2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier, Lundberg,
Abelkop
Ex-Im Bank Agenda Politics Disad
1NC
Ex-im bank going will 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 only pass 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. Heidi Heitkamp 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
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-rally-support-for-export-import-bank/#ixzz37TLXbhvh
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.
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
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
made “killing” the Ex-Im Bank one of their priorities, but I feel we
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
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.
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.
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
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.)
said Tuesday. Schumer said he expects a 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
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
1NC
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
is just over the horizon. The WRDA conferees and Congress should choose thoughtful long-term engagement to protect and enhance ocean quality over
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.
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.
-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
Plan is unpopular – oil lobbies
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
Ocean Reneweables empirically cause backlash-Rhode Island LNG and wind project
spark partisanship
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
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.
importing the materials, used for defense and other applications. “Burdensome
“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
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
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.
Offshore drilling talks create a political firestorm which destroys bipartisanship
Truthout 6
truth-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.
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.
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 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
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 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
come from black box recorders were detected. David Gleave, an aviation safety researcher at Britain’s Loughborough University, said 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.
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 U nited S tates 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 –
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 –
look set to bear the financial and logistical burden of a potentially lengthy and expensive search. “
they need to pick up the 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 causes controversy – seen as pork-barrel spending and
opposition in Congress to environmental issues
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
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
fishermen, mariners, scientists, and search and rescue personnel. It's a prototype for a national system
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
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.
same
House versions never came to the floor for a vote, according to congressional sources from both parties, because of the opposition
then- Rep. Richard Pombo (R) of California. As chair of the powerful natural resources committee, he often opposed spending
of
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
It's an inequitable and noncompetitive way to allocate
funds. It's difficult to separate what is worthwhile from what might not be."
Schatz, president of 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 funding 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 (projected 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 po t. 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,
the President
has
requested
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
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 GOES weather satellites; and
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.
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 []
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
signature. The "Workforce 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
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
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 7/9/15(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
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,
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
even with some Republicans adopting the position that the bank should be reformed rather than abolished. Incoming
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.
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,
Ex-Im Bank is providing the guarantee to Amegy Bank, where Jason Brummerhop is a vice president in the international division. He called ExIm "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
made “killing” the Ex-Im Bank one of their priorities, but I feel we
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.
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.
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
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.
direct subsidies to foreign buyers. But other
Nuclear energy solves emissions
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
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
service.
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.
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
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
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 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
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
of the rule, as he testified in support of the legislation.
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
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
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.
presidential campaign began last Wednesday morning. Politically speaking, Republicans
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.
Bipart fails
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.
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.
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 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.
No impact to Ex-Im
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.
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.