combat
the most serious threat yet to the survival of the agency, which is under assault by new House leadership
and conservative groups that say it amounts to corporate welfare.
PC Not Key
Obama not key – just a question of resolving proposed reforms
Brandner 7/27 (Eric, “Export-Import Bank faces danger from all sides”, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/export-import-bank-congress-109422.html)//DLG
Conservatives may be headlining the opposition to the Export-Import Bank, but the efforts of coal-friendly Democrats
to change the little-known agency’s rules could further jeopardize its future.¶ Two competing proposals would
reform the U.S. export credit agency as part of a reauthorization deal, but they have been stymied by party
infighting and leaders’ procedural disputes.¶ Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is set to introduce legislation that
would extend the 80-year-old bank’s charter for five years, raise its lending cap and provide one major reform: a coal
provision that could attract Republicans but has infuriated the left.¶ (Also on POLITICO: Moderates
balking at Senate border bill)¶ Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), meanwhile, has floated a draft bill that would diminish
the agency’s role, hitting what he called the “sweet spot” between warring anti-establishment and corporate-backed
Republicans. But there’s still not much of an indication that key House Republican leaders are willing to consider any
reauthorization at all, and if they do, they’ll most likely insist on only a short-term measure.¶ The skirmishes on the
left and the right underscore the growing political divisions that have emerged over a bank few Americans had even
heard of only several weeks ago. With Ex-Im’s charter set to expire at the end of September, its supporters
are struggling to narrow the opinion gap between businesses that rely on its financing for sales
in risky foreign markets and tea party conservatives who see the bank’s loan, guarantee and insurance
programs as a distortion of the free market and a form of corporate welfare.¶ With the government’s funding also due
to expire after Sept. 30, Democrats have said they could raise the stakes by linking the bank’s
reauthorization to a stopgap spending measure that would avert another shutdown.¶ The tone of
the debate also could change come August, when Congress takes its five-week summer recess. Lawmakers are
likely to face heavy pressure from local businesses that rely on Ex-Im’s financing during the break, when
campaigning reaches a fever pitch. Some Democrats see the opposition from conservatives as an opportunity to raise
money that typically goes to the GOP.¶ (Sign up for POLITICO’s Morning Money tip sheet)¶ Governors have also
jumped into the Ex-Im fray. Earlier this month, 31 of them sent a letter to congressional leaders in support of the
bank’s renewal, and five more followed that with letters of their own.¶ Conservative groups like Club for Growth,
Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity, however, have become only more entrenched, seeing the bank’s
expiration as a winnable policy goal just weeks ahead of November’s midterm elections.¶ Any concessions to either
side of the GOP’s camp could rile up the left, but finding some middle ground will be critical if the bank is to survive,
some lawmakers said.¶ “A reauthorization with reforms, in my view, is the only thing actually that
could get 218 votes and pass the House floor,” Campbell said.¶ The dissension in the House means the
Senate will probably be the first to act on a bill, possibly before the August recess, Sen. Maria Cantwell said.¶ The
Washington Democrat, who is leading her party’s effort to extend the bank’s charter, said Democratic leaders are
talking with Republicans over how to proceed on the floor with a bill, including how many amendments each party
could offer — often a tricky task.¶ But a bigger problem is “dealing with the House, which wants to just do a short-term
extension,” Cantwell said, adding that that’s something Democrats don’t like.¶ (Also on POLITICO: 10 years later:
Obama's hits and blunders)¶ However, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Democrats were determined enough to keep
the bank open that they would be willing to accept a short-term renewal or insist it be part of a continuing resolution
to keep the government funded past September.¶ Manchin, for his part, hasn’t even introduced his bill, but already
one of its proposed provisions is roiling the left.¶ The West Virginia Democrat’s measure would extend Ex-Im’s charter
for five years and lift its lending authority from $130 billion to $160 billion. But it would also roll back a rule
Ex-Im put in place last year that bars assistance to environmentally “dirty” projects.¶ That
provision helped attract four Republican co-sponsors: Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Lindsey Graham of
South Carolina, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Mike Johanns of Nebraska. But it has also drawn the ire of
environmental groups and liberal Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, leaving Manchin at risk
of losing support from within his own party.¶ Other Democrats said they don’t have a problem with Manchin’s procoal provision, although they said they fear it could open the door to a raft of reform proposals that could slow any
renewal down.¶ “I’m concerned about starting to add things and conditions, and making it more complicated and
bogging it down that way,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “I don’t particularly object to Manchin’s efforts, but I
think that sets us down a path we may not want to go.Ӧ While Manchin has urged Democrats to support the pro-coal
measure in recent days, insisting that it could help attract Republican support for a bill that could fall victim to
election-season politics, Cantwell said Senate Democratic leaders plan to move the bill to the floor without the coal
provision and then let Manchin offer it separately.¶ “Giving a chance to vote on that is good, but I think we want to
just get the bill to the floor, and then he can offer that as an amendment,” she said.¶ Meanwhile, new House Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) are calling
for Ex-Im’s closure, casting Campbell’s bill into doubt. Even if key House GOP leaders were to drop their insistence
on eliminating the bank and lawmakers could agree on the length of its renewal, members are still deeply
divided over whether, or how, to overhaul its operations.¶ Campbell said he thinks the vast majority of
lawmakers would prefer to keep the bank running, but few would support that effort without changing the way it
operates.¶ He led a House Republican “working group” in proposing a long list of reforms, but they were packaged in a
discussion draft rather than an actual bill, indicating that he’d rather leave a decision on the bank’s future up to his
party’s leaders.¶ House Speaker John Boehner, who lately has declined to restate his previous support for Ex-Im, met
with Hensarling earlier this month to discuss the bank’s situation, but the two didn’t announce a decision on how to
move forward.¶ “The first challenge, of course, is the leadership challenge,” Campbell said. “If you can’t hear a bill, it
doesn’t matter if you get a bill that has 400 people willing to vote for it.”¶ Campbell said he hasn’t spoken with
Democrats about his draft measure, but Washington Rep. Denny Heck has introduced his own legislation (HR 4950),
with the support of most of his Democratic colleagues; Heck’s bill doesn’t include any reforms but would simply
reauthorize the bank for seven years and raise its financing cap to $175 million, leaving it unlikely to win much GOP
support.¶ Still, Campbell said, his own proposal offers a viable compromise for the GOP and could
attract support from “virtually all Republicans on all sides of this.” The measure would drop Ex-Im’s
lending cap to $95 billion and beef up mandates on the agency’s accounting and risk-reporting practices.
******NEGATIVE***********
General
UQ
AT GOP Suing Obama
Haters gon hate
NBC 7-30 (“'Stop Hatin' All the Time' : Obama Slams GOP Lawsuit Vote”, NBC News,
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/barack-obama/stop-hatin-all-time-obama-slams-gop-lawsuit-voten168756)//DLG
President Barack Obama on Wednesday continued
to slam Republicans for moving to sue him over his
use of executive actions, calling the move a “political stunt” and urging Congress to “stop hatin' all the time.”¶
“They have announced that they are going to sue me for taking executive actions to help people,” he said during
an event in Kansas City. “They’re mad because I’m doing my job.”¶ Calling the vote a waste of valuable
taxpayer dollars, Obama said Republicans are also taking time away from important legislation
they should be addressing.¶ “Stop being mad all the time,” he said of Republicans, chuckling. “Stop just
hatin’ all the time. Let’s get some work done.”¶ The House is expected to approve a resolution later Wednesday to
authorize a lawsuit against the president for what Republicans call his overstepping of executive authority. Democrats call that a
slippery step towards an impeachment fight – being sure to note their concern about impeachment in fundraising appeals that have
brought in millions for the party.¶ It’s
not the first time that Obama has challenged Republicans on the
lawsuit. In July, when House Speaker John Boehner was threatening the move, Obama told a Washington crowd that “middleclass families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff.”¶ “So sue me,” he added.
AT Immigration Gaucho
No legislation coming for immigration
Taylor 7-26 (Cathy, “OC/DC: Congress' looking at loose ends as recess nears”, Orange County Register,
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/house-629928-committee-billion.html)//DLG
Much less clear is whether Republicans and Democrats can resolve their differences over what
to do about the influx of unaccompanied minors at the U.S.-Mexico border. The president has
proposed a $3.7 billion plan, the Senate $2.7 billion and the House $1.7 billion.¶ Republicans want to undo a 2008 law
and treat the children, most from Central America, like those from neighbor countries Mexico or Canada, who can be
returned by a speedier process. Democrats object to changing existing law, aimed at human trafficking.¶ The
outlook is dimming for legislative action this week, and may not even happen in September,
despite the urgency proclaimed by all sides, reports Politico. Others worry that no immediate action means
facing angry constituents during the August recess.
Links
NOAA
Obama takes blame for NOAA
Malakoff 12 – David Malakoff is a staff writer for science insider, (“U.S. White House Threatens Veto Over NOAA,
NASA Funding” May 8th, 2012,http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/u.s.-white-house-threatens-veto-over-noaanasa-funding//nemo
The U.S. House of Representatives today begins work on passing a 2013 spending bill that includes robust funding for
White House is threatening to veto the bill
because of spending levels for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and NASA. The Obama Administration "strongly opposes" the bill's passage for a
the National Science Foundation—but the
variety of reasons, it writes in a 7 May Statement of Administration Policy (SAP). One problem is that the Republican-led House has adopted a lower
total spending level for the 2013 fiscal year, which begins 1 October, than Congress and the White House agreed to last year in resolving an impasse
over borrowing by the federal government. Other deal breakers include a House plan to give NOAA $93 million less than the White House requested.
"This cut would impact negatively NOAA's ability to support the Nation's fisheries and oceans stewardship programs," the Administration argues,
although it "appreciates" the House bill's support for the agency's "mission-critical satellite programs." The Administration also "strongly opposes" a
flat budget for NASA's efforts to develop commercial launch vehicles for its astronauts. In addition, "while the Administration appreciates the overall
funding level provided to NASA," the statement says "the bill provides some NASA programs with unnecessary increases at the expense of other
important initiatives." The House is expected to complete work on the 2013 appropriations bill (H.R. 5326) for the departments of commerce and
justice, science, and related agencies later this week.
I/L
CIR
AT XO
Won’t use it – Dems are encouraging him not to
Brown and Kim 7-30 (Carrie Budoff and Seung Min, “At-risk Democrats stress over Obama and
immigration”, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/democrats-immigration-obama-urge-restraint109541.html)//DLG
The Senate’s most vulnerable Democratic incumbents, caught in the crosscurrents of immigration reform, are urging
President Barack Obama to show restraint in using his executive powers to slow deportations.
Obama is locked between a progressive base demanding aggressive action and voters in conservative states that will
decide the fate of the Senate and hold outsized importance in shaping the final two years of his presidency. The White
House is weighing how far it can go, legally and politically, in delaying deportations for millions of undocumented
immigrants.
His decision will be announced just weeks before Election Day, and the timing is precarious for Democrats running in
conservative states, where any reminder of their ties to the unpopular president is problematic — let alone for a
decision as sweeping and controversial as what the White House is considering.
A White House official said the president didn’t choose the timeline. Senate Democratic leaders, facing pressure from
immigrant rights groups, began insisting in February that Obama act on his own by the summer if overhaul
legislation remained stalled in the House.
At-risk Senate incumbents will be consulted along with other congressional constituencies such as the Hispanic
caucus and Democratic leaders, administration officials said. But Obama isn’t planning to moderate his approach
based on what plays best in Anchorage or Little Rock because Republicans will attack any executive action, ambitious
or restrained, as an abuse of presidential power, the officials said.
Two of the top Republican targets, Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, have gone further
than any of their Democratic colleagues in warning that Obama shouldn’t take any steps without the approval of
Congress.
“I’m not for government by executive order,” Pryor said in an interview. “He needs to have statutory authority before
he acts.”
Hagan said through a spokeswoman that “this is a problem that needs to be solved legislatively and not through
executive action.”
Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska) also said there are limits to what the president can — and
should — do.
“We want him to be careful not to go too far,” Begich said.
That red line, in Begich’s view, is providing temporary legal status to all 8 million undocumented immigrants who
would’ve qualified under a bill passed last year in the Senate. Hispanic lawmakers and immigrant rights groups are
demanding that the president do just that.
The attempt to create distance with Obama highlights the discomfort among some Democrats. An executive action
deferring deportations for millions of undocumented immigrants could be a boon to the national party as it heads into
the 2016 presidential election. It isn’t considered such a clear winner in the Republican-leaning states that dominate
the 2014 midterm map, although the extent to which it helps or hurts Democrats this year remains a point of debate.
A sweeping use of executive authority could do a lot to boost Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who is locked in an
unexpectedly tight race. Hispanics make up 14 percent of the voting population in Colorado, according to the Pew
Hispanic Center.
Udall was one of the first Democratic senators to endorse the move towards executive action. “The president should
take action to stop tear apart families whose only crime is seeking a better life for themselves,” Udall told a Denver
radio station in June.
But in the top battlegrounds of Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina, Hispanics in each state constitute
about 2-3 percent of the voting population. The fear is that efforts to motivate the progressive base won’t be offset by
how much it could galvanize Republicans. At the very least, Democratic strategists said, it’s an annoyance for
campaigns that are trying to stay focused on local and state issues.
“In a situation where we can only afford good things to happen, we can’t now afford bad things to happen,” said one
strategist working in a battleground state. “If we were going into the 2012 or 2010 cycle, it would be whole different
story. It creates a whole new issue. Members have to choose between their base and their swing. They have to look at
what they have said in the past and comment on what the president has said in the past.”
GOP advocates of a comprehensive immigration overhaul have long warned against unilateral moves on immigration
reform, arguing it would foreclose the possibility of any legislative action on immigration for the remainder of
Obama’s term.
If Obama takes some executive action on deportations, Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino
Partnership for Conservative Principles, said Republicans will “go ballistic” and it “certainly doesn’t help” red-state
Democrats running for reelection.
“Not that immigration is a huge issue in those states, but it really doesn’t help, because they’ve been supportive of the
president and just by association,” Aguilar said. “This helps create the image of the president as not working with
Congress, not respecting the law.”
Even senators running in Democratic states weren’t eager to weigh in on the issue.
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) declined through a spokesman to talk about it. Some offices, including those of Sens. Mark
Warner (D-Va.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), didn’t respond to requests for comment. Other senators didn’t want to get
into details.
“I’m not going to speculate,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “Congress needs to act on the issue. Once I see what
he is proposing, I will be in a better position to comment.”
Landrieu said she voted for the Senate overhaul legislation last year because it is a “pro-business bill and it helps us
create jobs here in America and secures our borders.” But she’s seeking her third term in a state where her Republican
colleague, Sen. David Vitter, won reelection in 2010 the help of a TV ad touting his opponent’s support for “illegals.”
“The president should take what actions he can,” Landrieu said. “But he is not going to be able to take too many
because there are limits to what he can do. The best thing would be for Congress to act. I’m going to leave it there.”
XM
UQ/OB Push
Will Pass
Will pass – reforms to bank key
Mimms 7-29 (Sarah, “Cathy McMorris Rodgers Expects Export-Import Bank to Be Reauthorized”, National
Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-expects-export-import-bank-to-bereauthorized-20140728)//DLG
When Congress returns from its August recess in early September, members will have just a few
legislative days to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, the entity responsible for providing loans to American
businesses to help them sell their products around the globe. Conservatives in the House, accusing the agency of trying to pick
"winners and losers," favor allowing the bank's authorization to lapse, while members from states dependent on trade are pushing
hard to keep the bank alive.¶ ¶ At
the center of this fight is Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a member of House
leadership as GOP Conference chair and a representative of Washington state, the most tradedependent state in the country.¶ In past years, McMorris Rodgers has voted to reauthorize the bank, which gives loans to companies
including Washington state giant Boeing. But with the bank's authorization set to expire on Oct. 1, McMorris Rodgers is the only
member of the Washington delegation who has not yet said whether she will vote to keep it running this year.¶ In the meantime,
she's getting hammered at home in editorials across the state, ranging far outside of her Eastern Washington district, even as a
fellow member of Republican leadership has come out in favor of eliminating the bank altogether.¶ The Ex-Im reauthorization was a
major point of contention two weeks ago during a D.C. meeting between the Washington state congressional delegation and the
state's visiting governor, Democrat Jay Inslee. During the rendezvous in Sen. Patty Murray's office, Sen. Maria Cantwell pressed
McMorris Rodgers on the issue, according to a Democratic aide with the delegation. ¶ McMorris Rodgers
told her
colleagues that she believed the House would pass a short-term reauthorization, but stayed mum on
whether she would support it, according to the aide. That didn't quite appease Democrats who feel that a short-term deal won't allow
businesses to plan for the future. "I mean, that's better than nothing," the aide said. ¶ Just a week earlier, Murray, Cantwell, and
Democratic Rep. Denny Heck sent a letter to Speaker John Boehner calling for him to bring a reauthorization to the floor, offering
an implicit nudge to McMorris Rodgers. "When
last reauthorized, Ex-Im was unanimously supported by
the Washington state delegation, both Republicans and Democrats," they wrote.¶ Cantwell, Murray, and
Inslee even took a trip to McMorris Rodgers's district last month to rally support for the bank.¶ In an interview in her congressional
office earlier this month, McMorris Rodgers acknowledged the controversy surrounding the bank's reauthorization and Washington
state's dependence on it. One in three jobs in the state is dependent on trade, she said, many of them in her Eastern Washington
district.¶ She is also well-aware of the wave of editorials in papers across the state calling on her to stand behind the bank. The
Spokane Spokesman-Review, McMorris Rodgers's local paper, has called her out on the issue. The Seattle Times, whose distribution
includes much of Boeing's operations but is a five-hour drive from McMorris Rodgers' district, has put out two editorials pointing its
finger at the Eastern Washington Republican. So has The Olympian, which is even farther away.¶ That puts McMorris Rodgers in a
tough position. As a member of House leadership, she can't ignore the growing voices on the far right that would like to see major
reforms to the bank, if they decide to reauthorize it at all. And incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy has said he'd be just fine
letting the bank's authorization lapse and is leaving it up to Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, one of the bank's strongest opponents.¶
McMorris Rodgers
said she finds arguments for reform very compelling and hopes to get to a
compromise to implement them, while keeping the bank open. "I think we're going to get to a place where
something moves forward, some kind of reauthorization with some significant reforms," she said in her office.
Will pass – pressure on GOP
Cirilli 7/24 (Kevin, OVERNIGHT FINANCE: Obama pushes to close tax loophole”, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/overnights/213300-overnight-finance-obama-pushes-toclose-tax-loophole)//DLG
DAYS UNTIL EX-IM EXPIRES: 68. From my piece for the hometown paper earlier this morning:
“Democrats think they have the upper hand with Republicans in the fight to renew the ExportImport Bank. Seeing a chance to cozy up to the business community, Democrats have rallied around renewing
the bank and say it should be included as part of a bill to fund the government that Congress must
pass before the end of September.¶ “That puts significant pressure on Republicans, who are divided
over renewing the Export-Import Bank’s charter in the first place. By marrying Ex-Im to the government
funding measure, Democrats believe they can go on offense by threatening to blame the GOP for
a possible government shutdown over refusing to fund an institution that has had bipartisan support for
decades.
Has the votes in both chambers
Dallas News 7/7
“Push to close Export-Import Bank puts Hensarling at odds with fellow Republicans”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140706-republicans-disagree-over-closing-export-importbank.ece
All of those tensions
were on display last month when the debate over the bank’s future took center
stage in Washington.¶ Hensarling presided over an all-day, and often contentious, hearing June 25 that highlighted tensions
within the Republican Party.¶ The bank’s charter expires Sept. 30. Bills to extend the charter have been introduced in the Senate and
House. It
appears likely that either would pass if brought to a full vote in both chambers.
Senate momentum pressuring House – Senate signal of support with
strong vote key to ensure reauthorization before recess
Cirilli and Needham 7/8
Kevin Cirilli and Vicki Needham, The Hill, “Export-Import Bank supporters aim for show of strength in Senate”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/211518-ex-im-supporters-aim-for-show-of-strength-insenate
the Senate in the fight over the Export-Import Bank, hoping a strong vote this month could be
enough to break down resistance in the House.¶ Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are scheduled this week to unveil
legislation that would reauthorize the bank, and Democratic leaders have suggested it could reach the floor quickly.¶
With the Senate bill expected to pass, Ex-Im supporters are focused on the margin of victory.¶ The last reauthorization of the bank charter, in 2012,
Business groups are turning their firepower toward
passed in a 78-20 vote, despite the opposition of conservative groups that decried the agency as “crony capitalism” that distorts the free market.¶ Opposition from the right is
even more intense this time around, but business groups are hopeful Senate Republicans will vote in large numbers for the bill, at least matching the total seen in 2012.¶ “We
have had many good conversations with Senate offices in recent weeks,” said Christopher Wenk, the head of international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the
biggest supporters of the bank.¶
The charter of the Ex-Im bank expires on Sept. 30, leaving Congress little
time to act before its summer recess.¶ The reauthorization of the charter has become a divisive issue among
Republicans. Tea Party groups and House conservatives are calling for the agency to be disbanded, but a number of Republicans are leery of dumping the bank, with some
supporters are banking on Senate
Republicans to back the Manchin-Kirk bill to provide cover for House Republicans to support reauthorization.¶ Perhaps the biggest prize would be
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has softened his stance on Ex-Im in recent weeks after voting against the charter in 2012.¶
backing arguments that it is needed to help finance U.S. businesses overseas and protect jobs in America.¶ Ex-Im
While McConnell hasn’t pledged to vote for Ex-Im this time around, he expressed support for taking up legislation.¶ “I think we ought to take it up,” he said last month. “The last
time it was up I didn’t support it, but I don’t think that’s an argument for not bringing it up.”¶ Other Senate Republicans are in the process of deciding how they will vote once
the bill reaches the floor.¶ Tea party favorite Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has already come out in support of reauthorization, though his spokesman said he wouldn’t co-sponsor the
bill.¶ “Sen. Scott voted for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank in the House of Representatives and will support the effort to reform and reauthorize it this year; however,
he isn’t a co-sponsor,” spokesman Sean Conner told The Hill. “In a perfect world, the bank would be wound down, and we hope to see reforms that lead us down that path.”¶
Scott, like other Republicans, is caught between standing with the grass roots and representing the business community back home. Boeing, the top beneficiary of Ex-Im
assistance, has several plants in Scott’s South Carolina.¶ Scott and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to congressional leadership last month urging Congress to reauthorize
the bank. Graham’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about whether he’d co-sponsor the Manchin-Kirk legislation. ¶ “As the rest of the world continues to
support their employers through similar efforts, simply pulling the rug out from under American businesses without a chance to adjust their business plans first is not in the best
interest of the hardworking American families who power those companies’ success,” Conner said.¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The Hill he hasn’t made up his mind about
how he’ll vote on the bank.¶ “Ask me in a day,” he said. “Generally, I’m favorably inclined, but I want to hear the objections to it. I haven’t seen their proposal. But I’d be glad to
Schumer (D-N.Y.) said there is bipartisan support in the Senate for reauthorizing the bank. ¶ “I
think that if we can pass it in the Senate particularly with a good bipartisan majority ... it will put pressure on the
House,” Schumer said.¶ Schumer said he expects the Senate to pass a bill before the August recess, providing
some time for the House to act when it returns in September. ¶ The bank’s reauthorization has the support of several
look at it.Ӧ Last week, Sen. Charles
powerful business groups, including the Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers. They say the agency’s loan support is critical for exports at businesses both
supporters are ramping up their lobbying this week
large and small.¶ Bank
with visits to offices on both sides of the Capitol as
lawmakers return from the July 4 recess. But the prospects for the bill remain uncertain in the House, even with some Republicans adopting the position that the bank should be
reformed rather than abolished.¶ Incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who voted for Ex-Im reauthorization in 2012, said he plans to oppose the bank’s
continuation. And while some House Republicans are mulling introducing reauthorization legislation with reforms, it’s unclear whether House Financial Services Committee
Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) — who staunchly opposes the bank — would take it up.¶ Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has declined to put his weight behind the bank,
The bank got a high-profile boost to start the week
from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who argued that the United States shouldn’t exit the
loan assistance business until other countries do the same.
saying only that any legislation needs to run through the committee process.¶
Will Pass – AT McCarty
McCarty will bend with pressure
Dallas News 7/7
“Push to close Export-Import Bank puts Hensarling at odds with fellow Republicans”
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140706-republicans-disagree-over-closing-export-importbank.ece
Deeply conservative
groups like the Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth, both fervent fans of Hensarling, are watching
closely to see if McCarthy softens to pressure from the bank’s supporters.¶ “The new majority leader controls
what gets to the floor, and we’re going to hold him to his word,” said Barney Keller, spokesman for Club for Growth. “We’ve been down this road before,
and we’ve
learned that actions speak louder than words.Ӧ When Congress returns from its July Fourth holiday this week,
there will be plenty of pressure the other way, too. Senate leaders have vowed a vote on the Democrats’
bill there. During the June 25 hearing, Republican members of Hensarling’s committee urged a
compromise to keep the bank open.¶ “Many of my colleagues do well in the theoretical world, but I live in the real world,” said
Rep. Steve Stivers, an Ohio Republican. ¶ Perry entered the fray, too. On the same day as Hensarling’s hearing. he sent a two-page letter to the top
leaders in both houses of Congress, urging them to reauthorize the bank.
Obama Push
Administration pushing for it
Wise 7/20 (Warren L., Report the South Carolina Post and Courier “Boeing, others lobby for Export-Import
Bank renewal” Jul 20 2014 http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140720/PC05/140729987)
The Obama administration and many U.S. Senate Democrats strongly support reauthorization.¶ "The
Ex-Im Bank helps American companies create and support jobs here at home at no cost to taxpayers, and that helps
us meet our export goals, which is why reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank has historically enjoyed
bipartisan support in the past," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in June.
OB Can and will push - empirics
Pye 7/17 (“Stop Obama’s Crony Bank: Ex-Im distorts the free market by doling out billions to politicallyconnected big businesses”, United Liberty, http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/18316-stop-obamas-crony-bank-exim-distorts-the-free-market-by-doling-out-billions-to-big-b)
But, like he’s done on so many other issues, Obama changed his position once he took up residence in
the White House. In 2012, Obama successfully lobbied Congress to save Ex-Im. And Obama wants
Congress to rubber stamp reauthorization of the crony Bank again this year.
Obama is redoubling efforts for authorization as the debate
dominates the Congressional agenda
Crittenden 7/6
Michael, Wall Street Journal Correspondent, “Political Battle Over Export Bank Heats Up”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/political-battle-over-export-bank-heats-up-1404690386
The debate over the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank is picking up steam in Congress this year.
WSJ's Jerry Seib looks at the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the issue.¶ The Export-Import Bank borrows
money from the Treasury and uses it to help American companies sell abroad by offering low-cost loans to foreign buyers or
guarantees against potential losses made by exporters.¶ In fiscal 2013, the bank authorized $27 billion to support an estimated $37.4
billion in U.S. export sales, including aircraft, power-generation equipment and oil and gas projects. That year it sent $1.06 billion to
the Treasury, money it earned from interest and fees.¶ Supporters, including the Obama administration, say the
agency allows U.S. companies to better compete with foreign rivals, many of which receive government assistance such as belowmarket-rate financing.¶ Opponents say the bank inappropriately disrupts the free market. They say it mostly benefits the richest and
most politically connected companies, turning the fight over the agency into a proxy for a larger struggle over government's role in
helping U.S. businesses.¶ With
the 80-year-old agency's charter expiring Sept. 30, the battle over its future
has intensified. Its backers are redoubling their efforts , which include showing
members of Congress how the agency benefits their districts.¶ "There's a full inside-
the-Beltway, outside-the-Beltway push," said Christopher Wenk, senior director of international
policy at the U.S. Chamber. "We're burning up shoe leather."
AT Midterms Thump
It’s only an issue because of midterms – PC key to make them act
despite constituencies
Radelat 7-24 (Ana, “Little-known Ex-Im Bank hot issue in 2nd District race”, The Connecticut News Project,
http://ctmirror.org/federal-bank-hot-issue-in-2nd-district-race/)//DLG
There is no scarcity of hot button issues candidates can fight over in this election year, from the
Affordable Care Act and women’s reproductive rights to immigration and taxes.¶ But it’s the fate of the Export-Import
Bank that’s looming large in the race for the 2nd District congressional seat.¶ The Export-Import Bank,
or Ex-Im Bank, is a government agency that provides loans and loan guarantees to foreign purchasers of U.S. products to make it
easier for American companies to make overseas sales. The bank also helps U.S. companies insure their shipments overseas. That's
helpful to big U.S. exporters like Boeing and General Electric.¶ Established in 1934, the bank is chartered as a government
corporation by Congress. But the last time it was reauthorized, for a three-year term, was in 2012. New congressional authorization
is needed to keep it going beyond the end of September.¶ The
bank’s charter has been renewed
without fanfare 16 times . But this year, conservative Republicans in Congress have risen
against it, saying the bank subsidizes loans to help big businesses at the expense of taxpayers, and does nothing for the small
business owner.
I/L Stuff
Turns Case – Momentum for Axing Subsidies
Failure to reauthorize turns the case – generates momentum for
cutting business subsidies – that turns their certainty internals
Trumbull 7/7
Mark Trumbull, CSM Staff writer “Export-Import Bank 101: What is it and why is a big political fight brewing?”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0707/Export-Import-Bank-101-What-is-it-and-why-is-a-bigpolitical-fight-brewing
WASHINGTON — An obscure Washington institution that aims to help US exporters is becoming the venue for one of the big
political fights of 2014. The entity is the Export-Import Bank, and after 80 years of generally quiet operations it now faces a fight for
survival due to opposition from conservative Republicans.¶ The battle matters for at least two reasons, one economic and one
political.¶ Closing the bank would harm the export prospects of some companies large and small, potentially damaging an area of the
economy with significant growth potential. Meanwhile, on the political front, the
“Ex-Im Bank” debate will affect
momentum for other conservative efforts to scale back the size of government – including what critics
call “corporate welfare” projects like the bank.
Layoffs
Immediate economic impact – layoffs and effect on supply chain
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes John murphy: directs the U.S. Chamber’s advocacy relating to
international trade and investment policy, “The pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington
Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Shutting down the Bank would quickly lead to tens and even hundreds of thousands of layoffs at
small- and medium-sized companies that depend on the bank directly or that are suppliers to larger
companies like Boeing and GE, which have tens of thousands of suppliers — some of whom are not
aware that their sales are entirely dependent on exports. Ex-Im would suddenly become a lot less obscure
after its shutdown.
AT Fraud
No fraud – just a GOP poly to prevent reauthorization
Puzzanghera 7-29 (Jim, “Export-Import Bank's GOP foes spotlight alleged corruption at agency”, LA
Times, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-export-import-bank-corruption-hearing-20140729-story.html)//DLG
Hochberg defended the bank, saying other employees helped alert management to the incidents.¶ "I would obviously
prefer to have no fraud," Hochberg said. "But if it comes up, the fact that our employees are alert to it and want to
root that out is something I admire in our employees." ¶ Democrats joined Hochberg in defending the bank,
which provides loan guarantees to foreign buyers of American products as well as other assistance to U.S. exporters.¶ President
Obama, along with most Democrats and some Republicans, said the bank is vital to U.S. competitiveness because many other
nations, including China, Brazil and Japan, provide even greater assistance to their exporters.¶ The
bank gets no taxpayer
funding. It pays for its operations through interest and fees for its assistance and last year sent a
record $1.1 billion in profit to the Treasury.¶ Conservative lawmakers, calling the aid "corporate welfare" that mostly
benefits large corporations such as Boeing Co., oppose reauthorizing the bank's charter, which expires Sept. 30.¶ Although the bank
has received no congressional funding in recent years, its opponents noted that taxpayers are on the hook for any future losses on
the $140 billion in outstanding loans and other assistance the bank has extended over the years.¶ Republicans are divided
on the issue, leaving the bank's fate up in the air.¶ Incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said he favors
letting the bank's charter expire.¶ But other
Republicans support the bank, which is strongly backed by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and leading business groups.¶ The National Assn. of Manufacturers released a
report Tuesday warning that U.S. companies "stand to lose tens of billions of dollars in business" if the
bank shuts down.¶ Also Tuesday, William E. Brock III, who served as Labor secretary under President Reagan, wrote an
opinion column in the New York Times saying the bank should be reformed but not abolished.¶ At the hearing, Rep. Matt
Cartwright (D-Pa.) accused Republicans of using the corruption allegations, which are still under
investigation, to help torpedo the bank's reauthorization.¶ Without it, the bank would be unable to make new
loans or provide other assistance to exporters.¶ "I am concerned that this hearing today has been called in a rush to
judgment intended to tarnish the reputation of the bank and its employees in an attempt to
unduly influence a vote on the bank’s reauthorization," Cartwright said.¶ But Jordan said corruption at the bank
appeared to be more widespread than the three cases.¶ "What better time to discuss real concern at the Export-Import Bank than
when we're looking at reauthorization," he said.¶ Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) cited a 2013 federal survey of bank staff members
that found that only 42% agreed that the "organization's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity."¶ Mulvaney said
there was "an unhealthy culture" at the bank.¶ Hochberg said that he has
increased ethics training and that most
corruption cases involved outside firms trying to receive inappropriate assistance, not
wrongdoing by employees.¶ "Those are four isolated cases," he said of the employees under investigation.¶ In addition to
Gutierrez, two other employees have been fired, Hochberg said. The fourth is on administrative leave.¶ The allegations are
being investigated by the bank's inspector general as well as the Justice Department, Hochberg said.¶ Jordan
pressed him numerous times to provide more information about the cases. But Hochberg said he was advised by the inspector
general and the bank's counsel not to discuss details because doing so could jeopardize the investigation.¶ Cartwright submitted a
letter from the bank's acting inspector general, Michael T. McCarthy, that said no bank employees were involved in 71 cases since
2009 involving indictments or criminal charges against people for attempting to defraud the agency.¶ "At this time, we
have not
developed evidence of widespread employee misconduct or systemic employee involvement in
fraud schemes at the bank," McCarthy said.
AT Private Sector Solves
Private sector cant fill in
Arnold 7/24 (Bill Arnold is a professor in the practice of energy management at Rice University's Jones
Graduate School of Business and previously headed international government relations in Washington, D.C., for
Royal Dutch Shell, Houston Chronicle, http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Arnold-No-time-for-rashaction-on-Ex-Im-Bank-s-5644974.php)
Looking at the current situation, we need to determine what risks the private sector is or is not able to take on. U.S.
banks are under terrific stress now; compliance requirements absorb management's attention. The appetite for export
credits without government backing, not hearty in the '80s, is likely to be modest. Capital markets are much more
sophisticated now, but access for small companies is tough. This will have consequences for exporters, especially
smaller companies.
Key to small businesses – private sector empirically insufficient,
Republicans agree
FIND 7-29 (Federal Information & News Dispatch, “Senators, SBA Administrator: Reauthorize Export-Import
Bank to Support Small Businesses”, Insurance News Net,
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/30/senators-sba-administrator-reauthorize-export-import-bank-tosupport-small-bus-a-537427.html#.U9lKOPldWSo)//DLG
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Tim Kaine (D-VA) joined U.S. Small
Business Administration Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet and a Maryland business owner Tuesday in calling
for the
reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank - a key tool to helping small businesses sell their
goods overseas and create jobs back home. Without Congressional action, the Bank's charter will expire in 64 days.¶
¶ The Senators called for a long-term extension of the Bank's charter to give small business owners the
certainty they need to continue securing deals in international export markets.¶ "Export markets
are the next great frontier for U.S. economic growth. Over the next decade, 1 billion consumers in the
emerging world are going to the join the middle class. Our small businesses must sell to them in
order to remain competitive," Administrator Contreras-Sweet said. "I've talked to many entrepreneurs across the country
- they are eager to participate in the international marketplace but have uncertainty about getting paid by foreign buyers halfway
around the world. The Ex-Im Bank removes
that uncertainty by providing insurance products to
guarantee they will get paid."¶ About 90 percent of the Ex-Im Bank's transactions involve small businesses.¶ Bobby
Patton, CEO of Patton Electronics Company in Gaithersburg, Maryland, said his company has used the Ex-Im Bank's services to
help grow exports of telecommunications products to 140 countries around the world. As the company's international
business grew bigger and more competitive, private banks became less willing to finance the
company's export deals, he said. Private insurance was too expensive and onerous for the size of transactions
that typically dealt with, he said. The company was introduced to the Export-Import Bank through a private bank.¶ ¶ "Now 70
percent of our business comes from outside the United States," said Patton, whose startup now employs 150 people. "This is critical
piece of our business. We would not be able to sustain the kind of business we're doing now without the kinds of products the Ex-Im
has. I'm
a Republican and I keep looking at private options and you know what" They are not
there. The only option I have is the Ex-Im Bank. It is something essential to the growth and
continuity of my business."¶ The "Ex-Im Bank," which was established 80 years ago, helps American companies sell their
products or services to foreign customers by financing or insuring those purchases in cases where the private sector is unable. The
Ex-Im Bank's charter is set to expire Sept. 30, and unless Congress acts, it will be forced to end its assistance to American
companies. In 2013, the Ex-Im Bank supported $37 billion in export sales and 205,000 jobs.¶ "We have 16 legislative days left according to the Senate calendar, to get the Export-Import Bank reauthorized," said Cantwell, the Chairwoman of the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. "We want to send a clear message that if you are voting against the ExportImport Bank, you are hurting these small businesses."¶ "American manufacturers can compete on a level playing field with any
country in the world," said Cardin, a member of the Senate Small Business Committee. "But we can't give up the tools that are
available while other countries don't. This tool, the Export-Import Bank, provides a way we can compete and needs to be
reauthorized."¶ "If you can't reach the customers who want to buy your product - and American products are so desirable - you're not
going to be successful. That's where the Ex-Im Bank comes in," said Kaine, the Co-Chair of the Senate Career and Technical
Education Caucus. "It's about the success of these business and thousands and thousands like them. We need to do this and we need
to do this now, and we need to do this for a sufficient period to allow our businesses to plan and to succeed."¶ The Ex-Im Bank is
self-supported through interest payments and fees charged to customers, turning a profit for the U.S. taxpayer. In
2013, the bank transferred $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury.
Post 2k8 private sector lacks confidence to extend necessary loans
Brock 7/28
William E. Brock III, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, served as the trade representative and secretary of
labor under President Ronald Reagan. “Don’t Kill the Export-Import Bank” JULY 28, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/dont-kill-the-export-import-bank.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON — AMONG the many things that President Ronald Reagan did to promote economic growth was to
ensure a level playing
field for American businesses abroad — including by supporting an expansion of the Export-Import Bank,
which provides financing for the export of American goods and services. ¶ Thanks to his focused, principled leadership, the American economy grew
significantly in the 1980s, a fact that the bank’s recent, vociferous critics, including many from Mr. Reagan’s own party, should bear in mind.¶ As a
Republican, I
would prefer that the private sector carry the entire load of supporting our
international competitiveness. But the world market is not a level playing field, and the bank is
absolutely vital for companies involved in the global economy. Having worked closely with Mr. Reagan on trade
issues, I am confident that he felt the same.¶ In the 1980s, as today, the bank came under criticism, accused of playing favorites among companies and
industries. Then, as now, many politicians called for it to be “sunset,” or phased out. But rather than abolish it, Mr. Reagan called for change, insisting
that it become more transparent and fiscally responsible. ¶ He did so because he understood the bank’s clear, enduring value. Last year, it returned
about $1 billion to the Treasury, something almost unheard of for a government agency. And while the Ex-Im Bank is no replacement for the private
sector, it has a remarkable record as a financial institution: Its default rate, below 1 percent, is better than that of many private banks.¶ And while it is
true, as some critics maintain, that the bank is focused on helping very large companies, its assistance ripples through the economy to help the smaller
and medium-size businesses that supply larger companies.¶ In my home state of Tennessee, for example, the Ex-Im Bank has supported nearly $900
million in export sales since 2007, according to publicly available data from the bank; that translates into support for about 6,000 jobs. Nationally, over
the last five years the bank has supported 1.2 million jobs — and many of those are the sort of well-paying, high-skilled manufacturing jobs that we
should be championing.¶ The
bank is particularly important today, when tight credit allocation by banks,
still cautious after the recession, has left many companies, especially small and medium-size
ones, unable to find financing to sell their products abroad.¶ These companies face tough competition from
companies in other countries. Many of these foreign businesses receive credit financing from their own export-import banks, at levels unseen in the
United States. In 2013 China provided $46 billion in medium- and long-term official credit support; the United States offered only $15 billion. ¶ Those
foreign export-import banks aren’t going away; if anything, they will grow more important as
the global economy continues to integrate. That is why recent calls to end the Ex-Im Bank won’t work. Should we tell American
companies to stop exporting? Are we prepared for the job loss that would result from decreased support for American exports?
Private banks will not provide necessary loans
McGovern 7/8
James McGovern is an energy consultant to government and industry. “Opinion: Export-Import Bank essential to
economic success” http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/opinion_exportimport_bank_essential_to_economic_success.html
The most shameful aspect of the attempt by some House conservatives to kill the Export-Import Bank of the United States is that
American workers would suffer the most. This is the real effect of the attack against the bank, which no amount of pious rhetoric
about eliminating a symbol of “corporate welfare” can disguise.¶ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Export-Import
Bank has supported 1.2 million jobs since 2009, including 205,000 last year alone.¶ It doesn’t seem to matter whether it’s a
Democratic administration in office or a Republican administration: There’s
plenty of evidence that during times
when the bank extends loans to businesses seeking to sell their goods and services abroad, the
number of manufacturing jobs in the United States rises.¶ The bank, however, will close down unless Congress
reauthorizes it by Sept. 30. For the sake of our economy and employment, Congress should renew the bank’s charter, since
it is
the one government agency that does most to promote the export of American
products and services.¶ Established 80 years ago, the Ex-Im Bank facilitates exports of everything from
commercial aircraft to nuclear reactor components, guarantees loans for foreign buyers of U.S. products, sells
insurance to U.S. companies dealing in risky parts of the world, and makes a profit of about $1 billion a year in fees and services that
it sends to the Treasury.¶ The fact that Ex-Im
shouldn’t be surprising; its
has produced a $14-billion profit over the past 10 years
loan default rate is low — less than one-half of one percent. This allows it to send cash to the
Treasury.¶ Last year, the Ex-Im’s lines of credit supported $37.4 billion in U.S. exports. Though the top beneficiaries of Ex-Im
financing are large corporations, about 70 percent of the 6,000 firms it has aided over the past five years have been small
businesses.¶ The claim that Ex-Im is a symbol of corporate welfare is unwarranted. Most
governments around the
world support exports in similar ways, and many overseas buyers prefer – and, in many cases, require – that their
Such assistance is essential , because
private banks don’t provide financing to small businesses interested
in doing business in sometimes non-democratic or unstable
countries . China, for instance, loads its banks with credit and tells them to lend it to exporters. The European Union
suppliers have financial assistance from their government.¶
provides generous support for European exports. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says
that export credit agencies worldwide have extended more than $1 trillion in trade finance credit in recent years.¶ If Congress allows
the Ex-Im Bank’s charter to expire, American companies could lose billions of dollars in
overseas orders and move their operations to other countries that provide export financing.
AT Distorts Market
Just fills in for private sector holes and key to compete internationally
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes John murphy: directs the U.S. Chamber’s advocacy relating to
international trade and investment policy, “The pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington
Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Murphy: The vast majority of trade finance is provided by the private sector, but there is a range of
circumstances where the Ex-Im Bank is not only helpful, but absolutely necessary. In many emerging
markets where commercial credit isn’t available, Ex-Im is the only option.¶ Particularly for
expensive, long-lived capital goods such as aircraft, nuclear reactors, locomotives and earthmoving equipment, U.S. companies are bidding in competition with foreign companies that are
backed by very generously funded export credit agencies of their own. Bids from all tenders must come
with official export-import credit agency backing, which Ex-Im uniquely provides in the United States. So the bottom
line in those cases is that without Ex-Im, U.S. companies aren’t even able to bid.¶ In projects financed
around the world, there are requirements that bids come with official export credit agency support -- or else you don't
qualify. For example, I know a firm that sells U.S. medical equipment in the Chinese market.
Without the Ex-Im Bank, they would not qualify to bid to do business in the Chinese health care
system. Ex-Im offers financing terms to match what foreign competitors are able to offer. Ex-Im
isn't just something that's nice to have -- it's absolutely necessary .
AT Corporate Welfare
Small companies depend on bank – ripple effects and credit lines
otherwise unavailable
Brock 7/28
William E. Brock III, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, served as the trade representative and secretary of
labor under President Ronald Reagan. “Don’t Kill the Export-Import Bank” JULY 28, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/dont-kill-the-export-import-bank.html?_r=0
And while
it is true, as some critics maintain, that the bank is focused on helping very large companies, its
assistance ripples through the economy to help the smaller and medium-size businesses that
supply larger companies.¶ In my home state of Tennessee, for example, the Ex-Im Bank has supported nearly $900 million in export
sales since 2007, according to publicly available data from the bank; that translates into support for about 6,000 jobs. Nationally, over the last
five years the bank has supported 1.2 million jobs — and many of those are the sort of well-paying,
high-skilled manufacturing jobs that we should be championing.¶ The bank is particularly
important today, when tight credit allocation by banks, still cautious after the recession, has left
many companies, especially small and medium-size ones, unable to find financing to sell their
products abroad.¶ These companies face tough competition from companies in other countries. Many of these foreign businesses receive
credit financing from their own export-import banks, at levels unseen in the United States. In 2013 China provided $46 billion in medium- and longterm official credit support; the United States offered only $15 billion. ¶ Those foreign
export-import banks aren’t going
away; if anything, they will grow more important as the global economy continues to integrate.
That is why recent calls to end the Ex-Im Bank won’t work. Should we tell American companies to stop exporting? Are we prepared for the job loss that
would result from decreased support for American exports?¶ The bank is not perfect. It could do more to increase efficiency and transparency, and to
better leverage partnerships to reach even more small businesses. But as President Reagan understood, that is a reason to reform it, not end it.
Opponents of the bank say that it supports just 2
percent of all exports. Still, 2 percent amounts to $37.4 billion of
American products made by American workers in American plants. That translates into tens of thousands of jobs
from every state in the country.
RE
I/L
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/as-congress-fights-over-the-export-import-bank-whats-at-stake-forrenewable
RE
“Small U.S. firms involved in new energy technologies, like renewable energy and efficiency, are competing head-tohead against many foreign competitors to sell goods and services in international markets,” Gawell wrote in the
National Journal’s Energy Insiders forum. “The Export-Import Bank plays an important role in the competitiveness
of U.S. exports and the health, if not survival, of many of the firms that are developing and deploying the energy
technologies expected to dominate the global energy markets of the future."
Renewable energy is a focus of the Ex-Im Bank’s activities in part because its charter requires it. Plus, early in the
Obama administration, Congress specifically targeted 10 percent of the bank’s financing for renewables. At the time, it
was kind of a crazy directive, since in 2009 just $13 million, or 0.4 percent of the bank’s financing, went to
renewables. But the figure grew quickly, reaching $721 million in 2011, 2.2 percent of the bank’s authorizations.
Greening the bank is key – creates momentum for multilateral
climate agreements
Gong 6 – JD @ Berkeley, BA @ Princeton
(Karis Anne, “EXPORTING SUSTAINABILITY: A proposal to reduce the climate impact of the Export‐Import Bank of
the United States,” http://www.princeton.edu/~mauzeral/wws402d_s06/FinalDraftKarisGong.pdf)
First, climate change is a result of aggregate emissions and aggregate concentrations ¶ of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Small fluctuations may not seem to make a large difference. ¶ However, as in the tragedy of the commons
where the individual cost of grazing is only a ¶ fraction of the individual benefit and where such cost-benefit
analysis leads to over-grazing ¶ and the collapse of the commons, each additional unit of GHGs emitted contributes
to ¶ untenable aggregate levels of GHGs.174 Thus, to the extent that the Bank is responsible for ¶ some of
the emissions, as is the rest of the world, the Bank is responsible for cutting some ¶ of the emissions, an action
required for stabilizing atmospheric levels of GHGs. In short, it ¶ has both the opportunity and responsibility to be
environmentally conscientious. ¶ Second, the Bank’s role in the global economy is
unique . Since it connects
the ¶ products and expertise of the developed world to the needs of the developing world, it has ¶ the opportunity to
engage developing countries in responding to climate change. One of the ¶ main obstacles in international climate
negotiations continues to be the tension between ¶ economic development and environmental protection, which draw
from concerns for ¶ “economic justice.”175¶ Developing countries understand that “today’s rich countries moved
first from ¶ agriculture to manufacturing industries which use resources intensively, and later to services ¶ and
less polluting types of manufacturing,”176 and many hold that it is better to “pollute now ¶ and clean up
later.”177 They also recognize that the people in developed countries have ¶ emitted and continue emitting high levels of
greenhouse gases. For many heads of state in the ¶ developing world, justice demands that the developed
countries bear the brunt of addressing ¶ climate change. The Indian delegate to the Intergovernmental
Negotiating Committee on ¶ Climate Change (INC) session in Geneva argued: ¶ The problem of global warming is
caused not by emissions of greenhouse gases as such, but by ¶ excessive levels of per capita emissions of these
gases. If per capita emissions of all countries had ¶ been on the same levels as that of the developing countries,
the world would not today have ¶ faced the threat of global warming. It follows, therefore, that developed
countries with high per ¶ capita emission levels of greenhouse gases are responsible for incremental global
warming. ¶ In these negotiations, the principle of equity should be the touchstone for judging any proposal. ¶ Those
responsible for environmental degradation should also be responsible for taking corrective ¶ measures. Since
developed countries with high per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are ¶ responsible for incremental
global warming, it follows that they have a corresponding obligation ¶ to take corrective action. Moreover,
these are also the countries which have the greatest capacity ¶ to bear the burden. It is they who possess the
financial resources and the technology needed for ¶ corrective action. This further reinforces their obligations
regarding corrective action.178¶ Developed nations, on the other hand, have argued that their own reductions in
emissions will ¶ not produce any environmental gains if developing nations do not also agree to emissions ¶ targets. Fear
that the emissions of developing nations would offset or surpass the emissions ¶ reductions gained by
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was one of the major reasons for ¶ U.S.’s refusal to even consider the
ratification of the Protocol in the Senate.179 Furthermore, if¶ developing countries were not required to take
action to reduce their emissions, the U.S. feared ¶ that domestic industries would suffer severe economic losses
while developing countries ¶ hosted new industry growth. Senator Robert Byrd (R-WV), co-sponsor of the
Byrd-Hagel ¶ Resolution, commented during the senate debate that: ¶ [He did not] think the Senate should
support a treaty that requires only half the world – in ¶ other words, the developed countries – to endure the
economic costs of reducing emissions ¶ while developing countries are left free to pollute the atmosphere, and
in so doing, siphon off ¶ American industries… In this particular environmental game, there are no winners;
the world ¶ loses. And any effort to avoid the effects of global climate change will be doomed to failure ¶ from the start
without the participation of the developing world.180¶ Since the Bank is a public agency in a developed country and its
business is principally ¶ in developing countries, it has a
unique opportunity to address this conundrum.
By instituting ¶ a policy to reduce its own emissions while maintaining its role as an export financing agent, it ¶ can serve
as a U.S. example of accepting environmental responsibility. At the same time, the ¶ exporting of energy efficiency
methodologies and cleaner forms of energy technology in order ¶ to achieve emissions reductions
benefits
and engages developing countries. By requiring the ¶ export of cleaner forms of energy to areas where
infrastructure is just beginning to be built, the ¶ Bank can help establish renewables as feasible foundations of
economic development. ¶ Introducing renewable energy infrastructure can then also reduce the barriers of
consumer ¶ unfamiliarity and information asymmetries that currently tend to favor nonrenewable energy ¶
forms. Intentioned implementation of technology for the purpose of market experience is the ¶ first step toward that
technology’s gaining more widespread use.181¶ Third, the Bank’s adoption of a GHG emissions reduction policy
would allow it to¶
press other export credit agencies under the OECD Common
Arrangement to undertake ¶ similar measures. Its historic role as a leader among the OECD ECAs might afford it the ¶
political capital necessary to pursue widespread adoption of GHG reduction
policies.182 If it is ¶ able to do so, the Bank will have influenced a significant proportion global financing policies – ¶
ECAs in 2001 covered about $800 billion of exports, and their activity “exceeds that of all ¶ multilateral
development banks” including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.183
Boeing
I/L
Especially key for Boeing – otherwise, can’t secure global sales
Kalogeridis 7-25 (Carla, quotes John murphy: directs the U.S. Chamber’s advocacy relating to
international trade and investment policy, “The pros and cons of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank”, Washington
Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-reauthorizing-the-export-importbank/article/2551068)//DLG
Murphy: The fact is that wide-bodied aircraft are sold around the world today with export credit agency
support, and without that support, you won’t make the sale. So if Boeing is not able to rely on Ex-
Im in certain circumstances — for instance, in emerging markets where credit markets are underdeveloped or in
the very common circumstances where it’s in head-to-head competition with Airbus — without Ex-Im
support, the sale would be lost. It’s that simple.¶ Unilateral disarmament is rarely a good idea, but
when it comes to trade finance, it is a very real threat. There are 60 export-import credit
agencies around the world today, and in recent years, they’ve issued more than a trillion dollars in trade finance.
For the United States to be the one major trading nation that does not have an Ex-Im Bank is to
systematically put U.S. exporters at a competitive disadvantage in market after market.
Nuclear Power Impact
A lot of this impact stuff was taken from the SSD aff – look there if you want more cards on the impact or I/L level
I/L
Key I/L to US nuclear energy leadership
World Nuclear News 7-30 (“US nuclear firms urge Ex-Im Bank renewal”, http://www.worldnuclear-news.org/NP-US-nuclear-firms-urge-ex-im-bank-renewal-30071401.html)//DLG
US nuclear power companies argue they will lose business to rivals from other countries, including Russia and
China, if Congress decides against reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.¶ Established by President
Franklin D Roosevelt in 1934 Ex-Im Bank is the USA's official export credit agency. Its mission is to assist in financing the export of US goods and
services to international markets.¶ "This
is not a partisan issue. This is an American competitiveness issue,"
the energy industry perspective, Ex-Im is an
absolute necessity in order to compete globally against state-funded and state-subsidized
companies," Roderick said.¶ Roderick spoke at a meeting organised by the National Association of Manufacturers, in Pittsburgh, to highlight the
Westinghouse president and CEO Danny Roderick said on July 28. " From
adverse effect on US firms of all sizes if Congress allows the bank's charter – and thus its financing powers - to expire on 30 September.¶ Roderick
reiterated comments he made at the World Nuclear Association's Annual Symposium held in London last September, that Westinghouse had a long
history of assisting its customers in securing financing from export credit agencies, including Ex-Im Bank. He criticised the build-own-operate model
Russian Rosatom is marketing in its foreign business as being anti-competitive.¶ Ex-Im Bank supported Westinghouse's bid for the Temelin extension
project in the Czech Republic. The US company competed for that contract against French Areva and a Czech-Russian consortium between Škoda JS,
AtomStroyExport and OKB Gidropress. In April, Czech utility CEZ cancelled the procurement process. ¶ Ukraine¶ Holtec
International is
seeking assistance from Ex-Im Bank "for a critical project" in Ukraine to design and build a
central used fuel storage facility, the company's senior vice president, Pierre Paul Oneid, said at the same meeting. Without
this facility, Ukraine would remain dependent on Russia to keep its nuclear reactors running,
Oneid said. Ex-Im is a "valuable instrument" of US foreign policy of which the situation in Ukraine
"is a textbook example," he said.¶ But House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling wrote to President Barack Obama
last week to argue that the current crisis in Ukraine illustrates the need to shut down the bank. ¶ "While your Administration announces sanctions on
Russian companies on the one hand, on the other it offers sweetheart deals to Russian companies through Ex-Im," Hensarling wrote, citing loans to
two state-owned Russian banks.¶ The government is seeking a five-year reauthorization and a gradual increase in the bank's lending cap, to $160
billion from the $140 billion limit set by the its latest reauthorization, in 2012. ¶ Other opponents of Ex-Im Bank cite recent allegations of corruption at
the bank in their criticism of its function, accusing it of crony capitalism and corporate welfare. ¶ Political commentators say a decision on the future of
Ex-Im Bank will remain unclear until September, since US lawmakers start a five-week recess on 1 August. But Darrell Issa, chairman of the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has said publicly that Ex-Im Bank may be granted a short-term extension to its charter on condition
that changes are made to its operations – namely, in terms of its transparency and accountability. ¶ Bidding requirement¶ The availability of export
credit agency support is "almost always a bidding requirement" for nuclear power plant tenders, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said. ¶
"Allowing
Ex-Im Bank to expire would be tantamount to unilateral trade disarmament,
conceding billions of dollars in orders to other supplier nations that maintain their own export
credit agencies," NEI said in a statement.¶ NEI president and CEO Marv Fertel told a congressional hearing on 25 June that, when a US
supplier wins a major nuclear power plant tender, "it establishes relationships that can endure
for decades through the supply of fuel, equipment and services."¶ NEI has sought to debunk myths about Ex-Im
Bank, such as that it is a risk to taxpayers. The bank transfers about $1 billion each year to the US Treasury’s general fund, its portfolio is diversified
across a wide range of industry sectors, and its default rate is currently extremely low, NEI said. ¶ Russia
has rapidly expanded its
share of the international nuclear energy market, "in large part due to aggressive export finance,"
NEI said. "Without Ex-Im Bank to maintain a level playing field against Russian finance, the United
States will cede many transactions – and influence – to Russia," it said.
Failure to reauthorize would be a fatal blow to US nuclear power
industry
McGovern 7/8
James McGovern is an energy consultant to government and industry. “Opinion: Export-Import Bank essential to
economic success” http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/opinion_exportimport_bank_essential_to_economic_success.html
If Congress allows the Ex-Im Bank’s charter to expire, American companies could lose billions of
dollars in overseas orders and move their operations to other countries that provide export financing.¶ Consider the
situation facing the U.S. nuclear power industry , many of whose suppliers rely on the Ex-Im
Bank to compete for and win key international contracts. U.S. nuclear suppliers of equipment
and services compete against a growing number of foreign firms – many of which are stateowned and benefit from various forms of state support.¶ Uncertainty about the ability of U.S.
suppliers to provide competitive financing for nuclear energy projects could be fatal to U.S.
competitiveness . With more than 70 new nuclear plants under construction around the world and another 400 units
planned or proposed, the market for nuclear reactor components and equipment has become very competitive.¶ The
U.S.
Department of Commerce estimates the value of the global nuclear market at hundreds of
billions of dollars over the next decade. Capturing even a small share of that market would provide
thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs and enable the United States to maintain leadership
in nuclear energy tech nology.
The perception of nuclear leadership key to US nonprolif efforts
Bengelsdorf 7, Consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned
with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs, 07 (Harold, “The U.S. Domestic Civil Nuclear Infrastructure
and U.S. Nonproliferation Policy” The U.S. Domestic Civil Nuclear Infrastructure AND U.S. Nonproliferation Policy,
May 2007, 6/2/12)//twonily
The health of the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure can have an important bearing in a variety of ways on the ability of the
United States to advance its nonproliferation objectives. During the Atoms for Peace Program and until the 1970s, the U.S. was
the dominant supplier in the international commercial nuclear power market, and it exercised a strong leadership role in shaping
the global nonproliferation regime. In those early days, the U.S. also had what was essentially a monopoly in the nuclear fuel supply
market. This capability, among others, allowed the U.S. to promote the widespread acceptance of nonproliferation norms and
restraints, including international safeguards and physical protection measures, and, most notably, the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The United States concluded agreements for cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy with
other states, which require strict safeguards, physical protection and other nonproliferation controls on their civil nuclear programs.
Today due to its political, military and economic position in the world, the United States continues to exercise great
weight in nonproliferation matters. However, the ability of the United States to promote its nonproliferation
objectives through peaceful nuclear cooperation with other countries has declined. The fact that no new nuclear power
plant orders have been placed in over three decades has led to erosion in the capabilities of the U.S. civil nuclear
infrastructure. Moreover, during the same period, the U.S. share of the global nuclear market has declined significantly,
and several other countries have launched their own nuclear power programs and have become major international suppliers in
their own right. It is highly significant that all but one of the U.S. nuclear power plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers and
manufactures for light water reactors have now been acquired by their non-U.S. based competitors. Thus, while the U.S. remains
a participant in the international market for commercial nuclear power, it no longer enjoys a dominant role as it did four
decades ago. To the extent that U.S. nuclear plant vendors and nuclear fuel designers 2 and manufacturers are able to reassert
themselves on a technical and commercial basis, opportunities for U.S. influence with respect to nuclear nonproliferation can be
expected to increase. However, the fact that there are other suppliers that can now provide plants and nuclear fuel technology and
services on a competitive commercial basis suggests that the U.S. will have to work especially hard to maintain and, in some
cases, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, if it wishes to exercise its influence in international nuclear affairs. The
influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to achieve success in
its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of
interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world. As a consequence, if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs
and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and
viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping
the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the
evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation
regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness
of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A.Q. Khan. These developments
underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the
major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives.
Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is perceived as a major technological
leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable,
on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear
export market. However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of
the U.S. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on
foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international 3 nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability of the U.S. to
influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear
reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will
also enable the United States to promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear
cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the
nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and
alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that
are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to develop
improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistent and vigorous support for nuclear R&D
programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As
the U.S. Government expends taxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the
Generation IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and to U.S. non-proliferation
posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible. Finally, the ability of the United States to resolve its
own difficulties in managing its spent fuel and nuclear wastes will be crucial to maintaining the credibility of the U.S.
nuclear power program and will be vital to implementing important new nonproliferation initiatives designed to
discourage the spread of sensitive nuclear facilities to other countries.
Prolif Bad
Prolif causes extinction
Kroenig 12 (Matthew, Assistant Professor of Government – Georgetown University and Stanton Nuclear Security
Fellow – Council on Foreign Relations, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have A Future?”, Prepared
for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, 5-26, http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182&tid=30)
Proliferation Optimism: Proliferation optimism was revived in the academy in Kenneth Waltz’s 1979 book, Theory of International
Politics.1[29] In this, and subsequent works, Waltz argued that the spread of nuclear weapons has beneficial effects on international
politics. He maintained that states, fearing a catastrophic nuclear war, will be deterred from going to war with other nuclear-armed
states. As more and more states acquire nuclear weapons, therefore, there are fewer states against which other states will be willing
to wage war. The spread of nuclear weapons, according to Waltz, leads to greater levels of international stability. Looking to the
empirical record, he argued that the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945 coincided with an unprecedented period of peace
among the great powers. While the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in many proxy wars in peripheral geographic regions
during the Cold War, they never engaged in direct combat. And, despite regional scuffles involving nuclear-armed states in the
Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia, none of these conflicts resulted in a major theater war. This lid on the intensity of conflict,
according to Waltz, was the direct result of the stabilizing effect of nuclear weapons. Following in the path blazed by the strategic
thinkers reviewed above, Waltz argued that the requirements for deterrence are not high. He argued that, contrary to the behavior of
the Cold War superpowers, a state need not build a large arsenal with multiple survivable delivery vehicles in order to deter its
adversaries. Rather, he claimed that a few nuclear weapons are sufficient for deterrence. Indeed, he even went further, asserting that
any state will be deterred even if it merely suspects its opponent might have a few nuclear weapons because the costs of getting it
wrong are simply too high. Not even nuclear accident is a concern according to Waltz because leaders in nuclear-armed states
understand that if they ever lost control of nuclear weapons, resulting in an accidental nuclear exchange, the nuclear retaliation they
would suffer in response would be catastrophic. Nuclear-armed states, therefore, have strong incentives to maintain control of their
nuclear weapons. Not even new nuclear states, without experience in managing nuclear arsenals, would ever allow nuclear weapons
to be used or let them fall in the wrong hands. Following Waltz, many other scholars have advanced arguments in the proliferation
optimist school. For example, Bruce Bueno de Mesquite and William Riker explore the “merits of selective nuclear
proliferation.”2[30] John Mearsheimer made the case for a “Ukrainian nuclear deterrent,” following the collapse of the Soviet
Union.3[31] In the run up to the 2003 Gulf War, John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt argued that we should not worry about a
nuclear-armed Iraq because a nuclear-armed Iraq can be deterred.4[32] And, in recent years, Barry Posen and many other realists
have argued that nuclear proliferation in Iran does not pose a threat, again arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred.5[33]
What’s Wrong with Proliferation Optimism? The proliferation optimist position, while having a distinguished pedigree, has
several major problems. Many of these weaknesses have been chronicled in brilliant detail by Scott Sagan and other
contemporary proliferation pessimists.6[34] Rather than repeat these substantial efforts, I will use this section to offer some original
critiques of the recent incarnations of proliferation optimism. First and foremost, proliferation optimists do not appear to
understand contemporary deterrence theory. I do not say this lightly in an effort to marginalize or discredit my intellectual
opponents. Rather, I make this claim with all due caution and with complete sincerity. A careful review of the contemporary
proliferation optimism literature does not reflect an understanding of, or engagement with, the developments in academic
deterrence theory in top scholarly journals such as the American Political Science Review and International Organization over the
past few decades.7[35] While early optimists like Viner and Brodie can be excused for not knowing better, the writings of
contemporary proliferation optimists ignore the past fifty years of academic research on nuclear deterrence theory.
In the 1940s, Viner, Brodie, and others argued that the advent of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) rendered war among
major powers obsolete, but nuclear deterrence theory soon advanced beyond that simple understanding.8[36] After all,
great power political competition does not end with nuclear weapons. And nuclear-armed states still seek to threaten nuclear-armed
adversaries. States cannot credibly threaten to launch a suicidal nuclear war, but they still want to coerce their adversaries. This
leads to a credibility problem: how can states credibly threaten a nuclear-armed opponent? Since the 1960s academic nuclear
deterrence theory has been devoted almost exclusively to answering this question.9[37] And, unfortunately for proliferation
optimists, the answers do not give us reasons to be optimistic. Thomas Schelling was the first to devise a rational means by which
states can threaten nuclear-armed opponents.10[38] He argued that leaders cannot credibly threaten to intentionally launch a
suicidal nuclear war, but they can make a “threat that leaves something to chance.”11[39] They can engage in a process, the nuclear
crisis, which increases the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a less resolved adversary to back down. As states escalate a
nuclear crisis there is an increasing probability that the conflict will spiral out of control and result in
an inadvertent or accidental nuclear exchange . As long as the benefit of winning the crisis is greater than the incremental
increase in the risk of nuclear war, threats to escalate nuclear crises are inherently credible. In these games of nuclear brinkmanship,
the state that is willing to run the greatest risk of nuclear war before back down will win the crisis as long as it does not end in
catastrophe. It is for this reason that Thomas Schelling called great power politics in the nuclear era a “competition in risk
taking.”12[40] This does not mean that states eagerly bid up the risk of nuclear war. Rather, they face gut-wrenching decisions at
each stage of the crisis. They can quit the crisis to avoid nuclear war, but only by ceding an important geopolitical issue to an
opponent. Or they can the escalate the crisis in an attempt to prevail, but only at the risk of suffering a possible nuclear exchange.
Since 1945 there were have been many high stakes nuclear crises (by my count, there have been twenty) in which “rational” states
like the United States run a risk of nuclear war and inch very close to the brink of nuclear war.13[41] By asking whether states can be
deterred or not, therefore, proliferation optimists are asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is: what risk of nuclear
war is a specific state willing to run against a particular opponent in a given crisis? Optimists are likely correct when they assert that
Iran will not intentionally commit national suicide by launching a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear attack on the United States or Israel.
This does not mean that Iran will never use nuclear weapons, however. Indeed, it is almost inconceivable to think that a nucleararmed Iran would not, at some point, find itself in a crisis with another nuclear-armed power and that it would not be willing to run
any risk of nuclear war in order to achieve its objectives. If a nuclear-armed Iran and the United States or Israel have a geopolitical
conflict in the future, over say the internal politics of Syria, an Israeli conflict with Iran’s client Hezbollah, the U.S. presence in the
Persian Gulf, passage through the Strait of Hormuz, or some other issue, do we believe that Iran would immediately capitulate? Or is
it possible that Iran would push back, possibly even brandishing nuclear weapons in an attempt to deter its adversaries? If the latter,
there is a real risk that proliferation to Iran could result in nuclear war. An optimist might counter that nuclear weapons will
never be used, even in a crisis situation, because states have such a strong incentive, namely national survival, to ensure that
nuclear weapons are not used. But, this objection ignores the fact that leaders operate under competing pressures.
Leaders in nuclear-armed states also have very strong incentives to convince their adversaries that nuclear weapons
could very well be used. Historically we have seen that in crises, leaders purposely do things like put nuclear weapons on high
alert and delegate nuclear launch authority to low level commanders, purposely increasing the risk of
accidental nuclear war in an attempt to force less-resolved opponents to back down. Moreover, not even the optimists’ first
principles about the irrelevance of nuclear posture stand up to scrutiny. Not all nuclear wars would be equally devastating.14[42]
Any nuclear exchange would have devastating consequences no doubt, but, if a crisis were to spiral out of control and result in
nuclear war, any sane leader would rather be facing a country with five nuclear weapons than one with thirty-five thousand.
Similarly, any sane leader would be willing to run a greater risk of nuclear war against the former state than against the latter.
Indeed, systematic research has demonstrated that states are willing to run greater risks and, therefore, more likely to win nuclear
crises when they enjoy nuclear superiority over their opponent.15[43] Proliferation optimists miss this point, however, because they
are still mired in 1940s deterrence theory. It is true that no rational leader would choose to launch a nuclear war, but, depending on
the context, she would almost certainly be willing to risk one. Nuclear deterrence theorists have proposed a second scenario under
which rational leaders could instigate a nuclear exchange: a limited nuclear war.16[44] By launching a single nuclear weapon against
a small city, for example, it was thought that a nuclear-armed state could signal its willingness to escalate the crisis, while leaving its
adversary with enough left to lose to deter the adversary from launching a full-scale nuclear response. In a future crisis between a
nuclear-armed China and the United States over Taiwan, for example, China could choose to launch a nuclear attack on Honolulu to
demonstrate its seriousness. In that situation, with the continental United States intact, would Washington choose to launch a fullscale nuclear war on China that could result in the destruction of many more American cities? Or would it back down? China might
decide to strike hoping that Washington will choose a humiliating retreat over a full-scale nuclear war. If launching a limited nuclear
war could be rational, it follows that the spread of nuclear weapons increases the risk of nuclear use. Again, by ignoring
contemporary developments in scholarly discourse and relying exclusively on understandings of nuclear deterrence theory that
became obsolete decades ago, optimists reveal the shortcomings of their analysis and fail to make a compelling case. The optimists
also error by confusing stability for the national interest. Even if the spread of nuclear weapons contributes to greater levels of
international stability (which discussions above and below suggest it might not) it does not necessarily follow that the spread of
nuclear weapons is in the U.S. interest. There might be other national goals that trump stability, such as reducing to zero the risk
of nuclear war in an important geopolitical region. Optimists might argue that South Asia is more stable when India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, but
certainly the risk of nuclear war is higher than if there were no nuclear weapons on the subcontinent. In addition, it is wrong to assume that stability is always in the national
interest. Sometimes it is, but sometimes it is not. If stability is obtained because Washington is deterred from using force against a nuclear-armed adversary in a situation where
using force could have advanced national goals, stability harms, rather than advances, U.S. national interests. The final gaping weakness in the proliferation optimist argument,
however, is that it rests on a logical contradiction. This is particularly ironic, given that many optimists like to portray themselves as hard-headed thinkers, following their
premises to their logical conclusions. But, the contradiction at the heart of the optimist argument is glaring and simple to understand: either the probability of nuclear war is
zero, or it is nonzero, but it cannot be both. If the probability of nuclear war is zero, then nuclear weapons should have no deterrent effect. States will not be deterred by a
nuclear war that could never occur and states should be willing to intentionally launch large-scale wars against nuclear-armed states. In this case, proliferation optimists cannot
conclude that the spread of nuclear weapons is stabilizing. If, on the other hand, the probability of nuclear war is nonzero, then there is a real danger that the spread of nuclear
weapons increases the probability of a catastrophic nuclear war. If this is true, then proliferation optimists cannot be certain that nuclear weapons will never be used. In sum, the
spread of nuclear weapons can either raise the risk of nuclear war and in so doing, deter large-scale conventional conflict. Or there is no danger that nuclear weapons will be
used and the spread of nuclear weapons does not increase international instability. But, despite the claims of the proliferation optimists, it is nonsensical to argue that nuclear
weapons will never be used and to simultaneously claim that their spread contributes to international stability. Proliferation Anti-obsessionists: Other scholars, who I label
“anti-obsessionists” argue that the spread of nuclear weapons has neither been good nor bad for international politics, but rather irrelevant. They argue that academics and
policymakers concerned about nuclear proliferation spend too much time and energy obsessing over something, nuclear weapons, that, at the end of the day, are not all that
important. In Atomic Obsession, John Mueller argues that widespread fears about the threat of nuclear weapons are overblown.17[45] He acknowledges that policymakers and
experts have often worried that the spread of nuclear weapons could lead to nuclear war, nuclear terrorism and cascades of nuclear proliferation, but he then sets about
systematically dismantling each of these fears. Rather, he contends that nuclear weapons have had little effect on the conduct of international diplomacy and that world history
would have been roughly the same had nuclear weapons never been invented. Finally, Mueller concludes by arguing that the real problem is not nuclear proliferation, but
nuclear nonproliferation policy because states do harmful things in the name of nonproliferation, like take military action and deny countries access to nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. Similarly, Ward Wilson argues that, despite the belief held by optimists and pessimists alike, nuclear weapons are not useful tools of deterrence.18[46] In his
study of the end of World War II, for example, Wilson argues that it was not the U.S. use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that forced Japanese surrender, but a
variety of other factors, including the Soviet Union’s decision to enter the war. If the actual use of nuclear weapons was not enough to convince a country to capitulate to its
opponent he argues, then there is little reason to think that the mere threat of nuclear use has been important to keeping the peace over the past half century. Leaders of nucleararmed states justify nuclear possession by touting their deterrent benefits, but if nuclear weapons have no deterrent value, there is no reason, Ward claims, not to simply get rid
of them. Finally, Anne Harrington de Santana argues that nuclear experts “fetishize” nuclear weapons.19[47] Just like capitalists, according to Karl Marx, bestow magical
qualities on money, thus fetishizing it, she argues that leaders and national security experts do the same thing to nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence as a critical component of
national security strategy, according to Harrington de Santana, is not inherent in the technology of nuclear weapons themselves, but is rather the result of how leaders in
countries around the world think about them. In short, she argues, “Nuclear weapons are powerful because we treat them as powerful.”20[48] But, she maintains, we could just
as easily “defetish” them, treating them as unimportant and, therefore, rendering them obsolete. She concludes that “Perhaps some day, the deactivated nuclear weapons on
display in museums across the United States will be nothing more than a reminder of how powerful nuclear weapons used to be.”21[49] The anti-obsessionists make some
thought-provoking points and may help to reign in some of the most hyperbolic accounts of the effect of nuclear proliferation. They remind us, for example, that our worst fears
have not been realized, at least not yet. Yet, by taking the next step and arguing that nuclear weapons have been, and will continue to be, irrelevant, they go too far. Their
arguments call to mind the story about the man who jumps to his death from the top of a New York City skyscraper and, when asked how things are going as he passes the 15th
story window, replies, “so far so good.” The idea that world history would have been largely unchanged had nuclear weapons not been invented is a provocative one, but it is also
unfalsifiable. There is good reason to believe that world history would have been different, and in many ways better, had certain countries not acquired nuclear weapons. Let’s
take Pakistan as an example. Pakistan officially joined the ranks of the nuclear powers in May 1998 when it followed India in conducting a series of nuclear tests. Since then,
Pakistan has been a poster child for the possible negative consequences of nuclear proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have led to further nuclear proliferation as Pakistan,
with the help of rogue scientist A.Q. Khan, transferred uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.22[50] Indeed, part of the reason that North Korea and
Iran are so far along with their uranium enrichment programs is because they got help from Pakistan. Pakistan has also become more aggressive since acquiring nuclear
weapons, displaying an increased willingness to sponsor cross-border incursions into India with terrorists and irregular forces.23[51] In a number of high-stakes nuclear crises
between India and Pakistan, U.S. officials worried that the conflicts could escalate to a nuclear exchange and intervened diplomatically to prevent Armageddon on the
subcontinent. The U.S. government also worries about the safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, fearing that Pakistan’s nukes could fall into the hands of terrorists in
the event of a state collapse or a break down in nuclear security. And we still have not witnessed the full range of consequences arising from Pakistani nuclear proliferation.
Islamabad has only possessed the bomb for a little over a decade, but they are likely to keep it for decades to come, meaning that we could still have a nuclear war involving
Pakistan. In short, Pakistan’s nuclear capability has already had deleterious effects on U.S. national security and these threats are only likely to grow over time. In addition, the
anti-obsessionists are incorrect to argue that the cure of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is worse than the disease of proliferation. Many observers would agree with Mueller
that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a disaster, costing much in the way of blood and treasure and offering little strategic benefit. But the Iraq War is hardly representative
of U.S. nonproliferation policy. For the most part, nonproliferation policy operates in the mundane realm of legal frameworks, negotiations, inspections, sanctions, and a variety
of other tools. Even occasional preventive military strikes on nuclear facilities have been far less calamitous than the Iraq War. Indeed, the Israeli strikes on nuclear reactors in
Iraq and Syria in 1981 and 2007, respectively, produced no meaningful military retaliation and a muted international response. Moreover, the idea that the Iraq War was
primarily about nuclear nonproliferation is a contestable one, with Saddam Hussein’s history of aggression, the unsustainability of maintaining the pre-war containment regime
indefinitely, Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups, his past possession and use of chemical and biological weapons, and the window of opportunity created by September 11th, all
serving as possible prompts for U.S. military action in the Spring of 2003. The claim that nonproliferation policy is dangerous because it denies developing countries access to
nuclear energy also rests on shaky ground. If anything, the global nonproliferation regime has, on balance, increased access to nuclear technology. Does anyone really believe
that countries like Algeria, Congo, and Vietnam would have nuclear reactors today were it not for Atoms for Peace, Article IV of the NPT, and other appendages of the
nonproliferation regime that have provided developing states with nuclear technology in exchange for promises to forgo nuclear weapons development? Moreover, the sensitive
fuel-cycle technology denied by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and other supply control regimes is not even necessary to the development of a vibrant nuclear energy
program as the many countries that have fuel-cycle services provided by foreign nuclear suppliers clearly demonstrate. Finally, the notion that nuclear energy is somehow the
key to lifting developing countries from third to first world status does not pass the laugh test. Given the large upfront investments, the cost of back-end fuel management and
storage, and the ever-present danger of environmental catastrophe exemplified most recently by the Fukushima disaster in Japan, many argue that nuclear energy is not a costeffective source of energy (if all the externalities are taken into account) for any country, not to mention those developing states least able to manage these myriad challenges.
Taken together, therefore, the argument that nuclear nonproliferation policy is more dangerous than the consequences of nuclear proliferation, including possible nuclear war, is
untenable. Indeed, it would certainly come as a surprise to the mild mannered diplomats and scientists who staff the International Atomic Energy Agency, the global focal point
of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, located in Vienna, Austria. The anti-obsessionsists, like the optimists, also walk themselves into logical contradictions. In this case, their
policy recommendations do not necessarily follow from their analyses. Ward argues that nuclear weapons are irrelevant and, therefore, we should eliminate them.24[52] But, if
nuclear weapons are really so irrelevant, why not just keep them lying around? They will not cause any problems if they are as meaningless as anti-obsessionists claim and it is
certainly more cost effective to do nothing than to negotiate complicated international treaties and dismantle thousands of warheads, delivery vehicles, and their associated
facilities. Finally, the idea that nuclear weapons are only important because we think they are powerful is arresting, but false. There are properties inherent in nuclear weapons
that can be used to create military effects that simply cannot, at least not yet, be replicated with conventional munitions. If a military planner wants to quickly destroy a city on
Therefore, if the collective “we” suddenly decided to
“defetishize” nuclear weapons by treating them as unimportant, it is implausible that some leader somewhere would not
independently come to the idea that nuclear weapons could advance his or her country’s national security and thereby re-fetishize
them. In short, the optimists and anti-obsessionists have brought an important perspective to the nonproliferation debate. Their
the other side of the planet, his only option today is a nuclear weapon mounted on an ICBM.
arguments are provocative and they raise the bar for those who wish to argue that the spread of nuclear weapons is indeed a
problem. Nevertheless, their counterintuitive arguments are not enough to wish away the enormous security challenges posed by the
spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. These myriad threats will be considered in the next section. Why Nuclear
Proliferation Is a Problem The spread of nuclear weapons poses a number of severe threats to international peace and
U.S. national security including: nuclear war, nuclear terrorism, emboldened nuclear powers, constrained
freedom of action, weakened alliances, and further nuclear proliferation. This section explores each of these threats
in turn. Nuclear War. The greatest threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons is nuclear war. The more states in possession of
nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that somewhere, someday, there is a catastrophic nuclear war. A nuclear exchange
between the two superpowers during the Cold War could have arguably resulted in human extinction and a nuclear exchange
between states with smaller nuclear arsenals, such as India and Pakistan, could still result in millions of deaths and casualties,
billions of dollars of economic devastation, environmental degradation, and a parade of other horrors. To date, nuclear weapons
have only been used in warfare once. In 1945, the United States used one nuclear weapon each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing
World War II to a close. Many analysts point to sixty-five-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence that nuclear weapons
are unusable, but it would be naïve to think that nuclear weapons will never be used again. After all, analysts in the 1990s argued
that worldwide economic downturns like the great depression were a thing of the past, only to be surprised by the dot-com bubble
bursting in the later 1990s and the Great Recession of the late Naughts.25[53] This author, for one, would be surprised if nuclear
weapons are not used in my lifetime. Before reaching a state of MAD, new nuclear states go through a transition period in
which they lack a secure-second strike capability. In this context, one or both states might believe that it has an incentive to use
nuclear weapons first. For example, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons neither Iran, nor its nuclear-armed rival, Israel, will have a
secure, second-strike capability. Even though it is believed to have a large arsenal, given its small size and lack of strategic depth,
Israel might not be confident that it could absorb a nuclear strike and respond with a devastating counterstrike. Similarly, Iran
might eventually be able to build a large and survivable nuclear arsenal, but, when it first crosses the nuclear threshold, Tehran will
have a small and vulnerable nuclear force. In these pre-MAD situations, there are at least three ways that nuclear war could occur.
First, the state with the nuclear advantage might believe it has a splendid first strike capability. In a crisis, Israel might, therefore,
decide to launch a preemptive nuclear strike to disarm Iran’s nuclear capabilities and eliminate the threat of nuclear war against
Israel. Indeed, this incentive might be further increased by Israel’s aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes preemptive action.
Second, the state with a small and vulnerable nuclear arsenal, in this case Iran, might feel use ‘em or loose ‘em pressures.
That is, if Tehran believes that Israel might launch a preemptive strike, Iran might decide to strike first rather than risk having its
entire nuclear arsenal destroyed. Third, as Thomas Schelling has argued, nuclear war could result due to the reciprocal fear of
surprise attack.26[54] If there are advantages to striking first, one state might start a nuclear war in the belief that war is
inevitable and that it would be better to go first than to go second. In a future Israeli-Iranian crisis, for example, Israel and
Iran might both prefer to avoid a nuclear war, but decide to strike first rather than suffer a devastating first attack from an opponent.
Even in a world of MAD, there is a risk of nuclear war. Rational deterrence theory assumes nuclear-armed states are governed by
rational leaders that would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. This assumption appears to have applied to past and
current nuclear powers, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to hold in the future. For example, Iran’s theocratic
government, despite its inflammatory rhetoric, has followed a fairly pragmatic foreign policy since 1979, but it contains leaders who
genuinely hold millenarian religious worldviews who could one day ascend to power and have their finger on the nuclear trigger. We
cannot rule out the possibility that, as nuclear weapons continue to spread, one leader will choose to launch a nuclear
war, knowing full well that it could result in self-destruction. One does not need to resort to irrationality, however, to
imagine a nuclear war under MAD. Nuclear weapons may deter leaders from intentionally launching full-scale wars, but they do not
mean the end of international politics. As was discussed above, nuclear-armed states still have conflicts of interest and leaders still
seek to coerce nuclear-armed adversaries. This leads to the credibility problem that is at the heart of modern deterrence theory: how
can you threaten to launch a suicidal nuclear war? Deterrence theorists have devised at least two answers to this question. First, as
stated above, leaders can choose to launch a limited nuclear war.27[55] This strategy might be especially attractive to states in a
position of conventional military inferiority that might have an incentive to escalate a crisis quickly. During the Cold War, the United
States was willing to use nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe given NATO’s conventional inferiority in
continental Europe. As Russia’s conventional military power has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, Moscow has come to
rely more heavily on nuclear use in its strategic doctrine. Indeed, Russian strategy calls for the use of nuclear weapons early in a
conflict (something that most Western strategists would consider to be escalatory) as a way to de-escalate a crisis. Similarly,
Pakistan’s military plans for nuclear use in the event of an invasion from conventionally stronger India. And finally, Chinese generals
openly talk about the possibility of nuclear use against a U.S. superpower in a possible East Asia contingency. Second, as was also
discussed above leaders can make a “threat that leaves something to chance.”28[56] They can initiate a nuclear crisis. By playing
these risky games of nuclear brinkmanship, states can increases the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a less
resolved adversary to back down. Historical crises have not resulted in nuclear war, but many of them, including the 1962 Cuban
Missile Crisis, have come close. And scholars have documented historical incidents when accidents could have led to war.29[57]
When we think about future nuclear crisis dyads, such as India and Pakistan and Iran and Israel, there are fewer sources of stability
that existed during the Cold War, meaning that there is a very real risk that a future Middle East crisis could result in a devastating
nuclear exchange.
Prolif causes global nuclear war
Sokolski 9 (Henry, Executive Director – Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, “Avoiding a Nuclear Crowd”,
Policy Review, June/July, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/46390537.html)
Finally, several new nuclear weapons contenders are also likely to emerge in the next two to three decades. Among these
might be Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Algeria, Brazil (which is developing a nuclear submarine and the
uranium to fuel it), Argentina, and possibly Saudi Arabia (courtesy of weapons leased to it by Pakistan or China), Egypt, Syria,
and Turkey. All of these states have either voiced a desire to acquire nuclear weapons or tried to do so previously and have
one or more of the following: A nuclear power program , a large research reactor, or plans to build a large power reactor by 2030.
With a large reactor program inevitably comes a large number of foreign nuclear experts (who are exceedingly difficult to track and
identify) and extensive training , which is certain to include nuclear fuel making.19 Thus, it will be much more difficult to know when and if a state is acquiring
nuclear weapons (covertly or overtly) and far more dangerous nuclear technology and materials will be available to terrorists than would otherwise. Bottom line: As more states
bring large reactors on line more will become nuclear-weapons-ready — i.e., they could come within months of acquiring nuclear weapons if they chose to do so.20 As for
nuclear safeguards keeping apace, neither the iaea’s nuclear inspection system (even under the most optimal conditions) nor technical trends in nuclear fuel making (e.g., silex
laser enrichment, centrifuges, new South African aps enrichment techniques, filtering technology, and crude radiochemistry plants, which are making successful, small,
affordable, covert fuel manufacturing even more likely)21 afford much cause for optimism. This brave new nuclear world will stir existing security alliance relations more than
it will settle them: In the case of states such as Japan, South Korea, and Turkey, it could prompt key allies to go ballistic or nuclear on their own. Nuclear 1914 At a minimum,
such developments will be a departure from whatever stability existed during the Cold War. After World War II, there was a clear subordination of nations to one or another of
the two superpowers’ strong alliance systems — the U.S.-led free world and the Russian-Chinese led Communist Bloc. The net effect was relative peace with only small,
nonindustrial wars. This alliance tension and system, however, no longer exist. Instead, we now have one superpower, the United States, that is capable of overthrowing small
nations unilaterally with conventional arms alone, associated with a relatively weak alliance system (nato) that includes two European nuclear powers (France and the uk).
nato is increasingly integrating its nuclear targeting policies. The U.S. also has retained its security allies in Asia (Japan, Australia, and South Korea) but has seen the emergence
of an increasing number of nuclear or nuclear-weapon-armed or -ready states. So far, the U.S. has tried to cope with independent nuclear powers by making them “strategic
partners” (e.g., India and Russia), nato nuclear allies (France and the uk), “non-nato allies” (e.g., Israel and Pakistan), and strategic stakeholders (China); or by fudging if a
nation actually has attained full nuclear status (e.g., Iran or North Korea, which, we insist, will either not get nuclear weapons or will give them up). In this world, every nuclear
power center (our European nuclear nato allies), the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan could have significant diplomatic security relations or ties with one another
but none of these ties is viewed by Washington (and, one hopes, by no one else) as being as important as the ties between Washington and each of these nuclear-armed entities
(see Figure 3). There are limits, however, to what this approach can accomplish. Such a weak alliance system, with its expanding set of loose affiliations, risks becoming
analogous to the international system that failed to contain offensive actions prior to World War I. Unlike 1914, there is no power today that can rival the projection of U.S.
conventional forces anywhere on the globe. But in a world with an increasing number of nuclear-armed or nuclear-ready states, this may not matter as much as we think. In such
a world, the actions
of just one or two state s or groups that might threaten to disrupt or overthrow a nuclear weapons state could
check U.S. influence or ignite a war Washington could have difficulty containing. No amount of military science or tactics
could assure that the U.S. could disarm or neutralize such threatening or unstable nuclear states.22 Nor could diplomats or our
intelligence services be relied upon to keep up to date on what each of these governments would be likely to do in such a crisis (see
graphic below): Combine these proliferation trends with the others noted above and one could easily create the perfect nuclear
storm: Small differences between nuclear competitors that would put all actors on edge ; an overhang of nuclear materials that
could be called upon to break out or significantly ramp up existing nuclear deployments; and a variety of potential new nuclear
actors developing weapons options in the wings. In such a setting, the military and nuclear rivalries between states could easily
be much more intense than before. Certainly each nuclear state’s military would place an even higher premium than before
on being able to weaponize its military and civilian surpluses quickly, to deploy forces that are survivable, and to have
forces that can get to their targets and destroy them with high levels of probability. The advanced military states will also be even
more inclined to develop and deploy enhanced air and missile defenses and long-range, precision guidance munitions, and to
develop a variety of preventative and preemptive war options. Certainly, in such a world, relations between states could become
far less stable. Relatively small developments — e.g., Russian support for sympathetic near-abroad provinces; Pakistaniinspired terrorist strikes in India, such as those experienced recently in Mumbai; new Indian flanking activities in Iran near
Pakistan; Chinese weapons developments or moves regarding Taiwan; state-sponsored assassination attempts of key figures in
the Middle East or South West Asia, etc. — could easily prompt nuclear weapons deployments with “strategic” consequences
( arms races, strategic miscues, and even nuclear war ). As Herman Kahn once noted, in such a world “every quarrel or
difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today.”23 In short, we may soon see a
future that neither the proponents of nuclear abolition, nor their critics, would ever want. None of this, however, is inevitable.
Proliferation causes global nuclear war
Muller 8 (Harald, Director – Peace Research Institute in Germany, Professor of International Relations – Frankfurt
University, “The Future of Nuclear Weapons in an Interdependent World”, The Washington Quarterly, pg. 63-75,
Spring)
A world populated by many nuclear-weapon states poses grave dangers. Regional conflicts could escalate to the
nuclear level. The optimistic expectation of a universal law according to which nuclear deterrence prevents all wars15 rests on
scant historical evidence and is dangerously naive. Nuclear uses in one part of the world could trigger “catalytic war”
between greater powers, drawing them into smaller regional conflicts, particularly if tensions are high. This was always a
fear during the Cold War, and it motivated nonproliferation policy in the first place. Moreover, the more states that possess
nuclear weapons and related facilities, the more points of access are available to terrorists.
Heg
Independently, it undermines US nuclear deterrence – that kills heg
Lind 7 (Michael, Senior Fellow – New America Foundation, The National Interest, “Beyond American Hegemony”,
May/June, Lexis)
American military hegemony in Europe, Asia and the Middle East depends on the ability of the U.S. military to threaten
and, if necessary, to use military force to defeat any regional challenge-but at a relatively low cost. This is because the
American public is not prepared to pay the costs necessary if the United States is to be a "hyperpower." Given this premise, the
obsession with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) makes perfect
sense. WMD are defensive weapons that offer poor states a possible defensive shield against the sword of unexcelled
U.S. conventional military superiority. The success of the United States in using superior conventional force to defeat Serbia
and Iraq (twice) may have accelerated the efforts of India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran to obtain nuclear deterrents. As an Indian
admiral observed after the Gulf War, "The lesson is that you should not go to war with the United States unless you have
nuclear weapons." Moreover, it is clear that the United States treats countries that possess WMD quite differently
from those that do not. So proliferation undermines American regional hegemony in two ways. First, it forces the U.S.
military to adopt costly and awkward strategies in wartime. Second, it discourages intimidated neighbors of the
nuclear state from allowing American bases and military build-ups on its soil.
Warming
Leadership solves climate change – no other sector is sufficient
Kadak 6/19 – Director and Principal @ Exponent Inc. (Andy Kadak, 6/19/14, “Nuclear Power’s Role in Responding
to Climate Change,” http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/nuclear-powers-role-in-responding-to-climatechange/#comment-2338)//twonily
Without significant gains in storage technology, electric generation from solar and wind will not meet the world’s energy
needs. Nuclear power, however, can deliver electric power in a sufficiently safe, economical and secure manner to
supplement supply from other carbon-free sources. Despite this, there remain major objections to the safety, cost, waste
management and proliferation risk of nuclear power, which I’ll seek to address here. Safety There have been three serious accidents that
challenged the safety record of nuclear power: the Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, and the tsunami-induced Fukushima accident. In all these
accidents there were no immediate public fatalities and only at Chernobyl were there workforce fatalities (28) arising from radiation
exposure. Since the TMI accident, the operating and safety record of US operating
plants has improved steadily and now
includes standards to handle terrorist attacks and extreme natural disasters. Cost The anticipated capital cost of new
advanced nuclear plants is about $7 Billion. Four such plants under construction in Georgia and South Carolina are due to start up by
2020. Despite this high capital cost, the long-term cost of power is estimated to be 8.4 cents/kWhr, which is competitive with
natural gas prices of $9.5/MMBtu. Although this break-even cost may be higher than the current price of natural gas, the
stability in the cost of nuclear electricity provides an important hedge against future price increases in natural gas (especially if the
US becomes a major gas exporter), as well as protection from supply interruptions. And, of course, the cost of electricity from
natural gas plants does not include any recognition of the carbon emissions that they produce. Waste Management At present used
nuclear fuel is safely and effectively managed; it’s temporarily stored at reactor sites in used fuel storage pools or in dry casks in shielded concrete
canisters. The abandonment of the US Yucca Mountain Repository Project led to the formation of the “Blue Ribbon Commission,” which recommends
proceeding with centralized interim storage of spent fuel and a “consensus” process to site a new repository(s), an approach included in current
bipartisan waste legislation in the Senate. Proliferation Risk The threat of nuclear proliferation is currently managed through international treaties and
the conduct of inspection programs. The risk may be amenable to future reduction by technological developments. Additionally, weapons development
by all countries has been done independently of, and usually prior to, a commercial nuclear power program, and therefore proliferation risk is not a
compelling basis upon which to oppose the deployment of civil nuclear power plants. The energy needs of the world are large and
growing and nuclear energy provides a scalable, clean source of safe power, which, with other clean energy sources, can
meet the world’s needs in a sustainable manner.
Extinction
Mazo 10 (Jeffrey, Ph.D. in Paleoclimatology – UCLA, Managing Editor – Survival, and Research Fellow for
Environmental Security and Science Policy –International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Climate Conflict: How
global warming threatens security and what to do about it”, pg. 122, March)
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the
scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections,
which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant
2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above preindustrial levels by the end of the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the
second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in the developing
world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and stability of
emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in
developing countries .' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many informed observers believe
that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation."
What is certain is that there is no precedent in human experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even
in the best case adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes .
Impacts
Protectionism
Eliminating Ex-Im subsidies cedes global export leadership to
mercantilists
Yglesias 7/6
Matthew Yglesias Executive Editor at Vox, American economics journalist, “Larry Summers makes the case for the
Ex-Im Bank” July 6, 2014
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/6/5875245/larry-summers-makes-the-case-for-the-ex-im-bank
The Export-Import Bank has traditionally had lots of friends in congress but not much in the way of big intellectual defenses. But Larry Summers offers
authoritarian
mercantilism has emerged as the principal alternative to democratic
capitalism , the US Congress is flirting with eliminating the Export Import Bank that, at no cost to the government, enables
one this weekend in the Financial Times, essentially a foreign policy rationale: At a time when
US exporters to compete on a more level playing field with those of competitor nations, all of
whom have similar vehicles. Only by maintaining a capacity to counter
foreign subsidies can we hope to maintain a level global trading system and to avoid ceding
ground to mercantilists . Eliminating the Export Import Bank without extracting any concessions from foreign governments
would be the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament.
Strong US growth is key to promoting an American economic model –
the alternative is mercantilism, which destroys economic cooperation
POSEN, 9 - Deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (Adam, “Economic leadership beyond the
crisis,” http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)
In the postwar period, US
power and prestige, beyond the nation's military might, have been based
largely on American relative economic size and success. These facts enabled the US to promote
economic openness and buy-in to a set of economic institutions, formal and informal, that
resulted in increasing international economic integration. With the exception of the immediate post-Bretton Woods
oil-shock period (1974-85), this combination produced generally growing prosperity at home and abroad, and
underpinned the idea that there were benefits to other countries of following the American
model and playing by American rules. Initially this system was most influential and successful in those countries in tight military
alliance with the US, such as Canada, West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. With the collapse of Soviet
communism in 1989, and the concomitant switch of important emerging economies, notably
Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, to increasingly free-market capitalism, global integration on
American terms through American leadership has been increasingly dominant for the last two
decades. The global financial crisis of 2008-09, however, represents a challenge to that world order. While overt financial panic has been averted,
and most economic forecasts are for recovery to begin in the US and the major emerging markets well before end of 2009 (a belief I share), there
remain significant risks for the US and its leadership. The
global financial system, including but not limited to USbased entities, has not yet been sustainably reformed. In fact, financial stability will come under strain again when the
current government financial guarantees and public ownership of financial firms and assets are unwound over the next couple of years. The growth rate
of the US economy and the ability of the US government to finance responses to future crises, both military and economic, will be meaningfully
curtailed for several years to come. Furthermore, the
crisis will accelerate at least temporarily two related longterm trends eroding the viability of the current international economic arrangements. First, perhaps
inevitably, the economic size and importance of China, India, Brazil, and other emerging markets (including oil-exporters like Russia) has been
catching up with the US, and even more so with demographically and productivity challenged Europe and northeast Asia. Second, pressure has been
building over the past fifteen years or so of these developing countries' economic rise to give their governments more voice and weight in international
economic decision-making. Again, this implies a transfer of relative voting share from the US, but an even greater one from over-represented Western
Europe. The near certainty that Brazil, China, and India, are to be less harmed in real economic terms by the current crisis than either the US or most
other advanced economies will only emphasise their growing strength, and their ability to claim a role in leadership. The need for capital transfers from
China and oil-exporters to fund deficits and bank recapitalisation throughout the West, not just in the US, increases these rising countries' leverage and
legitimacy in international economic discussions. One aspect of this particular crisis is that American economic policymakers, both Democratic and
Republican, became increasingly infatuated with financial services and innovation beginning in the mid-1990s. This reflected a number of factors,
some ideological, some institutional, and some interest group driven. The key point here is that export of financial services and promotion of financial
liberalisation on the US securitised model abroad came to dominate the US international economic policy agenda, and thus that of the IMF, the OECD,
and the G8 as well. This came to be embodied by American multinational commercial and investment banks, in perception and in practice. That
particular version of the American economic model has been widely discredited, because of the crisis' apparent origins in US lax regulation and overconsumption, as well as in excessive faith in American-style financial markets. Thus, American
global economic leadership has
been eroded over the long-term by the rise of major emerging market economies, disrupted in
the short-term by the nature and scope of the financial crisis, and partially discredited by the
excessive reliance upon and overselling of US-led financial capitalism. This crisis therefore presents the
possibility of the US model for economic development being displaced, not only deservedly tarnished, and the US having limited resources in the nearterm to try to respond to that challenge. Additionally, the US' traditional allies and co-capitalists in Western Europe and Northeast Asia have been at
Is there an alternative economic model? The
rise of the Rest over the West. That would be premature. The
empirical record is that economic recovery from financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the
poorest countries, and in advanced countries rarely leads to significant political dislocation. Even large fiscal debt burdens
can be reined in over a few years where political will and institutions allow, and the US has
historically fit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back on a sustainable growth path
least as damaged economically by the crisis (though less damaged reputationally).
preceding description would seem to confirm the
in terms of savings versus consumption. Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis, that acceleration will
be insufficient to rapidly close the gap with the US in size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those countries, except perhaps for China,
can think in terms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power. These would include: a large, dynamic and open economy; favorable
demographic dynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model
to export for wide emulation. This last point is key. In the area of alternative economic models, one cannot beat something with nothing - communism
fell not just because of its internal contradictions, or the costly military build-up, but because capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The
Chinese model is in part the American capitalist (albeit not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part
mercantilism. There has been concern that some developing or small countries could take the lesson from China that building up lots of hard
currency reserves through undervaluation and export orientation is smart . That would erode globalisation, and lead to
greater conflict with and criticism of the US-led system. While in the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets - and notably Brazil,
India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea - are not pursuing that extreme line. The recent victory of the incumbent Congress Party in India is one
indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian President Lula is another. Mexico's continued orientation towards NAFTA while seeking
other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to and from abroad is a particularly brave example. Germany's and Japan's obvious
crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high export dependence, despite their being wealthy, serve as cautionary examples on the other
side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic performance and leadership were seriously compromised, we will not see leading
developing economies like Brazil and India going down the import substitution or other self-destructive and uncooperative paths. If this assessment is
correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic decline, but not outright hostility to the US model or displacement of the current
international economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us in the realm of normal economic diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more
adjustment of current
international economic institutions is all that is required, rather than desperately defending
economic globalisation itself. For all of that reassurance, however, the need to get buy-in from the rising new players to the current
multilaterally and less high-handedly than the US has done over the past 20 years. It also suggests that
system is more pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to the crisis, the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial
democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new players is also more limited than it has been in the past, and
will remain so for at least the next few years. The
need for the US to avoid excessive domestic self-absorption is a
real concern as well, given the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy
agenda and economic insecurity from the financial crisis. Managing the post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces
a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act
affirmatively to manage the situation, however, bears two significant and related risks: first, that
China and perhaps some other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in
US-oriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s); second, that a leadership
vacuum will arise in international financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will
over time erode support for a globally integrated economy. Both of these risks if realised would
diminish US foreign policy influence, make the economic system less resilient in response to
future shocks (to every country's detriment), reduce economic growth and thus the rate of reduction in
global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals like controlling climate change or
managing migration and demographic shifts. If the US is to rise to the challenge, it should concentrate on the following
priority measures.
Trade Internal
Failure to reauthorize hurts US trade competitiveness
GPS 7/7
Global Public Square Staff –Fareed Zakaria and Jason Miks “Why the Export-Import Bank matters”
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/07/why-the-export-import-bank-matters/
countries don't always play by the rules of international trade, especially countries where the government and large
China – the most notorious player who hasn't read the rule sheet. The
government of China lavishes subsidies on its companies to make their products more
competitive in the global marketplace.¶ And it's not just subsidies that help Chinese companies. Last year, China's government gave its domestic
companies $111 billion in guarantees, loans and insurance to help them sell their various products overseas.¶ And China is just one example – Japan's companies
got $33 billion worth of such treatment, South Korea $24 billion. And by contrast, the U.S. total
was just $15 billion. Keep in mind that South Korea's economy is less than 1/10th the size of America's!¶ Now this creates a very
You know
companies are really all part of the same team.¶ Take, for example,
uneven playing field , one in which it's tough for many U.S. companies to compete. And if
that’s bad news for the millions of unemployed in this country
American firms are struggling to compete,
.¶ So, how can
America stop these other countries from winning at its expense? The conservative magazine, National Review, usually a staunch supporter of free trade, recently ran a cover
trade sanctions against China. But a trade war is a nuclear response – slowing growth
everywhere, damaging everyone's economy, taking jobs away from Americans and imposing
higher costs on all consumers.¶ A much better idea is to level the playing field
somewhat, by having a U.S. government agency provide low-interest loans to exporters and
guarantees to foreign buyers of American goods.¶ Guess what? We already have one. It's called the
Export-Import Bank, but Washington is about to shut it down – shut down an agency that has been supported by both parties for around 80 years. The Bank's
essay urging Washington to threaten
charter expires on September 30th and Congress will probably not renew it – for the first time ever.¶ Why?¶ Well, because Ex-Im has become what the New York Times
columnist Joe Nocera calls "The Latest Tea Party Piñata."¶ Eric Cantor's loss has emboldened staunch conservatives, some of whom claim that the Ex-Im bank is tantamount to
"crony capitalism" or "corporate welfare." Kevin McCarthy, the newly elected Republican leader of the House, recently declared that he doesn't support the bank's
reauthorization and that the private sector could perform its functions.¶ The thing is, the private sector already covers 98 percent of export financing. The bank is a lender of
"last resort," accounting for just 2 percent of annual exports, but a crucial two percent – cases where there’s a bit more risk than the private sector is comfortable with.¶ The bank
says that it has helped to sustain more than 200,000 jobs in 2013 here in the United States.¶ Much of the opposition circles around the fact that U.S. taxpayers would technically
have to foot the bill if foreign buyers were to default. But, the chances of default are low – in 2013, Ex-Im actually generated $1 billion in income for the Treasury Department.¶
So, if it creates jobs and makes money for tax payers, why has the bank become such a rallying cry for the GOP? The Tea Party is keen on taking on big business. And the Ex-Im
bank, they say, panders to lobbyists, picks winners and losers, and helps giant corporations instead of ordinary Americans.¶ Welcome to the real world of globalization, where
To cut the one institution that does this for
American companies would be unilateral disarmament. It's not as if the Chinese will watch America and say, “oh right, we should
every other major government supports its companies, gives them loans and lines of credit.¶
become free market purists and end all our subsidies.” No, they will simply laugh – all the way to their state-funded, well-subsidized bank.
Econ
The Bank generates Billions in revenue for USFG and US companies
McGovern 7/8
James McGovern is an energy consultant to government and industry. “Opinion: Export-Import Bank essential to
economic success” http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/opinion_exportimport_bank_essential_to_economic_success.html
The most shameful aspect of the attempt by some House conservatives to kill the Export-Import Bank of the United States is that
American workers would suffer the most. This is the real effect of the attack against the bank, which no amount of pious rhetoric
about eliminating a symbol of “corporate welfare” can disguise.¶ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Export-Import
Bank has supported 1.2 million jobs since 2009, including 205,000 last year alone.¶ It doesn’t seem to matter whether it’s a
Democratic administration in office or a Republican administration: There’s
plenty of evidence that during times
when the bank extends loans to businesses seeking to sell their goods and services abroad, the
number of manufacturing jobs in the United States rises.¶ The bank, however, will close down unless Congress
reauthorizes it by Sept. 30. For the sake of our economy and employment, Congress should renew the bank’s charter, since
it is
the one government agency that does most to promote the export of American
products and services.¶ Established 80 years ago, the Ex-Im Bank facilitates exports of everything from
commercial aircraft to nuclear reactor components, guarantees loans for foreign buyers of U.S. products, sells
insurance to U.S. companies dealing in risky parts of the world, and makes a profit of about $1 billion a year in fees and services that
it sends to the Treasury.¶ The fact that Ex-Im
has produced a $14-billion profit over the past 10 years
shouldn’t be surprising; its loan default rate is low — less than one-half of one percent. This allows it to send cash to the
Treasury.¶ Last year, the Ex-Im’s lines of credit supported $37.4 billion in U.S. exports. Though the top beneficiaries of Ex-Im
financing are large corporations, about 70 percent of the 6,000 firms it has aided over the past five years have been small
businesses.¶ The claim that Ex-Im is a symbol of corporate welfare is unwarranted. Most
governments around the
world support exports in similar ways, and many overseas buyers prefer – and, in many cases, require – that their
Such assistance is essential , because
private banks don’t provide financing to small businesses interested
in doing business in sometimes non-democratic or unstable
countries . China, for instance, loads its banks with credit and tells them to lend it to exporters. The European Union
suppliers have financial assistance from their government.¶
provides generous support for European exports. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development says
that export credit agencies worldwide have extended more than $1 trillion in trade finance credit in recent years.¶ If Congress allows
the Ex-Im Bank’s charter to expire, American companies could lose billions of dollars in
overseas orders and move their operations to other countries that provide export financing.
Manufacturing
Needham 7/29
Vicki, The Hill, “Report: Failure to fund Ex-Im Bank puts US manufacturers at global disadvantage”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/213637-report-failure-to-fund-ex-im-bank-puts-us-manufacturers-as-globaldisadvantage
Manufacturers argued on Tuesday that the failure of Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank puts U.S. firms
even further behind in an increasingly competitive global export credit financing market.
A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) concluded that amid the massive size and
growth of foreign export credit activity around the world, eliminating Ex-Im would make it much more difficult for
U.S. manufacturers to compete in rapidly growing sectors such as infrastructure and transportation.
“The size and scope of the Ex-Im Bank pales in comparison to the official export credit agencies of our top
competitors,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.
“If Congress eliminates the Ex-Im Bank, these other nations will jump in and fill the void, and manufacturers in the
United States stand to lose tens of billions of dollars in business.”
The export financing arms of nine of the nation's top trading partners — Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany,
Japan, Mexico, South Korea and the United Kingdom — provided nearly half a trillion dollars in export credit
assistance to their exporters in 2013.
That amount is more than 18 times greater than the $27 billion provided by the Ex-Im Bank last year.
While the U.S. Ex-Im Bank supported about 2.42 percent of all U.S. exports, Germany (3.63 percent), China (12.50
percent) and Canada (20.29 percent) supported a larger share of their countries’ exports.
China dominates the export credit financing landscape, with Beijing's bank authorizing more than $153 billion in
2013, helping to grow exports by nearly 57 percent from 2012.
Without Ex-Im, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. exports will be put at risk annually and foreign manufacturers will
win foreign sales, the report said.
Plus, the growth of U.S. small-business manufacturers will be stunted.
The bank's charter expires Sept. 30. House conservatives are aiming to eliminate the bank because they say it is a
form of corporate cronyism.
A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee will look at problems at the bank at a Tuesday morning
hearing. Bank President Fred Hochberg is set to testify.
The NAM report said that Ex-Im financing has become even more important given growing constraints on privatelending options for certain types of exports, including small business transactions and exports related to long-term
projects and emerging markets where foreign financing is much more active.
Most developed countries and many developing countries have official export credit agencies with more than 60
operating worldwide.