2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier, Lundberg,
Abelkop
Ex-Im Bank Agenda Politics Disad
1NC
Ex-im bank going to pass now
Sherman and Palmer 7/10(Jake-congressional reporter for POLITICO, orked in the Washington bureaus of The Wall Street
Journal, Newsweek and the Minneapolis Star Tribune. He also interned on the metro desk of The Journal News, Anna-senior Washington
correspondent for POLITICO, co-author of the daily newsletter, POLITICO Influence, considered a must-read on K Street. Anna also covered
House leadership and lobbying as a staff writer for Roll Call. She got her start in Washington journalism as a lobbying business reporter for
the industry newsletter Influence. She has also worked at Legal Times, POLITICO, “Ex-Im Bank tests Hensarling”, 7/10/14,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/export-import-bank-jeb-hensarling-108746.html)
The Export-Import
bank, while obscure, is important for American businesses. Its loan guarantees are critical for
giants like Boeing and Caterpillar. But the pleas from businesses large and small haven’t swayed a pocket of conservatives, who
decry the institution as a vestige of crony capitalism. Speaker John Boehner met with Hensarling Wednesday afternoon in his Capitol office.
Officially, Boehner (R-Ohio) is staying away from the issue, more than happy to leave it to Hensarling to come up with a solution.
But privately, Republican leadership sources say that the charter will need to be extended temporarily,
with some reforms that would assist in winding it down. Incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has
called for the bank’s expiration, will not bring a bill to the floor to extend the institution’s charter with some reforms. If Republicans
cannot pass their own bill, they will likely have to accept an extension from the Senate without significant
reforms, likely lumped in with a so-called continuing resolution to keep the government funded beyond Sept. 30. In
other words, Republicans might be presented with the choice of shutting down the government, or
extending the Export-Import Bank just weeks before the midterm elections. Some Hensarling allies have
floated the idea of weeklong government funding measures to force a debate on the bank —a far-fetched
idea, to say the least. All eyes are on Hensarling as he navigates these stormy waters. Conservatives have — and continue — to prod him to
launch a long-shot challenge in November to either Boehner, McCarthy or incoming Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). He’s been in a similar position
before. When federal flood insurance came up for renewal earlier this year, Hensarling could not attract enough support for his plan, and GOP
leadership had to step in and take the reins from him. After this week, Congress
will be in session for just 24 more days, so
there’s not much time to spare. The Export-Import Bank is not only a priority of most businesses, but also many members of
Congress, who have heard from employers in their district about the impact the bank’s closure would have on jobs for constituents. There are
two other lingering issues Congress must take care of, as well: a government funding bill and patching the authority of the Highway Trust Fund.
The House will vote on a highway bill next week. Even members
of his committee are split as to what Hensarling wants
to do. “I can’t speak for Jeb, obviously, I think he would probably introduce something with some reforms,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who
supports extending the bank’s authority. “I’m hedging, because I don’t know what those reforms are. There probably is a majority for some sort
of extension of it.” But Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), also a Financial Services Committee member, said he doesn’t “trust” the Obama
administration to implement any reforms, since he said he believes it ignored changes it mandated in 2012. He wants to get rid of the bank
immediately. “So my question to my friends in both parties who say they just want reforms, they don’t want to get rid of the bank is, ‘What
makes you think it will be different this time?’” Mulvaney said. Asked if Hensarling is on the same page as him, Mulvaney said, “I think that’s
exactly where he is.” There’s been ongoing
internal frustration on the Financial Services Committee and some
friction between the committee leadership and top Republicans. The PATH Act, which eliminated
government-sponsored housing entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, never had enough Republican support to make it to
the House floor. The legislation irked the powerful realtor and home-builder lobbies. Several Republicans heard from interests in
their district, peeved about the bill. Similarly, several Republicans told POLITICO they spent the July 4 recess hearing from
businesses small and large about what congressional inaction on the Export-Import Bank would mean for their company. While Boeing has
been singled out as a beneficiary of the bank, many companies take advantage of it, including powerful business interests like General Electric.
Large trade
groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have been lobbying
aggressively for Congress to take action on the issue. Now, a major effort is underway to try and localize
the bank so that House members are hearing directly from their constituents. Local business leaders are already starting to aggressively
lobby lawmakers to support an extension of the charter. When Congress extended the charter in 2012, it passed despite hefty opposition from
Heritage Action. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/export-import-bank-jeb-hensarling-108746.html#ixzz37TaC2NPg
Export Import Bank will pass, but only if GOP and Dems work together – Bi-part is key.
Fricke 7/1(Peter, Political analyst at The Daily Caller, 7/1/14, “Democrats Rally support for Export-Import Bank”, The Daily Caller,
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/democrats-rally-support-for-export-import-bank/)//
Senate Democrats are going on the offensive to build support for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. In a
conference call with members of the press on Tuesday, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, New York Sen. Charles Schumer and North Dakota Sen.
made the case that the bank plays a crucial role in the economy by promoting American
manufacturing and stimulating domestic job growth. (RELATED: Don’t Kill the Ex-Im Bank, Expand It) Despite the fact that an
Heidi Heitkamp
overwhelming preponderance of the bank’s loan guarantees have gone to subsidize the exports of some of the country’s largest companies — in
2012, for instance, 82 percent of loan guarantees went to customers of Boeing — the
call focused heavily on the ways that the
bank supports small businesses. Cantwell began by asserting that “3,400 small businesses used the Ex-Im Bank last year… and
200,000 jobs were supported” because the bank “fills a void in the private sector, where financing is not available.” Asked for her response to
criticisms that the bank primarily helps large companies, Cantwell argued, “90 percent of Ex-Im transactions involve small businesses” and that
“U.S. manufacturers have supply chains that consist of thousands of small businesses, all of whom benefit from Ex-Im loans” that stimulate
exports. Also contributing to the call were several business leaders, who explained how the Export-Import Bank has benefited their companies.
Among these was Rick Burke of Measurement Technology Northwest, who claimed that his company currently has “over $2 million in X-M
support” and is “expecting employment to grow by 15 percent, due entirely to growth in international sales” this year. Jody Milanese, vice
president of government relations for the National Small Business Association, said, “Getting paid is a major concern for exporters,” so much so
that 69 percent of American exporters refuse to provide goods or services until after payments are processed. Milanese argued the ExportImport Bank removes this obstacle by providing insurance against both commercial and political risks, which “helps small businesses compete in a
global marketplace.” Historically,
renewing the Ex-Im Bank’s charter has not been a controversial issue — most of
the previous 16 reauthorizations have passed on a voice vote with strong bipartisan support — but growing
opposition to business subsidies among Republicans has led several prominent party leaders, including House Financial Services Committee
Chairman Jeb Hensarling, to come out against reauthorization of the bank. According to Hensarling, the bank is just another example of “crony
capitalism” that undermines the economy by directing its support toward politically well-connected companies. You NEED to See the 20 Most
ANNOYING Habits in Public Tran… Rant Lifestyle New Policy - If You Drive 50 mi/day or Less You Better Rea… Smart Life Weekly 15 Good Looking
Celebrities Who Destroyed Themselv… SheBudgets 10 Celebs Who've Been Banned From Talk Shows Answers by TaboolaSponsored Content
Republicans are not unanimous on the issue, though, and 41 have signed a letter expressing support for
reauthorization of the bank’s charter. If such a bill reaches the floor in the House, those 41 Republicans
are more than enough to assure passage if the Democrats vote yes. (RELATED: “GOP: Just Say No to Ex-Im) Yet it
remains an open question whether the bill will be called for a vote, since Speaker of the House John Boehner has so far declined to take a
position. Schumer seemed to take Boehner’s
equivocation as a cause for optimism, saying, “There is more support
for the bill among Republicans in the Senate, so if we can put together a bipartisan majority in the Senate, it might put pressure
on the House” to bring the bill to a vote. Schumer went on to predict, “If Boehner allows the reauthorization bill to come to
the floor, it will pass with support from both parties.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/01/democrats-rallysupport-for-export-import-bank/#ixzz37TLXbhvh
Offshore drilling sparks intense political conflict – finger-pointing, oil subsidies, and
rider bills
Barrett et al. 8
Ted, Deirdre Walsh, and Kate Bolduan – reporters for CNN Politics (“Congress to revisit fight over
offshore oil drilling”, September 8 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/congress.energy/)//
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawmakers
return to Capitol Hill on Monday to resume their fight over legislation allowing
more offshore oil drilling, in a bid to help relieve sky-high gasoline prices that are hurting the economy and infuriating
voters. Republicans believe offshore oil drilling will be a winning issue for them this fall. While there were signs of
compromise over the August recess, many on Capitol Hill are skeptical a deal can be reached that would send a bill to the president's desk
before Election Day. Aides
and congressional members from both parties acknowledge finger-pointing is
likely to trump legislative deal-making during the truncated three-week session before lawmakers return home to campaign for
re-election. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who long resisted Republican-led calls to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, changed
course over the recess and now say they will push comprehensive energy plans in September that will include expanded drilling. But
Democrats will insist energy bills also include their own priorities, such as repealing tax breaks for big
oil companies, something many Republicans oppose. "If this is going to be a fig leaf, a political
document, then it's doomed to failure at the end of the day," Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, said Friday about the
package being put together by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California. Despite a recent dip in prices at the pump, Republicans
believe expanded oil drilling remains a potent political issue. They feel emboldened by complaints they
heard from constituents over the summer break, and they are convinced their August protest sessions on the House
floor helped draw attention to a lack of congressional action on energy policy. Video Watch what voters told one
Democratic congressman » Republicans also expect a boost from their vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a strong advocate of
drilling. Delegates at the Republican National convention last week showed their fervor for drilling by punctuating speeches with chants of
"drill, baby, drill." Republicans believe Democrats are underestimating the political importance voters give the issue. They point to Sen. Chuck
Schumer, D-New York, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign effort, who was quoted last month in the newspaper Politico, saying the
drilling issue had "peaked" for voters. Pelosi plans to unveil her bill by the end of the week, her office said. In addition to allowing limited
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, the measure is expected to include curbs on market speculators, and provisions promoting the use of
alternative sources of energy and requiring the release of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve. "Democrats support
drilling, but a 'drill only' plan would do nothing but drill deeper and deeper into your wallet," Rep. John
Larson, D-Connecticut, said last week. A bipartisan compromise group in the Senate known as the "Gang of 10" expanded to 16 members
over the break. Several more members are expected to join this week, a source involved with the group told CNN. The bill the "gang" is pushing
would tie new offshore drilling to $84 billion in investments in conservation and the use of alternative fuels. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nevada, is working with the group and may link its bill to a package of tax breaks for producers of wind, solar,
and other alternative fuels, an aide to the senator said. Senate Republicans are wary of Reid because they don't
think he will allow votes on their amendments, something they will insist upon, even if the bill includes
provisions they support, like offshore drilling, a Senate Republican leadership aide told CNN. Senators are holding a
bipartisan energy summit Friday, sponsored by Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, to hear from industry
experts, but it's not clear the summit will actually help bridge differences between many Democrats and
Republicans. The controversy over offshore drilling could prompt a showdown later this month over a must-pass bill to fund the
government through early 2009. The bill includes an annual extension of the moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
3. Ex-Im Bank key to US-India Relations – finances bilateral trade
The Hindu 11, [The Hindu, Indian news service leading India Daily, "India can emerge as largest
portfolio for U.S. Exim Bank," Published 22 July 2011 @ www.thehindu.com/business/article2285580.ece]
Tusnial
India will emerge as the largest portfolio for U.S. Export Import Bank soon and the bank is committed to supporting
Indian companies to make the U.S. the gateway to do business with the world, said bank Chairman and President Fred Hochberg here on Friday.
In the last decade Indo-U.S. relations have emerged as the key driver to the stability of Southeast Asia.
Giving strength to a positive diplomatic relationship is its business with bilateral trade between the two
countries rising by 30 per cent in 2010 from the previous year to $36.50 billion. India is U.S.'s 12th largest
trading partner, up from the 25th position in 2000. To give further boost to Indo-U.S. business ties, a priority
mandated by U.S. President Barack Obama during his India visit last year, Mr. Hochberg wrapped up a
successful round of business development mission in India with an interaction with the captains of Indian industry, organised by
the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). During the weeklong trip, the chairman participated in strategic dialogue meeting between the
two nations, held discussions with Indian businesses and banks about new infrastructure projects in refining,
petrochemical, construction, transportation, and power projects. Mr. Hochberg also announced $25 million in Ex-Im Bank
loans for two new solar-energy projects included in the India's National Solar Mission. On foreign direct investment, Mr. Hochberg
said, “One of the best ways to increase FDI in any country is to increase export. When two countries do
more trade with each other and get acclimatised to each others businesses and markets, FDI will naturally follow. FDI is not an
alternative to export, but the two go hand in hand.” The sectors that will see the greatest bilateral partnership are
infrastructure and renewable energy and Mr. Hochberg, laid emphasis on his invitation to companies in these two sectors to
approach Ex-Im Bank. Highlighting the importance of Ex-Im Bank as the official export credit agency of the U.S.
and its mission to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets,
Banmali Agrawala, Past Chairman — CII (Western Region) and Executive Director, Strategy and Business Development, Tata Power
Company, said, “In the last nine months, Ex-Im Bank has approved 173 transactions, involving 100
companies and $1.4 billion in financing of U.S. exports to India. Some of the sectors that Indian
companies could benefit are power and infrastructure, aviation, construction equipment, farm
equipment, solar energy, medical equipment to name a few.”
4. US-India relations key – climate change, prolif, economy, and South Asian stability
Cookman and Katulis 9 [Colin Cookman is the Special Assistant for National Security at American Progress and Brian Katulis is
a Senior Fellow “The U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Is Vital,” Published 24 November 2008 @
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/india_state_visit.html ] Tusnial
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits
Washington this week for a four-day state visit to discuss a range of
issues crucial to the developing strategic partnership between the United States and India. The U.S.-India
partnership is critical to President Barack Obama’s national security agenda on climate change, economic
growth, and nuclear proliferation. There’s also the
question of how the United States can balance efforts to deepen bilateral ties while simultaneously working to normalize the tense relations between
India and its neighbor, Pakistan, as the one-year anniversary of the Mumbai terrorist attacks approaches. The Indian leader’s trip marks the first official state visit of the Obama administration, with a ceremonial welcome and a black-tie dinner later today. That the Obama administration
chose India as the first country to receive the honor of a state visit is not surprising given the country’s importance to several Obama administration national security priorities. Major topics of discussion between the two teams will likely include climate change cooperation in advance of
international talks next month at Copenhagen, growing economic ties between India and the United States and the ongoing global economic crisis, and the careful balance of nuclear proliferation cooperation with a desire to make good on the 2008 civil nuclear trade deal. Prime Minister
Singh’s visit comes during a sensitive period for U.S. diplomacy around the world. The luster is wearing off from the Obama administration’s initial honeymoon period of foreign policy, leading to growing questions about what the Obama administration has tangibly achieved with its new style
of diplomatic outreach. President Obama’s trip to Asia last week raised some concerns in India that the United States was acceding to China’s growing power without demonstrating India’s important role, and this state visit is aimed at signaling the importance of U.S.-India ties. Gaining India’s
cooperation on a range of issues will be an important test of the Obama administration’s ability to achieve results in his fo reign policy. The trip also comes at a critical juncture for U.S. policymaking in the South Asian region, as President Obama decides on a new strategy for U.S. forces in
Afghanistan and the Pakistani government’s position becomes increasingly precarious in the face of internal political and militant opposition. All of this takes place against the backdrop of the upcoming one-year anniversary of the November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, which killed
172 people and set Indo-Pakistani relations on a precarious edge that continues today. U.S. policymakers and their counterparts in the region face a major challenge as they attempt to shape forward-looking regional and bilateral policies while anticipating and guarding against threats by
spoiler groups seeking to derail progress toward achieving those goals. The possibility of another Mumbai-style attack looms as one of the major dangers that could have ripple effects throughout the region. Earlier this month India sent its sixth major dossier of evidence in connection to the
Mumbai attacks to the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which promised to study the materials but gave little other public comment. The U.S. intelligence and diplomatic communities—with ties to both India and Pakistan—have played an important role in facilitating these transactions, but
Pakistani authorities have been slow to show tangible action against domestic terror groups that target its neighbors, as Indian officials have repeatedly demanded. Pakistan has instituted criminal proceedings in a special antiterror court against seven members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT,
a militant group responsible for carrying out the Mumbai attacks despite the group’s long-standing ties to the military and intelligence services. But those proceedings remain closed to public view and have been subject to repeated poorly explained delays. Charges against LeT founder Hafiz
Saeed were dismissed earlier this summer after nearly six months of his being placed under house arrest, part of a broader problem of inconclusive prosecutions by Pakistan’s weak institutions against figures associated with but not directly implicated in terrorism in Pakistan. The group’s
political and charitable wings have been active in relief efforts for ongoing military operations against Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan militants who target the state in Pakistan’s northwest. The Mumbai attacks came early in Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s term as president, when he had been
publicly downplaying the country’s long-standing rivalry with India and just a month after a direct trade route had been opened across the Line of Control separating India- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir for the first time in 60 years. Indian policymakers showed welcome restraint in the
aftermath of the attacks, but unfortunately the attacks effectively derailed a tentative “composite dialogue” process begun in 2004 that has yet to be repaired despite meetings between Prime Minister Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of a number of
multilateral forums over the past year. The Pakistani government has called for a resumption of the dialogue and both sides reaffirmed a “resolve to fight terrorism and cooperate with each other to this end” at a July conference in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt. But India shows little appetite for
concessions absent a demonstrated ability on the Pakistani side to rein in groups like LeT or the sectors of the military establishment that have supported it. President Zardari now finds himself beset by domestic political crises and unable to deliver effective measures to build confidence in
his government. For example, the Pakistani military establishment places much of the blame on Zardari for provisions in the recent $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar aid bill passed by the U.S. Congress, which it considers an infringement on its authorities. The military also distrusts Zardari’s earlier
overtures toward India and ties to the United States. Opposition parties continue to press Zardari to make good on promises t o surrender powers of appointment gathered in the office of the presidency during the Musharraf regime that Zardari has yet to deliver upon. Meanwhile, the
Pakistani governing coalition has failed to hold together and pass the reauthorization of the National Reconciliation Ordinance in parliament, which provides amnesty for key party members from outstanding corruption charges —Zardari himself enjoys presidential immunity under the
constitution—and is set to expire November 28 after the Supreme Court found its 2007 promulgation by former president Pervez Musharraf unconstitutional. This failure has further churned the waters of the Pakistani political establishment and distracted it from ongoing military operations
in South Waziristan and any further serious efforts at rapprochement with India. While most Indian political leaders recognize that Pakistan’s internal problems and their spillover effects cannot be resolved by direct military action, the danger of escalating tit-for-tat responses in the face of
future spoiler attacks during this period of ongoing uncertainty is real. Although the United States cannot and should not attempt to orchestrate internal politics on either side of the border, it is critical to maintain a clear sense of what our policies in the South Asia region are working toward
achieving in the long term, and to apply the necessary leverage consistently to all parties to shape the strategic calculations of the countries to advance stability in this tense area of the world So what steps should we take? Our priorities should be
increased
cooperation between the U.S. and Indian intelligence and police services as well as with Pakistani civilian agencies like the Federal
Investigation Agency and the Intelligence Bureau. This cooperation has improved in the wake of last year’s attacks, but more can be done to
help protect innocent civilians in India and Pakistan from future attacks. America should work toward renewing the composite
dialogue process between India and Pakistan and resuming a meaningful exchange of confidence-building measures, in both the security and
economic spheres. If formal, government-to-government dialogues between India and Pakistan are difficult to restart at this time, the Obama
administration should
encourage unofficial, track two contacts between not only India and Pakistan but all of
the countries in South Asia—to discuss ways to deescalate tensions and introduce confidence-building
measures. For too many years, U.S. policy in South Asia has been reactive to events and in crisis
management mode, and outlining a plan to achieve a sustainable regional security framework in South
Asia must be done in close coordination with friends in India and other countries in the region. The primary goal of U.S.
policy toward the region over the next decade should be the development of a framework for the durable normalization of relations between
India and Pakistan. Achieving this goal requires a delicate balancing act with a close strategic partner like India—deepening the bilateral ties and
cooperation that the Bush administration enhanced between the United States and India while at the same time working multilaterally to
advance regional stability and achieve progress on global challenges.
Export-import bank is key to the economy-bank provides millions of jobs and billions
in revenue
Jeff Wasden, served on the Board of Directors and as Board President for Highlands Ranch Community
Association for 10 years. He Chairs the Business Leaders for Responsible Government group and the
Legislative Action Committee. He also serves on the Littleton Firefighters Board and is very active in his
community as well as on the political fronts, 7-11-14, “Export-Import Bank is vital, necessary for
continued growth and prosperity,” http://coloradostatesman.com/content/994979-export-import-bankvital-necessary-continued-growth-and-prosperity
Too often, politics hamper the ability of businesses to expand and put Americans to work. What used to be an
important bipartisan reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank has now fallen firmly in the crosshairs of some members of the GOP.
Charges of crony capitalism and big governmental overreach flow freely from opposition tongues. “Let the private
sector fill that space in the market. Those big companies don’t need the Ex-Im Bank, they can get capital on their own,” scream critics. While I
can appreciate the basis for their argument, their facts on this issue are off base and in some cases, just flat out wrong.
While numerous presidents have lauded the successes of the Ex-Im Bank, I want to quote two former U.S. Presidents for context: President
Ronald Reagan, January 30, 1984: “In
order for the United States to maintain its strong position in foreign
markets, it is important that the Congress pass the Export-Import Bank bill and avoid attaching unnecessary
encumbrances.” President George W. Bush, June 14, 2002: “I have today signed into law S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank
Reauthorization Act of 2002. This legislation will ensure the continued effective operation of the Export-Import Bank, which helps advance
U.S. trade policy, facilitate the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad, and create jobs here at home.”
The Ex-Im Bank’s primary mission is American jobs. By financing the export of American goods and services, the Ex-Im
Bank has supported 1.2 million private-sector American jobs — 205,000 in 2013 alone. This April, the United States
exported $193.3 billion of goods and services according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce Department. Exports of
goods and services over the last year totaled $2.3 trillion, which is 45.1 percent above the level of exports in 2009, and
have been growing at an annualized rate of 9.0 percent when compared to the 2009 level. In fiscal year 2013, Ex-Im Bank approved
more than $27 billion in total authorizations. For the year, the Ex-Im Bank approved 3,413 transactions for
small business. Of the total number of transactions approved just last year, 89 percent were for small business, the
backbone of American Main Street economies. While critics tend to overlook this important fact, the disparity in the total
number of transactions for big and small business make the argument for reauthorization even stronger.
For those that do not understand the composition of the Ex-Im Bank, it is an independent, self-sustaining agency that fills in the gaps in private
export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. It is the official export credit agency of the U.S. The Bank provides a variety of financing
mechanisms including working-capital guarantees, export-credit insurance, and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and
services. In the past five years, the Bank has earned $2 billion more than the cost of its operations and after covering loan loss reserves. That is
money that is put in the Treasury to help reduce the federal deficit. The
Ex-Im Bank does not compete against the private sector
but acts as a complimentary player. While they work to fill in the gaps through loans, guarantees, and insurance programs, the
private sector lenders are Ex-Im Bank partners. During the FY 2013, 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions involved commercial banks.
How does Colorado benefit from the Ex-Im Bank? Since 2007, 93 Colorado exporters have used the Ex-Im — 68 of those exporters are small
businesses. International trade (both exports and imports) supports 680,000 Colorado jobs. These jobs are related to both large and small
companies from farms to factories to headquarters of Colorado’s globally engaged firms. Colorado alone exports tens of billions of dollars in
goods and services annually. Exports have been shipped to 210 countries with top countries like Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, China and
Mexico. Today, more than one in five jobs depend on international trade! Rhetoric
is tossed around. A few members of Congress have
made “killing” the Ex-Im Bank one of their priorities, but I feel we must hold politicians to the same standard as they ask us to
do as citizens — to look at the facts and make an informed decision. Money returned to the Treasury, supporting and
growing U.S. jobs, helping manufacturing and other key industries remain viable in America and putting Americans to work. From
companies big and small, from the rural farmlands to high rise corporate America, the Ex-Im Bank has been a vital and
necessary tool for continued growth and prosperity. Why cut off one of the most efficient, low risk,
successful programs that contributes to the “jobs, jobs, jobs” focus that is so important to both political parties?
Please let your member of Congress know that you support continued American prosperity, increased opportunities to promote and sell goods
and services and a program that lets the world stage know that the U.S. is open for business. This is one program that businesses of all sizes and
citizens from differing political affiliations should stand together with locked arms and tout the ongoing success and viability of; a program that
has carved into the debt while at the same time supporting working families all across this great nation. Let’s not say we are open for business
and then shut down one of the tools that help grow our economy. I urge all members of Congress to look at the proposed changes and to make
the right choice for American business and reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank.
Economic decline triggers 15 unique scenarios for instability and global nuclear war
Duncan, 12 – chief economist at Singapore-based Blackhorse Asset Management, former financial sector specialist at the World Bank and
global head of investment strategy at ABN AMRO Asset Management, studied literature and economics at Vanderbilt University (1983) and
international finance at Babson College (1986); (Richard, “The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy”, 2/24/12,
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Depression-Breakdown-ebook/dp/B007GZOYI6) JCP
*1) US Internal disorder; 2) Trade Collapse; 3) Militarism; 4) Heg collapse; 5) Middle East War; 6) Crime; 7) Pacific Drawdown; 8) Chinese
Aggression; 9) Chinese Instability (nuclear); 10) European Totalitarianism; 11) UK instability; 12) Russian Expansionism; 13) German
Remilitarization; 14) Food Riots; 15) Prolonged Global Warfare
The consequences of a New Great Depression would extend far beyond the realm of economics. Hungry
people will fight to survive. Governments will use force to maintain internal order at home. This section
considers the geopolitical repercussion of economic collapse, beginning with the United States.¶ First, the
U.S. government’s tax revenues would collapse with the depression. Second, because global trade would
shrivel up, other countries would no longer help finance the U.S. budget deficit by buying government bonds
because they would no longer have the money to do so. At present, the rest of the world has a $500 billion annual trade surplus with the
United States. The central banks of the United States’ trading partners accumulate that surplus as foreign exchange reserves and invest most of
those reserves into U.S. government bonds. An
economic collapse would cause global trade to plummet and
drastically reduce (if not eliminate altogether) the U.S. trade deficit. Therefore, this source of foreign funding for
the U.S. budget deficit would dry up.¶ Consequently, the government would have to sharply curtail its
spending, both at home and abroad. Domestically, social programs for the old, the sick, and the unemployed would have to be slashed.
Government spending on education and infrastructure would also have to be curtailed. Much less government spending would result in a
dramatic increase in poverty and, consequently, in crime. This
would combine to produce a crisis of the current twoparty political system. Astonishment, frustration, and anger at the economic breakdown would
radicalize politics. New parties would form at both extremes of the political spectrum. Given the great and growing income
inequality going into the crisis, the hungry have-nots would substantially outnumber the remaining
wealthy. On the one hand, a hard swing to the left would be the outcome most likely to result from democratic elections. In that case, the
tax rates on the top income brackets could be raised to 80 percent or more, a level last seen in 1963. On the
other hand, the possibility of a right-wing putsch could not be ruled out. During the Great Depression,
the U.S. military was tiny in comparison with what it became during World War II and during the
decades of hot, cold, and terrorist wars that followed. In this New Great Depression, it might be the
military that ultimately determines how the country would be governed.¶ The political battle over
America’s future would be bitter, and quite possibly bloody. It cannot be guaranteed that the U.S.
Constitution would survive.¶ Foreign affairs would also confront the United States with enormous
challenges. During the Great Depression, the United States did not have a global empire. Now it does. The
United States maintains hundreds of military bases across dozens of countries around the world. Added to this is a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers
and 18 nuclear-armed submarines. The country spends more than $650 billion a year on its military. If
the U.S. economy collapses
into a New Great Depression, the United States could not afford to maintain its worldwide military
presence or to continue in its role as global peacekeeper. Or, at least, it could not finance its military in
the same way it does at present.¶ Therefore, either the United States would have to find an alternative
funding method for its global military presence or else it would have to radically scale it back.
Historically, empires were financed with plunder and territorial expropriation. The estates of the vanquished ruling
classes were given to the conquering generals, while the rest of the population was forced to pay imperial taxes.¶ The U.S. model of
empire has been unique. It has financed its global military presence by issuing government debt, thereby
taxing future generations of Americans to pay for this generation’s global supremacy. That would no longer be possible if the
economy collapsed. Cost–benefit analysis would quickly reveal that much of America’s global presence
was simply no longer affordable. Many—or even most—of the outposts that did not pay for themselves would have to be
abandoned. Priority would be given to those places that were of vital economic interests to the United
States. The Middle East oil fields would be at the top of that list. The United States would have to maintain control over them whatever the
price.¶ In this global depression scenario, the price of oil could collapse to $3 per barrel. Oil consumption would fall by half and there would be
no speculators left to manipulate prices higher. Oil at that level would impoverish the oil-producing nations, with extremely destabilizing
political consequences. Maintaining
control over the Middle East oil fields would become much more difficult
for the United States. It would require a much larger military presence than it does now. On the one hand, it might become
necessary for the United States to reinstate the draft (which would possibly meet with violent resistance from draftees, as it
did during the Vietnam War). On the other hand, America’s all-volunteer army might find it had more than enough volunteers with the national
unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent.
The army might have to be employed to keep order at home, given that
mass unemployment would inevitably lead to a sharp spike in crime.¶ Only after the Middle East oil was secured
would the country know how much more of its global military presence it could afford to maintain.¶ If international trade had broken down,
would there be any reason for the United States to keep a military presence in Asia when there was no obvious way to finance that presence?
In a global depression, the United States’ allies in Asia would most likely be unwilling or unable to
finance America’s military bases there or to pay for the upkeep of the U.S. Pacific fleet. Nor would the
United States have the strength to force them to pay for U.S. protection. Retreat from Asia might
become unavoidable.¶ And Europe? What would a cost–benefit analysis conclude about the wisdom of the United States maintaining
military bases there? What valued added does Europe provide to the United States? Necessity may mean Europe will have to defend
itself.¶ Should a New Great Depression put an end to the Pax Americana, the world would become a
much more dangerous place. When the Great Depression began, Japan was the rising industrial power
in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and conquered much of the rest of Asia in the early 1940s. Would China, Asia’s new rising
power, behave the same way in the event of a new global economic collapse? Possibly. China is the only
nuclear power in Asia east of India (other than North Korea, which is largely a Chinese satellite state).¶ However, in this disaster
scenario, it is not certain that China would survive in its current configuration. Its economy would be in ruins. Most of
its factories and banks would be closed. Unemployment could exceed 30 percent. There would most likely be starvation both in the cities and in
the countryside. The
Communist Party could lose its grip on power, in which case the country could break
apart, as it has numerous times in the past. It was less than 100 years ago that China’s provinces, ruled by warlords, were at war with one
another.¶ United or divided, China’s nuclear arsenal would make it Asia’s undisputed superpower if the United
States were to withdraw from the region. From Korea and Japan in the North to New Zealand in the South to Burma in the West,
all of Asia would be at China’s mercy. And hunger among China’s population of 1.3 billion people could necessitate territorial expansion into
Southeast Asia. In fact, the central government might not be able to prevent mass migration southward, even if it wanted to. ¶ In
Europe,
severe economic hardship would revive the centuries-old struggle between the left and the right. During
the 1930s, the Fascists movement arose and imposed a police state on most of Western Europe. In the
East, the Soviet Union had become a communist police state even earlier. The far right and the far left
of the political spectrum converge in totalitarianism . It is difficult to judge whether Europe’s democratic institutions would
hold up better this time that they did last time.¶ England had an empire during the Great Depression. Now it only has
banks. In a severe worldwide depression, the country— or, at least London—could become ungovernable.
Frustration over poverty and a lack of jobs would erupt into anti-immigration riots not only in the United Kingdom but also across most of
Europe.¶ The extent to which Russia would menace its European neighbors is unclear. On the one hand, Russia would be impoverished by the
collapse in oil prices and might be too preoccupied with internal unrest to threaten anyone. On the other hand, it could
provoke a war
with the goal of maintaining internal order through emergency wartime powers.¶ Germany is very nearly
demilitarized today when compared with the late 1930s. Lacking a nuclear deterrent of its own, it could be subject to
Russian intimidation. While Germany could appeal for protection from England and France, who do have
nuclear capabilities, it is uncertain that would buy Germany enough time to remilitarize before it
became a victim of Eastern aggression.¶ As for the rest of the world, its prospects in this disaster
scenario can be summed up in only a couple of sentences. Global economic output could fall by as much
as half, from $60 trillion to $30 trillion. Not all of the world’s seven billion people would survive in a $30 trillion global economy.
Starvation would be widespread. Food riots would provoke political upheaval and myriad big and small
conflicts around the world . It would be a humanitarian catastrophe so extreme as to be unimaginable
for the current generation, who, at least in the industrialized world, has known only prosperity. Nor
would there be reason to hope that the New Great Depression would end quickly. The Great
Depression was only ended by an even more calamitous global war that killed approximately 60
million people.
**U
2NC – U Wall
(Will pass)
Extend Sherman and Palmer, There is current Bipart support for the bill.
Bank overcoming opposition and regained momentum-lobbying and public support
propelling bi-part legislation
Needham 7/10(Vicki, Reporter, blogger at The Hill Reporter at Roll Call Group Washington editor at The Orange County Register
Reporter at The Island Packet Reporter at Congressional Quarterly, The Hill, “Momentum builds for Ex-Im Bank in Senate”, 7/10/14,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/211922-momentum-builds-for-ex-im-bank-in-senate)
Once in doubt, the push
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank is gaining a head of steam in the Senate.
Senate Republicans are signaling broad support in their caucus for a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize
the bank’s charter for five years. ADVERTISEMENT The positive reception to the bill has buoyed supporters of Ex-Im after bitter
clashes with conservative outside groups that decry the bank as “corporate welfare” and are determined to
close it down. “It’s really encouraging to see so many members on both sides of aisle talk about Ex-Im,” said
Lauren Airey, director of trade facilitation policy for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which supports reauthorizing the bank.
Airey said lawmakers are
beginning to coalesce around a bill that Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Mark Kirk
(R-Ill.) are expected to introduce soon. “All the education and outreach is resonating with members of Congress and they will continue to
hear that message,” Airey said. NAM and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have taken the lead in a major lobbying push to
renew Ex-Im, with the support of hundreds of other business groups. They are trying to sell lawmakers on the
importance of the bank by making the connection to jobs in their states and districts. Without congressional action, the bank’s charter expires
on Sept. 30. Still, the legislative path for a bill remains murky, even with Sen. Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) saying he expects a bill
to pass the Senate before the start of the August recess. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the leader of the House Financial
Services Committee, is a vocal critic of Ex-Im, and it remains unclear when — or if — he will move forward with legislation. Senate Banking,
meanwhile, could mark up its Ex-Im legislation or shoot it straight to the floor for consideration. The measure falls under the jurisdiction of
Manchin’s Banking subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance, where Kirk holds the post of ranking Republican.
The panel requires a week’s notice for hearings, meaning the earliest the panel could consider the legislation is probably the week of July 21,
putting it another week closer to the start of the summer recess, with little time to reach an agreement. The leading option at the moment
seems to be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) attaching the bank reauthorization to a short-term continuing resolution aimed at
keeping the government running beyond Oct. 1. But there is the possibility that the bill could be added to another bill dealing with the Highway
Trust Fund or terrorism insurance. NAM isn’t taking a standalone bill off the table, but that option would only be possible if the Senate could
get past the procedural quarrels that have derailed other legislation. In 2012, the Senate renewed Ex-Im charter with broad support in a 78-20
vote, and many of the Republicans who supported the bank last time are signing on again. The group
of Republicans who say they
will vote for bank’s continuation include Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Tim Scott (S.C.),
Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mike Johanns (Neb.) and Rob Portman (Ohio). Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had said he is inclined to
back it but wants to take a look at the proposal. With 53 Democrats in support of Ex-Im, legislation renewing the
charter would
easily overcome a cloture vote. Linda Dempsey, vice president of international economic affairs at NAM, said that lawmakers
should expect to hear from businesses back home “more intensely over the next few weeks.” John Feehery,
a Republican consultant who worked for former Speaker Dennis Hastert and is a columnist at The Hill, said earlier this week he is convinced the
bank’s charter will win a reauthorization, although probably with some reforms. Even though House conservatives have mounted their biggest
campaign yet against the bank, 41 House Republicans signed a letter in support of reauthorizing it that was sent to Speaker John Boehner (ROhio). Retiring Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) and Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) say they each also have legislation in the works, boosting hopes
among business groups that a bill can get through Congress. “As this debate continues the importance of Ex-Im to jobs in the United States is
more important not less important,” Dempsey said. Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/211922-momentum-builds-for-ex-im-bankin-senate#ixzz37TUEBJR6 Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Bill has enough votes and the passion of democrats-Bank Renewal is seen as a defining
issue for democrats
Greeenblatt 7/13(Alan, overing politics and government in Washington and around the country for 20 years. He came to NPR as a
digital reporter in 2010, writing about a wide range of topics, including elections, housing economics, natural disasters and same-sex marriage,
and a reporter at Govenor, NPR, 7/13/14, “Congress' Latest Death Match Involves A Bank You've Never Heard Of”,
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330434582/congress-latest-death-match-involves-a-bank-youve-never-heard-of)
But opponents of the bank have an ace up their sleeve. Killing the bank isn't like trying to abolish the Affordable Care Act, say, or funding highway construction —
decisions that would require all the political branches to agree and then take action. The bank's
authorization will simply expire on Sept.
30, unless Congress takes an affirmative vote to keep it going. It's not like its building would then be padlocked on Oct. 1. It
would continue to service existing loans, without issuing any new ones. It would be like a single-agency shutdown, with a skeleton crew hanging around to oversee
the bank's slow death. The business
lobby is pushing hard to prevent that. A Senate bill to keep the bank in
business is expected to be introduced any day and should have enough support to pass. A group of 41 House
Republicans last month signed a letter calling for the bank's reauthorization. But many members of their caucus are
bound to resist holding a vote to extend the bank, which would likely pass with largely Democratic support. "I believe it is a defining issue for our
party and our movement," Hensarling said in his Heritage speech. And, if Congress has shown itself capable of anything lately, it's not voting on
something.
GOP on board-Bill will pass
Alex Rogers, reporter in TIME's Washington bureau, 7-9-14, “Export-Import Bank Wins Enough GOP
Support for Passage,” http://time.com/2969891/export-import-bank-congress-republicans/
Vote count makes clear business-friendly
Republicans can beat back conservatives An obscure government
bank loathed by conservatives but backed by business now has enough Republican support to win
reauthorization before it expires this fall, according to a TIME vote count. The fight over the Export-Import
bank—which provides billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to help foreigners purchase U.S. goods.—has divided
small-government conservatives and more business-friendly establishment Republicans, with one top conservative even calling it a
“defining issue” for the GOP. But after months of uncertainty, a sufficient number Republicans in both the House and
Senate support reauthorization—if House leaders allow a vote to come to the floor. Of the 23 current Senate Republicans
who voted to extend the charter in 2012, five members—Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Thad Cochran (RMiss.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)—have indicated publicly or to TIME that they support the bank.
Freshman Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) supports the bank, as does Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who did not vote on the 2012 legislation but is working with
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) on a bill to reauthorize its charter. Assuming all 53 Democratic Senators vote for the reauthorization, the
Senate has enough votes to keep the bank alive. And with 41 House Republicans supporting reauthorization in a letter to
House Speaker John Boehner late last month, the GOP-controlled chamber also has enough votes when widespread
Democratic support is included. If the Democratic-controlled Senate tied the fate of the bank to a shortterm spending resolution to keep the government open, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering, House
Republicans would have to make the difficult choice of whether or not to shut the government down to block a bank few
Americans have heard of. That seems unlikely, with even Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a fierce opponent, estimating recently
that only “1 in 1,000” have ever heard of the bank, and with memories of last year’s government
shutdown and the damage it did to the party’s poll numbers still fresh.
AT: UQ overwhelms link
Fricke says there has been fighting with conservatives, but as of now there is enough
cooperation to pass the bill.
The battle over reauthorization will still be contentious - Obama supports
reauthorization and has invested the political capital to maintain support
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 06-27 ["Bipartisan Export-Import Bank Debate Could Heat Up This
Summer", http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/27/bipartisan-export-import-bank-debatecould-heat-up-this-summer] ttate
There’s a lot of mudslinging going on in the Beltway and beyond over the previously little-known Export-Import Bank.
Its authorization slated to expire on September 30, the bank issues loan guarantees to foreign companies who want to
purchase American goods, like mining equipment from Caterpillar and airplanes from Boeing. One might assume by its pro-export
mission and its ability to provide funding where the private sector cannot that the 80-year-old agency might glean support
across the political spectrum. Yet many conservative opponents of the agency decry it as “corporate
welfare” that benefits a select few while unloading a tax burden on Americans. [VOTE: Should Congress Kill the
Export-Import Bank?] Though the argument doesn’t fissure cleanly across party lines, it’s likely to only heat up
this summer, as it did in 2012 right before its last reauthorization. The Obama administration, along with
a spectrum of business organizations, thousands of companies and many conservatives, supports a
reauthorization while other conservatives like incoming House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy
advocate against it. At play is a complex debate over big business favoritism versus the need for global
competitiveness. “We see at the Export-Import Bank is a tangible and important contribution to the U.S.
economy,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at a press briefing June 24. “The president has spent a
lot of time over the course of this year talking about expanding economic opportunity being the focal
point of his domestic policy agenda.”
Bank will be packaged with the highway trust fund-means passage
John Breshnahan and Jake Sherman, Politico, 7-9-14, “Export-Import bank may be tied to funding
bill,” http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/export-import-bank-108672.html
Senior Republicans
and Democrats on Capitol Hill increasingly view a renewal of the Export-Import Bank as part
of a possible scenario to keep the government open past Sept. 30, according to multiple sources in both chambers.
High-level discussions between the two chambers are in their infancy, and senior aides caution there is no deal in the immediate offing. But
there are forces in both chambers pushing to renew the Export-Import Bank and pass an extension of the
Highway Trust Fund before the election. The House will go first, and plans to extend the Highway Trust Fund sometime in the next two weeks,
keeping the program funded until early 2015, Republican sources said. That would give Congress more time to debate a more permanent
solution for federal highway funding. The House Ways and Means Committee has announced a mark-up of legislation to extend the program
until May 31, 2015. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is
considering attaching a short-term reauthorization of
the Export-Import Bank to a continuing resolution that would keep the government funded past Sept. 30. It would be meant
as a dare to House Republicans to shut down the government over the bank in the weeks before Election Day. House Republican leadership has
discussed this possibility, but has not decided how they would react if Reid goes in that direction, according to senior House Republican
sources. Reid and House Speaker John Boehner met Tuesday. House Republicans have also discussed passing a so-called CR to keep the
government open before August as a way to increase their leverage with the Senate. Shuttering the Export-Import Bank has become a priority
for House conservatives, and its existence has become a flashpoint within the Republican Party. Establishment Republicans support the bank,
which helps fund export deals by major companies like Boeing. Tea party aligned Republicans decry it as social welfare. Incoming House
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California has ruled out a reauthorization of the program. But there
are people in both House
Republican and Senate Democratic leadership who see the upside in extending highway funding and the ExportImport Bank. Highway construction creates jobs and the Export-Import Bank helps large American corporations
stay competitive in a global economy. If the export bank is attached to a government funding measure, it avoids a straight upand-down vote on its renewal.
Slew of GOP support the bank-passage is imminent
Kevin Cirilli and Vicki Needham, The Hill, 7-8-14 “Export-Import Bank supporters aim for show of
strength in Senate,” http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/211518-ex-imsupporters-aim-for-show-of-strength-in-senate
Business groups are turning their firepower toward 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, 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 backing arguments that it is needed to help finance U.S. businesses overseas and protect jobs in America. Ex-Im 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. 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 look at it.” Last week, Sen. Charles 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 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 large and small.
Democrats motivating GOP to support Export-Import bank-bill should pass with
bipartisan support
Vicki Needham, The Hill, 7-1-14, “Senate Democrats plan July vote on Ex-Im Bank,”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/211084-schumer-says-senate-can-pass-ex-im-bill-in-july
Senate Democrats
plan to hold a vote in July on reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
bipartisan bill renewing the bank's charter will reach the Senate floor
before the August recess, creating pressure on House Republicans to act. The bank's charter is set to expire Sept. 30.
"I think that if we can pass it in the Senate particularly with a good bipartisan majority ... it will put pressure on the House,” he told
reporters during a conference call. Schumer said he has spoken about the bank bill with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who
"understands the importance" of getting it to the floor. The bank’s reauthorization has the support of
powerful business groups including the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers, who say the agency's loan support is critical for exports. But the push faces hurdles from House conservatives who argue
said Tuesday. Schumer said he expects a
the bank is a form of “crony capitalism” that helps big businesses such as Boeing at the expense of other companies. Incoming House Majority
Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said this time around he will oppose the bank’s continuation, and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has backed
away from any endorsements of the bank, instead stating that any legislation needs to run through the committee process. House Financial
Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), whose panel has jurisdiction, wants to see the bank’s charter expire. Still,
several
GOP members of that panel argued last week that the bank is a necessity for many businesses in their
districts and should be reauthorized with reforms. Democrats are using the debate over the Ex-Im Bank
to try and drive a wedge between the GOP and the business community ahead of the midterm elections. Schumer
said the Chamber, in particular, should take a closer look at which candidates they support. “I’ve said this to [Chamber President] Tom Donohue
and to others, in many ways mainstream Democrats are closer to you than many Republicans, because the Tea Party has pulled them so far to
the right that they are doing what’s harmful to business,” Schumer said. “I hope they would examine that, absolutely.” Schumer
said the
Ex-Im Bank is going down the same legislative path of other business priorities that have gained support
in the Senate, such as the highway bill, tax extenders and immigration, only to stall in the House. “All of the sudden our Republican
colleagues, particularly in the House, frightened by a small group that has a lot of power, the Tea Party, has changed their point of view in a way
that really hurts the country and hurts the middle class and hurts jobs,” Schumer said. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) said she believes there
is
broad support from both parties in the Senate for a reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank despite the resistance from conservatives.
"We believe that the case is absolutely stellar for moving this in July ,” Heitkamp said. “We also believe there are
votes in the House, so hopefully that will happen." Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Republican Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.),
among others, are expected to introduce legislation on the bank soon, Schumer said, and Senate Banking
Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) has expressed a desire to move a bill quickly through his panel.
Ex-im bank will pass-history proves
Needham 7/9(Vicki, Reporter, blogger at The Hill Reporter at Roll Call Group Washington editor at The Orange County Register
Reporter at The Island Packet Reporter at Congressional Quarterly, “Johanns will back Ex-Im Bank reauthorization”, The Hill, 7/9/14,
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/211755-johanns-will-back-ex-im-bank-reauthorization#ixzz37TNIN4vH)
Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) said Wednesday he
is co-sponsoring legislation to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank
but warned that the bill’s passage is contingent on the Democratic leader allowing amendments. Johanns
said while he support's the 80-year-old agency, it will be up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow
amendments on the floor and smooth passage for legislation. ADVERTISEMENT “The Ex-Im Bank helps to create
American jobs, costs taxpayers nothing, and actually contributes to deficit reduction,” Johanns said. “Let me be
clear, however, this legislation will not pass unless Sen. Reid puts American jobs over the political careers of
vulnerable Democrats by allowing Senators to offer amendments," he said. Johanns said he supported that 2012
authorization— which passed the Senate 78-20 — after Reid allowed amendments. Republicans have grown increasingly frustrated over the
Senate floor process that they say isn't allowing them to offer amendments. Last week, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he expects
a
bill to pass the Senate before the August recess. He said he had spoken to Reid about moving a bill through the Senate
Banking Committee and onto the floor by then. But Johanns said he is concerned with more than just the Ex-Im measure. “The Ex-Im Bank
reauthorization is not the only bipartisan legislation that has been issued a death sentence," Johanns said. "Terrorism Insurance, the
sportsmen’s package, energy bills and appropriations legislation are all in jeopardy because Sen. Reid is acting like a dictator and silencing the
voices of Americans who elected us to represent them." Johanns is one of a growing number of Republicans who have
said they will
back legislation that is expected to be introduced soon by Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Rob Portman (Ohio) are among other Republicans who have expressed
support for extending the bank’s charter, which would expire Sept. 30 without congressional action. "The Ex-Im
Bank plays an
important role because many foreign governments provide heavy assistance to their nation’s exporters, which distorts
foreign markets and creates an unfair disadvantage for American exporters," Johanns said. The House and Senate provided solid
backing for the bank's reauthorization in 2012 after a series of reforms were added to the bill and
amendments. The House voted 330-93 to keep the bank up and running two years ago.
**LINKS
-Ocean Exploration and IOOS
1NC
Observation funding causes controversy – seen as pork-barrel spending and
opposition in Congress
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2-2007 “US ocean observatories
imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown” http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA:
6/10/14
radar stations have been providing a rich stream of data about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to
fishermen, mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a national system that could help with ocean management and save the lives of mariners.
But the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) – and others like it across the country – may not be able to save themselves. Their federal
funding is ending, in part because of congressional reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel spending. What makes
For the past six years, a network of high-tech buoys and
the $4 million-a-year GoMoos stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks – think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" – it enjoys wide support in and out of Congress and forms a part
of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the
plug may be being pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that would gather and process
oceanographic information and release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established across the United States
and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have
been fished into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to take into account
how marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of the key
2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have
"invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes for us to get to them,
so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C. "These systems allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a
button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of
Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life without destroying the
ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who studies the lobsters that support
Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be
pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of uncertainty." Other
ocean-observing networks are facing the same squeeze. "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The
Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which has deferred maintenance on its buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured. The root problem: Congress
never passed legislation to fund the system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would have formally established and fund the national system. House
versions never came to the floor for a vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the opposition of then- Rep. Richard
Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often opposed spending on environmental issues. As a result, the ocean-observing systems relied on congressional
earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of
It's an inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's
difficult to separate what is worthwhile from what might not be."
Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "
Ocean policy bills spark intense political partisanship – empirics, energy lobbies, and
agency fragmentation
Helvarg 14
David, reporter for The Hill (“The oceans demand our attention”, February 14 2014,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-ourattention)//
The latest battle over the future of America’s ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in
Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National Endowment for the
Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on
dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund – based on offshore energy revenue –
for scientific research and coastal restoration. On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out
any funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy, which he claims would
empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops.
One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal
agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, “putting urban planning in the water column,” in the words of
former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP
oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal
sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how
we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In
2004 ocean conservationists held their first ‘Blue Vision Summit’ in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr
(D-Calif.) called for a “Big Ocean Bill,” to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew
Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine
the state of America’s blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major
marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commission’s recommendations along with
those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result
America’s seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal
approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco
met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions’ recommendations that he agreed to do.
By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress
had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform
legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new
White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama
administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean
conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored
moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses. In July 2010, in the wake of
the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama finally signed the National Ocean Policy as an administrative
directive. NOAA then held a series of additional hearings to engage stakeholders during which the oil
and gas industry tried to apply the brakes (why support a level playing field when you already own the field). In 2012, CEQ
finally announced that nine regional planning bodies would be established to get the ocean policy implemented. In
2013, during the 4th Blue Vision Summit activists held the largest Ocean Hill Day in history, a citizens
lobby from 21 states that included over 100 meetings with Senators, House members and their staffs to
advocate for getting the National Ocean Policy underway. Still, today in early 2014, only four of the nine regional
bodies have held meetings. In New England, participation by the states, tribal governments, fishermen, environmentalists and others
have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic, it’s been more a case of different federal agencies talking to each other without much
transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and the Western Pacific, including Hawaii. Although
the course forward seems as slow as that sea hare, it’s also clear the public wants action for our ocean, coasts and the
communities that depend on them. One can only hope (and insist) that by the end of the Obama presidency in 2016 we see some tangible
improvements in how we treat our ocean through better coordination and planning among agencies and stakeholders. Good models for this
kind of sustainable ocean use already exist in states like California.
2NC
Ocean policies spark intense political partisanship – powerful industry lobbying, issue
polarization, and empirics prove
Eilperin 12
Juilet, reporter for The Washington Post (“National ocean policy sparks partisan fight”, October 28 2012,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparks-partisanfight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html)//
Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental
issues doesn’t stop at the water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But
President Obama created the first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some
fierce election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to
expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many
Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy and
reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue — the country’s patchwork approach to
managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies, representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in
governing the oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White House, that is designed to
reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean users. The policy is already having an impact. The council, for example, is
trying to broker a compromise among six federal agencies over the fate of defunct offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational
fishermen want the rigs, which attract fish, to stay, but some operators of commercial fishing trawlers consider them a hazard and want them
removed. Still, activists
invoking the ocean policy to press for federal limits on traditional maritime interests
are having little success. The Center for Biological Diversity cited the policy as a reason to slow the speed of vessels traveling through
national marine sanctuaries off the California coast. Federal officials denied the petition. During a House Natural Resources
Committee hearing on ocean policy last year, the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Edward J. Markey (Mass.), said
that “opposing ocean planning is like opposing air traffic control: You can do it, but it will cause a mess
or lead to dire consequences.” Rep. Steve Southerland II (R-Fla.), who is in a tight reelection race, retorted that the
policy was “like air traffic control helping coordinate an air invasion on our freedoms.” An environmental
group called Ocean Champions is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to unseat him. The sharp rhetoric puzzles
academics such as Boston University biologist Les Kaufman. He contributed to a recent study that showed that using ocean zoning to help
design wind farms in Massachusetts Bay could prevent more than $1 million in losses to local fishery and whale-watching operators while
allowing wind producers to reap $10 billion in added profits by placing the turbines in the best locations. Massachusetts adopted its own ocean
policy, which was introduced by Mitt Romney, the Republican governor at the time, and later embraced by his Democratic successor, Deval L.
Patrick. “The whole concept of national ocean policy is to maximize the benefit and minimize the damage. What’s not to love?” Kaufman said,
adding that federal officials make decisions about offshore energy production, fisheries and shipping without proper coordination. Nearly a
decade ago, two bipartisan commissions called upon the government to coordinate its decisions regarding federal waters, which extend from
the roughly three-mile mark where state waters end to 200 miles from shore. When Romney moved to establish ocean zoning in 2005 in
Massachusetts, he warned that without it there could be “a Wild West shootout, where projects were permitted on a ‘first come, first served’
basis.” In Washington, however, legislation to create an ocean zoning process failed. The policy set by Obama in 2010 calls for five regions of
the country — the Mid-Atlantic, New England, the Caribbean, the West Coast and the Pacific — to set up regional bodies to offer input. White
House Council for Environmental Quality spokeswoman Taryn Tuss said the policy does not give the federal government new authority or
change congressional mandates. “It simply streamlines implementation of the more than 100 laws and regulations that already affect our
oceans.” House
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said he is not opposed to a
national ocean policy in theory. But he said he is concerned that the administration’s broad definition of
what affects the ocean — including runoff from land — could open the door to regulating all inland activities, because “all water going
downhill goes into the ocean. . . . That potential could be there.” The House voted in May to block the federal
government from spending money on implementing the policy, though the amendment has not passed the Senate.
Two influential groups — anglers and energy firms — have joined Republicans in questioning the
administration’s approach. In March, ESPN Outdoors published a piece arguing that the policy “could
prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even
inland waters.” The article, which convinced many recreational fishermen that their fishing rights were in jeopardy, should have been
labeled an opinion piece, the editor said later. “Fishermen saw this as just another area where fishing was going to
be racheted down,” said Michael Leonard, director of ocean resource policy for the American Sportfishing Association, whose 700
members include the nation’s major boat manufacturers, as well as fish and tackle retailers. Leonard added that the White House has solicited
some input from anglers since launching the policy and that they will judge the policy once its final implementation plan is released, after the
election. The
National Ocean Policy Coalition — a group based in Houston that includes oil and gas firms
as well as mining, farming and chemical interests — has galvanized industry opposition to the policy.
Its vice president works as an energy lobbyist at the law firm Arent Fox; its president and executive
director work for the firm HBW Resources, which lobbies for energy and shipping interests. Brent
Greenfield, the group’s executive director, said that the public has not had enough input into the
development of the policy and that his group worries about “the potential economic impacts of the
policy on commercial or recreational activity.” Sarah Cooksey, who is Delaware’s coastal-programs administrator and is
slated to co-chair the Mid-Atlantic’s regional planning body, said the policy will streamline application of laws already on the books. “No
government wants another layer of bureaucracy,” she said. In
Southerland’s reelection race, Ocean Champions has
labeled the congressman “Ocean Enemy #1” and sponsored TV ads against him. Jim Clements, a
commercial fisherman in the Florida Panhandle district, has mounted billboards against Southerland on the
grounds his stance hurts local businesses. Southerland declined to comment for this article. Ocean Champions President David
Wilmot said that while most ocean policy fights are regional, this is “the first issue I’ve seen that’s become partisan. I do not think it will be the
last.”
Oceans cause controversy – ideological divide and knee-jerk hostility – only new
evidence assumes the gridlocked Congress
Allen 13 (Tom-president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers and a board member of the Ocean Conservancy. He
represented Maine’s 1st District in Congress for six terms, 12/4/2013, Roll Call, “Challenges of a Changing Ocean: Can Congress Act in Time?”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/challenges_of_a_changing_ocean_can_congress_act_in_time_commentary-229390-1.html?pg=1)
In a Congress marred by gridlock and partisan brinkmanship, a surprising opportunity has emerged to
strengthen our nation’s ocean and coastal communities, businesses and environment. Congress should seize the moment and establish the long-recommended National Endowment for the
Oceans, Coasts and Great Lakes. Unless Congress acts now, the opportunity will slip away. The House and Senate Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) bills currently in conference contain competing provisions — with
This legislative conflict is part of our country’s broader ideological
struggle, but with this difference: On the ocean, no state government, chamber of commerce or environmental group can exercise
coordinated and effective leadership alone. The Senate-passed WRDA bill includes an amendment from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that provides for a
competing visions — for the future of ocean and coastal management in America.
National Endowment for the Oceans that passed with strong bipartisan support. The endowment would authorize grants to universities, states and local organizations for ocean research, mapping, monitoring, conservation and
reflects the belief that the federal government
has an important role to play in strengthening coastal communities, helping ocean-dependent businesses and improving the health of our ocean environment. By contrast, the WRDA
bill passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment from Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, that would undermine our National Ocean Policy, smart ocean planning and ecosystem approaches to
ocean resource management. In an era when we need government to work better, smarter, and more effectively, the National Ocean Policy and smart ocean planning are just common sense. They allow the local,
restoration projects — work that is critical to coastal economies that rely on a healthy ocean with well-managed resources. It
state, tribal and federal entities responsible for ocean management to work across jurisdictional boundaries and proactively tackle challenges in a forward-looking way. To take those tools away would be bad for ocean health, bad
This legislative head-to-head dispute reflects the broader ideological struggle
that haunts the halls of Congress today. It’s between those who believe that the government can be a
vehicle to serve the common good and those who believe that nearly all government action restricts
personal freedom. We have for too long taken the ocean for granted. Its immense size and apparent resilience fooled us into thinking that humans could draw on it for limitless protein and use it as a garbage
for the ocean economy and bad for coastal communities.
dump. But now the ocean and our coastal communities face serious challenges. Coral reefs are in steep decline. Many fisheries continue to struggle. Water quality problems and toxic algae blooms threaten beaches and clam
diggers. Ocean acidification is worsening each year, threatening multigeneration family-owned shellfish farms. Trash litters the open ocean, occasionally exacerbated by tragic events such as the Japanese tsunami. And sea level rise
the all-too-common knee-jerk
hostility toward any new government initiative. Ironically, ocean issues didn’t generate such partisan
conflict until recently. As a founding member of the bipartisan House Oceans Caucus, I can say that working across the aisle on ocean issues used to be far more
commonplace. For example, the idea of a permanent ocean endowment was proposed back in 2004 by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a commission appointed entirely by President George W. Bush.
is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over
When the commission first floated the idea of an ocean trust fund in a draft report and asked governors for comment, support was overwhelming and bipartisan. Of the 20 coastal governors who submitted comments on an ocean
trust fund, 19 supported the idea — six Democrats and 13 Republicans. Only one Democratic governor expressed any opposition.
*EEZ mapping*
Anti-Environmentalism causes partisanship
Farr 2013 (Sam, Member of the House of Representatives (D-CA) Chair of House Oceans Caucus,
Review&Forecast Collaboration Helps to Understand And Adapt to Ocean, Climate Changes http://seatechnology.com/pdf/st_0113.pdf)
The past year in Washington, D.C., was rife with infighting between the two political parties. On issue after issue, the opposing sides were unable to reach a compromise on meaningful legislation for the American people. This division was most noticeable
when dis- cussing the fate of our oceans. The widening chasm between the two political parties resulted
in divergent paths for ocean policy: one with Presi- dent Barack Obama pushing the National Ocean Policy forward, and
the other with U.S. House Republicans under- mining those efforts with opposing votes and funding
cuts. Marine, Environmental Policy Regression The 112th Congress was called the "most anti-environ- mental Congress
in history" in a report published by House Democrats and has been credited for undermining the ma- jor environmental legislation of the past 40 years.
After the Tea Party landslide in the congressional elections of 2010, conservatives on Capitol Hill began to flex their muscles
to roll back environmental protections. Since taking power in January 2011, House Republicans held roughly 300 votes to undermine basic
environmental protections that have existed for decades. To put that in per- spective, that was almost one in every five votes held in Congress during the past two
years. These were votes to al- low additional oil and gas drilling in coastal waters, while simultaneously limiting the environmental review process for offshore
drilling sites. There were repeal attempts to un- dermine the Clean Water Act and to roll back protections for threatened fish and other marine species. There
were also attempts to block measures to address climate changes, ig- noring the consequences of
inaction, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification.
agenda politics – plan unpopular
Anti-Environmentalism causes partisanship
Farr 2013 (Sam, Member of the House of Representatives (D-CA) Chair of House Oceans Caucus,
Review&Forecast Collaboration Helps to Understand And Adapt to Ocean, Climate Changes http://seatechnology.com/pdf/st_0113.pdf)
The past year in Washington, D.C., was rife with infighting between the two political parties. On issue after issue, the opposing sides were unable to reach a compromise on meaningful legislation for the American people. This division was most noticeable
when dis- cussing the fate of our oceans. The widening chasm between the two political parties resulted
in divergent paths for ocean policy: one with Presi- dent Barack Obama pushing the National Ocean Policy forward, and
the other with U.S. House Republicans under- mining those efforts with opposing votes and funding
cuts. Marine, Environmental Policy Regression The 112th Congress was called the "most anti-environ- mental Congress
in history" in a report published by House Democrats and has been credited for undermining the ma- jor environmental legislation of the past 40 years.
After the Tea Party landslide in the congressional elections of 2010, conservatives on Capitol Hill began to flex their muscles
to roll back environmental protections. Since taking power in January 2011, House Republicans held roughly 300 votes to undermine basic
environmental protections that have existed for decades. To put that in per- spective, that was almost one in every five votes held in Congress during the past two
years. These were votes to al- low additional oil and gas drilling in coastal waters, while simultaneously limiting the environmental review process for offshore
drilling sites. There were repeal attempts to un- dermine the Clean Water Act and to roll back protections for threatened fish and other marine species. There
were also attempts to block measures to address climate changes, ig- noring the consequences of
inaction, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification.
agenda politics - controversial – gen
Marine spatial planning causes controversy – Obama had to deemphasize it in the
NOP
Simon 13 (Jonathan, “National Ocean Plan Affects A Sea Of Users”, Law 360, 5/2/13, http://www.law360.com/articles/436546/nationalocean-plan-affects-a-sea-of-users)
The implementation plan reflects an apparent effort to help defuse what had become one
of the policy’s more controversial
elements: coastal and marine spatial planning. The implementation plan reiterates the administration’s
intent to establish regional planning bodies that would develop “marine plans” (previously referred to as
“coastal and marine spatial plans”) to provide information and/or to “describe future desired conditions” and guide
decision-making relating to the use of ocean resources.
Mapping was the most contentious part of the NOP – further efforts cause fights
Winter 12 (Allison, “National Ocean Council inches forward with marine spatial planning agenda”, Seafood News, 1/13/12,
http://www.thecre.com/creipd/?p=795)
The report is the council’s first major effort, and it lays out actions and deadlines for the nine
major objectives that were
included in the National Ocean Policy. The most controversial aspect of the ocean policy has been plans for
regional bodies across the United States to begin “coastal and marine spatial planning.” The plans would map out
different uses for the ocean and could designate areas that are prime for development or that need to
be protected as sensitive marine habitat.
Mapping and planning pits interest groups against each other – causes controversy
Boehnert 13 (John, “Zoning the Oceans”, Rhode Island Property Law, 9/25/13,
http://www.rhodeislandpropertylaw.com/articles/marine-spatial-planning-1/)
Similar requirements can be established for coastal regions. That process usually starts with something called “marine
spatial
planning”, which sounds arcane but really means nothing more than gathering detailed information about
the ecosystems in the study area, the uses that now occur in the study area, and making recommendations
based on the ecology and ecosystems and current and proposed uses. But this is far more difficult than it
sounds, given we are dealing with coastal areas and open oceans, and with uses, not to mention fish and marine life,
which may move through various areas at different times of the year. Often the study efforts can be extensive, expensive,
and time consuming. Additionally, the uses of the study area can at times be conflicting, which may pit
interest groups against interest groups, for example, fishermen against offshore energy developers or
environmentalists against oil and gas extraction industries.
Plan controversial – fears it will lead to zoning and worry over spending and
bureaucracy
Gardner 12 (Lauren, “Oceans Plan Meets Wave of GOP Resistance”, CQ, 6/2/12, http://public.cq.com/docs/weeklyreport/weeklyreport000004098268.html)
But President Obama’s critics
in Congress are suspicious about the plan — and are aggressively moving to
block it. House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings, a Washington Republican, fears the blueprint will usher in
ocean “zoning.” Texas Republican Bill Flores succeeded in attaching a rider to the fiscal 2013 CommerceJustice-Science appropriations bill that would bar any expenditures to implement the ocean policy, and
Hastings vows to press for similar language in every spending bill that comes to the House floor. The opposition reflects concerns
by many of the industries that make a living in the coastal waters — including oil and natural gas
producers, commercial fishermen and seafood processors, boat owners and operators, shippers, and
sports fishermen. An industry-backed group called the National Ocean Policy Coalition backs efforts to delay the
policy through appropriations riders, saying that “further policy development and implementation
should be suspended until Congress, user groups, and the public have been fully engaged and all
potential impacts have been assessed and are understood.” Critics worry that the administration will pay
for its initiative by siphoning money from programs that lawmakers intended to fund, and they complain that
the White House is moving forward without congressional authorization. Some lawmakers predict the plan, which is expected to be
put in final form this summer, will inevitably lead to new regulations that further burden business activities
including offshore drilling, wind power, commercial and recreational fishing, deep-sea fish farming, and
boating. Spearheading support for an ocean policy are environmental groups such as Oceana, the Ocean Conservancy and the Pew
Environmental Group — a roster that invites the suspicions of industry groups. Even the co-chairmen of the Senate Oceans
Caucus are divided. Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse calls the proposal a “very pro-business and very sensible means for
rationally sorting out conflicting uses in a really important resource.” But Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski says flatly: “I don’t like it.” “They’ve
got an idea that sounds nice on paper, establishes all kinds of different programs,” she says. “And again, we’ve had no sense of funding or real
direction.”
Mapping and planning are hugely controversial – conflicts over regulation, business
benefits, ecological impact, and spending
Hotakainen 11 (Rob, “Congress spars over 'ocean zoning'”, McClatchy DC, 10/4/11,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/04/126154/congress-spars-over-ocean-zoning.html)
WASHINGTON — House
members clashed Tuesday over a White House plan that essentially calls for zoning the
oceans, with Republicans charging that it already has created more job-killing bureaucracy and
Democrats saying it could give Americans more certainty on how they can use busy public waters. "It
has the potential to stunt economic growth and the jobs associated with that growth," said Rep. Doc
Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the topranked Democrat on the panel, likened the idea — formally known as marine spatial planning — to making
plans for air space. "Opposing ocean planning is like opposing air-traffic control," he said. Hastings, who represents an agricultural
district, said he feared that the ocean-planning process ultimately could lead to new regulations on lands adjacent to rivers and watersheds that
drain into the ocean. "For example," he said, "a farmer working hundreds of miles from the coastline could be at risk of a new layer of
regulatory review based on the ocean." At a committee hearing Tuesday called by Hastings, business
groups assailed the
proposal, and an official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused the White House of trying to
promote the plan with little fanfare, even though it could have a big impact. "From my vantage point, the national
ocean policy is the most significant issue affecting energy security, job creation and economic growth that no one has heard about," said
Christopher Guith, the chamber's vice president for policy. Urging the White House to back away from the plan, Guith said the proposal would
have a "plethora of impacts on the country" and add "yet another maze of real or de facto regulation for businesses to attempt to navigate."
"At a time of anemic economic growth and persistently high unemployment, the country is looking to its leaders to reverse these trends," Guith
said. Rep. Sam Farr, D-Calif.,
said the U.S. must do better planning for its waters to reverse its "current
destructive path." He called the current situation "a bureaucratic mess," noting that more than 140 federal laws and dozens of agencies
have jurisdiction over ocean space. "The terrifying fact is ... that our ocean economy is at risk," Farr said. "Just this summer, a growing 83-mile
dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay was described by scientists as the worst in history." Hastings
said he called the oversight
hearing because President Barack Obama acted without congressional approval when he created a task
force to come up with new policies to manage the oceans and the nation's coastlines. And he said the
president's new "tangled web of bureaucracy" is sure to lead to White House requests for more federal
spending. "With the stroke of the pen, President Obama created a new, huge, top-down bureaucracy that could override states and local
authorities and change the way activities on the oceans, coasts and far inland will be managed," Hastings said. "The executive order creates 10
national policies, a 27-member national ocean council, an 18-member governance coordinating committee and nine regional planning bodies."
But most alarming, Hastings said, is "the mandatory ocean zoning ordered to be imposed." "Disguised
with the label of coastal marine spatial planning, ocean zoning could place huge sections of the ocean
off-limits to activities not zoned as government-approved," Hastings said.
agenda politics - bipart
Mapping and planning splits Republicans and Democrats – worries about bureaucracy
Ferrell 12 (Jessica, “Natural Resource Decisions Will Bring Continued Controversy in Second Obama Term”, Marten Law, 12/21/12,
http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20121221-natural-resource-decisions-controversy)
Given heavy opposition and the discordant state of the 112th Congress, however, full implementation of the
Ocean Plan is far from certain.[33] Some federal Republican lawmakers, supported by a variety of industry
groups, have worked to stop the Policy before it starts. They question the Policy as a potential
usurpation of legislative authority, and worry that it would create more federal bureaucracy and a
zoning overlay with new regulatory burdens and costs. Environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers have
largely supported the policy, arguing that it will streamline bureaucracy, encourage sustainable development, and replace
a confusing patchwork with cohesive, transparent planning.
agenda politics – environmentalists
Hydrography is controversial – environmental groups get angry over potential
ecosystem damage
COL 14 (Consortium for Ocean Leadership, “Controversial Ocean-Floor Study Off N.J. Gets Final Federal Go-Ahead”, 7/2/14,
http://oceanleadership.org/controversial-ocean-floor-tudy-n-j-gets-final-federal-go-ahead/)
Rutgers study
that would aim sound blasts deep into the ocean floor off the New Jersey coast to study sea-level
changes from as long as 50 million years ago has passed its final regulatory hurdle. (From The Philadelphia Inquirer / by Sandy Bauers) – On
Tuesday, the National Marine Fisheries Service gave approval for a “take” of marine mammal species – an acknowledgment that whales,
dolphins, and other species may be disturbed or otherwise affected by the sound blasts. The service has said it does not expect any marine
mammals to die. Environmental and
fisheries groups have objected to the study because of the harm they
say it will cause not only to marine mammals but also to commercial and recreational fisheries. “This is a
terrible decision,” said Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club. “It is wrong for our coast because it will hurt our environment and
marine animals. “We believe the Christie administration should not let this go unchallenged,” he said. The New Jersey Department
of
Environmental Protection had attempted to intervene, asking the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration if it could review the project to determine effects, but it was rebuffed.
-LOST
1NC
LOST splits the caucus and collapses senate cooperation – empirics, conservatives, and
perception prove
Weigel 12
David Weigel, reporter for Foreign Policy (“White whale: Why the black helicopter crowd goes crazy over
the Law of the Sea Treaty”, May 25 2012,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/25/white_whale)//
The military wants it. Business wants it. But to get it, they have to get past conservatives who simply don't
trust the United Nations -- or, more specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The treaty has spooked them
ever since 1982, when it opened for signature, even though it has been widely supported by their more
moderate Republican brethren. Whatever specific qualms its opponents raise, the treaty's real problem is that in the last 30 years,
compulsive U.N. skepticism has moved from the fringes of the GOP into its mainstream. The right's
fear that the United States might somehow give up its sovereignty to the one-worlders at Turtle Bay has
driven the treaty's supporters to distraction. At a Senate hearing held Wednesday to explore the possibility of American
ratification, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has largely shed her negative 90s-era image, slipped into the lingo of the
Janet Reno/Ruby Ridge era. "[I've] heard we should not join this convention because, quote, 'It's a U.N.
treaty,'" said Clinton, "and of course that means the black helicopters are on their way." Opposition to the
treaty, she said, is "unfortunate because it's opposition based in ideology and mythology, not in facts."
Republicans were unconvinced. "Most wars we've fought have been fought over ideology and
philosophy," said Idaho's Sen. Jim Risch, who's been winning elections in his state since 1970. "If we give up one scintilla of
sovereignty that this country has fought, has bled for, and have given up our treasure and the best that
America has, I can't vote for it." The Law of the Sea Treaty, as the convention is commonly known, was written to
standardize maritime law (which is why the Navy supports it) and create some authority for the use of resources found in or at the
bottom of international waters (which is why the Chamber of Commerce supports it). And even though it was negotiated at the United Nations,
the U.N. doesn't actually have any control over the treaty's implementation -- there's a distinct organization to handle that. But
the treaty
spooked conservatives straightaway. Before it was even finalized, President Reagan worried that "the deep seabed
mining part of the convention does not meet United States objectives." Ultimately, he refused to sign the
treaty for that very reason, but even that rejection wasn't enough for the right wing of his party -- probably
because Reagan said he would nevertheless abide by the rest of the treaty's terms, which he found sensible. In 1983, around six months
after the treaty was completed, Sen. Jesse Helms put a hold on Reagan's nominee for ambassador to El
Salvador. Thomas Pickering, said Helms, had raised disturbing questions just by participating in the Law of the Sea Conference. From
there, the treaty got stuck in U.N.-skeptic limbo. George H.W. Bush began renegotiating its mining
provisions so the U.S. could sign on, a process that Bill Clinton's foreign-policy team continued. "There
are still parts that need to be resolved," said incoming U.N. ambassador Madeline Albright at her 1993 Senate
confirmation hearing, "but I think we should pursue it." One year later -- after fixing the provisions that had irritated
Reagan (with a little advice from the business community) -- Albright signed it. In 1996, even Helms had started to soften, admitting at
one hearing that "ratification of this treaty does not in any way place the United States in any way under the jurisdiction of the Law of the Sea
Treaty." But
it was impossible to get the Senate to approve it. The mining issue had been replaced by a
fear of communist nukes. In 1998, when the president made a real push, the boldest "hell no" case came
from a Reagan DOD vet named Frank Gaffney. The Chinese, he warned the Senate, had the capability to
"discover undersea bastions in which to conceal and operate their ballistic missile submarines." Ratify
the Law of the Sea and you'd give them "legal cover for further transfers of this sort of equipment."
Whatever that meant. The George W. Bush administration came in fully intending to ratify the treaty. But a new
era -- we could call it the "Gaffney/Inhofe era" -- had begun. Gaffney materialized whenever treaty opponents
needed intellectual ballast. His Center for Security Policy was an armory for pro-sovereignty, prodefense buildup arguments. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe got to the Senate in 2002, the year Helms retired.
The torch was passed. In 2004, when the Foreign Relations Committee took up the treaty, Inhofe pushed
against it, questioning the "implications of this convention on our national security." He rang the alarm
about article 207 of the treaty, which says that "states shall adopt laws and regulations for pollution
from land-based sources." That sounded a lot like the U.N. making environmental law for Americans.
And Inhofe wouldn't stand for it. He pounded that theme relentlessly as Gaffney lined up more support from
the conservative movement's grassroots. The treaty passed out of committee, but thanks to
conservative efforts it never came up for a full Senate vote. A year later, with the Senate GOP's numbers
swelled to 55, Gaffney was writing that the treaty was favored by "actual or potential adversaries," and would
"prevent us from performing vital intelligence-collection activities." In Gaffney's corner: Everything from Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum to Jeane
Kirkpatrick to the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute to the columns of Pat Buchanan. ("Should the U.N. be lord of the oceans?") In
Inhofe's corner: A new team of conservatives like Jim DeMint, who only needed to hear the letters "U"
and "N" to know what they were against. So, in 2007, when the committee took up the treaty again -and passed it again -- the full Senate still refused to act. And by 2009, when a self-proclaimed "citizen of
the world" became president, it hardly mattered that he had 59 Democrats in the Senate. If Obama was
for the treaty, conservatives had to be against it. By Obama's first summer, Republicans had put
together a brand-new "House Sovereignty Caucus." Gaffney spoke at its first meeting. This week, when
Clinton testified, she was looking right at the conservatives' latest victim. Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking member of the
committee, had just been demolished -- a 20-point loss -- in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate. Next year, instead of sending a gravelly
supporter of the treaty to Washington, Indiana will probably send the reliably right-wing Richard Mourdock. Greg Fettig, an Indiana
conservative activist, helped lead Hoosiers for a Conservative Senate -- a group that aided Mourdock's campaign. "The treaty was one of the
real strikes against Lugar," explains Fettig. "I heard him talking about it ... and either he's misrepresenting reality or he's clueless. He's talking
about the melting polar ice caps, shipping lanes. In reality, what
the treaty means is the loss of our sovereignty, our
mineral rights in territorial waters." That belief is just too widespread to snuff out. Clinton tried mockery. At
other points in her testimony, she tried another tactic. "While we sit on the sidelines," said Clinton, "Russia and other countries are carving up
the Arctic and laying claims to the oil and gas riches in that region." If the "black helicopter" crowd won't trust the U.N., maybe it can be
spooked into beating the Russians.
-Aquaculture
1NC
Powerful environmental lobbies, swing voter perception, and ideological concerns
make marine aquaculture uniquely unpopular – ensures congressional battles
ISER 11
Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska (“The Political Economics of United
States Marine Aquaculture”, August 22 2011, https://www.fra.affrc.go.jp/bulletin/bull/bull35/357.pdf)//
Why are United States Policies Unfavorable to Marine Aquaculture? The
starting point in addressing the political
challenges to U.S. marine aquaculture has to be clear thinking about why U.S. marine aquaculture faces
unfavorable leasing and regulatory policies. Here are five broad contributing factors. 1. Marine aquaculture
is new and small. This raises economic challen-ges for U.S. marine aquaculture. It cannot achieve economies of scale in production,
processing, transportation and marketing. It cannot learn and innovate from practical experience.—But being new and small also
raises political challenges for U.S. marine aquaculture. Because it is new and small, it is harder to demonstrate
the benefits and easier to exaggerate the risks of marine aquaculture. Thus opposing aquaculture
development is viewed by advocacy groups as applying an ounce of prevention now instead of the
pound of cure that would be required later.” —To overcome the political challenges it faces,U.S. marine
aquaculture will need committed supporters at all levels of the political and policy process. All of this takes
committed people and money. Relatively few Americans have— or realize they have — a direct stakein it. In much of the United States marine
aquaculture is still below a political threshold scale necessary for people to understand, accept, and
effectively advocate for marine aquaculture. 2. Marine fish and waters are traditionally public resources. The concept of
private ownership of land is fully accepted in American law and culture. Many Americans oppose land-based resource development such as
mining or logging or industrial agriculture, but they don’t generally base their opposition on the principle that land or resources shouldn’t be
privately owned. In contrast, there is no traditionof private ownership of marine fish or waters in America. Many American soppose allowing
private exclusive use of or rights to marine coastlines, wateror fish. The tradition that marine fishand waters are public resources imposes an
extra political and regulatory hurdle for the development of aquaculture, especially for finfish farming. Before any kind of marine aquaculture
can begin, new
mechanisms need to be created to allow for exclusive use of marine waters. Efforts to
implement rights-based management regimes for wild fisheries, such as individual fishing quotas, face
similar strong philosophical resistance from many Americans. However,as these new management regimes are
implemented, public attitudes are likely to shift as the economic logic and advantages of exclusive use rights become more apparent. The same
process will likely occur with marine aquaculture — but it will take time. 3. Many Americans
perceive potential negative
effects of marine aquaculture without offsetting positive effects. A variety of groups of Americans
perceive potential negative effects of marine aquaculture. These include commercial fishermen, coastal
residents, and environmentalists. These groups play significant roles in the politics of United States marine
aquaculture, across the political and regulatory process at local, state, and national levels. For example,
Alaska salmon fishermen spearheaded the Alaska legislature’s 1990 ban on finfish farming, and continue
to vocally oppose aquaculture development in federal waters nation wide, along with Alaska’s
congressional delegation. Similarly, coastal residents have strongly and effectively opposed marine
aquaculture in states such as Maine and Washington. Part of the application process for the series of permits and licenses
needed to operate in the marine environment is an exhaustive series of meetings with the general public and all stake holders. Because of
a demographic shift to a population-base of retirees from other states, as summer-home visitors
became year-round residents, coastal communities now view the ocean for‘recreational use,’ and
commercial fishermen and aquaculturists must make their case locally to people who have no history or
link with the ocean formaking a living. It is rational for groups which perceive only negative potential
effects of marine aquaculture to oppose it. Clearly there are many things to be gained from marine aquaculture; such as stable
jobs, tax revenues, and synergies with other marine industries. But, in many areas, aquaculture
supporters have failed to make
the case effectively that aquaculture has these positive potential benefits. 4. NGO’s have systematically
and effectively opposed U.S. marine aquaculture. Numerous U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have
invested significant funding and effort to advocate banning, delaying ,restricting, or regulating U.S.
marine aquaculture. These organizations have played a major role in influencing the public, the press,
politicians, and regulators in ways which have contributed to unfavorable leasing and regulatory policies
towards marine aquaculture. This NGO’s include the Packard Foundation, Greenpeace,the
Environmental Defense Fund, and others. The scale, objectives, strategies, and arguments of these groups vary widely, making
it difficult to generalize about their motives, methods, and effects. Advocacy groups can provide avaluable service by acting as an impartial
watch dog of environmental issues and calling attention to legitimate concerns. However, a very real and frustrating challenge for marine
aquaculture supporters is that some NGO’s
appear willing to say any thing to oppose marine aquaculture, with
casual and sometimes blatant disregard for objectivity, truth, or the complex reality of what experience
and science have shown about the hugely varied effects of the hugely varied kinds of activities
collectively known as aquaculture. Amplifying the efforts of NGO aquaculture advocacy are articles
inthe popular and increasingly in the so called ‘scientific’ press. The criticism of aquaculture by NGO’s
began as opinion pieces in news media or as information provided by specific advocacy groups.
Gradually this material began entering scientific literature as news items and recently has shifted into
the arena of scientific review and technical articles. This approach is not discouraged by the media
because sensational accusations, controversy and polarized debate are considered to be newsworthy
simply for their mass appeal rather than scientific validity. The other side of the story —objective scientific review and
critiques of the research methodology and conclusions — is rarely heard, because marine aquaculture supporters have no
organized, planned publicity campaign to tell the other side of the story. Adding to the challenge is that although
much of the NGO opposition is targeted at specific effects of specific types of aquaculture, enough of it
is directed generally at all“ fish farming”to negatively influence perceptions and polices for all marine
aquaculture — all species, nation wide.
**-Hydrates
1NC
Methane hydrates are politically divisive
Harder 14 [AMY HARDER, energy policy report for WSJ, White House Calls for New Rules to Cut
Methane Emissions Initiative Is Part of Strategy to Address Climate Change, March 28, 2014,
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304688104579467361249626076]
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Friday directed several federal agencies to clamp down on emissions of methane, a potent
greenhouse gas emitted from natural gas and other industries, fleshing out an initiative that attempts to address environmental concerns
without harming the nation's booming natural-gas industry. The White House move is part of President Barack Obama's broader plan
announced last June to tackle climate change. The administration's methane
strategy reflects a reluctance to commit right
now to new federal regulations targeting the natural-gas industry, which could be politically unpopular.
New rules could also contradict the administration's rhetoric and actions supporting natural gas in the past few years, including the Energy
Department's conditional approval earlier this week of the seventh U.S. project to export gas. Reaction from oil and natural-gas companies was
muted, while environmentalists cheered the news. Statements from
senior officials at the two trade associations
representing producers—America's Natural Gas Alliance and the American Petroleum Institute—didn't
criticize the administration and instead pointed to how the industry was already and will continue
cutting its methane emissions without new regulations. As U.S. natural-gas sources have ballooned, environmental groups
have worried more about the effects of natural-gas use on climate change. The primary component of natural gas is
methane, which the administration said has a warming effect on the planet more than 20 times greater
than carbon dioxide. Despite mounting skepticism from environmentalists, the administration has supported natural gas as an energy
source in part because it puts out far fewer carbon emissions than coal or oil.
**2NC
NatGas is unpopular, big oil companies hate competition
Weiss 10 [Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American
Progress, Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit, Center for American Progress, January 13, 2010,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oil-dependence-is-a-dangeroushabit/, 6/24/14]
Many major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, are some of
the most vocal opponents of increasing American energy independence and reducing global warming pollution.
This is likely because they profit by buying oil from “dangerous or unstable” states. This includes importing oil
from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mauritania, Iraq, Congo, Colombia, Chad, and Algeria. In 2008 Chevron made a profit of $23.9 billion while
nearly half of its imports—138 million barrels of oil—came from these countries. ExxonMobil made $45.2 billion while getting 43 percent of its
oil—205.6 million barrels—from these countries. About one-third of BP’s imports—110.6 million barrels—were from these countries in 2008,
when the company’s profits were $25.6 billion. Approximately 25 percent of ConocoPhillips’ imports were from “dangerous or unstable”
countries—116.7 million barrels—in 2008, contributing to its $52.7 billion profit. And Shell raked in $31.4 billion that year, also importing onequarter of its oil—61.8 million barrels—from these countries. (Note: Shell includes Shell Chemical LP, Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc, Shell US
Trading Co, Shell Oil Co, and Shell Oil Co Deer Park). With
that kind of money it’s no wonder Big Oil is doing everything
in its power to maintain the status quo. The companies are spending record amounts on lobbying to
stop clean-energy and climate legislation. The American Petroleum Institute spent $75.2 million for public relations and
advertising in 2008, and in the third quarter of 2009 the oil and gas industry outspent all other sectors lobbying on climate change, with Exxon
Mobil leading the pack spending $7.2 million.
Methane hydrates is politically unpopular
Pollution Solutions 2013 [Burning ice could make fracking wastewater drinkable, Published in 2013,
http://www.pollutionsolutions-online.com/news/waterwastewater/17/breaking_news/burning_ice_could_make_fracking_wastewater_drinkable/26651/]
Despite these recent advances, commercial production is still unlikely for at least 10 to 15 years. Japan believes that commercial production will
be possible by 2018, while the
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that countries with the "political will" to pursue
methane hydrates could see production by around 2025. Though expensive compared to conventional methods of
recovering natural gas, the estimated cost of methane hydrate extraction is similar to other unconventional sources, such as shale gas. The
International Energy Agency estimates that once developed, it will cost between $4.70-$8.60 to extract 1 million British thermal units of
methane hydrates. The same studies estimate conventional costs as low as $0.50 per 1 million British thermal units. Developmental and capital
costs are likely to be high, since the deposits are in difficult, harsh locations (e.g., Artic or deepwater environments) and depending on their
location, new fields could also mean additional capital costs from infrastructure development.
-Renewables (Generic)
1NC
Republicans will fight any renewable energy programs – budget cuts, Obama ties, and
oil subsidies
SBN 11
Sustainable Business News (respected alternative energy news and political analysis media source)
(“Republicans Want To Ax Renewable Energy and Environment”, February 11 2011,
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/21871)//
Congressional Republicans on Wednesday released a budget plan that would impose deep cuts on energy
efficiency and renewable energy, scientific research and environmental protection. Energy efficiency and renewable energy
programs would lose $899 million. In addition, Republicans want to cut $1.4 billion from a program that
guarantees construction loans for new energy projects, such as nuclear reactors, electric transmission lines and solar
arrays. Also on the list of proposed energy cuts are $1.1 billion in the Office of Science, which funds
advanced clean energy research; and $186 million for the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which is leading development of technical standards for smart grid installations and cyber
protection, and $169 million for nuclear energy. They want to cut Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds to the tune of $1.6
billion (32%) - the largest cut in their budget - to impede its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. EPA chief Lisa
Jackson notes that about half of the EPA's budget is used to enforce our nation's environmental laws. In total, Republicans want to eliminate
over 60 programs for the environment, energy, health care and law enforcement. The Obama administration's proposal for a high-speed rail
development is among those on the chopping block. They
want a 20% funding reduction for the Department of Energy
Office of Science, which funds basic research. This at a time when President Obama has called for a renewed push in
science and clean energy technology to keep the country competitive globally. There wide-ranging cuts don't touch the
miltary budget, however - the largest share of the US budget. They also don't touch Oil Industry subsides - which Democrats say would
save $20 billion over 10 years. Newly elected Tea Party Republicans are pushing for even deeper cuts of an additional $26
billion. States Get Pushback Too Meanwhile, Republican legislators in Montana, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri are working on
weakening or dismantling those states' Renewable Energy Standards (RES) - crucial in the absence of a federal standard to
develop a globally competitive renewable energy industry and to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Montana House Bill 224, for
example, would end that state's RES, which currently requires utilities to get 15% of their energy from renewables by 2015. Ironically, energy
from the Judith Gap Wind Project - a 135 MW wind farm in Montana - costs less than that from fossil fuel plants. In Colorado, a Senate
committee voted down three bills along party lines that tried to repeal the RES.
2NC
Gop will fight any renewable energy bill-any bill represents competition to their
monopoly on energy
Rmuse 14(Political contributor to Politics USA, 5/31/14, Politics USA, “Free Market’ Republicans Give the Koch Brothers and ALEC a
Monopoly Over Ohio’s Energy’, http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/30/free-market-republicans-give-koch-brothers-alec-monopoly-ohiosenergy.html”)
Monopolies exist when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity, and are thus
characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the commodity coupled with a lack of a viable substitute. The most terrifying thing on Earth
to a person or enterprise controlling the only supply of a commodity is when a viable substitute is
discovered that forces the enterprise into economic competition that, in part, is the nature of free market capitalism. Republicans
and their conservative donors are staunch defenders of free market capitalism; that is until they see a viable
competitor. It explains their drive to restrict Democratic voters during elections, and new energy sources
that threaten the dirty energy industry’s monopoly on supplying power. Although the world will continue depending on
fossil fuels for the energy demands long into the future, there is growing movement to shift the world’s energy needs to clean
renewable (and free) sources such as wind and solar power. That is bad news for the Koch brothers who use their substantial fortunes to buy
conservative politicians and anything their fascist hearts desire, but their billions-of-dollars cannot buy the Sun or the wind to maintain their monopoly supplying
dirty energy. However, they can buy Republican
legislators to pass the Koch’s American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) template
legislation to eradicate solar and wind competition. Unfortunately for Ohio residents, the Kochs and ALEC celebrated their
first success restricting consumers from accessing the Sun and wind for their electrical power needs. Maybe
the Koch’s cannot buy and eliminate the Sun, but they can, and will, prohibit its use. Across America many states, and consumers, are overwhelmingly moving to
embrace cheaper, cleaner, and renewable wind and solar energy, including Ohio voters who are strongly in favor of clean energy standards. The Koch brothers and
ALEC could not care less what Ohio voters want and on Wednesday the state’s legislature passed an ALEC bill that rolls back its renewable energy standard (RES)
and freezes mandates requiring utilities to add clean alternative energy. The now-dead RES required utilities to get 25% of their power from wind, solar, and (not)
clean coal production by 2025, but there was no chance the Koch’s were going to allow a competing commodity to cut into their monopoly. ALEC alumnus and Ohio
Governor John Kasich is expected to sign the ALEC-Koch legislation into law despite Ohio voters and a conservative business organizations’ objections.
GOP backlash on Renewables-grants for renewables are opaque, inefficient, and
bound to fail
Geman 12(Ben, Ben Geman is a National Journal Energy and Environment Correspondent, and has nearly a decade of experience on the
beat. Before joining National Journal he spent four years as an energy correspondent for The Hill, where he helped launch the paper's energy
blog. From 2004-2009, Ben was a reporter for Environment & Energy Publishing, writing for Greenwire and other E&E newsletters. Ben also
worked at the newsletter Inside EPA, and before moving to Washington, D.C. in 2002 he wrote for several Boston-area newspapers, including
the Boston Phoenix, 03/29/12, The Hill, “House GOP takes aim at stimulus grants for renewables”, http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/219071-house-gop-takes-aim-at-stimulus-grants-for-renewables)
House Republicans
are broadening attacks against White House energy programs by targeting grants for renewable
electricity projects issued under the 2009 stimulus law, alleging the administration isn’t backing up its job-creation claims.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday bashed the administration for failing to respond thus far to letters
from Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans seeking information about the program.
ADVERTISEMENT In particular, the recent letters to the Treasury and Energy Departments seek more information on Energy Secretary Steven
Chu’s claim that the grants have created tens of thousands of jobs. “More
than $10 billion – that’s with a ‘b’ – $10 billion has been
spent on this, and Secretary Chu said it created ‘tens of thousands of jobs,’ except there’s no evidence
to support that,” Boehner said in a statement. “Listen, the American people continue to ask the question ‘Where are the
jobs?’ They deserve answers and they deserve the truth,” he said. Boehner called the Treasury Department
grants a “Solyndra-style” program in reference to the taxpayer-backed California solar company that went
belly up last year after receiving a $535 million Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009. However, the grant
program and the loan guarantee program are separate and different initiatives. The big 2009 stimulus law created a new program that allowed
renewable power project developers to obtain grants in lieu of traditional tax credit financing. It expired at the end of 2011 despite
administration pleas to extend it. The program was a response to the collapse of the tax credit financing market during the economic crisis, and
renewable power advocates credit the grants with keeping new wind power and other renewables projects in the pipeline. The tax credits had
withered as an option because financiers lacked profits – and hence tax liabilities – to use the credits against, and some banks that backed
renewable projects were in crisis or collapsed (including Lehman Brothers). Chu, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee in
March of 2011, said the program has been “extraordinarily successful.” “The Section 1603 tax grant program has created tens of thousands of
jobs in industries such as wind and solar by providing up-front incentives to thousands of projects,” he said in calling for a one-year extension.
Boehner, in his statement, accused the administration of “wasting taxpayer dollars on failed ‘stimulus’ programs.” A consultant to renewable
power companies pushed back against Boehner’s allegations about spending on the 1603 program, named after the section of the stimulus law
that spawned it. The consultant noted that companies receiving grants were awarded them in lieu of tax credits that had already been
authorized. “1603 didn’t create a single new dollar of federal spending,” the consultant said. “If you qualified for the Production Tax Credit, you
qualified for 1603, and the reimbursement was automatic. End of story.” Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/219071house-gop-takes-aim-at-stimulus-grants-for-renewables#ixzz37Y9SLdKP Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
**-Renewables (Ocean)
1NC
Offshore energy breeds partisanship – Cape Wind, empirical failures, and oil lobbies
prove
Cassidy 7/15
Patrick, reporter for SouthCoast Today (Reputable East Coast news source) (“GOP-controlled House
takes shot at Cape Wind”, July 15 2014,
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140715/NEWS/140719934)//
Just when Cape Wind officials thought it was safe to go back in the water, federal lawmakers have fired
another, albeit largely symbolic, shot across the bow of the controversial project. In a vote last week the GOPcontrolled House approved an energy and water appropriations bill that included a measure to bar a
$150 million federal loan guarantee for the offshore wind farm planned for Nantucket Sound. The move came
amid a flurry of activity surrounding the project in the past week, including the hiring by its primary
opposition group of a Harvard law professor quoted in the federal court decision the group is now appealing and an expected
vote today on a lease option for Cape Wind at port facilities in Rhode Island. Although the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a project
opponent, has been in touch in the past with members of Congress about the problems the organization sees with Cape Wind, group president
Audra Parker said she didn't have any direct contact with U.S. Rep. Randy K. Weber Sr., R-Texas, about the
amendment he proposed
to specifically prohibit funding for Cape Wind through the energy and water bill. The bill, including the amendment, passed 253-170,
largely along partisan lines. "I think there's concern about Cape Wind and its economic impacts and its risks,
particularly after Solyndra," Parker said about the solar energy giant that failed three years ago after
receiving $535 million in loans from the Department of Energy. Although the program is not the same one the
department used to conditionally approve a $150 million loan guarantee for Cape Wind on July 1,
opponents of the project and Republican critics of the Obama administration have used Solyndra's
failure to criticize support for Cape Wind, which previously had asked for nearly $2 billion from the same program that was used
by Solyndra. Cape Wind spokesman Mark Rodgers called the House vote a "narrow partisan reaction that has no
chance of being enacted into law." Others, including some Republicans, have agreed, citing the unlikelihood that
the Senate would take up the bill or that the president would sign it. U.S. Rep. William Keating, D-Mass., issued a
statement after voting against the bill, saying its passage was another example of Republicans siding
with the oil and gas industry and seeking "to undermine the development of offshore renewable
energy." "Cape Wind represents more than a fight for federal funding; it will be a first-of-its-kind project that will
mark the entrance of the United States as a producer of offshore renewable energy into the global
playing field," Keating said. That is, of course, if the project survives the continued though largely unsuccessful
legal challenges against it.
**2NC
Cleaner energy empirically cause backlash-Rhode Island Natural Gas proves
Colt 8(Ames, PHD in strategic oceanic planning, July 2008, “Bays, Rivers, and Watersheds Systems-Level Plan: 2009-2013”, THE RHODE
ISLAND BAYS, RIVERS, & WATERSHEDS COORDINATION TEAM, http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Documents/BRWSLPFinal.pdf)
Despite the historic presence of energy
infrastructure on Rhode Island’s coast, technology advancements inevitably create
public controversy, as demonstrated by the Cape Wind project and the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas
terminal in Fall River. Both projects provoked political backlash and debate about potential economic dislocation
for industries tied to marine navigation and recreation. However, movement of fossil fuel energy products by water is a cost-effective
way to move these products and New England will rely increasingly upon LNG to meet its future energy needs . Inherent to meeting future energy
needs is siting major energy facilities (generation, storage, distribution, or conversion operations such as power plants and municipal-scale wind turbine
generator fields (windfarms)) on or near coastal waters and developing the piers, berths, shore-side facilties, and other
required support facilities. It may also require additional dredging of federal shipping channels.
-Rare Earth Mining
1NC
Offshore mining policies guarantee congressional infighting – industry inertia, lobbies,
and empirics
Friedland 14
Jamie Friedland – Discourse Editor of the UCLA Law Review, J.D. candidate at the UCLA School of Law
(“Under the (Territorial) Sea: Reforming U.S. Mining Law for Earth’s Final Frontier”, 2014,
http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/61-5-9.pdf)//
Correcting a market distortion is helpful, but ensuring
that the government receives adequate compensation from
private, for-profit mining corporations is also important because public resources are just that—public. When those
resources are privatized and public lands are degraded, the public deserves to be compensated for its
loss. This simple statement is actually controversial in the realm of American mineral politics, and, as
discussed below, has been argued back and forth since the nineteenth century. Recall that this Comment urges reform
for the nation's offshore mineral regulations because they are now obsolete at twenty-four years old. Yet
consider that the centerpiece of terrestrial mining law on public land—the General Mining Act of 1872 (GMA)'"—has
been overdue for reform for well over a century. As alluded to above, this law has survived not because of its
policy brilliance or record of su ecs, but rather because industry interests have impres¬sively managed
to thwart repeated reform attempts for over a century.'" What started as an informal, royalty-free, and
hands-off approach to encourage frontier development was cemented through political inertia into
long-term mineral policy that has proven impenetrable to subsequent economic, social, and political
changes. The General Mining Ads unfortunately long life has entrenched wildly outdated perspectives toward public
resource management and cannot help but serve as a case study in royalty-free extraction and what happens
when frontier pressures are allowed to shape long-term mineral policy. Especially in an era of record-breaking inaction in
Congress, it takes considerable politi¬cal pressure to change a system once it 1S in place.10' This case study
demonstrates how important it is for regulators to lay out a forward-looking regulatory regime from the beginning, before special interests
become embedded in the political system. The time to consider the prudence of our submarine resource manage¬ment policy is now—before
these resources are really in play. The General Mining Act proves this point beyond any doubt.
2NC
REE split GOP and democrats-democrats resisting any REE bills
Topf 14(Andrew, Investing News Network as senior editor, Andrew was an editor at MINING.com, a mining and mineral exploration blog
covering the global mining industry and commodities markets. With a background in newspaper and trade magazine reporting, Andrew has
written for the Black Press newspaper chain in British Columbia, Business in Vancouver and Baum Publications, where he edited magazines on
construction and environmental technology, Investing News Network, ”House Passes Critical Minerals Act”, Sept 23/2013,
http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/16395-house-passes-critical-minerals-act.html)
Known as the
National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act, the bill was passed 246 to 178, with just 15
Democrats in favor. In the last Congress, 22 Democrats supported a similar bill. The act would give federal agencies a maximum 30
months to decide on whether to approve or reject permits for exploration and mining, and it limits the ability of opponents to use courts to
stop mining. Get the latest Rare Earth Investing News articles delivered to your email inbox. Learn more Email Sign up Republican supporters of
the bill say the legislation is needed to speed up mining approvals, to ensure that the US has adequate sources of strategic minerals such as rare
earths. Locally
sourced strategic minerals would break US dependence on other countries, such as China, on
importing the materials, used for defense and other applications. “Burdensome red tape, duplicative reviews, frivolous
lawsuits and onerous regulations can hold up new mining projects here in the U.S. for more than 10 years,” The Hill
reported House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), as saying. “These unnecessary delays cost
American jobs as we become more and more dependent on foreign countries for these raw ingredients.
“As China continues to tighten global supplies of rare earth elements, we should respond with an American mineral mining renaissance that will
bring mining and manufacturing jobs back to America.” Opponents
voted against the bill because they said it would erode
environmental protections and because it includes a broad definition of “strategic minerals,” The House reported. “The bill’s
classification of critical minerals is so broad that even sand and gravel and other such things can fall under its definition,” said
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.). Attempts by House Democrats to narrow the definition of strategic minerals were
unsuccessful. Not surprisingly, the bill was applauded by the US mining industry. “Without compromising our rigorous environmental
standards, this bi-partisan legislation carefully addresses the inefficiencies of our underperforming system by
incorporating best practices for improving coordination among state and federal agencies, clarifying
responsibilities, avoiding duplication, setting timeframes and bringing more accountability to the process,” National Mining Association CEO Hal
Quinn said in a statement. However, while the
bill has the blessings of House Republicans and industry, it is unlikely to
gain the support of a majority of lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled Senate. A similar version of the
legislation died in the the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2012, Mineweb reported. Texas Rare Earth
Resources (OTCMKTS:TRER), which is developing the Round Top project near El Paso, said the 15 Democrat votes are “a solid sign
of a growing consensus on the importance of strategic and critical metals.” The rare earths company also decried
the predicted demise of the bill in the Senate. “I am sorry to see some of the news reports stating that now the Amodei bill ‘goes to die in the
Senate,’” said Chairman Anthony Marchese. “For rare earths and other strategic metals — including beryllium, lithium and uranium — that’s a
dangerous view to take. Now that the House has recognized the need to develop domestic resources, it is critical to have serious discussion in
the Senate on this bill — and on strategic metals policy more broadly.” The US Department of Defense in its biannual Strategic and Critical
Materials 2013 Report on Stockpile Requirements, recommends stockpiling $120.43 million worth of heavy rare earth elements (HREEs), Rare
Earth Investing News reported. China, which produces about 95 percent of all rare earths elements, is using government funds to stockpile REEs
and in 2012 announced its intention to build a strategic reserve for future shortfalls.
Plan unpopular—empirics
Doggett 10 (Tom Doggett is an economist of Reuters, 9/30/14, "U.S. aims to end China's rare earth metals monopoly”,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/us-earth-metals-rare-idUSTRE68T68T20100930)
Legislation has been introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives to increase investment and
production of the rare metals in the United States, including providing extraction companies with federal loan
guarantees. However, the legislation is not expected to clear the Congress this year.
Environmentalists hate the plan
Cox 13 (Ramsey Cox is a bill analyst for the Hill, July 3rd, 2013, “House bill aims to ‘streamline’ permits for mining rare earth
elements”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/309177-house-bill-aims-to-streamline-permits-for-miningrare-earth#ixzz375uEe916
Decade-long permitting delays are standing in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local communities,” Amodei said. “This bill would
streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation's vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic and environmental
concerns.” In
May, the House Natural Resources Committee marked up the bill and voted to advance it on
a 24-17 vote. Only one Democrat on the committee supported the bill — Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.). Some
Democrats have argued that streamlining mining permits could be harmful to the environment and
should be thoroughly reviewed before mining is allowed. The bill would require the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to work with state and local governments to expedite the permitting process in order to keep the United States
competitive with other mining countries, such as China and India.
Plan is unpopular
Topf 13 (Andrew Topf is a exclusive writer for Rare Earth Investing News, 9/23/14, “House Passes Critical Minerals Act”, Rare Earth investing News,
http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/16395-house-passes-critical-minerals-act.html)
Opponents voted against the bill because they said it would erode environmental protections and because it
includes a broad definition of “strategic minerals,” The House reported. “The bill’s classification of critical
minerals is so broad that even sand and gravel and other such things can fall under its definition,” said
Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.). Attempts by House Democrats to narrow the definition of strategic minerals
were unsuccessful. Not surprisingly, the bill was applauded by the US mining industry. “Without compromising our rigorous
environmental standards, this bi-partisan legislation carefully addresses the inefficiencies of our underperforming system by incorporating best
practices for improving coordination among state and federal agencies, clarifying responsibilities, avoiding duplication, setting timeframes and
bringing more accountability to the process,” National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn said in a statement. However,
while the bill
has the blessings of House Republicans and industry, it is unlikely to gain the support of a majority of
lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled Senate. A similar version of the legislation died in the the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2012, Mineweb reported.
-Icebreakers
1NC
There is huge Congressional opposition to icebreakers – perceived as waste
Song 11 – reporter, Seattle Times Washington Bureau (Kyung, “2 parties' icebreaker plans on collision course,” 11/7/11,
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2016713336_icebreaker08m.html, SJF)
For a pair of battered ships that in recent years have mostly sat docked in Seattle, the Coast Guard's
heavy-duty icebreakers are facing roiling waters in Congress. The Coast Guard wants to mothball the
hobbled Polar Sea and scavenge the 33-year-old vessel for parts for its sister ship, the Polar Star. Sen.
Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., opposes the move. Last week, the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee passed a two-year Coast Guard authorization bill that included an
amendment co-sponsored by Cantwell barring the service from decommissioning the Polar Sea. But over
in the House, Republicans are pushing for the exact opposite: They want the Coast Guard to
permanently mothball the Polar Sea in six months, and to decommission the Polar Star — now
undergoing a $57 million overhaul near West Seattle — in three years. That measure passed a House
committee in September and was scheduled for consideration by the full House on Friday before being
postponed. And on Thursday, the White House issued a statement that it "strongly opposes" the House
version of the reauthorization bill on grounds that it would prematurely yank the Polar Star from service
and "create a significant gap in the nation's icebreaking capability." The legislative tussle is playing out as
warming climates are opening up frozen regions to increased exploration just as the nation's two biggest
icebreakers are past their original life spans. Experts say the thinning ice will increase demand for
icebreakers as more people flock to the hazardous polar environs. House Republicans are using the
threat of decommissioning in an effort to push the Coast Guard and the administration to articulate its
Arctic mission and just how large an icebreaker fleet is needed. Out of the Coast Guard's three generalpurpose icebreakers, all based in Seattle, only the medium-duty Healy is currently operating. The 399foot Polar Sea was refurbished in 2006, only to be crippled by engine failure last year. The rehabbed
Polar Star, the Polar Sea's twin, is slated to return to service in 2013 with hopes of squeezing an
additional seven to 10 years of use out of it. "These icebreakers have not been in regular service since
2006, but we have been spending tens of millions of dollars every year just to keep them tied to the
dock," said Justin Harclerode, Republican spokesman for the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee. Just last month, Congress received an independent analysis of whether the Coast Guard
should build new icebreakers or keep going with its two aged vessels. The report has not been made
public. Rep. Rick Larsen, of Lake Stevens, the top Democrat on the House transportation panel's Coast
Guard subcommittee, said it would be unwise to order the two icebreakers decommissioned before
concluding a definitive study about how the United States can best maintain economic and scientific
presence in the polar regions. Larsen has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 1 titled "Protecting U.S.
Sovereignty: Coast Guard Operations in the Arctic." Earlier, Larsen withdrew an amendment to block the
decommissioning provision after Republicans agreed to address his concerns before the bill went up for
a floor vote. But Larsen said he "couldn't convince the Republican majority" to drop the language.
***-Offshore Drilling/ NatGas)****
1NC
Offshore drilling sparks intense political conflict – finger-pointing, oil subsidies, and
rider bills
Barrett et al. 8
Ted, Deirdre Walsh, and Kate Bolduan – reporters for CNN Politics (“Congress to revisit fight over
offshore oil drilling”, September 8 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/congress.energy/)//
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Lawmakers
return to Capitol Hill on Monday to resume their fight over legislation allowing
more offshore oil drilling, in a bid to help relieve sky-high gasoline prices that are hurting the economy and infuriating
voters. Republicans believe offshore oil drilling will be a winning issue for them this fall. While there were signs of
compromise over the August recess, many on Capitol Hill are skeptical a deal can be reached that would send a bill to the president's desk
before Election Day. Aides
and congressional members from both parties acknowledge finger-pointing is
likely to trump legislative deal-making during the truncated three-week session before lawmakers return home to campaign for
re-election. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who long resisted Republican-led calls to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling, changed
course over the recess and now say they will push comprehensive energy plans in September that will include expanded drilling. But
Democrats will insist energy bills also include their own priorities, such as repealing tax breaks for big
oil companies, something many Republicans oppose. "If this is going to be a fig leaf, a political
document, then it's doomed to failure at the end of the day," Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, said Friday about the
package being put together by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California. Despite a recent dip in prices at the pump, Republicans
believe expanded oil drilling remains a potent political issue. They feel emboldened by complaints they
heard from constituents over the summer break, and they are convinced their August protest sessions on the House
floor helped draw attention to a lack of congressional action on energy policy. Video Watch what voters told one
Democratic congressman » Republicans also expect a boost from their vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a strong advocate of
drilling. Delegates at the Republican National convention last week showed their fervor for drilling by punctuating speeches with chants of
"drill, baby, drill." Republicans believe Democrats are underestimating the political importance voters give the issue. They point to Sen. Chuck
Schumer, D-New York, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign effort, who was quoted last month in the newspaper Politico, saying the
drilling issue had "peaked" for voters. Pelosi plans to unveil her bill by the end of the week, her office said. In addition to allowing limited
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, the measure is expected to include curbs on market speculators, and provisions promoting the use of
alternative sources of energy and requiring the release of millions of barrels of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve. "Democrats support
drilling, but a 'drill only' plan would do nothing but drill deeper and deeper into your wallet," Rep. John
Larson, D-Connecticut, said last week. A bipartisan compromise group in the Senate known as the "Gang of 10" expanded to 16 members
over the break. Several more members are expected to join this week, a source involved with the group told CNN. The bill the "gang" is pushing
would tie new offshore drilling to $84 billion in investments in conservation and the use of alternative fuels. Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nevada, is working with the group and may link its bill to a package of tax breaks for producers of wind, solar,
and other alternative fuels, an aide to the senator said. Senate Republicans are wary of Reid because they don't
think he will allow votes on their amendments, something they will insist upon, even if the bill includes
provisions they support, like offshore drilling, a Senate Republican leadership aide told CNN. Senators are holding a
bipartisan energy summit Friday, sponsored by Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, to hear from industry
experts, but it's not clear the summit will actually help bridge differences between many Democrats and
Republicans. The controversy over offshore drilling could prompt a showdown later this month over a must-pass bill to fund the
government through early 2009. The bill includes an annual extension of the moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
**2NC
They say no link, but …Ext Barret et al 8, any drilling bills empirically kills
bipartisanship- finger-pointing, oil subsidies, and differing interests. The ASPEC-OSPEC
doublebind is a better arg than their no-link argument. Republicans are backed by big
oil companies, so promoting cleaner alternative fuels will cause them to lashout at
Obama, wrecking bipartisanship. Our needham ev says that the bank has already
overcome opposition by some conservatives, doing the plan would stir this conflict
back up.
NatGas is unpopular, big oil companies hate competition
Weiss 10 [Daniel J. Weiss, Senior Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American
Progress, Oil Dependence Is a Dangerous Habit, Center for American Progress, January 13, 2010,
http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2010/01/13/7200/oil-dependence-is-a-dangeroushabit/, 6/24/14]
Many major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, are some of
the most vocal opponents of increasing American energy independence and reducing global warming pollution.
This is likely because they profit by buying oil from “dangerous or unstable” states. This includes importing oil
from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Mauritania, Iraq, Congo, Colombia, Chad, and Algeria. In 2008 Chevron made a profit of $23.9 billion while
nearly half of its imports—138 million barrels of oil—came from these countries. ExxonMobil made $45.2 billion while getting 43 percent of its
oil—205.6 million barrels—from these countries. About one-third of BP’s imports—110.6 million barrels—were from these countries in 2008,
when the company’s profits were $25.6 billion. Approximately 25 percent of ConocoPhillips’ imports were from “dangerous or unstable”
countries—116.7 million barrels—in 2008, contributing to its $52.7 billion profit. And Shell raked in $31.4 billion that year, also importing onequarter of its oil—61.8 million barrels—from these countries. (Note: Shell includes Shell Chemical LP, Shell Chemical Yabucoa Inc, Shell US
Trading Co, Shell Oil Co, and Shell Oil Co Deer Park). With
that kind of money it’s no wonder Big Oil is doing everything
in its power to maintain the status quo. The companies are spending record amounts on lobbying to
stop clean-energy and climate legislation. The American Petroleum Institute spent $75.2 million for public relations and
advertising in 2008, and in the third quarter of 2009 the oil and gas industry outspent all other sectors lobbying on climate change, with Exxon
Mobil leading the pack spending $7.2 million.
Offshore drilling talks create a political firestorm which destroys bipartisanship; fear
of spills and environment
Truthout 6truth-out.org – an independent investigative reporting agency, certified nonprofit agency
without any corporate or advertising backing (as a means to avoid bias), respected critical analysis news
source
(“Offshore Drilling Bill Advances in House”, June 21 2006, http://www.truthout.org/archive/component/k2/item/63682:offshore-drilling-bill-advances-in-house)//
Washington - Legislation
that would end a quarter-century ban on drilling in most of the Outer Continental
Shelf advanced in the House on Wednesday. The measure would allow oil and gas development in restricted
offshore waters unless a state prohibited it. The House Resources Committee approved the legislation in 29-9 vote, and its sponsors say it
has a good chance of being approved by the full House But the bill's prospects in the Senate are poor as Florida's two
senators - as well as others from coastal states - have threatened to filibuster any legislation that
would end the drilling moratorium in most coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico. Waters within 50 miles of shore
would still be protected by the House bill. But oil and gas drilling would be allowed in areas beyond that unless a state's legislature and
governor act to preserve the ban. The
House bill also seeks to force oil companies to renegotiate some 1990-era
contracts in which the government mistakenly allowed a loophole that lets the companies
avoid royalty payments. The leases involve deep water areas of the western Gulf of Mexico. The bill would impose a $9 a barrel fee on
offshore leasing
oil companies seeking new offshore oil drilling leases unless they agree to renegotiate the flawed 1998-99 leases. The royalty issue also was the
focus of a second House committee hearing on Wednesday where executives from several major oil companies said they were willing to discuss
changes in the 1998-99 leases that would correct the error. "It's time to resolve this issue," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., told the
House Government Reform subcommittee on energy and resources. Executives from Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillips Co., also said they are
prepared to discussed changes in the 1990s leases. But Exxon Mobil Corp., said it opposed renegotiating the contracts and an executive from
Kerr McGee Corp., a major gas producer, said the issue should be left to the courts. The Interior Department omitted language in the 1998-99
leases that would have required royalty payments on oil and gas if prices reached a certain level. Since then, oil and gas prices have soared well
beyond the trigger, but oil companies are not required to pay royalties because of the omitted language. Some congressional estimates have
put the loss to the government at up to $10 billion over the life of the leases. A
congressional drilling moratorium outside the
western Gulf has been in effect for 85 percent of U.S. coastal waters since 1981, approved each year by
Congress. But there has been growing pressure in Congress to lift the bans and gain access to offshore
oil and gas resources. The bill, pushed by House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., would be the latest attempt to open
more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling. Current restrictions "are based on the false notion that energy
production and environmental protection were mutually exclusive," argued Pombo. He chastised lawmakers
opposed to the bill, saying they "are opposed to any energy production ... no matter where it is or how it
is done." Pombo and other drilling advocates emphasized that the bill would permanently protect waters within 50 miles of shore - instead
of relying on annual congressional action - and would give states the opportunity to protect waters up to 100 miles from shore. However, the
opponents - while in a clear minority on the committee - didn't buy the argument. "This is pretty much a complete
rollback of drilling protection of our coasts," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., He said the bill
amounts to bribing states by offering large shares of royalty payments. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said he was
concerned that his state's coastal wasters - and a multibillion tourist business - could be harmed by a
neighboring state's decision to allow drilling. Also, said Pallone, state legislatures and governors every
five years would have to make a declaration to continue protecting their own waters - something that
could be difficult. The bill was worked out with the cooperation of a number of Republican lawmakers from Florida, where talk of
offshore drilling has sparked a political firestorm. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., strongly endorsed the legislation
because it assures protection of waters up to 100 miles from shore. As the Resources Committee
debated the legislation, however, five Florida lawmakers held a news conference denouncing the bill. It
puts Floridians "on the short end of the stick facing disastrous legislation that threatens our state's
environment and economic well being," declared Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla. "Imagine what a disaster like
Exxon Valdez would do to Florida's coast. The consequences are horrifying," said Wexler, alluding to the oil tanker
accident that devastated Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989.
Cleaner energy empirically cause backlash-Rhode Island Natural Gas proves
Colt 8(Ames, PHD in strategic oceanic planning, July 2008, “Bays, Rivers, and Watersheds Systems-Level Plan: 2009-2013”, THE RHODE
ISLAND BAYS, RIVERS, & WATERSHEDS COORDINATION TEAM, http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/Documents/BRWSLPFinal.pdf)
Despite the historic presence of energy
infrastructure on Rhode Island’s coast, technology advancements inevitably create
public controversy, as demonstrated by the Cape Wind project and the proposed Liquefied Natural Gas
terminal in Fall River. Both projects provoked political backlash and debate about potential economic dislocation
for industries tied to marine navigation and recreation. However, movement of fossil fuel energy products by water is a cost-effective
way to move these products and New England will rely increasingly upon LNG to meet its future energy needs . Inherent to meeting future energy
needs is siting major energy facilities (generation, storage, distribution, or conversion operations such as power plants and municipal-scale wind turbine
generator fields (windfarms)) on or near coastal waters and developing the piers, berths, shore-side facilties, and other
required support facilities. It may also require additional dredging of federal shipping channels.
The GOP will fight offshore drilling – perceived as an Obama policy
Friedman 11
Will Friedman – former columnist for The Chronicle, graduate of Duke University (major in Public Policy
Studies and minor in Environmental Science), contributor for Change.org
(“Obama Negotiates with Himself on Oil. Again.”, May 16 2011,
http://politicalclimate.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/obama-negotiates-with-himself-on-oil-again/)//
Recall that last
year, right before the Congressional energy debate, the administration unveiled a plan to
dramatically increase offshore drilling. For which it asked nothing in return. Rational negotiators might
reward unilateral compromise. A GOP party that miraculously resurrected itself by vociferously
opposing any- and everything Obama does would of course do no such thing. So we gave away a bargaining chip
for free [that most progressives would have rather kept] and no energy bill was passed. Also, this episode occurred just one month
before the BP oil spill, which prevented the administration from using that catastrophe as a catalyst for needed change. In both cases, the
only rationale I can see is political maneuvering. We know the Obama campaign prizes the supposedly
undecided independents and what moderate Republicans still exist “in the middle.” They think that
carving out GOP territory for Obama will undercut Republican attacks. But even if they pick up some
independents, if they sell out progressives to do it that is not a net gain. Additionally, the GOP won’t
care that oil production is up – more than they want these policy objectives, they want to keep their
base angry. Have Obama’s oil moves blunted their attacks on this president as anti-oil or trickled into the Fox Newsiverse? No. Obama’s
tactics seem to operate from a flawed premise on bipartisanship about which I have previously written, and I am
concerned about this plan. Drill, baby, drill is political welfare for Big Oil, plain and simple. It does not help
America, it helps oil executives. If we’re going to cave on offshore drilling, leverage it for a coherent energy policy. If we’re going to
increase domestic oil production, call it the compromise that it is and justify it as job creation (with a side of pollution and risk); don’t validate
their lies. I can stomach a certain amount of political compromise, but I can’t start defending the Fox News reality as truth.
New offshore drilling bills cause massive congressional fights – empirics, specialinterest groups, and Obama prove
Koenig 12
Brian, reporter for The New American (“House Republicans Reject Obama Plan for Offshore Drilling”,
July 26 2012, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/12224-house-republicans-rejectsobama-plan-for-offshore-drilling)//
Mounting resistance against President Obama’s seemingly anti-oil agenda, the Republican-led House passed a
bill Wednesday that would displace the administration’s new offshore drilling plan. The measure is doomed
for failure in the Senate, which has prompted Democrats to blast the attempt as a political maneuver
made by disgruntled Republicans who oppose the president’s energy policies. H.R. 6082 would boost
the cap on offshore gas and oil lease sales to 28 for the next five years, an increase from the administration’s proposed 15. The
Republican bill effectively broadens more Pacific and Atlantic coastal areas to oil exploration, standing in
contrast to Obama’s plan to bar exploration in those regions; the legislation also would fast-track lease sales in Arctic
waters off the Alaskan coast. Additionally, Republicans offered another bill that rejected the administration’s plan, serving as an opportunity to
express further discontent over the president’s opposition to new fossil fuel production. The
House voted 261-164, stringing
along a few Democrats, to scrap the administration’s plan. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, said the GOP-led measure would provide lawmakers with an alternative to Obama’s restrictive oil plan. The White House
proposal currently is facing a 60-day congressional review before implementation, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says he will sign off on it
immediately following the review. The
administration’s stance against new oil exploration largely stemmed from
BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which ignited waves of protest from environmentalists and liberalleaning groups. Consequently, Congress and the White House have imposed heavy restrictions that bar
all drilling in much of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats have railed against the GOP bills, portraying them as
an arbitrary political stunt intended to spoil the president’s energy agenda. “The only reason the majority is
bringing up this bill is to defeat it,” Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said previous to the vote that rejected Obama’s plan. Democrats and the
White House claim the president’s plan still makes 75 percent of recoverable offshore resources open for exploration. However, the measure
proposes fewer leases than any other administration since the Jimmy Carter presidency, asserted Rep. Hastings. “Virginia will be left out in the
cold” until at least 2017, he affirmed, cheating Americans out of thousands of jobs. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) suggested Wednesday that
Obama’s resistance to new oil production is a political attempt to secure votes and campaign dollars for
the November elections. Subsequent delays on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which is slated to transport Canadian crude to southern parts of
the U.S., were allegedly motivated by Obama’s desire to appease environmentalists who felt marginalized following the 2008 election. "It would
appear to me that they
are playing off special interest groups at the expense of trying to come up with a
long-term energy program that does all of the above," Mr. Bishop charged. The New American reported in June that
Obama’s so-called dedication to oil production, which he touted in his 2012 State of the Union address, is highly
questionable. The president claims he has pledged to provide “every possible action” to develop “a supply of natural gas that can last
America nearly one hundred years.” However, only days after hailing his “dedication” to bolstering U.S. oil supply, Obama issued his
proposed 2013 budget, which according to Financial Times, “sets up a fight with the oil and gas industry.”
Furthermore, Obama lauded a March attempt by the U.S. Senate to end billions of dollars in tax breaks for
the “big five” oil companies, which includes BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. "I think it's time they got by
without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and
filling up their gas tank," the president said at the time. "And I think it's curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to
belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies."
Following his anti-oil theme, Obama expressed staunch opposition against the Republicans’ July 25
efforts to expand U.S. oil production, promising a veto to any bill that moves beyond his proposed
legislation. Insofar as its political implications, critics say the president's initiative to keep the oil industry highly regulated could backfire, as
persistently high gas prices may shift voters to the other side of the political aisle.
Obama staunchly opposes offshore drilling now – the aff is perceived as a key flip flop
Koenig 12
Brian, reporter for The New American (“House Republicans Reject Obama Plan for Offshore Drilling”,
July 26 2012, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/12224-house-republicans-rejectsobama-plan-for-offshore-drilling)//
Mounting resistance against President Obama’s seemingly anti-oil agenda, the Republican-led House passed a
bill Wednesday that would displace the administration’s new offshore drilling plan. The measure is doomed
for failure in the Senate, which has prompted Democrats to blast the attempt as a political maneuver
made by disgruntled Republicans who oppose the president’s energy policies. H.R. 6082 would boost
the cap on offshore gas and oil lease sales to 28 for the next five years, an increase from the administration’s proposed 15. The
Republican bill effectively broadens more Pacific and Atlantic coastal areas to oil exploration, standing in
contrast to Obama’s plan to bar exploration in those regions; the legislation also would fast-track lease sales in Arctic
waters off the Alaskan coast. Additionally, Republicans offered another bill that rejected the administration’s plan, serving as an opportunity to
express further discontent over the president’s opposition to new fossil fuel production. The
House voted 261-164, stringing
along a few Democrats, to scrap the administration’s plan. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee, said the GOP-led measure would provide lawmakers with an alternative to Obama’s restrictive oil plan. The White House
proposal currently is facing a 60-day congressional review before implementation, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says he will sign off on it
immediately following the review. The
administration’s stance against new oil exploration largely stemmed from
BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which ignited waves of protest from environmentalists and liberalleaning groups. Consequently, Congress and the White House have imposed heavy restrictions that bar
all drilling in much of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Democrats have railed against the GOP bills, portraying them as
an arbitrary political stunt intended to spoil the president’s energy agenda. “The only reason the majority is
bringing up this bill is to defeat it,” Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said previous to the vote that rejected Obama’s plan. Democrats and the
White House claim the president’s plan still makes 75 percent of recoverable offshore resources open for exploration. However, the measure
proposes fewer leases than any other administration since the Jimmy Carter presidency, asserted Rep. Hastings. “Virginia will be left out in the
cold” until at least 2017, he affirmed, cheating Americans out of thousands of jobs. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) suggested Wednesday that
Obama’s resistance to new oil production is a political attempt to secure votes and campaign dollars for
the November elections. Subsequent delays on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which is slated to transport Canadian crude to southern parts of
the U.S., were allegedly motivated by Obama’s desire to appease environmentalists who felt marginalized following the 2008 election. "It would
appear to me that they
are playing off special interest groups at the expense of trying to come up with a
long-term energy program that does all of the above," Mr. Bishop charged. The New American reported in June that
Obama’s so-called dedication to oil production, which he touted in his 2012 State of the Union address, is highly
questionable. The president claims he has pledged to provide “every possible action” to develop “a supply of natural gas that can last
America nearly one hundred years.” However, only days after hailing his “dedication” to bolstering U.S. oil supply, Obama issued his
proposed 2013 budget, which according to Financial Times, “sets up a fight with the oil and gas industry.”
Furthermore, Obama lauded a March attempt by the U.S. Senate to end billions of dollars in tax breaks for
the “big five” oil companies, which includes BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. "I think it's time they got by
without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and
filling up their gas tank," the president said at the time. "And I think it's curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to
belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies."
Following his anti-oil theme, Obama expressed staunch opposition against the Republicans’ July 25
efforts to expand U.S. oil production, promising a veto to any bill that moves beyond his proposed
legislation. Insofar as its political implications, critics say the president's initiative to keep the oil industry highly regulated could backfire, as
persistently high gas prices may shift voters to the other side of the political aisle.
-Submarine Cables
1NC
Submarine cable projects spur congressional fights – interest opposition, public
perception, and agency fragmentation
Lipman and Vu 11
Andrew Lipman – member of Birmingham’s Executive Board with more than three decades worth of
experience in the telecommunications industry, J.D. from Stanford Law School, former manager of
telecomm privatization projects in Europe, Asia, and Latin America; Nguyen Vu – former Associate for
Telecommunications, Media & Technology, and Privacy & Security at Birmingham McCutchen LLP,
internet communications and infrastructure service regulations advisor
(“Building a Submarine Cable: Navigating the regulatory Waters of Licensing and Permitting”, 2011,
http://www.bingham.com/Publications/Files/2011/04/Building-a-Submarine-Cable-Navigating-theRegulatory-Waters-of-Licensing-and-Permitting)//
Streamlining the Licensing and Permitting Process In order to handle the myriad of federal and state
permits, applicants -- either the subsea cable sponsors or their suppliers, depending on the division of
permitting responsibilities in the cable’s supply contract -- generally convene a pre-application meeting
with all federal, state and local agencies that may have jurisdiction over the project. In general, most of
the permit applications require detailed information on the location of the cable and its potential
environmental impact. Moreover, most of these permitting processes involve public consultation
proceedings and can become politically charged. Past cable projects, have resulted in substantial
opposition from environmental and fishing interests. Although these disputes have ultimately been
resolved in most cases, they can result in delay and substantial additional costs. As such, having
sufficient lead time to obtain all applicable permits and having knowledgeable and experienced advisors
in this area is critical to securing all necessary approvals for timely commencement of operations
-Flight 370
1NC
Navy MH370 search causes controversy – most expensive search ever
The Rakyat Post 14 (The Raykat Post, “MH370 Will Cost Huge”, 4/18/14,
http://www.therakyatpost.com/news/2014/04/18/mh370-search-cost-will-be-huge/)
The search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is set to be the most expensive in aviation history, analysts say, as efforts
to find the aircraft deep under the Indian Ocean show no signs of slowing. The Boeing 777 vanished on March 8 with 239 people on board, after veering dramatically off course en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and is believed
costs will be
“huge”. “When we look at salvaging (wreckage) at a depth of 4.5km, no military out there has the capacity to do it,” AFP quoted Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein yesterday. “We have to look at
to have crashed in the sea off Australia. Australia, which is leading the search in a remote patch of water described as “unknown to man”, has not put a figure on spending, but Malaysia has warned that
contractors and the cost of that will be huge.” Ravikumar Madavaram, an aviation expert at Frost & Sullivan Asia Pacific, said Malaysia, Australia and China, which had the most nationals onboard the flight, were the biggest
spenders and estimated the total cost up to now at about US$100 million (RM324 million). “It’s difficult to say how much the cost of this operation is … but, yes, this is definitely the biggest operation ever (in aviation history). “In
terms of costs this will be the highest.” In the first month of the search, in which the South China Sea and Malacca Strait were also scoured by the US, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam, the Pentagon said the US military had
committed US$7.3 million to efforts to find the plane. Meanwhile, the Indian Ocean search, in which assets have also been deployed by Australia, Britain, China, South Korea, Japan and New Zealand, has failed to find anything
Hopes rest on a torpedo-shaped US Navy submersible, which is searching the ocean floor at depths of more than 4,500m in the vicinity of where four signals believed to have
the costs “will be in the order of a hundred
million dollars by the time we’re finished, if we have found it (the plane) now”. But he said the longer it took to find any wreckage, the more costs would
mount because scanning the vast ocean floor “will take a lot of money because you can only search about 50sq km a day”. Salvaging anything would also depend on how deep the ocean is at the crash point and how
conclusive.
come from black box recorders were detected. David Gleave, an aviation safety researcher at Britain’s Loughborough University, said
dispersed the wreckage, with weather and politics also complicating factors, he said. The fate of MH370 has drawn parallels with the hunt for Air France Flight447 which plunged into the Atlantic in 2009. The two-year operation to
recover its black box, which involved assets from France, Brazil and the US, has been estimated to have cost 80-100 million euros, according to figures cited by France’s Investigation and Analysis Bureau (BEA). Australia’s Joint
Agency Coordination Centre says its main focus is still on finding flight MH370. “It is one of the most difficult searches ever undertaken and could take some time,” JACC said in a statement.. “The cost of the search is significant. The
exact figure has not yet been calculated. “The cost is being shared by our international partners who have contributed their people and military and civilian assets to help with the search.” “As the search continues, all international
partners are meeting their own costs. But governments and militaries will need to consider the broader cost implications of the search down the track,” said Kym Bergmann, editor of Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter. “I don’t think
that the Australians will be getting any change at all out of A$1 million a day.” Bergman said it would likely be the most expensive aviation search given how long it had already dragged on. “It must be starting to worry military
planners,” he said, adding that any decision to scale back would cause heartache to the families involved. Madavaram, who is based in Malaysia, agreed, saying at present it was still “politically insensitive” to cut spending. “I think
they will continue one or two months irrespective of the costs,” he said. “But then if nothing is found, it will
become a wild goose chase, and people will start questioning it.”
2NC
Opposition to more MH370 searching – funding crack-downs
Siegel 14(Matt-Senior Political and General News Correspondent for Thomson Reuters based in
Australia, “United States the first country to scale back its spending on costly Flight MH370 search,
source says”, National Post, 4/30/2014,http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/30/united-states-thefirst-country-to-scale-back-its-spending-on-costly-flight-mh370-search-source-says/)
With the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 entering a new, much longer phase, the countries involved must
decide how much they are prepared to spend on the operation and what they stand to lose if they hold back. The search is already set to be the
most costly in aviation history and spending will rise significantly as underwater drones focus on a
larger area of the seabed that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Monday could take six to eight months to search. But despite U.S. President Barack Obama
publicly promising to commit more assets, the United States appears keen to begin passing on the costs of providing
sophisticated sonar equipment that will form the backbone of the expanded hunt. That means Australia, China and Malaysia – the countries most closely involved in the operation – look set to
We’re already at tens of millions. Is it worth hundreds of
millions?” a senior U.S. defence official asked last week. “I don’t know. That’s for them to decide.” He made it clear that Washington was
intent on spending less from now on, making it the first major donor country to scale back its financial commitment to the search. “We’re not
going to pay to perpetually use the equipment on an indefinite basis. Basically from here on out – starting next week or so – they need to pick up the
bear the financial and logistical burden of a potentially lengthy and expensive search. “
contract,” he said. At least $44 million was spent on the deployment of military ships and aircraft in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in the first month of the search, about the same as
was spent on the whole underwater search for Air France’s Flight AF447, which crashed into the Mid-Atlantic in 2009. The Malaysian jetliner carrying 239 people disappeared en route from
Kuala Lumpur to Beijing more than seven weeks ago, and huge surface and underwater searches have failed to solve the mystery of what happened. That mystery has major implications for
airline manufacturers such as Boeing, which builds the 777 model that crashed and is awaiting a verdict as to what went wrong. Malaysia is leading an investigation into the crash, but Australia
has a key role in coordinating the hunt since the plane is believed to have crashed in its search and rescue zone. Abbott said finding any wreckage on the ocean surface was now highly unlikely
and Australia would forge ahead with the upcoming phase of the search despite it likely costing A$60-million. He added that while private companies under contract to Australia would soon be
taking over from the military assets dispatched in the wake of the cra
-Desalination
1NC
Desalination unpopular – California proposals prove
Ed Joyce, 89.3 KPCC Writer, November 12th 2013, “Vote scheduled Wednesday for controversial
Huntington Beach desalination plant,” http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/11/12/40315/hearingwednesday-for-controversial-huntington-bea/
The California Coastal
Commission is expected to vote on a controversial proposal Wednesday. It would greenlight construction of a plant in Huntington Beach that would desalinate ocean water and turn it into
drinking water. The company hoping to get approval is counting on the commission's previous approval of a similar project in Carlsbad.
For several environmental groups, it's deja vu as they fight another proposal to build a desalination plant along the
Southern California coast. In 2009 Connecticut-based Poseidon Resources won approval from the coastal commission to build a desalination
plant next to an existing power plant in Carlsbad. Construction is now under way with the first delivery of desalted water expected in 2016.
Now, parent company Poseidon Water, wants to build a similar facility next to a power plant in Huntington Beach. But opponents of
desalination are hoping for a different outcome this time. "We learned a lot of stuff here in San Diego with the Carlsbad desalination plant,"
said attorney Marco Gonzalez with Encinitas-based Coast Law Group. The law firm filed several legal challenges against the Carlsbad project on
behalf of environmental groups. "They will say just about anything to get their permits at the various stages before regulatory bodies,"
Gonzalez said. His law firm is now involved in stopping the proposed Huntington Beach desalination plant. Condition approval? The
next
step in that fight is Wednesday's California Coastal Commission hearing in Newport Beach. The commission will
consider Poseidon's application for a coastal development permit. A commission staff reportrecommends approval of the project but with
conditions. Projects like this take time: the company's first of many required permits for the Huntington Beach project was granted in 2006.
Poseidon Water vice president Scott Maloni said the plant would produce 50 million gallons of fresh water a day and provide a drought-free
supply into the future. "In Orange County, half of their water must be imported," Maloni said. "Northern Orange County has groundwater, and
they can get up to 75 percent of their supply from the ground. Southern Orange County has no groundwater. They're like San Diego
geophysically; they have to import almost all of their water." He said the company's coastal permit application addresses environmental
concerns about harm to marine life and coastal hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis, and sea level rise. If all goes as planned, Maloni says the
plant could be producing desalted water by 2018. Poseidon plans to use existing open ocean water intakes and discharge pipes at the
Huntington Beach Generation Station. Opponents say open-ocean
intakes kill marine life and that the discharge
harms the marine ecosystem. California has mandated that system - called "'once through cooling" - be phased out in power plants
by 2020.
2NC
Controversial – environment impact and energy concerns
NCED No Date, National Centre of Excellence in Desalination, “Social, environmental and economic
issues,” http://desalination.edu.au/research/projects/social-environmental-economic-issues/
Desalination is still a relatively controversial public issue. Most of this controversy revolves around the
energy intensity of desalination and concerns over the environmental impacts of brine concentrate and
other waste products. The production of data and the application of scientific rigour that provides an independent analysis and
assessment of controversial issues associated with desalination would go a long way toward addressing public concerns in a constructive
manner. There is an opportunity for research that assists the development of a scientifically informed public awareness program.
Widespread deployment of desalination, while dependent on improvements in critical system requirements, will also
require attention to environmental impact, social concerns, economic policy, and other non-technical
barriers. The Centre’s projects in these areas include:
-OTEC
1NC
OTEC is unpopular in Congress – environmentalists, costs, and democrats
Friedman 14(Becca-Dctoral Student, Department of Government at Georgetown University, formerly Research Associate at Council on
Foreign Relations “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion”, Harvard Political Review, 3/2014 ,
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/OTEC-News/Examining-the-future-of-Ocean-Thermal-Energy-Conversion.html )
Although it may seem like an environmentalist’s fantasy, experts in oceanic energy contend that the technology to provide a truly infinite source of power to the
United States already exists in the form of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). Despite enthusiastic projections and promising prototypes, however, a
lack
of governmental support and the need for risky capital investment have stalled OTEC in its research and development phase. Regardless,
oceanic energy experts have high hopes. Dr. Joseph Huang, Senior Scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and former leader of a
Department of Energy team on oceanic energy, told the HPR, “If we can use one percent of the energy [generated by OTEC] for electricity and other things, the
potential is so big. It is more than 100 to 1000 times more than the current consumption of worldwide energy. The potential is huge. There is not any other
renewable energy that can compare with OTEC.” The Science of OTEC French physicist George Claude first explored the science of OTEC in the early twentieth
century, and he built an experimental design in 1929. Unfortunately for Claude, the high maintenance needed for an OTEC plant, especially given the frequency of
storms in tropical ocean climates, caused him to abandon the project. Nevertheless, his work demonstrated that the difference in temperature between the surface
layer and the depths of the ocean was enough to generate power, using the warmer water as the heat source and the cooler water as a heat sink. OTEC takes warm
water and pressurizes it so that it becomes steam, then uses the steam to power a turbine which creates power, and completes the cycle by using the cold water to
return the steam to its liquid state. Huge Capital, Huge Risks Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The
high
costs of building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the
individual components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research estimated in an OTEC
summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to 100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the
Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other
constituents over the years, and it’s still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that
could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR. Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in the marine environment. Big storms
or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy,
severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill
Even environmentalists have impeded
OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption
of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution. Given the risks, costs, and uncertain popularity of OTEC, it
seems unlikely that federal support for OTEC is forthcoming. Jim Anderson, co-founder of Sea Solar Power Inc., a company
specializing in OTEC technology, told the HPR, “Years ago in the ’80s, there was a small [governmental] program for OTEC and it
was abandoned…That philosophy has carried forth to this day. There are a few people in the Department of Energy who have
blocked government funding for this. It’s not the Democrats, not the Republicans. It’s a bureaucratic issue.” OTEC is not completely off the
government’s radar, however. This past year, for the first time in a decade, Congress debated reviving the oceanic energy program
in the energy bill, although the proposal was ultimately defeated. OTEC even enjoys some support on a state level. Hawaii ’s
up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.
National Energy Laboratory, for example, conducts OTEC research around the islands. For now, though, American interests in OTEC promise to remain largely
academic. The Naval Research Academy and Oregon State University are conducting research programs off the coasts of Oahu and Oregon , respectively.
**-Spending
1NC – Ocean
Oceanographic research funding causes controversy – seen as pork-barrel spending
and opposition in Congress
Colin Woodard, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor 5-2-2007 “US ocean observatories
imperiled by 'earmark' crackdown” http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0502/p02s01-uspo.html DA:
6/10/14
radar stations have been providing a rich stream of data about conditions in the Gulf of Maine to
fishermen, mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a national system that could help with ocean management and save the lives of mariners.
But the Gulf of Maine Ocean Observing System (GoMoos) – and others like it across the country – may not be able to save themselves. Their federal
funding is ending, in part because of congressional reforms that have clamped down on pork-barrel spending. What makes
For the past six years, a network of high-tech buoys and
the $4 million-a-year GoMoos stand out is that unlike many projects funded through a questionable process known as earmarks – think Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" – it enjoys wide support in and out of Congress and forms a part
of the federal government's official ocean policy. "GoMoos has really been a groundbreaking model for the whole country," says Rick Wahle of the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay Harbor, Maine. "And now the
plug may be being pulled." Monitoring America's oceans The Portland-based network was supposed to serve as the prototype of an integrated national system of ocean-monitoring stations that would gather and process
oceanographic information and release it free of charge to the public, much as the National Weather Service does with atmosphere data. Ten other regional ocean observing systems have been established across the United States
and are in varying degrees of development. Gathering such information is seen as a crucial step toward better managing the nation's oceans, which extend up to 200 miles offshore. For example: Many of the nation's fisheries have
been fished into near oblivion, their recovery undermined by the deterioration of wetlands, coral reefs, and estuaries that many species rely on. There's expert consensus that ocean politics should be revamped to take into account
how marine ecosystems work and that a national ocean-observing system is needed to collect the data that scientists require to properly understand the system. The establishment of such a national system was one of the key
2004 recommendations of the US Commission on Ocean Policy, a body appointed by President Bush. The official report urged Congress to commit $650 million annually to build and maintain the system, which it said would have
"invaluable economic, societal, and environmental benefits." One of those benefits has been improved search and rescue. "We're often trying to predict where survivors will have drifted over the time it takes for us to get to them,
so we rely on predictive models of wind and currents," says Art Allen of the Coast Guard's search and rescue headquarters in Washington, D.C. "These systems allow our controllers to get the best available data at a push of a
button, increasing the precision of our analysis and getting us there faster." Fishermen use data on deep-water temperatures and the abundance of microscopic floating plants to figure out where fish might be, while many of
Maine's recreational boaters have grown accustomed to getting detailed information on offshore wind and seas. Scientists are also keenly interested in the data to figure out how to harvest marine life without destroying the
ocean's ability to produce it. "These buoys are unique in that they collect temperature and current information not just at the surface, but at various intervals of depth," says Dr. Wahle, who studies the lobsters that support
Maine's signature fishery. "With bottom-dwelling creatures like lobsters, it's far more important to know what's going on deep beneath the ocean." Funding problems Now, GoMoos may be forced to shut down. "We may be
pulling out some of our buoys, or we may be pulling all of them," says Tom Shyka, GoMoos' chief operating officer. "We're working on other funding opportunities to avoid that, but we're definitely in a period of uncertainty." Other
ocean-observing networks are facing the same squeeze. "We do not have enough money to sustain the system in the long term," says Madilyn Fletcher, director of The
Carolinas Coastal Ocean Observing and Prediction System in Columbia, S.C., which has deferred maintenance on its buoys and may pull them if funds cannot be secured. The root problem: Congress
never passed legislation to fund the system. In recent years, the Senate twice passed bills that would have formally established and fund the national system. House
versions never came to the floor for a vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the opposition of then- Rep. Richard
Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often opposed spending on environmental issues. As a result, the ocean-observing systems relied on congressional
earmarks to cover most of their operations, but these were stripped from this year's budget. "Given the scandalous results of the earmark process in recent years, something needed to be done," says Tom Schatz, president of
It's an inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate funds. It's
difficult to separate what is worthwhile from what might not be."
Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, which opposes earmarks. "
Oceanographic research funding costs PC – Obama pushes, spending causes intense
opposition and pushes off other agenda items
Joan Bondareff practicing lawyer focused on marine transportation, environmental, and legislative
issues and Blank Rome. Prior to joining Blank Rome, Ms. Bondareff was chief counsel and acting deputy
administrator of the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. She was also former
majority counsel for the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries 6-18-2013 “United
States: The Budget Outlook For Maritime Programs For FY2014”
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/245562/Marine+Shipping/The+Budget+Outlook+for+Maritim
e+Programs+for+FY2014 DA: 6/7/14
The President's budget request
midst of very different views of the budget
for FY2014, usually delivered in February of the year prior to the beginning of a fiscal year, was delivered late this year. The President's budget
two
passed
by the House
arrived
in Congress
in the
of Representatives and the Senate in the form of budget resolutions. These resolutions, while non-binding, provide
guidance to their respective appropriation committees. The House passed its budget resolution on March 14, 2013. The House resolution calls for cuts in high-speed and intercity rail projects and would balance the budget in approximately ten years. The Senate Budget Resolution, pass ed
on March 23, 2013, includes $100 billion for infrastructure and job creation and is much closer to the President's vision for the budget. Prior to the release of his budget request, in the State of the Union Address on February 12, 2013, President Obama proposed a "Fix-It-First Program to
put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent [infrastructure] repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." He also proposed a Partnership to Rebuild America to attract private capital to upgrade infrastructure, including "modern ports to
move our goods." The President amplified on these remarks in his FY2014 request for the Department of Transportation, which c ontains a new request for $50 billion to provide immediate transportation investments in key areas, including ports, to spur job growth and enhance our
nation's infrastructure. Of this amount, $4 billion is to be allocated to a TIGER like grant program for infrastructure construction grants. For the Maritime Administration ("MARAD"), the President has requested a total of $365 million in budget authority, or 3.8% over the enacted 2013
level. The MARAD budget includes $208 million for the Maritime Security Program; $81 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; $25 million "for a new initiative aimed at mitigating the impact on sealift capacity and mariner jobs resulting from food aid program reform" (caused by
last year's sudden cut to the cargo preference requirements for food aid shipments on U.S. flag ships from 75 to 50%); $2 million for a new Port Infrastructure Development Program; and $2.7 million for administrative costs of managing the Title XI loan guarantee program. The President's
budget continues to zero out funding for new loan guarantees. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation to restore the cargo preference cuts. (See H.R. 1678: Saving Essential American Sailors Act, introduced by Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Scott Rigell (R-VA).) For
the Coast Guard, the President has requested a total of $9.79 billion, or 5.6% less than the FY2013 enacted level. This request includes $743 million for the continued purchase of surface assets, including f unding for the seventh National Security Cutter, procurement of two Fast Response
Cutters, and pre-acquisition activities for a new Coast Guard polar icebreaker for Arctic and Antarctic missions, expected to replace the POLAR STAR at the end of its life (pr ojected to be 2022). Also funded under the DHS budget are FEMA and CBP. These agencies would receive $13.45
billion and $12.9 billion, respectively. As part of the FEMA budget, the President has proposed $2.1 billion for a new consolidated National Preparedness Grant Program, which merges all state and local and port security grants into one discretionary pot. Last year, Congress did not agree
to this request for consolidating the grants into one block grant. We expect the CBP budget for border security will remain steady or increase if comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed this year. For NOAA,
requested
the President
has
a total of $5.4 billion, an increase of $541 million over the 2012 spending plan. The budget includes $929 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service; $529 million for the National Ocean Service, of which the Marine Debris Program has increased by $1
an
increase of $21 million to support
oceanographic research
The House
is likely to pass
bills vastly different from the
White House's request Members
have
questioned whether funding can be provided for the
NOAA It also remains to be seen whether
Congress can revert to regular order,
this is not likely to happen in the near term
The
government keeps limping along with cuts from sequester delays in Congressional approval for spending
plans, and uncertainties in the outcome
The House and
Senate will
have to debate their respective visions
Given the current revenue situation, a fight over the debt ceiling is
expected to be postponed to the fall.
million (total $6 million), and the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, which have been increased by $1.5 million; a total of $2.186 million for the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, including $954 million for two new GO ES weather satellites; and
an additional 1,627 days-at-sea for NOAA's
featuring Administration witnesses to delve into the President's budget requests.
. In fact,
full
fleet. Summary The House and Senate are currently holding a series of hearings
of Representatives
appropriation
that are
of the House Appropriations Committee, such as Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation Subcommittee,
Commerce/
already
budgets.
i.e., by passing the individual appropriation bills to keep the government operational in 2014, or whether another CR will be adopted. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD) has a desire to return to regular order, but
except for defense agencies where bipartisan agreement is more likely to be reached.
,
for 2014. These challenges will also have a significant effect on their constituents as contracts and grants are delayed.
once again
ceiling once again and decide whether to do so without a fight over offsetting budget cuts.
for the 2014 budget and come to some agreement on funding levels for 2014. In the meantime, Congress will have to raise the debt
1NC – Military
Defense spending breeds partisan fights – funding tradeoffs and deficit reduction
sentiment
Edwing 12
Phillip Edwing – reporter for DODBuzz (reputable defense policy analysis journal) (“WH issues veto
threat on defense approps bill”, June 28 2012, http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/28/wh-issues-vetothreat-on-defense-approps-bill/)//
The House’s Republican-controlled defense committees are 0 for 2 so far this year in yielding
legislation that President Obama could sign. That may not come as a shock. Still, there it is: Having already
threatened to veto the House Armed Services’ Committee’s defense authorization bill in May, the White
House has now threatened to veto the House Appropriations Committee’s defense bill, which sets aside
funding for the Defense Department. Why? The Office of Management and Budget said the approps bill not only
breaks the spirit of last year’s deficit reduction agreement, it also would rob funds from other
important accounts and leave DoD less ready to carry on its missions and would let HAC-D get away with overstepping the bounds of
holding the Pentagon’s wallet. Said OMB: [P]assing H.R. 5856 at its current funding level would mean that when the
Congress constructs other appropriations bills, it would necessitate significant and harmful cuts to
critical national priorities such as education, research and development, job training, and health care.
Furthermore, the bill undermines key investments in high-priority programs, impeding the ability of the
Secretary of Defense to carry out the defense strategic guidance issued earlier this year, and hindering
the ability of the armed forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new strategy. The
administration also strongly objects to the inclusion of ideological and political provisions that are
beyond the scope of funding legislation. House appropriators have no business putting restrictions on the U.S. relationship with
Pakistan; the administration’s ability to handle detainees; and “other provisions in the bill,” OMB said. As for the specific programs that HAC-D
wanted to protect, the White House argued that everyone
agreed last year the Pentagon would have to tighten its belt,
and as such it needs the freedom to pull back or divest some of the things we’ve heard so, so much about this
year.
**INTERNAL LINK
*Bipart Now
Their generic evidence doesn’t assume the debate over Ex-Im – Republicans are
uniquely inclined to cooperate over exim reauthorization – that’s 1nc Sherman and
Palmer
Yes bipartisanship – new jobs training bill proves
CNN, 7-10-14, “Rare bipartisan approval of job training measure,” http://www.kcra.com/politics/rarebipartisan-approval-of-job-training-measure/26870572#!bfGigj
The measure
was already approved by the Senate and now goes to the White House for the President's
Innovation and Opportunity Act" overhauls the federal effort to promote training
and education for American workers. It streamlines programs across government agencies, invests in training for jobs that
signature. The "Workforce
employers can't fill because of a skills gap and aims to reduce administrative costs for programs at the state and federal level. House Education
and the Workforce Chairman Jon Kline, R-Minnesota, said on the House floor the system was long overdue for reform. "Our
nation's job
training system is broken. We have too many ineffective programs, too much bureaucracy, and very little
accountability; the voices of job creators are stifled, state and local leaders are tied up in red tape, and hard-earned taxpayer dollars are
wasted," Kline said. Instead
of the regular partisan mudslinging frequently seen on the House floor,
members from both parties got up and congratulated one another for finally agreeing on a
compromise on a measure designed to reduce the unemployment rate and boost the economy.
*Bipart Key – Generic
**Bipart key – puts pressure on House republicans to pass
Humberto Sanchez, Covers the Senate for Roll Call. Prior to joining, he covered the budget and
appropriations process for Congress Daily/NJ Daily, 7-1-14 “Senate Democrats Plan July Push on ExportImport Bank, Woo Chamber,” http://www.pacepeo.com/senate-democrats-plan-july-push-on-exportimport-bank-woo-chamber/
Senate Democrats
intend to take up legislation this month reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank in the hope that
a strong bipartisan vote in the chamber will help spur House Republican leaders to take up the measure. “I
believe we will bring the bill to the floor in July, before the August break, and we hope that business around the
country, small businesses in particular, will rally to our side and tell their Congress member that we have to get
the Export-Import Bank reauthorized,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., in a conference call with reporters. “I think if we can
pass it in the Senate, and particularly with a good bipartisan majority, there is more friendliness among
Republicans for this bill, that it will put pressure on the House,” Schumer said. His comments come after House
Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, last week declined to commit to putting bank legislation on the floor before the credit agency’s authorization
expires at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. “There’s a
big debate going on in our conference, and we’re just going
to have to sort our way through this,” Boehner said. “My job is to help facilitate the sorting through of this so that we can get to
an outcome.”
Bipart is key to passage of legislation
Tamar Jacoby, CNN, November 4th 2010, “Immigration reform is still doable,”
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/jacoby.new.congress.immigration/
In a lopsided Congress, where one party has a supermajority or close, there's little or no incentive to compromise -you can pass almost anything you want without making nice, so why make concessions to get a deal? This will no longer be true in
the 112th Congress: Little if anything is going to pass without compromise. Neither party will have much to
show for itself if it does not find ways to work across the aisle. And just saying "no" to the other side's
proposals is likely to wear thin very quickly with the independent voters who decided this election and the last one and will
surely be the prize in 2012.
Bipart key to Obama agenda
Stephen Collinson, AFP Writer, Novemeber 15th 2010, “Obama lands back in changed Washington,”
http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/333454/obama_lands_back_in_changed_washington
President Barack Obama
landed in a politically-changed Washington after 10 days abroad and called on newly
empowered Republicans to drop their strategy of 'No' to work with him. Obama returned from Asia to reverberating
aftershocks of mid-term elections which dealt Democrats a crushing defeat and handed Republicans the
House of Representatives -- and the means to halt his reform program. Flying into Washington on Air Force One on Sunday,
after a trip that circled the globe, Obama reflected on the meaning of the election defeat two weeks ago, and promised to do more
to honor his previous vows to reach across the aisle. He said that early in his term, an "obsessive" focus on anticrisis policies had led him to neglect the need to reach across political divides and to get out into the heartland to
explain to Americans what he was doing.
Bipart key – no majority makes cooperation necessary
William A. Galston, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, November 4th 2010, “President Barack
Obama’s First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties,”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2010/11/04-obama-galston
The outcome of the November 2010 election has fundamentally changed the political dynamic for at least the next
two years. It will no longer be possible for President Obama to advance his agenda with support from only his
own party. Instead, he will be forced either to negotiate with an emboldened Republican House majority
or endure two years of confrontation and gridlock. (As Newt Gingrich discovered in 1995, the same logic applies in reverse: it is no easier to run
divided government from Capitol Hill than from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.) Choosing the
path of negotiation over confrontation
would require a change of substance as well as tone. The president would have to give the federal budget deficit and
national debt a far more central place in his policy agenda. Here the obstacles to agreement across party lines are formidable, although the
findings of his bipartisan fiscal commission, due out in December, may assist him in making a shift to a more fiscally conservative position. It
helps that the co-chairs of the commission, Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson, are determined to break the current
gridlock, in which conservatives refuse to consider raising taxes while those on the left stoutly resist cuts in social programs.
Bipart key – sets the standard for cooperation over legislation
Matthew Dickinson, professor of political science at Middlebury College, taught previously at Harvard
University, April 23rd 2009, “How to Deal With Premature Evaluation,”
http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/04/23/how-to-deal-with-premature-evaluation/
“When presidents enter the White House, they have approximately 100 days to show what they are made of… . Barack Obama [and his
advisers] will have to use their hundred days to build confidence in the government and its ability to stabilize the economic system, taking
advantage of the narrow window they will have to get legislation through… .Obama
will have to define himself in relation to
his predecessor, but in this case by demonstrating clearly to the public what he will do differently, rather
than the same, as President Bush. And, finally, the new president will need to find legislation that attracts some
support from the opposition to diminish the power of polarization on Capitol Hill and establish the
groundwork for future compromise…The one thing that Obama must realize is that those hundred days will disappear quickly.
Once they are gone, as Bill Clinton learned after delaying his push for health care reform, the political capital is hard to get back.”
Bipart super important
Richard Lugar, Former Senator from Indiana, April 10th 2013, “RICHARD LUGAR STRESSES THE
IMPORTANCE OF BIPARTISANSHIP IN FACE OF GLOBAL CHALLENGES,”
http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2013/04/10/richard-lugar-stresses-the-importance-of-bipartisanshipin-face-of-global-challenges/
This Tuesday, the Georgetown Public Policy institute hosted former Indiana Senator Richard Lugar at the annual Whittington Lecture. In a talk
titled “Securing
our Nation’s Future in a Partisan Era,” the former policymaker spoke about the importance of
bipartisan cooperation in the face of domestic and international challenges, making specific reference a national
climate too often hostile to bipartisanship. “I would define true bipartisanship as the suspension of the pursuit of
political advantage in the interest of doing something necessary for our country,” he said. Speaking to his own
experience in the political sphere and the political risks associated with bipartisanship, Lugar emphasized the need to sacrifice
one’s own political stature for the nation’s greater good. “There are times when politics have to be
subordinated to policy objectives.”
Bipart key in the 113th congress specifically
PPG, Prime Policy Group, comprised of 40 government relations experts representing both sides of the
aisle, February 2013, “The 113th Congress: The Path Forward,” http://www.primepolicy.com/practitioners-corner/113th-congress-path-forward
As Congress recesses post-State of the Union, Prime Policy Group previews the 113th Congress and
President Obama’s second term in “The 113th Congress: The Path Forward.” We focus on the major policy issues, key players and internal party
dynamics that will be in play over the next two years. As
Washington continues to face a divided government,
bipartisan compromise is necessary on many must-pass fiscal policies, critical non-fiscal policy issues
and legislative authorizations. Prime Policy Group will continue to monitor and provide supplemental updates to this document
throughout the 113th Congress.
***Bipart Key – Ex-Im Bank
Ext. Fricke, currently there are around 41 Repubs supporting the bill. The plan would
turn them against Obama and the Senate and kill the bill
Ex-im bank will only be reauthorize with Bipartisan support-clear majority key to
passing through the house
Cirilli and Needham 7/8(Kevin-Political Reporter at the hill, politico, and CBS Radio News,Vick-Reporter, blogger at The Hill
Reporter at Roll Call Group Washington editor at The Orange County Register Reporter at The Island Packet Reporter at Congressional
Quarterly, “Export-Import Bank supporters aim for show of strength in Senate”, The Hill, 7/8/14, http://thehill.com/business-alobbying/business-a-lobbying/211518-ex-im-supporters-aim-for-show-of-strength-in-senate#ixzz37SUGWu3o)
Business groups are turning their firepower toward 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. ADVERTISEMENT 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, 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 backing arguments that it is needed to help finance U.S. businesses
overseas and protect jobs in America. Ex-Im 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. 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 look at it.” Last week, Sen. Charles 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 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 large and small. Bank supporters are ramping up their lobbying this week 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, saying only that any legislation needs to run through the committee process.
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. “Eliminating the Export-Import Bank without extracting any
concessions from foreign governments would be the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament,” he wrote in the Financial Times on
Sunday.
**Bipart key – puts pressure on House republicans to pass
Humberto Sanchez, Covers the Senate for Roll Call. Prior to joining, he covered the budget and
appropriations process for Congress Daily/NJ Daily, 7-1-14 “Senate Democrats Plan July Push on ExportImport Bank, Woo Chamber,” http://www.pacepeo.com/senate-democrats-plan-july-push-on-exportimport-bank-woo-chamber/
Senate Democrats
intend to take up legislation this month reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank in the hope that
a strong bipartisan vote in the chamber will help spur House Republican leaders to take up the measure. “I
believe we will bring the bill to the floor in July, before the August break, and we hope that business around the
country, small businesses in particular, will rally to our side and tell their Congress member that we have to get
the Export-Import Bank reauthorized,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., in a conference call with reporters. “I think if we can
pass it in the Senate, and particularly with a good bipartisan majority, there is more friendliness among
Republicans for this bill, that it will put pressure on the House,” Schumer said. His comments come after House
Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, last week declined to commit to putting bank legislation on the floor before the credit agency’s authorization
expires at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. “There’s a
big debate going on in our conference, and we’re just going
to have to sort our way through this,” Boehner said. “My job is to help facilitate the sorting through of this so that we can get to
an outcome.”
Bipartisanship is key to Ex-im reauthorization-cooperation over the bill is critical to its
passage
Lincoln 7/11(Blanche, American lobbyist and politician who was a U.S. Senator from Arkansas from 1999 to 2011, Roll Call, “Putting Our
Nation's Economy Before Politics “, July 11,2014, http://www.rollcall.com/news/putting_our_nations_economy_before_politics_commentary234684-1.html)
It’s easy to see why the Ex-Im
Bank was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate in
2012. However, its charter again needs to be reauthorized. Just months before the current charter’s expiration date,
some politically motivated lawmakers have recently accused the Ex-Im Bank of interfering with the
private market. This is simply not the case. Unlike other foreign agencies that subsidize certain companies, the Ex-Im Bank
complements the private sector through loan guarantees that allow foreign buyers of U.S. goods to secure affordable private-sector funding.
The Ex-Im Bank also has an outstanding record of assessing risk, with an incredibly low default rate — currently at 0.211 percent. The Ex-Im
Bank is one of the rare agencies that traditionally has earned widespread approval from Congress because
it provides support to America’s backbone and No. 1 job creator: small manufacturers. It’s not only vital to the
growth of small and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States, but 1 in 3 manufacturing jobs depends on
exports, according to the White House. American citizens are making it clear to Washington that their No. 1 priority is
creating jobs and boosting the economy, so it’s hard to believe a member of Congress wouldn’t vote to
reauthorize an agency that has assisted in creating or sustaining more than 1.2 million American jobs since
2009. The bottom line is that without the Ex-Im Bank’s support, American businesses, employment and the overall economy will
suffer. Reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank’s charter before it expires at the end of September is one thing our
“dysfunctional government” should be able to stand behind firmly.
Ex-Im bank reauthorization pass with bipart-dem and GOP coop key to pass the bill
Rogers 7/9/14(Alex, Alex Rogers is a reporter in TIME's Washington bureau. A native of Maryland, he graduated from Vanderbilt, The
Time, Export-Import Bank Wins Enough GOP Support for Passage, http://time.com/2969891/export-import-bank-congress-republicans/)
Vote count makes clear business-friendly Republicans can beat back conservatives RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
David Letterman Walks Out During Joan Rivers Interview Lea Michele Peed Her Pants Before White House Performance Celine Dion's Response
to the Week's Best Viral Video Is Incredible by Taboola An obscure
government bank loathed by conservatives but backed by
business now has enough Republican support to win reauthorization before it expires this fall, according to a
TIME vote count. MORE Governors Divided on How to Handle Border Crisis Boehner: House Will Sue President Over Obamacare Employer
Mandate Puff, Puff, Pink Slip: Why Smoking Legal Weed Can Get You Fired NBC News John Legend's 'You & I (Nobody In The World)' Video Will
Make You Hug Your Mother, Wife, Daughter Huffington Post One Game for It All: Follow the World Cup Final Live NBC News The
fight over
the Export-Import bank—which provides billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to help
foreigners purchase U.S. goods.—has divided small-government conservatives and more business-friendly establishment
Republicans, with one top conservative even calling it a “defining issue” for the GOP. But after months of uncertainty, a sufficient
number Republicans in both the House and Senate support reauthorization—if House leaders allow a vote to come to the floor. Of the 23
current Senate Republicans who voted to extend the charter in 2012, five members—Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Thad
Cochran (R-Miss.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)—have indicated publicly or to TIME that they support the bank.
Freshman Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) supports the bank, as does Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who did not vote on the 2012 legislation but is working with
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) on a bill to reauthorize its charter.
Assuming all 53 Democratic Senators vote for the
reauthorization, the Senate has enough votes to keep the bank alive. And with 41 House Republicans
supporting reauthorization in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner late last month, the GOP-controlled chamber also
has enough votes when widespread Democratic support is included. If the Democratic-controlled Senate tied the fate
of the bank to a short-term spending resolution to keep the government open, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering,
House Republicans would have to make the difficult choice of whether or not to shut the government down to
block a bank few Americans have heard of. That seems unlikely, with even Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a fierce opponent,
estimating recently that only “1 in 1,000” have ever heard of the bank, and with memories of last year’s government shutdown and the damage
it did to the party’s poll numbers still fresh. One
major question remains how Senate Republicans who support the
bank want to reform it. “I stand where I always have,” Alexander told TIME. “I think it needs some reforms but I’m in favor
of it.” When pressed on how he is looking to reform the bank, Alexander replied, “I’m reviewing that right now.” Alexander’s response was
echoed by several others. “Senator Portman believes we should do everything possible to support American
exporters, and not give a leg up to countries like China by unilaterally disarming our export finance system,” Ohio Sen. Rob Portman
spokeswoman Christyn Keyes said. “That said, it’s crucial that we take steps to protect taxpayers and that we take a
hard look at any needed reforms.” “Sen. Isakson supports reauthorizing Ex-Im, but would like to see some reforms,” Isakson
spokeswoman Amanda Maddox told TIME. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who voted to extend the bank’s charter in
2012, will vote to support the bank again, so long as Reid allows senators to offer amendments, Johanns
spokesman Nick Simpson told TIME.
Bipartisan Coop is key to ex-im bank-GOP must overcome dysfunctional culture to
ensure bill’s passage
Harkins 7/11(Jill, 7/11/14, contributing writer to Politics PA, Politics PA, “Casey Calls for Nonpartisan Reauthorization of Export-Import
Bank”, http://www.politicspa.com/casey-calls-for-nonpartisan-reauthorization-of-export-import-bank/59253/)
According to a report from Politico, although many
Republicans support the Ex-Im Bank, Tea Party Republicans have
labeled it as “social welfare” and incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has already decided against its
reauthorization. Historically a
nonpartisan issue, the Ex-Im Bank’s reauthorization seems to be garnering
ideological attention this year. The agency may even be used as a pawn in a partisan battle surrounding the upcoming possibility of
a government shutdown. Casey called the disputes about the renewal “purely” partisan. Democratic nominee for
PA’s 8th District Kevin Strouse joined Casey today in his efforts to support the Bank’s reauthorization via a press release calling on Rep.
Mike Fitzpatrick to sign a bipartisan letter requesting that McCarthy and Speaker John Boehner bring the
charter’s renewal to the House Floor for a vote. “Congressman Fitzpatrick and his Tea Party allies have created such a
culture of dysfunction in Washington,” Strouse said, “that they won’t even allow their Republican Congress to pass
a historically bipartisan, pro-business measure.” The Export-Import Bank’s reauthorization may very well stay in the political
Dems Overwhelming pressure on GOP for bipart on ex-im working-GOP caving into
support the Ex-im Bill and that’s key to its passage
No Author 7/8(People News Daily, “Ex-Im Bank About To Get Big Boost From Big Business Democrats”, 7/8/14,
http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/2014/07/07/news-events/politics/ex-im-bank-get-big-boost-big-business-democrats/)
To smooth the path for financial backing from the U.S. Export-Import Bank and allay possible U.S. government concerns
about him, Timchenko hired lobbyists from powerhouse Washington law firm Patton Boggs, according to emails and
documents viewed by Reuters,” the news agency reported back in July of 2013. It is dealings just like this, and worse, which make
opponents of the bank cringe. “The Export-Import Bank is nothing more than a slush fund for corporate welfare,” Club for Growth
Spokesman Barney Keller told People’s Pundit Daily. And it gets even worse. The bank “has given subsidies to everything from Mexican drug
cartels and Enron, and it should be eliminated,” he added. Meanwhile, Senate
Democrats are attempting to pull a legislative
maneuver to ensure their big business cronies keep their favored status with Uncle Same. Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-NY) said he will push the Senate to take up and pass a bill to reauthorize the bank before
Congress leaves for the August recess. “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 in a conference call Wednesday with reporters. Schumer, appears to
have so-called moderate Democrats falling in line behind him, and said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will introduce a
reauthorization bill, which would go to the Senate Banking Committee, where Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD)
“wants to move the bill as quickly as possible,” according to Schumer. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), who also sat in on the call,
said both she and Schumer were confident the measure would pass in both the House and Senate. “We believe the
case is absolutely stellar for moving this in July,” Heitkamp said. “We also believe there are votes in the House,
so hopefully that will happen.”
Bipart key – puts pressure on House republicans to pass
Humberto Sanchez, Covers the Senate for Roll Call. Prior to joining, he covered the budget and
appropriations process for Congress Daily/NJ Daily, 7-1-14 “Senate Democrats Plan July Push on ExportImport Bank, Woo Chamber,” http://www.pacepeo.com/senate-democrats-plan-july-push-on-exportimport-bank-woo-chamber/
Senate Democrats
intend to take up legislation this month reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank in the hope that
a strong bipartisan vote in the chamber will help spur House Republican leaders to take up the measure. “I
believe we will bring the bill to the floor in July, before the August break, and we hope that business around the
country, small businesses in particular, will rally to our side and tell their Congress member that we have to get
the Export-Import Bank reauthorized,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., in a conference call with reporters. “I think if we can
pass it in the Senate, and particularly with a good bipartisan majority, there is more friendliness among
Republicans for this bill, that it will put pressure on the House,” Schumer said. His comments come after House
Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, last week declined to commit to putting bank legislation on the floor before the credit agency’s authorization
expires at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. “There’s a
big debate going on in our conference, and we’re just going
to have to sort our way through this,” Boehner said. “My job is to help facilitate the sorting through of this so that we can get to
an outcome.”
Economy
2NC – Econ Internal Link
The Exim bank is key to the US economy – millions of jobs and export sales
Neal Asbury, MoneyNews Writer, 7-3-14 “Shutting Down Ex-Im Bank Punishes American
Entrepreneurs and Job Seekers,” http://www.moneynews.com/NealAsbury/Ex-Im-bank-businessjobs/2014/07/03/id/580655/
With all the barriers stacked up against American entrepreneurs, a
bright spot has been access to working capital through
the Export-Import Bank, which is essential if American exporters are to compete in the global marketplace.
Ex-Im provides working capital guarantees, insurance and direct loans to American manufacturers,
helping to open new foreign markets that allow the U.S. economy to grow, while creating good-paying jobs. Yet
some in Congress are leaning toward not reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. A vote is scheduled for September. As an independent, self-sustaining
agency of the federal government, Ex-Im
Bank has an 80-year record of supporting U.S. jobs by financing the
exports of American goods and services. By doing so, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 1.2 million privatesector American jobs since 2009. During the past five years, it has earned $2 billion more than the cost of its
operations after covering loan loss reserves. Can you think of another government department that makes more money than it
costs the American taxpayer to operate? As an American exporter, I appreciate the value of the Ex-Im Bank, as do
thousands of companies that need a leg-up to compete in foreign markets where U.S. exporters are often sidelined
by high tariffs, corruption and the large subsidies foreign manufacturers receive from their governments. It is hard for me to
understand the downside of not reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank. And I'm not alone. Some 865 companies and business
organizations signed a letter calling for Congress to reauthorize the agency. It has become a priority for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and with good reason. Some 60 other nations have their own agencies to help finance exports, so taking funding away
from U.S. exporters would give these nations a big advantage. This doesn't take into account some nations that overtly manipulate their
currencies and subsidize exports to make their products artificially cheaper than U.S.-produced products. Of my company's $180 million in
sales, roughly $60 million is derived from exports. We
have an Ex-Im loan guarantee for which we pay market rates.
This is important to our financial success because U.S. financial institutions will not collateralize foreign
receivables or export-bound inventories. Throughout my career I have been astounded by our banking community's myopic
vision when it comes to exports: They place zero value on receivables from the largest and most successful foreign-based companies, while at
the same time, provide large credit lines backed by receivables from some of our most unstable domestic companies. Without the Ex-Im
Bank, our
export sales would plummet, impacting hundreds of American jobs. And we are just one
company. The American exporter doesn't want handouts. We are willing to pay full freight for whatever we get. But until U.S. banks are
willing to finance foreign sales, Ex-Im Bank must stay. This is even sadder, considering we get next to nothing from our government to
promote and support foreign sales, whereas our competitors in Europe and Asia have governments that provide all sorts of resources and
incentives to penetrate foreign markets. They fully realize the taxes generated from these sales build their schools, highways and hospitals.
American exporters are already at a tremendous disadvantage. The one thing we have is now threatened to be taken away by the political party
that should understand its importance. I am particularly frustrated that some Republicans have labeled Ex-Im funding as "corporate welfare." It
can't be corporate welfare if the bank makes a profit on its loans and returns it to the U.S. Treasury. I think these Republicans
are
making a big mistake by alienating the business community, which has historically contributed to the party. This has
allowed House Democrats, most of whom support the Ex-Im Bank, to make inroads into big business and gain access to their donation base.
We're letting President Obama off the hook. He has allowed unions to maneuver and dominate his administration's policies (such as the
National Labor Relations Board appointments), and at the very time the GOP could be leveraging Obama's anti-growth approach, we're
allowing Democrats to create a false narrative that Republicans don't support exports. I read that the trade group Aerospace Industries
Association has issued some ads with the message: "Shutting down the U.S. Ex-Im Bank is good for business and creates thousands of jobs . . . in
China, Russia and France." Exactly. If
we want to truly spur our economy and create jobs, the solution is driving
more American exports. That means everybody must be pulling the oars in the same direction. The United States must compete on a
level playing field. We must ensure our exporters and entrepreneurs have access to capital. Ex-Im Bank must be reauthorized, to
send a strong to message to the business community that we stand with you.
The Exim bank is a critical driver of the US economy – provides essential jobs and
opens export markets
Chris Tomlinson, Business Columnist for the Houston Chronicle, 7-8-14, “Export-Import Bank creates
jobs, opens markets and makes sense,”
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Export-Import-Bank-createsjobs-opens-markets-5607080.php#/0
After campaigning on adding jobs and increasing manufacturing, folks calling themselves conservatives
want to shut down an 80-year-old institution that boosts exports, generates business for the banks and
makes the government cash, $2 billion in the last five years. They want to eliminate the Export-Import Bank of the United
States. Americans for Prosperity calls the Ex-Im Bank "corporate welfare," and Heritage Action has made killing the bank a top priority. But
calling the program welfare turns the phrase on its head and ignores the vital role it plays in creating
U.S. jobs. No one is getting something for nothing. Richard Armstrong is chief financial officer at HPI, a privately held Houston engineering
service company specializing in gas and steam turbines. He knows why the government-owned bank is both necessary and
beneficial to HPI's 75 U.S. employees, more than half of whom rely on exports for their livelihoods. HPI started out making replacement
control systems for turbines, most of them overseas. But it could only take one job at a time because it lacked the capital to keep running
between when it received a contract and when the foreign customer paid the bill, Armstrong said. If HPI's customers were American, there
would be no problem getting a loan, but because they fall under a foreign legal jurisdiction, U.S. banks can't take the risk under federal banking
regulations. That's where the Ex-Im Bank comes in, evaluates the companies and, if approved, guarantees or provides a loan. "That
was an
invaluable source of capital in building our company, and it remains so today even though we are more
diversified," Armstrong said. HPI's working capital financing guaranteed by Ex-Im Bank has gone from $750,000 to $7
million over the last decade, supporting $231 million in exports, according to bank data. Pro-growth In this case, ExIm Bank is providing the guarantee to Amegy Bank, where Jason Brummerhop is a vice president in the international division. He called Ex-Im "a
crucial component" to Amegy's authorization of $100 mil- lion in Texas loans last year, more than 70 percent of them to small businesses.
"Growing sales is cash intensive, whether you're growing sales domestically or internationally," Brummerhop told me. "Regardless of what side
of the aisle you are on,
supporting Ex-Im Bank ought to be a pro-growth, pro-business position because that's
what it does. It helps our clients access markets." Low default rate Since 2009, the Ex-Im Bank has financed $188 billion in
exports. In the Houston area last year, it provided guarantees for $6 billion in exports from 465 companies. The bank's
default rate is a remarkably low .2 percent, largely because the U.S. government can use diplomatic and
economic muscle to make sure foreign customers don't default on contracts with U.S. businesses. The
bank is remarkably efficient, with about 400 employees nationwide and three in the Houston regional office, led by Patrick Crilley,
who is responsible for six states. "Without that risk mitigation, these banks simply cannot lend," Crilley said. Armstrong bristles at the idea that
the bank is corporate welfare since companies spend thousands to get the guarantees.
The Exim bank is vital to the US economy – ensures American export competition
Chicago Tribune, 6-19-14, “GUEST EDITORIAL: Note to Congress - Protect the Export-Import Bank
and U.S. jobs,” http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/rome/opinion/editorials/guest-editorial-noteto-congress---protect-the-export/article_9b7c798a-f775-11e3-8fb8-001a4bcf6878.html
We’re stretching the statesman’s point about the imperfect nature of democracy to add
some necessary perspective to a
debate over the role of government in business and the future of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The
government bank did about $27 billion in business last year, supporting large and small U.S. exporters
by: Issuing credit insurance, which makes it easier for companies to secure working capital and lets business owners sleep better:
They don’t worry as much about foreign customers paying their bills. Guaranteeing loans, giving private banks the reassurance they
need to finance trade deals. Lending directly to foreign customers, so they will choose to buy U.S. goods. For 80 years (yes, since
FDR’s New Deal), the Ex-Im Bank has done this without much notice. And why should anyone notice? Credit insurance isn’t very sexy, nor is the
bank controversial. It
supports American jobs, is self-sustaining and survived the global financial meltdown
with minimal losses. Except now the bank is very controversial, attacked by conservatives as an egregious example of
government overreach and corporate welfare. There is no way the U.S. should play at being banker, picking winners and losers, and risking
taxpayer money, say the critics. In other words: If Boeing needs a loan, go get one. To those who believe in the idea of limited government,
attacking the bank might seem like a good strategy. The bank needs congressional reauthorization by Sept. 30, and critics hope enough votes
materialize to kill it. U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., supports the Ex-Im, and he lost his primary race last week. Even Fred Hochberg, head of the
bank, says it
would be great if the private sector did all the work of financing U.S. exports. But that’s not the reality
in the global economy, especially in the developing world, where government entities do play a role in facilitating
deals for everything from chocolate to train engines. Many transactions are privately financed, but for 10- or 15-year loans
on construction projects or big-ticket capital equipment in dicier parts of the globe, government loans or guarantees are often necessary. The
question for Americans is whether we
want our companies to compete aggressively for those sales, or should we
risk letting European and Asian manufacturers — backed by their export banks — grab the business? The Chinese, in
particular, loom large; their export bank is about four times bigger than ours is. So take the case of W.S. Darley & Co. of
Itasca, Ill., which makes firetrucks and firefighting equipment in the Midwest. Darley last year sold 32 firetrucks to the state government of
Lagos, Nigeria, because the family-owned company came to the table with a $15.7 million direct Ex-Im loan for the Nigerians to use. Peter
Darley says the Chinese are active competitors in Africa, but the Nigerians liked the idea of the U.S. viewing the Lagos government as
creditworthy. And of course they liked Darley’s beautiful red pumpers. Darley & Co. figures the sale supports 100 jobs. When you think about it,
the deal also supports American foreign policy. The Chinese aren’t just after our firetruck business in Africa, they’re targeting minerals,
construction and political alliances. Ceding Africa would be foolish. And if
the Ex-Im disappeared? For smaller companies, the
chances of getting financing for a customer in Nigeria — or just dealing with the paperwork — without U.S.
government help is almost laughable. Inevitably, some of these firms would get squeezed out. Again, by
the Chinese. For bigger companies selling airplanes or construction equipment, it’s just as crucial to have Ex-Im
involvement because of post-financial crisis regulations on international finance. Those big long-term loans
are now too risky and expensive for conventional banks — unless a government export bank guarantees the loan. So
Boeing will lose sales to archrival Airbus, which gets European government help. Can’t Boeing just finance foreign plane sales itself? Doubtful.
The company already invests capital in new airplane design and manufacturing. A worst-case scenario: For
lack of Ex-Im, Boeing
shifts some production overseas to places like Japan, which would love the jobs and be thrilled to make
Boeing a customer of its export bank. That said, Ex-Im and Boeing are way too chummy. Nearly 45 percent of the bank’s portfolio
is tied to the Chicago-based company. That’s partly because the loans are big and remain on the books a long time. Something else unfortunate
about the relationship: When the bank makes a loan to a foreign airline to purchase Boeing widebodies, it can indirectly hurt American carriers
such as Delta, which must compete with those airlines. Delta is rightfully furious. We’d like to see Ex-Im do more for small and medium
business, and less with Boeing. But the
bank’s strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. And despite all the conservative
fulminations about “Bank of Boeing” and such, Ex-Im is the kind of bureaucracy a conservative should love: It helps American
business and is profitable, actually returning money to the Treasury. Not reauthorizing Ex-Im would
hang U.S. companies, and jobs, out to dry.
AT: Internal Link Turns
All tea party propaganda
Cokie Roberts and Steven V. Roberts, Metrowest Daily, 7-11-14, “Roberts: Failing a basic economics
test,”
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20140711/OPINION/140718738/11606/OPINION/?Start=
1
As for the Ex-Im Bank, it is derided as "crony capitalism" and "corporate welfare." McCarthy said on Fox News Sunday
that it is no longer needed because it provides a service "that government does not have to be involved in. The private sector can do it." But
that's just not true. Intoning the magic words "private sector" like a religious mantra does not obliterate
economic reality. As the bank's own policy statement puts it, "Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector
lenders but provides export financing products that fill gaps in trade financing. We assume credit and
country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept." Moreover, the international playing
field is not level. Fifty-nine other countries subsidize their exporting industries, often heavily. As a letter from
865 business executives and organizations recently said, canceling the Ex-Im Bank would "amount to unilateral
disarmament in the face of other governments' far more aggressive export credit programs." The
opposition to the Ex-Im Bank is not just about economics, however. It's also about culture, emotion, even
theology. The tea party is a populist movement that opposes "Bigness" in all its forms. Big Labor and Big Government,
Big Cities and Big Media. And now Big Business has joined their roster of evil. This mindset reflects a rebellious impulse that
divides the Republican Party and departs sharply from the GOP's traditional approach. The Ex-Im Bank has been around for 80 years
and has always commanded bipartisan support.
Their evidence relies on flawed statistics – the Exim bank is essential to economic
growth
Jeff Wasden, served on the Board of Directors and as Board President for Highlands Ranch Community
Association for 10 years. He Chairs the Business Leaders for Responsible Government group and the
Legislative Action Committee. He also serves on the Littleton Firefighters Board and is very active in his
community as well as on the political fronts, 7-11-14, “Export-Import Bank is vital, necessary for
continued growth and prosperity,” http://coloradostatesman.com/content/994979-export-import-bankvital-necessary-continued-growth-and-prosperity
Too often, politics hamper the ability of businesses to expand and put Americans to work. What used to be an
important bipartisan reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank has now fallen firmly in the crosshairs of some members of the GOP.
Charges of crony capitalism and big governmental overreach flow freely from opposition tongues. “Let the private
sector fill that space in the market. Those big companies don’t need the Ex-Im Bank, they can get capital on their own,” scream critics. While I
can appreciate the basis for their argument, their facts on this issue are off base and in some cases, just flat out wrong.
While numerous presidents have lauded the successes of the Ex-Im Bank, I want to quote two former U.S. Presidents for context: President
Ronald Reagan, January 30, 1984: “In
order for the United States to maintain its strong position in foreign
markets, it is important that the Congress pass the Export-Import Bank bill and avoid attaching unnecessary
encumbrances.” President George W. Bush, June 14, 2002: “I have today signed into law S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank
Reauthorization Act of 2002. This legislation will ensure the continued effective operation of the Export-Import Bank, which helps advance
U.S. trade policy, facilitate the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad, and create jobs here at home.”
The Ex-Im Bank’s primary mission is American jobs. By financing the export of American goods and services, the Ex-Im
Bank has supported 1.2 million private-sector American jobs — 205,000 in 2013 alone. This April, the United States
exported $193.3 billion of goods and services according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce Department. Exports of
goods and services over the last year totaled $2.3 trillion, which is 45.1 percent above the level of exports in 2009, and
have been growing at an annualized rate of 9.0 percent when compared to the 2009 level. In fiscal year 2013, Ex-Im Bank approved
more than $27 billion in total authorizations. For the year, the Ex-Im Bank approved 3,413 transactions for
small business. Of the total number of transactions approved just last year, 89 percent were for small business, the
backbone of American Main Street economies. While critics tend to overlook this important fact, the disparity in the total
number of transactions for big and small business make the argument for reauthorization even stronger.
For those that do not understand the composition of the Ex-Im Bank, it is an independent, self-sustaining agency that fills in the gaps in private
export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. It is the official export credit agency of the U.S. The Bank provides a variety of financing
mechanisms including working-capital guarantees, export-credit insurance, and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and
services. In the past five years, the Bank has earned $2 billion more than the cost of its operations and after covering loan loss reserves. That is
money that is put in the Treasury to help reduce the federal deficit. The
Ex-Im Bank does not compete against the private sector
but acts as a complimentary player. While they work to fill in the gaps through loans, guarantees, and insurance programs, the
private sector lenders are Ex-Im Bank partners. During the FY 2013, 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions involved commercial banks.
How does Colorado benefit from the Ex-Im Bank? Since 2007, 93 Colorado exporters have used the Ex-Im — 68 of those exporters are small
businesses. International trade (both exports and imports) supports 680,000 Colorado jobs. These jobs are related to both large and small
companies from farms to factories to headquarters of Colorado’s globally engaged firms. Colorado alone exports tens of billions of dollars in
goods and services annually. Exports have been shipped to 210 countries with top countries like Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, China and
Mexico. Today, more than one in five jobs depend on international trade! Rhetoric
is tossed around. A few members of Congress have
must hold politicians to the same standard as they ask us to
do as citizens — to look at the facts and make an informed decision. Money returned to the Treasury, supporting and
growing U.S. jobs, helping manufacturing and other key industries remain viable in America and putting Americans to work. From
companies big and small, from the rural farmlands to high rise corporate America, the Ex-Im Bank has been a vital and
necessary tool for continued growth and prosperity. Why cut off one of the most efficient, low risk,
successful programs that contributes to the “jobs, jobs, jobs” focus that is so important to both political parties?
made “killing” the Ex-Im Bank one of their priorities, but I feel we
Please let your member of Congress know that you support continued American prosperity, increased opportunities to promote and sell goods
and services and a program that lets the world stage know that the U.S. is open for business. This is one program that businesses of all sizes and
citizens from differing political affiliations should stand together with locked arms and tout the ongoing success and viability of; a program that
has carved into the debt while at the same time supporting working families all across this great nation. Let’s not say we are open for business
and then shut down one of the tools that help grow our economy. I urge all members of Congress to look at the proposed changes and to make
the right choice for American business and reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank.
***1nc ECON
Export-import bank is key to the economy-bank provides millions of jobs and billions
in revenue
Jeff Wasden, served on the Board of Directors and as Board President for Highlands Ranch Community
Association for 10 years. He Chairs the Business Leaders for Responsible Government group and the
Legislative Action Committee. He also serves on the Littleton Firefighters Board and is very active in his
community as well as on the political fronts, 7-11-14, “Export-Import Bank is vital, necessary for
continued growth and prosperity,” http://coloradostatesman.com/content/994979-export-import-bankvital-necessary-continued-growth-and-prosperity
Too often, politics hamper the ability of businesses to expand and put Americans to work. What used to be an
important bipartisan reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank has now fallen firmly in the crosshairs of some members of the GOP.
Charges of crony capitalism and big governmental overreach flow freely from opposition tongues. “Let the private
sector fill that space in the market. Those big companies don’t need the Ex-Im Bank, they can get capital on their own,” scream critics. While I
can appreciate the basis for their argument, their facts on this issue are off base and in some cases, just flat out wrong.
While numerous presidents have lauded the successes of the Ex-Im Bank, I want to quote two former U.S. Presidents for context: President
Ronald Reagan, January 30, 1984: “In
order for the United States to maintain its strong position in foreign
markets, it is important that the Congress pass the Export-Import Bank bill and avoid attaching unnecessary
encumbrances.” President George W. Bush, June 14, 2002: “I have today signed into law S. 1372, the Export-Import Bank
Reauthorization Act of 2002. This legislation will ensure the continued effective operation of the Export-Import Bank, which helps advance
U.S. trade policy, facilitate the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad, and create jobs here at home.”
The Ex-Im Bank’s primary mission is American jobs. By financing the export of American goods and services, the Ex-Im
Bank has supported 1.2 million private-sector American jobs — 205,000 in 2013 alone. This April, the United States
exported $193.3 billion of goods and services according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce Department. Exports of
goods and services over the last year totaled $2.3 trillion, which is 45.1 percent above the level of exports in 2009, and
have been growing at an annualized rate of 9.0 percent when compared to the 2009 level. In fiscal year 2013, Ex-Im Bank approved
more than $27 billion in total authorizations. For the year, the Ex-Im Bank approved 3,413 transactions for
small business. Of the total number of transactions approved just last year, 89 percent were for small business, the
backbone of American Main Street economies. While critics tend to overlook this important fact, the disparity in the total
number of transactions for big and small business make the argument for reauthorization even stronger.
For those that do not understand the composition of the Ex-Im Bank, it is an independent, self-sustaining agency that fills in the gaps in private
export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. It is the official export credit agency of the U.S. The Bank provides a variety of financing
mechanisms including working-capital guarantees, export-credit insurance, and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and
services. In the past five years, the Bank has earned $2 billion more than the cost of its operations and after covering loan loss reserves. That is
money that is put in the Treasury to help reduce the federal deficit. The
Ex-Im Bank does not compete against the private sector
but acts as a complimentary player. While they work to fill in the gaps through loans, guarantees, and insurance programs, the
private sector lenders are Ex-Im Bank partners. During the FY 2013, 98 percent of the Ex-Im Bank’s transactions involved commercial banks.
How does Colorado benefit from the Ex-Im Bank? Since 2007, 93 Colorado exporters have used the Ex-Im — 68 of those exporters are small
businesses. International trade (both exports and imports) supports 680,000 Colorado jobs. These jobs are related to both large and small
companies from farms to factories to headquarters of Colorado’s globally engaged firms. Colorado alone exports tens of billions of dollars in
goods and services annually. Exports have been shipped to 210 countries with top countries like Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, China and
Mexico. Today, more than one in five jobs depend on international trade! Rhetoric
is tossed around. A few members of Congress have
made “killing” the Ex-Im Bank one of their priorities, but I feel we must hold politicians to the same standard as they ask us to
do as citizens — to look at the facts and make an informed decision. Money returned to the Treasury, supporting and
growing U.S. jobs, helping manufacturing and other key industries remain viable in America and putting Americans to work. From
companies big and small, from the rural farmlands to high rise corporate America, the Ex-Im Bank has been a vital and
necessary tool for continued growth and prosperity. Why cut off one of the most efficient, low risk,
successful programs that contributes to the “jobs, jobs, jobs” focus that is so important to both political parties?
Please let your member of Congress know that you support continued American prosperity, increased opportunities to promote and sell goods
and services and a program that lets the world stage know that the U.S. is open for business. This is one program that businesses of all sizes and
citizens from differing political affiliations should stand together with locked arms and tout the ongoing success and viability of; a program that
has carved into the debt while at the same time supporting working families all across this great nation. Let’s not say we are open for business
and then shut down one of the tools that help grow our economy. I urge all members of Congress to look at the proposed changes and to make
the right choice for American business and reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank.
Economic decline triggers 15 unique scenarios for instability and global nuclear war
Duncan, 12 – chief economist at Singapore-based Blackhorse Asset Management, former financial sector specialist at the World Bank and
global head of investment strategy at ABN AMRO Asset Management, studied literature and economics at Vanderbilt University (1983) and
international finance at Babson College (1986); (Richard, “The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy”, 2/24/12,
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Depression-Breakdown-ebook/dp/B007GZOYI6) JCP
*1) US Internal disorder; 2) Trade Collapse; 3) Militarism; 4) Heg collapse; 5) Middle East War; 6) Crime; 7) Pacific Drawdown; 8) Chinese
Aggression; 9) Chinese Instability (nuclear); 10) European Totalitarianism; 11) UK instability; 12) Russian Expansionism; 13) German
Remilitarization; 14) Food Riots; 15) Prolonged Global Warfare
The consequences of a New Great Depression would extend far beyond the realm of economics. Hungry
people will fight to survive. Governments will use force to maintain internal order at home. This section
considers the geopolitical repercussion of economic collapse, beginning with the United States.¶ First, the
U.S. government’s tax revenues would collapse with the depression. Second, because global trade would
shrivel up, other countries would no longer help finance the U.S. budget deficit by buying government bonds
because they would no longer have the money to do so. At present, the rest of the world has a $500 billion annual trade surplus with the
United States. The central banks of the United States’ trading partners accumulate that surplus as foreign exchange reserves and invest most of
those reserves into U.S. government bonds. An
economic collapse would cause global trade to plummet and
drastically reduce (if not eliminate altogether) the U.S. trade deficit. Therefore, this source of foreign funding for
the U.S. budget deficit would dry up.¶ Consequently, the government would have to sharply curtail its
spending, both at home and abroad. Domestically, social programs for the old, the sick, and the unemployed would have to be slashed.
Government spending on education and infrastructure would also have to be curtailed. Much less government spending would result in a
dramatic increase in poverty and, consequently, in crime. This
would combine to produce a crisis of the current twoparty political system. Astonishment, frustration, and anger at the economic breakdown would
radicalize politics. New parties would form at both extremes of the political spectrum. Given the great and growing income
inequality going into the crisis, the hungry have-nots would substantially outnumber the remaining
wealthy. On the one hand, a hard swing to the left would be the outcome most likely to result from democratic elections. In that case, the
tax rates on the top income brackets could be raised to 80 percent or more, a level last seen in 1963. On the
other hand, the possibility of a right-wing putsch could not be ruled out. During the Great Depression,
the U.S. military was tiny in comparison with what it became during World War II and during the
decades of hot, cold, and terrorist wars that followed. In this New Great Depression, it might be the
military that ultimately determines how the country would be governed.¶ The political battle over
America’s future would be bitter, and quite possibly bloody. It cannot be guaranteed that the U.S.
Constitution would survive.¶ Foreign affairs would also confront the United States with enormous
challenges. During the Great Depression, the United States did not have a global empire. Now it does. The
United States maintains hundreds of military bases across dozens of countries around the world. Added to this is a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers
and 18 nuclear-armed submarines. The country spends more than $650 billion a year on its military. If
the U.S. economy collapses
into a New Great Depression, the United States could not afford to maintain its worldwide military
presence or to continue in its role as global peacekeeper. Or, at least, it could not finance its military in
the same way it does at present.¶ Therefore, either the United States would have to find an alternative
funding method for its global military presence or else it would have to radically scale it back.
Historically, empires were financed with plunder and territorial expropriation. The estates of the vanquished ruling
classes were given to the conquering generals, while the rest of the population was forced to pay imperial taxes.¶ The U.S. model of
empire has been unique. It has financed its global military presence by issuing government debt, thereby
taxing future generations of Americans to pay for this generation’s global supremacy. That would no longer be possible if the
economy collapsed. Cost–benefit analysis would quickly reveal that much of America’s global presence
was simply no longer affordable. Many—or even most—of the outposts that did not pay for themselves would have to be
abandoned. Priority would be given to those places that were of vital economic interests to the United
States. The Middle East oil fields would be at the top of that list. The United States would have to maintain control over them whatever the
price.¶ In this global depression scenario, the price of oil could collapse to $3 per barrel. Oil consumption would fall by half and there would be
no speculators left to manipulate prices higher. Oil at that level would impoverish the oil-producing nations, with extremely destabilizing
political consequences. Maintaining
control over the Middle East oil fields would become much more difficult
for the United States. It would require a much larger military presence than it does now. On the one hand, it might become
necessary for the United States to reinstate the draft (which would possibly meet with violent resistance from draftees, as it
did during the Vietnam War). On the other hand, America’s all-volunteer army might find it had more than enough volunteers with the national
unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent.
The army might have to be employed to keep order at home, given that
mass unemployment would inevitably lead to a sharp spike in crime.¶ Only after the Middle East oil was secured
would the country know how much more of its global military presence it could afford to maintain.¶ If international trade had broken down,
would there be any reason for the United States to keep a military presence in Asia when there was no obvious way to finance that presence?
In a global depression, the United States’ allies in Asia would most likely be unwilling or unable to
finance America’s military bases there or to pay for the upkeep of the U.S. Pacific fleet. Nor would the
United States have the strength to force them to pay for U.S. protection. Retreat from Asia might
become unavoidable.¶ And Europe? What would a cost–benefit analysis conclude about the wisdom of the United States maintaining
military bases there? What valued added does Europe provide to the United States? Necessity may mean Europe will have to defend
itself.¶ Should a New Great Depression put an end to the Pax Americana, the world would become a
much more dangerous place. When the Great Depression began, Japan was the rising industrial power
in Asia. It invaded Manchuria in 1931 and conquered much of the rest of Asia in the early 1940s. Would China, Asia’s new rising
power, behave the same way in the event of a new global economic collapse? Possibly. China is the only
nuclear power in Asia east of India (other than North Korea, which is largely a Chinese satellite state).¶ However, in this disaster
scenario, it is not certain that China would survive in its current configuration. Its economy would be in ruins. Most of
its factories and banks would be closed. Unemployment could exceed 30 percent. There would most likely be starvation both in the cities and in
the countryside. The
Communist Party could lose its grip on power, in which case the country could break
apart, as it has numerous times in the past. It was less than 100 years ago that China’s provinces, ruled by warlords, were at war with one
another.¶ United or divided, China’s nuclear arsenal would make it Asia’s undisputed superpower if the United
States were to withdraw from the region. From Korea and Japan in the North to New Zealand in the South to Burma in the West,
all of Asia would be at China’s mercy. And hunger among China’s population of 1.3 billion people could necessitate territorial expansion into
Southeast Asia. In fact, the central government might not be able to prevent mass migration southward, even if it wanted to. ¶ In
Europe,
severe economic hardship would revive the centuries-old struggle between the left and the right. During
the 1930s, the Fascists movement arose and imposed a police state on most of Western Europe. In the
East, the Soviet Union had become a communist police state even earlier. The far right and the far left
of the political spectrum converge in totalitarianism . It is difficult to judge whether Europe’s democratic institutions would
hold up better this time that they did last time.¶ England had an empire during the Great Depression. Now it only has
banks. In a severe worldwide depression, the country— or, at least London—could become ungovernable.
Frustration over poverty and a lack of jobs would erupt into anti-immigration riots not only in the United Kingdom but also across most of
Europe.¶ The extent to which Russia would menace its European neighbors is unclear. On the one hand, Russia would be impoverished by the
collapse in oil prices and might be too preoccupied with internal unrest to threaten anyone. On the other hand, it could
provoke a war
with the goal of maintaining internal order through emergency wartime powers.¶ Germany is very nearly
demilitarized today when compared with the late 1930s. Lacking a nuclear deterrent of its own, it could be subject to
Russian intimidation. While Germany could appeal for protection from England and France, who do have
nuclear capabilities, it is uncertain that would buy Germany enough time to remilitarize before it
became a victim of Eastern aggression.¶ As for the rest of the world, its prospects in this disaster
scenario can be summed up in only a couple of sentences. Global economic output could fall by as much
as half, from $60 trillion to $30 trillion. Not all of the world’s seven billion people would survive in a $30 trillion global economy.
Starvation would be widespread. Food riots would provoke political upheaval and myriad big and small
conflicts around the world . It would be a humanitarian catastrophe so extreme as to be unimaginable
for the current generation, who, at least in the industrialized world, has known only prosperity. Nor
would there be reason to hope that the New Great Depression would end quickly. The Great
Depression was only ended by an even more calamitous global war that killed approximately 60
million people.
Econ Impacts
Slow growth causes war—statistics
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration,
Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed.
Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic
decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has
contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this
vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski
and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise
and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the
next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see
also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for
conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that
global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that
the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future
expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from
trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for
difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to
spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic
decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has
the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary
theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments
have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect.
Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least
indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the
tendency towards diversionary tactics
are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed
from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in
the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use
of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas
political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and
national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.
That causes competition for resources and instability that escalates and goes nuclear
Harris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of
the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number
of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a
growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While
we continue to believe that the Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on
fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral
institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first
as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow
would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In
surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist
groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within
their reach. Terrorist
groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures,
command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and
disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in
an economic
downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military
presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries
about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with
external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear
that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would
emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an
unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals
combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable
indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The
lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and
missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than
defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a
resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take
actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate
conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of
their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale
for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for
these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased
tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With
water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a
more dog-eat-dog world.
**Hege
Failure to reauthorize guts our nation's military readiness - devastates the US defense
industrial base
Gaffney 7/17/14 (Frank- President for center of security policy, “We Need the U.S. Export Import Bank”, Newsmax,
http://www.newsmax.com/frankgaffney/exim-import-export-bank/2014/07/17/id/583216/), Shapiro
Consequently, the upshot of
with respect to Exim Bank is that the United States will
lose export opportunities and jobs. In some cases, American companies that have a successful
business model, provided they are able to compete internationally on a level-playing field, will become unviable. Of particular
concern is the likelihood that among the casualties will be the already-beleaguered U.S.
defense industrial base. For example, what is left of the skilled workforce, engineers, design teams, machine
tools, etc., needed to produce state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, transports, and satellites
now resides substantially in our commercial aerospace sector. And if the industry’s
commercial operations cease to be able to sell their products to overseas
customers, as a practical matter, we are going to find ourselves even less capable
of reconstituting our military production lines when, not if, they are needed. That
would amount to unilateral disarmament, not just in the figurative sense, but in
the literal one. As long as transactions supported by the U.S. Export-Import Bank are made on the merits and with the same record of fiduciary responsibility that has
protected the taxpayer’s equities to date, and so long as other nations provide comparable support to their exporters, our country needs Exim.
the sort of Republican-led unilateral disarmament now in prospect
**Manufacturing (Econ)
*The Exim bank is critical to US manufacturing – prevents foreign outcompetition
Daniel Ferry, Writer for the Motley Fool who primarily covers industrial companies engaged in
providing critical infrastructure and pushing the boundaries of advanced manufacturing, 7-13-14 “What
Would It Mean for Manufacturers if Congress Were to Kill the Export-Import Bank?”
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/13/what-would-it-mean-for-manufacturers-ifcongress-w.aspx
A political shake-up in Congress has potentially put a little-known federal agency on the chopping block,
much to the dismay of major American manufacturers, particularly Boeing(NYSE: BA ) , but also General Electric (NYSE: GE
) and Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ) . The manufacturers claim they need the Export-Import Bank to keep American products
competitive in the global market and support American jobs, but incoming Republican leadership in the House is
opposed to the agency, which they allege is a tool of crony capitalism. What does the Export-Import Bank do? Created in 1943, the ExportImport Bank is a federal agency charged with encouraging the foreign purchase of American products. The
bank has four major programs to help finance American exports: Direct lending to foreign purchasers of American products. Providing
guarantees to banks that lend to purchases of American products. Insuring American exporters and banks against losses from foreign
borrowers. Guaranteeing bank loans going to provide working capital to U.S. exporters. The Export-Import Bank finances its own operations by
borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury, later repaying the funds borrowed with interest. The bank covers its operating costs through fees to
its customers and interest charged on its own loans, Who benefits from the Export-Import Bank? There's
a reason the Ex-Im Bank
has been nicknamed the "Bank of Boeing." The aviation giant's jet planes have historically been by far the largest recipients of
the Ex-Im Bank's loans and guarantees in terms of total dollar value. In 2013, the Ex-Im Bank provided over $8 billion in financing to Boeing,
making up over 30% of the bank's total financial exposure. Foreign airlines purchasing Boeing jets are similarly benefiting by being on the
opposite end of the transaction, receiving favorable financial terms under which to buy the planes. Other
big manufacturers to
receive windfall financing from the bank include General Electric, which enjoyed loans and guarantees totaling over
$2.6 billion in 2013, and Caterpillar, whose Solar Turbine subsidiary received guarantees totaling over $1.3 billion in 2013. The Ex-Im
Bank also assists much smaller American businesses seeking to export. Historically the largest manufacturers have
eaten up the lion's share of the Ex-Im Bank's total financial assistance by dollar value, and 2013 was no different with the top 10 beneficiaries
taking in over 75% of the bank's total financial assistance portfolio. But the Ex-Im Bank notes that small
businesses account for over
90% of the bank's total number of transactions, and that the bank has made exports possible for over
3,000 American small businesses. Who's opposed to the Export-Import Bank? The primary industry opponents of the Ex-Im Bank
are the big domestic airliner, like Delta(NYSE: DAL ) , who feel that their foreign competitors are getting rosier terms to purchase Boeing jets
than they are, allowing foreign airlines to outcompete domestic airlines on U.S. -- international routes. Delta CEO Richard Anderson recently
called for the Ex-Im Bank to be renewed, albeit with the critical "reform" that it be prohibited from financing the purchase of wide-body aircraft
by foreign state-owned or state-subsidized airlines -- which is basically all of them. Critics also charge that the Ex-Im Bank is in the business of
picking winners and losers, and it's hard to disagree. Small businesses that receive preferential Ex-Im Bank financing have significant advantages
over their direct competitors that don't, making it unclear just how many jobs the Ex-Im Bank supports on net. Beyond picking winners and
losers, the Ex-Im Bank has also been accused of being a taxpayer subsidy to big business, as it uses taxpayer money to finance risky private
loans. For decades, the Bank has returned more to the Treasury than it borrowed, essentially acting as a free revenue source for taxpayers.
However, critics up to and including the Export-Import Bank's own Inspector General believe that the agency is not assessing risk properly or
responsibility. That could expose the Bank, and therefore the U.S. Treasury and the taxpayer, to massive losses in the case of customer defaults.
What would happen if the Export-Import Bank wasn't reauthorized? The Ex-Im Bank would be permitted to carry out the terms of its current
agreements, but could not originate new loans or guarantees, essentially winding itself down to nothing over time. American
manufacturers currently enjoying access to the bank would need to arrange alternative financing or
export fewer goods. Larger manufacturers with global exports typically have their own internal credit businesses specifically to
make it easier for customers to buy their products, and in Boeing's case in particular, these captive finance arms would likely be expected to
pick up the slack. Only Boeing would
be seriously stressed by this, as according to credit-rating agency Standard & Poor the
company could need to double or triple its customer finance portfolio, which could hurt its credit
rating. Longer term, supporters of the Ex-Im Bank warn that American exporters may be outcompeted by foreign
firms that enjoy the favorable financing of their own export credit agencies, and again this is a more serious threat
for Boeing than anyone else. While the advantage of favorable financing is relatively slight, Boeing's competition with European competitor
Airbus tends to be close and brutal, and could therefore hurt Boeing's order book.
Manufacturing loss devastates the economy
Pisano and Shih, 12 [September, Producing Prosperity: Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance [Kindle Edition], Harry E.
Figgie Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School. He has been on the Harvard faculty for 23 years, Professor of
Management Practice. He joined the Technology and Operations Management Unit in January 2007, p. amazon kindle]
The rough and tumble of international competition means we should expect industries to come and go.
Even if this is sometimes painful, it is, in fact, a healthy process by which resources flow to their most
productive uses. When a commons erodes, however, it represents a deeper and more systematic
problem. It means the foundation upon which future innovative sectors can be built is crumbling. When the
semiconductor production business moved to Asia in the 1980s, it brought with it a whole host of capabilities—electronic-materials processing,
deposition and coating, and sophisticated test and assembly capabilities—that formed an industrial commons needed to produce a whole host
of advanced, high-valued-added electronic products such as flat-panel displays, solid-state lighting, and solar PV. In this book, we will examine
the dynamics that underlie both the rise and decline of commons, and the consequence of those declines. Our argument is built around three
core themes. Theme 1: When a Country Loses the Capability to Manufacture, It Loses the Ability to Innovate
Innovation and manufacturing are often viewed as residing at the opposite ends of the economic spectrum—innovation being all about the
brain (knowledge work) and manufacturing all about brawn (physical work). Innovation requires highly skilled, highly paid workers, and
manufacturing requires low-skilled, low-paid workers; innovation is a high-valued-added specialty, and manufacturing is a low-value-added
commodity; innovation is creative and clean, and manufacturing is dull and dirty. Such a view of manufacturing is a myth and is based on a
profound misunderstanding of how the process of innovation works and the link between R&D and manufacturing. R&D is a critical part of the
innovation process, but it is not the whole thing. Innovation is about moving the idea from concept to the customer’s hands. For some highly
complex products (flat-panel displays, PV cells, and biotechnology drugs, to name a few) the transfer from R&D into production is a messy
affair, requiring extremely tight coordination and the transfer of learning between those who design and those who manufacture. If you do not
understand the production environment, you have a harder time designing the product. In these settings, there
are strong reasons to
co-locate R&D and production. It is a lot easier for an engineer to walk across the street to the plant or drive
down the road than to fly halfway around the world to troubleshoot a problem. This helps to explain why the American
company Applied Materials, a leading maker of equipment for manufacturing semiconductors and solar panels, moved its chief technical officer
from the United States to China.14 Because most of its large customers are now in China, Taiwan, and South Korea, it
makes sense for
the company to do its research close to the factories that use its equipment. Applied Materials is now moving much
of its manufacturing operations to Asia as well. In chapter 4, we will offer a framework for determining when it matters whether R&D and
manufacturing are located near each and when it does not. Theme 2: The Industrial
Commons Is a Platform for Growth The
industrial commons perspective suggests that a decline of competitiveness of firms in one sector can have implications
for the competitiveness of firms in another. Industries and the suppliers of capabilities to the industries
need each other. Kill a critical industry, and the suppliers probably will not survive for long; other industries in
the region that depend on those suppliers will then be jeopardized. When the auto industry declines, it causes an atrophy of
capabilities (such as casting and precision machining) that are also used in industries such as heavy equipment, scientific instruments, and
advanced materials. The unraveling of a commons is a vicious circle. As
capabilities erode, it is harder for companies that
require access to stay in business. They are forced to move their operations or their supplier base to the new commons. As they
move, it is harder for existing suppliers to sustain themselves. Ultimately, they must either close shop or move their operations. Even worse,
the loss of a commons may cut off future opportunities for the¶ emergence of new innovative sectors if
they require close access to the same capabilities. Four decades ago, when US consumer electronics companies decided to
move production of these “mature” products to Asia, who would have guessed that this decision would influence where the most important
component for tomorrow’s electric vehicles—the batteries—would be produced? But that is what happened.15 The offshoring of consumer
electronics production (often contracted to then-little-known Japanese companies such as Sony and Matsushita) led to the migration of R&D in
consumer electronics to Japan (and later to South Korea and Taiwan). As consumers demanded ever-smaller, lighter, and more powerful (and
power hungry!) mobile computers and cell phones, electronics companies were pushed to innovate in batteries. In the process, Asia became
the hub for innovation in the design and manufacturing of compact, high-capacity, rechargeable, lithium ion batteries, a technology that was
invented in America. This explains why Asian suppliers have become the dominant source of the lithium ion battery cells used in electric
vehicles.
That causes competition for resources and instability that escalates and goes nuclear
Harris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of
the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly,
http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number
of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a
growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While
we continue to believe that the Great
Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on
fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral
institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first
as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow
would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In
surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist
groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within
their reach. Terrorist
groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures,
command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and
disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in
an economic
downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military
presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries
about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with
external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear
that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would
emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an
unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals
combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable
indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The
lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and
missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than
defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a
resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take
actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate
conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of
their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale
for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for
these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased
tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With
water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and
between states in a
more dog-eat-dog world.
Aviation Industry (Heg)
The Exim is crucial to the survival of the US aviation industry
Rebecca Robbins, Washington Post, 7-1-14, “Companies with the most to lose from the Ex-Im Bank
battle,” http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/companies-with-the-most-to-lose-from-the-exim/article_3bf863d0-c326-5929-acb6-4c134ec93438.html
AVIATION INDUSTRY The aviation industry may have reason to worry about the bank's future. In fiscal
2013, the bank provided $8.3 billion in financing to back the aviation-related manufacturing sector in
dealings abroad, second only to the manufacturing sector (a category that excludes commercial aircraft), according to the
bank's 2013 annual report. Across all industries, Chicago-based Boeing benefits the most from the bank's help. In fiscal year 2013,
the company received at least $8.3 billion in backing from the bank — about 30 percent of the total
financial assistance provided by the bank that year, according to the Mercatus Center report. The bank's website lists Boeing
as its top-financed exporter in each year since 2007. Boeing may already be feeling the effects of the uncertainty over
the bank's future. The company's stock is down 3.7 percent since new House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.,
said on June 22 that he does not support the agency's reauthorization. With the bank under pressure, Boeing has emerged
as a quiet but determined defender. The company has actively solicited small businesses to share their positive stories about
working with the bank, a Boeing spokesperson confirmed. Another company in the industry with much to lose is Atlas
Air, a cargo aircraft operator based in Purchase, N.Y. Atlas was the bank's second-top-financed beneficiary in fiscal
2013, according to figures on the bank's website. Bonnie Rodney, a spokesperson for Atlas Air, declined to comment on how much backing by
the Ex-Im Bank her company benefited from that year.
That’s key to American hegemony
Industrial College of Armed Forces, 2k, “Industrial College of the Armed Forces: Industry Studies
2000: Aircraft,” http://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=1666&advanced=advanced
The U.S. aircraft industry has long been a critical enabler of U.S. political and military power and
remains one of the most pervasive industries within the U.S. economy. However, continued U.S. dominance in the
global aircraft market is uncertain. After a decade of mergers and downsizing, the industry's four main sectors--commercial fixed-wing aircraft,
military fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing aircraft, and jet engines--are entering a head-to-head competition with Europe from a strategically
weakened position. To ensure
profitability and maintain market dominance, aerospace manufacturing
companies are striving to improve profit margins by streamlining production processes, reducing overhead costs, and
entering into strategic partnerships to stimulate revenue-generating opportunities. Many of these innovations are indeed yielding new profit
centers. Nevertheless, U.S.
dominance of the global aircraft market has eroded to the point that vigorous
action is required by industry and government to preserve this vital element of national power.
US primacy prevents global conflict
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.G.
John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton
University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel
Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come Home,
America: The Case against Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 751,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107, GDI File]
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence
of a far more dangerous global security environment.
For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from
taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from
contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus
stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory.
Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer,
who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional
rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this
benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and
conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which
makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly
disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge.
The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under
contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and
practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without theAmerican
pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic
governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give
decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal.
Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many
doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result
might be a Europe
that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within
the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might
want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where
the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins
toswing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And
concerning East Asia, pessimismregarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is
pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a
nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable
that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged
United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its
conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on itsparticular—
and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction
of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms
of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are
clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research
across the social and other sciences,
that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status,
and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of
territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may
nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In
however,undermines
sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic
choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S.
retrenchment would result in a significant
deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third,
even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a
competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability,
nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers
to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war).
****Nuclear Industry (Warming)
The Exim bank is the lynchpin of America’s nuclear industry
Bernard L. Weinstein, Associate Director of the Maguire Energy Institute and an Adjunct Professor of
Business Economics in the Cox School of Business, 7-11-14, “Weinstein: Export-Import Bank is
necessary for America,” http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Weinstein-ExportImport-Bank-is-necessary-for-5616265.php
More than six years after the onset of the "Great Recession," the American economy is finally gaining traction. Though the
economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014, mainly due to severe winter weather, during the second half of 2013 real gross domestic
product expanded at a 3.4 percent annual rate and is projected to grow about 3 percent for all of 2014. Though the unemployment rate
remains comparatively high at 6.3 percent, the total number of payroll jobs is finally above its 2008 level. Exports of
American goods
and services have played a large part in the economic recovery. Indeed, exports have grown rapidly every
year since 2008, and they reached a record $2.3 trillion in 2013 - equivalent to about 14 percent of GDP. According to the
International Trade Administration, 11.3 million U.S. jobs were supported by exports in 2013, while a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce finds that another 16 million jobs were supported by imports. But there's
a fly in the ointment - political wrangling
over renewing the charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United States that will expire in September barring congressional action.
Established in the 1930s, the Export-Import Bank is a credit agency that helps American companies sell goods
overseas. Last year, its lines of credit supported $37.4 billion in U.S. exports, which translated into 205,000 jobs. The agency's financing
is especially critical for selling U.S. products to developing countries, where the demand for American products and
services is growing the fastest but private financing is often inadequate or unavailable. Though the top beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank
financing are large corporations, about 70 percent of the 6,000 firms aided over the past five years have been small businesses, many of them
here in Texas. Unfortunately, some conservatives are deriding the Export-Import Bank as a form of corporate welfare that has U.S. taxpayers on
the hook for its $140 billion in outstanding commitments. This criticism
is unwarranted. Yes, loans from the agency are sometimes
direct subsidies to foreign buyers. But other countries offer even greater financial inducements. For example, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that export credit agencies worldwide
have extended more than $1 trillion in trade finance credit in recent years. Because the Export-Import Bank
performs thorough due diligence before issuing a credit, its loan default rate is negligible, less than one-half of 1 percent. The U.S.
Treasury actually makes money from the agency, which transferred more than $1 billion in fees last
year. Perhaps surprisingly, it's America's nuclear energy industry that stands to lose the most if the ExportImport Bank's charter isn't renewed. Though only a handful of nuclear plants are currently under construction or planned in the
U.S., 70 new nuclear energy facilities are under construction in other parts of the world with an additional
173 units in the licensing and advanced planning stages. Because the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates the value of
the global nuclear market at up to $740 billion over the coming decade, capturing even a modest share of this market can
create thousands of new high wage jobs in the U.S. The market for commercial nuclear power
components has become very competitive. Russia, Korea, Japan and France provide their suppliers with multiple layers of
support, including strong trade finance. Uncertainty about the Export-Import Bank is impairing the ability of U.S.
companies to secure foreign contracts. For the sake of the economy, and the millions of workers who
owe their livelihoods to exports, Congress should embrace reality rather than ideology and renew the
charter of the Export-Import Bank on a long-term basis without further delay.
Nuclear energy solves warming, more than renewables
NEFT, Nuclear Energy for Texans, a coalition dedicated to educating Texans about the benefits of
nuclear energy as a clean, safe, reliable alternative to meet the increasing energy needs of the state,
Last Updated in 2014, “Frequently Asked Questions : How Does Nuclear Energy Help Slow Global
Warming?” http://www.nuclearenergyfortexans.org/global_warming.php
Nuclear energy is a key tool in reducing greenhouse gases. Nuclear power plants generate electricity for
one in five homes and businesses in the United States without producing or emitting any greenhouse gases, including
carbon dioxide. Nuclear power plants generate 73 percent of all carbon-free electricity in America. Lifecycle emissions from nuclear energy are comparable to other non-emitting sources of electricity, such as solar, wind and hydropower.
Carbon dioxide is widely believed to be one of the main causes of global warming. Carbon dioxide is a
greenhouse gas that is emitted by human activity, including the use of fossil fuels. The Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are carbon dioxide. The volume of
greenhouse gas emissions prevented at the nation’s 104 nuclear units is equivalent to taking 96 percent
of all passenger cars off America’s highways for one year. By using nuclear power instead of fossil fuel-based plants, the
U.S. nuclear energy industry prevented 681.99 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in
2005. Voluntary efforts by U.S. industry and international emission reduction efforts such as the Kyoto
Protocol would be hampered significantly if nuclear power production did not increase. These efforts would be
nearly impossible if nuclear power were eliminated. For example, building renewable energy sources—wind, solar and
hydroelectric—to replace the 20 percent of U.S. energy produced by nuclear power plants would have no
impact on the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. With the escalating demand for electricity, it is estimated that just to
maintain the current electrical supply mix, an additional 50 new nuclear reactors will have to be constructed to meet future electricity
demands.
Warming causes extinction – emissions reduction is key
Diebel 7 (Terry L., Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007 “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for
American Statecraft”)
Finally, there is one
major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which,
though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the
climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat
for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near
certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific
journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific
circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost
weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms
across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine
Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than
expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been
accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct
temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s
warming climate is
estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease
spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures.
“The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They
call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning
of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million
(ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels.
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels,
only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much
and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the
effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals,
species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the
Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate,
leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of
Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the
collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer
than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone
from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most
frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of
water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age
transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one
was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that
“humankind’s continuing
enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette
with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New
York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will
collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear
war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet.
Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably
better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism and traditional military
challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the
continued existence of life on this planet.
Aviation Industry (Global Connectivity)
The Exim is crucial to the survival of the US aviation industry
Rebecca Robbins, Washington Post, 7-1-14, “Companies with the most to lose from the Ex-Im Bank
battle,” http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/companies-with-the-most-to-lose-from-the-exim/article_3bf863d0-c326-5929-acb6-4c134ec93438.html
AVIATION INDUSTRY The aviation industry may have reason to worry about the bank's future. In fiscal
2013, the bank provided $8.3 billion in financing to back the aviation-related manufacturing sector in
dealings abroad, second only to the manufacturing sector (a category that excludes commercial aircraft), according to the
bank's 2013 annual report. Across all industries, Chicago-based Boeing benefits the most from the bank's help. In fiscal year 2013,
the company received at least $8.3 billion in backing from the bank — about 30 percent of the total
financial assistance provided by the bank that year, according to the Mercatus Center report. The bank's website lists Boeing
as its top-financed exporter in each year since 2007. Boeing may already be feeling the effects of the uncertainty over
the bank's future. The company's stock is down 3.7 percent since new House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.,
said on June 22 that he does not support the agency's reauthorization. With the bank under pressure, Boeing has emerged
as a quiet but determined defender. The company has actively solicited small businesses to share their positive stories about
working with the bank, a Boeing spokesperson confirmed. Another company in the industry with much to lose is Atlas
Air, a cargo aircraft operator based in Purchase, N.Y. Atlas was the bank's second-top-financed beneficiary in fiscal
2013, according to figures on the bank's website. Bonnie Rodney, a spokesperson for Atlas Air, declined to comment on how much backing by
the Ex-Im Bank her company benefited from that year.
Aviation industry is key to maintain a transportation backbone that allows for global
connectivity
Julie Perovic, 2-28-2013, International Air Transport Association, “The Economic Benefits of Aviation and Performance in
the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index,” http://www3.weforum.org/docs/TTCR/2013/TTCR_Chapter1.4_2013.pdf
The importance of air transport connectivity is also critical in the short term. Particular events in the recent
past have made consumers and producers more aware of the costs of disruptions to the global air
transport network—and the substantial benefit of connectivity. For example, when volcanic ash caused the closure of
airspace throughout Europe in 2010, businesses of all types—from automotive to IT—experienced supply- chain failures and production delays,
creating significant unexpected costs.20 CONCLUSION The
aviation sector plays an important role in the global
economy by providing connectivity through the only rapid worldwide transport network. In doing so, the
direct and wider impact on jobs and GDP globally is enormous—contributing over 22 million jobs and US$1.4 trillion in
GDP. Moreover, the aviation sector makes contributions to other industries by facilitating their growth and supporting their operations. With a
significant proportion of international tourists depending on air transport, the aviation industry supports 34.5 million jobs within tourism
globally, contributing around US$762 billion a year to world GDP.21 The benefits
go beyond this economic footprint of
aviation. The global connectivity that air transport facilitates has positive impacts that enhance overall
productivity and economic growth in the long run. Given the increase in global connectivity over the last
decades as a result of air transport, Oxford Economics estimates this benefit should be valued at over US$200 billion to global
GDP.
Independently, breakdown of global transportation causes extinction
Dempsey 2k (Paul Stephen, Professor of Law and Director of the Transportation Law Program at University of Denver, Director of the National
Center for Intermodal Transportation, former attorney for the Interstate Commerce Commission and the US Civil Aeronautics Board, Summer 2000,
27 Transp. L. J. 367, Lexis Nexis)
As the gateways to an increasingly global market, transportation corridors are the arteries through which we and everything we consume flow. Transportation
networks stimulate trillions of dollars in trade, c3ommerce, and tourism. In a global economy, they enable specialization in the production of goods and
services which, under the law of comparative advantage, stimulates broader economic growth. By shrinking the planet, transportation also facilitates the
intermingling and integration of disparate economies and cultures. Cultural interaction enhances international understanding which promotes global peace which,
in a thermonuclear world, is essential for survival of our species. It offers hope for the creation of a global village of friends and neighbors rather than enemies and
adversaries. Cultural interaction also stimulates intellectual social and artistic creativity, making the world a more interesting and richer place in which to live. As a
fundamental component of the infrastructure upon which economic growth is built - the veins and arteries of commerce, communications, and national defense - a
healthy transportation system serving the public's needs for ubiquitous service at reasonable prices is vitally important to region and the nation it serves. It is for
this reason that governments the world over have promoted, encouraged, and facilitated its provision by providing essential infrastructure, research and
development, protective regulation, subsidies and, on occasion, outright ownership. Historically, government has facilitated transportation by guiding the airports,
the seaports, the rail and transit lines, subsidized their operations where necessary, and established the basic codes and rules under which the industry serves the
public. If done thoughtfully and well, government planning can facilitate creation of an efficient and productive transportation infrastructure better able to satisfy
the broader needs of the public for safe, secure, seamless, expeditious and reasonably priced transportation service. The tourism and travel business is arguably the
world's largest industry. It accounts for 5.5% of the world's GNP, 12.9% of consumer spending, 7.2% of worldwide capital investment, and 127 million jobs,
employing one in every 15 workers. The ripple effect of transportation activity - the indirect and induced economic and employment stimulation - is vastly larger
than the prices paid directly by passengers or shippers. Transportation creates and transports wealth far in excess of its own facial value. In other words, the tacit
benefits of economic stimulation created by transportation networks far exceeds its costs. In this sense, transportation has profound externalities, both positive
and negative. For example, a city with abundant airline, motor carrier and railroad networks radiating from it like the spokes of a wheel, enjoys a wide economic
catchment area stimulating trade, commerce and wealth for its citizens. Conversely, a community with poor, declining or deteriorating access to the established and
prevailing transportation networks will wither like a human limb or organ starved of oxygen by an artery made impassable by a tenacious blood clot. On a
macroeconomic level, these observations are true for all nations and all regions, and arguably for all time. An expeditious, efficient, and economical transportation
network will facilitate the public's need for mobility and will ordinarily advance economic productivity and growth. Conversely, a deteriorating transportation
infrastructure will produce sluggishness in overall economic productivity and retard economic growth.
Theory
Generic Politics Good
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Fairness: Politics DA is at the heart of why most plans haven’t been done – we should be able to
talk about the real world political ramifications.
2. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
AT – Bottom of the Docket
Political process begins as soon as the plan is passed, which also triggers the expenditure of political
capital in Congressional meetings and votes, ensuring a link to the plan.
Docket is not a real thing – Obama pushes what he thinks he can pass at the moment.
If their plan is bottom of the docket, it will not be passed, congress isn’t efficient enough
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Neg ground: this interpretation can make any DA nonunique.
2. Makes the aff a moving target – they can only defend the interpretation of fiat of the 1AC.
3. Education: Politics DA is at the core of why most plans haven’t been done – it’s key to test the
real world political ramifications, which increases in-depth knowledge of the topic.
AT – Winding Way
Political process triggers the expenditure of political capital in Congressional meetings and votes.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Fairness: Politics DA is at the heart of why most plans haven’t been done – we should be able to
talk about the real world political ramifications
2. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
AT – No Backlash
Link arguments prove there is backlash and political reactions to the plan.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision makers. It also
allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world Congressional
discussion of the plan.
2. Fairness: the same interpretation could be extended to no link out of all DAs – steals core neg
ground.
AT – Vote No
This round isn’t a proxy congressional debate. The format does not model Congress. The aff is passed in
Congress after and if the judge votes aff.
Their interpretation of debate is bad:
1. Infinitely regressive: All DAs would hypothetically be triggered or inevitable just by the neg just
introducing them in the round – takes out the majority of core neg ground.
2. Education: the plan can’t be fully tested without DAs, so policymaking knowledge is lost.
3. Voter for fairness and education.
AT – Non-Intrinsic
Obama has to spend political capital to pass the plan – that is the 1NC ____________ link evidence.
Political capital expenditure proves the DA is intrinsic.
Our interpretation of fiat is if the judge votes aff the plan goes through, but the judge is not a member
of Congress
Intrinsicness arguments are bad for debate:
1. Infinitely Regressive: their interpretation means all DAs can hypothetically be solved by an
external policy option or intervening actor.
2. Neg Ground: analyzing political consequences is key to fully testing the plan. Their interpretation
excludes all politics DAs, which are at the core of neg ground.
3. Education: Politics DA is key to test the real world political ramifications, which increases indepth knowledge of the topic.
4. Voter for fairness and education.
AT – Fiat Solves the Link
The aff gets the minimum amount of fiat necessary. They can fiat the plan is passed, but they can’t fiat
the political process of the plan. We simulate that the political passage begins after the judge votes.
Their interpretation of fiat is a voter for fairness and education:
1. Real-world Education: talking about the political process allows us to become better decision
makers. It also allows us to have in-depth knowledge about the topic and models real-world
Congressional discussion of the plan.
2. Fairness: Politics DAs are at the core of neg ground. Don’t let them spike out of real world
process implications with an arbitrary definition of fiat that provides no educational benefit –
we could never win a link to a DA with this interp of fiat.
Ava notes
Going for ptx***











Have Overview, big impact scenario- your link is bad, so make up with huge impacts
Be confident**- ptx is around so long judges are biased to believe it’s a good DA, even if aff
pokes holes, just be confident and the judge will still accept you
What world are you left with
o If they only answer UQ and Impact D- they’ve conceded the plan unpop, which is the I/L,
they’ve conceded the bill is really good, which is key to the economy
Turns case
o the lower down you go on IL chain, the better
o CIR turns hege is better than econ collapse turns hege
 Better bc you don’t have to win econ to win hege
o Turn every 1ac impact
UQ- recency, cut cards at tourneys
****Momentum or predictive evidence
o No guarantee that bla will pass, but it makes a predictive claim that if Ob pushes it, it
will pass
 Ours is predictive of circumstances, yours is just a snapshot
 Won’t pass now but will pass soon, so Ob will push it
If you win the bill will pass now, then the previous fights will not matter
o Their link UQ takeouts won’t matter, UQ controls link debate
o Issue specific UQ outweighs, then make difference between their link and your link
**Link turns the case
o If neg wins the plan is unpop, then it means the aff could be eroded away soon
o The general public
o Durable fiat means that funding rollback won’t happen, you get the aff
 But it only affects the plan text, doesn’t affect state or private actors
AT: link uq takeouts
o A. Issue specific UQ is key, we assume your ev
o B. Old fights are irrelevant, they reconciled
o C. the plan is uniquely controversial, bc…the plan actually drills stuff, etc.
AT: PC takeouts
o A. Obama has enough PC, UQ proves this, Issue specificity
o B. your specific issues won’t be that big of a fight, Obamacare doesn’t matter bc the
fight is over, but it left him w/enough PC to pass squo bill
o C. AT: election year, so ppl won’t wanna fight
 Our ev says this stuff will pass, issue specific UQ
 Proves the link argument (often card, if Congress gets into fights they won’t do
anything else)
 They will not want to pass anything else after the plan bc you made them go
into the fighting waters, you are uniquely controversial
AT: Impact UQ
o Yes, there are issues w/ cybersecurity now, but that is why CIR is more key
o Yes drought is bad for econ, but CIR solves bc more workers key



AT: we are in recess now
o A. plan causes special session of congress
o B. or, the plan has to wait to everything else, meaning you still upset something when
everything is back on the table
AT: Ob doesn’t push
o A. he will push
o B. even if doesn’t Obama gets blamed
o C. still war in congress, bipart key
 Stuff like consumer markets, investors
AT: Agency does plan
o A. Makes it looks like Obama is hiding the plan, still causes backlash
o B. plan still needs congressional spending
o C. trades off w/ other things the agency already doing, then have a DA
d**Answering Agenda PTX (GOOD)**







UQ portion of the debate, just say bill won’t pass
Link UQ- the link they have read has already been triggered in the status quo
o Like Ocean conservation act- if they say Obama wasn’t involved in that, ask why he’d get
involved with the plan
o Don’t say thumper, say Link UQ one time, very good argument
o Often neg will read link card and it will actually have another thumper in it
PC UQ- there are a ton of fights happening in the squo, best args bc it’s generally true
Impact UQ- the nuclear industry is hampered for way more reasons than just Ex-im
o Immigrants not coming to America just bc of green cards, there are way more reasons
Links takeout- find how Obama avoids ocean policy bill, doesn’t push it
o Plan happens through different agency, so not congress, you don’t have to defend
congress
o Also plan popular, winners win
If the warrant in UQ is that Dems are fighting bill, but the link is saying the plan unpop with
Repubs, your stuff doesn’t make sense
I/L takeouts
o Hirsch, Winners win, someone else will push the plan not Obama
o PC is compartmentalized, Obama’s sway on ocean doesn’t spillover to military
o Dems Key instead, GOP won’t pass CIR, one bill doesn’t solve, alt causes to cyber
reform
**Answering Elections, good





Usually challenger has uphill battle, they trust incumbent more
No vote-switching, especially in later, like 1 week before elections, dispute the midterms- early
votes are already being turned in, who the hell will switch votes now??
Examine who will vote switch- why would a swing state like Ohio care about ocean? They’re
landlocked
o Know swing states, know which senators, how many are key to switching house/
senate
 If it’s a Repub challenger and Repub incumbent, it doesn’t matter
Have strong reason why you’d swing votes
Indict their polling data, they’re not good indicator





o Cut indicts of other polls and cut prodicts of your own polls- this actually exists
Other issues outweigh
o Ocean policy is not the economy- neg should say the plan gives hope for ppl for the
economy
o Aff says economy is bigger issue than the plan, concede some of neg cards who say
“econ is biggest issue”
Constituency
o Obama, for example, got tons of funding from individual ppl, 5$ donations
 He energized youth, women, minorities, lower class
 Bc of Hispanics in TX, TX could be blue- THAT’s why Repubs want green cards
o Voter turnout is very important, many youths will vote a certain way, but it doesn’t
matter if these ppl don’t want to vote
 Bc ppl don’t care as much about GOP votes, not pres votes
*What about plan gets ppl to go to the polls??? Neg link almost never matches up
Greens arg is very good
o Want environmental reform- fracking is bad, they agst drilling in general
Impact turns
o Read GOP bad**
o Yes they’ll pass CIR, but they’ll also ruin relations with nature
USE your head


Even if they pass green cards/ CIR, how do you know hib visas will be there???
How do you know bla solve cyber immediately??
more neg impx
1NC Shell
A. Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank will likely pass in the status quo - does
face opposition from McCarthy
Bloomberg News 07-28
["Export-Import Bank to win renewal, with changes,
Republican says", http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-28/export-import-bank-towin-renewal-with-changes-republican-says.html] ttate
The U.S. Congress probably will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank before its charter expires in two
months, adding tools to crack down on misconduct by employees, a Republican House committee
chairman said.
“It’s an important agency, but it clearly has corruption problems,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa of
California said today in an interview on Bloomberg Television.
The 80-year-old bank is facing its toughest test as it seeks reauthorization before its financing power end
Sept. 30. Manufacturers such as Boeing Corp. as well as Wall Street banks back the lender, while the
Republican-leaning Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth, oppose the bank as “crony
capitalism.”
Issa said incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a fellow California Republican, told him in a
meeting today that he would consider a short-term extension of the charter as long as changes are
made to the agency’s operations. McCarthy last month in a television interview said the bank’s authority
to help overseas companies by U.S. goods should expire on Sept. 30.
B. <INSERT LINK>
1NC Shell
And, Obama is going to need his political capital to win his showdown with McCarthy
over reauthorization
Berg 6/22 (Rebecca-staff writer, “Kevin McCarthy won't reauthorize the Export-Import Bank”, The
Washington Examiner, 6/22/14, http://washingtonexaminer.com/kevin-mccarthy-wont-reauthorizethe-export-import-bank/article/2550038), Shapiro
New House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy does not have plans to reauthorize the Export-Import
Bank's lending authority when it expires in September, he said Sunday -- setting up a likely fierce battle
between conservative Republicans and the president. The bank, which grants credit to help finance
American exports, is viewed as vital by the president, many Democrats and a range of pro-business
groups because other countries, such as China, help finance their own exports in a similar fashion. But
conservatives fought the bank's reauthorization in 2012. McCarthy seemed to take up their mantle
Sunday on Fox News, saying such lending "is something government does not have to be involved in.”
"The private sector can do it," McCarthy explained, adding he does not plan to support reauthorization
later this year. McCarthy's stance marks a stark break from that of his predecessor in the majority leader
role, Eric Cantor -- who lost his spot in Congress this month with a shocking defeat in his party's primary.
**2NC Uniqueness Run
The battle over reauthorization will be contentious over the summer - Obama
supports reauthorization and has invested the political capital to maintain support
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 06-27 ["Bipartisan Export-Import Bank Debate Could Heat Up This
Summer", http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/27/bipartisan-export-import-bank-debatecould-heat-up-this-summer] ttate
There’s a lot of mudslinging going on in the Beltway and beyond over the previously little-known Export-Import Bank.
Its authorization slated to expire on September 30, the bank issues loan guarantees to foreign companies who want to
purchase American goods, like mining equipment from Caterpillar and airplanes from Boeing. One might assume by its pro-export
mission and its ability to provide funding where the private sector cannot that the 80-year-old agency might glean support
across the political spectrum. Yet many conservative opponents of the agency decry it as “corporate
welfare” that benefits a select few while unloading a tax burden on Americans. [VOTE: Should Congress Kill the
Export-Import Bank?] Though the argument doesn’t fissure cleanly across party lines, it’s likely to only heat up
this summer, as it did in 2012 right before its last reauthorization. The Obama administration, along with
a spectrum of business organizations, thousands of companies and many conservatives, supports a
reauthorization while other conservatives like incoming House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy
advocate against it. At play is a complex debate over big business favoritism versus the need for global
competitiveness. “We see at the Export-Import Bank is a tangible and important contribution to the U.S.
economy,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at a press briefing June 24. “The president has spent a
lot of time over the course of this year talking about expanding economic opportunity being the focal
point of his domestic policy agenda.”
And, the battle rages on - recent Commerce Department reports is building
momentum for the opposition - Obama must stay the course
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 06-27 ["Bipartisan Export-Import Bank Debate Could Heat Up This
Summer", http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/27/bipartisan-export-import-bank-debatecould-heat-up-this-summer] ttate
The conversation about the contribution of exports is a particularly timely one, as the Commerce
Department this week showed that a decline in exports helped drag down economic growth in the first
quarter. But in 2013, U.S. exports reached $2.3 trillion, the highest ever.
Opponents of the reauthorization say that the markets can and should be able to operate freely without
the intervention of the federal government, while the other side argues that there is a gap that’s resulted in international trade
financing that the Ex-Im Bank, as it’s known, helps fill.
The financial crisis gave way to stricter lending standards for banks and tighter liquidity requirements – or cash on hand in case of an
emergency – which means a little less capital for activities like trade financing. As a result, the private sector already covers 98 percent of
export financing, leaving the narrow 2 percent for the Ex-Im Bank, as a “last resort,” says Tony Fratto,
former deputy press
secretary to President George W. Bush and current managing partner at the Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm Hamilton Place
Strategies.
“It’s cumbersome to use Ex-Im,” he says. “The prices they charge are market rate. They’re just the only ones that are able to make
financing available. It’s not a freebie.”
And, there are enough GOP votes on board now for Ex-Im reauthorization to pass
Rogers, 7/9/14[Alex Rogers, reporter for Time Magazine, Ex-Im bank wins enough GOP support for
passage, http://time.com/2969891/export-import-bank-congress-republicans/] mantis
Vote count makes clear business-friendly Republicans can beat back conservatives An obscure
government bank loathed by conservatives but backed by business now has enough Republican support
to win reauthorization before it expires this fall, according to a TIME vote count. The fight over the
Export-Import bank—which provides billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to
help foreigners purchase U.S. goods.—has divided small-government conservatives and more businessfriendly establishment Republicans, with one top conservative even calling it a “defining issue” for the
GOP. But after months of uncertainty, a sufficient number Republicans in both the House and Senate
support reauthorization—if House leaders allow a vote to come to the floor.
Of the 23 current Senate Republicans who voted to extend the charter in 2012, five members—Lamar Alexander (RTenn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)—have indicated publicly or to TIME that
they support the bank. Freshman Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) supports the bank, as does Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who did not vote on the 2012
legislation but is working with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) on a bill to reauthorize its charter. Assuming all 53 Democratic Senators vote for the
reauthorization, the Senate has enough votes to keep the bank alive.
And with 41
House Republicans supporting reauthorization in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner late
last month, the GOP-controlled chamber also has enough votes when widespread Democratic support is
included. If the Democratic-controlled Senate tied the fate of the bank to a short-term spending resolution to keep the government open,
which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering, House Republicans would have to make the difficult choice of whether or not to shut
the government down to block a bank few Americans have heard of. That seems unlikely, with even Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a fierce
opponent, estimating recently that only “1 in 1,000” have ever heard of the bank, and with memories of last year’s government shutdown and
the damage it did to the party’s poll numbers still fresh.
Uniqueness - Ex-Im Reauthorization will pass
Opposition is mounting, but Ex-Im still has the momentum to pass in the status quo
Nocera 7/14/14 [Joe Nocera, Op-Ed columnist. Before joining The Opinion Pages in April 2011, he wrote the
Talking Business column for The New York Times each Saturday and was a staff writer for The New York Times
Magazine. In addition to his work at The Times, he serves as a regular business commentator for NPR's Weekend
Edition with Scott Simon., “Helping Big Companies Compete”, New York Times, Published 14 July 2014 @
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/joe-nocera-export-import-bank-big-companiescompete.html?_r=0] Tusnial
I am returning to this subject because I continue to find it mind-boggling that anyone in Washington would want to pursue a path that is so
clearly destructive to the economy. But that is exactly what is happening. Conservative
organizations like Heritage Action for America
made killing the Ex-Im Bank their cause. And it has been
taken up by Tea Party Republicans in the House, as well as Jeb Hensarling, the powerful chairman of the
House Financial Services Committee. Although it is likely that the Senate will pass a reauthorization bill
this month, if the House doesn’t follow suit by the end of September, the Ex-Im Bank will not be
reauthorized. Companies that rely on the Ex-Im Bank’s array of financing products to complete deals will,
unquestionably, be hurt. Many of them will be small and medium-size companies that are able to export only
because of the assistance they get from the Ex-Im Bank. I have written about them in previous columns. But some will
be big guns like Boeing, Caterpillar and General Electric. It’s worth dwelling on these large companies for two reasons.
and Americans for Prosperity (financed by the Koch brothers) have
First, customers of these big companies get the bulk of the Ex-Im Bank’s assistance. Though this seems completely logical — the biggest
companies do the biggest deals, after all — this has also made them a target of the right, which views the relationship between the bank and
American multinationals as the paradigmatic example of “crony capitalism.” Second, most of the arguments made against the Ex-Im Bank
revolve around its help to the big companies, not the small ones. For instance, it is argued that big companies have their own means of helping
customers finance deals. That’s true, but it’s the customers, not the companies, that are pushing for export credit guarantees. A Boeing source
told me that it is hearing from customers and potential customers about the fate of the Ex-Im Bank. “It’s a big deal,” my source said, especially
in places like Africa, where conventional financing for aircraft is hard to come by.
Despite opposition, reauthorization is set to pass - majority of lawmakers still favor
US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT 06-27 ["Bipartisan Export-Import Bank Debate Could Heat Up This
Summer", http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/27/bipartisan-export-import-bank-debatecould-heat-up-this-summer] ttate
Despite grumblings from the GOP and some companies such as Delta Air Lines, the Ex-Im Bank remains popular
among “most members of Congress,” Fratto says. In 2012, when there wasn’t as much attention on the bank, a
reauthorization bill passed overwhelmingly in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in a 330-93 vote, and in the Senate in a 7820 vote.
“It shouldn’t be getting this much political attention because it should be a no-brainer,” says Miriam
Sapiro, former deputy U.S. trade representative and a current visiting fellow in the global economic development at the
Brookings Institution, a nonprofit Washington-based think tank.
Uniqueness - Ex-Im Reauthorization will be a battle
House Republicans are attempting to shut down the Export-Import Bank reauthorization is not a done deal
Greenblatt 7/13/14 [Alan Greenblatt has been covering politics and government in Washington and
around the country for 20 years. He came to NPR as a digital reporter in 2010, writing about a wide
range of topics; “Congress' Latest Death Match Involves A Bank You've Never Heard Of”; NPR; Published
13 July 2014 @ http://www.npr.org/2014/07/10/330434582/congress-latest-death-match-involves-abank-youve-never-heard-of) Tusnial/Mantis
It sits in an imposing building just across Lafayette Square from the White House. Yet the
Export-Import Bank, which has been offering
credit to foreign purchasers of U.S. goods for 80 years, could start shutting down operations within a matter of weeks.
"There's about a 50-50 chance," says Dan Ikenson, who directs a trade policy center at the Cato Institute. The bank has become a
prime target of the Tea Party movement and other conservatives who view it as practicing the worst
kind of government interference in the marketplace. "There is probably no better poster child of the Washington insider
economy and corporate welfare than the Export-Import Bank," Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who is chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation — itself among the groups pushing for the bank's demise. With
Hensarling and other top House Republican leaders ready to kill the bank, it may be difficult for the bank
to get the votes it needs to stay in business. Virginia Republican Eric Cantor, the recently ousted House majority leader, was a
major backer of the bank. His successor, Kevin McCarthy of California, says it's time for the bank to go. This has set up a confrontation between
the Tea Party and the GOP's business backers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers are putting on a
full-court press, calling on small-business owners around the country to convince their members of Congress of the bank's continuing
importance. "The business community is pushing this very hard right now," says Christopher Wenk, senior director of international policy for
the Chamber of Commerce. "What really matters is members of Congress hearing from their constituents."
Opposition to reauthorization is growing - it is becoming a pawn in partisan battles
Harkins 7/10/14 [Jill Harkins, contributing writer @ Politics PA, “Casey Calls for Nonpartisan
Reauthorization of Export-Import Bank”, Politics PA, Published 10 July 2014 @
http://www.politicspa.com/casey-calls-for-nonpartisan-reauthorization-of-export-import-bank/59253/]
Tusnial
According to a report from Politico, although many Republicans support the Ex-Im Bank, Tea Party
Republicans have labeled it as
“social welfare” and incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has already decided against its
reauthorization. Historically a nonpartisan issue, the Ex-Im Bank’s reauthorization seems to be garnering
ideological attention this year. The agency may even be used as a pawn in a partisan battle surrounding the
upcoming possibility of a government shutdown. Casey called the disputes about the renewal “purely” partisan.
Democratic nominee for PA’s 8th District Kevin Strouse joined Casey today in his efforts to support the
Bank’s reauthorization via a press release calling on Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick to sign a bipartisan letter requesting that McCarthy
and Speaker John Boehner bring the charter’s renewal to the House Floor for a vote. “Congressman Fitzpatrick and his Tea Party allies have
created such a culture of dysfunction in Washington,” Strouse said, “that they won’t even allow their Republican Congress to pass a historically
bipartisan, pro-business measure.” The
Export-Import Bank’s reauthorization may very well stay in the political
spotlight for the next few months.
Bipartisanship Internal Link Scenario
Ocean policy bills spark intense political partisanship – empirics, energy lobbies, and
agency fragmentation
Helvarg 14 David, reporter for The Hill (“The oceans demand our attention”, February 14 2014,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/198361-the-oceans-demand-ourattention)// NDI Seniors file
The latest battle over the future of America’s ocean frontier is being fought out in a seemingly unrelated bill in
Congress. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) recently introduced his National Endowment for the
Oceans rider to the Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which funds the Army Corps of Engineers to work on
dams, dredging and flood control. The Endowment would establish a permanent fund – based on offshore energy revenue –
for scientific research and coastal restoration. On the House side Tea Party Republican Rep. Bill Flores (Texas) has a rider to cancel out
any funding that might allow the Army Corps to participate in the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy, which he claims would
empower the EPA to control the property of his drought-plagued constituents should any rain (generated by the ocean) land on their rooftops.
One rider represents a constructive addition and the other a paranoid partisan impediment to an ocean policy aimed at coordinating federal
agencies in ways that could reduce conflict, redundancy and government waste, “putting urban planning in the water column,” in the words of
former Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen. Allen, who coordinated federal disaster response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP
oil blow out understands the importance of working together when responding to a disaster. And like it or not, overfishing, pollution, coastal
sprawl and climate change have created an ongoing disaster in our public seas. Unfortunately progress towards a major reorganization of how
we as a nation manage and benefit from our ocean continues to advance with all the deliberate speed of a sea hare (large marine snail). In
2004 ocean conservationists held their first ‘Blue Vision Summit’ in Washington D.C. It was there Rep. Sam Farr
(D-Calif.) called for a “Big Ocean Bill,” to incorporate many of the recommendations of the 2003 Pew
Oceans Commission and 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the first blue ribbon panels to examine
the state of America’s blue frontier in over three decades. During his presidency, George W. Bush established major
marine reserves in the Pacific, but otherwise ignored his own federal commission’s recommendations along with
those of the Pew group headed by future Secretary of Defense (now retired), Leon Panetta. As a result
America’s seas continue to be poorly managed by 24 different federal agencies taking a piecemeal
approach to their oversight under 144 separate laws. In the fall of 2008, Oregon State marine ecologist Dr. Jane Lubchenco
met with then President-elect Obama in Chicago. There, he offered her the job of running The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and she suggested he promote an ocean policy based on the two commissions’ recommendations that he agreed to do.
By the time of the 2009 Blue Vision Summit it was clear Congress
had become too polarized to pass major ocean reform
legislation at the level of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts of the last century. Still, activists gathered there were thrilled to hear the new
White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair, Nancy Sutley, announce plans for a new National Ocean Policy initiative by the Obama
administration. This was followed by a series of six public hearings over the next year held in different parts of the country. Ocean
conservationists were able to mobilize thousands of people and 80 percent of public comments favored
moving forward with a policy of ecosystem-based regional planning for ocean uses. In July 2010, in the wake of
the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama finally signed the National Ocean Policy as an administrative
directive. NOAA then held a series of additional hearings to engage stakeholders during which the oil
and gas industry tried to apply the brakes (why support a level playing field when you already own the field). In 2012, CEQ
finally announced that nine regional planning bodies would be established to get the ocean policy implemented. In
2013, during the 4th Blue Vision Summit activists held the largest Ocean Hill Day in history, a citizens
lobby from 21 states that included over 100 meetings with Senators, House members and their staffs to
advocate for getting the National Ocean Policy underway. Still, today in early 2014, only four of the nine regional
bodies have held meetings. In New England, participation by the states, tribal governments, fishermen, environmentalists and others
have seen a strong launch. In the mid-Atlantic, it’s been more a case of different federal agencies talking to each other without much
transparency or citizen participation. Initial meetings have also been held in the Caribbean and the Western Pacific, including Hawaii. Although
the course forward seems as slow as that sea hare, it’s also clear the public wants action for our ocean, coasts and the
communities that depend on them. One can only hope (and insist) that by the end of the Obama presidency in 2016 we see some tangible
improvements in how we treat our ocean through better coordination and planning among agencies and stakeholders. Good models for this
kind of sustainable ocean use already exist in states like California.
And, maintaining bipartisanship is key to reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank
Rogers 7/9/15 [Alex -
reporter in TIME's Washington bureau., "Export-Import Bank Wins Enough GOP Support for Passage",
http://time.com/2969891/export-import-bank-congress-republicans/] ttate
Vote count makes clear business-friendly Republicans can beat back conservatives RECOMMENDED FOR YOU David Letterman
Walks Out During Joan Rivers Interview Lea Michele Peed Her Pants Before White House Performance Celine Dion's Response to the Week's Best Viral Video Is Incredible by Taboola An obscure government
bank loathed by conservatives but backed by business now has enough Republican support to win reauthorization
before it expires this fall, according to a TIME vote count. MORE Governors Divided on How to Handle Border Crisis Boehner: House Will Sue President Over Obamacare Employer Mandate Puff, Puff,
Pink Slip: Why Smoking Legal Weed Can Get You Fired NBC News John Legend's 'You & I (Nobody In The World)' Video Will Make You Hug Your Mother, Wife, Daughter Huffington Post One Game for It All: Follow the World Cup
The fight over the Export-Import bank—which provides billions of dollars in loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance
to help foreigners purchase U.S. goods.—has divided small-government conservatives and more business-friendly establishment Republicans, with one top conservative even
calling it a “defining issue” for the GOP. But after months of uncertainty, a sufficient number Republicans in both the House and Senate support reauthorization—if House leaders allow
Final Live NBC News
a vote to come to the floor. Of the 23 current Senate Republicans who voted to extend the charter in 2012, five members—Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)—have indicated publicly or to TIME that they support the bank. Freshman Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) supports the bank, as does Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who did not vote on the 2012 legislation but is working with
. Assuming all 53 Democratic Senators vote for the reauthorization, the
Senate has enough votes to keep the bank alive. And with 41 House Republicans supporting
reauthorization in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner late last month, the GOP-controlled chamber also has enough votes when
widespread Democratic support is included. If the Democratic-controlled Senate tied the fate of the bank to a short-term spending resolution to keep the government open,
which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering, House Republicans would have to make the difficult choice of whether or not to
shut the government down to block a bank few Americans have heard of. That seems unlikely, with even Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), a fierce
opponent, estimating recently that only “1 in 1,000” have ever heard of the bank, and with memories of last year’s government shutdown and the damage it did to the party’s poll numbers still fresh. One major
question remains how Senate Republicans who support the bank want to reform it. “I stand where I always have,” Alexander told
TIME. “I think it needs some reforms but I’m in favor of it.” When pressed on how he is looking to reform the bank, Alexander replied, “I’m reviewing that right now.” Alexander’s
response was echoed by several others. “Senator Portman believes we should do everything possible to support American exporters, and not give a leg up to countries like China by unilaterally disarming our export
finance system,” Ohio Sen. Rob Portman spokeswoman Christyn Keyes said. “That said, it’s crucial that we take steps to protect taxpayers and that we
take a hard look at any needed reforms.” “Sen. Isakson supports reauthorizing Ex-Im, but would like to see some reforms,” Isakson spokeswoman Amanda Maddox told TIME. Sen.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) on a bill to reauthorize its charter
Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), who voted to extend the bank’s charter in 2012, will vote to support the bank again, so long as Reid allows senators to offer amendments, Johanns spokesman Nick Simpson told TIME.
Bipartisanship Helpers
Only bipartisan compromise will usher in reauthorization - majority needed to get it
through obstacles in the House
Cirilli and Needham 7/8
[Kevin-political reporter and Vick- reporter and blogger, “Export-Import
Bank supporters aim for show of strength in Senate”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/business-alobbying/business-a-lobbying/211518-ex-im-supporters-aim-for-show-of-strength-insenate#ixzz37SUGWu3o] ttate
Business groups are turning their firepower toward 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 (DW.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. ADVERTISEMENT 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, 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 backing arguments that it is needed to help finance U.S. businesses overseas and protect jobs in America. Ex-Im 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 (RKy.), who has softened his stance on Ex-Im in recent weeks after voting against the charter in 2012. 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
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
hope to see reforms that lead us down that path.”
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
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 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 large and small. Bank supporters are ramping up their lobbying
this week 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
hear the objections to it. I haven’t seen their proposal. But I’d be glad to look at it.” Last week, Sen. Charles
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, saying only that any legislation needs to run through the committee process. 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. “Eliminating the Export-Import Bank without extracting any
concessions from foreign governments would be the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament,” he wrote in the Financial Times on Sunday.
2NC - Economy Impact - Must Read
The newest research proves our argument - reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank
is key to jobs, exports, and the manufacturing sector - prefer this over the Aff's impact
defense
***NAM = National Association of Manufacturers
Grimaldi 07/29 [Christine - writer for NAM's blog "ShopFloor", "Forfeiting Opportunity is not an
option", http://www.shopfloor.org/] ttate
Earlier today, the NAM released a new report that documents the massive size and growth of foreign
export credit activity. The findings of the report, along with those of an NAM policy brief, underscore
why the reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank is critical to support exports, manufacturing
and jobs.
A diverse array of manufacturers, small and large, who use the Ex-Im Bank joined NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons in Washington to unveil
the report. Without
the Ex-Im Bank, these manufacturers and thousands more would not be able to grow
jobs at home and compete in the global marketplace. Even with the Ex-Im Bank’s services, manufacturers in the United
States seeking to export their products, and expand their businesses to reach the 95 percent of consumers who live outside U.S. borders, are at
a competitive disadvantage.
As the report found, foreign export credit agencies (ECAs) continue to grow among our largest trading
partners and in emerging markets. The ECAs of nine of our 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. Collectively, that amount is more than 18 times greater than the modest $27 billion the U.S. Ex-Im Bank
provided the same year. China dominates the export credit financing landscape and authorized more than $153 billion in 2013.
If Congress fails to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, the discrepancy in export financing between the United
States and the rest of the world will only continue to grow. Other nations will jump in and fill the void.
Neither our nation’s manufacturers nor the economy can afford for that to happen.
Impacts - US Competitiveness
Ex-Im Bank key to US competitiveness - key to leveling the global playing field
Charleston Post 7/14/14 [The Post and Courier, the South’s oldest daily newspaper, “Closing the
Export-Import bank would hurt the economy”, Published 12:01 am on July 14 2014 @
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20140714/PC1002/140719717/1022/closing-the-exportimport-bank-would-hurt-the-economy) Tusnial
Hard-right Republicans have wrongly singled out the Export-Import Bank as a symbol of "corporate welfare" and unnecessary government that
should be abolished. They are guilty of mistaking rhetoric for reality. The focus on outsized government is warranted, but in the case of the ExIm Bank it is misplaced. Critics of the Ex-Im Bank level two charges. The bank, they say, is a costly program that benefits a few big clients at the
expense of the taxpayer, and they contend that its services are unnecessary. The new House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Cal., recently
said that the Ex-Im Bank should be closed, explaining: "One of the biggest problems with government is they go and take hard-earned money so
others do things the private sector can do." But he's wrong, or mostly wrong, on both counts. The
bank assists in financing the
export of U.S. goods and services through its loan, guarantee and insurance programs when the private
sector is unable or unwilling to do so. In an area where other governments are involved in export assistance, the Ex-Im Bank
helps level the international playing field for American producers. Killing the bank could do real harm to
the U.S. economy. The Peterson Institute on International Economics, a leading non-partisan think tank,
looked at the issue in a 2011 policy brief on the role of the bank in a world full of similar export credit agencies (ECAs) supported by other
governments. It concluded,
"The comparative advantage of the Ex-Im Bank and other ECAs is their ability, both
technical and political, to take risks shunned by the private market." Small and medium-sized banks don't have the expertise in
foreign markets, and large banks shun the small loans that Ex-Im Bank makes to small and medium-sized export firms. About 90 percent of the
loans Ex-Im makes are to small businesses, and it does business in 170 countries. True, big,
healthy exporters like Boeing and
Caterpillar make good use of Ex-Im's services. But they might not be as big or as healthy in the export
line without the bank's help. The world is full of governments in Europe and Asia providing export credit
assistance to their own firms that compete with our major manufacturers for foreign markets. Think
Airbus or Komatsu, or their emerging Chinese competitors. The political leaders who oppose renewal of the Ex-Im Bank need to get back
on track and focus on real threats to national stability, of which there are many. The cost of ever-expanding government health care, for
example, is rising faster than revenues and the nation's long term income. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is," and where
the Tea Party should be looking with a frugal eye. But it will take patience, hard work and a focus on the future to have any significant impact
on the cost of entitlements. In contrast, the
Ex-Im Bank is a comparatively easy target for anti-government ire. Killing it
might satisfy a political constituency, but it would do real harm to the national economy.
Reauthorization critical to US economy - key to our global competitiveness
Hughes, 7/14/14[Kent Hughes, writer for politico, Expand the Ex-Im bank don’t eliminate it,
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/expand-ex-im-bank-dont-eliminate-it108850.html#.U8XZOvldV-g] mantis
In one of the most bizarre congressional fights in recent memory, conservatives, joined by some liberals,
are pushing to eliminate the Export-Import Bank, an obscure federal agency established in 1934 amid the economic wreckage
of the Great Depression.
Critics have portrayed the bank, which extends credit to exporters at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, as “crony
capitalism” that favors Big Business at the expense of ordinary Americans. They point to the 2008 financial crisis as
an example of how taxpayers can pay for losses while companies keep any gains. In addition, they argue that the government is taking on a role
best left to the private sector and are urging Congress not to renew the bank’s charter in September.
These arguments miss the mark and pose a danger to the American economy. The proposal to eliminate
the Export-Import Bank is a form of unilateral disarmament that completely ignores the competitive
realities of today’s global economy. We should be expanding the resources of the Ex-Im Bank, not
threatening to eliminate it.
Why do we need the Ex-Im Bank? Global competition — which drives the bank to offer to match the
funding policies of America’s industrial competitors, all of which have aggressive export-promotion
efforts. If U.S. firms cannot match the price and terms offered by other advanced economies, overseas
purchasers will often turn to our international competitors.
Ex-Im Bank key to US competitiveness - US products would not be able to be financed
Ferry 7/13/14 [Daniel Ferry, experienced investor and writer, “What Would It Mean for Manufacturers if
Congress Were to Kill the Export-Import Bank?”, The Motley Fool, published 13 July 2014 @
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/07/13/what-would-it-mean-for-manufacturers-ifcongress-w.aspx] Tusnial
A political shake-up in Congress has potentially put a little-known federal agency on the chopping block,
much to the dismay of major American manufacturers, particularly Boeing (NYSE: BA ) , but also General Electric (NYSE: GE ) and
Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT ) . The manufacturers claim they need the Export-Import Bank to keep American products
competitive in the global market and support American jobs, but incoming Republican leadership in the House is opposed
to the agency, which they allege is a tool of crony capitalism. What does the Export-Import Bank do? Created in 1943, the Export-Import
Bank is a federal agency charged with encouraging the foreign purchase of American products. The bank has
four major programs to help finance American exports: Direct lending to foreign purchasers of American products. Providing guarantees to
banks that lend to purchases of American products. Insuring American exporters and banks against losses from foreign borrowers.
Guaranteeing bank loans going to provide working capital to U.S. exporters. The
Export-Import Bank finances its own
operations by borrowing money from the U.S. Treasury, later repaying the funds borrowed with
interest. The bank covers its operating costs through fees to its customers and interest charged on its own loans, Who benefits from the
Export-Import Bank? There's a reason the Ex-Im Bank has been nicknamed the "Bank of Boeing." The aviation giant's jet planes have
historically been by far the largest recipients of the Ex-Im Bank's loans and guarantees in terms of total dollar value.
In 2013, the Ex-Im Bank provided over $8 billion in financing to Boeing, making up over 30% of the bank's total financial exposure. Foreign
airlines purchasing Boeing jets are similarly benefiting by being on the opposite end of the transaction,
receiving favorable financial terms under which to buy the planes. Other big manufacturers to receive windfall
financing from the bank include General Electric, which enjoyed loans and guarantees totaling over $2.6 billion in 2013, and Caterpillar, whose
Solar Turbine subsidiary received guarantees totaling over $1.3 billion in 2013. The Ex-Im
Bank also assists much smaller
American businesses seeking to export. Historically the largest manufacturers have eaten up the lion's share of the Ex-Im Bank's
total financial assistance by dollar value, and 2013 was no different with the top 10 beneficiaries taking in over 75% of the bank's total financial
assistance portfolio. But the Ex-Im Bank notes that small businesses account for over 90% of the bank's total number of transactions, and that
the bank has made exports possible for over 3,000 American small businesses. Who's opposed to the ExportImport Bank? The primary industry opponents of the Ex-Im Bank are the big domestic airliner, like Delta (NYSE: DAL ) , who feel that their
foreign competitors are getting rosier terms to purchase Boeing jets than they are, allowing foreign airlines to outcompete domestic airlines on
U.S. -- international routes. Delta CEO Richard Anderson recently called for the Ex-Im Bank to be renewed, albeit with the critical "reform" that
it be prohibited from financing the purchase of wide-body aircraft by foreign state-owned or state-subsidized airlines -- which is basically all of
them. Critics also charge that the Ex-Im Bank is in the business of picking winners and losers, and it's hard to disagree. Small businesses that
receive preferential Ex-Im Bank financing have significant advantages over their direct competitors that don't, making it unclear just how many
jobs the Ex-Im Bank supports on net. Beyond picking winners and losers, the Ex-Im Bank has also been accused of being a taxpayer subsidy to
big business, as it uses taxpayer money to finance risky private loans. For decades, the Bank has returned more to the Treasury than it
borrowed, essentially acting as a free revenue source for taxpayers. However, critics up to and including the Export-Import Bank's own
Inspector General believe that the agency is not assessing risk properly or responsibility. That could expose the Bank, and therefore the U.S.
Treasury and the taxpayer, to massive losses in the case of customer defaults. What would happen if
the Export-Import Bank wasn't
reauthorized? The Ex-Im Bank would be permitted to carry out the terms of its current agreements, but could not originate
new loans or guarantees, essentially winding itself down to nothing over time. American manufacturers
currently enjoying access to the bank would need to arrange alternative financing or export fewer goods. Larger manufacturers
with global exports typically have their own internal credit businesses specifically to make it easier for customers to buy their products, and in
Boeing's case in particular, these captive finance arms would likely be expected to pick up the slack. Only Boeing
would be seriously
stressed by this, as according to credit-rating agency Standard & Poor the company could need to double or triple its
customer finance portfolio, which could hurt its credit rating. Longer term, supporters of the Ex-Im Bank warn
that American exporters may be outcompeted by foreign firms that enjoy the favorable financing of
their own export credit agencies, and again this is a more serious threat for Boeing than anyone else.
Impacts - Economy - General
Failure to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank will devastate our economic growth
Weinstein, 7/11/14[Bernard Weinstein, has a PhD in economics, Ex-Im Bank is necessary for America,
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Weinstein-Export-Import-Bank-is-necessary-for5616265.php] mantis
More than six years after the onset of the "Great Recession," the American economy is finally gaining
traction. Though the economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014, mainly due to severe winter weather, during the second half of 2013
real gross domestic product expanded at a 3.4 percent annual rate and is projected to grow about 3 percent for all of 2014. Though the
unemployment rate remains comparatively high at 6.3 percent, the total number of payroll jobs is finally above its 2008 level.
Exports of American goods and services have played a large part in the economic recovery. Indeed, exports
have grown rapidly every year since 2008, and they reached a record $2.3 trillion in 2013 - equivalent to about 14 percent of GDP.
According to the International Trade Administration, 11.3 million U.S. jobs were supported by exports in
2013, while a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finds that another 16 million jobs were
supported by imports.
But there's a fly in the ointment - political wrangling over renewing the charter of the Export-Import
Bank of the United States that will expire in September barring congressional action.
Established in the 1930s, the Export-Import Bank is a credit agency that helps American companies sell goods overseas.
Last year, its
lines of credit supported $37.4 billion in U.S. exports, which translated into 205,000 jobs. The agency's
financing is especially critical for selling U.S. products to developing countries, where the demand for
American products and services is growing the fastest but private financing is often inadequate or
unavailable. Though the top beneficiaries of the Export-Import Bank financing are large corporations,
about 70 percent of the 6,000 firms aided over the past five years have been small businesses, many of them
here in Texas.
Unfortunately, some conservatives are deriding the Export-Import Bank as a form of corporate welfare
that has U.S. taxpayers on the hook for its $140 billion in outstanding commitments. This criticism is
unwarranted. Yes, loans from the agency are sometimes direct subsidies to foreign buyers. But other countries offer even greater financial
inducements. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reports that export credit agencies worldwide have
extended more than $1 trillion in trade finance credit in recent years.
Because the Export-Import Bank performs thorough due diligence before issuing a credit, its loan default
rate is negligible, less than one-half of 1 percent. The U.S. Treasury actually makes money from the
agency, which transferred more than $1 billion in fees last year.
Ex-Im Bank key – jobs, growth
LaNoue 7/5/14 [Michelle LaNoue, Harvard Business School graduate and CEO of Headworks, a company which
relies on Ex-Im subsidies, “Lanoue: Killing Ex-Im Bank would kill jobs, growth”, news-journal.com, published 5 July
2014 @ http://www.news-journal.com/opinion/forum/lanoue-killing-ex-im-bank-would-kill-jobsgrowth/article_0905e2e2-de02-58a9-bea9-a5c2b3d01d8a.html] Tusnial
The economy is getting better, but no one thinks it’s happening fast enough. Boosting
exports is a significant part of the cure for this
economic malaise, particularly here in Texas.
Yet Texas’ own U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling
seems bent on stopping our export growth by abolishing the U.S.
Export-Import Bank. At a June 25 hearing of the Financial Services Committee of which he’s chairman, Hensarling attacked the bank
without regard for the many small and medium-sized Texas businesses that depend on it to obtain working capital for their exports, which
create critical jobs and economic growth.
The Ex-Im Bank supports Texas exports of everything from heavy machinery to electronics to drilling gear
to clean water equipment. Nationwide, the bank generated more than $37 billion in sales, including $4 billion
out of Texas last year. My own company, Headworks International, which manufactures water treatment systems and equipment, has relied on
Ex-Im to finance $42 million in overseas sales since 2007. It
of our suppliers and fabricators around this great state.
has helped us keep numerous Texans on the job, including those
And because
Ex-Im borrowers pay fees, all this economic progress doesn’t cost taxpayers a cent — Ex-Im
actually returned an astounding $1 billion in profit to the U.S. Treasury last year to help pay down the debt. Yes,
$1 billion in one year alone! As taxpayers, we would want more agencies to work as well as Ex-Im.
The Ex-Im Bank has operated without controversy for over 80 years. With
its proven track record, it’s incredible a handful
of congressional critics now propose to kill this economic golden goose when it comes up for a scheduled
reauthorization this year.
These critics
argue Ex-Im isn’t needed because exports can be commercially financed. That’s usually true for
mega giant companies, but such commercial financing is rarely available for small- and medium-sized
businesses that rely on Ex-Im to secure their exports. Even so, Ex-Im is prohibited from competing with
private lenders and can only step in when commercial financing is unavailable.
For example, private lenders often impose caps on lending within a particular industry, preferring to diversify their portfolio rather than put too
many eggs in one basket. That means lenders sometimes automatically deny financing for sales that otherwise meet all the requirements of
collateral, credit, etc. The financial hangover from the 2009 collapse has only made these types of situations more frequent. Furthermore, most
lenders will not loan against international accounts receivable as they feel that collecting the payments from abroad is too risky. Ex-Im has the
scale and expertise to make secure loans in many of these cases, protecting taxpayers through rigorous underwriting – and with a lower default
rate than most commercial banks — while still allowing as much business as possible to get done. And business means jobs.
Killing Ex-Im would be a pointless act of unilateral disarmament in the global economy. Rival nations all
have similar credit programs to bolster exports, many offering far more favorable terms than Ex-Im in an
attempt to stack the deck. U.S. manufacturers also compete against an international obstacle course of
illegal subsidies, corrupt officials, and protectionist trade laws designed to tilt the playing field against them.
Ex-Im is a modest, but essential tool to provide some balance to the odds in companies like ours winning
contracts. In point of fact, without Ex-Im our company would no longer be a player in the global market and we could lose half of our
revenues. For the thousands of small- and medium-sized enterprises like ours, the loss of Ex-Im would cripple
us. It is that simple.
Shutting down the Ex-Im bank would drag down our economy and allow our international competition
to take over the global market, growing jobs for their people, not ours. Not to mention add another
billion dollars to the debt every year. Our representatives in Congress should be focused on creating jobs and fueling the
economy, not killing it.
Impacts - Economy - Small Businesses Scenario
Ex-Im Bank key – small businesses
FIND 7/17/14 [Federal Information and News Dispatch; “With 205,000 Export-Related Jobs Tied to Export-Import Bank
Support, Brown Calls on Congress to Renew Ex-Im Bank Charter”; InsuranceNewsNet.com; Published 17 July 2014 @
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/17/with-205000-export-related-jobs-tied-to-export-import-bank-supportbrown-calls-a-531572.html#.U8h1S_ldWSo] Tusnial
Authorization for Ex-Im, Which Operates at No Cost to Taxpayers, Expires September 30--Congress Must Act
to Reauthorize Bank's Charter for An Additional Five Years WASHINGTON, D.C.-- On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) held a news
conference call to call for a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. Without
Congressional action, Ex-Im's authorization
will expire on September 30th, leaving future funding for Ohio businesses hanging in the balance. Since 2007,
more than 250 Ohio businesses, including 178 small businesses, have received critical financial assistance from the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank
to support $2 billion of exports, which help Ohio companies grow and create jobs. But if
Congress does not act, the Ex-Im bank which operates at no cost to taxpayers - will no longer be able to operate and 205,000 export-related
American jobs will be at risk. "The Export-Import Bank lets small business owners focus on exporting their products, instead of
worrying about their financing," Brown said. "The Export-Import Bank provides small and mid-sized businesses - particularly
manufacturers - the assistance they need to help boost their exports. We know that companies that export their
products around the world create jobs, pay higher wages to employees, and are more likely to stay in
business. That is why Congress must take immediate action to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and ensure
this crucial agency can continue to provide assistance to Ohio businesses." Brown was joined by John Granby, Senior Vice President at LION, a
Dayton manufacturer that produces safety and training gear for fire and rescue teams, law enforcement, and military personnel. LION has
utilized the Ex-Im Bank to help fund business expansion into foreign markets. Granby highlighted the need for swift reauthorization.
Small businesses key to economy – employment, exports, and ingenuity
SBA 12 [Small Business Administration, official agency of the United States federal government that has
delivered millions of loans, loan guarantees, contracts, counseling sessions and other forms of assistance
to small businesses.; “Frequently Asked Questions”; SBA; Published September 2012 @
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf] Tusnial
Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy? Small
businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer
firms, 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs, 49.2 percent of private-sector employment, 42.9 percent of private-sector
payroll, 46 percent of private-sector output, 43 percent of high-tech employment, 98 percent of firms exporting
goods, and 33 percent of exporting value. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB, CPS; International Trade Administration; Bureau of
Labor Statistics, BED; Advocacy-funded research, Small Business GDP: Update 2002-2010, www.sba.gov/advocacy/7540/42371. How many
small businesses are there? In 2010 there
were 27.9 million small businesses, and 18,500 firms with 500 employees or more.
Over three-quarters of small businesses were nonemploy-ers; this number has trended up over the past decade, while
employers have been relatively flat (figure 1). What is a small business? The Office of Advocacy defines a small business as an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. For the small business definition by indus-try used in government programs and contracting, see
www.sba.gov/content/ small-business-size-standards. What percent of small businesses operate as . . . ? The many kinds of small businesses
are shown in table 1. The definitions overlap so the shares total more than 100. Table 1: Small Business Shares Kind of Business Share (percent)
Home-based business 52.0 Franchise 2.0 Sole proprietor 73.2 Corporation 19.5 Employer business 21.5 Nonemployer (business 78.5 without
employees) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO, SUSB. What is small businesses’ share of net new jobs? Small
firms accounted for 64
percent of the net new jobs created between 1993 and 2011 (or 11.8 million of the 18.5 million net new jobs).
Since the latest recession, from mid-2009 to 2011, small firms, led by the larger ones in the cat-egory (20-499 employees), accounted for 67
percent of the net new jobs. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. For the latest employment statistics, see Advo- cacy’s quarterly reports,
www.sba.gov/advo- cacy/10871. How can small businesses’ share of net new jobs be larger than their share of employment, yet their share of
employment remains steady? As firms grow, they change employment size classes. So as small firms grow, their growth counts toward small
firm job gains; but if they pass the 500-em-ployee mark, their employment is classi-fied as large firm employment. Do the unemployed become
self-employed? When finding work is difficult, start-ing a business can be just as difficult Figure 1: Number of Businesses (millions) Employers
Nonemployers 23 6.5 21 19 5.5 Employer 17 4.5 15 Nonemployers (right scale) 13 3.5 11 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, SUSB and Nonemployer Sta s cs. if not more so. But in March 2011, a significant number of the self-employed, 5.5 percent or about
900,000, had been unemployed in the previous year. This figure was up from March 2006 and March 2001, when it was 3.6 and 3.1 percent,
respectively. Which businesses create more jobs— startups or existing businesses? In the last two decades about 60 percent of the private
sector’s net new jobs have been created by existing establishments and about 40 percent from the churn of startups minus closures. While firm
births account for many new jobs, job losses from firm closures are equally important in accounting for net effects to employment levels.
Source: U.S . Census Bureau, BDS. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. What happens to the jobs created by startups? The total employment
from a group of startups is highest at birth and declines as the firms age. Put another way, em-ployment gains from growing business- How
many businesses do veterans own? example, they were 2 percent for those Veteran-owned businesses numbered 3.7 25 and under and 23
percent for those 65 million in 2007, with average receipts of and over in 2010. $450,000 (table 2). Source: Office of Advocacy calculations using
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO. U.S. Census Bureau, CPS data. es are less than employment declines from shrinking and closing businesses
(figure 2). What is the status of the startup market? While the number of new employer businesses has recovered from the reces-sionary dip,
the average employment of these businesses has been declining over the past decade (figure 3). How many businesses do women own? While
women-owned firms have in-creased as a share of total businesses over the years, their size still remains smaller than national averages. The
7.8 million women-owned firms averaged $130,000 in receipts in 2007 (table 2). How many businesses do minorities own? Asian-owned
businesses numbered 1.6 million in 2007 and have average receipts of $290,000. African-American-owned businesses numbered 1.9 million in
2007 and have average receipts of $50,000. Hispanic-American-owned businesses numbered 2.3 million in 2007 and have average receipts of
$120,000. Native American/Islander-owned businesses numbered 0.3 million in 2007 and have average receipts of $120,000 (table 2). Is youth
entrepreneurship increasing? Self-employment among younger age groups has been dropping. From 2005 to 2010, self-employment among
indi-viduals age 25 and under decreased 19 percent (compared to a 7 percent drop in the overall population). In contrast, self-employment
among those age 65 and over increased 24 percent over this period as their population grew. Self-employment rates increase with age; for
Table 2: Number of Firms and Receipts by Demographic, 2007 Business Owner Firms Receipts per firm Demographic (millions) ($1,000) All
businesses 27.1 1,070 Male 13.9 570 Female 7.8 130 Equally male/ 4.6 240 female African-American 1.9 50 Asian 1.6 290 Hispanic 2.3 120
Native American/ 0.3 120 Pacific Islander Veteran 3.7 450 Publicly held 0.8 23,860 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO. What are the home-based
business trends? The share of firms that primarily oper-ate out of the home was unchanged from 2002 to 2007 at 52 percent (the latest figure
available). Employers had a lower share than nonemployers, 24 percent vs. 63 percent, respectively, in 2007. Of the major industries,
construction had the highest share of home-based businesses, 70 percent. (Being home-based is not synonymous with working at home.) It is
interesting to note that retail trade went from 49 percent home-based in 2002 to 44 percent in 2007 while the share of Internet retail sales
went from 1 percent to 3 percent of total retail sales. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO and Quar-terly E-Commerce Report. How does franchise
survival compare with independent business survival? Survival among independent businesses and franchises appears to be similar, as they
have similar age distributions. Of course each potential business owner debating an independent business or franchise arrangement will have
unique factors to weigh, such as their manage-rial talent and sales abilities. Page 2 Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business
September 2012 Figure 4: Startups and Closures Figure 5: Cumulative Survival Rates for (thousands of establishments, seasonally adjusted)
Establishments by Birth Year 1,000 Percent of Deaths Births establishments 100 1995 800 80 2000 2005 600 60 2010 40 400 200 20 1999 2001
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years in existence Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
BED. Table 3: Employer Firm Births and Deaths* 1999-2000 2004-2005 2007-2008 2008-2009 Births 574,300 644,122 597,074 518,500 Deaths
542,831 565,745 641,400 680,716 How are small businesses financed? Small businesses are financed through owner savings; loans from family,
friends, and commercial lenders; bonds; stocks; ownership stakes; and other arrangements. For detailed financing *Figures are March to
March. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB. Source: Advocacy research, Do Business Defi-nition Decisions Distort Small Business Re- search
Results? http://archive.sba.gov/advo/ research/rs330tot.pdf. Note that about half of the franchises in the data were nonemployers, which may
not be the stereotypical franchise that individuals imagine. How many businesses open and close each year? About 10-12 percent of firms with
em-ployees open each year and about 10-12 percent close (table 3). Employer firm births were down and deaths were up in the most recent
available data because of the downturn. But establishment birth figures from 2011 show gains (figure 4). Nonemployer firms have turnover
rates three times as high as employer firms, mostly because it is easier for nonem-ployers to start and stop, as they tend to be smaller than
employer firms. Busi-ness bankruptcies numbered 48,000 in 2011, a decline of the about 60,000 over the previous two years. Note that not all
firm deaths are business bankruptcies, and many business owners file personal bankruptcy instead of business bank-ruptcy. What is the survival
rate for new businesses? About half of all new establishments survive five years or more and about one-third survive 10 years or more. As one
would expect, the probability of survival increases with a firm’s age. Survival rates have changed little over time (figure 5). How do small and
large businesses compare on innovation? Of
high patenting firms (15 or more in a four-year period), small businesses
produced 16 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. Research also shows that increasing the
number of employees correlates with increased innovation while increasing sales does not.
Export-Import Bank vital to US small businesses - over 90% of its business is with small
businesses
Levin, 7/18/14[Stanford Levin, PhD in business, The Export Import Bank is good for business,
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-export-import-bank-is-good-forbusiness/article_07032477-680f-55f2-aa64-4b45d29e2d58.html] mantis
The St. Louis metropolitan area benefits greatly from a little-known but important bank that may lose its charter.
The Export-Import
Bank is of invaluable assistance to many businesses in the area and nationally, and it is responsible for
creating thousands of jobs. Because the bank is an agency of the federal government, Congress must
reauthorize its charter every two years. The bank’s charter expires in September, and it must be
reauthorized by Congress. Ordinarily, that would not be a problem, but in today’s confrontational political environment, there is
opposition, however wrongheaded. The Export-Import Bank has been in business successfully for 80 years. It
provides financing to foreign buyers of American goods and services. It also provides insurance to U.S.
companies that are exporting against the possibility that they cannot collect what they are owed from
foreign customers. It’s not just large companies such as Boeing or General Electric that benefit from
financing from the Export-Import Bank. Overall, 90 percent of the agency’s transactions last year were
for small-business exports. In Missouri, the bank supported $1 billion of exports by 96 companies, including 65 small businesses. In
Illinois, the bank supported $6 billion of exports by 301 companies, including 204 small businesses. Furthermore, the insurance that
the Export-Import Bank provides is often crucial to small businesses, as they may need this insurance in
order to be able to secure private bank financing to fund their required expansion for exports. While some
conservative members of Congress maintain that private banks could do what the Export-Import Bank does, this is unrealistic. Private
banks are often leery of business deals with foreign customers. This is especially the case for small
businesses, and it is also the case for sales to companies or governments in areas of political unrest.
While overall these business deals have proven profitable, as financed by the Export-Import Bank, many
private banks are unwilling to accept the risk associated with an individual transaction. Importantly, the
Export-Import Bank exercises due diligence before issuing credit. Its loan default rate is under 1 percent. In fact, the
Export-Import Bank generally earns a profit for the United States. In 2013 the U.S. Treasury received more than $1 billion of profit from the
bank. Given the profitability of the bank, arguments that it is corporate welfare do not make any sense. For that matter, the bank plays an
essential role in international trade by providing export financing and trade insurance that the private banks are reluctant to provide.
The
Export-Import Bank also makes it possible for U.S. companies to compete against foreign companies
that often benefit from export subsidies or other assistance from their own governments. Such
assistance is not available to U.S. companies. So while the financing that the bank provides may be at
relatively low interest rates, this is only an attempt to make U.S. businesses competitive with foreign
rivals. With the need for job creation, reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank should not be an issue.
What better reason to renew the bank’s charter is there than the fact that it creates and maintains good
jobs while earning a profit for the government. Failure to reauthorize the bank will cost the country and
this area many good jobs. After all, foreign purchasers will just go to another country where credit is more readily available and where
suppliers can more easily purchase trade insurance.
Impacts - Economy - Small Businesses Exts
Reauthorization key to the survival of American small businesses - foreign banks shut
them out of investments
Harkins 7/10/14 [Jill Harkins, contributing writer @ Politics PA, “Casey Calls for Nonpartisan
Reauthorization of Export-Import Bank”, Politics PA, Published 10 July 2014 @
http://www.politicspa.com/casey-calls-for-nonpartisan-reauthorization-of-export-import-bank/59253/]
Tusnial
Senator Bob Casey held a press event today to discuss what he believes to be the “vital” importance of
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank’s charter will expire on September 30 unless Congress
acts to renew it. The Ex-Im Bank finances businesses, both large and small, in the export of American goods to foreign nations. It has been
in operation for 80 years and is a self-sustaining agency that operates at no cost to the federal government. Casey held the conference call in an
effort to disseminate information that he feels is lacking in discussion of the Ex-Im Bank in the Capitol. “A
lot of the discussion in
Washington has not been very helpful in shedding light on the facts,” he said. “There’s been a lot of
politics, but not a lot of facts.” Casey offered substantial numerical evidence that the Ex-Im Bank is
essential not just for the nation as a whole, but in PA specifically. Since 2007, when Casey became a Senator, the ExIm Bank has completed nearly $3B in transactions for 246 PA businesses, 160 of which are defined as small
businesses. Overall in the US in 2013, the Ex-Im Bank supported 205,000 jobs at 3,400 companies. Casey focused
on small businesses in his discussion of the Ex-Im Bank’s importance. “Access to foreign markets is critical in terms of
their ability to survive,” he said, but “small businesses can face a lot of hurdles in foreign markets.” He cited the refusal of foreign banks
to finance overseas products and the inability of American banks to do so due to regulatory issues as examples of such hurdles. When asked
what the impact would be if the charter were not renewed, Casey responded that while projections have not been made, the “inverse of
the benefit” would be obviously detrimental to American businesses.
Ex-Im Bank key to small businesses – 90% of revenue
InsuranceNewsNet 7/15/14 [InsuranceNewsNet.com, the leading, Web-based trade publication for insurance agents,
home office personnel, and other professionals, “Schumer Launches Push to Preserve Export-Import Bank, One of Capital
Region's Most Important Fed. Job- Creation Programs - Ex-Im Bank Responsible for Over $1 Billion in Sales & Thousands of Jobs
in Capital Region”, Published 15 July 2014 @ http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/15/schumer-launches-push-topreserve-export-import-bank-one-of-capital-regions-mo-a-530047.html#.U8WXV_ldWSp] Tusnial
Today, at the GE Plant in Schenectady, U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer
pushed to preserve the Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank,
which helps support thousands of jobs and over $1 billion in sales for companies in the Capital Region.
Schumer explained that the Ex-Im Bank provides financing to foreign companies in order to help them
purchase U.S. goods, such as those produced at General Electric in Schenectady, as well as at many small- and medium-sized
businesses in the Capital Region. Unfortunately, however, the Ex-Im Bank is set to expire in two months if Congress
does not act, and Schumer said that this would be disastrous for the dozens of companies in the Capital Region
who rely on the bank to export their products. Schumer said that the Ex-Im Bank is a major driver of
economic growth and manufacturing jobs, and it is important that Congress does not let it expire. "The Ex-Im Bank is one of the
key tools we have in our toolbox for supporting and growing manufacturing jobs in the Capital Region and across New York State, which is why
letting the Bank expire is simply not an option," said Schumer. "Dozens of companies throughout the Capital Region - small, medium and large directly or indirectly benefit from the Ex-Im Bank and employ thousands of people as a result. Extending the Ex-Im Bank's charter will reassure
these businesses that the federal government is on their side and make it clear that we will do all we can to help level the playing field for doing
business abroad so these companies can support manufacturing jobs back home." Schumer explained that The Ex-Im Bank is an independent
federal government agency that plays an important role in the U.S. economy by helping foreign customers buy American-made products and
equipment from companies like GE and numerous small- to mid-sized businesses across New York State. In some cases, the Ex-Im Bank also
helps provide financing directly to U.S. companies that enables them to export manufactured goods and services, all with the objective of
contributing to U.S. employment. Schumer explained that authorization for the Ex-Im Bank will expire on September 30th, and if Congress does
not reauthorize the bank, it could affect companies all across New York and the Capital region. According to Ex-Im Bank data, there are 270
businesses in the state of New York that directly benefited from Ex-Im Bank between 2007 and 2014; 163 of those are small businesses. This
total includes 15 companies in the Capital Region, 7 of which are small businesses; all of these businesses utilize this bank to more easily sell
products to overseas customers. This is a steady increase from the 236 overall exporters in New York recorded just five years ago in 2009. The
bank has supported $6 billion in New York exports over the last five years, including approximately $1 billion in the Capital Region during that
same time period. In fact, Ex-Im Bank supports more exports in the Capital Region than anywhere in New York outside of the New York City
area.
In total, the bank supports over 200,000 jobs each year at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer, which means 1.2
million American jobs in the past five years. In FY2013, the Ex-Im Bank supported $37.4 billion in American
exports, and small business accounted for nearly 90 percent of the bank's transactions. Schumer also noted
that what is not captured in all of these statistics is the myriad local suppliers and vendors that also benefit from the Ex-Im Bank. Even though
they are not the direct beneficiary of financing, they indirectly benefit because it helps keep companies they supply to strong and growing.
Impacts - Small Businesses key to economy
Small businesses key to the economy – 50% of GDP
Sheperdson 13 [Ian Sheperdson, writes about the US economy focusing specifically on what moves
markets and policymakers, “Small Businesses Are The (Missing) Key To A Full Economic Recovery”,
Forbes, published 10 September 2013 @
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ianshepherdson/2013/09/10/small-businesses-are-the-missing-key-to-afull-economic-recovery/] Tusnial/Shapiro
You can’t understand the current state of the U.S. economy without understanding the role of small
businesses. Big companies have been performing well for the past four years, thanks in part to huge support from the Fed in the early days
after the meltdown of the financial system, but the small business sector is barely growing at all, if the monthly survey from
the National Federation of Independent Business is to be believed. Small firms account for about half of GDP and employ
about half the workforce, so if they are struggling it is very hard for the economy as a whole to grow in line with
its long-term trend. Most small firms are tiny, with fewer than 10 employees, so their only external source of finance, apart
from the owner’s pocket, is the bank. The stock of bank lending to commercial and industrial companies fell by about a quarter in the two
years after Lehman, continuing to contract long after the capital markets, which provide most of the finance for big companies, re-opened for
business. Small firms were not responsible for the boom or the bust, but they are an easy target for banks which have to shrink their balance
sheets in a hurry. The Fed and the administration saved the banking system, but they did nothing to prevent the massive credit crunch which
then engulfed small businesses. Bank lending began to recover in late 2010 and the stock of lending to companies has now returned to its preLehman level, just. But this takes no account of inflation, and it will take at least another year for real lending to return to its previous peak.
Until that happens, small
firms will be constrained in their ability to hire, build inventory and spend on capital
equipment, new software, buildings and research and development. And in the meantime, measures of small
business activity and sentiment will remain much weaker than those of larger businesses, and the rate of economic growth will be stranded
between the two, as it has been since the recovery began in 2009. Wall
Street is fixated on public companies and doesn’t get the
importance of the smallest companies, which is why analysts fall back on the idea that sluggish growth is
now the “new normal”. It is not. The economy is sluggish for very specific reasons triggered by the near-collapse of the financial
system, coupled recently with the impact of fiscal tightening. Neither of these phenomena are permanent, and as their importance fades over
the next year or so, the economy will return to the 3%-plus growth rates needed finally to pull millions of discouraged workers back into the
labor force. I don’t expect an overnight miracle, though, not least because small business owners proved themselves very sensitive to the chaos
in Congress over the debt ceiling and fiscal cliff in the summer of 2011 and late 2012, respectively. With politicians now girding their loins for
another fight over the budget very soon, things could easily get worse for small firms before they finally start to recover properly next year.
Ex-Im Bank key – small businesses
FIND 7/17/14 [Federal Information and News Dispatch; “With 205,000 Export-Related
Jobs Tied to Export-Import Bank Support, Brown Calls on Congress to Renew Ex-Im
Bank Charter”; InsuranceNewsNet.com; Published 17 July 2014 @
http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/07/17/with-205000-export-related-jobs-tied-to-exportimport-bank-support-brown-calls-a-531572.html#.U8h1S_ldWSo] Tusnial
Authorization for Ex-Im, Which Operates at No Cost to Taxpayers, Expires September 30--Congress Must
Act to Reauthorize Bank's Charter for An Additional Five Years WASHINGTON, D.C.-- On Wednesday, U.S.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) held a news conference call to call for a reauthorization of the Export-Import
Bank. Without Congressional action, Ex-Im's authorization will expire on September 30th, leaving future
funding for Ohio businesses hanging in the balance. Since 2007, more than 250 Ohio businesses,
including 178 small businesses, have received critical financial assistance from the Export-Import (Ex-Im)
Bank to support $2 billion of exports, which help Ohio companies grow and create jobs. But if Congress
does not act, the Ex-Im bank - which operates at no cost to taxpayers - will no longer be able to operate
and 205,000 export-related American jobs will be at risk. "The Export-Import Bank lets small business
owners focus on exporting their products, instead of worrying about their financing," Brown said. "The
Export-Import Bank provides small and mid-sized businesses - particularly manufacturers - the
assistance they need to help boost their exports. We know that companies that export their products
around the world create jobs, pay higher wages to employees, and are more likely to stay in business.
That is why Congress must take immediate action to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank and ensure this
crucial agency can continue to provide assistance to Ohio businesses." Brown was joined by John
Granby, Senior Vice President at LION, a Dayton manufacturer that produces safety and training gear for
fire and rescue teams, law enforcement, and military personnel. LION has utilized the Ex-Im Bank to help
fund business expansion into foreign markets. Granby highlighted the need for swift reauthorization.
Small businesses key to economy – employment, exports, and ingenuity
SBA 12 [Small Business Administration, official agency of the United States federal government that has
delivered millions of loans, loan guarantees, contracts, counseling sessions and other forms of assistance
to small businesses.; “Frequently Asked Questions”; SBA; Published September 2012 @
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf] Tusnial
Small businesses comprise what share of the U.S. economy? Small
businesses make up: 99.7 percent of U.S. employer
firms, 64 percent of net new private-sector jobs, 49.2 percent of private-sector employment, 42.9 percent of private-sector
payroll, 46 percent of private-sector output, 43 percent of high-tech employment, 98 percent of firms exporting
goods, and 33 percent of exporting value. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB, CPS; International Trade Administration; Bureau of
Labor Statistics, BED; Advocacy-funded research, Small Business GDP: Update 2002-2010, www.sba.gov/advocacy/7540/42371. How many
small businesses are there? In 2010 there
were 27.9 million small businesses, and 18,500 firms with 500 employees or more.
Over three-quarters of small businesses were nonemploy-ers; this number has trended up over the past decade, while
employers have been relatively flat (figure 1). What is a small business? The Office of Advocacy defines a small business as an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. For the small business definition by indus-try used in government programs and contracting, see
www.sba.gov/content/ small-business-size-standards. What percent of small businesses operate as . . . ? The many kinds of small businesses
are shown in table 1. The definitions overlap so the shares total more than 100. Table 1: Small Business Shares Kind of Business Share (percent)
Home-based business 52.0 Franchise 2.0 Sole proprietor 73.2 Corporation 19.5 Employer business 21.5 Nonemployer (business 78.5 without
employees) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO, SUSB. What is small businesses’ share of net new jobs? Small
firms accounted for 64
percent of the net new jobs created between 1993 and 2011 (or 11.8 million of the 18.5 million net new jobs).
Since the latest recession, from mid-2009 to 2011, small firms, led by the larger ones in the cat-egory (20-499 employees), accounted for 67
percent of the net new jobs. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. For the latest employment statistics, see Advo- cacy’s quarterly reports,
www.sba.gov/advo- cacy/10871. How can small businesses’ share of net new jobs be larger than their share of employment, yet their share of
employment remains steady? As firms grow, they change employment size classes. So as small firms grow, their growth counts toward small
firm job gains; but if they pass the 500-em-ployee mark, their employment is classi-fied as large firm employment. Do the unemployed become
self-employed? When finding work is difficult, start-ing a business can be just as difficult Figure 1: Number of Businesses (millions) Employers
Nonemployers 23 6.5 21 19 5.5 Employer 17 4.5 15 Nonemployers (right scale) 13 3.5 11 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, SUSB and Nonemployer Sta s cs. if not more so. But in March 2011, a significant number of the self-employed, 5.5 percent or about
900,000, had been unemployed in the previous year. This figure was up from March 2006 and March 2001, when it was 3.6 and 3.1 percent,
respectively. Which businesses create more jobs— startups or existing businesses? In the last two decades about 60 percent of the private
sector’s net new jobs have been created by existing establishments and about 40 percent from the churn of startups minus closures. While firm
births account for many new jobs, job losses from firm closures are equally important in accounting for net effects to employment levels.
Source: U.S . Census Bureau, BDS. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. What happens to the jobs created by startups? The total employment
from a group of startups is highest at birth and declines as the firms age. Put another way, em-ployment gains from growing business- How
many businesses do veterans own? example, they were 2 percent for those Veteran-owned businesses numbered 3.7 25 and under and 23
percent for those 65 million in 2007, with average receipts of and over in 2010. $450,000 (table 2). Source: Office of Advocacy calculations using
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO. U.S. Census Bureau, CPS data. es are less than employment declines from shrinking and closing businesses
(figure 2). What is the status of the startup market? While the number of new employer businesses has recovered from the reces-sionary dip,
the average employment of these businesses has been declining over the past decade (figure 3). How many businesses do women own? While
women-owned firms have in-creased as a share of total businesses over the years, their size still remains smaller than national averages. The
7.8 million women-owned firms averaged $130,000 in receipts in 2007 (table 2). How many businesses do minorities own? Asian-owned
businesses numbered 1.6 million in 2007 and have average receipts of $290,000. African-American-owned businesses numbered 1.9 million in
2007 and have average receipts of $50,000. Hispanic-American-owned businesses numbered 2.3 million in 2007 and have average receipts of
$120,000. Native American/Islander-owned businesses numbered 0.3 million in 2007 and have average receipts of $120,000 (table 2). Is youth
entrepreneurship increasing? Self-employment among younger age groups has been dropping. From 2005 to 2010, self-employment among
indi-viduals age 25 and under decreased 19 percent (compared to a 7 percent drop in the overall population). In contrast, self-employment
among those age 65 and over increased 24 percent over this period as their population grew. Self-employment rates increase with age; for
Table 2: Number of Firms and Receipts by Demographic, 2007 Business Owner Firms Receipts per firm Demographic (millions) ($1,000) All
businesses 27.1 1,070 Male 13.9 570 Female 7.8 130 Equally male/ 4.6 240 female African-American 1.9 50 Asian 1.6 290 Hispanic 2.3 120
Native American/ 0.3 120 Pacific Islander Veteran 3.7 450 Publicly held 0.8 23,860 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO. What are the home-based
business trends? The share of firms that primarily oper-ate out of the home was unchanged from 2002 to 2007 at 52 percent (the latest figure
available). Employers had a lower share than nonemployers, 24 percent vs. 63 percent, respectively, in 2007. Of the major industries,
construction had the highest share of home-based businesses, 70 percent. (Being home-based is not synonymous with working at home.) It is
interesting to note that retail trade went from 49 percent home-based in 2002 to 44 percent in 2007 while the share of Internet retail sales
went from 1 percent to 3 percent of total retail sales. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SBO and Quar-terly E-Commerce Report. How does franchise
survival compare with independent business survival? Survival among independent businesses and franchises appears to be similar, as they
have similar age distributions. Of course each potential business owner debating an independent business or franchise arrangement will have
unique factors to weigh, such as their manage-rial talent and sales abilities. Page 2 Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business
September 2012 Figure 4: Startups and Closures Figure 5: Cumulative Survival Rates for (thousands of establishments, seasonally adjusted)
Establishments by Birth Year 1,000 Percent of Deaths Births establishments 100 1995 800 80 2000 2005 600 60 2010 40 400 200 20 1999 2001
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 0 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, BED. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Years in existence Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics,
BED. Table 3: Employer Firm Births and Deaths* 1999-2000 2004-2005 2007-2008 2008-2009 Births 574,300 644,122 597,074 518,500 Deaths
542,831 565,745 641,400 680,716 How are small businesses financed? Small businesses are financed through owner savings; loans from family,
friends, and commercial lenders; bonds; stocks; ownership stakes; and other arrangements. For detailed financing *Figures are March to
March. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SUSB. Source: Advocacy research, Do Business Defi-nition Decisions Distort Small Business Re- search
Results? http://archive.sba.gov/advo/ research/rs330tot.pdf. Note that about half of the franchises in the data were nonemployers, which may
not be the stereotypical franchise that individuals imagine. How many businesses open and close each year? About 10-12 percent of firms with
em-ployees open each year and about 10-12 percent close (table 3). Employer firm births were down and deaths were up in the most recent
available data because of the downturn. But establishment birth figures from 2011 show gains (figure 4). Nonemployer firms have turnover
rates three times as high as employer firms, mostly because it is easier for nonem-ployers to start and stop, as they tend to be smaller than
employer firms. Busi-ness bankruptcies numbered 48,000 in 2011, a decline of the about 60,000 over the previous two years. Note that not all
firm deaths are business bankruptcies, and many business owners file personal bankruptcy instead of business bank-ruptcy. What is the survival
rate for new businesses? About half of all new establishments survive five years or more and about one-third survive 10 years or more. As one
would expect, the probability of survival increases with a firm’s age. Survival rates have changed little over time (figure 5). How do small and
large businesses compare on innovation? Of
high patenting firms (15 or more in a four-year period), small businesses
produced 16 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. Research also shows that increasing the
number of employees correlates with increased innovation while increasing sales does not.
Impacts - Economy - Jobs
Reauthorization key to the economy - key to manufacturing jobs
TWC 7/14/14 [Time Warner Cable News, a leader in the news industry, “Senator Pushes for Extension of
Export-Import Bank”, published 14 July 14, 2014 @
http://albany.twcnews.com/content/news/752793/senator-pushes-for-extension-of-export-importbank/] Tusnial
Senator Charles Schumer was in Schenectady Monday calling on fellow lawmakers to extend the life of what he said
are the Capital Region's most important federal job creation programs. Schumer spoke at General Electric on a critical
tool for manufacturing companies. The Export-Import Bank provides financing for foreign companies to help them
purchase goods from companies like General Electric and other small businesses. Schumer said the program
supports thousands of jobs and more than one billion in sales for Capital region companies. "If the bank's
charter isn't renewed, it's going to be disastrous for dozens of companies here in the Capital Region, who directly or
indirectly rely on the bank who export their products. The Export-Impact bank is one of the key tools in our tool box for
supporting and growing our manufacturing jobs in the Capital Region and across New York state," said Schumer. Funding for
the bank is set to expire in September, unless Congress extends the program. -
Ex-Im Bank key to US economy - key to jobs and reducing federal deficit
Wasden, 7/11/14[Jeff Wasden, staff writer for Coloradostatesmen, Export-Import Bank is vital,
necessary for continued prosperity and growth, http://www.coloradostatesman.com/content/994979export-import-bank-vital-necessary-continued-growth-and-prosperity] mantis
Too often, politics hamper the ability of businesses to expand and put Americans to work. What used to
be an important bipartisan reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank has now fallen firmly in the
crosshairs of some members of the GOP. Charges of crony capitalism and big governmental overreach flow freely from
opposition tongues. “Let the private sector fill that space in the market. Those big companies don’t need the Ex-Im Bank, they can get capital on
their own,” scream critics. While I can appreciate the basis for their argument,
their facts on this issue are off base and in
some cases, just flat out wrong.
The
Ex-Im Bank’s primary mission is American jobs. By financing the export of American goods and
services, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 1.2 million private-sector American jobs — 205,000 in 2013 alone. This
April, the United States exported $193.3 billion of goods and services according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Commerce
Department. Exports of goods and services over the last year totaled $2.3 trillion, which is 45.1 percent above the level of exports in 2009, and
have been growing at an annualized rate of 9.0 percent when compared to the 2009 level.
In fiscal year 2013, Ex-Im Bank approved more than $27 billion in total authorizations. For the year, the ExIm Bank approved 3,413 transactions for small business. Of the total number of transactions approved just last year, 89
percent were for small business, the backbone of American Main Street economies. While critics tend to overlook this
important fact, the disparity in the total number of transactions for big and small business make the argument for reauthorization even
stronger.
For those that do not understand the composition of the Ex-Im Bank, it is an independent, selfsustaining agency that fills in the gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. It is the
official export credit agency of the U.S. The Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms including working-capital guarantees, export-credit
insurance, and financing to help foreign buyers purchase U.S. goods and services. In the past five years,
the Bank has earned $2
billion more than the cost of its operations and after covering loan loss reserves. That is money that is
put in the Treasury to help reduce the federal deficit.
Reauthorization key to US jobs - failure would devastate manufacturing industry
Roderick, 7/9/14 [Danny Roderick, staff writer for the post gazette, America needs the Ex-Im Bank and
it should be reauthorized quickly, http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/2014/07/09/America-needsthe-Export-Import-bank-and-it-should-be-reauthorized-quickly-WestinghouseRoderick/stories/201407090030]
The global marketplace is not a level playing field.
Thousands of American manufacturing jobs hang in the balance when U.S. companies — large and small
— seek to do business internationally against competitors who are subsidized by their governments.
That’s why the Export-Import Bank is essential for American business.
The Export-Import Bank is the export credit agency of the United States. Since it was established in 1934, the Ex-Im has helped American
companies compete with government-supported competitors overseas on the basis of price, performance and service.
Throughout its history, the
Ex-Im has financed global projects that have created hundreds of thousands of U.S.
jobs. Beyond that, Ex-Im returned over $1 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2013 alone, a return on
investment unsurpassed in any federal financing program.
However, the Ex-Im Bank’s authorization expires in September and requires congressional renewal.
The Ex-Im bank fills the gaps, offering loans, loan guarantees and insurance that leverage private finance
in pursuit of U.S. commercial and strategic interests.
The Nuclear Energy Institute and 15 other U.S. industry and business organizations, including Westinghouse, have called on Congress to
reauthorize without delay funding for the Ex-Im Bank before its current authorization expires in September.
Losing the Ex-Im bank would cost thousands of U.S. jobs in the short term. Long-term, the economic
consequences would be far greater.
Failure to reauthorize means losing millions of jobs
Pyke, 7/16/14[Alan Pyke, Deputy Economic Policy Editor for ThinkProgress.org., Why you should care
about the most Esoteric and Confusing fight going on in Congress,
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/07/16/3460448/export-import-bank-primer/] mantis
since the bank’s authorization has never been in serious jeopardy
until now. But some numbers on the bank’s performance are instructive: Since the bank began
calculating its impact on American jobs in 2010, itestimates that it has supported 1.2 million jobs in the
country. The bank authorized a total of $27.3 billion in credit last year across more than 3,800 separate
transactions, supporting a total of $37.4 billion worth of export sales by U.S. companies.
It’s tough to give a simple answer to that question,
The evaporation of the support Ex-Im provides wouldn’t guarantee that all those jobs and all those business deals
disappeared. But they would all be vulnerable. Since every other developed country in the world maintains
some equivalent to the Ex-Im Bank to protect their own exporters, and voracious exporters like China
are even more cutthroat than the Ex-Im Bank is allowed to be, it would become substantially more
difficult for American companies to compete in the global marketplace.
The list of groups and individuals who have warned of economic consequences if the bank disappears
includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the White House,
and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R). Even Delta Airlines, which has long criticized the bank for putting domestic
airlines at a disadvantage by helping foreign airlines to buy Boeing planes, has come around and
indicated support for reauthorizing the bank.
Impacts - Military Readiness
Failure to reauthorize guts our nation's military readiness - devastates the US defense
industrial base
Gaffney 7/17/14 (Frank- President for center of security policy, “We Need the U.S. Export Import Bank”, Newsmax,
http://www.newsmax.com/frankgaffney/exim-import-export-bank/2014/07/17/id/583216/), Shapiro
Consequently, the upshot of
with respect to Exim Bank is that the United States will lose export
opportunities and jobs. In some cases, American companies that have a successful business model, provided they are able
the sort of Republican-led unilateral disarmament now in prospect
to compete internationally on a level-playing field,
will become unviable. Of particular concern is the likelihood that
among the casualties will be the already-beleaguered U.S. defense industrial base. For example, what is
left of the skilled workforce, engineers, design teams, machine tools, etc., needed to produce state-of-the-art
fighter aircraft, transports, and satellites now resides substantially in our commercial
aerospace sector. And if the industry’s commercial operations cease to be able to sell
their products to overseas customers, as a practical matter, we are going to find
ourselves even less capable of reconstituting our military production lines when, not
if, they are needed. That would amount to unilateral disarmament, not just in the
figurative sense, but in the literal one. As long as transactions supported by the U.S. Export-Import Bank are made on the merits and with the
same record of fiduciary responsibility that has protected the taxpayer’s equities to date, and so long as other nations provide comparable support to their exporters, our
country needs Exim.
Impacts - Economy - Boeing scenario
Failure to reauthorize will devastate Boeing - relies on the bank to remain competitive
with global market
Nocera 7/14/14 [Joe Nocera, Op-Ed columnist. Before joining The Opinion Pages in April 2011, he wrote the Talking Business column for
The New York Times each Saturday and was a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine. In addition to his work at The Times, he serves as a
regular business commentator for NPR's Weekend Edition with Scott Simon., “Helping Big Companies Compete”, New York Times, Published 14
July 2014 @ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/joe-nocera-export-import-bank-big-companies-compete.html?_r=0] Tusnial
Last week, Standard & Poor’s issued a short report about Boeing. “Boeing Co.
Faces Long-Term Credit Risks If The U.S.
Export-Import Bank Isn’t Reauthorized,” read the alarming heading. In dollar volume, Boeing is America’s single
largest exporter. It is one of our country’s strongest manufacturers. It employs more than 150,000 people, and last
year it sent checks worth $48 billion to some 15,600 subcontractors. In competing with the likes of
Europe’s Airbus and Canada’s Bombardier, it takes advantage of loan guarantees and financings offered
by the Export-Import Bank — just as those competitors rely on their own export credit agencies for loan
guarantees and financings. Without the help it gets from the Ex-Im Bank, Boeing would undoubtedly
lose business to those competitors. And, as S. & P. was suggesting, it could also see its credit rating lowered if it
had to finance and guarantee loans to its airline customers “in order to remain competitive.” Clearly, S. & P. did not view
this a positive development. Nonetheless, on Monday, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — which is among the conservative voices
leading the charge against the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank — hailed that same S.& P. report because it also said that, in the short term,
Boeing would be able to find financing. Thus has the Ex-Im Bank become the current Rorschach test of American politics.
And, Boeing key to the economy – largest trade surplus in the industry
Ezell 13 [Stephen Ezell, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
(ITIF), with a focus on innovation policy, science and technology; “2013 Aviation Summit Highlights
Industry’s Contributions to U.S. Economic Competitiveness”; The Innovation Files; Published 2 April 2013
@ http://www.innovationfiles.org/2013-aviation-summit-highlights-industrys-contributions-to-u-seconomic-competitiveness/] Tusnial
The 2013 Aviation Summit, held on Thursday, March 28 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, showcased the critical contributions the U.S.
aerospace and airline industries make to the U.S. economy, while highlighting policy issues that must be addressed if these industries are to
remain globally competitive. This matters because, as ITIF explains in Fifty Ways to Leave Your Competitiveness Woes Behind: A National
Traded Sector Competitiveness Strategy, the
health of U.S. traded sector enterprises in industries such as aerospace,
automobiles, and airlines—all far more exposed to global competition than local-serving firms and industries—simply can’t be
taken for granted. For example, while we can know there will be a certain number of jobs in domestic-serving industries like grocery
retail based solely on local demand, we can’t be certain there will be aviation industry jobs in the United States, since this depends on the
United States winning in global competition in this industry. Boeing
CEO James McNerney, who gave the keynote address,
emphasized the vital importance of the U.S. aerospace industry to America’s economy, noting that it contributes
$325 billion annually to U.S. GDP while also contributing $86 billion in export sales. In fact, in 2011, the
industry generated a positive trade balance of $47 billion (the largest trade surplus of any U.S. manufacturing industry), a
result of exporting 49 percent of all aerospace production. McNerney remarked that the Obama Administration’s
recent completion of trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and Korea and its negotiation of new trade deals in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) are poised to open important new markets
for U.S. manufacturers. He also pointed to the vital role the U.S. Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) plays in
supporting American exporters, saying that, “I think if you stop doing it [offering export credit], it would, in
effect, be to unilaterally disarm because most other countries provide support for their manufacturers
and there are treaties that guide the behavior and guide the kind of practices and business practices and
interest rates that can be used.” Here, McNerney pointed to the increasingly competitive global
aerospace industry, explaining that competition from Airbus remains stiff and that soon “the Chinese
will be competitors in large commercial airplanes,” as well. He noted that “Boeing’s strategy must be to win by
innovation” and that “this needs to be the strategy for [all] technologically advanced countries.”
Impacts - Economy - Boeing Helpers
The Ex-Im Bank is key for American industry – Head of Boeing and other companies
are dependent on it
Clark, 7/13/14 [Nicola Clark, staff writer for New York Times, Boeing optimistic that the ex-imp bank will get
funding, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/business/international/boeing-optimistic-that-export-importbank-will-get-funding.html] mantis
LONDON — the
head of Boeing's commercial aircraft division said on Sunday that he was optimistic that the
United States Congress would Ultimately agree to reauthorize funding to the Export-Import Bank, which
Guarantees billions of dollars in loans to foreign buyers of its airplanes. The Boeing executive, Raymond L. Conner,
argued that failure to keep the Bank running would risk American jobs and place Boeing at an unbeatable
Disadvantage to Airbus, which receives similar support from European Governments. "For us to not have
the Ex-I’m Bank would put us at a huge disadvantage in The marketplace for sure," Mr. Conner said. "I'm
optimistic. I think we've Put together a pretty good coalition of businesses with solid support." Mr. Conner's
comments came as Boeing announced plans here for a new Variant of its best-selling 737 short-range jet with space for up to 200 seats, Which
it hopes will attract interest from low-cost carriers in Europe and Asia.
Ex-Im Bank key – Boeing
Ostrower 7/8/14 [Jon Ostrower writes about aerospace from The Wall Street Journal's Chicago bureau.
His coverage areas include companies including Boeing and Airbus and industry topics such as
commercial aircraft, aerospace manufacturing and airlines.; “Boeing Faces Long-Term Credit Risk if Ex-Im
Bank Closed, S&P Says”; The Wall Street Journal; Published 8 July 2014 @
http://online.wsj.com/articles/boeing-faces-long-term-credit-risk-without-ex-im-bank-s-p-says1404792861] Tusnial
Boeing Co. BA -1.21% could have to double its financial backing to airline and leasing-company clients over the long term if
U.S. lawmakers opt to close a federal credit agency that provides billions of dollars of support for its
commercial aircraft sales, according to a new study by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. A significant expansion of its direct
loans and guarantees risks harm to Boeing's long-term credit rating, S&P said. The largest U.S. exporter by
sales relies on the U.S. Export-Import Bank to provide loan guarantees for some of its jet sales, a longstanding arrangement that has come under pressure from a coalition of opponents who propose ending
the support in the fall. S&P estimates Boeing's finance arm would have to shoulder between $7 billion and $9
billion in customer finance needs if lawmakers opt not to reauthorize Ex-Im by Sept. 30. Boeing's
customer finance portfolio, which ranges from leasing jets to providing direct loans and guarantees, stood at $3.5 billion at
the end of March. The ongoing debate illustrates the stakes for Boeing and other manufacturers like United Technologies Corp. UTX 1.39% , General Electric Co. GE -1.52% and Caterpillar Inc. CAT -1.47% should the bank be eliminated. Boeing customers are by far
the largest beneficiaries of Ex-Im support, with the agency providing guarantees for loans and bonds for airlines and leasing
companies in return for a fee. Agencies in the U.K., France and Germany provide a similar service for planes sold
by Airbus. "None of the other rated Ex-Im beneficiaries…rely on Ex-Im's financing and guarantees to the extent that
Boeing does," S&P said. The controversy over the bank has created unexpected allies. New Republican congressional
leadership influenced by the tea party and a coalition of U.S. airlines led by Delta Air Lines Inc. DAL 3.43% and the U.S. Air Line Pilots Association oppose the bank in its current form. Delta and the union
claim creditworthy airlines, like fast-growing Dubai-based Emirates Airline, are able to receive Ex-Im
backing at better rates than commercial financing to buy jets that compete on the same routes. On the
opposite side are Boeing and its biggest labor unions, which, although frequent adversaries, have come together to
support the reauthorization of the bank. Eliminating Ex-Im wouldn't mean a level playing field for U.S. airlines, S&P concludes.
"If Boeing loses sales because of its inability or unwillingness to match the [European export credit agencies]
support for Airbus, the U.S. airlines would likely face the same level of competition but from Airbus
aircraft rather than Boeing aircraft," the report said. The report also highlights the singular role Ex-Im played in
allowing Boeing to continue delivering jets at comparatively steady rates through the global financial crisis.
S&P estimates that before the recession in 2008, Ex-Im backed 16% of Boeing deliveries. That number climbed as high as 30%
in 2010 and 2012, though is forecast by aircraft finance experts to be 18% in 2014, a year that is expected to feature record deliveries from the
U.S. plane maker.
Impacts - Economy - Aviation Industry
Ex-Im Bank key to aviation industry
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of
the USA; “About Us – Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @
http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Aircraft Ex-Im Bank has been, and will continue to be, an important source of aircraft finance for the U.S.
aircraft manufacturing industry, a key industry which directly or indirectly employs U.S. workers in all 50
states and in which the United States continues to have a competitive advantage. Ex-Im Bank supports
the export of small/business aircraft and helicopters. During the past few years, Ex-Im Bank has
supported financings of small/business aircraft and helicopters, including business aircraft for both
charter operations and personal use and helicopters for use by (i) military/police end-users for (a) search
and rescue, or (b) drug interdiction, or (ii) commercial end-users providing private transportation,
charter services to offshore oil and gas operations, and emergency medical transport services. During FY
2009, Ex-Im Bank provided financing of approximately $8.6 billion to support the export of 150 large
commercial aircraft, a greater than 50% increase relative to the prior year. The increased demand by
foreign airlines and aircraft operating lessors for U.S.-manufactured large commercial aircraft and a
withdrawal/contraction in the commercial financial market, especially between September 2008 and
June 2009, contributed to this record increase in Ex-Im Bank supported financing of large commercial
aircraft. Ex-Im Bank anticipates that demand for its financing in support of this key industry of the U.S.
economy (and the high-paying jobs it provides) will remain strong.
Impacts - Economy - Construction
Ex-Im Bank key – construction equipment and services
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of
the USA; “About Us – Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @
http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Construction Equipment and Services Ex-Im
Bank's experience in the Construction and Civil Works sectors has included
a broad range of products and applications. Whether selling a specific piece of mobile equipment to a
private contractor or embarking on the implementation of a large civil works project, including equipment sales
along with engineering and construction management services, Ex-Im Bank has an appropriate financing product to fit the
need. The Medium-Term insurance and guarantee programs support the sale of both new and used/refurbished construction equipment. In
addition, to help U.S companies build relationships with foreign project developers early in the development phase, the Engineering Multiplier
Program provides Medium-Term financing of pre-project feasibility studies and technical studies. The balance of that loan can be rolled into any
subsequent long term financing of the project's construction phase. Beyond the direct support of construction equipment, Ex-Im Bank
provides Long-Term financing of large civil works projects. In addition to earth moving equipment and
engineering services, these projects typically involve a variety of goods and services related to the
specific project's purpose. Large civil works projects benefitting from Ex-Im Bank support have included
water and wastewater treatment plants, railroad and airport construction, construction of tunnels,
highways and bridges, large hydroelectric plants and irrigation networks, large towers, hospitals and
residential housing developments, coastal protection and reclamation and many others. The majority of the
transactions are financed via one of Ex-Im Bank's Long-Term products and often make use of one or more of Ex-Im Bank's sector specific
incentive programs, such as the Environmental Exports Program or the Medical Equipment Program
Impacts - US/India Relations Scenario
Ex-Im Bank key to US-India Relations – finances bilateral trade
The Hindu 11, [The Hindu, Indian news service leading India Daily, "India can emerge as largest
portfolio for U.S. Exim Bank," Published 22 July 2011 @
www.thehindu.com/business/article2285580.ece] Tusnial
India will emerge as the largest portfolio for U.S. Export Import Bank soon and the bank is committed to supporting
Indian companies to make the U.S. the gateway to do business with the world, said bank Chairman and President Fred Hochberg here on Friday.
In the last decade Indo-U.S. relations have emerged as the key driver to the stability of Southeast Asia.
Giving strength to a positive diplomatic relationship is its business with bilateral trade between the two
countries rising by 30 per cent in 2010 from the previous year to $36.50 billion. India is U.S.'s 12th
largest trading partner, up from the 25th position in 2000. To give further boost to Indo-U.S. business ties, a
priority mandated by U.S. President Barack Obama during his India visit last year, Mr. Hochberg
wrapped up a successful round of business development mission in India with an interaction with the captains of Indian
industry, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). During the weeklong trip, the chairman participated in strategic dialogue
meeting between the two nations, held discussions with Indian businesses and banks about new infrastructure
projects in refining, petrochemical, construction, transportation, and power projects. Mr. Hochberg also announced $25
million in Ex-Im Bank loans for two new solar-energy projects included in the India's National Solar Mission. On foreign
direct investment, Mr. Hochberg said, “One of the best ways to increase FDI in any country is to increase export.
When two countries do more trade with each other and get acclimatised to each others businesses and markets, FDI will
naturally follow. FDI is not an alternative to export, but the two go hand in hand.” The sectors that will see the greatest
bilateral partnership are infrastructure and renewable energy and Mr. Hochberg, laid emphasis on his invitation to
companies in these two sectors to approach Ex-Im Bank. Highlighting the importance of Ex-Im Bank as the official export
credit agency of the U.S. and its mission to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to
international markets, Banmali Agrawala, Past Chairman — CII (Western Region) and Executive Director, Strategy and Business
Development, Tata Power Company, said, “In the last nine months, Ex-Im Bank has approved 173 transactions,
involving 100 companies and $1.4 billion in financing of U.S. exports to India. Some of the sectors that
Indian companies could benefit are power and infrastructure, aviation, construction equipment, farm
equipment, solar energy, medical equipment to name a few.”
US-India relations key – climate change, prolif, economy, and South Asian stability
Cookman and Katulis 9 [Colin Cookman is the Special Assistant for National Security at American Progress and Brian
Katulis is a Senior Fellow “The U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Is Vital,” Published 24 November 2008 @
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/india_state_visit.html ] Tusnial
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh visits Washington this week for a four-day state visit to discuss a range of
issues crucial to the developing strategic partnership between the United States and India. The U.S.India partnership is critical to President Barack Obama’s national security agenda on climate change,
economic growth, and nuclear proliferation. There’s also the question of how the United States can
balance efforts to deepen bilateral ties while simultaneously working to normalize the tense relations
between India and its neighbor, Pakistan, as the one-year anniversary of the Mumbai terrorist attacks approaches. The Indian
leader’s trip marks the first official state visit of the Obama administration, with a ceremonial welcome
and a black-tie dinner later today. That the Obama administration chose India as the first country to receive
the honor of a state visit is not surprising given the country’s importance to several Obama
administration national security priorities. Major topics of discussion between the two teams will likely include
climate change cooperation in advance of international talks next month at Copenhagen, growing economic ties between
India and the United States and the ongoing global economic crisis, and the careful balance of nuclear proliferation
cooperation with a desire to make good on the 2008 civil nuclear trade deal. Prime Minister Singh’s visit comes during a
sensitive period for U.S. diplomacy around the world. The luster is wearing off from the Obama
administration’s initial honeymoon period of foreign policy, leading to growing questions about what
the Obama administration has tangibly achieved with its new style of diplomatic outreach. President Obama’s
trip to Asia last week raised some concerns in India that the United States was acceding to China’s growing power without demonstrating
India’s important role, and this state visit is aimed at signaling the importance of U.S.-India ties. Gaining India’s cooperation on a range of issues
will be an important test of the Obama administration’s ability to achieve results in his foreign policy. The trip also comes at a critical juncture
for U.S. policymaking in the South Asian region, as President Obama decides on a new strategy for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and the Pakistani
government’s position becomes increasingly precarious in the face of internal political and militant opposition. All of this takes place against the
backdrop of the upcoming one-year anniversary of the November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai, India, which killed 172 people and set IndoPakistani relations on a precarious edge that continues today. U.S. policymakers and their counterparts in the region face a major challenge as
they attempt to shape forward-looking regional and bilateral policies while anticipating and guarding against threats by spoiler groups seeking
to derail progress toward achieving those goals. The possibility of another Mumbai-style attack looms as one of the major dangers that could
have ripple effects throughout the region. Earlier this month India sent its sixth major dossier of evidence in connection to the Mumbai attacks
to the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which promised to study the materials but gave little other public comment. The U.S. intelligence and
diplomatic communities—with ties to both India and Pakistan—have played an important role in facilitating these transactions, but Pakistani
authorities have been slow to show tangible action against domestic terror groups that target its neighbors, as Indian officials have repeatedly
demanded. Pakistan has instituted criminal proceedings in a special antiterror court against seven members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT, a
militant group responsible for carrying out the Mumbai attacks despite the group’s long-standing ties to the military and intelligence services.
But those proceedings remain closed to public view and have been subject to repeated poorly explained delays. Charges against LeT founder
Hafiz Saeed were dismissed earlier this summer after nearly six months of his being placed under house arrest, part of a broader problem of
inconclusive prosecutions by Pakistan’s weak institutions against figures associated with but not directly implicated in terrorism in Pakistan. The
group’s political and charitable wings have been active in relief efforts for ongoing military operations against Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan
militants who target the state in Pakistan’s northwest. The Mumbai attacks came early in Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s term as
president, when he had been publicly downplaying the country’s long-standing rivalry with India and just a month after a direct trade route had
been opened across the Line of Control separating India- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir for the first time in 60 years. Indian policymakers
showed welcome restraint in the aftermath of the attacks, but unfortunately the attacks effectively derailed a tentative “composite dialogue”
process begun in 2004 that has yet to be repaired despite meetings between Prime Minister Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza
Gilani on the sidelines of a number of multilateral forums over the past year. The Pakistani government has called for a resumption of the
dialogue and both sides reaffirmed a “resolve to fight terrorism and cooperate with each other to this end” at a July conference in Sharm-elSheikh, Egypt. But India shows little appetite for concessions absent a demonstrated ability on the Pakistani side to rein in groups like LeT or the
sectors of the military establishment that have supported it. President Zardari now finds himself beset by domestic political crises and unable to
deliver effective measures to build confidence in his government. For example, the Pakistani military establishment places much of the blame
on Zardari for provisions in the recent $7.5 billion Kerry-Lugar aid bill passed by the U.S. Congress, which it considers an infringement on its
authorities. The military also distrusts Zardari’s earlier overtures toward India and ties to the United States. Opposition parties continue to
press Zardari to make good on promises to surrender powers of appointment gathered in the office of the presidency during the Musharraf
regime that Zardari has yet to deliver upon. Meanwhile, the Pakistani governing coalition has failed to hold together and pass the
reauthorization of the National Reconciliation Ordinance in parliament, which provides amnesty for key party members from outstanding
corruption charges —Zardari himself enjoys presidential immunity under the constitution—and is set to expire November 28 after the Supreme
Court found its 2007 promulgation by former president Pervez Musharraf unconstitutional. This failure has further churned the waters of the
Pakistani political establishment and distracted it from ongoing military operations in South Waziristan and any further serious efforts at
rapprochement with India. While most Indian political leaders recognize that Pakistan’s internal problems and their spillover effects cannot be
resolved by direct military action, the danger of escalating tit-for-tat responses in the face of future spoiler attacks during this period of ongoing
uncertainty is real. Although the United States cannot and should not attempt to orchestrate internal politics on either side of the border, it is
critical to maintain a clear sense of what our policies in the South Asia region are working toward achieving in the long term, and to apply the
necessary leverage consistently to all parties to shape the strategic calculations of the countries to advance stability in this tense area of the
world So what steps should we take? Our priorities should be increased cooperation between the U.S. and Indian
intelligence and police services as well as with Pakistani civilian agencies like the Federal Investigation Agency and the Intelligence Bureau. This
cooperation has improved in the wake of last year’s attacks, but more can be done to
help protect innocent civilians in India and
Pakistan from future attacks. America should work toward renewing the composite dialogue process between India and Pakistan and
resuming a meaningful exchange of confidence-building measures, in both the security and economic spheres. If formal, government-to-
government dialogues between India and Pakistan are difficult to restart at this time, the Obama administration should
encourage
unofficial, track two contacts between not only India and Pakistan but all of the countries in South Asia—
to discuss ways to deescalate tensions and introduce confidence-building measures. For too many years,
U.S. policy in South Asia has been reactive to events and in crisis management mode, and outlining a
plan to achieve a sustainable regional security framework in South Asia must be done in close
coordination with friends in India and other countries in the region. The primary goal of U.S. policy toward the region over the next
decade should be the development of a framework for the durable normalization of relations between India and Pakistan. Achieving this goal
requires a delicate balancing act with a close strategic partner like India—deepening the bilateral ties and cooperation that the Bush
administration enhanced between the United States and India while at the same time working multilaterally to advance regional stability and
achieve progress on global challenges.
Impacts - US/India Relations Exts
Ex-Im bank key – Indian economy
Ramana 12, Daily News and Analysis (Indian News Agency) (KV, "Slowdown? US Exim Bank gives India a
high five," 1-7, www.dnaindia.com/money/report_slowdown-us-exim-bank-gives-india-a-highfive_1634397) Tusnial
Export credit agency says it will pip Mexico as its largest market in the next 12-18 months. Going by the sheer number of projects coming up
with funding from overseas agencies, India is likely to emerge as the largest
market for the US Exim Bank in the next 12-18
official export credit agency of the US federal government ranks India at No
2, next only to Mexico, in credit commitments. “India is second only to Mexico globally. The Exim Bank has
committed $7 billion to India while it is $8.5 billion for Mexico and at the rate India is growing, it could
be the single-largest market for us in 12-18 months,” said Fred Hochberg, US Exim Bank’s chairman and president. Currently
months. The fact speaks for itself: The
on a South India tour, he called on Kiran Kumar Reddy, chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, on Friday. Hochberg termed the meeting as
“introductory”, adding he was meeting more private entrepreneurs, including those from the GVK Group. “Andhra Pradesh is seeing much of
the activity within India. Our focus is on energy, renewable energy, power transportation and other activities. The idea is to promote exports
from the US,” he explained. In terms of sectoral exposure, power gets the top billing from the Bank. Of
the $7-billion commitment
for Indian projects, about 30% is in the power sector alone. “We are very excited about the power sector
growth in India. India’s growth is good and we will continue our investments in the sector. US is one of
the leaders in technology and turbines. We look to finance these projects. Out of the $7 billion
commitments, about a third is in the power-related sector,” he said. Additionally, the bank is exploring opportunities
in other sectors, including solar and wind energy and oil and gas. Medical devices, medical equipment, agriculture and agrology have been
identified as some of the areas for funding. It
financed $176 million for solar projects in Rajasthan and Gujarat last
year. “In fact, we are financing more solar projects in India than any other country. Then, we are also financing oil and gas projects. We have
also financed the Samalkot power project of Reliance. We have also done some petro chemical projects,” he said. Meanwhile, the agency’s
chairman has clarified that the
Exim Bank had not granted any loan to Amerind, which has come up with a
proposal to set up a refinery in Andhra Pradesh. It was based on Amerind’s claim that since it was being
funded by the Exim Bank of the US, the Andhra Pradesh government has agreed to allocate land to the
company for setting up of the project. “We had provided a letter of interest to Amerind and that does not mean we have granted
any loan to it. We are yet to review the project,” he said.
Impacts - US/India Relations Impacts
US-India relations key – Kashmir
Riedel 06 [Bruce Riedel is senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, part of Brookings’ new Center for 21st Century Security and
Intelligence. Riedel also serves as a senior fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy. Riedel joined Brookings following a 30-year career at the Central
Intelligence Agency, a tenure which included multiple overseas postings. He served as a senior advisor to the last four U.S. presidents on South Asia and the
Middle East, working as a senior member of the National Security Council; “India and the United States: A New Era”; published December 18 2006 @
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2006/12/18india-riedel] Tusnial
Now that President Bush has built on this foundation, he should
use the new strategic partnership to move beyond crisis
management between India and Pakistan to try to help the two countries resolve the underlying issue
that has brought them repeatedly to conflict: Kashmir. America has avoided dealing with the Kashmir issue
for decades, both because of its complexities and because India opposed outside involvement, preferring to deal bilaterally with Pakistan. This
approach has not worked; the problem has gotten worse and has repeatedly taken the subcontinent to the brink of disaster. Now is
the time for quiet American diplomacy to exploit our stronger ties with India and our improved relations with Pakistan since 9/11
to try to resolve the Kashmir quarrel. It is in the self interest of all three nations to do so. The timing is particularly fortuitous since India
and Pakistan have begun their own bilateral dialogue to improve relations since they were last at the brink of war in 2003. That dialogue has
already produced some modest confidence-building measures in Kashmir but has not really engaged the underlying issues.
Impacts - US/Turkey Relations Scenario
Reauthorization key to fostering continued economic cooperation between US and
Turkey - key to relatiosn
Hochberg 10 (Fred P. Hochberg, Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States,
former dean of Milano, The New School for Management and Urban Policy, former acting administrator
of the Small Business Administration, MBA Columbia University, speech before the American Turkish
Council, 10-19-2010, http://www.exim.gov/newsandevents/events/speechesandtestimony/AmericanTurkish-Council.cfm) mantis
This past July, I
visited Turkey to lead a delegation from the Export – Import Bank of the United States.
Before launching into meetings with business and government leaders to discuss Turkey's plans to invest more than $500 billion on
infrastructure in next decade---I first went straight from the airport to Anitkabir, the memorial to Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, a man
who embraced modernity and engagement with the world.
Anitkabir is the place I was told to see if I wanted to truly understand Turkey's past and how this history defines its role in the world today.
At the center of this magnificent memorial stands a flagpole, erected to ensure that Turkey's flag proudly flies 24 hours-a-day at this beautiful
site.
While there, I learned that this flagpole was made in a factory in New York City, owned by Nazmi Cemal, a Turkish-American.
The symbolism was both powerful and moving…..
Here, at the heart of where the father of Turkey's vibrant democracy is honored, stands a quiet
testament to the U.S. and Turkey's economic partnership---and a tribute to its potential to bring our
nations' closer together.
Our nations' friendship was forged during the Cold War, when our common security was our common bond.
Turkey has been a stalwart member of NATO and Turkish troops have served alongside American soldiers dating back to the Korean War.
There are many objectives that unite the United States and Turkey:
national security,
economic prosperity,
a vibrant democracy,
and Middle East stability.
These objectives have guided us through tough times and they are what continue to strengthen the bond between our two countries.
Today, during this challenging time in world history, our relationship is more important than ever.
While national security remains a cornerstone of our friendship, business partnerships between American and Turkish companies can—and
need to—play a central and defining role in our relationship in the coming years.
We cannot afford to let opportunities to support each other's economic progress slip away.
What I believe is needed to buttress our alliance is commercial diplomacy.
Increased investments and exports will encourage
more innovation and
more jobs and prosperity to both our nations
To accomplish this, we must have more forums like this, as well as cultural exchanges and student exchanges to deepen our understanding of
each other's culture, history and values.
At the Ex-Im Bank we are committed to doing our part to make this vision a reality.
A vision where the bonds between Turkey and the United States are strengthened by commercial ties.
Since its establishment in 1934, the Ex-Im Bank has had one central objective: to create and sustain American jobs through exports.
Our bank was founded with this goal during the Great Depression and it has remained true to this mission during the recent economic crisis.
Export financing – whether through a loan, insurance or guarantee – can transform American entrepreneurs into thriving global competitors.
President Obama has made it very clear that he views exports as a key factor in our nation's economic recovery efforts.
As part of the National Export Initiative, the President called for our nation to double exports to more than $3 trillion by 2015, adding 2 million
jobs to our economy.
Ex-Im Bank is doing its part to meet this goal.
And, stable relations key to staving off multiple scenarios of European instability,
including war in the Middle East and Caucuses
Albright, et al 12 (Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador, Chair, Stephen J. Hadley,
U.S. Institute for Peace, Chair, and Steven A. Cook, Project Director, Independent Task Force Report No. 69, “U.S.
Turkey Relations: A New Partnership,”
2012, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/TFR69_Turkey.pdf), ttate
To convert these principles into practical policies and concrete¶ results, the United States and Turkey need to further strengthen the¶ close
relationship forged by their two national leaders and extend the¶ principles to their respective administrations at every level and across¶ all
relevant departments and agencies. Toward that end, Washington¶ and Ankara should establish a government-wide forum for cabinet-level¶
engagement on the model of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with¶ China or the strategic-level consultations with Israel.¶ In a departure
from the dialogue with China, which includes only¶ the highest levels, Turkey and the United States should also conduct¶ frequent and routine
talks between their foreign policy and national¶ security organizations to develop a common strategic framework and¶ long-term perspective
on the core issues of common concern. This dialogue¶ on foreign policy and national security issues should be deepened¶ to the level of U.S.
assistant secretaries and their Turkish counterparts¶ and should become frequent and routine at that level. In addition, intensive¶
interaction and cooperation between the two countries in the field¶ and between their respective
diplomats, military personnel, and intelligence¶ officers is critical.¶ Beyond these process-oriented recommendations, the United¶
States and Turkey have resources, assets, and skills that will be complementary¶ in places that have not historically
been areas of U.S.-Turkey¶ cooperation, including helping various Arab countries achieve democratic¶ transitions; ending the
bloodshed in Syria through the departure¶ of President Bashar al-Assad and the creation of a
democratic, cross-sectarian¶ outcome; and dealing with the challenge posed by Iran’s¶ pursuit of nuclear
weapons, support for terror, and intervention in the¶ affairs of its neighbors. Ankara and Washington
must continue cooperating¶ to help sustain the economic and political progress in Iraq and¶ to assist
Iraqis in resolving the remaining cross-sectarian problems¶ and tensions. In addition, both countries
continue to have a mutually¶ reinforcing role to play in working to bring about stability, security,¶ and
peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan.¶ Washington must also try again to help the Turks and Armenians¶ move forward with the
2009 Turkey-Armenia protocols, which held¶ out the possibility of normalization of relations between the two¶ countries. Change to the
status quo will likely improve Ankara’s relations¶ with Yerevan, which will ease the periodic tension between¶ Turkey
and the United States over the Armenian issue and help pave¶ the way for the leadership role in the
Caucasus that Turkey desires. It¶ would also improve the atmosphere for a resolution of the Nagorno-¶
Karabakh problem, and the United States should be actively encouraging¶ such a resolution.¶ Also, the United
States must not neglect the Cyprus problem just¶ because it seems intractable. The discovery of large deposits of natural¶ gas off the island’s
southern coast has the potential to increase tension¶ between Nicosia and Ankara, given Turkey’s insistence that Turkish¶ Cypriots share in any
economic benefits resulting from the island’s¶ natural resources. Finally, as Turkey becomes more active commercially¶ and diplomatically in
Africa, Washington and Ankara should develop¶ cooperative programs and initiatives there.
And, Middle East conflict goes global and nuclear
Russell 9 (James A. Russell, senior lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval
Postgraduate School, “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle
East,” Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Spring 2009, http://www.analystnetwork.com/articles/141/StrategicStabilityReconsideredProspectsforEscalationandNuclearWarintheMiddleEast.p
df) ttate
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that
can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce
unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the
bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for
military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to
pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the
United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the
coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of
wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional
antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the
nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between
actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a
war starts, events
would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently
be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to
prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.
And, conflict in the Caucuses is on the brink - goes global - fastest timeframe
Dietzen 9-12 (Mark Dietzen, Resident Fellow, Regional Studies Center, Streit Council for a Union of Democracies,
“Stopping Europe’s Next War: Why Nagorno-Karabakh’s Quest for Freedom and Self-Determination Must be a
Foreign Policy Priority,” http://streitcouncil.org/uploads/Stopping%20Europe's%20Next%20War%20%20by%20Mark%20Dietzen.pdf) ttate
Amidst doubt over the U.S.-Russia reset and Europe’s austerity challenges, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s struggle for freedom and selfdetermination in the South Caucasus has ¶ emerged as a rare opportunity for cooperation between the United States, Europe and Russia. For ¶
almost two decades, diplomatic talks between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over NagornoKarabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave which
an escalating
arms ¶ race, precipitated by Azerbaijan’s massive defense expenditures and saber-rattling, combined ¶ with frequent sniper
attacks and skirmishes, make Nagorno-Karabakh the most likely site of ¶ Europe’s next war. Action must
be taken now to prevent this from happening.¶ The U.S., Europe and Russia must cooperate on making the resolution of the
freed itself from Azerbaijani control during ¶ the eclipse of the Soviet Union, have failed to reach a resolution. Meanwhile,
conflict a common ¶ foreign policy priority. An escalation of the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over ¶ Nagorno-Karabakh would
threaten each party’s respective foreign policy goals in the region. Tripolar cooperation on
Nagorno-Karabakh therefore
represents a unique opportunity to prevent ¶ another war in the South Caucasus, the likes of which have not been seen on the
continent since ¶ World War Two. Recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh’s legitimate quest for self-determination is the¶ only way to secure a lasting
and peaceful resolution to this oft ignored, yet critically important ¶ conflict.¶ Trouble on Europe’s Frontier: The Dangers of Renewed Warfare
over¶ Nagorno-Karabakh¶ European Energy Insecurity and Silk Road Sabotage¶ Though most European policymakers see the South Caucasus as
a remote southeastern frontier, ¶ the region’s geostrategic significance to the continent warrants much greater attention from its ¶ capitals.
The region has a crucial role as an energy corridor for hydrocarbon resources en route to ¶ Europe from the South Caucasus and Central Asia.
Three of the four major pipelines that ¶ transport Azerbaijani oil and gas to Europe lie close to the front line positions of Armenian and ¶
Azerbaijani forces stationed along both the Line-of-Contact between the de-facto NagornoKarabakh Republic, Artsakh (hereinafter NagornoKarabakh Republic) and Azerbaijan, and ¶ along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. These include the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline, the BakuTbilisiCeyhan oil pipeline, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline.¶ 1¶ In the event of renewed ¶ warfare, these pipelines would be early targets for
Armenian artillery, stymieing Europe’s goal ¶ of diversifying its energy supply.¶ Furthermore, renewed warfare over Nagorno-Karabakh would
severely damage the emerging ¶ New Silk Road – the revived trade routes which pass through Azerbaijan and Georgia en route to ¶ Europe.¶ 2¶
One notable casualty of this promising economic thoroughfare would be the BakuTbilisi-Kars railway. Set to be commissioned in 2013, the
railway is expected to initially transport one million passengers and 6.5 million tons of cargo per year, with an eventual capacity ¶ of up to 17
million tons per year.¶ 3¶ This railway will become a critical economic link connecting ¶ Asian and European markets. It is clearly not in Europe’s
economic interest for it to be ¶ destroyed. ¶ Jeopardizing the Southern Spur of the Northern Distribution Network¶ Nor would it be in the U.S.
and NATO’s military interest. The Northern Distribution Network¶ (NDN), whose implementation has furthered the development of the New
Silk Road, plays an ¶ important role in transporting U.S. and NATO supplies out of Afghanistan. In November 2011, ¶ Islamabad closed NATO
supply routes between Pakistan and Afghanistan, following a U.S. air ¶ strike that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani troops. Over the next seven
months, NATO became¶ almost completely reliant on the NDN, as evidenced by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh ¶ Rasmussen’s June,
2012 announcement that the alliance had reached an agreement with ¶ Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan to allow for the withdrawal of
alliance equipment ¶ through their respective territories en route to Russia and finally to the Latvian port at Riga.¶ This arrangement suggested
the alliance’s increasing doubt that Pakistan would reopen its less ¶ expensive routes to Afghanistan, whose costs are roughly 17% of those of
the NDN.¶ 4¶ However, ¶ following a July 3 statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she said the ¶ U.S. was sorry for the
Pakistani military’s losses, Islamabad told Washington that it would ¶ reopen NATO supply routes into Afghanistan.¶ 5¶ Despite the restoration
of this vital artery, ¶ relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain very poor. There is no guarantee that Pakistan ¶ will keep its supply routes
with Afghanistan open, which makes it imperative that the NDN ¶ remain viable.¶ Though the route outlined above will be NDN’s primary
conduit for evacuating vehicles and ¶ other military equipment from Afghanistan, its Southern Spur – extending from the Georgian ¶ port at Poti
to Afghanistan via Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – is an important ¶ alternative pathway. It is the NDN’s only route which does not
traverse Russian territory. ¶ Renewed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would undoubtedly disrupt this route significantly and ¶ very likely close
it altogether. If Pakistan were to once again close its supply routes with ¶ Afghanistan, and the NDN’s southern route were lost, all roads out of
Afghanistan would have to ¶ pass through Russia. Certainly, Russia’s present cooperation with NATO’s withdrawal should be ¶ praised; it is a
sign that there is still hope for the continuation of a “reset” in relations between ¶ Washington and Moscow. ¶ However, given the recent
return of Vladimir Putin as Russia’s president, and the upcoming ¶ 2012 U.S. presidential election, such cooperation, however desirable, is not
guaranteed. ¶ One need only to be reminded of presumptive Republican Party nominee Mitt Romney’s ¶ campaign statement that Russia is
America’s “top geopolitical adversary” to understand the ¶ potential for damage in bilateral relations.¶ 6¶ War Today Would Be Much Worse
than in the Early 1990s¶ Renewed warfare over Nagorno-Karabakh would be significantly more deadly and more ¶
destructive than the previous conflict, when Nagorno-Karabakh freed itself from nearly seven ¶ decades Soviet-imposed Azerbaijani control. In
a Fall 2011 presentation at the Center for ¶ Strategic and International Studies, Colonel Jon Chicky of the National War College identified ¶ the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as the most dangerous in the greater Caucasus region, stating that ¶ a future conflict there will surpass the lethality
of the previous one by orders of magnitude.¶ 7¶ Colonel Chicky cited as evidence that, “over the past 5 to 6 years there has been an increase in
¶ numbers and sophistication of regional armaments,” including “drones, advanced air and missile ¶ defense systems, long range artillery and
rocket systems [and] tactical ballistic missiles.”¶ 8¶ He ¶ drew special attention to the dangers posed by three specific armament types: longrange ¶ multiple rocket launchers, high-altitude and long-range surface to air missile systems, and ¶ ballistic missiles.¶ 9¶ In addition, Colonel
Chicky also highlighted the 2008 and 2010 Mardakert skirmishes (a ¶ northern region of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic), the rising number of
ceasefire violations ¶ since 2009, and the fact that both the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis have weapons which can ¶ reach far past the
Nagorno-Karabakh Line-of-Contact and its immediate vicinity.¶ 10¶ Renewed ¶ combat would involve counter-value targeting deep within both
Armenia and Azerbaijan.¶ 11¶ This ¶ would include major cities (including Baku and Yerevan), oil and gas installations, power plants ¶ (such as
Armenia’s nuclear power station at Metsamor), highways, bridges and airports, among ¶ other sites. The capacity for death and destruction is
truly frightening.¶ Spillover Effects: How Nagorno-Karabakh May Spur a Regional Proxy War¶ If war breaks out again over Nagorno-Karabakh, it
will not be limited to the area in and around ¶ the enclave itself, as it largely was during the early 1990s. Rather,
it promises to be a
full-scale ¶ war between Armenia, allied with the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and Azerbaijan. ¶ A renewed war would feature
greater roles played by the major regional powers, Russia, Turkey ¶ and Iran, than during the last conflagration.
Though the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is not ¶ included in Russia’s security treaty with Armenia, the pact could be invoked should the conflict
¶ spill over onto Armenia’s territory, which is a very likely scenario.¶ 12¶ One would also be remiss to ¶ overlook Russia’s significant economic
interests in Armenia. Should renewed warfare over ¶ Nagorno-Karabakh surpass the threshold for economic risk, Russia might be prompted to ¶
intervene. Albeit not bound by treaty obligation, Azerbaijan’s closest ally, Turkey, would ¶ likewise offer Azerbaijan its tacit, even open,
support.¶ 13¶ Considering the fractious relations between Iran and Azerbaijan, particularly over the latter’s ¶ close ties with Israel, Iran would
keep its trade routes open with Armenia in the event of another ¶ armed conflict, as it did in the 1990s. And direct Iranian support to the
Armenians should not be¶ entirely ruled out. The Iranian regime may see renewed armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh ¶ as a convenient
way for it to weaken what it sees as a growing overt and covert Israeli presence ¶ in Azerbaijan.
This has all the makings for a
proxy war of epic magnitude.¶ Stoking the Hornet’s Nest: Regional Instability and North Caucasus Terrorism¶ The contagion of
renewed armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh would spread its infection¶ from the South Caucasus to the North Caucasus, long a haven for
Islamic terrorist groups. ¶ Warfare between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis would create a more fertile environment for ¶ these organizations
to pursue their own destructive goals. This is an acutely sensitive issue for ¶ Russia, which has long toiled to suppress unrest along its North
Caucasian frontier and root out ¶ terrorists there. In March 2010, a terrorist attack on Moscow’s metro by two female suicide ¶ bombers from
Dagestan killed 39 people, followed by the January 2011 suicide attack at ¶ Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, which killed 36. Chechen warlord
Doku Umarov, who claimed ¶ responsibility for both attacks, was also recently accused of masterminding a thwarted plot to ¶ attack the 2014
Winter Olympics, to be held in Sochi, a Russian resort city along the Black Sea ¶ coast in the North Caucasus.¶ 14¶ Preventing further unrest in
its most volatile region is clearly in ¶ Moscow’s interest.¶ The Kosovo of the Caucasus: Preventing War and Protecting Freedom in the¶
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic¶ Much attention within expert and political circles on both sides of the Atlantic has focused on ¶ warning of the
dangerous consequences of renewed armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. ¶ However, comparatively less attention has been devoted to
what specific actions could be taken ¶ to prevent a further escalation of tension between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The ensuing ¶ section
seeks to rectify this by offering pragmatic policy recommendations that the U.S., Europe ¶ and Russia can cooperate on in order to prevent
Nagorno-Karabakh from becoming Europe’s¶ next war.¶ A Reciprocal Removal of Snipers from the Line-of-Contact Must be a Priority¶ In 1992,
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the predecessor of the ¶ Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), created the Minsk Group to ¶ facilitate a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.¶ 15¶ The Minsk Group is cochaired by
France, Russia and the U.S.¶ 16¶ Though Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the NagornoKarabakh Republic signed a ceasefire in 1994, an estimated 30
people on each side of the Lineof-Contact in Nagorno-Karabakh have been killed by sniper fire every year since then.¶ 17¶ That¶ comes to an
unofficial estimate of over 1,000 Armenian and Azerbaijani deaths over the past 18 ¶ years. The Minsk Group proposed to Armenia and
Azerbaijan that both sides remove their ¶ snipers at the OSCE ministerial summit in Helsinki in December 2008. Though Armenia agreed ¶ to the
removal of snipers, Azerbaijan rejected the proposal, seeing sniping as a means of keeping ¶ pressure on the Armenian side and disallowing the
maintenance of the status quo. ¶ However, sniping has not achieved its desired aims for Azerbaijan for almost two decades. ¶ Rather, it has
made the Armenian-controlled buffer zones which form a security perimeter ¶ around the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic look increasingly like a
national security necessity¶ rather than a bargaining chip in the event of compromise with Azerbaijan. Moreover, sniping¶ carries the
dangerous risk of triggering domino-effect responses that could reignite all-out¶ warfare.¶ 18¶ The Minsk Group co-chair countries must
increase high-level diplomatic pressure on ¶ the Armenians and Azerbaijanis to reciprocally remove their snipers from the Line-of-Contact. ¶
The withdrawal of snipers is the most immediate and practical way to prevent further armed ¶ conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.¶ Stop Ceasefire
Violations: The Need for an Incident-Investigation Mechanism¶ Currently, the Minsk Group’s monitoring team tasked with overseeing the
conflict has only 6 ¶ representatives to observe events on the ground, and their resources to do so are limited.¶ 19¶ This ¶ contingent needs to
be supplemented – both in the number of monitors and the resources at their ¶ disposal – to allow it to function more effectively. Furthermore,
they need to have the authority ¶ to “name and shame” those responsible for the ceasefire violations. Since the ceasefire’s signing ¶ in 1994,
the Minsk Group has continually expressed its condemnation of violent incidents ¶ between Armenian and Azerbaijan forces. However, the
absence of a mechanism for ¶ investigating incidents on the frontlines has prevented the Minsk Group from assigning ¶ responsibility for
ceasefire violations. This has created an environment where there is little ¶ incentive for the party perpetrating the ceasefire violation to
change its behavior.¶ Armenia is in favor of an incident-investigation mechanism on the Line-of-Contact. On June 12, ¶ 2012, in a joint news
conference in Yerevan with OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, Ireland's Deputy ¶ Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore, Armenian
Foreign Minister Eduard ¶ Nalbandian expressed his country’s support for such a mechanism.¶ 20¶ However, during Gilmore’s ¶ joint news
conference in Baku two days later, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar ¶ Mammadyarov said that Azerbaijan’s support is conditional on
Armenian forces withdrawing ¶ from the buffer zones around the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. “This will work only if Armenian ¶ forces
withdraw from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan,” he stated, adding “if the ¶ mechanism is put to work now, it would mean consolidating
the status quo, which is ¶ unacceptable.”¶ 21¶ Such a deliberate attempt to tie an OSCE-mandated conflict-management ¶ mechanism – meant
to save both Azerbaijani and Armenian lives – to an unrealistic and ¶ maximalist Azerbaijani demand should not be overlooked.¶ Considering
Baku’s unwillingness to support an incident-investigation mechanism, the U.S.,¶ Europe and Russia should take this opportunity to implement
such a mechanism on the ¶ Armenian side of the Line-of-Contact. Doing so would send a clear signal that they are serious ¶ about decreasing
tension over Nagorno-Karabakh. This would be especially timely following the ¶ recent spate of violence along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border
and the Nagorno-Karabakh ¶ Line-of-Contact from June 4-6, 2012, which coincided with U.S Secretary of State Hillary ¶ Clinton’s visit to the
South Caucasus. The clashes claimed the lives of 4 Armenian and 5 ¶ Azerbaijani soldiers. Speaking after talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev in Baku on ¶ June 6, 2012, Clinton warned that an escalation in violence between Armenian and Azerbaijani ¶ forces “could have
unpredictable and disastrous consequences,” and said “this cycle of violence ¶ and retaliation must end.”¶ 22¶ Clinton’s exhortation was
echoed two days later by the EU’s High Representative for Foreign¶ Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, who released a statement
expressing her serious ¶ concern about the border violence and called “on both sides strictly to respect the ceasefire and ¶ exercise restraint on
the ground and in public statements in order to prevent a further escalation ¶ of the situation, which has been deteriorating during the last
several months.”¶ 23¶ On June 9, 2012, ¶ the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that the border incidents were “unacceptable” and,¶ reinforcing
its words with actions, its military spokesman, Colonel Igor Gorbul, said that Russian ¶ fighter jets were executing an increasing number of
training flights over Armenia.¶ 24¶ Further, on June 20, 2012, Moscow stated that it would double Russia’s troop strength in ¶ Armenia by
year’s end.¶ 25¶ New Ideas Needed for Conflict Prevention: Looking for More from the EU, OSCE and the ¶ UN¶ The Director for Europe and
Central Asia at the International Peace Institute, Dr. Walter Kemp,¶ recently argued that the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism
currently in place in ¶ Georgia – a joint endeavor by the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMM) and the OSCE¶ – might provide a model
for the type of mechanism needed for investigating incidents on the¶ Nagorno-Karabakh frontlines.¶ 26¶ However, in stating its intention to
maintain an active sniping ¶ policy, Azerbaijan has blocked the Minsk Group from implementing such a mechanism. If the ¶ Minsk Group is
unable to move forward with this proposal, it is difficult to imagine it having any ¶ success in developing a peacekeeping operation in NagornoKarabakh as envisioned by its¶ mandate.¶ 27¶ Considering the Minsk Group’s inability to implement sorely needed conflict ¶ prevention
measures, the U.S., Europe and Russia must act now to devise another way of ¶ instituting an oversight system for border incidents between
Armenian and Azerbaijani forces ¶ along the Nagorno-Karabakh Line-of-Contact. We cannot afford to wait any longer.¶ As an alternative to an
OSCE peacekeeping operation, Dr. Kemp suggests that the UN consider a ¶ preventive deployment, modeled after the United Nations
Preventive Deployment Force¶ (UNPREDEP) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.¶ 28¶ By December 1995, ¶ UNPREDEP was
administering 24 permanent observation posts along 420 kilometers on the ¶ Macedonian side of the border with the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and Albania. In addition, ¶ it had 33 temporary observation posts, and oversaw nearly 40 border and community patrols ¶ every
day.¶ 29¶ This mission was successful in increasing stability and decreasing tension between ¶ the conflicting parties, and could be replicated
along the Nagorno-Karabakh Line-of-Contact, ¶ which at 177 kilometers is less than half as long as the one UNPREDEP monitored in the ¶
Balkans.¶ 30¶ A Seat at the Table: Time to Take the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Seriously¶ When the 1994 ceasefire was signed following
Nagorno-Karabakh’s six-year struggle to secure ¶ its independence from Azerbaijan, it included three signatories: Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the
¶ Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.¶ 31¶ Up to 1997, representatives of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic¶ participated in the peace talks, until
Azerbaijan demanded they be excluded.¶ 32¶ Since 1998, negotiations have been conducted between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Yerevan ¶
speaking on behalf of both Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This current format ¶ has proven to be ineffective: it is time for the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to return to its seat at ¶ the negotiating table. After all, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in its most recent phase,
arose ¶ out of the desire of the predominantly ethnic Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh to be free from¶ Azerbaijani rule. In fact, the conflict began
during the late 1980s as a civil war between the ¶ former Soviet Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (AO) and Soviet Azerbaijan.¶ 33¶ This
began ¶ on February 20, 1988, when the Nagorno-Karabakh AO appealed to Moscow to be reassigned ¶ from Soviet Azerbaijan to Soviet
Armenia.¶ 34¶ The deadly anti-Armenian pogroms that took place shortly thereafter, from February 27-29, in ¶ the Baku suburb of Sumgait,
Azerbaijan, sparked inter-ethnic violence between armed Armenian ¶ and Azerbaijani militias that had formed in Nagorno-Karabakh.¶ 35¶ Since
Nagorno-Karabakh had ¶ been disallowed from changing its status from an Autonomous Oblast of Soviet Azerbaijan to an ¶ Autonomous Oblast
of Soviet Armenia, it took immediate action once Azerbaijan declared¶ independence from the Soviet Union on Friday, August 30, 1991. Just
three days later on ¶ Monday, September 2, 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh announced its secession from Azerbaijan,¶ proclaiming itself the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.¶ 36¶ This was affirmed by a December 10 ¶ referendum supporting Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence (which
Nagorno-Karabakh’s ¶ Azerbaijani minority chose to boycott), and a January 6, 1992 declaration of independence.¶ 37¶ It is ¶ important to recall
Nagorno-Karabakh’s timeline because it shows consistent efforts at secession ¶ from Azerbaijan. Although it ultimately broke away from
Azerbaijan through a forceful struggle, ¶ it first attempted to do so through the only legal and democratic means available to it at the time.¶
Over the past two decades, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has striven to be taken seriously by ¶ the international community. It satisfies the
traditional criteria for statehood as prescribed by ¶ Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States, which explains that
“the ¶ state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent ¶ population; b ) a defined territory; c )
government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the ¶ other states.”¶ 38¶ It has a population of about 145,000 people. Despite its
territorial dispute with ¶ Azerbaijan, it has a defined territory, and currently controls about 11,722 sq. km.¶ 39¶ Its government is a presidential
democracy, which, although currently unrecognized, does have ¶ the capacity to enter into relations with other states – neighboring Armenia
being the most ¶ obvious example.¶ 40¶ In addition, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has permanent representatives ¶ in Armenia, Australia,
France, Germany, Lebanon, Russia and the United States.¶ 41¶ The NagornoKarabakh Republic has its own army – the Nagorno-Karabakh
Defense Army – which is about ¶ 20,000 strong, and is considered to have from 20,000-30,000 reservists.¶ 42¶ These are very ¶ significant
numbers considering its population. In addition, it may have the greatest per capita ¶ armor ratio in the world, deploying as many as 300 battle
tanks.¶ 43 While the Nagorno-Karabakh¶ Republic’s economy is primarily agricultural and heavily dependent on support from Armenia ¶ and
the Armenian Diaspora, this is not symptomatic of a failed economic system, but rather the¶ result of the damaging effects brought about by
the Nagorno-Karabakh War and its geographic ¶ isolation.¶ It is high time for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s development as a free and
democratic state¶ to be taken more seriously by the international community, especially following its 2012 ¶ presidential election, which
generally adhered to international standards.¶ 44¶ This should begin ¶ with France, Russia and the U.S. supporting the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic’s return to its seat ¶ at the Minsk Group negotiating table. This is already being discussed within political and expert ¶ circles. In June,
2012, the director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Center, Richard ¶ Giragosian, commented on U.S. Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks
that new proposals for the ¶ Minsk Group would be presented at the June 18, 2012 Minsk Group meeting in Paris. Though ¶ the proposals are
currently unknown to the public, Giragosian said “I expect it to be [a] new ¶ format of talks, with NKR becoming [a] full member of
negotiations.”¶ 45¶ Recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s independence is not only prudent, but ¶ necessary, following the recent
“Safarov Affair,” in which Azerbaijan immediately freed and ¶ pardoned convicted axe-murderer Ramil Safarov, an Azerbaijani officer who
brutally hacked to ¶ death an Armenian officer, Gurgen Margarian, while he slept during a 2004 NATO-sponsored ¶ course in Budapest. After
spending eight years in jail in Hungary, Safarov was extradited to ¶ Azerbaijan on August 31, 2012, after Hungary received written assurance
from the Azerbaijani¶ Justice Ministry that he would serve at least 25 years of a life sentence there.¶ 46¶ Adding insult to ¶ injury, upon his
return, Azerbaijan also awarded Safarov “a new apartment, eight years of back ¶ pay, a promotion to the rank of major and the status of a
national hero.”¶ 47¶ This incident is ultimate confirmation that any Azerbaijani assurance regarding the “future ¶ determination of the final
legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression ¶ of will,” as stated in the Minsk Group’s Madrid Principles - the proposed
peace settlement to the ¶ Nagorno-Karabakh conflict - cannot be trusted.¶ 48¶ The Madrid Document is dead. In gaining the ¶ undeserved
freedom of a self-admitted murderer, and officially condoning his shameful¶ Armenocidal act, Azerbaijan has solidified its permanent loss of
any future claim to NagornoKarabakh. Its independence has reached a point of no return.¶ Conclusion: Transatlantic
Action Must be
Taken on Nagorno-Karabakh, Or Else¶ Following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with their great economic and political costs, and ¶
the continued fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis, the U.S., Europe and Russia have ¶ each turned increasingly inward in focus. This has
raised the standard for selecting which ¶ conflicts and threats to address, based largely upon a cost-benefit analysis in relation to national ¶
interests. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict clearly passes the test: tri-polar action is needed now,
before it becomes Europe’s
next war, with all of the nasty and widespread consequences that ¶ would entail. ¶ It would be wrong to view the
¶
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through a Cold War prism. This
is not ¶ a zero-sum game, in which Nagorno-Karabakh
represents the prize in a West-versus-East ¶ struggle for South Caucasian dominance. Very much to the
contrary, it is a unique opportunity ¶ for the U.S., Europe and Russia to step up their cooperative efforts in
facilitating the resolution ¶ of a conflict which threatens their respective interests in the South Caucasus.¶ Nagorno-Karabakh
could save the U.S.-Russian “reset,” and usher in a new era of European-Russian cooperation, or
submerge the region into a brutal war with devastating and unpredictable ¶ consequences. At the same time,
recognizing the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s justified pursuit¶ of self-determination as a free and independent state is the only way of securing
a peaceful and ¶ lasting resolution to the conflict. There
is ticking.
is little time remaining to stop Europe’s next war. The ¶ clock
Impacts - US/Turkey Relations Helpers
Continued efforts to increase trade and investment key to US-Turkey relations
Albright, et al 12 (Madeleine K. Albright, former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador, Chair, Stephen
J. Hadley, U.S. Institute for Peace, Chair, and Steven A. Cook, Project Director, Independent Task Force
Report No. 69, “U.S. Turkey Relations: A New Partnership,”
2012, http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/TFR69_Turkey.pdf), Shapiro
trade and investment remain a weak link in the U.S.
relationship with Turkey. Bilateral trade reached only $15 billion in 2010 and
remains overly dependent on large U.S. defense and aircraft sales. The parties are
giving increased attention to the economic relationship. During President Obama's April 2009 visit to
Turkey, he and President Abdullah Gul pledged to strengthen the economic pillar of the
relationship. In October 2010, the United States and Turkey launched a cabinet-level economic commission, the Framework for Strategic Economic and Commercial
Although political, diplomatic, and military ties are well developed,
Cooperation, and a Turkey-U.S. Business Council. In December 2011, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. reinforced Washington's interest in economic ties with Turkey when he traveled to
Turkey is a priority country for numerous U.S.
economic efforts. As part of the National Export Initiative, it is one of six next-tier
markets to which the United States hopes to double exports by 2015. Turkey's
active entrepreneurial sector makes it an ideal partner country for
entrepreneurship initiatives, which led to its hosting role for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in December 2011. A strengthened
economic partnership not only advances U.S. commercial interests, it also
reinforces the broader relationship. Increased trade and investment can also
contribute to increased people-to-people ties, helping build constituencies for the relationship in both countries.
Istanbul for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit that Turkey hosted. Indeed,
Impacts - Turns the Case - Clean Energy
Reauthorization key to future clean energy development
Cuttino, 7/17/14[Phyllis Cuttino, Director of Clean energy, the pew energy trusts, Ex-Im bank’s role in
clean energy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phyllis-cuttino/exim-banks-role-insuppor_b_5592994.html] mantis
Private investment in the global clean energy sector is growing and could reach more than $5 trillion by
2030, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. As Asia, Africa and the Americas become more
attractive markets for clean energy development, U.S. businesses are racing to capture a significant
share of this growing opportunity.
Since it was chartered by Congress in 1934, the
Export-Import Bank of the United States has partnered with the
private sector to boost U.S. exports in key industries, including clean energy. The bank uses loans and
loan guarantees, export credit insurance, and short- and medium-term financing to international buyers
as its primary tools to fill gaps left when the private sector is unable to help U.S. businesses finance
clean energy projects overseas. And businesses aren't the only ones to benefit. Over the past five years,
the Ex-Im Bank has earned a $1.6 billion profit for U.S. taxpayers.
In many cases, the Ex-Im Bank provides the public sector investment that attracts private financing to
projects that otherwise might not be considered viable. In fiscal 2011 and 2012, Ex-Im provided $1.3
billion in support for renewable energy projects, helping to complete new financing arrangements in
emerging markets including Brazil, India, and Mexico. Since 2010, Ex-Im has financed more than $760
million in renewable energy projects in India alone, among them the purchase of solar systems from
AREVA Solar Inc. in California.
Small businesses that employ 1,500 or fewer U.S. workers -- such as Georgia-based Suniva Inc., which
manufactures solar cells, and wind turbine-maker Northern Power Systems Inc., in Vermont -- have benefitted from
the bank's backing to create jobs and promote U.S. manufactured clean energy technologies in global
markets.
With its successes, the Ex-Im Bank has helped U.S. businesses turn clean energy innovations into
exports. The Ex-Im Bank's activities have contributed to export levels for all technologies that reached
$195 billion in June 2014 and $2.3 trillion over the past 12 months. These totals are 46 percent higher
than exports in 2009.
At a time when clean energy markets around the world are growing swiftly and offer opportunities for
U.S. exports, the Ex-Im bank plays a critical role in project financing for renewable energy projects.
Business, investors, and workers in the clean energy sector hope that Congress will work together to
create policy certainty. Otherwise, investment opportunities could be lost to foreign competitors.
Ex-Im Bank key to renewable energy development
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of the USA; “About Us –
Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @ http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Renewable Energy According to Clean Edge, Inc., a leading market analyst, the
global clean tech sector is expected to grow
approximately 130% over the next decade, from a $144 billion industry to $343 billion. Additionally, a study by the Pew Charitable Trust
found that jobs in this sector are growing at a rate faster than other sectors, increasing 9.1% compared with 3.7% between 1998 and 2007. ExIm Bank is dedicated to helping U.S. exporters grab a share of that market. In fact, Ex-Im Bank has a
Congressional mandate to support renewable energy and has been directed that 10% of its authorizations should be
dedicated to renewable energy and environmentally beneficial transactions. Consequently, Ex-Im Bank has had a focus on the
environment since 1994 with its Environmental Exports Program (EEP), and has steadily grown its
portfolio of transactions. In 2007, the Office of Renewable Energy & Environmental Exports was created. Further in 2010, the Division
was expanded to include dedicated credit officers to process renewable energy and environmental transaction. As of June 30, 2010,
Environmentally Beneficial authorizations reached approximately $323 million. The EEP as well as Ex-Im
Bank's Carbon Policy offer a number of incentives that encourage the use of Ex-Im Bank products, including
tenors up to 18 years, 30% local costs support, capitalized interest during construction, interest rate lock on direct loans and the ability to pay
the exposure fee as a margin over an interest rate. Additionally,
a streamlined approach to small solar (Solar Express) deals
has resulted in a number of applications. As a key agency involved in the President's National Export Initiative
(NEI), which aims at doubling exports over the next five years, Ex-Im Bank and the Office of Renewable Energy & Environmental Exports is
committed to meeting the needs of U.S. exporters in this important sector.
Impacts - Government Shut-Down Scenario
Failure to stave off reauthorization opposition could lead to another government shutdown
Alberta, 7/15/14[Tim Alberta, is a leadership reporter at National Journal, Conservative Groups unite
against Export-Important Bank, http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/conservative-groups-uniteagainst-export-import-bank-20140715] mantis
A powerful coalition of conservative advocacy groups is taking a united stand against the Export-Import
Bank, raising the stakes in the debate over whether to reauthorize the agency that provides foreign loan
guarantees aimed at boosting U.S. exports.
Some House Republicans are already predicting how this will unfold:
the GOP leadership team proposes a short-term
funding bill that contains language to eliminate the Export-Import Bank, but would allow the Senate to
strip out that language and pass a "clean" funding bill.
If that scenario sounds familiar, it's because that's exactly what GOP leadership proposed last year as
conservative were mounting a last-minute campaign to defund the Affordable Care Act. The pushback from
members was so visceral that Speaker John Boehner and his team were forced to adopt a conservative proposal that made new government
funding wholly contingent upon defunding Obamacare.
The result was a government shutdown.
If history repeats itself this September, it won't be coincidental. The timing is the same. The divisions are
the same. And the group that worked behind the scenes last summer advocating for the strategy of tying government funding to defunding
Obamacare? It was the Conservative Action Project.
And, government shut-down collapses the economy
NSNBC, 13[NSNBC, US Government shutdown an omen for economic collapse,
http://nsnbc.me/2013/10/01/us-government-shutdown-omen-global-economic-collapse/]
Congress voted against additional funding for the Federal Government for the fiscal year
2013, leaving the Federal Government without funds and leading to a partial shutdown of government functions. So-called essential
The United States
government functions, including national security and public safety will remain intact.
Should the crisis continue however, there could be serious consequences for the US Mainstreet. Services
which could be threatened are, for example, new registrations for public health care, drivers license
registration, issuance of passports as well as some of the social programs upon which many US citizens rely for their daily
food, child nutrition and other functions which, if shut down, could seriously impact public health and mortality.
If the shutdown continues, it could affect some 800.000 public workers, who will not receive further
paychecks, and with the exception of the most vital functions, all public offices and services will close.
Congress left the Federal Government without funding while competing spending proposals are bouncing back and forth between the
Republican party controlled House of Representatives and the Democratic controlled Senate. Lawmakers are expected to continue efforts to
reach an agreement. According to the US constitution, the Federal Government is not permitted to default.
Bloomberg is citing the economic forecast company IHS Inc as stating that the crisis initially would cost
the US economy at least USD 300 million per day in lost economic output. The breakdown of the
budgetary negotiations also raises concerns about, whether US legislators can meet the mid-October
deadline to raise the government´s USD 16.7 trillion debt ceiling.
In other words: It is as likely that the US Government will return to “business as usual” soon, as it is likely that the global
economic
collapse and the end of the dollar based Bretton Woods system will happen, latest, sometime in 2015.
Impacts - Key to Agriculture
Ex-Im Bank key to agriculture industry
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of
the USA; “About Us – Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @
http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Agribusiness Ex-Im
Bank is active in its support of a broad range of agricultural products. The Bank is able to
support the sale of agricultural commodities and consumables, such as grain and soil additives, through the ShortTerm insurance program, while assistance is available for the export of livestock through one of Ex-Im Bank's Short or Medium-Term Products.
Medium-Term financing has been used extensively by U.S manufacturers and suppliers of new and used agricultural equipment. The
range
of equipment benefitting from Ex-Im Bank's support has ranged from small items such as disc harrows to
more complex machinery such as seeders and combines. Beyond the sale of equipment and commodities, Ex-Im Bank
is also able to assist U.S exporters and suppliers with the financing for agricultural projects. Examples of
projects supported include the export of greenhouses to individual growers to the development of large scale integrated meat processing
facilities and everything in between. Regardless of the
size and scope of an exporter's involvement in foreign
agricultural activities, Ex-Im Bank has a financing program that will meet their needs.
Impacts - Key to Oil
Reauthorization key to the oil industry
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of
the USA; “About Us – Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @
http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Oil and Gas Ex-Im Bank views the Oil & Gas sector as a key industry due to its overall size and importance to the U.S.
economy and high employment rates (supporting 9.2 million jobs in the U.S., according to the American Petroleum Institute). Presently, more
than 10,000 U.S. companies, ranging from small businesses to global-scale enterprises, provide the goods and services that support petroleum
exploration, drilling, refining and other operations, both domestically and internationally.
Although U.S. companies have
maintained their traditional technological leadership in the industry, they face increasing competitive
challenges from manufacturers and service providers in Western Europe, Canada, Asia and South
America. For many years, the Petroleum Sector (including oil & gas exploration and field development, pipelines and
distribution, refineries & petrochemical operations) has represented a major element of Ex-Im Bank's portfolio and
annual financing commitments. From fiscal 2001 to the present, Ex-Im Bank has provided commitments totaling $14.8
billion dollars for 78 transactions/projects in the Petroleum Sector, including 49 transactions in Latin American, 14 in Africa, six in
Russia/FSU, five in the Middle East and four in Asia. In fiscal year 2010, Ex-Im Bank provided approximately $3 billion in
financing for the Papua New Guinea Liquid Natural Gas Project. That multifaceted project included a natural gas
liquefaction facility, gas and liquid pipelines and gas field developments in Papua New Guinea. The project will enable gas to be transported to
an energy starved Asia while contributing substantially to the economy of Papua New Guinea. Since the Petroleum Industry is expected to
maintain high levels of capital development expenditures for the foreseeable future, annually exceeding $200 billion worldwide, and with
increasing globalization of the industry, Ex-Im Bank's
role in supporting jobs associated with the U.S. exporters in
this sector can be expected to grow even further. Ex-Im Bank will help U.S. companies involved in the
petroleum sector maintain an edge in the international marketplace, enabling them to effectively
compete against foreign counterparts who receive support from other export credit agencies.
Impacts - Key to Mining
Ex-Im Bank key to mining industry
Ex-Im Bank 12 [Export-Import Bank of the United States of America, the official export credit agency of
the USA; “About Us – Key Industries”; Export-Import Bank; Published 3 April 2012 @
http://www.exim.gov/about/whatwedo/keyindustries/] Tusnial
Mining The
U.S. is the major supplier of large mining and processing equipment to the world mining
industry, be it coal, copper, gold or uranium. The U.S. is expected to continue to play a major role in this sector, including both surface and
underground mining. Domestically produced equipment is based on innovation and incorporates high
technology in its design and manufacturing process, which enables U.S. exporters of mining equipment
to remain highly competitive in the international marketplace, along with the continued support of the Ex-Im Bank.
Soon after Ex-Im Bank was chartered in 1934, it became a force in the mining and minerals processing
sector, beginning with projects in Latin America. Since then, its financing has supported projects from Canada to Argentina, and from Russia
to Africa and Australia. During fiscal year 2010, Ex-Im Bank has financed $900 million in U.S. exports the following
mining projects: $18 million for the Sangatta Surface Coal Mine in Indonesia $420 million for the Boleo Underground Copper-Cobalt Mine in
Mexico $375 million for Barrick's Pueblo Viejo Surface Gold Mine in the Dominican Republic, $20 million for Ferroexpo's Surface Iron Ore Mine
in Ukraine, $62 million financing for Iron Ore Company of Canada's Surface Mine In addition, Ex-Im Bank has supported numerous smaller
export sales for gravel, limestone and sand operations worldwide. As
is the case for all industrial sectors, Ex-Im Bank
thoroughly evaluates all applications for the financing of mining projects to determine the project's
potential environmental and social impacts, and it only supports those that are shown to be in
compliance with the Bank's environmental guidelines. Ex-Im Bank currently has several applications of various types of
mines across the globe. The Bank's activities over the decades underscore its commitment to maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. exporters
in the mining sector, thereby helping to create and sustain jobs with the suppliers and sub-suppliers of mining exports across the country.
Impacts - Nuclear Energy Scenario
No reauthorization collapses nuclear energy industry
Weinstein, 7/11/14[Bernard Weinstein, has a PhD in economics, Ex-Im Bank is necessary for America,
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Weinstein-Export-Import-Bank-is-necessary-for5616265.php] mantis/tusnial
Perhaps surprisingly, it's
America's nuclear energy industry that stands to lose the most if the Export-Import
Bank's charter isn't renewed. Though only a handful of nuclear plants are currently under construction
or planned in the U.S., 70 new nuclear energy facilities are under construction in other parts of the
world with an additional 173 units in the licensing and advanced planning stages. Because the U.S.
Department of Commerce estimates the value of the global nuclear market at up to $740 billion over
the coming decade, capturing even a modest share of this market can create thousands of new high
wage jobs in the U.S.
The market for commercial nuclear power components has become very competitive. Russia, Korea, Japan and
France provide their suppliers with multiple layers of support, including strong trade finance.
Uncertainty about the Export-Import Bank is impairing the ability of U.S. companies to secure foreign
contracts. For the sake of the economy, and the millions of workers who owe their livelihoods to
exports, Congress should embrace reality rather than ideology and renew the charter of the ExportImport Bank on a long-term basis without further delay.
And, nuclear power key to solving global warming
Becker et al. 08 (Ulrich, Bruno Coppi, Eric Cosman, Peter Demos, Arthur Kerman,-Physics Professors at
MIT, Richard Milner- Director of Lab For Nuclear Science, “A Perspective on the Future Energy Supply of
the United States: The Urgent Need for Increased Nuclear Power”, MIT Faculty Newsletter, 11-12/08,
http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/212/milner.html), Shapiro
Until the U.S. dependence on foreign oil is significantly reduced, there is every expectation that increasing amounts of precious U.S. blood and
treasure will have to be expended in widening conflicts in the cause of energy security. It is widely accepted that the
U.S. must find a
way to wean itself from its addiction to oil. In ground transportation, which is a major oil consumer, significant progress is being
made with batteries and fuel cells to replace gasoline with electricity, which can be generated in alternative ways. Strongly motivated by these
two considerations, the
development of new technologies to increase energy efficiency and to produce reliable and
affordable energy with minimal greenhouse gas emission to the Earth’s atmosphere is a high priority in the U.S. and
in many other countries. It is essential that these efforts be encouraged and enhanced. However, the probability of success and the timescale
for realization of these technologies is highly uncertain. The economic stability and national security of the United States over the coming
decades cannot be secured by assuming optimistically that these new technologies will succeed in time to avoid a major discontinuity in the
supply of oil and gas from foreign and potentially hostile sources. Further, it is not acceptable, nor is it possible, that the U.S. continues to burn
fossil fuels indefinitely at present levels, thereby putting in clear jeopardy the planet on which we have evolved. Nuclear
Power is
Carbon-free, Technologically Feasible, Scalable, and Economical. The United States needs immediately
to develop on a large scale an energy source which does not produce greenhouse gases, which is already
known to be technologically feasible, and which is economical in view of projected costs of energy in the future. That energy source is
nuclear fission. Nuclear fission power reactor technology was developed in the U.S. and has been utilized for electricity generation on a
large scale across the globe for half a century. For example, France produces about 70% of its electricity using nuclear power. In the U.S. about
20% of the electricity used is produced using nuclear power. However, there are states where it is significantly larger, e.g., in Illinois about 50%
of electricity is generated by nuclear power. The
U.S. should establish the goal to produce half of its electricity by means of
nuclear power as soon as feasible. This will have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, avoiding the risk
of an “energy gap” in supply, and providing valuable time for new energy technologies to be developed. This goal would fast track and increase
the projected levels of nuclear power over the scenarios considered in several energy studies, including the 2003 MIT study, The Future of
Nuclear Power.
And, extinction
Snow and Hannam 14 (Deborah and Peter- staff writers, “Climate Change Could Make Humans Extinct, Warns Health Expert”,
The Sydney Morning Herald, 3/31/14, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-
The Earth is warming so
rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a
species, a leading Australian health academic has warned. Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at
the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at
different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast
as it is today. ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since
the 1970s, when we started burning a lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We
can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of
it, it will mean our extinction eventually.'' Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to
the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael,
of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra,
have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on
Monday. The three warn that the adverse effects on population health and social
stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change. ''Humandriven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to
wellbeing, health and perhaps even to human survival,'' they write. They predict that the greatest challenges will come from undernutrition
warns-health-expert-20140330-35rus.html), Shapiro
and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heatwaves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of infectious
diseases. They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs. Projecting to an
average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest
parts of the year''. They say that action on climate change would produce ''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth. A leaked draft
of the IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat
extremes. Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times, the report said. While some adaptive
measures are possible, limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest months by 40 per cent by 2100.
AT: Ex-Im Bank Ineffective/Irrelevant
False - Bank is incredibly effective - provides substantial lines of credit, pays off the
deficit, and has kept businesses afloat
Remick 7/3/14 (Forrest- Emeritus Professor of Nuclear Engineering at Penn State, “Here’s why we need
to keep the US import export bank”, Penn Live,
http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/07/heres_why_we_need_to_keep_the.html),Shapiro However, these
the Ex-Im Bank's closing would be a counterproductive. It would undercut U.S. competitiveness in the global market and wind up
hurting the U.S. economy and impose pain on hundreds of thousands of Americans
whose jobs will be put at risk for no good reason. Especially hard hit would be the
nuclear power industry, since the Ex-Im Bank is one of the most important tools
available to promote exports of nuclear products and services to a large and
growing global market. The little known secret of recent years is that the Ex-Im Bank has performed
very well. It is a credit agency that provides loads of help to American companies that do business overseas by backing loans primarily to foreign entities that want to buy our
goods. Last year, its lines of credit supported $37.4 billion in U.S. exports, which
translated into 205,000 jobs, including many in Pennsylvania. On cost: the bank costs U.S. taxpayers
nothing – not only does it support itself through charges for its services, it
regularly sends money to the U.S. Treasury to reduce its debt. Last year, it sent
$1.06 billion to the Treasury, money it earned from interest and fees. Among the
U.S. companies that have obtained loans from the bank are those selling aircraft
and tractors and equipment for drilling rigs, refineries and nuclear energy
facilities. Though the beneficiaries of Ex-Im financing include large corporations, about 70 percent of the 6,000 firms aided
over the past five years have been small businesses seeking to grow and start
exporting. The global market gives them more potential customers for their
products. Congress sets the Ex-Im Bank's lending cap and must reauthorize its charter, which is due to expire in September. If it isn't reauthorized, the agency will be unable to
back new financing and will essentially be put out of business. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers warn that failure to renew the bank's charter would
put U.S. companies at a disadvantage because other countries have agencies
offering similar support. For the U.S. to close the Ex-Im Bank amounts to
surrendering export markets and thousands of jobs in the U.S. Close to 60
countries – including Great Britain, France, Germany and China – offer even greater financial support to promote
their exports. A study by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development determined that export credit agencies
worldwide have extended more than $1 trillion in trade finance credit in recent
ideological arguments are worrying to me in this case, especially given the danger that
years. Exports of American goods and services have played a large part in the U.S.
economic recovery.
***AFF ANSWERS
Won't Pass
Reauthorization won't occur - too much opposition to competing reform efforts being
tied to reauthorization vote
Conservatives may be headlining the opposition to the Export-Import Bank, but the efforts of coalfriendly 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.
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.
No reauthorization coming - passage losing momentum due to corruption
investigation
Palleta 7/17/14 [Damian Palleta, covers economic policy for The Wall Street Journal's Washington
bureau; “House Panel Launches Corruption Probe of Export-Import Bank”; Wall Street Journal; Published
17 July 2014 @ http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-panel-launches-corruption-probe-of-exportimport-bank-1405621474] Tusnial
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched a probe into possible
corruption at the Export-Import Bank, pressing the agency for details about the recent departure of four employees. The
panel's chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), and Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) sent a letter to Export-Import Bank
Chairman Fred Hochberg asking for more information after a June 23 Wall Street Journal article that
described the departures. One former Exim employee, Johnny Gutierrez, worked in the short-term trade
finance division and is under investigation for allegedly accepting cash payments in exchange for trying
to help a Florida company obtain U.S. government financing to export construction equipment to Latin
America. The article said Mr. Gutierrez had been placed on leave and was under investigation by the
inspector general. His name was removed from Exim's website after inquiries from The Wall Street Journal. At a congressional hearing
after the article ran, Mr. Hochberg said the report was "actually a good article. It says to our staff...If you are
doing any funny business, we are on to you." He didn't, however, comment on specifics of any personnel moves. In their
letter, Messrs. Issa and Jordan said the "allegations call into question the Bank's commitment to high
ethical standards" and they said Mr. Hochberg's testimony to Congress has "compounded these
concerns," because, they allege, it was unclear what part of the agency enforces possible breaches of
ethics. They called for Mr. Hochberg to provide information about the four officials who have been
removed, all documents related to the material in The Wall Street Journal article, documents regarding
ethics and compliance, and documents pertaining to allegations about conflicts of interest, kickbacks
and related matters. They requested that all of the information be provided by July 23. The letter comes at a tenuous time
for the agency. Congress is debating whether to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank's charter, and if it
doesn't act by Sept. 30 the agency will no longer be able to extend new credit guarantees to U.S.
exporters. The bank and its supporters have said that a failure to reauthorize the 80-year-old bank will hurt exports
and cause companies to cut jobs, but critics of the agency have said the bank picks winners and losers and inappropriately
interferes in capital markets. A number of powerful Republicans in the House, including incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of
California, budget panel chief Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and financial services chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, all oppose the agency's
reauthorization.
Won't pass - too many internal divisions amongst the Democrats
Cornwell and Volcovci 07-08
[Susan and Valerie,
“Democrats grapple with own divisions over renewing Ex-Im Bank,” Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-usa-exim-idUSKBN0FE02G20140709] ttate
(Reuters) - Democrats
charter, an
are struggling with their own differences over legislation to renew the Export-Import Bank's
issue that has long been a source of tension between Tea Party and pro-business Republicans. Democrats, who control the
Senate, largely favor keeping alive the bank. The agency, which provides credit to foreign purchasers of U.S. exports, will be forced to close its doors if Congress
does not act to renew its charter by Sept. 30. To spur momentum on legislation to reauthorize the bank, Democrats
are considering moving a
reauthorization bill in the Senate this month. The issue would then move to the Republican-dominated
House of Representatives, where renewal would face a tougher road because of strong opposition by some
conservatives. But Democrats are debating whether to include a provision broadening Ex-Im's ability to
extend credit to companies using U.S. equipment and other products in the building of coal-fired plants. The provision would overturn restrictions put in place by
the Obama administration limiting the bank's financing for coal-fired plants to buyers in only the world's poorest countries. Senator Joe Manchin, who hails from the
coal-producing state of West Virginia, is crafting a bill that would reauthorize Ex-Im for five years while also expanding the number of countries where Ex-Im can
finance coal-fired power plants from 69 to 82. This would allow for the financing of projects in emerging economies, such as India and Vietnam, which are interested
in expanding coal-based electricity. Manchin contends the change would help preserve jobs in the struggling U.S. coal industry that has been hit by competition
from natural gas and environmental restrictions. But many
other Democrats fear the provision would be a setback for
President Barack Obama's agenda of fighting climate change. They argue the party would be better off pursuing a more
a streamlined reauthorization bill. "I’d like us to stick to our knitting here and get Ex-Im reauthorized. We’ve got a lot of places we can fight over
carbon," said Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. Democrats are under pressure to reauthorize Ex-Im, both from businesses such as Boeing Co and
Caterpillar Inc, as well as labor unions, a key constituency for the party. Customers of big U.S. companies such as Boeing are among the biggest beneficiaries of ExIm. REPUBLICAN COSPONSORS Backers say the bank supports thousands of U.S. jobs and helps American businesses compete abroad. Republican critics label the
bank an example of "crony capitalism" and an effort by the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat,
has said he believed the Senate should act this month to reauthorize Ex-Im. But a Senate leadership aide said there
is no guarantee that the
chamber will vote on it in July. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not yet taken a position on Manchin’s
proposal. As Democrats weigh Manchin's proposal, his bill has attracted two Republican co-sponsors, Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Roy Blunt of Missouri.
Although the Republican-run House is the bigger hurdle to the bank’s reauthorization, any reauthorization bill also needs to attract at least
five Republican senators to meet the 60-vote threshold for overcoming procedural hurdles in the Senate.
No Link - GOP divisions
The Ex-Im debate is not about bipartisanship or political capital - it is about internal
struggles within the GOP - plan does not affect that
Islam and Crego 07-29 [Frank - entrepreneur and investor and Ed - management consultant, "The
Export-Import Bank Debate: Tempest in the Tea Party Pot", HUFFINGTON POST BUSINESS,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-islam/the-exportimport-bank-deb_b_5627972.html] ttate
What is going on right now is essentially a confrontation between ideology and methodology. The
ideology is that of the Tea Party and conservative Republicans who insist the government should not be
interfering in the free market system. The methodology is the work of the Ex-Im Bank in providing loans, loan guarantees and
credit insurance to help foreign buyers purchase American products and services.
What makes this debate rather unusual is that it basically pits Republican against Republican. Lining up
on the "social conservative" Republican side are groups such as Heritage Action, the Club for Growth
and FreedomWorks. Lining up on the "business" Republican side are groups such as the National
Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Aerospace Industry Association.
Each of the conservative groups has their designated spokespersons and talking points. But, the most
influential person is Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) who chairs the House Financial Services Committee
which oversees the Bank's charter.
Impact D - Small Businesses
No impact - Ex-Im not key to small business - its loan guarantees are directed to a
handful of big businesses
Pye 7/17/14 (Jason- Former Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia, “Stop Obama’s
Crony Bank: Ex-Im distorts the free market by doling out billions to politically-connected big businesses”,
United Liberty, http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/18316-stop-obamas-crony-bank-ex-im-distortsthe-free-market-by-doling-out-billions-to-big-b), Shapiro
Ensuring Ex-Im’s survival has become a pet cause for the cronies at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and other special interest groups. While its supporters claim that the Ex-Im helps small
business, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The Export-Import Bank has become
an ATM for big business, doling out billions in corporate welfare to the politicallyconnected. Boeing received nearly $8 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees from
the Export-Import Bank in FY 2013. That’s 66 percent of the loan guarantees it made in
that fiscal year. Perhaps that’s why Ex-Im has earned the nickname “Boeing’s bank.” Caterpillar hauled in $1.34 billion and
General Electric received $1.7 billion. In 2008, Barack Obama, then a candidate for president, called
out the Export-Import Bank for what it really is: “little more than a fund for corporate
welfare.” That was true then, as it is today. 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. While its apologists claim the Bank
turns a profit, the Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that it will actually
cost taxpayers $2 billion over the next 10 years, under the “fair-value” accounting
method. And contrary to its supporters’ claims, the Ex-Im doesn’t do much to boost U.S.
exports or related jobs, according to research recently published by Veronique de
Rugy of the Mercatus Center. The Bank accounts for less than 2 percent of the total
value of U.S. exports and 2.3 percent of export-related job creation.
Ex-Im bank doesn’t help small businesses
de Rugy 7/17/14 [Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George
Mason University. Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget,
homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy. ; “If you've got a small business,
odds are the Export-Import Bank isn't helping you”; the Washington Examiner; Published 17 July 2014 @
http://washingtonexaminer.com/if-youve-got-a-small-business-odds-are-the-export-import-bank-isnthelping-you/article/2550995] Tusnial
Americans now know the
Export-Import Bank is a corporatist program built on bad economics. Its corporate
beneficiaries are fighting tooth and nail to protect their subsidies. Do not be fooled by their rhetoric. Insider lobbying groups like the
Chamber of Commerce claim the Ex-Im Bank is about small business and jobs. Without the bank, they threaten,
catastrophe will strike average Americans. This is just fear-mongering. The bank only subsidizes less than 2 percent
of exports and jobs and less than 1 percent of small businesses in the U.S. each year. Most of this
support directly benefits a handful of well-connected domestic and foreign firms, like Boeing and General Electric. Sign Up
for the Politics Today newsletter! Unfortunately, Ex-Im supporters know that “promoting small business” is a good
way to conceal toxic Ex-Im corporatism. Take this piece in The Hill by Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., R-La. He argues that the bank
primarily helps small businesses to gain customers, create thousands of jobs, and grow exports. These claims are misleading. First, the
Ex-Im Bank's definition of a “small business” isn't exactly “small.” Most government bodies set the
threshold at firms with fewer than 500 employees. Ex-Im “small businesses” can be three times that
large and earn up to $21 million in annual revenues. This isn't “small” for most Americans. Even with this expansive definition, it is misleading
to imply, as Boustany does, that Ex-Im supports most small business firms and jobs in America. In fact, Ex-Im's effect on U.S. small businesses
and jobs is so tiny that you can hardly see it on the chart above. Data from Census Bureau's Statistics of U.S. Businesses dataset and this ExportImport Bank dataset show that only
0.3 percent of all small business jobs in 2007 (the most recent year for the Census
dataset) were supported by the Ex-Im Bank. Assuming that each Ex-Im small business transaction went to a unique small business,
only 0.04 percent of all small businesses were supported by Ex-Im that year. The pattern is similar on the state
level. Consider Boustany's home state of Louisiana. Census data show that Louisiana exported $355 billion in goods
and services from 2007 to 2014. Ex-Im reports that it supported $1.6 million of Louisiana's exports in
that same time, $786 million of which went to small businesses. This means that only 0.44 percent of Louisiana’s
exports were actually supported by the bank — which is lower than the national average of 1.6 percent. Additionally, Ex-Im
only supported 0.22 percent in exports for small businesses in Louisiana. Boustany either doesn’t know the facts or he doesn’t care. Either way:
Ex-Im is hardly critical for more than 99 percent of small businesses in the U.S. and his own state. That doesn’t stop Boustany from trying to
scare Americans from ending the Export-Import Bank with visions of exports collapsing and economic catastrophe. The sad part is that the
Export-Import Bank actually harms many U.S. small businesses and workers by subsidizing their
competitors. Boustany doesn’t explain that when Ex-Im subsidizes one Louisiana firm, it penalizes all other unsubsidized firms and
workers. Subsidized firms undoubtedly enjoy that these taxpayer-backed subsidies lower their costs and raise their profits, but they come at
the cost of slower wage growth, less hiring, and more layoffs among the other 98 percent of unsubsidized exports. These unsubsidized
Americans shouldn’t matter less than the few privileged firms who receive government subsidies. Boustany is right when he says that
“American
people are tired of Washington politicians playing political games when American jobs are at
stake.” He should look in the mirror. More than 98 percent of jobs and exports in the U.S. bear the unjust costs of Ex-Im privileges for
politically connected few. Members of Congress should represent all of us, not just those of us fortunate to
have friends down at the Export-Import Bank.
Impact Turns - Economy
Reauthorization hurts US economy - causes US businesses to lose revenue and jobs
Katz 7/2/14 [Diane Katz, research fellow in regulatory policy, “EXPORT–IMPORT BANK: CRONYISM
THREATENS AMERICAN JOBS – ANALYSIS”, The Heritage Foundation, published 2 July 2014 @
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02072014-export-import-bank-cronyism-threatens-american-jobsanalysis-2/] Tusnial
The Export–Import Bank (Ex–Im) funnels billions of taxpayer dollars each year to overseas businesses for
the purchase of American products. This subsidized financing is supposedly a win-win proposition for exporters and their
customers abroad. But rare is a subsidy that does not produce disparity elsewhere. In the case of Ex–Im, the losers
include domestic companies that are left to compete against foreign firms bankrolled by the U.S.
government. This and other drawbacks of Ex–Im are important to acknowledge as Congress considers whether to reauthorize the bank
before its charter expires on September 30. The decision should be an easy one. Ex–Im effectively ignores the impact of its
actions on American workers, as well as the risks to taxpayers, while exaggerating the benefits of those
actions. Government authorities have documented a variety of problems with bank operations,[1] but the fact that Ex–Im
financing handicaps at least some American businesses is sufficient reason to end it. Recently, for example,
the bank approved $694 million in financing for U.S. equipment to develop an open-pit iron ore mine in
Australia (owned by the country’s richest woman).[2] The deal was consummated despite warnings from the United
Steel Workers, the Iron Mining Association, and all four Senators from Minnesota and Michigan that the
subsidies would jeopardize thousands of U.S. mining jobs.[3] Global trade benefits the U.S. economy, but
Ex–Im subsidies confer a competitive advantage to a select group of favored firms. Rather than
perpetuate this cronyism, Congress should allow the bank’s charter to expire and undertake tax and
regulatory reforms that would strengthen the competitive position of all U.S. businesses. Economic Impacts
Ignored Foreign firms receive Ex–Im financing to purchase U.S. equipment for manufacturing and resource
extraction or to provide commercial services. However, the bank’s charter[4] prohibits financing under
three conditions: The recipient’s production is likely to create a surplus in world markets; The recipient
competes with U.S. production of the same, similar, or competing commodity; or The financing would
cause “substantial injury” to American producers of the same, similar, or competing commodity. These
statutory prohibitions are intended to balance the interests of U.S. exporters and the domestic firms that
would compete against subsidized businesses overseas. But there is a major loophole: The charter allows the bank’s
board of directors to override the constraints if they decide that a transaction would produce a “net
benefit” to the U.S. economy. In order to determine the potential effects of an export subsidy, the bank is supposed to perform an
economic impact analysis, but a review by Ex–Im’s inspector general (IG) of the analyses conducted between 2002 and 2009 found that the
bank did not address directly several elements of economic impact contemplated by the Charter, omitted relevant data and analysis beyond
that considered necessary to support the staff’s recommendation, did not state the limitations and qualifications of the data, assumptions,
estimates, methods and analysis, did not fully address the sensitivity of the staff’s conclusions to possible changes in assumptions and estimates
that could be reasonably anticipated.[5] Indeed, none of the Ex–Im personnel interviewed by the IG’s office possessed professional training or
expertise related to economic impact analysis. Moreover, the bank does not consider the impact of any finance deal involving less than $10
million, which excludes some 80 percent of Ex–Im transactions. All of this
means that bank officials dole out billions of
taxpayer dollars to foreign firms without a meaningful consideration of the impacts on American
workers and the businesses that employ them. Distorting Competition Every type of industry undergoes booms and busts.
Neither one typically results from a single cause but instead is a product of myriad factors, including changes in demand, currency fluctuations,
and innovation. But government policy can dampen gains and exacerbate losses, which is the case with export subsidies. Ex–Im
financing
of coal mining in Colombia, copper excavation in Mexico, and airplanes for India has been identified as
contributing to losses among domestic firms.[6] The following Ex–Im deals have been cited by lawmakers and industry experts
as examples of just some of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that put domestic firms at a competitive
disadvantage: Australia’s Roy Hill mine ($694 million). The mine’s expected output (over the life of the financing) is
expected to displace nearly $600 million worth of U.S. iron ore exports and cause a reduction of some
$1.2 billion in U.S. domestic sales.[7] South Africa’s Kusile Coal power plant ($805 million); India’s Sasan coal power plant and mine
($917 million). Notwithstanding the Obama Administration’s war on coal,[8] Ex–Im has been a generous source of public financing for coal
projects abroad.[9] These and other projects have exacerbated a 70 percent decline in coal prices since 2008.[10] Mongolia’s Oyu Tolgoi copper
mine ($500 million). The copper from this open-pit and underground mine competes with excavations in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada,
and Montana just as global refined copper production is expected to exceed demand by more than 390,000 metric tons this year.[11] Papua
New Guinea’s Liquid Natural Gas Project ($3 billion). Despite
regulatory challenges faced by U.S. producers of liquid
natural gas, Ex–Im approved $3 billion in financing for development of gas fields, on-shore and off-shore
pipelines extending 400 miles, a gas liquefaction plant, and marine export facilities. Air India ($3.4 billion).
The financing will guarantee the purchase of 27 Boeing aircraft intended for international service, including
U.S. destinations. According to the Air Line Pilots Association, Air India will enjoy rates and terms that are not available to
U.S. airlines, giving it a cost advantage of about $2 million per airplane. Surplus seat capacity resulting from Ex–Im
airline subsidies—totaling about $50 billion between 2005 and 2011—has resulted in the loss of approximately 7,500 U.S. jobs.[12] A NoBrainer Ex–Im beneficiaries argue that export financing preserves American jobs, but the vast majority of bank subsidies benefit very large
corporations that could self-finance or obtain private investment—as is the case for 98 percent of all U.S. exports. Rather than perpetuate these
subsidies, Congress should help all American businesses by reducing corporate tax rates and regulatory burdens. Allowing
the bank’s
charter to expire should be a no-brainer for lawmakers. (Even Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate,
endorsed its end.[13]) With strong growth in privately financed exports, there is no justification for maintaining this Depression-era relic.
Impact D - Trade
Ex-Im Bank irrelevant to global trade - services very few businesses
James 12 (Sallie James is a policy analyst with Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. James writes and speaks on a
variety of trade topics, with a research emphasis on the subject of agricultural trade policy. (“Ending the Export-Import Bank”, October 2012,
CATO, http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/export-import-bank), Shapiro
The Export-Import Bank of the United States was created by executive order in 1934 to “assist in financing U.S. trade with the Soviet Union.” It
was housed in other federal agencies before being established as an independent organization by the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. A sister
bank was also established in 1934 to finance trade with Cuba. The two agencies were merged in 1936. Today, the Ex-Im Bank’s mission is to
The Ex-Im Bank subsidizes a small
group of selected companies, but it claims to create broad benefits for the
economy. The bank’s mission statement says that its activities “help to maintain
and create U.S. jobs and
“assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets.”
contribute to a stronger national economy.” The Ex-Im Bank argues that it does not crowd out private finance, but instead finances
transactions that the private sector will not: “Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders but provides export financing products that fill gaps in trade financing. We assume credit
and country risks that the private sector is unable or unwilling to accept.” The bank’s products include loans, loan guarantees, and credit insurance. The Ex-Im Bank promotes the idea that its
the bank’s activities are not neutral and
thus the bank creates its own distortions in markets. For example, the bank puts
emphasis on politically favored industries such as renewable energy, and it favors
certain industries that it believes have a “high potential for export growth.” The
Ex-Im Bank’s goal of boosting exports and improving the U.S. international trade
balance smacks of mercantilism. The reality is that the U.S. trade balance has more
fundamental causes that aren’t changed by government export subsidies. The
Government Accountability Office has pointed out that “export promotion
programs cannot produce a substantial change in the U.S. trade balance.” The
trade balance is driven largely by macroeconomic factors such as the difference
between the level of savings and investment.
actions correct market failures by filling gaps supposedly left by private credit markets. However,
Impact Turns - Hurts Trade
Ex-Im bank hurts US trade - key cause of US trade deficit
Gelber 11 (Luke- Manager of Media and Policy for Citizens Against Government Waste. (“Four Myths about the ExportImport Bank”, February 28, 2011,http://cagw.org/content/four-myths-about-export-import-bank), Shapiro
Cheap credit from Ex-Im Bank causes demand
for American exports to rise, but either foreign importers purchase
American goods with dollars or the recipients of foreign currencies convert
them to dollars. As a result, importers abroad bid up the dollar’s value, making
business more difficult for all other exporters without the good fortune to
receive Ex-Im Bank financing. Simultaneously, the stronger dollar makes imports
more attractive to American consumers, nullifying any of Ex-Im Bank’s
trade balancing effects. In short, government cannot affect the balance of trade,
and it should stop trying. In the long run, exports must always equal imports. The United States currently runs a trade
deficit with the rest of the world because many foreign exporters, upon
receiving American dollars, choose to invest in American companies or to
purchase American treasury bonds. As a result, the U.S. Capital-Account
surplus, which measures net foreign investment in America, is the largest in the world.
Myth Number Three: Ex-Im Bank improves the balance of trade.
Ex-Im Bank hurts US trade competitiveness - it funds companies that squeeze US
companies out of the market
Darling 12 [Brian Darling, congressional analyst and political commentator, “Top Ten Reasons To End
The Export-Import Bank”, RedState, Published 4th May 2012 @
http://www.redstate.com/diary/brian_d/2012/05/04/top-ten-reasons-to-end-the-export-import-bank/]
Tusnial
Corporate Welfare and Crony Capitalism are the two phrases that come to mind when a free market conservative
hears talk of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. According to The Hill, it looks like the House will take up a Export-Import
bank reauthorization, including a massive $40 billion increase in loan authority, as early as next week. A draft deal negotiated by House
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank extends the life of
the bank by three years and raises its overall lending capacity to $140 billion from $100 billion, sources said. These major components are
closer to the goals of the White House, the Senate Banking Committee and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than to those of opponents of the
Bank such as Heritage Action and the Club for Growth. There
is nothing free market about the idea of the United States
government providing loans to private companies for the purposes of competing against other private
companies. Especially when these large corporations are gaming the system with teams of lobbyists pushing Members of Congress to
reauthorize this taxpayer funded slush fund for big business. If the loans don’t pay off, taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
The Export Import Bank was an FDR creation and reauthorizing the so called “bank” is unwise. Below are the top ten reasons why the Crony
Capitalism/Corporate Welfare bank is bad for America: Export Import Bank is Corporate Welfare – Barack Obama stated publicly that the Export
Import bank is ”little more than a fund for corporate welfare.” Senator Obama was giving a speech about ceasing government programs that
“don’t work” and he specifically referenced the Export Import Bank in September of 2008. Senator Obama was correct. The Export-Import Bank
Provides Politically Appointed Bureucrats the power to Subsidize Politically Popular, and Sometimes not Credit Worthy, Causes – According to
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a Washington Examiner Op Ed dated March 20, 2012, “Ex-Im, as it is known, is a federal program that gives
politically appointed executives power to lend mainly to foreign companies that buy American products and services. Started decades ago with
a lending cap of $5 million, like all federal programs its grown over time and now has a taxpayer subsidized $100 billion cap. Senate Democrats
want to further expand it by 40% to $140 billion. Ex-Im also has specific mandates to subsidize politically-popular causes like green energy.
What’s wrong with this? In principle, it’s
wrong because all companies – foreign and domestic – should compete
on a level playing field, so that success goes to those companies who offer the best products and
services at the lowest prices. In free market finance, we all benefit as businesses compete for investment that follows those with the
best innovations, highest quality, at a price buyers are willing to pay.” Conservatives Oppose Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank –
According to the Conservative Action Project, “with the Federal government saddled with trillion dollars in deficits and debt the Export-Import
Bank should be neither expanded nor reauthorized. We urge all organizations and individuals concerned about the size of the federal
government to issue op-eds, alerts, blog posts, releases, and other communications warning about the implications of reauthorizing of the
Export-Import Bank. Time is short, therefore please do not delay.” The Export-Import Bank has Engaged in Politicized Credit – The Wall Street
Journal argued on March 3, 2012 that “if you thought Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Solyndra would teach Congress a lesson about politicized
credit, think again. The federal Export-Import Bank is up for reauthorization, and the only question seems to be how much more taxpayer
money Washington wants to put at risk. If the GOP wants to have a principled battle about fiscal waste and market distortions, this is a good
one. The ExIm Bank—founded in 1934 to support trade with the Soviet Union, but never mind—provides taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and
other services to U.S. business, especially big exporters.”
The Export-Import Bank Helps Foreign Companies to Compete
Against US Companies - Former Congressman Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth writes in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that “the
most egregious example of how dysfunctional and misguided the Ex-Im Bank’s actions really are is
present in the airline industry. The bank provides financing to foreign airlines that in turn purchase
American aircraft, allowing them to compete against U.S.-based carriers. These foreign companies use
our subsidy to offer lower prices since American companies cannot qualify for this corporate welfare,
and they, in turn, lose business.” Ex-Im Funded A Bankrupt Company – The Ex-Im bank tossed $10.3 million to the now bankrupt
solar panel firm Solyndra in 2011. According to PV Tech “for the first time, Solyndra used the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im
Bank) to facilitate the sale of its modules. Ex-Im Bank is guaranteeing an 18-year €7.7 million loan (U.S. $10.3 million) under its Renewable
Express process that was provided by KBC Bank NV in Belgium, which meant the project financing approval was arranged in only 41 days from
the receipt of the completed application to approval.” Export-Import Bank Sought $3 billion bailout in 1987 – According to an LA Times story
from 1987, “the Export-Import Bank will seek a $3-billion bailout from Congress next month to counter the loss of hundreds of millions of
dollars in capital, the federal agency’s president said in a report published today. John A. Bohn Jr. told the New York Times that he will report to
Congress next month that the bank’s capital has fallen below $1.4 billion, half its 1983 level, and will be wiped out within nine months.” ExportImport Bank Staffers Engaged in Conflicts of Interest – Bloomberg reported on March 25, 2010 that “in the past two years, the (Ex-Im) bank
accepted $366,865 for employee trips, according to information provided under a Freedom of Information Act request. Workers visited projects
sponsored by companies including Newmont Mining Corp., ConocoPhillips, Saudi Aramco and Barrick Gold Corp. Such travel should be banned
because the money may influence the bank’s decisions on billions of dollars in financing, said Craig Holman, a legislative representative at
Public Citizen, an advocacy group based in Washington.” The Export-Import Bank Loaned Money to Hollywood Secured by Foreign Contracts –
The Club for Growth in a press release dated March 29, 2012 wrote” the Club for Growth today issued the following statement criticizing the
Export-Import Bank for guaranteeing loans for the film industry. According to a 2002 press release from the Export-Import Bank, the bank
agreed to back “up to 90%” of the loans secured by foreign contracts for four independent films including: · “The United States of Leland,” a
drama about a troubled youth learning about good and evil · “Lost Treasure,” an action film about a reality-based TV game show · “Global
Effect,” an action film about a lethal virus · “High Voltage,” an action film about a military solar energy project gone awry. Export
Import
Bank May Have Loaned Money to Mexican Drug Cartels – According to WFAA in Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas reported that an
investigation “uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent loans that American taxpayers will have to pay for. The Export
Import Bank of the United States backed the transactions, leading some to question whether the bank
should exist.” WFAA further found that “the man who lives in this posh mansion in Juarez took U.S. taxpayers for $8 million years ago and
he’s still living high inside. And despite $213 million of bad loans to Mexican borrowers on the Texas border, the Export Import Bank of the
United States is opening a branch in McKinney.” The investigation found “found dozens of loans made to companies with nonexistent identities
and addresses and to some people with connections to Mexican drug cartels which leads Congressman Jeb Hensarling to ask: why expand?” It
will be interesting to see how this plays out on the House floor next week. Conservatives should keep a close eye on the progress of the
reauthorization and expanded loan authority for the crony capitalist Export-Import Bank.
Impact Turns - Climate
Reauthorization leads to global warming - Ex-Im Bank funds global coal companies
Natter 7/14/14 [Ari Natter, BNA’s renewable energy and efficiency reporter, “Environmental Groups
Oppose Ex-Im Bank Reauthorization Bill Over Coal Policy Tweak”, Bloomberg BNA, published 14 July
2014 @ http://www.bna.com/environmental-groups-oppose-b17179892305/] Tusnial
Environmental groups are urging Congress to oppose legislation that would reauthorize the ExportImport Bank amidst a fight over a provision that would reverse bank policy limiting the financing of
overseas coal projects. Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and other groups sent a letter
to Senate leadership and President Barack Obama July 11 urging opposition to the bill, crafted by coal proponent
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). “When the Export-Import Bank finances coal projects, negative impacts ensue.
Climate disruption and its effects intensify, the local environment degrades, and developmental, health,
and human rights impacts worsen,” said the letter, which was sent by 11 organizations. The bank, which faces a Sept. 30 deadline
for Congress to reauthorize its charter, has authorized $1.5 billion in financing for coal projects, Linda Formella, a spokeswoman for the bank
told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
Impact Turn - Environment
Ex-Im Bank harms the environment - responsible for massively funding coal companies
and other polluting industries
Natter,7/14/14 [Ari Natter, staff writer for BNA, Environmental Groups oppose Ex-Im Bank
reauthorization bill over coal policy tweak, http://www.bna.com/environmental-groups-opposeb17179892305/] mantis
Environmental groups are urging Congress to oppose legislation that would reauthorize the ExportImport Bank amidst a fight over a provision that would reverse bank policy limiting the financing of
overseas coal projects.
Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and other groups sent a letter to Senate leadership and President Barack Obama July 11
urging opposition to the bill, crafted by coal proponent Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
“When the Export-Import Bank finances coal projects, negative impacts ensue. Climate disruption and
its effects intensify, the local environment degrades, and developmental, health, and human rights
impacts worsen,” said the letter, which was sent by 11 organizations.
The bank, which faces a Sept. 30 deadline for Congress to reauthorize its charter, has authorized $1.5 billion in financing for
coal projects, Linda Formella, a spokeswoman for the bank told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail
Impact Turn - Russian Oil
Ex-Im Bank funds Russian oil industry
Pye 7/15/14 [Jason Pye, Editor-in-Chief of United Liberty, “Here’s another reason to end Ex-Im: The
crony bank spent $580 million last year to finance Russian-owned companies”, Published 15 July 2014 @
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/18292-heres-another-reason-to-end-ex-im-the-crony-bank-spent580-million-last-year-to-financ] Tusnial
Ex-Im increased funding for Russian projects by 177
percent in FY 2013, translating to a $580 million commitment, which the committee says is a record
level. “Hardworking Americans taxpayers should be asking why they’re on the hook for Russian oil
projects funneled to Vladimir Putin’s cronies while they’re struggling to pay for higher gas prices here at
home and NATO issues warnings of further Russian aggression,” the committee explains, pointing to a $1 billion
The House Financial Services Committee noted yesterday that
memorandum of understanding that Ex-Im Chairman Fred Hochberg signed in 2012 with state-owned Sberbank, the largest bank in Russia. The
committee notes that “Ex-Im
worked with Sberbank on a $32.3 million loan involving a Russian petroleum
project.” That deal involved UPO LLC, an oil company owned by Honeywell, a firm with a net-income of more than $3.9 billion, according to
its financial disclosures. Ex-Im claims that the $1 billion deal will increase U.S. exports to and trade with Russia.
“While the agreement is available to support sales in all business sectors for which Ex-Im Bank export-financing support is available,” the 2012
press release states, “Ex-Im sees great potential for U.S. companies is concentrated in aviation, infrastructure, and energy, including both
conventional and renewable energy.” It
just so happens that the Export-Import Bank’s largest domestic
beneficiaries are in the industries in the press release. Boeing, the aerospace manufacturer, for example,
received 66 percent of the loan guarantees the Bank made in FY 2013. Ex-Im has also doled out billions
to energy firms, including green energy companies favored by the Obama administration. Conservative groups
have already highlighted the Export-Import Bank’s ties with Russia. In March, shortly after Putin’s government got involved in
the Ukrainian revolution, the Club for Growth issued a press release in which it explained that Ex-Im had
discussions with Gennady Timchenko, a Russian billionaire and Putin ally, for “U.S. government-backed
funding to buy luxury aircraft.” Timchenko was eventually sanctioned by the Obama administration because of his connections to
Putin. The Club for Growth also pointed to August 2000 report from the Center for Public Integrity which noted that the Export-Import
Bank had “guaranteed $489 million in credits to a Russian oil company whose roots are imbedded in a
legacy of KGB and Communist Party corruption, as well as drug trafficking and organized crime funds.”
The Export-Import Bank, dubbed the “face of cronyism” by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), is facing
extraordinary scrutiny ahead of a reauthorization vote. Because of the uncertainty facing its future, congressional leaders may attach
reauthorization of Ex-Im to a government funding measure expected to come up for a vote by the end of September.
AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS
U
Ex-Im Won’t Pass
Won’t pass – internal conflicts within the Democrats
Susan Cornwell and Valerie Volcovci, Reuters, 7-8-14, “Democrats grapple with own divisions over
renewing Ex-Im Bank,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-usa-eximidUSKBN0FE02G20140709
(Reuters) - Democrats
are struggling with their own differences over legislation to renew the Export-Import Bank's
charter, an issue that has long been a source of tension between Tea Party and pro-business Republicans. Democrats, who control the
Senate, largely favor keeping alive the bank. The agency, which provides credit to foreign purchasers of U.S. exports, will be forced to close its doors if Congress
does not act to renew its charter by Sept. 30. To spur momentum on legislation to reauthorize the bank, Democrats
are considering moving a
reauthorization bill in the Senate this month. The issue would then move to the Republican-dominated
House of Representatives, where renewal would face a tougher road because of strong opposition by some
conservatives. But Democrats are debating whether to include a provision broadening Ex-Im's ability to
extend credit to companies using U.S. equipment and other products in the building of coal-fired plants. The provision would overturn restrictions put in place by
the Obama administration limiting the bank's financing for coal-fired plants to buyers in only the world's poorest countries. Senator Joe Manchin, who hails from the
coal-producing state of West Virginia, is crafting a bill that would reauthorize Ex-Im for five years while also expanding the number of countries where Ex-Im can
finance coal-fired power plants from 69 to 82. This would allow for the financing of projects in emerging economies, such as India and Vietnam, which are interested
in expanding coal-based electricity. Manchin contends the change would help preserve jobs in the struggling U.S. coal industry that has been hit by competition
from natural gas and environmental restrictions. But many
other Democrats fear the provision would be a setback for
agenda of fighting climate change. They argue the party would be better off pursuing a more
a streamlined reauthorization bill. "I’d like us to stick to our knitting here and get Ex-Im reauthorized. We’ve got a lot of places we can fight over
President Barack Obama's
carbon," said Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. Democrats are under pressure to reauthorize Ex-Im, both from businesses such as Boeing Co and
Caterpillar Inc, as well as labor unions, a key constituency for the party. Customers of big U.S. companies such as Boeing are among the biggest beneficiaries of ExIm. REPUBLICAN COSPONSORS Backers say the bank supports thousands of U.S. jobs and helps American businesses compete abroad. Republican critics label the
bank an example of "crony capitalism" and an effort by the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat,
has said he believed the Senate should act this month to reauthorize Ex-Im. But a Senate leadership aide said there
is no guarantee that the
chamber will vote on it in July. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not yet taken a position on Manchin’s
proposal. As Democrats weigh Manchin's proposal, his bill has attracted two Republican co-sponsors, Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Roy Blunt of Missouri.
Although the Republican-run House is the bigger hurdle to the bank’s reauthorization, any reauthorization bill also needs to attract at least
five Republican senators to meet the 60-vote threshold for overcoming procedural hurdles in the Senate.
Won’t pass – House Republicans block
Reid J. Epstein, covers national politics and is the lead writer for Washington Wire from The Wall Street
Journal's Washington bureau, 6-25-14, “Schumer, McCain Say Ex-Im Bank Faces Tough Odds,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/25/schumer-mccain-say-ex-im-bank-faces-tough-odds/
The senators, speaking at Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal breakfast, said there
isn’t much hope that House Republicans will
reauthorize the bank, which helps support U.S. exports through a wide range of programs, including guaranteeing loans to foreign
buyers and providing credit insurance. And while both said they’re for keeping the 80-year-old bank, neither sounded an optimistic
tone that it can pass the House, though Mr. Schumer said he has hope it can pass the Senate and then advance through a
conference committee. One problem, Mr. Schumer said, is that House Financial Services Committee ChairmanJeb
Hensarling (R., Texas), who opposes the bank’s reauthorization, may run against incoming House Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) in 2015. Mr. Hensarling passed on a leadership campaign this month after Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.)
was ousted in a primary. “I think it’s likely to happen that the House won’t pass it. I think the dynamic within the House that
Jeb Hensarling is very much against it, he might run for majority leader and he frightens McCarthy,” Mr.
Schumer said. “I still hope we can pass it in a bipartisan way in the Senate” and then save the bank in a conference committee. Mr.
McCarthy on Sunday announced he’ll oppose extending the bank’s charter, which expires Sept. 30.
Won’t pass – too partisan
Frank James, reported for The Wall Street Journal for nearly 10 years, 6-25-14, “New House
Leadership Puts Export Bank On Shakier Ground,” http://apr.org/post/new-house-leadership-putsexport-bank-shakier-ground
The Export-Import Bank, created
by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 to boost U.S. exports during the Great Depression, needs
its charter to be reauthorized by September's end if it is to continue providing loans to U.S. exporters and overseas companies. The
bank has the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, so it sounds like an easy vote. But Cantor was recently defeated in his
primary by David Brat, the libertarian college professor who portrayed the soon-to-be-ex-majority leader as a shameless tool of big
business. That's the most important thing to know to understand why, during an election year, the Ex-Im Bank's political position is eroding, at
least outwardly. Right now, reauthorization seems rather iffy. On Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner
wouldn't tell
reporters whether he supported reauthorization, saying instead, "We are going to continue to work with our members" and
"We are going to work our way through this." Boehner indicated he would wait for a Wednesday hearing of the House Financial Services
Committee and would listen to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the committee's chairman, for a proposed way forward. Hensarling opposes reauthorizing
the bank, so that message from the speaker wasn't likely to perk up the bank's supporters. The title of Wednesday's
hearing, by the way, is, "Examining Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank: Corporate Necessity or Corporate Welfare?" The witness list,
incidentally, gave a sense of the complexity of the support for or opposition to the bank. The leadoff panel was scheduled to include the
president of the Air Line Pilots Association and the CEO of Delta Air Lines. The union hasn't been against the bank per se, but it does oppose
bank support for non-U.S. airlines that are purchasing wide-body airliners when U.S. carriers can't get the same favorable financing. Delta
Airlines' CEO has had a similar criticism but is making it clear he supports the bank in principle. Providing less ambivalent support for the bank
will be the CEO of FirmGreen, a clean-energy technology company that has said uncertainties over the bank's future have already cost it
overseas business. Clearly opposing the bank will be a scholar with the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who argues
that corporate behemoths like Boeing and General Electric get the most benefit and that their political contributions purchase support for the
bank. Boehner's
cryptic comments were especially unpromising for the bank, since the new House
majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, was a lot less sphinxlike than Boehner, saying over the
weekend that he opposes reauthorizing the bank. Asked directly by host Chris Wallace during a Fox News Sunday interview if
he would "allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire in September," he said: "Yes, because it's something that the private sector can
be able to do." For conservatives who consider themselves free-market purists, the bank is the epitome of their despised "crony capitalism,"
like the bailouts of Wall Street that occurred at the start of the Great Recession in 2008. It was anger over those bailouts and other Washington
spending that put taxpayer money in the service of big business that fed much of the anger that gave birth to the Tea Party movement.
McCarthy channeled that sentiment when he said on Fox News Sunday, "One of the problems with government is it's going to take hard-earned
money so others do things that the private sector can do. That's what Ex-Im Bank does." Whether the private sector can or will actually take up
the slack that would be left if the bank can't continue on is a debate for a different blog post. It's sufficient to say the bank's supporters assert
that the private sector won't, because the risks are just too great. This would leave many U.S. exporters at a disadvantage, with overseas
competitors helped by governments with few to no qualms about subsidizing their own industries. The
bank fight is the latest
example of an economic issue breaking down the usual partisan barricades in Washington. The White House and
congressional Democrats are joined by dozens of House Republicans and business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in pushing for the
bank's reauthorization. The bank pays for itself out of the fees it collects, they say, so taxpayers don't pay anything. It's also a matter of
supporting U.S. jobs.
Generic Won’t Pass
Generic won’t pass
Cristina Marcos, The Hill, 7-13-14, “A 'do-nothing Congress'?” http://thehill.com/blogs/flooraction/212041-a-do-nothing-congress
Capitol Hill’s reputation as the “do-nothing Congress” is well-deserved. The current session of Congress
is on track to pass historically fewer laws of substance, according to an analysis by The Hill. In fact, the major bills
that have cleared the 113th Congress to date are nearly all "must-pass" measures or reauthorizations of existing
law. [READ LAWS PASSED BY THE 113TH CONGRESS.] Laws of substance under The Hill's analysis are defined as bills that are non-ceremonial
and have some tangible impact on policy, even if it is as minor as a land transfer. Ceremonial measures passed by this
Congress include naming post offices, awarding Congressional Gold Medals and naming a section of the
tax code after former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). Out of the 126 laws passed by the 113th Congress so far, only 99 are considered
substantive and not related to ceremonial recognitions. By contrast, 144 laws had been enacted at this same point in the last Congress, and 105
of those were non-ceremonial. As those numbers have dwindled, so has Congress’s approval rating. Still, members are acutely
aware of how they're perceived. A recent Gallup poll found just seven percent had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress -the lowest score it had ever recorded for any institution. "It's an embarrassment," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who has served since
2005. Cleaver recounted a scene he recently witnessed at an airport where he watched a Democratic member of Congress tell a stranger that
he merely did "work for the government." He declined to name the lawmaker. The Missouri Democrat described frustration with the House
churning through bills that quickly stall in the Senate. "A
Everybody knows it," Cleaver said.
lot of the things that pass we know will not go anywhere.
LINK
No link, they either offshore oil drilling or
Oceans = Bipartisan
Ocean policy overwhelmingly bipart – WRRDA proves oceans are unique
Hower 14(Mike-journalist on sustainability, social entrepreneurship, tech, politics and law, previously work for the United States
Congress, 5/30/2014, Triple Pundit, “Congress Sends 123 billion on water infrastructure bill”, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/congresssends-12-3-billion-water-infrastructure-bill-obamas-desk/)
The future of our oceans, rivers, coastlines and other waterways is looking much brighter, thanks to the passing of a
$12.3 billion water infrastructure projects bill by the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The Water Resources Reform and
Development Act (WRRDA) addresses management of U.S. waterways and coasts and includes billions of dollars in high-impact projects.
Assuming President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, it will be the first federal water infrastructure authorization since 2007. The bill is the
product of several months of Senate-House negotiations, as the two chambers worked to resolve disagreements over which projects should
receive congressional funding. When negotiations first commenced, the House had passed a partisan amendment offered by Congressman Bill
Flores (R-TX) that would block the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing the National Ocean Policy, which promotes smart ocean
planning and ocean protection. Conversely, the Senate included a provision offered by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which would
establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO) to support conservation and restoration of ocean resources. In the final WRDA bill, the
Flores provision was axed while the Whitehouse provision passed. The Flores provision would have made it much more difficult to protect
important habitat and ocean wildlife; build climate resilience; address changing ocean conditions like ocean acidification; encourage sustainable
use; and provide greater certainty for businesses and other ocean users. Luckily, the provision failed and Congress preserved a policy that
promotes smart ocean planning and science-based management of our resources. The Whitehouse provision authorizes the Corps, in
coordination with states, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders, to undertake studies to determine the feasibility of projects to
enhance ocean and coastal ecosystem resilience. The studies will help the Corps identify specific projects, such as restoring wetlands that offer
protection from storms, making beaches more resilient to erosion and helping ecosystems adapt to sea level rise. The measure passed despite
strong opposition from the influential conservative group Heritage Action, which urged lawmakers to vote against it. Heritage Action said the
bill “hikes spending while doing little to reduce bureaucracy and limit the role of the federal government.” However, the
bill was passed
412-4 by the House, and 91-7 in the Senate. For a branch of government that can barely pass a budget,
this is a rare example of bona fide bipartisanship. “This legislation is a reminder–an unfortunately stark
reminder—that given a chance to work together in a bipartisan fashion, we can produce results for the American
people,” said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).
Ocean policy has political support – saturation point in leaders and Congress was
reached
Farr 10 (Sam, Sea Technology Magazine, January 2010 “ The Ocean and the Congress - Sea Technology Magazine”, Congressman Sam Farr,
http://www.farr.house.gov/index.php/commentary-92328/654-the-ocean-and-the-congress-sea-technology-magazine)
I believe that in the coming years, we'll look back at 2009 as a turning point for ocean management, conservation and
science. It may take some time to get the necessary programs and initiatives online, but I believe a strong foundation is being established. The
year got off to a great start when President Obama, during his inauguration speech, vowed to "restore science to its rightful place." Even better,
he quickly followed through on that promise, appointing prominent scientists to lead several key agencies: physicist Stephen Chu at the
Department of Energy; ecologist Jane Lubchenco at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and geophysicist Marcia McNutt at
the U.S. Geological Survey. Congress has had some early successes capitalizing on this new mindset. We
were able to inject
additional funding into basic research and other scientific programs through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
We also passed the Omnibus Public Lands Act, a package that included a number of marine related bills. Key ocean-related legislation included
in the package of bills was the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act; the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring
Act; the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act; the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act; the NOAA Ocean Exploration
and Undersea Research Act; and a bill I introduced, the Ocean Research and Exploration Enhancement Act, which establishes two important
ocean research programs: the National Undersea Research Program and the National Ocean Exploration Program Many other ocean-related
bills are receiving attention in both the House and Senate, including measures to restrict illegal fishing and shark finning; protect coral reefs;
promote environmental education; and fund research to understand harmful algal blooms. The House has also passed the STEM Education
Coordination Act, which would make advances in the coordination of federal programs that support science, technology, engineering and math
education. But as we've seen over the past few months, these individual efforts have been overshadowed by larger debates consuming public
opinion and congressional floor time, namely health care and climate change. But not all the obstacles we've faced this year in our efforts to
reform ocean policy have been setbacks. Just as my own reform efforts began to pick up traction in Congress, the White House weighed in by
creating a Presidential Ocean Policy Task Force, made up of the heads of several agencies with jurisdiction over ocean issues and headed up by
the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The president asked the task force to recommend a national ocean policy and a strategy for
incorporating marine spatial planning into our activities regarding the ocean. He also requested a framework within which to implement both
the national ocean policy and the marine spatial planning strategy. These charges were intended to build on existing recommendations,
including reports from the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. These reports, combined with my own Oceans-21
legislation, provide a fairly comprehensive foundation on which President Obama could develop his own platform. That these actions were
taken at all is a great step forward, but the fact that they were made so early in his White House tenure is a clear signal that President Obama is
serious about reforming ocean policy. By the time this column is printed, the task force should have already issued its final recommendations
for public comment. Thirty days later, in early January, the final recommendations are scheduled to be submitted to the president. Everyone in
the ocean policy community is hopeful that President Obama will act quickly to make those recommendations official. But administrative action
by itself isn't enough. In Congress, we are working to develop legislation to compliment whatever those executive actions may be. One thing is
for sure: there will be components in need of legislative reinforcement and gaps that can only be addressed by Congress. I believe Oceans-21,
which I have written about here in the past, will fill many of those gaps. As drafted, H.R. 21 accomplishes many of the goals the task force
suggested in its interim report. Oceans-21 establishes a national ocean policy, strengthens NOAA and creates both national and regional
governance structures, comprising federal and state participants.. So the next steps for comprehensive reform are largely dependent on how
the administration applies the recommendations from the task force and how Congress moves to complement the White House. What I do
believe has already become
clear is that the political will to enact these changes has reached a saturation
point. We have leaders in the White House and federal agencies and the desire in Congress to ensure that the
manner in which we treat the ocean promotes its long-term sustainability for future generations.
INTERNAL LINK
No Bipart Now
Partisanship is prevalent – proven by a non-controversial policy
Ben Leubsdorf, USA Today‘s Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page gave young Leubsdorf praise on
national TV for an award he received last week from the New Hampshire Press Association, 7-10-14
“Partisan Divide Over Fed on Display as Congressional Panel Considers Bill,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/07/10/partisan-divide-over-fed-on-display-as-congressionalpanel-considers-bill/
The polarization
of American politics now extends to the issue of whether interest rates should be determined by
mathematical formulas. The House Financial Services Committee on Thursday discussed a bill that would, among other things,
require theFederal Reserve to adopt a formal rule to guide monetary policy decisions to tighten or ease credit. An
oft-cited model is the “Taylor rule,” which calculates changes in the benchmark federal funds rate based on measures of inflation and economic
output. “I
don’t think this should be a partisan issue in any way,” said Stanford University economist John Taylor, namesake
it is. Republicans introduced the bill this week and expressed
support for it Thursday as a sensible move to improve transparency and performance at the central
bank. Democrats condemned it as an assault on the Fed’s independence. A “clear, predictable rule” for policy would be “free from political
of the rule, as he testified in support of the legislation. But
micromanagement,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), the panel’s chairman. The Fed’s “independence and discretion must be paired with
appropriate transparency and accountability,” he added. The committee’s top Democrat, California Rep. Maxine Waters, countered that the bill
would “cripple the Federal Reserve’s ability to promote growth, stabilize the economy and, at times of extraordinary crisis, take decisive action
to avoid an economic collapse.” The
stark divide isn’t surprising, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
professor of political science at George Washington University. “This degree of partisanship, and what people called the
‘polarization of parties,’ really seeps into all aspects of policy,” she said. “I see these disagreements as
emblematic of the parties’ different positions on, ‘how do you improve the state of the economy?’” Public
criticism of the Fed has grown louder since the 2008 financial crisis, when the central bank began engaging in high-profile and unconventional
policies intended to stabilize the financial system and, subsequently, to bolster the U.S. economy.
UX – no bipartisanship now
HD, Herald Dispach, a newspaper from Huntington WV, 7-1-14, “Editorial: As partisanship grows, public
loses confidence in institutions,” http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x720298094/Editorial-Aspartisanship-grows-public-loses-confidence-in-institutions
This has been most evident in Congress, and a trend that has grown significantly during the last two
presidencies. Democrats, in control of both chambers of Congress at the time, managed to push through health care
reform in 2010 without a single Republican vote. Once the Republicans gained control of the U.S. House
later in 2010, they have wasted much time trying to repeal that law while knowing such actions would
go nowhere. Now, Democrats, worried about losing control of the Senate in the elections this
November, are sidestepping taking up any important issues because they fear the consequences. President
Obama, for his part, has been accused of refusing to work with Republicans and has drawn criticism for
bending laws to suit his purposes. And the ideological split on the Supreme Court is evident in many of its decisions. Part
of the divisiveness in our government today can be attributed to the highly polarized differences between voters on the
more extreme left and right and the relatively quiet voices of those with moderate views. As politicians strive
to please those on the extremes, they are less prone to look for more moderate solutions of any kind.
Bipart Fails
Bipart fails- Republicans lashing out against Obama’s use of executive power
Carl P. Leubsdorf, the former Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News, 7-6-14,
“Leubsdorf: Models of bipartisanship not likely to gain traction,”
http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2014-07-06/leubsdorf-models-bipartisanship-not-likely-gain-traction
Leubsdorf: Models of
bipartisanship not likely to gain traction In politically gridlocked Washington, both
sides are frustrated. Each is basically blaming its failures on the opposition’s misuse of powers. House
Speaker John Boehner launched the latest round, seeking to halt President Barack Obama’s repeated use of
executive actions to bypass congressional resistance to his “year of action.” Obama has revised procedures for his
signature health care law that a normally functioning Congress should have fixed, granted amnesty to
thousands of young immigrants in the country illegally, limited carbon emissions from power plants, and
refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
Partisanship is key – reaching out just hurts Obama’s agenda
Robert Kuttner, author of "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a
Transformative Presidency," and co-editor of The American Prospect., December 15th 2008, “The Post,
Post-Partisan President,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/the_post_postpartisan_presiden.html
Here is an easy prediction: When President Obama
reaches that hand of bipartisanship across the aisle, he will find
that the Republicans bite it. Of course, it is smart politics to pick off Republicans for a progressive agenda wherever possible. Splitting
the Republicans is much better than splitting the difference. By January, when Congress takes up the emergency stimulus bill, unemployment
will be heading toward double digits, and state and local governments will be slashing public services. In that emergency climate, Obama may
well get some Republicans to cross over and vote for a Democratic plan. But that
strategy is not being bipartisan. It is being
an astute partisan. And there will be many other times when Obama will need to rally all of his
Democrats to enact progressive legislation over the strenuous objection of most Republicans. This
economic emergency and its political opportunity is no time to compromise for the sake of hollow unity.
If Obama can win over a few Republicans for a progressive program, great. If he put can Republicans in the position of
haplessly opposing popular and urgently needed legislation, so much the better. By the end of his first year,
either Obama will have put the economy on the path to recovery based on a progressive program that represents a radical ideological shift; if
he achieves that, he will have done it with precious little Republican support. Alternatively, much of his program will have been blocked by
Republican filibusters enabled by a few conservative Democratic allies.
No bipartisanship – Republicans have no incentive and its already too polarized
Benjamin Knoll, political science professor at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, November 7th 2010,
“Prospects for “bipartisanship” in the 112th Congress,”
http://informationknoll.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/prospects-for-bipartisanship-in-the-112thcongress/
Prospects for “bipartisanship” in the 112th Congress In a word: “zilch”. It would be nice if the results of last Tuesday’s election
prompted our political leaders to seek common ground, put aside their differences, and do what’s best for the future of the country. But it’s not
going to happen. Why? For several reasons, including these two: 1. There
are fewer moderate members of Congress now.
Most of the Democrats who were swept out of office last week were moderate Democrats from conservative
districts. Ideologically speaking, the “average” Democrat in the House is now much more liberal than the “average” Democrat in the last
Congress. And because
of the election of a number of Tea Party Republicans, the “average” Republican is
now going to be much more conservative. The two parties in Congress will now be even more
ideologically polarized, if such a thing were possible. 2. It’s election season. Again. But not for 2010; for 2012. Yep, the 2012
presidential campaign began last Wednesday morning. Politically speaking, Republicans have very little incentive to provide
President Obama with any sort of legislative victory, as it would only aid his reelection chances in 2012. Thus, they will
be even less likely to want to “compromise” than they were before last week’s election, making the
prospects for “bipartisan” accomplishments on any substantive piece of legislation very, very unlikely.
Lack of moderates means that bipartisanship fails
John Barron, Research Associate at the US Studies Centre and teaches a winter course in US campaign
politics and the media, November 4th 2010, “The doughnut election,”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/04/3056619.htm?site=thedrum
Already president Obama
is being urged to "shift to the political centre" - to do as Bill Clinton did after he suffered massive
losses in the 1994 mid-terms and abandon more divisive agenda items like health care and gays serving openly
in the military. But even some Clinton insiders, like former labor secretary Robert Reich, say the political centre just doesn't
exist - shift to the centre and you'll find you are all alone. American politics is more like a doughnut. And
this is clearly a problem for any attempts at bipartisanship. When the democrats enjoyed a 60-40 Senate
majority, there was no need to compromise. Which was just as well because there were only one or two moderate Republicans
who might have ever considered a compromise. Usually when a chamber like the Senate swings back to closer to 5050 that means you'll get more moderates in swinging electorates prepared to cut a deal and cross the
floor. But not this time. Tea Party-backed freshmen Republican senators like Rand Paul from Kentucky and Marco
Rubio in Florida immediately become the least likely to join with the Democrats. And Democrats like Evan Bayh of Indiana
who frequently voted with the Republicans saw the writing on the wall and quit politics this year in disgust, while liberals capable of
bipartisandship like Russ Feingold of Wisconsin got creamed.
Bipart fails – Obamacare makes cooperation impossible
Elahe Izadi and Clare Foran, National Journal, September 15th 2013, “Why Congress Sometimes Can’t
Even Pass Moderate, Bipartisan Bills,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/why-congress-sometimescan-t-even-pass-moderate-bipartisan-bills-20130915
With the debate over Syria on hold, the Senate's return to business began simply enough last week with a moderate energy bill, the first in six
years. Surely,
Congress could work on a piece of legislation that has been hammered out over two years and enjoys wide,
bipartisan support. But by week's end, work on the bill came to a halt as one lawmaker insisted on a vote over
an unrelated, political divisive issue: Obamacare. The energy bill's fate demonstrates that even when
lawmakers can overcome the difficult politics of any particular issue—in this case, energy policy—it isn't always
enough to pass legislation through regular order. "Things are so bad right now that even a bill that has
been radically watered down can't get through the Senate without getting wrapped up in procedural
shenanigans," says Jim Manley, former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Meh Bipart Turn (Econ)
Bipartisanship is bad – leads to worse policies overall because of political
compromises – kill the economy
Jamelle Bouie, staff writer at The Daily Beast, 2-5-14, “Bipartisanship is Ruining America,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/bipartisanship-is-ruining-america.html
Whatever else its virtues—and there are few—the
farm bill, passed yesterday by the Senate after a drawn out fight in the House, is a
good illustration of what’s wrong with our national fetish for bipartisanship. Passed in both chambers with support
from both sides of the aisle, the bill is a classic Washington compromise—lawmakers traded priorities, made
deals, and came away with something that everyone could support. The problem, however, is that the
“something” is an awful betrayal of our most vulnerable Americans. This year’s farm bill cuts nearly $9 billion from the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—hitting 850,000 households with reduced benefits—while providing tens of billions in subsidies to
a small group of wealthy farmers and agricultural conglomerates. If this is wasteful in normal economic times, then it’s indefensible in the
present moment, given the hundreds of thousands of families who rely on food stamps to feed their families and make ends meet. Yes, the
average benefit cut amounts to “just” $90, but for a low-income family of four, that’s a huge reduction in spending power. And when you
combine that with the failure to extend emergency unemployment benefits, which affects many of the same households, what you have is a
group of people who—for no reason at all—have been pushed from desperation into destitution. But these
awful,
counterproductive measures are almost par for the course when it comes to bipartisan policymaking.
The last three years of deficit reduction, for instance, were achieved with bipartisan policies (like sequestration) that
reduced the deficit at the cost of a slower economy and higher unemployment. Indeed, it’s noteworthy that calls for
bipartisanship are often connected to calls for debt reduction or “grand bargains.” These “difficult choices” wouldn’t be
possible without bipartisan cooperation, which provides cover to politicians who want to cut retirement benefits and
reduce spending on social services. It’s a way for parties to muddy the water for voters, who have a
harder time holding the right lawmakers responsible—if everyone is responsible for a bad idea, then in effect, no one is. Say
what you will about the Affordable Care Act, but its method of passage—a party line vote by Democrats—was helpful to voters. If you didn’t
like Obamacare, then you knew who to vote against, and if you liked it, you knew who to support. By contrast, if you want to register your
opposition to the farm bill, who do you vote against? The Republicans who pushed the cuts to food stamps, or the Democrats who agreed to
them? More broadly, it’s more than clear that—at this juncture in American politics—the
only way to accomplish anything
productive is through partisan action. If you want to see policy movement in 2016 or beyond, you should for
one party or the other to win full control of government. No, it won’t be “bipartisan,” but what Congress
does is more important than how it does it. All of this is why it’s frustrating to see pundits praise
bipartisanship for its own sake. Yes, compromise isn’t a bad thing, and in our system, it’s a necessary part of lawmaking. But let’s
stop treating it as inherently virtuous. It’s just one process among many, and often, it leads to bad outcomes.
Meh Ex-Im Turn (Econ)
Ex-im killing the economy- supporting foreign companies, decreasing U.S. profits,
putting tax payers on hook for defaulted loans
Wood 7/12(Genevieve, advocates policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to
The Foundry, which the think tank is repositioning in 2014 from blog to top media brand for news,
analysis and commentary from a conservative perspective, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “The case
against the Export-Import Bank”, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/the-case-against-the-exportimport-bank-b99306824z1-266822661.html)
You can tell a lot about a piece of legislation by looking at who is for it and who is against it. The battle over whether to keep the Export-Import
Bank alive is a case in point. The Ex-Im
Bank was established during FDR's administration to encourage more
trade with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is no longer, but — like most government programs — the Ex-Im Bank lives on. Today, the ExIm Bank gives loans at discount rates to foreign companies worldwide to buy products and services from
U.S. companies. The problem? It creates an unfair playing field for American companies. Take Delta Airlines,
which pays full price for the planes it purchases from Boeing, yet has to compete with Air China, which buys
planes from Boeing with subsidized loans through the Ex-Im Bank. Airlines for America estimates the Ex-Im loans
to foreign airlines have killed 7,500 jobs at domestic airlines in the U.S. And Ex-Im even subsidizes loans to companies
in nations hostile to the U.S., such as Russia and Venezuela. But there's an additional problem: If a foreign company
defaults on its loan, it is American taxpayers who are on the hook. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those in favor
of Ex-Im give example after example of "small" businesses that benefit from Ex-Im. They suggest that all this commerce would dry up if Ex-Im
did not exist to make the loans and credit guarantees. Here's the reality: Of
the $2.2 trillion export business that takes place
in the U.S. economy each year, only 2% is made possible by the folks at Ex-Im. That means 98% of export loans
take place without any help from Ex-Im. Seems the majority of U.S. companies in the export business are
successful without handouts from Washington. One of those two-percenters, a business owner in Texas who benefits from ExIm loans, recently said, "As a business owner, it's easier to sleep at night knowing that if something were to happen, I could have Ex-Im Bank
help me out." Yes, it must be
nice knowing that if you make business deals that go belly up, you aren't on the
hook; the taxpayer is. Additionally, just last month, the Congressional Budget Office reported that Ex-Im credit programs are
operating at a deficit that will cost taxpayers close to $2 billion over the next 10 years. But, wait; Ex-Im
supporters say the bank is contributing to the U.S. economy. What's the back story? The accounting folks at Ex-Im aren't using the same
accounting standards all private banks and lenders are required to use. When they are forced to run their numbers
through fair-value accounting analysis, like everyone else, guess what? There's a deficit. But no one should be surprised. Ex-Im and its
supporters are of Washington, where they believe they don't have to follow the same rules as everybody else. So, who
are the supporters of the Export-Import Bank? Those who kowtow to the wishes of Big Business and somehow believe companies such as
Boeing, General Electric or Caterpillar won't make it without a little help from their friends in Washington. We're talking about business
lobbyists such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers, establishment Republicans, most Democrats in
Congress and President Barack Obama. Of course, Obama believes companies such as Solyndra won't make it without government help. (The
fact is, the company couldn't make it, period. But that's another column.) Who
opposes Ex-Im? Groups that believe
government should get out of the corporate welfare business and that don't think taxpayers should be
on the hook for companies that default on their loans. Here you have conservatives in Congress, tea party organizations,
Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, my colleagues at Heritage Action and a host of other groups representing
taxpayers and a level playing field for all. This is a battle between those who support Washington as usual vs. those who think it's long past time
for cronyism and special favors to
AT: Economy Impact
No impact to Ex-Im; 99.7% of the jobs and loans could be provided by the private
sector anyway
Michael Grunwald, TIME's senior national correspondent, before coming to TIME, he spent nearly a
decade at the Washington Post, 7-2-14 “House Conservatives Are Right: Kill The Export-Import Bank,”
http://time.com/2951443/export-import-bank-house-conservatives/
Some corporate subsidies are good and necessary. This is not one of them. The self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who run
the Republican Party did not object to the bloated agribusiness subsidies in this year’s $956 billion farm bill. They’ve fought for weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn’t want and water projects the country doesn’t need. They’ve helped repeal sensible flood insurance reforms
designed to slash subsidies for waterfront property. And now they expect us to cheer their efforts to kill the obscure Export-Import Bank, which
doesn’t even cost taxpayers money? Sure, why not? The
Republicans may be hypocrites, but they’re right to take aim
at the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im is, as Senator Barack Obama said during his presidential campaign, “little more than a fund for
corporate welfare.” It provides cheap credit to foreign borrowers, often cash-flush behemoths like Brazil’s state-owned oil company or
the emirate of Dubai, so they can buy products from U.S. exporters, often cash-flush behemoths like Boeing, Bechtel, Caterpillar or General
Electric. It’s dearly beloved by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but it’s often earned its
reputation for crony capitalism. William Jefferson, the congressman memorably caught with cash in his freezer, got his dirty money in exchange
for introducing corporate executives to Ex-Im officials, and the Justice Department is now investigating potential corruption inside the bank.
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor—like Texas Governor Rick Perry and other talk-a-good-game fiscal conservatives—supported the ExIm Bank, and the Obama Administration has defended it as a jobs engine. But Cantor’s stunning primary defeat to Tea Party challenger Dave
Brat scrambled the politics of Ex-Im, persuading House Republican leaders to oppose the bank despite the pleadings of the Chamber and some
influential corporate giants. Cantor had rolled the Tea Party and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling on flood insurance; his
successor, Kevin McCarthy, wants to reassure the Tea Party and Hensarling, a potential rival for his job, that the leadership will put conservative
principles first. There
aren’t a lot of principled arguments for saving Ex-Im. Its defenders say most of its loans
help small businesses, which is technically true when they define “small” as fewer than 1,500 employees. But 30% of the cash it
lends goes to Boeing and over 60% goes to 10 large corporations. The bank also boasts that it doesn’t cost taxpayers
money—which is true, or mostly true, depending on how you do the accounting—because only 0.3 percent of its loans default. But that’s
not evidence the Ex-Im is effective. That’s evidence the Ex-Im is unnecessary. Surely the private sector can provide
99.7-percent-safe loans to massive conglomerates. This is the problem with arguments that the Ex-Im
“supports” about 200,000 jobs; most of those jobs would probably be supported without the Ex-Im. And
while exports do help the economy, export subsidies distort the economy, reducing the cost of capital
for well-connected companies while putting their competitors at an artificial disadvantage. Paul Krugman
recently suggested on his New York Times blog that even though those distortions are inefficient, eliminating the Ex-Im’s modest economic
stimulus while the recovery remains soft (and while the Fed would be unlikely to offset its stimulus by raising interest rates) would be worse.
I’ve been adedicated supporter of stimulus—I mean, dedicated—but Krugman’s argument can be used to justify any government program, no
matter how absurd. It was a legitimate argument during the cataclysmic freefall of early 2009, but it packs less punch now that the economy is
creating jobs at a decent pace. The best argument for the Ex-Im’s corporate welfare is probably that other nations do it, too. That’s true. It
would be nice if the Ex-Im died as part of a global trade deal that forced other countries to slash their own export subsidies and stop picking
winners and losers. But since that isn’t a current option, we ought to go first and urge the rest of the world to follow. The direct
benefits
the Ex-Im Bank provides for Boeing do not outweigh the indirect costs it imposes on everyone else.
No economic impact
Megan McArdle, Bloomberg View columnist who writes on economics, business and public policy, 73-14“Die, Ex-Im Bank! Faster, Faster!” http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-03/die-ex-imbank-faster-faster
The most interesting, and puzzling, political development of the last month has been the impending demise of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
Puzzling, because the Export-Import Bank is
basically small beer -- the sort of government agency that usually
achieves immortality through obscurity. It’s surprising to me that this has actually become a hot political
issue. Interesting, because reform conservatives look like they may well claim a genuine scalp: eliminating a long-standing instrument of
corporate welfare. For those who do not follow the details of Washington export policy, the Export-Import Bank provides below-market loans
to foreigners who buy U.S. products. The bank’s defenders argue that it doesn’t cost the government anything, because the loans are belowmarket but not free. Though of course the same could have been said of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s implicit government guarantees . . . in
2007. The economic impact of this agency is slight. Oh, its impact on specific companies can be large: Boeing will be hurt if the
government declines to reauthorize Ex-Im, while domestic air carriers will probably benefit a bit because their foreign competition will no
longer receive subsidies from the U.S. government. But overall, its
demise would not have any effect large enough to
notice, either on the federal government’s budget or on the U.S. economy. Exports will probably decline
somewhat, but that will be offset by freeing up a similar sum for expenditure in other sectors. Overall, kind
of a statistical yawn.
Doesn’t solve – invests in wasteful companies
John Cooney, StarTribune Writer citing the Congressional Budget Office, 6-13-14, “Heard of the
Export-Import Bank? Your tax dollars have,”
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/263104061.html
The bank claims to support American small businesses, but research indicates otherwise. According to the
Mercatus Center, in 2010, the Ex-Im Bank spent $13 billion on loans to these foreign companies — of which 90 percent
went to just 10 large corporations. But when looking at the return, we only see that Ex-Im contributes 2 percent to U.S.
exports. Minnesotans should be incensed to hear that $1.3 billion in taxpayer dollars are going to fund Mexican oil company Pemex, while
our own public lands languish undeveloped. Or how about the $500 million that is going to a Mongolian company that boasts $51 billion in
revenue? These are just a few of the numerous egregious examples of the Ex-Im Bank financing. Can Minnesota afford this? Furthermore, the
bank has failed to manage appropriately and assess the risk to taxpayers. The bank has already once
sought a multibillion-dollar bailout. Its risky investments are no longer something the American people
can afford to fund. Remember Solyndra, the solar energy company backed by President Obama? Well, that boondoggle is
just one of the beneficiaries of the Ex-Im Bank. Others may remember Enron — not a paragon of sound
investment and accounting. And yet Enron also received support from Ex-Im before it collapsed in scandal.
Minnesotans shouldn’t stand for this kind of market disruption anymore. The government rarely does a good job choosing winners and losers.
Why should it be our dollars on the line? The Ex-Im Bank is looking for reauthorization this fall, requesting to expose us to a
record $160 billion in loans and guarantees. Yet we can’t even trust it to properly calculate its affect on our nation’s bottom line. While Ex-Im
leaders say they’ll create $14 billion in revenue over a decade, a
study from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the
bank’s six biggest programs actually will cost $2 billion over the next 10 years. Misleading accounting gimmicks are
just one more thing Minnesotans should have had about enough of at this point. And worse, the Government Accountability Office reports that
Ex-Im lacks any apparatus to calculate the risk associated with the loans of our money. In 2013, there were more than 8,600 exporters
operating in the state of Minnesota. The Ex-Im Bank claims to have supported only 73 of them — not even 1 percent! Ending taxpayersupported loans from the Ex-Im Bank would benefit Minnesotans by creating a more even playing field. Why would you pay for a service that is
not aiding your business? The Ex-Im Bank is slowly crumbling under growing pressure from Americans who don’t want to support large,
multinational corporations on their dime before helping those at home. When it comes up for reauthorization in September, let’s
say no
to wasteful spending and big government. We have multiple representatives of our state on the House Financial Services
Committee, which will help make the decision. I say it’s time for Minnesota to start leading the way in creating real economic growth —
without all the cronyism.
No impact
Mark Hendrickson, Adjunct Professor of Economics at Grove City College, 7-3-14, “The Battle For The
Ex-Im Bank: Small Potatoes Or Large Stakes?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2014/07/03/the-battle-for-the-ex-im-bank-smallpotatoes-or-large-stakes/
There are two powerful reasons why Congress
should not reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank: 1.) It doesn’t follow its own
rules. I’m not referring here to allegations of fraud, but to its everyday functions. The Bank’s stated purpose is to provide
financing assistance for export transactions that otherwise would not take place; further, it is forbidden to compete
with private sector corporations. In fact, Ex-Im does not comply with either of those stipulations. First, it is inconceivable
that Boeing can’t find private sources for financing its sales. Second, since Ex-Im’s default rate is only .2111
percent (according to their own fact sheet), the loans they are making evidently are nowhere near being so risky
as to deter private lenders. Third, Boeing undoubtedly prefers to collaborate with Ex-Im instead of private alternatives because it is
implicitly backed by the federal treasury and can offer lower interest rates than private-sector lenders. Like so many other federal agencies,
Ex-Im seems to be unaccountable and free to defy its stipulated guidelines with impunity. 2.) The most
fundamental reason for letting the bank wind down is that it doesn’t do anything that private-sector lenders couldn’t do.
Capital markets are far more developed today than when the bank was chartered in 1934. As Veronique de
Rugy of the Mercatus Center stated with such logical clarity in her congressional testimony last week, “if the Bank is making profits,
that is an argument for privatization. If the Bank is suffering losses, that is an argument for shutting it
down.” In other words, the Ex-Im Bank is either redundant, taking profitable business away from private
companies, or uneconomical, therefore unneeded.
UPDATES**
UQ
UQ
Won’t pass—Hensarling blocks—we assume lobbying
Times Union 8/2
(Newspaper serving New York's capital region of Albany, Schenectady and Troy. “Banking on the future of Ex-Im New York lawmakers scramble
to protect jobs and businesses,” By Dan Freedman, Saturday, August 2, 2014, http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Banking-on-thefuture-of-Ex-Im-5664690.php)//BB
New York manufacturers have a lot to lose at the hands of U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling. As
chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, the Texas Republican has been using his considerable influence and libertarian views to
change the way the federal government supports the economy. Out are bailouts and government-backed loan
programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Export-Import Bank, which facilitates overseas purchases of U.S. products. Unfettered free
enterprise and free markets — with minimal governmental involvement — are in. Hensarling's offensive, which could
bring the
Export-Import Bank to a screeching halt at the end of September, has New York lawmakers scrambling to protect institutions
they once took for granted. "Any effort to eliminate the Export-Import Bank is completely misguided,'' said Sen. Charles Schumer, a member of
the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee who is working to reauthorize the bank. "It is a critical lifeline for businesses around
(New York) state that creates jobs and grows domestic manufacturing.'' Bank officials say it supports $37 billion in exports and more than
200,000 American jobs through loans and loan guarantees to foreign states and enterprises purchasing American products. In April, Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand toured industrial facilities in Syracuse, Niagara Falls and Ogdensburg that have benefited from Export-Import Bank financing, which
backers say support jobs in regions of the state that have suffered through decades of U.S. manufacturing decline. "Every $1 billion in exports of
American goods and services supports about 5,000 U.S. jobs," Gillibrand said. "We want to make sure that our companies here in New York
have the tools and resources they need to be successful exporters." Business
interests are particularly incensed over
Hensarling's bid not to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Since 2007, Ex-Im has financed $7 billion in New York state
exports, with General Electric among the top three beneficiaries. Ex-Im supported 272 exporters in that time, 163 of which were small
businesses. In the Capital Region, Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees have underwritten $1 billion in exports by 15 companies such as Fiber Glass
Industries of Amsterdam, Ross Valve Manufacturing Inc. of Troy, and X-Ray Optical Systems of East Greenbush. The bank's defenders say its
loan default rate is a minuscule 0.211 percent and Ex-Im actually is a money-maker, returning $1.057 billion last year to the U.S. Treasury
through fees and interest payments. All of America's chief competitors overseas benefit from favorable financing deals available through their
own governments' credit agencies. Failure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, whose charter expires Sept. 30, would amount to "unilateral
disarmament" in the face of competition from China, France, Korea and a host of others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in an open letter
to Congress last month. "This is a jobs issue," said Christopher Wenk, the chamber's senior director for international policy. "When I talk to
state and local chambers, they scratch their heads that this is even controversial." A total of 865 entities signed the chamber letter, including
the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber, Alcoa, Corning Inc., IBM Corp., North Country Chamber
of Commerce, the Chamber of Schenectady County, and the Upstate New York District Export Council. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a minority
member of the committee, said: "I'll accept Jeb's argument that there's a more perfect world where no countries are subsidizing their
exporters. However, it's not this world." Hensarling remains unfazed. "I didn't come to Washington to be loved and I
haven't been disappointed," he said with a laugh in a phone interview. Forty-one House Republicans last month signed a letter urging
reauthorization of Ex-Im "to insure job creators in our districts have the certainty they need to compete in the global marketplace." Among
those signing the letter was Rep. Chris Gibson, R-N.Y. In pushing forward his agenda, Hensarling finds himself in uncertain political terrain.
An ambitious sixth-term lawmaker who considered competing for a House leadership position after former
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary bid, Hensarling might lose all hope of advancement if he
compromises.
GOP fragmentation, Cantor defeated and Boehner backed down
ABC 7/29
(“Senate Democrats Seek to Split GOP on Export Bank” WASHINGTON — Jul 29, 2014, 3:56 AM ET By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-dems-seek-split-gop-export-bank-24752702)//BB
The Ex-Im Bank provides loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to foreign buyers of U.S. products. Congress must renew its charter before
October to keep it functioning, and questions about that
future are splitting Republican lawmakers. The U.S. Chamber
for Growth and
Heritage Action - that are influential in GOP primaries and anti-establishment Republican circles. Caught
of Commerce and most governors want to keep the bank, opposing several conservative groups - including Club
between their conservative base and pragmatic business groups, some Republican candidates are tip-toeing around the issue. For Democrats in
toss-up states such as Landrieu in Louisiana, it's a chance to label their GOP opponents as beholden to the ideological right at the expense of
creating jobs. Landrieu is highlighting the Ex-Im issue in her re-election fight against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. She said Monday the bank promotes
trade, creates jobs and helps small businesses, and Congress must reauthorize it "as soon as possible." Cassidy is responding cautiously, raising
questions about the bank's value without explicitly opposing its reauthorization. "Very serious reforms are required," Cassidy said. His caution
likely comes from the bank's ability to stir tea party supporters and other activists who want a smaller, less intrusive government. Well-run
companies can get by just fine without the Ex-Im, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said recently. He accused the bank of "political spending, both
ideological and crony-based." GOP
lawmakers took note when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., suffered a
stunning primary loss to a tea party-backed professor who strongly criticized the Ex-Im. Cantor's
successor on the GOP leadership team - Kevin McCarthy of California - promptly opposed the bank's
reauthorization. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a longtime supporter of the bank, moved to a neutral position.
No leadership push
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 7/31
(By Joel Connelly, “Chaotic Congress: Firefighting money, Ex-Im Bank caught in undertow,” July 31, 2014
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2014/07/31/chaotic-congress-firefighting-money-ex-im-bank-caught-in-undertow/)//BB
Vital programs for Washington were caught in a Capitol Hill undertow Thursday, as Congress stumbled toward a five-andhalf-week August recess with obstructionism leaving a vast load of work undone. Senate Republicans used a procedural objection to block
consideration of an emergency spending bill that held money to fight record wildfires in Washington and elsewhere in the West, as well as
dollars to deal with refugees at the U.S.-Mexico border. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., both get an "F" grade from the
National Rifle Association for their votes on gun safety issues.. Sen. Patty Murray: The U.S. Forest Service is strapped for resources to fight
record fires in the West. “Already the U.S. Forest Service has used a significant portion of their annual resources to suppress wildfires, and
without additional funding they will be forced to redirect fire prevention money to fight existing fires, which will only make these problems
worse in the future,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. The fire-aid bill was blocked on a day when scenes of a spreading fire just outside
California’s Yosemite National Park were splashed across the TV networks’ morning news shows. On Wednesday, the House voted 225-201,
along party lines, to sue President Obama. After the lawsuit vote, however, the Republican majority came under Cruz control. Sen. Ted Cruz, RTexas, a Tea Party hero, crossed the U.S. Capitol to lobby House members against a border enforcement bill written by House Speaker John
Boehner and other GOP leaders. Conservative talk shows cried sellout. As a result, lacking votes for their plan, House Republican leaders pulled
it from the floor and delayed the August recess for a day. A stopgap federal highways bill was also hung up. The
House has yet to take
any action, nor have Republican leaders signaled any action, on renewal of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
The bank’s charter is due to expire on Sept. 30. The Ex-Im Bank is the U.S. export financing agency. It helps American companies sell their
products and services to foreign countries by financing or insuring sales when the private sector is unable — sales such as multi-billion-dollar jet
orders. About 60 countries have similar agencies. The Ex-Im Bank has been renewed in the past with bipartisan support. Yet such conservative
groups as the Club for Growth have come out against renewing its charter. Washington is the most trade-dependent state in the nation. The ExIm Bank has financed billions of dollars worth of jet sales. A total of 180 Washington companies use the bank. The Chateau Ste. Michelle
winery, for instance, is a major user. Getty Images Cantwell: “Now is the time for Congress to act to support American jobs and entrepreneurs.”
Getty Images A bipartisan group of Senators including Sens. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill. — Republicans with a major Boeing presence
in their states — decided not to wait for the House, and introduced legislation Thursday to renew the Export-Import Bank. “This bipartisan bill
will allow thousands of American businesses to compete on a level playing field and sell their products to a growing (foreign) middle class,” said
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. “Now is the time for Congress to act to support American jobs and entrepreneurs.” And, added Murray,
“Republicans and Democrats have always come together to support the Export-Import Bank, so I’m proud to cosponsor this bipartisan bill to
support the bank for another five years.” The Cantwell and Murray remarks were aimed at one fellow Washington lawmaker — Rep. Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., a member of the House Republican leadership. McMorris Rodgers
has refused to endorse
renewal of the Ex-Im Bank. She was pressed recently when Gov. Jay Inslee met in Washington, D.C., with members of the Washington
congressional delegation. McMorris Rodgers spoke of a six-month renewal of the export agency. The proposal “went over like a lead balloon,”
said Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash. Larsen Rep. Rick Larsen: “A six-month renewal is as good as zero.” “A six-month renewal is as good as zero. How
do you plan jet sales, how do you map out exports, if all you have is six months?” added Larsen, who represents thousands of Boeing workers in
Western Washington. The Washington delegation was once renowned for its bipartisan cooperation on state issues, from safeguarding
inexpensive federal hydroelectric power to drawing the boundaries of wilderness areas. McMorris Rodgers joined previous, unanimous
delegation support for the Export-Import Bank. Now, however, in Larsen’s words, “She is acting more for the party than for the state. The
party leadership is number one.”
Border Thumper
Border thumps and structural partisanship exists independent of the plan
MinnPost 8/1
(Devin Henry, “You can't go home, yet: House delays recess after conservative border-bill revolt,” 8/1/14, http://www.minnpost.com/dcdispatches/2014/08/you-cant-go-home-yet-house-delays-recess-after-conservative-border-bill-revolt?utm_source=MinnPostRSS&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+minnpost+(MinnPost.com+-+Minnesota+News+and+Analysis))//BB
House GOP
leadership had planned on passing a $659 million border bill on Thursday night before breaking for the recess, but
they pulled it off the floor after conservatives objected. The caucus huddled later in the afternoon and Friday morning to discuss the
bill’s path forward. So the House is still in session and will try tweaking the bill and voting again before skipping town. But the GOP’s
establishment members had clearly hoped it wouldn’t get to this point. Take, for example, Minnesota Rep. John Kline, who predicted on
Tuesday that the GOP was “going to do something about the crisis at the border.” Or Rep. Erik Paulsen, who said the House had “thankfully”
crafted a plan to deal with the crisis. “Thankfully, we’ve got a plan put together, where we’ll have support, and it’s really critical to act on that,”
he said then. It’s important to note that even
if the House finds a way to pass it, the GOP’s bill isn’t going to
become law — the Senate has already left for its recess, and the White House threatened to veto the bill anyway. But it’s
an opportunity for the GOP to claim the high ground with voters while in their districts in August. Obama’s border
proposal hasn’t gone anywhere, and Senate Democrats tried and failed to lift theirs over procedural hurdles last night. So House
Republicans, assuming they can pass their bill, would be able to point to it and say: we passed something to
alleviate this border crisis and nobody else has. But conservatives said the bill — which would beef up border
security measures though the end of September and make it easier to send children who have crossed the border back to their home countries
— doesn’t
go far enough toward stemming the tide of unaccompanied Central American children entering the United States. “I’m
very disappointed with the bill Republicans are bringing up because it’s $659 million to be split between Eric
Holder and Sylvia Burwell,” Rep. Michele Bachmann said, referencing the Attorney General and secretary of Health and Human
Services. “They are expediting asylum, they are making asylum more efficient and quicker for illegal foreign nationals who are coming
into the country. … The taxpayer loses over and over and over again, and no one will be deported. So I’m a ‘hell no’ on this vote.” Democrats
don’t offer any help It’s certainly not unheard of for the very vigorous conservative faction of the GOP conference to sink bills leadership would
rather they support. They most famously did so last summer when the House voted down an early version of the farm bill, and, more recently,
the caucus couldn’t coalesce around leadership’s plan to try attaching some type of Republican legislative priority to a debt limit hike in
February. Support MinnPost by becoming a sustaining member today. Speaker John Boehner has, on at least six occasions this session, spurned
the majority of his caucus and asked Democrats to provide the bulk of the votes needed to pass important legislation. But Democrats
as a
whole weren’t about to get behind the border package: it’s far smaller than either the White House or Senate
Democrats wanted, and it included deportation provisions their base opposes. So Boehner, caught between his angry
conservative flank and Democrats’ refusal to throw him a lifeline, simply didn’t have the votes to pass his bill on Thursday. And so Democrats
crowed that, just a day after his caucus voted to sue President Obama for too often acting on his own, Boehner released a statement
encouraging him to do just that: “There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for
congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries,” he said. VA, highway
bills pass But the week wasn’t a total loss. The House’s highway bill, meant to keep federal highway projects funded through next May while
lawmakers ostensibly work out a longer-term solution, is on its way to the president to be signed into law. And Congress did pass its Veterans
Affairs bill, a package meant to relieve VA hospital wait times. The bill passed overwhelmingly — 420-5 in the House and 91-3 in the Senate —
providing at least one big, bipartisan reform bill for lawmakers of both parties to tout at home. “I guess in this Congress, considering how things
could have been, if we can get this veterans bill moved out of here, that’s probably the best we can hope for,” Rep. Tim Walz said. “Today the
Senate voted to send a bipartisan bill to improve care for veterans as well as legislation shoring up the Highway Trust Fund to the President’s
desk, and we need to continue this bipartisan cooperation and take action on other critical issues,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said in a statement.
Who's to blame? Much has been made about how little Congress has done this session — it’s
on pace to pass the fewest laws
of any Congress in modern history — and both parties have found ways to blame the other for intransigence.
Rep. Keith Ellison said Tuesday that the House should consider taking up legislation important to Democrats, like
an extension of lapsed unemployment benefits, a minimum wage hike or a Senate-passed immigration reform bill. For their part, Kline and
Paulsen both offered the same statistic: that the House has passed more than 300 bills awaiting action in the
Senate.
Impact
AT: Asia Pivot
Ex-Im failure won’t affect the pivot—competitiveness in Asia is already low
Preeg 7/29
(Ernest H. Preeg, Ph.D., is the Senior Advisor for Trade and Finance. He has extensive experience in international affairs, including service as the
American Ambassador to Haiti, “U.S. Exports Pivot Away From Asian Markets,” JULY 29, 2014, https://www.mapi.net/research/publications/usexports-pivot-away-asian-markets)//BB
There has been much talk about the Obama defense strategy to pivot toward Asia so as to balance the growing Chinese military presence and capability. Of far
broader and greater long-term importance, however, is U.S.
export competitiveness, which has been pivoting away from Asian
markets, while Chinese exports to the region soar. From 2009 to 2013, U.S. merchandise exports to 13 principal Asian trading
partners grew by only 37%, while exports to the rest of the world were up by 52%. And in dramatic contrast, Chinese exports to the Asian markets
grew by 85%. As a result, Chinese exports rose from roughly double U.S. exports in 2009 to 2.7 times larger in 2013. Even more disturbing, U.S. trade
deficits with almost all of those 13 Asian trading partners, as well as with China, surged during the four years, up by $153 billion to $478 billion
in 2013, amounting to 70% of the global deficit. This report addresses the U.S. export competitiveness pivot away from these Asian markets, and is in
two parts. The first part presents trade accounts for U.S. and Chinese trade within Asia from 2009 to 2013, and export growth for the first half of 2014. The second
part comments on three
policy issues related to the U.S. export pivot away from Asia: currency manipulation,
the TPP trade negotiations, and transition from the dollarized financial system. The U.S. Export Pivot U.S. and Chinese merchandise exports to
13 principal Asian trading partners1 from 2009 to 2013 are presented in Table 1. U.S. global exports grew by 50% over the four years, but exports to the 13 Asian
nations grew by only 37%, while exports to the rest of the world were up by 52%. And, in parallel, Chinese exports to the 13 Asian nations soared by 85%, or more
than twice as fast as U.S. exports. Moreover, this very large export growth differential carries over to all 13 Asian trading partners. Chinese
exports grew
40% faster to South Korea, roughly doubled U.S. export growth to Japan and India, grew three times faster to
Vietnam, and grew five times faster to Malaysia. Thus U.S. exports have been pivoting away from principal Asian markets, and most
strikingly relative to China. The resulting absolute levels of Chinese exports in 2013, as shown in the first column of figures in Table 1, required an adjustment
related to how China records its trade through Hong Kong. China records exports through Hong Kong as exports to Hong Kong, while imports through Hong Kong are
recorded by the country of origin. Thus, in 2013, recorded exports to Hong Kong were $385 billion, or 17% of global exports, while imports were only $16 billion, or
less than 1% of global imports, with a resulting trade surplus with Hong Kong of $369 billion, much larger than the global surplus of $260 billion. This anomaly in
recording exports to and imports from Hong Kong results in substantially smaller exports and trade surpluses in recorded bilateral trade with the rest of the world,
on average by 16%. In order to adjust for this in Table 1, Chinese official export figures for 2013 for the 13 Asian markets have been increased by 15% as a
reasonable estimate of actual exports. Table 1 – U.S. and Chinese Exports to Asian Trading Partners, 2009-2013 *Estimated, based on a 15% upward adjustment
related to Hong Kong **Negligible; U.S. exports in 2009 were less than $0.05 billion Source(s): U.S. Census Bureau, FT-900, and China’s Customs Statistics (Monthly
Exports and Imports) In 2009, not shown in the table, Chinese exports to the 13 Asian markets were roughly double U.S. exports. By 2013, however, as a result of
the much higher growth of Chinese exports throughout the region, Chinese exports of $707 billion were 2.7 times larger than the $259 billion of U.S. exports. And
again, the great disparity prevailed in all 13 markets. Chinese exports to Japan, South Korea, and India were about 2.5 times larger than U.S. exports, to Malaysia
and Indonesia at least 4 times larger, and to Vietnam 10 times larger. The smallest disparities were with Taiwan, with Chinese exports 1.8 times larger, and Australia
and Singapore, 1.7 times larger. This disappointing U.S. export performance in the 13 Asian markets stands in sharp contrast with U.S.-China trade, which has been
growing more rapidly in both directions, but with U.S. imports more than three times larger than exports. In 2013, U.S. exports to China were $122 billion, imports
were $440 billion, and the deficit rose to $318 billion. Even more disturbing is the rapid growth in U.S. trade deficits, from 2009 to 2013, with almost all of the 13
markets, as well with China, as shown in Table 2. The deficit with the 13 rose by 63% to $160.0 billion in 2013, even faster than the 40% increase in the deficit with
China to $318.4 billion. The deficit with Japan was up by $28.4 billion, with South Korea by $10.0 billion, with Vietnam by $10.4 billion, and with India by $15.1
billion. The 13 plus China thus registered an increase in the U.S. deficit of $153.2 billion, or 47%, to $478.4 billion in 2013, which amounted to 70% of the $688.0
billion global deficit. This is the four-year picture of a large U.S. export competitiveness pivot away from the 13 Asian markets, both in terms of export growth, which
was much higher for the rest of the world, and the rapidly growing regional trade deficit, including China, now up to 70% of the global deficit. Moreover, U.S.
exports to Asia continued their lackluster growth relative to China during the first half of 2014. U.S. exports to the 13 Asian markets were up by only 3% for January
through May, while Chinese exports grew three times faster, at 9%. And if these growth rates continue during the second half of the year, the five-year export
growth, from 2009 to 2014, will be 41% for the United States and 102% for China. Table 2 – U.S. Trade Balances With Asian Trading Partners Source(s): U.S. Census
Bureau, FT-900 This final observation has a sad and striking irony for President Obama’s trade strategy. He pledged to double U.S. exports over these five years,
while in Asia, China has co-opted the doubling path while U.S. export performance in the 13 markets was well below half of the president’s goal. This export
competitiveness pivot away from Asia raises important questions as to what will happen over the next five years. Will Chinese exports rise from triple to quadruple
U.S. exports while the U.S. regional trade deficit continues to grow at a rapid pace, or will the U.S. export pivot away from Asia reverse course? And what are the
economic policies in play that are causing this extraordinary shift in trade competitiveness across the Pacific, to the detriment of the United States? The TransPacific Export Challenge Ahead The progressive loss of U.S. export competitiveness across the Pacific centers on the technology-intensive manufacturing sector, and
is the result of radically different trade strategies by Asians compared with the United States. In 2013, 75% of U.S. exports to the 13 Asian markets were
manufactures, as were 95% of Chinese exports, and the large majority of U.S., Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean manufactured exports are in high-technology
industries.2 As for national economic strategies, first Japan and South Korea, then China, and more recently India and some other Asian nations, have pursued
export-oriented growth, centered on the manufacturing sector, including an ever-larger trade surplus. In short, a mercantilist growth strategy, which has intensified
within the export-oriented economic recovery strategies from the 2008 global recession. And the United States, in near total contrast, has almost entirely ignored
the resulting rapid growth in the trans-Pacific trade deficit in manufactures, as well as lackluster export growth, with great loss to American manufacturing jobs. U.S.
economic strategy has focused far more on domestic objectives, often with adverse impact on export competitiveness for manufactures. This radical difference and
underlying conflict in trade strategies across the Pacific deserve a comprehensive, in-depth analysis for charting a more export-competitive U.S. course ahead. Only
brief comment is offered here on three related issues confronting the international trade and financial system: currency manipulation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) trade negotiations, and the transition underway from the longstanding dollarized financial system. Currency manipulation. Currency manipulation, whereby a
government intervenes in currency markets to lower its currency below its market-based level, is the ultimate mercantilist policy instrument. If China
manipulates its currency 30% below its market level, the result is an across-the-board 30% surcharge on
imports and a 30% subsidy for all of its exports. IMF Article IV obligates members not to manipulate their currencies so as to gain an
unfair competitive advantage in trade, with manipulation defined as protracted, large-scale official purchases of foreign exchange, which have the direct and
immediate effect of lowering the currency. And if the $4 trillion of official Chinese purchases over the past dozen years are not protracted and large scale, IMF
Article IV is a travesty rather than a meaningful anti-mercantilist obligation. Moreover, while China has been the outstanding manipulator, other Asian nations, with
a dominant, rapidly growing share of their trade with China, have seen it in their interest to peg their currencies to the Chinese currency, thus becoming
manipulators as well, with results evident in Table 2. The
violation of IMF obligations has
U.S. response to this unprecedented scope of currency manipulation in
been total denial. Twice each year, the secretary of the treasury is required to report to the Senate Banking Committee
on currency manipulation, and for years, he has stated that no nation, including China, has been manipulating its currency in violation of its IMF obligations. The
TPP trade negotiations. The United States has been negotiating a trans-Pacific free trade agreement for five years, an effort that recently became much
more important when Japan joined the negotiations. Such an agreement would stimulate trade among members across the Pacific, and with the nonparticipation of
China, an agreement would help the United States regain market share in some Asian markets. The negotiations are
currently bogged down,
however, most importantly by the inability of the president to obtain trade negotiating authority from the Congress, where Democratic leaders in both houses
oppose the authority. In the past, such negotiating authority has required bipartisan leadership support in order to obtain a majority. There are also important
substantive issues in contention that became clear in draft legislation considered in the House. One noteworthy issue is currency manipulation, where a bipartisan
House majority wants a commitment in the TPP that participants will not manipulate their currencies. If the United States and participant Asian nations open their
markets to free trade, and the Asian nations then manipulate their currencies against the dollar, there could be an acceleration of the growing U.S. deficit thanks to
free trade. Such a currency manipulation provision in the TPP, however, would be almost impossible for the United States to pursue. How could the U.S. trade
representative insist on a currency manipulation commitment in the TPP when the secretary of the treasury, twice each year, states that currency manipulation
does not exist? The prospect for a TPP agreement, therefore, is exceedingly dim for 2014 and highly problematic for 2015. Transition from the dollarized financial
system. The dollarized international financial system of the past seven decades is in transition to some form of multi–key currency relationship. Principal economic
dimensions for the change are the sharp decline of the U.S. share of global exports and the huge accumulation of U.S. foreign sovereign debt. For manufactures, the
dominant and fastest growing sector of trade, the U.S. share of global exports plunged from 19% in 2000 to 12% in 2012, while the Chinese share tripled from 7% to
22% and the EU share was down slightly, from 22% to 19%. The related large U.S. current account deficits, plus large-scale official dollar purchases as others
manipulate their currencies, quadrupled U.S. foreign sovereign debt from $2.6 trillion in 2000 to $10.3 trillion in 2013. A full analysis of this far-reaching systemic
change has been presented elsewhere.3 Of relevance here is that the transition is more likely to be driven by financial markets than managed by key currency
governments, and that the regional orientation, as shown for U.S. trade in Tables 1 and 2, will take place largely if not principally in Asian financial markets. The
implications of this systemic transition are far-reaching, including, yet again, the currency manipulation issue, but they have received almost no official U.S.
attention. * * * This concludes the discussion of the recent U.S.
certainly deserve
export pivot away from Asian markets and some related policy issues. The questions raised
more serious examination. MAPI provides quarterly reports on U.S. and Chinese trade in manufactures, and these reports for
the second half of 2014 and 2015 will shed important further light on where the trans-Pacific U.S. trade relationship is headed. It is not too soon, however, for the
United States to take actions to reduce lagging exports to Asia. A first step would be to state that China and some other Asian nations are manipulating their
currencies in violation of their IMF obligations, and that such manipulation should stop.
AT: India Relations
Alt causes to relations- China, Pakistan, and empirics
CNN 5/6
(Ravi Agrawal, CNN's India Bureau Chief, “Why India feels jilted by Obama,” April 6, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/06/opinion/agrawalindia-vote-u-s-relations/)//BB
New Delhi (CNN) -- When I left India to move to America 13 years ago, the President of the United States was George W. Bush, a man who was
often internationally lampooned for mismanaging two wars and tainting Washington's image abroad. But moving back to India this month, I've
been struck by the number of Indians who look
back wistfully at the Bush years. For Indians, Bush is considered a better friend than
President Barack Obama. In fact, right now, Indians don't see Obama as much of a friend at all. It didn't start off that way. In
the early days of his presidency, in 2009, Obama marked India's Republic Day by saying Indians "have no better friend" than the people of the
United States. A year later, when he visited New Delhi, he famously predicted India and the U.S. would form "the defining partnership of the
21st century." At the time, Obama won Indian hearts and minds as he chowed down kebabs at the city's famous Bukhara restaurant. The chefs
created a special platter that exists to this day -- the Obama platter. (There was already a Bill Clinton platter, as well as a Hillary one.) Ravi
Agrawal Ravi Agrawal Today, the platters have gone cold: New Delhi feels jilted. Instead of a defining partnership, Indians couldn't quite define
where they stood. Talk
of a G-2 -- a U.S. mega-alliance with China, an idea which didn't come from Obama -- inflamed old
feelings of jealousy. Washington's impending pullout from Afghanistan, along with its generous aid to Pakistan,
has stoked angst. But the real low point was reached late last year when an Indian diplomat in New York was arrested and
then strip-searched for allegedly underpaying her nanny. Obama likely had no prior knowledge of the case or the arrest, but still, the
perceived American high-handedness turned out to be too much for India to digest. New Delhi revoked
privileges to U.S. interests in the country, and across India, there were anti-American protests. Regardless of the
merits of the dispute, Indians wondered: If they had no better friend, was this the treatment they deserved? The sense of betrayal is mutual.
Washington feels let down, too -- and with some good reason. When
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine this year, India chose
not to side with the United States but to abstain on a U.N. General Assembly resolution against the Russian
action. (Russia is, incidentally, India's largest supplier of arms.) When Washington sought to coalesce support for stringent
sanctions against Iran, the surprise spoiler turned out to be New Delhi, which said it needed Iranian oil. What happened to what
was promised to be a close friendship between the world's two biggest democracies? Frosty India and U.S. relations? A new age for India's
Anglo-Indians One could look to history for answers. Since its independence in 1947, India -- scarred by centuries of invasions and interventions
-- has been a reluctant global player. Its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of nations that
aspired to steer clear of great powers and their geopolitics. But 67 years on from its creation, India is now itself an aspiring great power, already
among the top 10 economies in the world. Indian diplomats routinely express their hopes for India to become a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council, joining the ranks of Russia, the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom. And yet India's
foreign policy
has remained aloof, lagging well behind its growth. The country has about the same number of diplomats abroad as
Singapore, a country with a population 1/250th of India's. The United States, with a population one quarter of India's, has
10 times as many diplomats. How can India make or maintain friendships when it has always stayed at home?
AT: Mongolia
This is at least as stupid as it sounds
Global Mail 12
(Aubrey Belford, Asia Correspondent, The Global Mail, “The Filthy Rich and The Racists in Mongolia’s Mining Boom,” February 6, 2012
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-filthy-rich-and-the-racists-in-mongolias-mining-boom/16/)//BB
Gee considers himself a musician with a message, and he’s developed a huge following among young Mongolians. Economic
inequality, corrupt
politicians and environmental destruction from mining are all issues he confronts, but rolling up to a nightclub at the base of an apartment
building, it is clear where he, and many Mongolians, locate the root of these problems. Swaggering on a stage in front of a sweaty crowd of university
undergraduates, he asks rhetorically: “What is this thing, growing among us every day here in Mongolia?” The crowd, hands thrust into the air, doesn’t miss a beat:
“Hujaa!” they yell, a Mongolian slur for Chinese, something like the English insult “chink.” It’s also the title of one of Gee’s biggest hits, a collaborative effort with a
traditional folk band, Jonon. The film clip, which features Gee swaying menacingly in front of dangling sheep carcasses, has been viewed more than 100,000 times
on YouTube. He begins, in the guttural rolls and pops of the Mongolian language: “Way better than a chink who perceives the world with his stomach / I’m a
Mongol / That’s why you have to bow to me.” As the crowd sings along, he paints a picture often depicted here – adorned with unvarnished racism – of the proud
land of Genghis Khan being gobbled up by voracious Chinese. All around, money is flowing in, but greed, division and miscegenation reign. Until, that is, Mongols
unite to throw out the interlopers. It’s a call that resonates in Mongolia
at a time of historical uncertainty for the former world conquerors,
wedged as they are on a thin expanse of grassland between the heaving powers of Russia and China. Here is
a rising tide of ugly ultranationalist sentiment, neo-Nazism at its most extreme. “The whores you bought, the ministers you bought / They’re not
Mongols – they’re half-breeds / Mongolia is growing and will not be tricked by the Chinese / The Mongolian era is coming to wipe everything old out of its way”
EVERYWHERE the rise of China is disrupting the old order of things, realigning economies and shaking up politics. But perhaps no country is finding itself as
dramatically sucked in by China’s economic magnetism, or as utterly terrified by its growing geopolitical clout. Mongolia,
an impoverished
home to just under three million people, on land three times
the size of France where, in many places, even trees are a rarity. Across the border are 1.3 billion Chinese, countless factories,
parliamentary democracy encircled by China and Russia, is
and the growing heft of an ancient enemy growing very rich, very quickly. Most importantly, under the Mongol earth is the very stuff needed to fuel China’s
economic explosion. Largely untapped until relatively recently, Mongolia’s mineral wealth comprises pretty much everything — coal, copper, gold, uranium — in
quantities estimated to be worth trillions of dollars. China is the largest buyer by far. For some at least, Mongolia is a place where you can become filthy rich, if you
can tap into the minerals boom, legally or otherwise. Already it is one of the world’s fastest growing economies; it grew 14.8 per cent last year and the rate is widely
predicted to top 20 per cent soon. Ulaanbaatar, where nearly half the population lives, is a boom town, bursting far beyond the confines set out by Soviet central
planners. At the city’s central Sükhbaatar Square, under a new statue of Genghis Khan, the fashionably-dressed promenade in front of Mongolia’s first Louis Vuitton
and Zegna boutiques as old Moscow city buses sputter by, a reminder that the
country’s GDP per capita is still just under
USD$3,000. Older people walk the streets in richly decorated, long deel, or tunics. The young are fervent fans of hip-hop, punk and electronic music. Mongolia
is also a place where plenty of people fear the future. Government corruption is widespread, and a small number of tycoons
exert a large influence on the government and economy. Herders and environmentalists complain that mining development is
destroying the grasslands and water sources on which livestock and nomads depend. Foreign companies circle hungrily, and the government choreographs a
complex geopolitical contest for access to the mines among China, Russia, the West and other East Asian economic powers. And then there’s the question of where
the money goes. Will Mongolia be able to use the vast wealth to build a fair and equitable society, or will it follow other poor countries afflicted by the “resource
curse,” down a path of overdependence on resources leading to stagnation, where only a small elite benefits? Will it be like Australia or Nigeria? Norway or
Venezuela? Will Mongolia, as many fear, become a virtual colony of China? And what happens if China runs out of steam? In his office in the middle of Ulaanbaatar,
Dosbergen Musaev, chief economist with Eurasia Capital, a regional investment bank, enthuses about Mongolia’s boom as the pounding of construction comes
through the window. Nearby, skeletons of new office buildings can be seen rising. Beside them is a new strip club that is larger than a nearby supermarket. “It’s
incredible,” he says of the dollar value of Mongolia’s mineral wealth. “We’re talking about what? One-and-a-half, two trillion [US dollars] probably. “I mean, look at
the streets. Ulaanbaatar is probably the capital of Humvees in the world,” Musaev says. “Everything comes down to China. That’s China’s demand for commodities.
As long as you are optimistic about China and the Chinese economy, you must be optimistic about Mongolia’s economy. And whatever growth will be in China, it
will be much better, much bigger growth here in Mongolia.” The focus of most of the buzz is on two massive mining projects under the crisp blue skies of the Gobi
Desert right by the Chinese border. One the world’s largest unexploited gold and copper mines, Oyu Tolgoi, is run by the London-based, Anglo-Australian resources
giant Rio Tinto. The site, set to go into commercial production in 2013, is estimated to contain about 46 million ounces of gold and nearly 37 billion tonnes of
copper. The other is Tavan Tolgoi, a massive deposit of six billion tonnes of coal, already operating, albeit at a fraction of its potential. Mining is nothing new to
Mongolia, but the boom is. During Mongolia’s seven decades as a Soviet client state, some mines were developed but much of the country was left untouched.
Then came the 1990s, democracy, and a succession of mining laws that gradually came to resemble more closely the regulatory wish-list of the big foreign firms. It is
all part of what people like to call the commodities “supercycle.” That is, the developing world, led by China, is undergoing an unprecedented economic rise, even
while the West struggles, and in doing so is dragging up the global price of raw materials. A rising tide of ugly ultranationalist sentiment, neo-Nazism at its most
extreme. Ask what year marks the start of the boom in Mongolia and everyone will give you a different date. But it is clear Oyu Tolgoi, which is estimated to contain
hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits, is a watershed, according to Jim Dwyer, the head of the Business Council of Mongolia. “This is the biggest agreement in
the history of the country by a magnitude of a thousand,” he enthuses. OVERSEEING Mongolia’s balancing act are urbane, Westernised, democratic politicians,
among them Ganhuyag Chuluun Hutagt, the vice finance minister. Ganhuyag is a regular among the Davos crowd of global business luminaries and he, like the
business magnate turned Prime Minister Sükhbaataryn Batbold, enjoys calling Mongolia Asia’s “Wolf Economy,” buzzwords deliberately playing off the better
known, booming “Tiger Economies” of Southeast Asia. Ganhuyag is a big believer in the idea that Mongolia will become a much richer country and will avoid the
resource curse. The country’s key strength, he says, is that it’s a democracy. The government currently pays every Mongolian 21,000 tugrik, or about AUD$14.50, a
month from mining income, although he concedes it is a policy is aimed at buying public support, money he thinks could be better spent on infrastructure. If
everything goes to plan – an uncertain thing given elections set for this year the shakiness of global capital markets – every Mongolian is soon to become a
shareholder as part of an initial public offering for Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi, or ETT, the Mongolian company involved in operating part of the massive Tavan Tolgoi coal
deposit. A whole constellation of non-governmental organisations will make sure environmental standards are upheld, he says. The real sticking point is geopolitics.
Russia, which formerly ran the show, sits to the north. China wraps around the western, southern and eastern borders, and uses its position as the dominant buyer
to get away with paying well below world prices for Mongolia’s commodities. The People’s Republic would prefer to keep all the processing industries — and the
jobs that go with them — on its side of the border. It is also quick to anger; China has shut down the border for “maintenance” during one past visit by the Dalai
Lama, and lodged a complaint during another visit in November. “We really are not in a good position to negotiate,” Ganhuyag laments. Mongolia pursues a
diplomatic policy of embracing so-called “Third Neighbours” in the West and countries such as Japan and Korea. It even sent troops to Iraq. But this does not
completely get the country out of its bind. “Even if we allow American and European interests, Australian and Canadian interests, in Mongolian mining, the main
buyers will be in China,” he says. Tavan Tolgoi has become the crucible of this geopolitical contest. Apart from the area already being developed by the state-owned
ETT, control over much of the rest of it is under negotiation, with jockeying from, among others, America’s Peabody Energy, China’s Shenhua, and Russia’s state rail
company, RZD. <p>by Aubrey Belford</p> BY AUBREY BELFORD Mongolians stand outside Ulaanbaatar’s first and only Louis Vuitton boutique. Even though China is
less than 200 km away from Tavan Tolgoi, Mongolia’s government is pushing for a huge rail line to the sea through Russia, at an estimated cost of USD$7 billion, to
break its dependence on China; currently coal is currently trucked across the rocky desert to China on dirt roads. Part of Russia’s bid is that it will build the railway —
as part of its policy of gaining influence in Mongolia and creating “a belt of friendly nations” — but it will only do so if it gets a cut of the mine, says Russia’s
ambassador to Mongolia, Victor Samoilenko. Samoilenko, formerly a Soviet then a Russian diplomat in Asia and Australia, insists this is not about Russian rivalry
with China, which is much reduced from the Cold War, when both were rivals for leadership of the Communist world, and Soviet troops in Mongolia pointed like a
dagger at Beijing. “It’s not Russian geopolitics,” he says, and pauses briefly. “Maybe it’s Mongolian geopolitics.” Others tell a similar story. Mongolia wants to be
courted by the great powers and is dangling its mineral wealth as a lure. But America is unlikely to warm its relationship any further unless Peabody Energy, the
American firm, gets in on the action. IT IS EIGHT at night on the steps outside Central Tower, Ulaanbaatar’s ritziest mall and office complex, and already blood is
spattered on the ground, possibly from a brawl, possibly from a drunk keeling over — both common sights. The bloodstain looks fresh, but there is no sign in the
crowd that anything out of the ordinary has happened. Mongolians pride themselves on their warrior spirit. The post-Communist period has seen the rehabilitation
of Genghis Khan from shunned despot to a beloved national symbol. His likeness is found on monuments throughout the capital, in homes, and on no fewer than
three different brands of vodka. Mongolians likewise have never been very good at getting along with each other. In
traditional nomadic society
“your neighbour is living 20 or 50 kilometres from you,” explains Bat-Erdeniin Batbayar, or Baabar, a former minister and one of
Mongolia’s most prominent intellectuals. “They’re producing the same things — milk, skin, wool, meat.” Now maybe only a quarter of the
population lives the traditional lifestyle. He enjoys calling Mongolia Asia’s “Wolf Economy” Alcohol abuse is widespread, with passed-out and
stumbling people visible on the streets day and night. Fights are an almost routine feature of Ulaanbaatar’s nightlife. The 1990s was when Mongolia’s urban influx
really started, but the mining boom is adding to the slums of ger outside the capital and exacerbating social tensions, says Sumati Luvsandendev, the director of the
Sant Maral Foundation, a non-profit organisation which surveys Mongolian society. The public is split on the benefits of mining, and a vast majority is convinced the
money is not being spread fairly, he says. “What is rather pessimistic are the two extremes, very rich and very poor,” Luvsandendev says. “We
also have a
quite significant part of the poor population which [has] actually immigrated to Ulaanbaatar and surrounded it, like a besieging army. On
the other side we have these very rich people with their million-dollar apartments or houses.” Besides the big
mining projects, there are black market mines, many of them run or backed by Chinese interests, which have popped up largely unnoticed in
remote corners of the country, he says. Construction too has brought to the capital thousands of Chinese who live in high-walled compounds. No one, in the
government or elsewhere, seems to know how many there are. While Mongolia’s democracy has proved resilient, an ugly ultranationalism has been on the rise. At
the most extreme end, a handful of home-grown neo-Nazi
groups have, with a blithe lack of irony, turned against Chinese and other
foreigners, picking fights, harassing inter-ethnic couples, and carrying out vigilante attacks. More generally, the sort of reflexive racism of
Gee’s music has become commonplace. If China’s economy loses strength, Mongolia goes down, Luvsandendev says. Problems also will arise if things go too well
and Mongolia’s economy overheats. “If inflation is high then you should expect public disturbances,” he argues.
No, just…no
Wachman 9
(Alan M. Wachman was a scholar of East Asian politics and international relations, specializing in cross-strait relations and Sino-U.S. relations.
He was a professor of international politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. “Mongolia’s Geopolitical Gambit:
Preserving a Precarious Independence While Resisting “Soft Colonialism”,” May 2009,
http://www.eai.or.kr/data/bbs/eng_report/2009052017262087.pdf)//BB
Although the emergence of a weak independent state in the midst of great powers accustomed to rivalry over the control of space occupied by
the new polity has the potential to disrupt a regional system of international interaction in a way that aggravates existing rivalries, Mongolia
has succeeded in establishing and preserving its independence without impelling any of the three big states to demand Ulaanbaatar’s primary
loyalties. Mongolia has deftly played to and allayed the anxieties and ambitions of Beijing, Moscow, and Washington in a way that has allowed
it to secure itself in the context of subtle, but persistent, rivalry for influence and security. Mongolia’s
independence, though,
appears to be vulnerable to any fundamental shift in relations among the three great powers. One presumes
that both Russia and the PRC have the capability of asserting control over Mongolia and that whatever
military resistance Ulaanbaatar could field would present no more than a sequence of “speed bumps” on the
road to a swift victory by a determined and much better armed adversary. Mongolia does not have the capacity to defend
itself from a land grab by either of its proximate neighbors and it has no reason to expect that the U.S. or other powers
friendly toward it would do more than lift its voice in opposition to an incursion on Mongolia’s territory.
At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, it appears that Mongolia has no adversaries, no territorial disputes with its neighbors,
and no need for anxiety about military incursions that would violate its territorial integrity. However, Mongolians
are justified in
feeling insecure. For one thing, Mongolia’s security appears to rest on too many factors that are beyond its
control. The greatest of these is friction arising in relations between Mongolia’s two big neighbors and “third neighbors”, principally—though
not exclusively—the U.S. This systemic friction is not Mongolia-specific, but related to the shift in geopolitical power on a global scale. Mongolia
is just one of many arenas in which this competition plays out. In a sense, it
makes Mongolia a canary in the geopolitical
mineshaft of Eurasia. In addition, commercial self-regard has led enterprises based in Russia and the PRC to engage in what is perceived
as predatory behavior, where the exploitation of Mongolia’s natural resources is concerned. Mongolians are eager to avoid a circumstance in
which either or both of its two neighbors engage in what might be termed “soft colonialism.” Neither has any apparent inclination to control
the territory or strangle the government of Mongolia, but both are strongly attracted to mineral and energy resources in Mongolia that have
already impelled behavior that Mongolia finds worrisome. Some observers in Mongolia fear that as opportunities evolve to enable foreign
enterprises to exploit Mongolia’s natural resources,
Russia—and especially China—will incrementally penetrate the
market in ways that will create powerful levers that Moscow or Beijing could use to manipulate policy
decisions taken in Ulaanbaatar. As Mongolia’s neighbors become increasingly attached to the notion of assuring themselves access to
Mongolia’s resources—and excluding from access commercial rivals whose interest might be judged to be an extension of geopolitical rivalry—
Mongolia may find itself subjected to extraordinary pressures, some political, that will erode
Ulaanbaatar’s independence. With expanding interests in Mongolia that may be viewed as strategic in Moscow and Beijing, the
possibility of friction between Russia and China in competition for influence in Mongolia is real. So, while it may be an exaggeration to assert
that a new “great game” is afoot with control of Mongolia’s territory as the prize, there is certainly a “not-so-great game” with Mongolia’s
resources, if not its political autonomy, at stake.
2ac
Won’t pass—Hensarling blocks—we assume lobbying, prefer bc he’s significant
Times Union 8/2
(Newspaper serving New York's capital region of Albany, Schenectady and Troy. “Banking on the future of Ex-Im New York lawmakers scramble
to protect jobs and businesses,” By Dan Freedman, Saturday, August 2, 2014, http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Banking-on-thefuture-of-Ex-Im-5664690.php)//BB
New York manufacturers have a lot to lose at the hands of U.S. Rep. Jeb Hensarling. As
chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, the Texas Republican has been using his considerable influence and libertarian views to
change the way the federal government supports the economy. Out are bailouts and government-backed loan
programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Export-Import Bank, which facilitates overseas purchases of U.S. products. Unfettered free
enterprise and free markets — with minimal governmental involvement — are in. Hensarling's offensive, which could
bring the
Export-Import Bank to a screeching halt at the end of September, has New York lawmakers scrambling to protect institutions
they once took for granted. "Any effort to eliminate the Export-Import Bank is completely misguided,'' said Sen. Charles Schumer, a member of
the Senate Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee who is working to reauthorize the bank. "It is a critical lifeline for businesses around
(New York) state that creates jobs and grows domestic manufacturing.'' Bank officials say it supports $37 billion in exports and more than
200,000 American jobs through loans and loan guarantees to foreign states and enterprises purchasing American products. In April, Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand toured industrial facilities in Syracuse, Niagara Falls and Ogdensburg that have benefited from Export-Import Bank financing, which
backers say support jobs in regions of the state that have suffered through decades of U.S. manufacturing decline. "Every $1 billion in exports of
American goods and services supports about 5,000 U.S. jobs," Gillibrand said. "We want to make sure that our companies here in New York
have the tools and resources they need to be successful exporters." Business
interests are particularly incensed over
Hensarling's bid not to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. Since 2007, Ex-Im has financed $7 billion in New York state
exports, with General Electric among the top three beneficiaries. Ex-Im supported 272 exporters in that time, 163 of which were small
businesses. In the Capital Region, Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees have underwritten $1 billion in exports by 15 companies such as Fiber Glass
Industries of Amsterdam, Ross Valve Manufacturing Inc. of Troy, and X-Ray Optical Systems of East Greenbush. The bank's defenders say its
loan default rate is a minuscule 0.211 percent and Ex-Im actually is a money-maker, returning $1.057 billion last year to the U.S. Treasury
through fees and interest payments. All of America's chief competitors overseas benefit from favorable financing deals available through their
own governments' credit agencies. Failure to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, whose charter expires Sept. 30, would amount to "unilateral
disarmament" in the face of competition from China, France, Korea and a host of others, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in an open letter
to Congress last month. "This is a jobs issue," said Christopher Wenk, the chamber's senior director for international policy. "When I talk to
state and local chambers, they scratch their heads that this is even controversial." A total of 865 entities signed the chamber letter, including
the Adirondack Regional Chamber of Commerce, the Albany-Colonie Regional Chamber, Alcoa, Corning Inc., IBM Corp., North Country Chamber
of Commerce, the Chamber of Schenectady County, and the Upstate New York District Export Council. Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., a minority
member of the committee, said: "I'll accept Jeb's argument that there's a more perfect world where no countries are subsidizing their
exporters. However, it's not this world." Hensarling remains unfazed. "I didn't come to Washington to be loved and I
haven't been disappointed," he said with a laugh in a phone interview. Forty-one House Republicans last month signed a letter urging
reauthorization of Ex-Im "to insure job creators in our districts have the certainty they need to compete in the global marketplace." Among
those signing the letter was Rep. Chris Gibson, R-N.Y. In pushing forward his agenda, Hensarling finds himself in uncertain political terrain.
An ambitious sixth-term lawmaker who considered competing for a House leadership position after former
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary bid, Hensarling might lose all hope of advancement if he
compromises.
(GOP fragmentation, Cantor defeated and Boehner backed down
ABC 7/29
(“Senate Democrats Seek to Split GOP on Export Bank” WASHINGTON — Jul 29, 2014, 3:56 AM ET By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-dems-seek-split-gop-export-bank-24752702)//BB
The Ex-Im Bank provides loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to foreign buyers of U.S. products. Congress must renew its charter before
October to keep it functioning, and questions about that
future are splitting Republican lawmakers. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and most governors want to keep the bank, opposing several conservative groups - including Club
for Growth and
Heritage Action - that are influential in GOP primaries and anti-establishment Republican circles. Caught
between their conservative base and pragmatic business groups, some Republican candidates are tip-toeing around the issue. For Democrats in
toss-up states such as Landrieu in Louisiana, it's a chance to label their GOP opponents as beholden to the ideological right at the expense of
creating jobs. Landrieu is highlighting the Ex-Im issue in her re-election fight against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. She said Monday the bank promotes
trade, creates jobs and helps small businesses, and Congress must reauthorize it "as soon as possible." Cassidy is responding cautiously, raising
questions about the bank's value without explicitly opposing its reauthorization. "Very serious reforms are required," Cassidy said. His caution
likely comes from the bank's ability to stir tea party supporters and other activists who want a smaller, less intrusive government. Well-run
companies can get by just fine without the Ex-Im, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said recently. He accused the bank of "political spending, both
ideological and crony-based." GOP
lawmakers took note when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., suffered a
stunning primary loss to a tea party-backed professor who strongly criticized the Ex-Im. Cantor's
successor on the GOP leadership team - Kevin McCarthy of California - promptly opposed the bank's
reauthorization. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a longtime supporter of the bank, moved to a neutral position.
No link, their cards are either talking about offshore oil drilling or some generic ocean
policy. None of this specific to the aff.
Border thumps and structural partisanship exists independent of the plan
MinnPost 8/1
(Devin Henry, “You can't go home, yet: House delays recess after conservative border-bill revolt,” 8/1/14, http://www.minnpost.com/dcdispatches/2014/08/you-cant-go-home-yet-house-delays-recess-after-conservative-border-bill-revolt?utm_source=MinnPostRSS&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+minnpost+(MinnPost.com+-+Minnesota+News+and+Analysis))//BB
House GOP
leadership had planned on passing a $659 million border bill on Thursday night before breaking for the recess, but
they pulled it off the floor after conservatives objected. The caucus huddled later in the afternoon and Friday morning to discuss the
bill’s path forward. So the House is still in session and will try tweaking the bill and voting again before skipping town. But the GOP’s
establishment members had clearly hoped it wouldn’t get to this point. Take, for example, Minnesota Rep. John Kline, who predicted on
Tuesday that the GOP was “going to do something about the crisis at the border.” Or Rep. Erik Paulsen, who said the House had “thankfully”
crafted a plan to deal with the crisis. “Thankfully, we’ve got a plan put together, where we’ll have support, and it’s really critical to act on that,”
he said then. It’s important to note that even
if the House finds a way to pass it, the GOP’s bill isn’t going to
become law — the Senate has already left for its recess, and the White House threatened to veto the bill anyway. But it’s
an opportunity for the GOP to claim the high ground with voters while in their districts in August. Obama’s border
proposal hasn’t gone anywhere, and Senate Democrats tried and failed to lift theirs over procedural hurdles last night. So House
Republicans, assuming they can pass their bill, would be able to point to it and say: we passed something to
alleviate this border crisis and nobody else has. But conservatives said the bill — which would beef up border
security measures though the end of September and make it easier to send children who have crossed the border back to their home countries
— doesn’t
go far enough toward stemming the tide of unaccompanied Central American children entering the United States. “I’m
very disappointed with the bill Republicans are bringing up because it’s $659 million to be split between Eric
Holder and Sylvia Burwell,” Rep. Michele Bachmann said, referencing the Attorney General and secretary of Health and Human
Services. “They are expediting asylum, they are making asylum more efficient and quicker for illegal foreign nationals who are coming
into the country. … The taxpayer loses over and over and over again, and no one will be deported. So I’m a ‘hell no’ on this vote.” Democrats
don’t offer any help It’s certainly not unheard of for the very vigorous conservative faction of the GOP conference to sink bills leadership would
rather they support. They most famously did so last summer when the House voted down an early version of the farm bill, and, more recently,
the caucus couldn’t coalesce around leadership’s plan to try attaching some type of Republican legislative priority to a debt limit hike in
February. Support MinnPost by becoming a sustaining member today. Speaker John Boehner has, on at least six occasions this session, spurned
the majority of his caucus and asked Democrats to provide the bulk of the votes needed to pass important legislation. But Democrats
as a
whole weren’t about to get behind the border package: it’s far smaller than either the White House or Senate
Democrats wanted, and it included deportation provisions their base opposes. So Boehner, caught between his angry
conservative flank and Democrats’ refusal to throw him a lifeline, simply didn’t have the votes to pass his bill on Thursday. And so Democrats
crowed that, just a day after his caucus voted to sue President Obama for too often acting on his own, Boehner released a statement
encouraging him to do just that: “There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for
congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries,” he said. VA, highway
bills pass But the week wasn’t a total loss. The House’s highway bill, meant to keep federal highway projects funded through next May while
lawmakers ostensibly work out a longer-term solution, is on its way to the president to be signed into law. And Congress did pass its Veterans
Affairs bill, a package meant to relieve VA hospital wait times. The bill passed overwhelmingly — 420-5 in the House and 91-3 in the Senate —
providing at least one big, bipartisan reform bill for lawmakers of both parties to tout at home. “I guess in this Congress, considering how things
could have been, if we can get this veterans bill moved out of here, that’s probably the best we can hope for,” Rep. Tim Walz said. “Today the
Senate voted to send a bipartisan bill to improve care for veterans as well as legislation shoring up the Highway Trust Fund to the President’s
desk, and we need to continue this bipartisan cooperation and take action on other critical issues,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said in a statement.
Who's to blame? Much has been made about how little Congress has done this session — it’s
on pace to pass the fewest laws
of any Congress in modern history — and both parties have found ways to blame the other for intransigence.
Rep. Keith Ellison said Tuesday that the House should consider taking up legislation important to Democrats, like
an extension of lapsed unemployment benefits, a minimum wage hike or a Senate-passed immigration reform bill. For their part, Kline and
Paulsen both offered the same statistic: that the House has passed more than 300 bills awaiting action in the
Senate.
Ocean policy overwhelmingly bipart – WRRDA proves oceans are unique
Hower 14(Mike-journalist on sustainability, social entrepreneurship, tech, politics and law, previously work for the United States
Congress, 5/30/2014, Triple Pundit, “Congress Sends 123 billion on water infrastructure bill”, http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/05/congresssends-12-3-billion-water-infrastructure-bill-obamas-desk/)
The future of our oceans, rivers, coastlines and other waterways is looking much brighter, thanks to the passing of a
$12.3 billion water infrastructure projects bill by the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. The Water Resources Reform and
Development Act (WRRDA) addresses management of U.S. waterways and coasts and includes billions of dollars in high-impact projects.
Assuming President Barack Obama signs the bill into law, it will be the first federal water infrastructure authorization since 2007. The bill is the
product of several months of Senate-House negotiations, as the two chambers worked to resolve disagreements over which projects should
receive congressional funding. When negotiations first commenced, the House had passed a partisan amendment offered by Congressman Bill
Flores (R-TX) that would block the Army Corps of Engineers from implementing the National Ocean Policy, which promotes smart ocean
planning and ocean protection. Conversely, the Senate included a provision offered by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which would
establish a National Endowment for the Oceans (NEO) to support conservation and restoration of ocean resources. In the final WRDA bill, the
Flores provision was axed while the Whitehouse provision passed. The Flores provision would have made it much more difficult to protect
important habitat and ocean wildlife; build climate resilience; address changing ocean conditions like ocean acidification; encourage sustainable
use; and provide greater certainty for businesses and other ocean users. Luckily, the provision failed and Congress preserved a policy that
promotes smart ocean planning and science-based management of our resources. The Whitehouse provision authorizes the Corps, in
coordination with states, nonprofit organizations and other stakeholders, to undertake studies to determine the feasibility of projects to
enhance ocean and coastal ecosystem resilience. The studies will help the Corps identify specific projects, such as restoring wetlands that offer
protection from storms, making beaches more resilient to erosion and helping ecosystems adapt to sea level rise. The measure passed despite
strong opposition from the influential conservative group Heritage Action, which urged lawmakers to vote against it. Heritage Action said the
bill “hikes spending while doing little to reduce bureaucracy and limit the role of the federal government.” However, the
bill was passed
412-4 by the House, and 91-7 in the Senate. For a branch of government that can barely pass a budget,
this is a rare example of bona fide bipartisanship. “This legislation is a reminder–an unfortunately stark
reminder—that given a chance to work together in a bipartisan fashion, we can produce results for the American
people,” said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.).
Partisanship is prevalent – proven by a non-controversial policy
Ben Leubsdorf, USA Today‘s Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page gave young Leubsdorf praise on
national TV for an award he received last week from the New Hampshire Press Association, 7-10-14
“Partisan Divide Over Fed on Display as Congressional Panel Considers Bill,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/07/10/partisan-divide-over-fed-on-display-as-congressionalpanel-considers-bill/
The polarization
of American politics now extends to the issue of whether interest rates should be determined by
a bill that would, among other things,
require theFederal Reserve to adopt a formal rule to guide monetary policy decisions to tighten or ease credit. An
mathematical formulas. The House Financial Services Committee on Thursday discussed
oft-cited model is the “Taylor rule,” which calculates changes in the benchmark federal funds rate based on measures of inflation and economic
output. “I
don’t think this should be a partisan issue in any way,” said Stanford University economist John Taylor, namesake
of the rule, as he testified in support of the legislation. But it is. Republicans introduced the bill this week and expressed
support for it Thursday as a sensible move to improve transparency and performance at the central
bank. Democrats condemned it as an assault on the Fed’s independence. A “clear, predictable rule” for policy would be “free from political
micromanagement,” said Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), the panel’s chairman. The Fed’s “independence and discretion must be paired with
appropriate transparency and accountability,” he added. The committee’s top Democrat, California Rep. Maxine Waters, countered that the bill
would “cripple the Federal Reserve’s ability to promote growth, stabilize the economy and, at times of extraordinary crisis, take decisive action
to avoid an economic collapse.” The
stark divide isn’t surprising, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
professor of political science at George Washington University. “This degree of partisanship, and what people called the
‘polarization of parties,’ really seeps into all aspects of policy,” she said. “I see these disagreements as
emblematic of the parties’ different positions on, ‘how do you improve the state of the economy?’” Public
criticism of the Fed has grown louder since the 2008 financial crisis, when the central bank began engaging in high-profile and unconventional
policies intended to stabilize the financial system and, subsequently, to bolster the U.S. economy.
((((Bipart fails- Republicans lashing out against Obama’s use of executive power
Carl P. Leubsdorf, the former Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News, 7-6-14,
“Leubsdorf: Models of bipartisanship not likely to gain traction,”
http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2014-07-06/leubsdorf-models-bipartisanship-not-likely-gain-traction
Leubsdorf: Models of
bipartisanship not likely to gain traction In politically gridlocked Washington, both
sides are frustrated. Each is basically blaming its failures on the opposition’s misuse of powers. House
Speaker John Boehner launched the latest round, seeking to halt President Barack Obama’s repeated use of
executive actions to bypass congressional resistance to his “year of action.” Obama has revised procedures for his
signature health care law that a normally functioning Congress should have fixed, granted amnesty to
thousands of young immigrants in the country illegally, limited carbon emissions from power plants, and
refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
AT: Economy Impact
No impact to Ex-Im; 99.7% of the jobs and loans could be provided by the private
sector anyway
Michael Grunwald, TIME's senior national correspondent, before coming to TIME, he spent nearly a
decade at the Washington Post, 7-2-14 “House Conservatives Are Right: Kill The Export-Import Bank,”
http://time.com/2951443/export-import-bank-house-conservatives/
Some corporate subsidies are good and necessary. This is not one of them. The self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who run
the Republican Party did not object to the bloated agribusiness subsidies in this year’s $956 billion farm bill. They’ve fought for weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn’t want and water projects the country doesn’t need. They’ve helped repeal sensible flood insurance reforms
designed to slash subsidies for waterfront property. And now they expect us to cheer their efforts to kill the obscure Export-Import Bank, which
doesn’t even cost taxpayers money? Sure, why not? The
Republicans may be hypocrites, but they’re right to take aim
at the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im is, as Senator Barack Obama said during his presidential campaign, “little more than a fund for
corporate welfare.” It provides cheap credit to foreign borrowers, often cash-flush behemoths like Brazil’s state-owned oil company or
the emirate of Dubai, so they can buy products from U.S. exporters, often cash-flush behemoths like Boeing, Bechtel, Caterpillar or General
Electric. It’s dearly beloved by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but it’s often earned its
reputation for crony capitalism. William Jefferson, the congressman memorably caught with cash in his freezer, got his dirty money in exchange
for introducing corporate executives to Ex-Im officials, and the Justice Department is now investigating potential corruption inside the bank.
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor—like Texas Governor Rick Perry and other talk-a-good-game fiscal conservatives—supported the ExIm Bank, and the Obama Administration has defended it as a jobs engine. But Cantor’s stunning primary defeat to Tea Party challenger Dave
Brat scrambled the politics of Ex-Im, persuading House Republican leaders to oppose the bank despite the pleadings of the Chamber and some
influential corporate giants. Cantor had rolled the Tea Party and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling on flood insurance; his
successor, Kevin McCarthy, wants to reassure the Tea Party and Hensarling, a potential rival for his job, that the leadership will put conservative
principles first. There
aren’t a lot of principled arguments for saving Ex-Im. Its defenders say most of its loans
help small businesses, which is technically true when they define “small” as fewer than 1,500 employees. But 30% of the cash it
lends goes to Boeing and over 60% goes to 10 large corporations. The bank also boasts that it doesn’t cost taxpayers
money—which is true, or mostly true, depending on how you do the accounting—because only 0.3 percent of its loans default. But that’s
not evidence the Ex-Im is effective. That’s evidence the Ex-Im is unnecessary. Surely the private sector can provide
99.7-percent-safe loans to massive conglomerates. This is the problem with arguments that the Ex-Im
“supports” about 200,000 jobs; most of those jobs would probably be supported without the Ex-Im. And
while exports do help the economy, export subsidies distort the economy, reducing the cost of capital
for well-connected companies while putting their competitors at an artificial disadvantage. Paul Krugman
recently suggested on his New York Times blog that even though those distortions are inefficient, eliminating the Ex-Im’s modest economic
stimulus while the recovery remains soft (and while the Fed would be unlikely to offset its stimulus by raising interest rates) would be worse.
I’ve been adedicated supporter of stimulus—I mean, dedicated—but Krugman’s argument can be used to justify any government program, no
matter how absurd. It was a legitimate argument during the cataclysmic freefall of early 2009, but it packs less punch now that the economy is
creating jobs at a decent pace. The best argument for the Ex-Im’s corporate welfare is probably that other nations do it, too. That’s true. It
would be nice if the Ex-Im died as part of a global trade deal that forced other countries to slash their own export subsidies and stop picking
winners and losers. But since that isn’t a current option, we ought to go first and urge the rest of the world to follow. The direct
benefits
the Ex-Im Bank provides for Boeing do not outweigh the indirect costs it imposes on everyone else.
AT: Asia Pivot
Ex-Im failure won’t affect the pivot—competitiveness in Asia is already low
Preeg 7/29
(Ernest H. Preeg, Ph.D., is the Senior Advisor for Trade and Finance. He has extensive experience in international affairs, including service as the
American Ambassador to Haiti, “U.S. Exports Pivot Away From Asian Markets,” JULY 29, 2014, https://www.mapi.net/research/publications/usexports-pivot-away-asian-markets)//BB
There has been much talk about the Obama defense strategy to pivot toward Asia so as to balance the growing Chinese military presence and capability. Of far
broader and greater long-term importance, however, is U.S.
export competitiveness, which has been pivoting away from Asian
markets, while Chinese exports to the region soar. From 2009 to 2013, U.S. merchandise exports to 13 principal Asian trading
partners grew by only 37%, while exports to the rest of the world were up by 52%. And in dramatic contrast, Chinese exports to the Asian markets
grew by 85%. As a result, Chinese exports rose from roughly double U.S. exports in 2009 to 2.7 times larger in 2013. Even more disturbing, U.S. trade
deficits with almost all of those 13 Asian trading partners, as well as with China, surged during the four years, up by $153 billion to $478 billion
in 2013, amounting to 70% of the global deficit. This report addresses the U.S. export competitiveness pivot away from these Asian markets, and is in
two parts. The first part presents trade accounts for U.S. and Chinese trade within Asia from 2009 to 2013, and export growth for the first half of 2014. The second
part comments on three
policy issues related to the U.S. export pivot away from Asia: currency manipulation,
the TPP trade negotiations, and transition from the dollarized financial system. The U.S. Export Pivot U.S. and Chinese merchandise exports to
13 principal Asian trading partners1 from 2009 to 2013 are presented in Table 1. U.S. global exports grew by 50% over the four years, but exports to the 13 Asian
nations grew by only 37%, while exports to the rest of the world were up by 52%. And, in parallel, Chinese exports to the 13 Asian nations soared by 85%, or more
than twice as fast as U.S. exports. Moreover, this very large export growth differential carries over to all 13 Asian trading partners. Chinese
exports grew
40% faster to South Korea, roughly doubled U.S. export growth to Japan and India, grew three times faster to
Vietnam, and grew five times faster to Malaysia. Thus U.S. exports have been pivoting away from principal Asian markets, and most
strikingly relative to China. The resulting absolute levels of Chinese exports in 2013, as shown in the first column of figures in Table 1, required an adjustment
related to how China records its trade through Hong Kong. China records exports through Hong Kong as exports to Hong Kong, while imports through Hong Kong are
recorded by the country of origin. Thus, in 2013, recorded exports to Hong Kong were $385 billion, or 17% of global exports, while imports were only $16 billion, or
less than 1% of global imports, with a resulting trade surplus with Hong Kong of $369 billion, much larger than the global surplus of $260 billion. This anomaly in
recording exports to and imports from Hong Kong results in substantially smaller exports and trade surpluses in recorded bilateral trade with the rest of the world,
on average by 16%. In order to adjust for this in Table 1, Chinese official export figures for 2013 for the 13 Asian markets have been increased by 15% as a
reasonable estimate of actual exports. Table 1 – U.S. and Chinese Exports to Asian Trading Partners, 2009-2013 *Estimated, based on a 15% upward adjustment
related to Hong Kong **Negligible; U.S. exports in 2009 were less than $0.05 billion Source(s): U.S. Census Bureau, FT-900, and China’s Customs Statistics (Monthly
Exports and Imports) In 2009, not shown in the table, Chinese exports to the 13 Asian markets were roughly double U.S. exports. By 2013, however, as a result of
the much higher growth of Chinese exports throughout the region, Chinese exports of $707 billion were 2.7 times larger than the $259 billion of U.S. exports. And
again, the great disparity prevailed in all 13 markets. Chinese exports to Japan, South Korea, and India were about 2.5 times larger than U.S. exports, to Malaysia
and Indonesia at least 4 times larger, and to Vietnam 10 times larger. The smallest disparities were with Taiwan, with Chinese exports 1.8 times larger, and Australia
and Singapore, 1.7 times larger. This disappointing U.S. export performance in the 13 Asian markets stands in sharp contrast with U.S.-China trade, which has been
growing more rapidly in both directions, but with U.S. imports more than three times larger than exports. In 2013, U.S. exports to China were $122 billion, imports
were $440 billion, and the deficit rose to $318 billion. Even more disturbing is the rapid growth in U.S. trade deficits, from 2009 to 2013, with almost all of the 13
markets, as well with China, as shown in Table 2. The deficit with the 13 rose by 63% to $160.0 billion in 2013, even faster than the 40% increase in the deficit with
China to $318.4 billion. The deficit with Japan was up by $28.4 billion, with South Korea by $10.0 billion, with Vietnam by $10.4 billion, and with India by $15.1
billion. The 13 plus China thus registered an increase in the U.S. deficit of $153.2 billion, or 47%, to $478.4 billion in 2013, which amounted to 70% of the $688.0
billion global deficit. This is the four-year picture of a large U.S. export competitiveness pivot away from the 13 Asian markets, both in terms of export growth, which
was much higher for the rest of the world, and the rapidly growing regional trade deficit, including China, now up to 70% of the global deficit. Moreover, U.S.
exports to Asia continued their lackluster growth relative to China during the first half of 2014. U.S. exports to the 13 Asian markets were up by only 3% for January
through May, while Chinese exports grew three times faster, at 9%. And if these growth rates continue during the second half of the year, the five-year export
growth, from 2009 to 2014, will be 41% for the United States and 102% for China. Table 2 – U.S. Trade Balances With Asian Trading Partners Source(s): U.S. Census
Bureau, FT-900 This final observation has a sad and striking irony for President Obama’s trade strategy. He pledged to double U.S. exports over these five years,
while in Asia, China has co-opted the doubling path while U.S. export performance in the 13 markets was well below half of the president’s goal. This export
competitiveness pivot away from Asia raises important questions as to what will happen over the next five years. Will Chinese exports rise from triple to quadruple
U.S. exports while the U.S. regional trade deficit continues to grow at a rapid pace, or will the U.S. export pivot away from Asia reverse course? And what are the
economic policies in play that are causing this extraordinary shift in trade competitiveness across the Pacific, to the detriment of the United States? The TransPacific Export Challenge Ahead The progressive loss of U.S. export competitiveness across the Pacific centers on the technology-intensive manufacturing sector, and
is the result of radically different trade strategies by Asians compared with the United States. In 2013, 75% of U.S. exports to the 13 Asian markets were
manufactures, as were 95% of Chinese exports, and the large majority of U.S., Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean manufactured exports are in high-technology
industries.2 As for national economic strategies, first Japan and South Korea, then China, and more recently India and some other Asian nations, have pursued
export-oriented growth, centered on the manufacturing sector, including an ever-larger trade surplus. In short, a mercantilist growth strategy, which has intensified
within the export-oriented economic recovery strategies from the 2008 global recession. And the United States, in near total contrast, has almost entirely ignored
the resulting rapid growth in the trans-Pacific trade deficit in manufactures, as well as lackluster export growth, with great loss to American manufacturing jobs. U.S.
economic strategy has focused far more on domestic objectives, often with adverse impact on export competitiveness for manufactures. This radical difference and
underlying conflict in trade strategies across the Pacific deserve a comprehensive, in-depth analysis for charting a more export-competitive U.S. course ahead. Only
brief comment is offered here on three related issues confronting the international trade and financial system: currency manipulation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) trade negotiations, and the transition underway from the longstanding dollarized financial system. Currency manipulation. Currency manipulation, whereby a
government intervenes in currency markets to lower its currency below its market-based level, is the ultimate mercantilist policy instrument. If China
manipulates its currency 30% below its market level, the result is an across-the-board 30% surcharge on
imports and a 30% subsidy for all of its exports. IMF Article IV obligates members not to manipulate their currencies so as to gain an
unfair competitive advantage in trade, with manipulation defined as protracted, large-scale official purchases of foreign exchange, which have the direct and
immediate effect of lowering the currency. And if the $4 trillion of official Chinese purchases over the past dozen years are not protracted and large scale, IMF
Article IV is a travesty rather than a meaningful anti-mercantilist obligation. Moreover, while China has been the outstanding manipulator, other Asian nations, with
a dominant, rapidly growing share of their trade with China, have seen it in their interest to peg their currencies to the Chinese currency, thus becoming
manipulators as well, with results evident in Table 2. The
violation of IMF obligations has
U.S. response to this unprecedented scope of currency manipulation in
been total denial. Twice each year, the secretary of the treasury is required to report to the Senate Banking Committee
on currency manipulation, and for years, he has stated that no nation, including China, has been manipulating its currency in violation of its IMF obligations. The
TPP trade negotiations. The United States has been negotiating a trans-Pacific free trade agreement for five years, an effort that recently became much
more important when Japan joined the negotiations. Such an agreement would stimulate trade among members across the Pacific, and with the nonparticipation of
China, an agreement would help the United States regain market share in some Asian markets. The negotiations are
currently bogged down,
however, most importantly by the inability of the president to obtain trade negotiating authority from the Congress, where Democratic leaders in both houses
oppose the authority. In the past, such negotiating authority has required bipartisan leadership support in order to obtain a majority. There are also important
substantive issues in contention that became clear in draft legislation considered in the House. One noteworthy issue is currency manipulation, where a bipartisan
House majority wants a commitment in the TPP that participants will not manipulate their currencies. If the United States and participant Asian nations open their
markets to free trade, and the Asian nations then manipulate their currencies against the dollar, there could be an acceleration of the growing U.S. deficit thanks to
free trade. Such a currency manipulation provision in the TPP, however, would be almost impossible for the United States to pursue. How could the U.S. trade
representative insist on a currency manipulation commitment in the TPP when the secretary of the treasury, twice each year, states that currency manipulation
does not exist? The prospect for a TPP agreement, therefore, is exceedingly dim for 2014 and highly problematic for 2015. Transition from the dollarized financial
system. The dollarized international financial system of the past seven decades is in transition to some form of multi–key currency relationship. Principal economic
dimensions for the change are the sharp decline of the U.S. share of global exports and the huge accumulation of U.S. foreign sovereign debt. For manufactures, the
dominant and fastest growing sector of trade, the U.S. share of global exports plunged from 19% in 2000 to 12% in 2012, while the Chinese share tripled from 7% to
22% and the EU share was down slightly, from 22% to 19%. The related large U.S. current account deficits, plus large-scale official dollar purchases as others
manipulate their currencies, quadrupled U.S. foreign sovereign debt from $2.6 trillion in 2000 to $10.3 trillion in 2013. A full analysis of this far-reaching systemic
change has been presented elsewhere.3 Of relevance here is that the transition is more likely to be driven by financial markets than managed by key currency
governments, and that the regional orientation, as shown for U.S. trade in Tables 1 and 2, will take place largely if not principally in Asian financial markets. The
implications of this systemic transition are far-reaching, including, yet again, the currency manipulation issue, but they have received almost no official U.S.
attention. * * * This concludes the discussion of the recent U.S.
certainly deserve
export pivot away from Asian markets and some related policy issues. The questions raised
more serious examination. MAPI provides quarterly reports on U.S. and Chinese trade in manufactures, and these reports for
the second half of 2014 and 2015 will shed important further light on where the trans-Pacific U.S. trade relationship is headed. It is not too soon, however, for the
United States to take actions to reduce lagging exports to Asia. A first step would be to state that China and some other Asian nations are manipulating their
currencies in violation of their IMF obligations, and that such manipulation should stop.
AT: India Relations
Alt causes to relations- China, Pakistan, and empirics
CNN 5/6
(Ravi Agrawal, CNN's India Bureau Chief, “Why India feels jilted by Obama,” April 6, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/06/opinion/agrawalindia-vote-u-s-relations/)//BB
New Delhi (CNN) -- When I left India to move to America 13 years ago, the President of the United States was George W. Bush, a man who was
often internationally lampooned for mismanaging two wars and tainting Washington's image abroad. But moving back to India this month, I've
been struck by the number of Indians who look
back wistfully at the Bush years. For Indians, Bush is considered a better friend than
President Barack Obama. In fact, right now, Indians don't see Obama as much of a friend at all. It didn't start off that way. In
the early days of his presidency, in 2009, Obama marked India's Republic Day by saying Indians "have no better friend" than the people of the
United States. A year later, when he visited New Delhi, he famously predicted India and the U.S. would form "the defining partnership of the
21st century." At the time, Obama won Indian hearts and minds as he chowed down kebabs at the city's famous Bukhara restaurant. The chefs
created a special platter that exists to this day -- the Obama platter. (There was already a Bill Clinton platter, as well as a Hillary one.) Ravi
Agrawal Ravi Agrawal Today, the platters have gone cold: New Delhi feels jilted. Instead of a defining partnership, Indians couldn't quite define
where they stood. Talk
of a G-2 -- a U.S. mega-alliance with China, an idea which didn't come from Obama -- inflamed old
feelings of jealousy. Washington's impending pullout from Afghanistan, along with its generous aid to Pakistan,
has stoked angst. But the real low point was reached late last year when an Indian diplomat in New York was arrested and
then strip-searched for allegedly underpaying her nanny. Obama likely had no prior knowledge of the case or the arrest, but still, the
perceived American high-handedness turned out to be too much for India to digest. New Delhi revoked
privileges to U.S. interests in the country, and across India, there were anti-American protests. Regardless of the
merits of the dispute, Indians wondered: If they had no better friend, was this the treatment they deserved? The sense of betrayal is mutual.
Washington feels let down, too -- and with some good reason. When
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine this year, India chose
not to side with the United States but to abstain on a U.N. General Assembly resolution against the Russian
action. (Russia is, incidentally, India's largest supplier of arms.) When Washington sought to coalesce support for stringent
sanctions against Iran, the surprise spoiler turned out to be New Delhi, which said it needed Iranian oil. What happened to what
was promised to be a close friendship between the world's two biggest democracies? Frosty India and U.S. relations? A new age for India's
Anglo-Indians One could look to history for answers. Since its independence in 1947, India -- scarred by centuries of invasions and interventions
-- has been a reluctant global player. Its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of nations that
aspired to steer clear of great powers and their geopolitics. But 67 years on from its creation, India is now itself an aspiring great power, already
among the top 10 economies in the world. Indian diplomats routinely express their hopes for India to become a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council, joining the ranks of Russia, the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom. And yet India's
foreign policy
has remained aloof, lagging well behind its growth. The country has about the same number of diplomats abroad as
Singapore, a country with a population 1/250th of India's. The United States, with a population one quarter of India's, has
10 times as many diplomats. How can India make or maintain friendships when it has always stayed at home?
AT: Mongolia
This is at least as stupid as it sounds
Global Mail 12
(Aubrey Belford, Asia Correspondent, The Global Mail, “The Filthy Rich and The Racists in Mongolia’s Mining Boom,” February 6, 2012
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-filthy-rich-and-the-racists-in-mongolias-mining-boom/16/)//BB
Gee considers himself a musician with a message, and he’s developed a huge following among young Mongolians. Economic
inequality, corrupt
politicians and environmental destruction from mining are all issues he confronts, but rolling up to a nightclub at the base of an apartment
building, it is clear where he, and many Mongolians, locate the root of these problems. Swaggering on a stage in front of a sweaty crowd of university
undergraduates, he asks rhetorically: “What is this thing, growing among us every day here in Mongolia?” The crowd, hands thrust into the air, doesn’t miss a beat:
“Hujaa!” they yell, a Mongolian slur for Chinese, something like the English insult “chink.” It’s also the title of one of Gee’s biggest hits, a collaborative effort with a
traditional folk band, Jonon. The film clip, which features Gee swaying menacingly in front of dangling sheep carcasses, has been viewed more than 100,000 times
on YouTube. He begins, in the guttural rolls and pops of the Mongolian language: “Way better than a chink who perceives the world with his stomach / I’m a
Mongol / That’s why you have to bow to me.” As the crowd sings along, he paints a picture often depicted here – adorned with unvarnished racism – of the proud
land of Genghis Khan being gobbled up by voracious Chinese. All around, money is flowing in, but greed, division and miscegenation reign. Until, that is, Mongols
unite to throw out the interlopers. It’s a call that resonates in Mongolia
at a time of historical uncertainty for the former world conquerors,
wedged as they are on a thin expanse of grassland between the heaving powers of Russia and China. Here is
a rising tide of ugly ultranationalist sentiment, neo-Nazism at its most extreme. “The whores you bought, the ministers you bought / They’re not
Mongols – they’re half-breeds / Mongolia is growing and will not be tricked by the Chinese / The Mongolian era is coming to wipe everything old out of its way”
EVERYWHERE the rise of China is disrupting the old order of things, realigning economies and shaking up politics. But perhaps no country is finding itself as
dramatically sucked in by China’s economic magnetism, or as utterly terrified by its growing geopolitical clout. Mongolia,
an impoverished
home to just under three million people, on land three times
the size of France where, in many places, even trees are a rarity. Across the border are 1.3 billion Chinese, countless factories,
parliamentary democracy encircled by China and Russia, is
and the growing heft of an ancient enemy growing very rich, very quickly. Most importantly, under the Mongol earth is the very stuff needed to fuel China’s
economic explosion. Largely untapped until relatively recently, Mongolia’s mineral wealth comprises pretty much everything — coal, copper, gold, uranium — in
quantities estimated to be worth trillions of dollars. China is the largest buyer by far. For some at least, Mongolia is a place where you can become filthy rich, if you
can tap into the minerals boom, legally or otherwise. Already it is one of the world’s fastest growing economies; it grew 14.8 per cent last year and the rate is widely
predicted to top 20 per cent soon. Ulaanbaatar, where nearly half the population lives, is a boom town, bursting far beyond the confines set out by Soviet central
planners. At the city’s central Sükhbaatar Square, under a new statue of Genghis Khan, the fashionably-dressed promenade in front of Mongolia’s first Louis Vuitton
and Zegna boutiques as old Moscow city buses sputter by, a reminder that the
country’s GDP per capita is still just under
USD$3,000. Older people walk the streets in richly decorated, long deel, or tunics. The young are fervent fans of hip-hop, punk and electronic music. Mongolia
is also a place where plenty of people fear the future. Government corruption is widespread, and a small number of tycoons
exert a large influence on the government and economy. Herders and environmentalists complain that mining development is
destroying the grasslands and water sources on which livestock and nomads depend. Foreign companies circle hungrily, and the government choreographs a
complex geopolitical contest for access to the mines among China, Russia, the West and other East Asian economic powers. And then there’s the question of where
the money goes. Will Mongolia be able to use the vast wealth to build a fair and equitable society, or will it follow other poor countries afflicted by the “resource
curse,” down a path of overdependence on resources leading to stagnation, where only a small elite benefits? Will it be like Australia or Nigeria? Norway or
Venezuela? Will Mongolia, as many fear, become a virtual colony of China? And what happens if China runs out of steam? In his office in the middle of Ulaanbaatar,
Dosbergen Musaev, chief economist with Eurasia Capital, a regional investment bank, enthuses about Mongolia’s boom as the pounding of construction comes
through the window. Nearby, skeletons of new office buildings can be seen rising. Beside them is a new strip club that is larger than a nearby supermarket. “It’s
incredible,” he says of the dollar value of Mongolia’s mineral wealth. “We’re talking about what? One-and-a-half, two trillion [US dollars] probably. “I mean, look at
the streets. Ulaanbaatar is probably the capital of Humvees in the world,” Musaev says. “Everything comes down to China. That’s China’s demand for commodities.
As long as you are optimistic about China and the Chinese economy, you must be optimistic about Mongolia’s economy. And whatever growth will be in China, it
will be much better, much bigger growth here in Mongolia.” The focus of most of the buzz is on two massive mining projects under the crisp blue skies of the Gobi
Desert right by the Chinese border. One the world’s largest unexploited gold and copper mines, Oyu Tolgoi, is run by the London-based, Anglo-Australian resources
giant Rio Tinto. The site, set to go into commercial production in 2013, is estimated to contain about 46 million ounces of gold and nearly 37 billion tonnes of
copper. The other is Tavan Tolgoi, a massive deposit of six billion tonnes of coal, already operating, albeit at a fraction of its potential. Mining is nothing new to
Mongolia, but the boom is. During Mongolia’s seven decades as a Soviet client state, some mines were developed but much of the country was left untouched.
Then came the 1990s, democracy, and a succession of mining laws that gradually came to resemble more closely the regulatory wish-list of the big foreign firms. It is
all part of what people like to call the commodities “supercycle.” That is, the developing world, led by China, is undergoing an unprecedented economic rise, even
while the West struggles, and in doing so is dragging up the global price of raw materials. A rising tide of ugly ultranationalist sentiment, neo-Nazism at its most
extreme. Ask what year marks the start of the boom in Mongolia and everyone will give you a different date. But it is clear Oyu Tolgoi, which is estimated to contain
hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits, is a watershed, according to Jim Dwyer, the head of the Business Council of Mongolia. “This is the biggest agreement in
the history of the country by a magnitude of a thousand,” he enthuses. OVERSEEING Mongolia’s balancing act are urbane, Westernised, democratic politicians,
among them Ganhuyag Chuluun Hutagt, the vice finance minister. Ganhuyag is a regular among the Davos crowd of global business luminaries and he, like the
business magnate turned Prime Minister Sükhbaataryn Batbold, enjoys calling Mongolia Asia’s “Wolf Economy,” buzzwords deliberately playing off the better
known, booming “Tiger Economies” of Southeast Asia. Ganhuyag is a big believer in the idea that Mongolia will become a much richer country and will avoid the
resource curse. The country’s key strength, he says, is that it’s a democracy. The government currently pays every Mongolian 21,000 tugrik, or about AUD$14.50, a
month from mining income, although he concedes it is a policy is aimed at buying public support, money he thinks could be better spent on infrastructure. If
everything goes to plan – an uncertain thing given elections set for this year the shakiness of global capital markets – every Mongolian is soon to become a
shareholder as part of an initial public offering for Erdenes Tavan Tolgoi, or ETT, the Mongolian company involved in operating part of the massive Tavan Tolgoi coal
deposit. A whole constellation of non-governmental organisations will make sure environmental standards are upheld, he says. The real sticking point is geopolitics.
Russia, which formerly ran the show, sits to the north. China wraps around the western, southern and eastern borders, and uses its position as the dominant buyer
to get away with paying well below world prices for Mongolia’s commodities. The People’s Republic would prefer to keep all the processing industries — and the
jobs that go with them — on its side of the border. It is also quick to anger; China has shut down the border for “maintenance” during one past visit by the Dalai
Lama, and lodged a complaint during another visit in November. “We really are not in a good position to negotiate,” Ganhuyag laments. Mongolia pursues a
diplomatic policy of embracing so-called “Third Neighbours” in the West and countries such as Japan and Korea. It even sent troops to Iraq. But this does not
completely get the country out of its bind. “Even if we allow American and European interests, Australian and Canadian interests, in Mongolian mining, the main
buyers will be in China,” he says. Tavan Tolgoi has become the crucible of this geopolitical contest. Apart from the area already being developed by the state-owned
ETT, control over much of the rest of it is under negotiation, with jockeying from, among others, America’s Peabody Energy, China’s Shenhua, and Russia’s state rail
company, RZD. <p>by Aubrey Belford</p> BY AUBREY BELFORD Mongolians stand outside Ulaanbaatar’s first and only Louis Vuitton boutique. Even though China is
less than 200 km away from Tavan Tolgoi, Mongolia’s government is pushing for a huge rail line to the sea through Russia, at an estimated cost of USD$7 billion, to
break its dependence on China; currently coal is currently trucked across the rocky desert to China on dirt roads. Part of Russia’s bid is that it will build the railway —
as part of its policy of gaining influence in Mongolia and creating “a belt of friendly nations” — but it will only do so if it gets a cut of the mine, says Russia’s
ambassador to Mongolia, Victor Samoilenko. Samoilenko, formerly a Soviet then a Russian diplomat in Asia and Australia, insists this is not about Russian rivalry
with China, which is much reduced from the Cold War, when both were rivals for leadership of the Communist world, and Soviet troops in Mongolia pointed like a
dagger at Beijing. “It’s not Russian geopolitics,” he says, and pauses briefly. “Maybe it’s Mongolian geopolitics.” Others tell a similar story. Mongolia wants to be
courted by the great powers and is dangling its mineral wealth as a lure. But America is unlikely to warm its relationship any further unless Peabody Energy, the
American firm, gets in on the action. IT IS EIGHT at night on the steps outside Central Tower, Ulaanbaatar’s ritziest mall and office complex, and already blood is
spattered on the ground, possibly from a brawl, possibly from a drunk keeling over — both common sights. The bloodstain looks fresh, but there is no sign in the
crowd that anything out of the ordinary has happened. Mongolians pride themselves on their warrior spirit. The post-Communist period has seen the rehabilitation
of Genghis Khan from shunned despot to a beloved national symbol. His likeness is found on monuments throughout the capital, in homes, and on no fewer than
three different brands of vodka. Mongolians likewise have never been very good at getting along with each other. In
traditional nomadic society
“your neighbour is living 20 or 50 kilometres from you,” explains Bat-Erdeniin Batbayar, or Baabar, a former minister and one of
Mongolia’s most prominent intellectuals. “They’re producing the same things — milk, skin, wool, meat.” Now maybe only a quarter of the
population lives the traditional lifestyle. He enjoys calling Mongolia Asia’s “Wolf Economy” Alcohol abuse is widespread, with passed-out and
stumbling people visible on the streets day and night. Fights are an almost routine feature of Ulaanbaatar’s nightlife. The 1990s was when Mongolia’s urban influx
really started, but the mining boom is adding to the slums of ger outside the capital and exacerbating social tensions, says Sumati Luvsandendev, the director of the
Sant Maral Foundation, a non-profit organisation which surveys Mongolian society. The public is split on the benefits of mining, and a vast majority is convinced the
money is not being spread fairly, he says. “What is rather pessimistic are the two extremes, very rich and very poor,” Luvsandendev says. “We
also have a
quite significant part of the poor population which [has] actually immigrated to Ulaanbaatar and surrounded it, like a besieging army. On
the other side we have these very rich people with their million-dollar apartments or houses.” Besides the big
mining projects, there are black market mines, many of them run or backed by Chinese interests, which have popped up largely unnoticed in
remote corners of the country, he says. Construction too has brought to the capital thousands of Chinese who live in high-walled compounds. No one, in the
government or elsewhere, seems to know how many there are. While Mongolia’s democracy has proved resilient, an ugly ultranationalism has been on the rise. At
the most extreme end, a handful of home-grown neo-Nazi
groups have, with a blithe lack of irony, turned against Chinese and other
foreigners, picking fights, harassing inter-ethnic couples, and carrying out vigilante attacks. More generally, the sort of reflexive racism of
Gee’s music has become commonplace. If China’s economy loses strength, Mongolia goes down, Luvsandendev says. Problems also will arise if things go too well
and Mongolia’s economy overheats. “If inflation is high then you should expect public disturbances,” he argues.
1ar
Uq
Times Union, Won’t pass—Hensarling blocks—we assume lobbying, prefer bc he’s an
influential republican leader, their cards only talk about random senators who support
the plan but have little influence.
((GOP fragmentation, Cantor defeated and Boehner backed down
ABC 7/29
(“Senate Democrats Seek to Split GOP on Export Bank” WASHINGTON — Jul 29, 2014, 3:56 AM ET By CHARLES BABINGTON Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-dems-seek-split-gop-export-bank-24752702)//BB
The Ex-Im Bank provides loans, loan guarantees and credit insurance to foreign buyers of U.S. products. Congress must renew its charter before
October to keep it functioning, and questions about that
future are splitting Republican lawmakers. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and most governors want to keep the bank, opposing several conservative groups - including Club for Growth and
Heritage Action - that are influential in GOP primaries and anti-establishment Republican circles. Caught
between their conservative base and pragmatic business groups, some Republican candidates are tip-toeing around the issue. For Democrats in
toss-up states such as Landrieu in Louisiana, it's a chance to label their GOP opponents as beholden to the ideological right at the expense of
creating jobs. Landrieu is highlighting the Ex-Im issue in her re-election fight against GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy. She said Monday the bank promotes
trade, creates jobs and helps small businesses, and Congress must reauthorize it "as soon as possible." Cassidy is responding cautiously, raising
questions about the bank's value without explicitly opposing its reauthorization. "Very serious reforms are required," Cassidy said. His caution
likely comes from the bank's ability to stir tea party supporters and other activists who want a smaller, less intrusive government. Well-run
companies can get by just fine without the Ex-Im, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, said recently. He accused the bank of "political spending, both
ideological and crony-based." GOP
lawmakers took note when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., suffered a
stunning primary loss to a tea party-backed professor who strongly criticized the Ex-Im. Cantor's
successor on the GOP leadership team - Kevin McCarthy of California - promptly opposed the bank's
reauthorization. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, a longtime supporter of the bank, moved to a neutral position.
Won’t pass – too partisan, Boehner is backing down and McCarthy opposes
Frank James, reported for The Wall Street Journal for nearly 10 years, 6-25-14, “New House
Leadership Puts Export Bank On Shakier Ground,” http://apr.org/post/new-house-leadership-putsexport-bank-shakier-ground
The Export-Import Bank, created
by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 to boost U.S. exports during the Great Depression, needs
its charter to be reauthorized by September's end if it is to continue providing loans to U.S. exporters and overseas companies. The
bank has the support of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, so it sounds like an easy vote. But Cantor was recently defeated in his
primary by David Brat, the libertarian college professor who portrayed the soon-to-be-ex-majority leader as a shameless tool of big
business. That's the most important thing to know to understand why, during an election year, the Ex-Im Bank's political position is eroding, at
least outwardly. Right now, reauthorization seems rather iffy. On Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner
wouldn't tell
reporters whether he supported reauthorization, saying instead, "We are going to continue to work with our members" and
"We are going to work our way through this." Boehner indicated he would wait for a Wednesday hearing of the House Financial Services
Committee and would listen to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the committee's chairman, for a proposed way forward. Hensarling opposes reauthorizing
the bank, so that message from the speaker wasn't likely to perk up the bank's supporters. The title of Wednesday's
hearing, by the way, is, "Examining Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank: Corporate Necessity or Corporate Welfare?" The witness list,
incidentally, gave a sense of the complexity of the support for or opposition to the bank. The leadoff panel was scheduled to include the
president of the Air Line Pilots Association and the CEO of Delta Air Lines. The union hasn't been against the bank per se, but it does oppose
bank support for non-U.S. airlines that are purchasing wide-body airliners when U.S. carriers can't get the same favorable financing. Delta
Airlines' CEO has had a similar criticism but is making it clear he supports the bank in principle. Providing less ambivalent support for the bank
will be the CEO of FirmGreen, a clean-energy technology company that has said uncertainties over the bank's future have already cost it
overseas business. Clearly opposing the bank will be a scholar with the libertarian Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who argues
that corporate behemoths like Boeing and General Electric get the most benefit and that their political contributions purchase support for the
bank. Boehner's
cryptic comments were especially unpromising for the bank, since the new House
majority leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, was a lot less sphinxlike than Boehner, saying over the
weekend that he opposes reauthorizing the bank. Asked directly by host Chris Wallace during a Fox News Sunday interview if
he would "allow the Ex-Im Bank to expire in September," he said: "Yes, because it's something that the private sector can
be able to do." For conservatives who consider themselves free-market purists, the bank is the epitome of their despised "crony capitalism,"
like the bailouts of Wall Street that occurred at the start of the Great Recession in 2008. It was anger over those bailouts and other Washington
spending that put taxpayer money in the service of big business that fed much of the anger that gave birth to the Tea Party movement.
McCarthy channeled that sentiment when he said on Fox News Sunday, "One of the problems with government is it's going to take hard-earned
money so others do things that the private sector can do. That's what Ex-Im Bank does." Whether the private sector can or will actually take up
the slack that would be left if the bank can't continue on is a debate for a different blog post. It's sufficient to say the bank's supporters assert
that the private sector won't, because the risks are just too great. This would leave many U.S. exporters at a disadvantage, with overseas
competitors helped by governments with few to no qualms about subsidizing their own industries. The
bank fight is the latest
example of an economic issue breaking down the usual partisan barricades in Washington. The White House and
congressional Democrats are joined by dozens of House Republicans and business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in pushing for the
bank's reauthorization. The bank pays for itself out of the fees it collects, they say, so taxpayers don't pay anything. It's also a matter of
supporting U.S. jobs.
Won’t pass – internal conflicts within the Democrats
Susan Cornwell and Valerie Volcovci, Reuters, 7-8-14, “Democrats grapple with own divisions over
renewing Ex-Im Bank,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/09/us-usa-eximidUSKBN0FE02G20140709
(Reuters) - Democrats
are struggling with their own differences over legislation to renew the Export-Import Bank's
charter, an issue that has long been a source of tension between Tea Party and pro-business Republicans. Democrats, who control the
Senate, largely favor keeping alive the bank. The agency, which provides credit to foreign purchasers of U.S. exports, will be forced to close its doors if Congress
does not act to renew its charter by Sept. 30. To spur momentum on legislation to reauthorize the bank, Democrats
are considering moving a
reauthorization bill in the Senate this month. The issue would then move to the Republican-dominated
House of Representatives, where renewal would face a tougher road because of strong opposition by some
conservatives. But Democrats are debating whether to include a provision broadening Ex-Im's ability to
extend credit to companies using U.S. equipment and other products in the building of coal-fired plants. The provision would overturn restrictions put in place by
the Obama administration limiting the bank's financing for coal-fired plants to buyers in only the world's poorest countries. Senator Joe Manchin, who hails from the
coal-producing state of West Virginia, is crafting a bill that would reauthorize Ex-Im for five years while also expanding the number of countries where Ex-Im can
finance coal-fired power plants from 69 to 82. This would allow for the financing of projects in emerging economies, such as India and Vietnam, which are interested
in expanding coal-based electricity. Manchin contends the change would help preserve jobs in the struggling U.S. coal industry that has been hit by competition
from natural gas and environmental restrictions. But many
other Democrats fear the provision would be a setback for
agenda of fighting climate change. They argue the party would be better off pursuing a more
a streamlined reauthorization bill. "I’d like us to stick to our knitting here and get Ex-Im reauthorized. We’ve got a lot of places we can fight over
President Barack Obama's
carbon," said Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat. Democrats are under pressure to reauthorize Ex-Im, both from businesses such as Boeing Co and
Caterpillar Inc, as well as labor unions, a key constituency for the party. Customers of big U.S. companies such as Boeing are among the biggest beneficiaries of ExIm. REPUBLICAN COSPONSORS Backers say the bank supports thousands of U.S. jobs and helps American businesses compete abroad. Republican critics label the
bank an example of "crony capitalism" and an effort by the government to pick winners and losers in the private sector. Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Senate Democrat,
has said he believed the Senate should act this month to reauthorize Ex-Im. But a Senate leadership aide said there
is no guarantee that the
chamber will vote on it in July. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not yet taken a position on Manchin’s
proposal. As Democrats weigh Manchin's proposal, his bill has attracted two Republican co-sponsors, Senators Mark Kirk of Illinois and Roy Blunt of Missouri.
Although the Republican-run House is the bigger hurdle to the bank’s reauthorization, any reauthorization bill also needs to attract at least
five Republican senators to meet the 60-vote threshold for overcoming procedural hurdles in the Senate.
Won’t pass – House Republicans block
Reid J. Epstein, covers national politics and is the lead writer for Washington Wire from The Wall Street
Journal's Washington bureau, 6-25-14, “Schumer, McCain Say Ex-Im Bank Faces Tough Odds,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/25/schumer-mccain-say-ex-im-bank-faces-tough-odds/
The senators, speaking at Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal breakfast, said there
isn’t much hope that House Republicans will
reauthorize the bank, which helps support U.S. exports through a wide range of programs, including guaranteeing loans to foreign
buyers and providing credit insurance. And while both said they’re for keeping the 80-year-old bank, neither sounded an optimistic
tone that it can pass the House, though Mr. Schumer said he has hope it can pass the Senate and then advance through a
conference committee. One problem, Mr. Schumer said, is that House Financial Services Committee ChairmanJeb
Hensarling (R., Texas), who opposes the bank’s reauthorization, may run against incoming House Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) in 2015. Mr. Hensarling passed on a leadership campaign this month after Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.)
was ousted in a primary. “I think it’s likely to happen that the House won’t pass it. I think the dynamic within the House that
Jeb Hensarling is very much against it, he might run for majority leader and he frightens McCarthy,” Mr.
Schumer said. “I still hope we can pass it in a bipartisan way in the Senate” and then save the bank in a conference committee. Mr.
McCarthy on Sunday announced he’ll oppose extending the bank’s charter, which expires Sept. 30.
Bipart debate
Link UQ, extend Leubsdorf, a non controversial federal monetary fund was already
rejected bc of partisanship, despite it usually being very partisan. There is no reason
why ExIm is different.
((((Bipart fails- Republicans lashing out against Obama’s use of executive power
Carl P. Leubsdorf, the former Washington bureau chief of The Dallas Morning News, 7-6-14,
“Leubsdorf: Models of bipartisanship not likely to gain traction,”
http://onlineathens.com/opinion/2014-07-06/leubsdorf-models-bipartisanship-not-likely-gain-traction
Leubsdorf: Models of
bipartisanship not likely to gain traction In politically gridlocked Washington, both
sides are frustrated. Each is basically blaming its failures on the opposition’s misuse of powers. House
Speaker John Boehner launched the latest round, seeking to halt President Barack Obama’s repeated use of
executive actions to bypass congressional resistance to his “year of action.” Obama has revised procedures for his
signature health care law that a normally functioning Congress should have fixed, granted amnesty to
thousands of young immigrants in the country illegally, limited carbon emissions from power plants, and
refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
Now extend MinnPost, border issue thumps; Repubs and dems are fighting over how
much of a border bill will be passed, there is much conflict between the two. Borders
is always controversial bc the two parties have different views and minority bases,
this is way more instigating than natgas.
No link, their cards are either talking about offshore oil drilling or some generic ocean
policy. None of this specific to the aff.
Ocean policy overwhelmingly bipart – WRRDA proves oceans are unique
Hower 14
UX – no bipartisanship now
HD, Herald Dispach, a newspaper from Huntington WV, 7-1-14, “Editorial: As partisanship grows, public
loses confidence in institutions,” http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x720298094/Editorial-Aspartisanship-grows-public-loses-confidence-in-institutions
This has been most evident in Congress, and a trend that has grown significantly during the last two
presidencies. Democrats, in control of both chambers of Congress at the time, managed to push through health care
reform in 2010 without a single Republican vote. Once the Republicans gained control of the U.S. House
later in 2010, they have wasted much time trying to repeal that law while knowing such actions would
go nowhere. Now, Democrats, worried about losing control of the Senate in the elections this
November, are sidestepping taking up any important issues because they fear the consequences. President
Obama, for his part, has been accused of refusing to work with Republicans and has drawn criticism for
bending laws to suit his purposes. And the ideological split on the Supreme Court is evident in many of its decisions. Part
of the divisiveness in our government today can be attributed to the highly polarized differences between voters on the
more extreme left and right and the relatively quiet voices of those with moderate views. As politicians strive
to please those on the extremes, they are less prone to look for more moderate solutions of any kind.
Partisanship is key – reaching out just hurts Obama’s agenda
Robert Kuttner, author of "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a
Transformative Presidency," and co-editor of The American Prospect., December 15th 2008, “The Post,
Post-Partisan President,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/the_post_postpartisan_presiden.html
Here is an easy prediction: When President Obama
reaches that hand of bipartisanship across the aisle, he will find
that the Republicans bite it. Of course, it is smart politics to pick off Republicans for a progressive agenda wherever possible. Splitting
the Republicans is much better than splitting the difference. By January, when Congress takes up the emergency stimulus bill, unemployment
will be heading toward double digits, and state and local governments will be slashing public services. In that emergency climate, Obama may
well get some Republicans to cross over and vote for a Democratic plan. But that
strategy is not being bipartisan. It is being
an astute partisan. And there will be many other times when Obama will need to rally all of his
Democrats to enact progressive legislation over the strenuous objection of most Republicans. This
economic emergency and its political opportunity is no time to compromise for the sake of hollow unity.
If Obama can win over a few Republicans for a progressive program, great. If he put can Republicans in the position of
haplessly opposing popular and urgently needed legislation, so much the better. By the end of his first year,
either Obama will have put the economy on the path to recovery based on a progressive program that represents a radical ideological shift; if
he achieves that, he will have done it with precious little Republican support. Alternatively, much of his program will have been blocked by
Republican filibusters enabled by a few conservative Democratic allies.
Impx
No impact to Ex-Im; the private sector fills in
Michael Grunwald, TIME's senior national correspondent, before coming to TIME, he spent nearly a
decade at the Washington Post, 7-2-14 “House Conservatives Are Right: Kill The Export-Import Bank,”
http://time.com/2951443/export-import-bank-house-conservatives/
Some corporate subsidies are good and necessary. This is not one of them. The self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives who run
the Republican Party did not object to the bloated agribusiness subsidies in this year’s $956 billion farm bill. They’ve fought for weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn’t want and water projects the country doesn’t need. They’ve helped repeal sensible flood insurance reforms
designed to slash subsidies for waterfront property. And now they expect us to cheer their efforts to kill the obscure Export-Import Bank, which
doesn’t even cost taxpayers money? Sure, why not? The
Republicans may be hypocrites, but they’re right to take aim
at the Ex-Im Bank. The Ex-Im is, as Senator Barack Obama said during his presidential campaign, “little more than a fund for
corporate welfare.” It provides cheap credit to foreign borrowers, often cash-flush behemoths like Brazil’s state-owned oil company or
the emirate of Dubai, so they can buy products from U.S. exporters, often cash-flush behemoths like Boeing, Bechtel, Caterpillar or General
Electric. It’s dearly beloved by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, but it’s often earned its
reputation for crony capitalism. William Jefferson, the congressman memorably caught with cash in his freezer, got his dirty money in exchange
for introducing corporate executives to Ex-Im officials, and the Justice Department is now investigating potential corruption inside the bank.
Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor—like Texas Governor Rick Perry and other talk-a-good-game fiscal conservatives—supported the ExIm Bank, and the Obama Administration has defended it as a jobs engine. But Cantor’s stunning primary defeat to Tea Party challenger Dave
Brat scrambled the politics of Ex-Im, persuading House Republican leaders to oppose the bank despite the pleadings of the Chamber and some
influential corporate giants. Cantor had rolled the Tea Party and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling on flood insurance; his
successor, Kevin McCarthy, wants to reassure the Tea Party and Hensarling, a potential rival for his job, that the leadership will put conservative
principles first. There
aren’t a lot of principled arguments for saving Ex-Im. Its defenders say most of its loans
help small businesses, which is technically true when they define “small” as fewer than 1,500 employees. But 30% of the cash it
lends goes to Boeing and over 60% goes to 10 large corporations. The bank also boasts that it doesn’t cost taxpayers
money—which is true, or mostly true, depending on how you do the accounting—because only 0.3 percent of its loans default. But that’s
not evidence the Ex-Im is effective. That’s evidence the Ex-Im is unnecessary. Surely the private sector can provide
99.7-percent-safe loans to massive conglomerates. This is the problem with arguments that the Ex-Im
“supports” about 200,000 jobs; most of those jobs would probably be supported without the Ex-Im. And
while exports do help the economy, export subsidies distort the economy, reducing the cost of capital
for well-connected companies while putting their competitors at an artificial disadvantage. Paul Krugman
recently suggested on his New York Times blog that even though those distortions are inefficient, eliminating the Ex-Im’s modest economic
stimulus while the recovery remains soft (and while the Fed would be unlikely to offset its stimulus by raising interest rates) would be worse.
I’ve been adedicated supporter of stimulus—I mean, dedicated—but Krugman’s argument can be used to justify any government program, no
matter how absurd. It was a legitimate argument during the cataclysmic freefall of early 2009, but it packs less punch now that the economy is
creating jobs at a decent pace. The best argument for the Ex-Im’s corporate welfare is probably that other nations do it, too. That’s true. It
would be nice if the Ex-Im died as part of a global trade deal that forced other countries to slash their own export subsidies and stop picking
winners and losers. But since that isn’t a current option, we ought to go first and urge the rest of the world to follow. The direct
benefits
the Ex-Im Bank provides for Boeing do not outweigh the indirect costs it imposes on everyone else.
EXTEND CNN 5/6
-
o
India doesn’t like the US after it gave aid to it’s mortal enemy Pakistan,
and when we supported China instead of them.
This was shown when they were against us when Russia invaded Crimea
CNN 5/6
(Ravi Agrawal, CNN's India Bureau Chief, “Why India feels jilted by Obama,” April 6, 2014, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/06/opinion/agrawalindia-vote-u-s-relations/)//BB
New Delhi (CNN) -- When I left India to move to America 13 years ago, the President of the United States was George W. Bush, a man who was
often internationally lampooned for mismanaging two wars and tainting Washington's image abroad. But moving back to India this month, I've
been struck by the number of Indians who look
back wistfully at the Bush years. For Indians, Bush is considered a better friend than
President Barack Obama. In fact, right now, Indians don't see Obama as much of a friend at all. It didn't start off that way. In
the early days of his presidency, in 2009, Obama marked India's Republic Day by saying Indians "have no better friend" than the people of the
United States. A year later, when he visited New Delhi, he famously predicted India and the U.S. would form "the defining partnership of the
21st century." At the time, Obama won Indian hearts and minds as he chowed down kebabs at the city's famous Bukhara restaurant. The chefs
created a special platter that exists to this day -- the Obama platter. (There was already a Bill Clinton platter, as well as a Hillary one.) Ravi
Agrawal Ravi Agrawal Today, the platters have gone cold: New Delhi feels jilted. Instead of a defining partnership, Indians couldn't quite define
where they stood. Talk
of a G-2 -- a U.S. mega-alliance with China, an idea which didn't come from Obama -- inflamed old
Washington's impending pullout from Afghanistan, along with its generous aid to Pakistan,
has stoked angst. But the real low point was reached late last year when an Indian diplomat in New York was arrested and
then strip-searched for allegedly underpaying her nanny. Obama likely had no prior knowledge of the case or the arrest, but still, the
perceived American high-handedness turned out to be too much for India to digest. New Delhi revoked
privileges to U.S. interests in the country, and across India, there were anti-American protests. Regardless of the
feelings of jealousy.
merits of the dispute, Indians wondered: If they had no better friend, was this the treatment they deserved? The sense of betrayal is mutual.
Washington feels let down, too -- and with some good reason. When
Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine this year, India chose
not to side with the United States but to abstain on a U.N. General Assembly resolution against the Russian
action. (Russia is, incidentally, India's largest supplier of arms.) When Washington sought to coalesce support for stringent
sanctions against Iran, the surprise spoiler turned out to be New Delhi, which said it needed Iranian oil. What happened to what
was promised to be a close friendship between the world's two biggest democracies? Frosty India and U.S. relations? A new age for India's
Anglo-Indians One could look to history for answers. Since its independence in 1947, India -- scarred by centuries of invasions and interventions
-- has been a reluctant global player. Its first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of nations that
aspired to steer clear of great powers and their geopolitics. But 67 years on from its creation, India is now itself an aspiring great power, already
among the top 10 economies in the world. Indian diplomats routinely express their hopes for India to become a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council, joining the ranks of Russia, the United States, China, France and the United Kingdom. And yet India's
foreign policy
has remained aloof, lagging well behind its growth. The country has about the same number of diplomats abroad as
Singapore, a country with a population 1/250th of India's. The United States, with a population one quarter of India's, has
10 times as many diplomats. How can India make or maintain friendships when it has always stayed at home?