TSCA Politics DA CNDI 2015

NEGATIVE

Notes
For reference/clarification:
The bill this DA is about is known as the "Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act." It is a
Senate Bill. It can be found under the label of S-697. The bill is sponsored by Tom
Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.).
You should not confuse it with the house version of reform, which is labeled HR
2576. That is known as the TSCA Modernization Act. The Kollipara 6/4 and Owens
uniqueness evidence reference this bill as empirical evidence that the Senate bill
will pass. All of the internal link and impact evidence is about the Senate bill.
Regarding thumpers/internal links, democrats are probably key.

TSCA Politics DA---1NC

Chemical reform will pass, but controversy makes PC key Top
of the docket vote before August
Wheeler 6/8 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental
regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science
(Keene State College), Congress Will Vote on Chemical Law Reform This Summer,
McConnell Says, The Hill, 2015, http://thehill.com/regulation/244276-congress-tovote-on-chemical-law-reform-before-august-mcconnell-says#THUR}
Congress is expected to vote on legislation to reform

the nations toxic

chemical laws

before

its August recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Morning
Consult. In April the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Sens.
Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitters (R-La.) bill to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) by a 15-5 vote. In his interview with Morning Consult, McConnell would not give any
indication of when exactly the legislation will advance but listed TSCA reform among the
bipartisan bills Congress plans to tackle between now and the August
recess. A re-write of No Child Left Behind and cybersecurity legislation, he said, are also on the agenda. Last
month, Udall said his bill the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act could hit the Senate
floor for a vote in June. Named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenbeg (D-N.J.), who led the reform effort before his

Udall-Vitter bill would increase penalties for chemical violations, force the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review new and existing chemicals for safety and
require safety decisions to be made solely on public health grounds. The bill, however ,
has been criticized for restricting states rights to issue their own protections for dangerous
chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos .
death in 2013, the

Plan costs capital 1) breaks status quo balance thats quelling

fights 2) is a flip-flop 3) gets drawn into broader security debates
-Yes blame: Obamas architected previous reforms
-Yes UQ: previous fights resolved by Junes bipartisan agreement + issue specific
uniqueness + last reform small
Shear 6/3 {Michael D., Syndicated White House correspondent and columnist on
national politics, MPP (Harvard), B.A. in politics (Claremont McKenna College), In
Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance, New
York Times, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillancelimits-obama-makes-program-own.html#THUR}
For more than six years, President Obama has directed his national security team to chase
terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that
was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully
badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program, with new safeguards the president says will

he owns it

protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question that

. The new surveillance program
created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security
Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for broad searches by government officials with a

reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the
president called for over a year and a half ago, said Lisa Monaco, the presidents top counterterrorism adviser.
She called the bill the product of a robust public debate and said the White House was gratified that the
court order. The

Senate finally passed it. The president is trying to balance national security
and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked about

since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for

surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval
Office with what he called a healthy skepticism about the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in

the president was also very, very focused on

the threats to Americans. He weighs the balance every day, she said. The compromise on collections of telephone
part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing,

records may end up being too restrictive for the presidents counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as
others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can

Obamas signature on the law late Tuesday night

ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method of hunting for terrorist
threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former
intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either way, Mr.

N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program.

He owned it in 2009, said

Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. He

Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union,
called the USA Freedom Act a step forward in some respects, but a very small step forward. He said
just didnt want anyone to know he owned it. Jameel

his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance programs.
Obama

has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these

we havent seen a
lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend
political capital changing those programs. In the case of the telephone
programs or are you going to change them? Mr. Jaffer said. Thus far,

Obamas preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A.

officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the publics privacy concerns without
losing the agencys ability to conduct surveillance more broadly. In the lead-up to last weeks congressional
showdown, Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance powers were
vital to tracking terrorist threats, while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not harm that
effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he
struck the right balance. To the extent that were talking about the presidents legacy, I would suspect that that
program, Mr.

would be a logical conclusion from some historians, said Josh Earnest, the presidents press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the
compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records. This is the kind of rigorous
oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important, Mr. Earnest said. And that is materially
different than the program that he inherited. Mr. Obamas advocacy put him at the center of a fierce congressional debate over the
surveillance program, which officially expired early Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate,
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the presidents compromise proposal, saying, We shouldnt
be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive. At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican
of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama, saying, The president continues to conduct an illegal program, a reference to a recent ruling

What
emerged from that debate was a rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose
approach was met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House and
Senate. Even some of the presidents most ardent critics in the Republican
Party endorsed the approach. This is a good day for the American people , whose rights will
be protected, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea
Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The compromise on the telephone collection program
by a federal appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law.

is

part of a broader tug-and-pull

for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national security

infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that infrastructure, pledging at the
time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are
unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen. Once in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bushs
decisions in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his national security team has
also embraced some of Mr. Bushs methods, arguing that they are necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to fight

Obama talked about putting careful constraints on surveillance even

before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his
threats abroad. Mr.

thinking had evolved.

Federal chemical regulation saves the global economy direct

costs, consumer confidence, and business confidence Regs
threatening business now, reform key to streamline the process
Musella 15 {John, former Director of Communications for Government and
Environmental Affairs at Newhall Land, chairperson of the California Log Cabin
Republican Party, We Need TSCA Reform Now, The Hill: Congress Blog, 3/18,
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/235973-we-need-tscareform-now#THUR}
There are lots of great things about Californiaamazing beaches, expansive parks, Hollywood, and Disneyland. But

Just like you wouldnt want Californias

earthquakes shaking your hometown, you dont want Californias ridiculous
its not all surfing and celebrity-watching.

chemical labeling law wrecking your states economy. Which is why we

need a common sense update to our federal chemical lawand fast. Back in 1986,
California voters passed Proposition 65, which required state regulators to make a list of
chemicals that might cause one excess case of cancer in 100,000 people over 70 years and
chemicals that might cause reproductive harm. Any business that uses those chemicals is
required to post a warning sign or put a label on the chemical-containing product. Fast forward
almost 30 years and the state has listed nearly 900 chemicals, but research shows the law has
had no effect on reducing state cancer rates. Instead, California business owners (along with
businesses based around the world) have paid hundreds of millions of
dollars in settlements and attorneys fees to bounty hunters that scour the state
looking for products that contain chemicals on the states warning list. The threshold for when
a Proposition 65 warning sign is legally required is so low that even coffee chains such as
Starbucks are forced to warn customers about cancer risks from coffee. A chemical called acrylamide
forms naturally when coffee beans are roasted, and when given in very high doses to rats it may cause cancer. The
signs dont mention that youd have to drink around 100 cups of coffee a day before you need to start worrying
about acrylamide exposure. Of course, if youre drinking that much coffee, youve got a lot of other health problems

why should non-Californians care about our

crazy chemical warning law? Californias Proposition 65 has been forcing manufacturers
to reformulate or place warning labels on their products for decades. Imagine the
regulatory nightmare if instead of complying with one federal (or California) standard
for products, manufacturers had to comply with a different law in every single state.
Unfortunately, that nightmare could easily become reality . Since Congress
hasnt updated our federal chemical law the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976in nearly four
to worry about before acrylamide exposure. So

increasingly taken chemical regulation into

their own hands. Theyve considered roughly 170 different bills to regulate
decades,

states have

following in Californias wandering footsteps. Its a truly worrying trend.

businesses will simply stop selling products in
states where they have to meet a separate chemical standard. While small
businesses will certainly have trouble manufacturing their products to meet various state standards,
chemicals,

If my states experience is a predictor,

even huge companies such as Dunkin Donuts have suspended selling their products
in California because of Proposition 65. Luckily, there is a way to stem this tide. New
legislation introduced by Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is a bipartisan effort to
strengthen our national chemical law by giving the Environmental Protection Agency more
tools to regulate chemicals on the federal level. And while the proposal will allow California to keep

Proposition 65 in place,

it would prevent other states from creating their own

wonky chemical laws

that conflict with federal standards. Regulating

chemicals is clearly Congress job; few manufactured goods are sold only within state lines. As part
of its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the responsibility
to set strong federal standards for chemicals in consumer products, ensuring consumers
around the country are safe. Consumers dont need to see warning labels telling
them their morning coffee, evening glass of wine, or even their flip flops might pose a health
risk. They need confidence that the products they use and consume everyday meet
strong federal chemical safety standards that actually keep their families safe.
California has a lot to offer, but a roadmap on smart chemical regulation isnt one of
them

Economic decline causes nuclear war

Merlini 11 Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the
United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian
Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, A Post-Secular World?, Survival, Vol.
53, No. 2
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first

One or more of the acute tensions

apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps
even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a
collapse of the global economic and financial system , the vulnerability of which we have just experienced,
and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and
democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of
national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference
would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full
glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran
scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system.

or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable.

Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated . One way or another, the secular
rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes , competing
or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism .

*** UNIQUENESS

Will Pass---General
Will pass bipartisan support for streamlined regulations
ICIS 6/8 {Independent Chemical Information Services, Senate Bill to Modernise
TSCA Would Save Government Some Money, 2015,
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2015/06/08/9892936/senate-bill-to-modernisetsca-would-save-government-some-money/#THUR}
WASHINGTON (ICIS)--Pending

legislation to modernise federal control of chemicals in commerce

would require more regulatory action but also would reduce government spending
over the long term, according to a congressional analysis circulated on Monday. In its financial and
budgetary analysis of the pending Senate bill to modernise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

said that while the bill would require increased regulatory

activity - more chemical reviews, more staff and more spending - those additional costs would be
offset by income generated from increased fees and additional fines assessed to industry. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the 39-year-old TSCA. Among other features, the Senate bill, the
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (S-697), would require EPA to greatly accelerate its
review of the safety of chemicals already in commercial use and any new chemicals being introduced to or imported
into the US market. In addition, S-697 would require EPA to assess, for a fee, chemicals nominated for agency
review by companies that want an early determination of safety or its lack. The CBO said it estimates that EPA
would incur additional administrative costs over the 2016-2020 period to meet new requirements imposed by S-

we also estimate that under the bill, EPA would collect sufficient fees from
offset the cost of conducting the activities proposed
under this legislation, the CBO analysis said. S-697 also would raise EPAs funding because the
bill would increase some existing and criminal penalties for violations of TSCA , the office
said. On net, we estimate that implementing this legislation would reduce [EPAs]
discretionary costs by $8m over the next five years, the CBO report said. That is not a substantial savings,
considering that EPAs projected budget for fiscal year 2016 is $481m. But it is very unusual that a new or
expanded federal regulatory programme would represent any sort of savings at all and
697. However,

chemical manufacturers and processors to

more likely would bump costs still higher. Within the EPAs overall FY 2016 proposed budget, enforcement of TSCA,
the current law, is expected to cost $47m or 9.7% of the agencys total outlays.

S-97 won

strong

bipartisan support in the Environment and Public Works Committee, where it was
approved and sent to the full Senate on 28 April with a vote of 15-5. A Senate floor vote on the
bill is expected before the congressional August recess. A similar TSCA reform bill cleared
committee in the House last week and is awaiting a floor vote in that chamber as well.

More evidence momentum for house version from committee vote

proves
Owens 6/3 {Stephen A., former Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical
Safety & Pollution Prevention for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Of counsel on environmental, safety and health issues for Squire Patton
Boggs LLP, US House Energy & Commerce Committee Approves TSCA Reform
Legislation - Toxic Substances Control Act, National Law Review, 2015,
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-house-energy-commerce-committeeapproves-tsca-reform-legislation-toxic-substances#THUR}
In another sign of the momentum building for reforming the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), on June 3, 2015, the US House Committee on Energy & Commerce (E&C

Committee) approved HR 2576, the TSCA Modernization Act of 2015, by a 47 to 0 vote,

with one abstention. A bipartisan bill introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Fred Upton and
Frank Pallone (D-NJ), HR 2576 differs slightly from a discussion draft version of the bill that was approved by an
E&C Subcommittee on May 14.

More evidence lobby support, tons of cosponsors,

momentum, inside info
Vitter 15 {David, senior Republican United States Senator from Louisiana, B.A.
(Harvard and Oxford), J.D. (Tulane University Law School), former adjunct law
professor at Tulane and Loyola University New Orleans, Guest Column: Senator
David Vitter on TSCA Reform, Chemical Watch, May,
https://chemicalwatch.com/23919/guest-column-senator-david-vitter-on-tscareform#THUR}
Its not often that any legislation has the support of both the Environmental Defense
Fund and the National Association of Manufacturers . But thats exactly who supports
the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. In that spirit, Senator Udall and I
introduced the bill on 10 March with 18 original cosponsors nine Democrats and
nine Republicans. And the legislation has picked up even more bipartisan
support in the weeks since. First and foremost, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is an honest,
balanced approach built on compromise. It will strengthen the safety standard to protect public health, our
families and future generations. Just as importantly, it will allow America to remain the unquestioned innovation
leader in this industry thats so essential to improving countless aspects of our daily lives. The bill will make sure
the EPA can ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use, which, rather surprisingly, it currently does not have
the authority to do. The EPA will be responsible for regulating the safety of chemicals based on the latest science in

In fact, the bill

balances state and federal roles in managing chemical safety. Importantly , the
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act will also provide greater regulatory certainty to the
chemical manufacturing industry, which will give American producers the ability to continue to lead, innovate
and create quality jobs. For all these reasons, TSCA reform is too important for consumers
and job-creators to not follow through on. Just consider the fact that chemicals are used to
a predictable and transparent federal system that does not override existing state actions.

produce 96% of all manufactured goods consumers rely on every single day. Ninety six per cent. Few things

We cannot put it off any longer, or let this

golden opportunity pass us by. Its the only realistic shot we have to both vastly
compare in terms of impacts on our health and the economy.

improve how we protect human health and safety and allow us to continue to lead and innovate. Thats why I hope
to move the bill out of the relevant Senate committee in the next few weeks. Thats why Ill continue working with
Senator Udall and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are serious about this bipartisan reform. And
ultimately,

thats why Im confident

well get this done.

Will Pass---A2: Cost

Will pass its bipartisan even with costs and Congress climate
Neuhauser 3/18 {Alan, syndicated energy, environment and STEM reporter, BA
in History with a focus on American Foreign Policy and International Relations
(Vassar College), Green Groups Split on Competing Chemical Reform Bills, US
News and World Report, 2015,
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/18/green-groups-split-on-competingchemical-reform-bills#THUR}
Udall-Vitter bill, in the works for about two years, had attracted nine Democratic and
eight Republican cosponsors as of Tuesday, in addition to support from the
Environmental Defense Fund, widely seen as a more centrist advocacy group .
"Everyone recognizes that theres problems with TSCA, and they see the Udall-Vitter
bill as moving things forward in significant ways," Konisky says. "The frustration for others
in the environmental community is theyd like it to go further. For them, its a bit of all or nothing, whereas the
EDF and others see this as making some progress, and making some progress is
better than no progress." Whether either bill progresses through the Senate, however,
remains to be seen. At issue, in addition to Democratic opposition, is figuring out how to fund EPA's
enforcement mandates. "Anything fiscal these days creates controversy," Konisky says.
"I tend not to be very optimistic these days about these things in Congress, but I think [it] has
The

reasonable chance to move forward."

Will Pass---A2: Empirics

Will pass this year is different, we have a vote count
Putrich 6/5 {Gayle S., columnist for the Washington Reporter covering federal
and state legislative and regulatory matters for the plastics industry, Trade Groups
Adding to Call for a Vote on Chemical Regulations Bill, Plastic News, 2015,
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20150605/NEWS/150609930/trade-groupsadding-to-call-for-a-vote-on-chemical-regulations-bill#THUR}
Meanwhile, across the Capitol, the Senate version of the bill ( S

697) was approved for the floor by the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works with a 15-5 vote on April 28. The full Senate has
not yet taken up the bill, though pressure is mounting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) to put it on the calendar. In a June 2 letter, more than 145 trade associations, under
the banner of American Alliance for Innovation called on McConnell to take up the bill before
Congress leaves for its annual month-long summer vacation in August. The more than 40
cosponsors from both sides of the aisle have also begun calling for action on the
measure soon. Experts who have long followed the ups and downs mostly downs of TSCA reform over the
years

remain optimistic. My prediction is that this is the year, said Mark

Duvall, a principal with law firm Beveridge & Diamond PC and an expert on the chemical law, who has testified in

we will have
legislation signed by the president this year.
both chambers on potential changes. Im

predicting that

The
reason this particular pair of bills could become law when so many others have failed is
due to the tremendous bipartisan support they have, Duvall said. The efforts on TSCA
are unique at a time when compromise is in short supply on Capitol Hill . This is a
remarkable situation that were in where Republicans are urging the Congress to give
EPA more authority, including conservative Republicans, Duvall said. So the usual practices
about difficulty in compromise dont necessarily apply here. The number of
issues that are contentious at this point is quite limited. The Senates highly
negotiated bill, much changed since the failed 2013 version, is the result of
negotiations aimed at broadening the appeal and reducing the opposition to the bill.
A lot of progress made in resolving conflicts between Republican and Democrat ,
conservative and liberal, such that senators like [conservative Oklahoma Republican Jim] Inhofe
and [New Jersey Democrat Corey] Booker can be supportive of the same bill, Duvall said. Some
stumbling blocks may still remain, chief among them the possibility that a federal law will pre-empt
state laws that have popped up around the country in the decades of Congressional deadlock on TSCA reform.
During the House committee markup, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who ultimately abstained from the 47-0-1 vote to
move the bill, offered and withdrew an amendment that would have attempted to address preemption concerns.

Attorneys General of 12 states, including California, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts and Washington, have
repeatedly voiced concerns to the committee that changes to the federal chemical
regulations should not pre-empt state laws that have been passed over the years while Congress
failed to update TSCA. Californias Proposition 65 is perhaps the most famous of these statutes, requiring
businesses to notify citizens when significant amounts of certain chemicals are present in products, workplaces,
public spaces or released into the environment. Bisphenol A and PVC have both come under Prop 65 attack in
recent years. In a national economy, a state regulation quickly becomes a national standard, often without the due
process and back and forth discussion that comes with rule making at the federal level as well as the expert
scientific study at the federal level, Duvall said. BPA is a good example, where the federal government has
repeatedly declared it safe yet California, using a different standard, has added it to the Prop 65 list. The question of
pre-emption has also hindered TSCA reform progress in the Senate, where Sen. Barbara

Boxer (D-Calif.) wants

several changes before she will support the bill , including all possibilities of pre-emption removed
from the bill and the naming of specific chemicals as toxic in the legislation, including
asbestos. But with 41 bipartisan supporters and numerous Republicans who have
not yet taken a position on the bill, Boxer is unlikely to be able to mount a
filibuster and hold up the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.

Will Pass---A2: Environment/Public Health Lobby

Opposing lobbies are just bridges of opportunity reform
will pass because of compromise nature, sufficient democratic
support
Bergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Regulatory
Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, March 19th,
http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senatecommittee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}
So now what? Does the legislation stand a chance of enactment even with over
"hundreds of organizations" claiming that S. 697 is worse than current law
(this is the number Senator Boxer cited as her count). The short answer is yes.
The legislation already has eight Democrats as co-sponsors, which, if combined with
the 54 Republican members, would be a working majority (over the needed 60vote threshold to overcome a filibuster). It appears too soon to expect serious
hardball in terms of vote-counting and floor action, and some of the noises coming
from the hearing were bridges of opportunity to address some of the
major issues identified (including deadlines, pace of EPA progress, budget, final
agency action status of low priority designations, fees, imports, and regulation of
articles to name a few). Preemption was and is the remaining obstacle, but at the
end of the day, that could come down to vote counting. If there are 61 votes on
the Senate floor, and the House action does not further complicate matters (not to
mention a need for the President to sign the bill),

TSCA reform could

happen.
Will pass chemical industry support outweighs and Udall
shielding vs. environmentalists
Dubose 5/21 {Lou, syndicated columnist on national politics, Why the
American Chemistry Council Loves Tom Udall, Huffington Post: Politics, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/why-the-americanchemistr_b_7342216.html#THUR}
it
seems that the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," is moving through
Congress hasn't passed a major environmental bill since 1996, when Bill Clinton signed amendments to the Clean Water Act. Now

the Senate and

might actually make it to Barack Obama's

desk. The bill is a fix for the non-functional 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Named after a
former Democratic Senator from New Jersey, who was working to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act when he died in 2103, and
co-sponsored by New Mexico Democratic Senator Tom Udall, whose family name is an environmentalist brand (his uncle Stewart
Udall was a conservationist interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations), the Senate bill that establishes a process
to evaluate and test more than 80,000 potentially hazardous chemicals should easily win the backing of environmental groups. It

Udall, whose family name is an environmentalist brand, has provided this

legislation some measure of green credibility, essentially putting lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly.
Here's the ugly. As it turns out, the Vitter-Udall bill, co-sponsored by Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, is a Trojan
Horse, cobbled together by the American Chemistry Council , a huge industry trade
has not. Tom

association, and pushed through the Senate by more than 100

lobbyists representing the chemical companies whose products would be regulated. At an April 28
Committee markup of the bill, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer complained that one draft of the Vitter-Udall bill
has been traced directly to an American Chemistry Council computer. Boxer also placed
in the record letters and statements from a coalition of 450 environmental, labor and public health groups that oppose the VitterUdall bill. Members of the coalition ranged from the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council to the AFL-CIO and the
Breast Cancer Fund. A single green group, the Environmental Defense Fund, is supporting the bill. Its senior scientist struggled to
vindicate himself at a March 15 hearing of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. In a letter to the committee,
California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote that "the preemption of state authority with respect to high-priority chemicals years
before federal regulations take effect" is a fundamental flaw in the bill. Testifying at the hearing, Maryland Attorney General Brian
Frosh explained "preemption of state authority." The preemption provisions that are built into this legislation tie the hands of states
at nearly every turn. Among these, there is a prohibition on new state chemical restrictions from the moment EPA begins the process
of considering regulation of high priority chemicals. It's a plain fact that the bill itself allows this EPA review period to last as long as
seven years. Let's say we're talking about a toxic chemical. That's seven years with no federal regulation, seven years during which
no state can take action regardless of how dangerous, how toxic, how poisonous a chemical is, regardless of its impact on men,
women or children. The EPA testing will be, let's say, protracted. Of 80,000 synthetic chemicals commonly used in the U.S., 1,000
are considered potential health threats. Within the first seven years after implementation of the Vitter-Udall bill, only 25 of those
chemicals would be tested by the EPA. Yet there is no provision in the bill that would stop the EPA from listing chemicals that it "is
considering" testing, which would protect them from regulation by states. Tom Udall and the Environmental Defense Fund have
provided this legislation some measure of green credibility, essentially putting lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly. Here's the ugly.

The American Chemistry Council, Dow, Dupont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch
Industries spent $62.9 million in 2014 lobbying members of Congress, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed in Congress. While the disclosure forms don't link the
lobbyists to specific bills, a study by the Environmental Working Group found that most of the
forms referred to TSCA. David Vitter, now running for governor in Louisiana, has been
underwritten by the chemical industry for as long as he's held elected office.
Senator Tom Udall, in Congress since 1999, has been largely ignored by the industry-- until the
2014 election, when he turned up in the top 20 recipients of American Chemistry
Council money, according to opensecrets.org. The Chemistry Council also ran television ads supporting Udall's successful
(54.4-44.6) race against Republican challenger Allen Weh.

It appears

they're getting a decent

return on their investment.

Revisions solve backlash house efforts prove
Kollipara 6/4 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist,
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears First House Hurdle, AAAS, 2015,
http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/06/chemical-regulation-bill-clears-firsthouse-hurdle#THUR}
The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday began the process of updating the nations decadesold

framework for testing and regulating industrial chemicals. A

unanimously

key

House committee

approved a measure to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

just weeks after lawmakers added provisions to address environmental
and public health groups concerns. The bill still wouldnt change the law as
extensively as a similar U.S. Senate proposal, but italong with the Senate measurewill likely
face additional debate and revisions spurred on especially by outside advocacy groups. H.R. 2576,
which cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 47 to 0 vote (with one abstention), now moves
to the House floor, where it could face additional changes. Its passage comes on
the heels of a Senate committees 28 April vote to send its own measure, S. 697, to the
Senate floor. Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (RMI) says he hopes
both chambers can get a final bill to President Barack Obama this year. Its a
great accomplishment for something that really deserves a lot of attention, Upton said.
of 1976,

A2: Thumpers---Top of Docket

TSCA reform comes first
Owens 6/3 {Stephen A., former Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical
Safety & Pollution Prevention for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Of counsel on environmental, safety and health issues for Squire Patton
Boggs LLP, US House Energy & Commerce Committee Approves TSCA Reform
Legislation - Toxic Substances Control Act, National Law Review, 2015,
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-house-energy-commerce-committeeapproves-tsca-reform-legislation-toxic-substances#THUR}
HR 2576 is presently scheduled to be considered by the
full US House during the week of June 22, according to a schedule recently
released by the House Majority Leaders office.
Consideration by the Full US House

A2: Thumpers---General
Issues dont trade off until its at the finish line
Drum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevindrum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)
this attitude betrays a surprisingly common
misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never
bark until an issue becomes an active one . Opposition to Social Security privatization was pretty
mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was
mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up
because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks
about something. But for the most part, they don't. 1 That is, they don't until the issue
in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a couple of months filling the airwaves
Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but

with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the past year
or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go
out, the push polling starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its

that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will
probably tell you something different from what it tells you now . Immigration was
bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too until
2007, when he tried to move an actual bill . Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will
saturation coverage well,

happen this time, and without even a John McCain to act as a conservative point man for a moderate solution. The
political environment is worse now than it was in 2007, and I'll be very surprised if it's possible to make any serious
progress on immigration reform. "Love 'em or hate 'em," says Ezra, illegal immigrants "aren't at the forefront of
people's minds." Maybe not. But they will be soon.

A2: Thumpers---TPA
Obama not pushing with democrats
Steinhauer 6/16 {Jennifer, award-winning reporter covering the United States
Congress, House Moves to Delay Action on Trade Bill for 6 Weeks, New York Times,
2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/house-moves-to-delay-action-ontrade-bill-for-6-weeks.html#THUR}
In an extraordinary twist that perhaps only a lame duck president can relish, President Obama has
largely jettisoned his plan to lure House Democrats to get his trade agenda
through Congress, and instead is now working closely with Republican leaders. After weeks of wooing, pleading with and
occasionally berating members of his own party in the hope that they would get behind what could be his last major economic policy
achievement,

Democrats delivered a mortifying defeat to his trade package on the House

floor last Friday,

sparking a change in strategy. Counting on Democrats

has now been abandoned, essentially, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the
No. 2-ranking member of his party in the House, told reporters on Tuesday. So Mr. Obama has now turned his
focus to House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to find a
legislative strategy that would preserve trade promotion authority , which would give the
president accelerated power to negotiate the broader Trans-Pacific Partnership accord with 11 other nations from Japan to Chile.
The

speaker and I have spoken with the president about the way forward on trade ,
Mr. McConnell told reporters on Tuesday. Its still my hope that we can achieve what weve set out to achieve
together, which is to get a six-year trade promotion authority bill in place that will advantage the next occupant of the White House
as well as this one. And obviously there was a malfunction over in the House on Friday that we all watched with great interest, and
we are not giving up.

Not top of the docket House punted TAA for 6 weeks

Steinhauer 6/16 {Jennifer, award-winning reporter covering the United States
Congress, House Moves to Delay Action on Trade Bill for 6 Weeks, New York Times,
2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/house-moves-to-delay-action-ontrade-bill-for-6-weeks.html#THUR}
The Democrats strategy worked in stopping fast-track authority, but it also left open the
possibility that Congress would ultimately pass only fast-track authority, with no
additional protection for workers. On Tuesday, House Republicans were set to take a
second vote on trade adjustment assistance. But instead, lawmakers voted on, and approved
236 to 189, another measure that would allow Congress up to six weeks to
ponder ways to get the fast-track trade bill to President Obamas desk before the August
recess.

A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms

Will pass but it still has a long way to go bipartisan support,
momentum, increased democratic backing, compromise edits
Kollipara 5/6 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, U.S.
Senate Makes Progress on Chemical Regulation Reform, But Obstacles Await, AAAS,
2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/05/u-s-senate-makes-progresschemical-regulation-reform-obstacles-await#THUR}
A bipartisan effort to revamp how the U.S. government tests and regulates toxic industrial
chemicals reached a new milestone last week when a Senate panel easily
advanced a measure to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although the bill
gained broader support among Democrats after sponsors revised an early draft, it

still

has a long way to go. Some liberal Democrats and environmental groups continue to
oppose the measure, and a lengthy legislative and procedural battle lies ahead. Meanwhile, the
House of Representatives is working on its own version of the bill, with an initial vote tentatively set for 14 May. On

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took arguably the
biggest step toward TSCA reform in decades, voting 15 to 5 to advance S. 697 to
28 April,

the Senate floor. Sponsored by senators Tom Udall (DNM) and David Vitter (RLA), the measure aims to give the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more power to restrict the thousands of industrial chemicals in U.S.
commerce, and to order new safety data from makers, while striving to craft a more nationally uniform regulatory

The vote came a day after the bills sponsors made changes to the original measure
to resolve some concerns from environmental groups and Democrats. The most
notable changes scale back how much the measure would restrict state power to issue
new chemical regulations. Senator Udall and I took the concerns presented by many colleagues and
stakeholders and set out to make the bill even stronger, Vitter said before the vote. He
called the bill a marked improvement over current law that represents a
significant positive compromise. But Senator Barbara Boxer (DCA), who has opposed S. 697 since
system.

its introduction in March, said the newly altered bill was still too weak, and many environmental and health groups
agreed. Boxer, the committees top Democrat, suggested she will use procedural tactics to stall the bill and will try
to amend it on the Senate floor. I will stand on my feet until I cant stand on my feet anymore, Boxer said at the
committee meeting, because I refuse to bend in the face of serious problems in a bill that is said to fix a broken
law. Toxic tug of war The continuing tug of war over S. 697 underscores the long-fraught history of TSCA reform.

Democrats, Republicans, public interest groups, and the chemical industry all say
that TSCA needs fixing, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to resolve differences
among stakeholders on how to do it. S. 697 may represent the best shot yet of reforming TSCA, in
The bill now boasts 11 Democrats and 11
Republicans as co-sponsors, as well as support from chemical industry groups and
at least one major environmental group, the Environmental Defense Fund . The bill would knock down
the view of the measures supporters.

some key legal hurdles that have long hampered EPAs powers to regulate substances. No longer would EPA have to
consider costs in assessing chemicals safety or pick the least burdensome method of regulating them. Also, EPA
would no longer have to show that a chemical is potentially risky in order for the agency to request new safety data
from companies. And in most cases, new chemicals couldn't go on the market until EPA could show that they
probably meet the law's safety requirements. (Under current law, new chemicals go on the market in 90 days unless
EPA can prove they are unsafe.) The revised version of the bill that cleared the committee would also: Let states
issue and enforce regulations on chemical uses that EPA has already regulated, as long as the state rules dont
duplicate any of EPAs fines on companies; Slightly scale back an earlier provision that would have blocked states
from taking new actions on high-priority chemicals that EPA is planning to review; Make it easier for EPA to
designate chemicals as high priority for review; Require tougher regulations on chemicals that accumulate and
persist for long periods in the environment or body; and Toughen requirements for chemical makers and EPA to
consider nonanimal forms of testing.

The current bill also revises earlier provisions that

critics worried would have made it tougher for EPA to regulate products (or articles)
that contain a known toxic chemical, as well as murky language that might have
inadvertently required EPA to keep considering costs in chemical assessments and blocked
certain state air and water pollution laws. With these changes, three more environment
committee Democrats backed the bill: Sheldon Whitehouse (DRI), Cory Booker (DNJ), and Jeff
Merkley (DOR).

*** LINKS

General Surveillance---Popularity---Dems
Plan is hyper-unpopular soft on crime label
Hancock 14 {Jerry, director of The Prison Ministry Project, 'Soft on Crime' Tactic
Works, but at a High Cost, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30,
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/soft-on-crime-tactic-works-but-at-a-high-costb99301906z1-265307291.html#THUR}
Politicians are addicted to crime. Democrats, Republicans, liberals and
conservatives are all addicted to crime and the politics of fear. I recently received a
fundraising request from a liberal Democrat, a candidate whose positions and career I generally respect. In
the request, he accused the incumbent of being "soft on crime ." I realize that many of us might
agree that it is wrong not to prosecute campaign finance violations which was the context of the solicitation

the phrase itself is toxic. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the causes and
a liberal Democrat will use "soft on crime" when he thinks
it will motivate voters, there is very little hope we will ever be "smart on crime."
"Soft on crime" is one of those simple phrases such as "truth in sentencing" or "three strikes and
you're out" that so oversimplify complex issues that they suck the life out of
people. We see the consequences of "soft on crime" campaigns every time we visit men and women serving
but

problems of mass incarceration. If

sentences without hope in Wisconsin's overcrowded prisons. Any serious candidate should know better. Anyone
running for public office should read Michelle Alexander's book, "The New Jim Crow." Alexander details the causes
and costs of keeping more than 2 million of our brothers and sisters behind bars and keeping fathers of 2 million
children in prison. Alexander explains that mass incarceration results from two explicit public policies: the war on
drugs and tough-on-crime laws (such as "truth in sentencing") that have led to more people being put in prison for

Accusing an electoral opponent

of being "soft on crime" is a powerful weapon. It motivates voters by preying on
their fears sometimes realistic but often inflated of becoming victims of crime. The "soft on crime"
charge often works, but it comes with a terrible cost. Candidates who get elected by being "tough on
longer sentences with no chance for parole or time off for good behavior.

crime" mortgage their political and moral future and the future of the citizens they claim to serve. Having been
elected by calling their opponents "soft on crime," they know the power of the allegation.

Once elected,

they are compelled to do everything they can to show they will

never be

"soft on crime." More prisons get built. Sentences get longer. Parole is denied.
Pardons are refused. In the end, Wisconsin ends up spending more on prisons than on its world-class
university system or on health care, with no justifiable increase in public safety.

General Surveillance---Popularity---Dems---A2:
Crime Irrelevant
Being Tough on Crime still perceived and matter
Butts 14 {Stephen, soon to be J.D/Ph.D. in Law and Psychology (Golden Gate
University and Palo Alto University), J.D. and Master's Degree in Addiction Studies
(Hazelden Graduate School), Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Intern at the ACLU of
Northern California, Lawmakers Cookbook: A Recipe for Tough-On-Crime Laws,
Golden Gate University Law Review, 4/15,
http://ggulawreview.org/2014/04/15/lawmakers-cookbook-a-recipe-for-tough-oncrime-laws/}
Many tough-on-crime laws have been enacted over the past fifty years . These laws
impose harsh sentences and severely restrict offenders civil liberties under the guise of preventing crime. Sex offender laws, Three
Strikes laws, zero tolerance laws, and mandatory sentences are examples. Tough-on-crime

laws are
economically unfeasible, ineffective, and unjust; yet their creation continues.
Chelseas law, the newest tough-on-crime law, was enacted just over three years ago. Unfortunately, tough-on-crime
laws are a lot like chocolate cupcakes at a soccer mom bake sale. When theyre just an idea,

everyone loves them. Theyre the talk of the town. Upon presentation,
eyes grow wide. People begin to salivate. They seem so appeasing. People dont
realize just how bad an idea they are until theyve had time to digest one. Once the high is over, the reality sets
in that they just make everyone feel bad and werent very good to begin with. A tough-on-crime law is similar, and its an easy

the base ingredient for a tough-on-crime law is public

fear. It has been said: Behind every bad law [there is] a deep fear. In the context of criminal laws,
this fear is of a monstrous villain, and three types of villains are most often cited: sex offenders,
drug addicts, and career criminals. Of these choices, sex offenders are the fiend du jour, with child molesters being more
dish to create if you have the right ingredients. Like flour,

villainous than rapists. Sex offenders are seen as monsters and despised by society. Even in prison, a society unto itself, sex
offenders have the lowest rank in the social order. The public views sex crimes as the most morally reprehensible crimes and,
therefore, sex offenders create a moral panic. Sex offenders may garner the most attention, but drug addicts and career criminals

addiction is seen as a moral failing, with drug addicts being confined

to prisons rather than treated for a chronic brain disease. While some drug laws have been reformed,
the War on Drugs rages on. Only certain career criminals are seen as villains, though. If an offenders rap sheet is
are also vilified. Drug

long enough and sufficiently disturbing, he can become a very powerful villain. A rape, murder, or kidnapping can transform a petty

The next and most important ingredient, like the sugar in a cupcake, is
the medias continual stream of fear appeals. Fear appeals persuade action by
highlighting threats to public safety . The strongest fear appeal is provided by the medias spotlight on the rape
criminal into someone to be feared.

or murder of a white child, preferably a female. Many tough-on-crime laws have been named after the children whose murders
inspired the legal causes: Chelseas law, Megans law, Jessicas Law, Marsys Law, the Adam Walsh Act, and the Jacob Wetterling Act.

During
the War on Drugs, there were no specific horrendous incidents for the media to
amplify. Instead, yellow journalism was used. From Reefer Madness to reports that
African-Americans who used cocaine were raping white women, the media used its
power to garner support for tough-on-crime legislation. As the focus of the medias
Californias Three Strikes Law was enacted in response to the media-incited public fear after the murder of Polly Klaas.

fear appeals has changed, so have the villains. From the 1870s until the 1990s, drug addicts were the main villains. In the 1990s,

Similar to our addiction to

sugar, people are addicted to the media, and the media continually spoonfeeds these fear appeals to the masses. Unable to abstain from viewing, fears are
aroused. This arousal is uncomfortable. To correct this emotional dysregulation, humans
instinctively react to the perceived need to protect themselves by pressuring
career criminals were the focus. Since 1994, sex offenders have been the focal point.

politicians for change.

Politicians are also controlled by fear.

In

it is largely due to their fear of not being re-elected that politicians have
enacted these unnecessary laws. Without the addictive media, there would be no tough-on-crime laws. For example, a
fact,

year before Polly Klaass murder inspired Californias Three Strikes Law, Kimber Reynolds, another young white girl, was murdered
by a career criminal. But, no one supported the Three Strikes Law Kimbers father was promoting because there was no media

While a personal or political agenda can be helpful in the creation

of a tough-on-crime law, it is simply icing on the cupcake. An agenda can have a strong
influence on public perceptions. The media can then promote the agenda. For
instance, yellow journalism was used to support Richard Nixons War on Drugs political
agenda and the media promoted Marc Klaass personal agenda to rid the streets of career criminals. Once the media has
galvanized the public, pressure can be put on politicians to enact legislation.
Politicians, whose primary agenda is re-election, worry theyll look soft-on-crime unless
tough-on-crime laws are passed. Unfortunately, after a tough-on-crime law is enacted, it can take decades
attention surrounding her murder.

before the ramifications are fully digested and people recognize how bad the law was in actuality. Once the public realizes the
ineffectiveness and vindictiveness of tough-on-crime laws, the laws are usually reformed. Forty years after the War on Drugs
began, the focus on drug policies is slowly changing from incarceration to treatment. Almost twenty years after Californias Three

A tough-on-crime law is a
simple dish with only two main ingredients: our fear of villains and the medias
fear appeals. The media has a debilitating effect on our independent thinking because it spoon-feeds us fear appeals. To
regulate our fear, the public creates fear in politicians. These ingredients are perfect for a
Strikes Law was implemented, it was reformed to focus on serious or violent felonies.

tough-on-crime law. Due to their simplicity,

these laws will continue

to be created. It is only by abstaining from our mindless consumption of the medias fear appeals that laws will
transform from being reactive to proactive.

NSA Reform---Popularity---GOP
Conservatives hate the plan security concerns
Brinker 14 {Luke, politics editor at Salon, former Equality Matters Researcher at
Media Matters for America, M.A. in Social Sciences (University of Chicago), B.A. in
history (University of Kansas), How Senate Republicans Scuttled NSA Reform,
Salon, 11/19,
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/how_senate_republicans_scuttled_nsa_reform/#T
HUR}
Leahys USA Freedom Act, a proposal to end the National Security Agencys bulk
collection of Americans phone calls, came just short of the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a
Vermont Sen. Patrick

filibuster last night, with the chamber voting 58 to 42 to take up the legislation. With the exception of Sen. Bill
Nelson of Florida, the Democratic caucus was united in its support for considering the bill. Meanwhile, Republican
Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mike Lee of Utah, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska broke ranks with the

The legislations death followed a concerted

conservative campaign against it, with opponents like incoming Senate Majority
GOP and voted to take up the bill.

Leader Mitch

McConnell employing alarmist rhetoric to attack Leahys bill as

a boon

for terrorists. If our aim is to degrade and destroy [the Islamic State militant group, also
ISIS], as the president has said, then thats going to require smart policies and firm
determination, McConnell declared. At a minimum, we shouldnt be doing anything to
make the situation worse. Yet thats just what this bill would do. McConnells
remarks echoed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden and
George W. Bush-era Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The pieces title? NSA Reform That
Only ISIS Could Love.
known as

NSA Reform---Popularity---Libertarians
Plan doesnt go far left enough causes controversy
Brinker 14 {Luke, politics editor at Salon, former Equality Matters Researcher at
Media Matters for America, M.A. in Social Sciences (University of Chicago), B.A. in
history (University of Kansas), How Senate Republicans Scuttled NSA Reform,
Salon, 11/19,
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/how_senate_republicans_scuttled_nsa_reform/#T
HUR}
Though GOP opposition to the bill stemmed primarily from national security hawks,
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who fashions himself a civil libertarian, also opposed taking up the
measure. But whereas his home-state colleague McConnell opposed the legislation for making changes he
Paul argued that Leahys bill didnt go far enough.
Paul, a long-standing opponent of the Patriot Act, cited a provision in the bill that would have
extended the ability of the NSA to comb through Americans phone records under the
asserted were too sweeping,

Patriot Act. After the vote, though, Paul said he felt bad about contributing to the USA Freedom Acts death.
They probably needed my vote, he said. Its hard for me to vote for something I object to so
much. While the vote illustrated the persistent divide between GOP hawks and more libertarian types, the
overwhelming GOP opposition to taking up the measure underscores that the hawks maintain the upper hand.
Moreover, the new crop of GOP senators taking office in January is heavy on members like Iowas Joni Ernst
who are associated with the partys hawkish wing.

Patriot Act Reform---Popularity---Bipart

Mass opposition to the plan key leaders, Obama, 100s of
congress-people
Eddington 6/1/15 The Patriot Act Is Not Fit for Purpose. Nor Is Its Replacement
Patrick G. Eddington - policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties at the
Cato Institute, June 1, 2015, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patriotact-not-fit-purpose-nor-its-replacement
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman
Richard Burr and presidential hopeful Senator Marco Rubio have repeated more times than I can count that
these Patriot Act provisions are vital to preventing another 9/11. But they are objectively wrong. Last
month the Department of Justice Inspector General (DoJ IG) released a partially declassified version of a long overdue Patriot Act
compliance report. With respect to Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act, which encompasses the controversial telephone metadata program as
well as a much larger business records dragnet that just expired, the report found that, The agents we interviewed did not identify
any major case developments that resulted from the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders Nearly 14 years of
using this provisionwhich has swept up tens of millions of records of innocent Americans in the processhas resulted in zero
terrorist plots against America being uncovered, much less disrupted. Real Patriot Act reform should substantively bar the
government from indiscriminate bulk surveillance. And this applies not simply to the telephone metadata program exposed by
Edward Snowden two years ago, but to every Sec. 215-related program since the Patriot Act was enacted in October 2001. The DoJ
IG reports findings mirror those of President Obamas own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which
issued its own report over 18 months ago. This is exactly the same dismal record uncovered by The New York Timess Charlie
Savage with respect to the once-illegal Stellar Wind warrantless surveillance program initiated by then-NSA Director Michael Hayden
three days after the 9/11 attacks. And both programs have cost millions to run and to store the personal data of every American who

Patriot Act national security

boondoggle is held up by senior congressional leaders, and even President Obama himself, as
critical to protecting the nation when all available data says exactly the opposite. In his weekly address the day
has ever used a phone, computer, or tableta de facto mass surveillance tax. Yet this

before a fresh Senate debate over renewing the useless authorities, President Obama engaged in the kind of fear-mongering and
proffering of demonstrable falsehoods we routinely see from neoconservatives. Terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS] arent
suddenly going to stop plotting against us at midnight tomorrow, Obama said in a statement. And we shouldnt surrender the tools

The president
and hundreds of members of Congress in both chambers are supporting the
maintenance of mass surveillance authorities that dont work, cost millions annually and have been found
that help keep us safe. It would be irresponsible. It would be reckless. And we shouldnt allow it to happen.

either unconstitutional (by one federal district court judge) or illegal (as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in early May).

Obama and many of these same members of Congress, along with some privacy and civil
liberties groups, have spent weeks claiming that these same illegal and ineffective Patriot Act
authorities can be reformed through the House-passed USA Freedom Act. House sponsors of that bill admit it
would simply narrow, not end, the NSA telephone metadata program.

Link Turns Case---Economy

Partisan spats tank the economy consumer and investor
confidence
Harwood 11 {John, Chief Washington Correspondent for CNBC, featured in the
New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, Nieman Fellow at Harvard
University, Partisan Fighting Carries Risks at Election Time, The New York Times:
The Caucus, 9/4, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/hostility-amongvoters-as-politics-hurt-economy/#THUR}
ideological battles and partisan maneuvers woven into the
capital began to exert their own damaging effect on the economy ,
analysts from Washington to Wall Street have concluded. Typically, economic
conditions frame the political debate. But in the fight over raising the federal debt limit, the
political debate also influenced economic conditions and not for the better.
Last weeks unemployment report showing no job growth in August provided new evidence
that the simultaneous erosion of confidence in the economy and in the government
has harmed prospects for American workers and businesses. Thus in the post-Labor Day
chapter of divided government, both parties are playing with this politically
combustible material: the hostility of voters who see them as not merely failing
to solve economic problems but, in fact, actively compounding them. The immediate
That is because over the summer, the
fabric of the

legislative question is whether rising anxiety can drive Republicans and Democrats toward consensus solutions. So far, there is scant
evidence of that happening, as the squabble over scheduling the presidents address to Congress made clear. White House advisers
say Mr. Obama, exasperated with Republicans refusal to cooperate, is preparing to use his speech on Thursday to fight for an
ambitious job-creation proposal costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But Republicans, ridiculing the idea of another stimulus, show
limited interest in bargaining even on tax-cut ideas they previously backed. Both of those calculations now involve heightened
risks as the 2012 elections approach. The president is in the most conspicuous jeopardy. But Congressional Republicans are heading
into these new skirmishes with their careers on the line, too. Eroding Confidence

What makes political attitudes

so economically consequential now is the role that consumer and

business confidence plays in determining whether the stalled recovery kicks into
gear or slips back into recession. Since the 2008 financial crisis, Americans shaken by job
losses, stagnant wages and falling home values have been borrowing less and
spending less. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculated this year that this deleveraging
has siphoned $480 billion annually from the cash flow of American consumers. No one expects that lost spending to
return. But the more pessimistic consumers feel, the less likely it is that
businesses will see profit in hiring new workers and investing in additional
production with the cash now filling their coffers. Research by the Republican pollster Bill McInturff and his Democratic
counterpart Peter Hart for the financial television network CNBC showed that confidence was weak even
before the final negotiations over the debt ceiling last month. By June, just 29 percent of
Americans expected their wages to rise in the next year; 50 percent called it a bad time to
invest in the stock market; and 30 percent expected their home values to decrease
soon, compared with just 15 percent who expected an increase. Since then, Mr. McInturff said, the infighting in
Washington has eroded consumer confidence further than economic
conditions themselves might have warranted. Mr. Hart reached the same conclusion
in separate research for Citibank that showed Americans with diminishing expectations for recovery
even as their assessment of current conditions remained unchanged since January.

Link Turns Case---Hegemony

Heightened political polarization makes us look dysfunctional
crushes primacy and eviscerates allies trust
Collinson 13 {Stephen, syndicated White House correspondent, World Worries
Despite Temporary Truce in Polarized US, AlterNet, 10/20,
http://www.alternet.org/progressive-wire/world-worries-despite-temporary-trucepolarized-us#THUR}
The world got a close-up look at US democracy during Washington's debt default showdown, and
was traumatized by what it saw. Foreign commentators branded America
"befuddled," and mocked its "dysfunctional" political system
while French newspaper Le Monde bemoaned a "piteous spectacle" over a just avoided US debt
default. The bad news for America's worried friends is that new stalemates over budgets and
borrowing are looming early next year. Foreign angst over the spectacle -- which saw the far
right Republican Tea Party faction try to hold President Barack Obama to ransom -- is understandable. The
globalized economy has world powers chained to America's fate: a US debt
default could have caused mayhem across the planet. Obama warned the

diminished US standing and "encouraged our

enemies, it's emboldened our competitors and depressed
our friends." The two week impasse was sparked when House Republicans tried to make a hike in US borrowing
showdown

Foreigners struggled to understand

how an insurgent minority was able to hold US democracy hostage. Outsiders have
often grumbled that a political system of checks and balances designed 230 years
ago is too lumbering for an age where billions of dollars can flee a nation in a second
and nimble developing nations challenge US primacy.
authority conditional on Obama gutting his signature health care law.

Link Turns Case---Signal

Link alone turns the entire cases signal
Norris, 11 (John Norris is the Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and
Peacebuilding Initiative. 3/18,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rising_to_the_occasion.html)
What do our leaders need to doto the degree that we can influence eventsto help
guide the region down the path to democracy and stability instead of chaos? First and
foremost, we need to channel the late Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Ohio, who argued that politics should
stop at the waters edge. In other words, we need to dial down the partisan sniping
here at home. The president and Congress need to work together. If we get it wrong in the Middle East,
The question is:

both parties and the American people will reap that ill reward for years to come. Accordingly, the administration should pull in members of Congress, former national security officials of
both parties, and other foreign policy experts on a regular basis. These should not be briefings but discussions about how best to navigate the incredibly tricky path before us. The
administration needs to be less insular in its decision making and members of Congress need to avoid the cheap thrill of feeding the 24-hour news machine pithy tweets and a steady
diet of second guesses. Indeed, it is truly astounding that we may be lurching toward a government shutdown in the middle of the most important events on the international stage in
decades. Members of both parties need to understand full well that the American public will view our politicians as spoiled 12-year-olds if they shutter the government at this moment.

Is partisan gridlock really the message we want to broadcast to protesters

across the Middle East as they risk their lives fighting for the same freedoms we already
enjoy? Second, our strategy needs to be clearly communicated to the public. It is encouraging that President Barack Obama is taking to the airwaves tonight to explain our
military involvement in Libya and our stakes across the region. The president needs to be communicator in chief during this period and he needs to speak honestly of the risks and
rewards as we move forward. At all costs, the administration needs to avoid the trap of thinking that its strategy is too complex to be understood by the general public. If you cant
explain your strategy, it probably isnt a good one. By the same token, pundits should stop the ridiculous clamoring for a clearly identified endgame for every move the president makes.
We are seeing an entire region in upheaval. We have seen protests in 21 countries with a population of more than 425 million people stretching across 4,800 miles. Things will be messy
and uncertain for some time. Finally, and perhaps most dauntingly, the United States needs to manage its relationships with several longstanding Middle East allies while not betraying
democratic aspirations in these countries. Nations such as Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia have long been key partners in the region but we cannot let that mute our criticisms of what
are highly autocratic systems. The administration realized that reform had gained powerful momentum in both Tunisia and Egypt and that it would be counterproductive to be seen as
defending antidemocratic regimes. The strategic stakes are even higher in a country like Saudi Arabia. But we need to keep the heat on some of our friends to rule far more
democratically even when it produces discomfort for all involved. The Middle East has been hurtled through a period of incredible change during the last three months. Millions of people

There can be no better time for the United

States to demonstrate its own maturity as a democracy by speaking clearly, listening to a
diversity of voices, cooling the partisan rhetoric, and understanding that such historic moments are few and
have marched in the face of armed opposition to speak out and demand their rights.

far between.

A2: Courts Shield

Presidents are the focal point of politics they always get the
blame.
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer 4/28/02
Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent: Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the
Easter Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer: Welcome back.

The
Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox and MSNBC -complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected
Democrats. They cite CNN, which they say, from January 1 through March 21, aired
157 live events involving the Bush administration, and 7 involving elected
Democrats. Fox and MS, they say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is certainly real, for several
Time now for Bruce Morton's essay on the struggle for balanced coverage on the cable networks. Morton:

reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan, so the president has been an active
commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising

Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the Pentagon's,

maybe the State Department's. Why not? It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are
pooled, and in war time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's a
reason for the coverage gap that's older than Mr. Bush's administration . In war or peace, the
president is a commanding figure -- one man to whose politics and character
and, nowadays, sex life, endless attention is paid . Congress is 535 people. What it does is
complicated, compromises on budget items done in private, and lacks the drama of the White House. There's a
primetime TV show about a president. None about the Congress . If a small newspaper has
the Easter Bunny.

one reporter in Washington, he'll cover two things, the local congressional delegation and, on big occasions, the

So the complaining Democrats have a point, but it's worth remembering

that coverage of a president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask
the Clintons. 9 Presidents will always get more coverage than Congresses. They're
sexier. But it won't always be coverage they lik e.
White House.

Appointments mean Obama is blamed for Court decisions

Samuel 9 (Terence, Deputy Editor of the Root, Obamas Honeymoon Nears its
End, American Prospect, 5/29, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?
article=obamas_honeymoon_nears_its_end)
This week, Barack Obama named his first nominee to the Supreme Court , then headed west to Las Vegas
and Los Angeles to raise money for Democrats in the 2010 midterms. Taken together, these two seemingly disparate acts mark the end of a certain
period of innocence in the Obama administration: The "blame Bush" phase of the Obama administration is over, and the prolonged honeymoon
that the president has enjoyed with the country and the media will soon come to an end as well. Obama is no longer just the inheritor of Bush's

This is now his presidency in his own right. The chance to choose a
Supreme Court justice is such a sui generis exercise of executive power -- it so
powerfully underscores the vast and unique powers of a president -- that blame-shifting has become a less
effective political strategy, and less becoming as well. Obama's political maturation will be hastened by the
mess.

impending ideological fight that is now virtually a guarantee for Supreme Court nominations . Old wounds will be opened, and old
animosities will be triggered as the process moves along. Already we see the effect in the polls . While Obama himself remains incredibly
popular, only 47 percent of Americans think his choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is an excellent or good choice for the Court, according to the
latest Gallup poll. The stimulus package scored better than that. The prospect of a new justice really seems to force people to reconsider their
culture warrior allegiances in the context of the party in power. This month, after news of Justice David Souter's retirement, a Gallup poll showed
that more Americans considered themselves against abortion rights than in favor: 51 percent to 42 percent. Those number were almost exactly
reversed a year ago when Bush was in office and Obama was on the verge of wrapping up the Democratic nomination. "This is the first time a
majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995," according to the polling

with his overwhelmingly Democratic

Senate, the public may be sending preemptory signals that they are not
interested in a huge swing on some of these cultural issues that tend to explode
organization. Is this the same country that elected Obama? Yes, but

during nomination hearings. Even though Obama will win the Sotomayor fight, her confirmation is likely
to leave him less popular in the end because it will involve contentious issues -questions of race and gender politics like affirmative action and abortion -- that he
managed to avoid or at least finesse through his campaign and during his presidency so far.

Gets to Congress Citizens proves

Zekeny 10 [JEFF, Political fallout from the Supreme Court ruling New York
Times -- Jan 21 -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-falloutfrom-the-supreme-court-ruling/]
Todays ruling upends the nations campaign finance laws, allowing corporations
and labor unions to spend freely on behalf of political candidates . With less than 11 months
before the fall elections, the floodgates for political contributions will open wide, adding another element of intrigue
to the fight for control of Congress. At first blush, Republican candidates would seem to benefit from this change in
how political campaigns are conducted in America. The political environment an angry, frustrated electorate
seeking change in Washington was already favoring Republicans. Now corporations, labor unions and a host of

But the populist showdown that was already

brewing President Obama on Thursday sought to limit the size of the nations banks will surely only
intensify by the Supreme Courts ruling. The development means that both sides
will have even louder megaphones to make their voices and viewpoints heard . Mr.
Obama issued a statement a rare instance of a president immediately weighing in
on a ruling from the high court and said his administration would work with
Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision . With its ruling
other organizations can weigh in like never before.

today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, Mr.
Obama said. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful
interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.

Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment.

I am pleased that the

Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitutions First Amendment rights of free speech and association, said
Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. These are the bedrock
principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our democracy.
surprisingly,

said the ruling would be bad for democracy.

Democrats, not

Giving corporate interests an outsized role in

Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of

must look at legislative ways to make sure
the ledger is not tipped so far for corporate interests that citizens voices are
drowned out.
our process will only mean citizens get heard less, said Senator Robert
the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. We

A2: Link Turn---Dems

Dems wont buy in fear of being labeled soft on crime
Bean 12 {Alan, executive director of Friends of Justice, featured in Newsweek,
The Washington Post, USA Today, La Monde and The Chicago Tribune and CNN, The
Conservative War on Prisons: How an Unlikely Coalition of Evangelicals and
Libertarians Changed the Politics of Crime, 11/13,
http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-conservative-war-on-prisonshow-an-unlikely-coalition-of-evangelicals-and-libertarians-changed-the-politics-ofcrime/}
I heartily commend this well-crafted article on the unlikely evangelical-libertarian coalition that created
the Right on Crime movement. David Dagan and Steven M. Teles appreciate that liberal organizations like the ACLU, the Open Societies Institute and
the Public Welfare Foundation carried the torch for criminal justice reform during the dark ages (1980-2000) of tough-on-crime politic and ever-expanding prison populations . But
liberal politicians have been too afraid of the soft-on-crime label to
associate themselves with the reform movement; in fact, Democrats like Bill Clinton built
careers on out-toughing the conservatives. Real political change required a bipartisan approach, and this meant that the impetus for reform had to come from
the political right. Democrats will vote for change, but only if conservatives give
them political cover. Conservatives, especially in deep-red states like Texas, dont have to worry about looking soft.

A2: Link Turn---Freedom Act Proves

Mass opposition to the plan lobbies, security threats, empirics its meaningfully distinct from Freedom Act strength of bill and
time crunch
Clabough 3/31/15 House Members Target Patriot Act with "Surveillance State
Repeal Act" Raven Clabough staff at The New American, bachelors and masters
degrees in English at the University of Albany, Tuesday, 31 March 2015,
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20560-house-memberstarget-patriot-act-with-surveillance-state-repeal-act *language modified
Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis., photo on left) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who are seeking to repeal
the PATRIOT Act in its entirety and combat any legal provisions that amount to American spying, unveiled their
U.S.

Surveillance State Repeal Act on Tuesday. This isnt just tinkering around the edges,
Pocan said during a Capitol Hill briefing on the legislation. This is a meaningful overhaul of the system, getting rid of
essentially all parameters of the PATRIOT Act.

The PATRIOT Act contains many provisions that violate

the Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state, added Massie (R-Ky.), who coauthored the legislation with Pocan. Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that
the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the PATRIOT Act and reassert the
constitutional rights of all Americans. The House bill would completely repeal the PATRIOT Act, passed in the days following the
9/11 attacks, as well as the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which permits the NSA to collect Internet communications a program
exposed by former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden. Likewise, the bill would reform the court that oversees
the nations spying powers, enhance protections for whistleblowers, and stop the government from forcing technology companies to
create easy access into their devices. The warrantless collection of millions of personal communications from innocent Americans is
a direct violation of our constitutional right to privacy, declared Congressman Pocan, adding, Revelations about the NSAs
programs reveal the extraordinary extent to which the program has invaded Americans privacy. I reject the notion that we must
sacrifice liberty for security. We can live in a secure nation which also upholds a strong commitment to civil liberties. Massie stated,
Really, what we need are new whistleblower protections so that the next Edward Snowden doesnt have to go to Russia or Hong

the bill is not likely to gain much

traction, as leaders in Congress have been worried that even much milder reforms
to the nations spying laws would tragically handicap [curtail] the nations ability to
fight terrorists. A 2013 Surveillance State Repeal Act never picked up any
momentum, and even bills with smaller ambitions have failed to gain passage. Senator
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the USA Freedom Act in 2014, which sought to curtail the amount of mass surveillance
that could be performed by the NSA and other groups. As predicted, however, the bill was dramatically watered
down during the consensus process. The White House signaled its strong support for the bill only
after privacy protections and transparency provisions were substantially
Kong or whatever the case may be just for disclosing this." According to The Hill,

weakened.

Privacy advocates who once supported the USA Freedom Act were dismayed by its transformation into a
consensus bill, which no longer prevented the NSA or FBI from warrantlessly sifting through international communications

USA Freedom Act in its final form would have

expanded NSA authorities because of its vague wording about what constituted a
connection between call records. Ultimately, the USA Freedom Act failed to garner enough votes in the
databases. Some critics even argued that the

Senate, as opponents claimed that its passage would have left the country vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Still, Pocan and Massie
remain hopeful that a strong show of opposition may compel lawmakers to take action against portions of the PATRIOT Act, which
are due for reauthorization on June 1. However, with Congress scheduled to be out of town after Memorial Day, the actual deadline
is May 22. Three provisions of the PATRIOT Act will expire on June 1, including the controversial Section 215, which the NSA has used
to collect phone metadata, which includes details about who was called by whom and when each call took place. Snowden

NSA critics have

been hopeful that the impending June 1 deadline would be the appropriate time to
strike against unpopular programs such as this one. Privacy advocates such as the American Civil
revealed that the NSA amassed a bulk collection of records about millions of Americans phone calls.

Liberties Union and the CATO Institute are expected to lobby heavily in support of reform. Patrick Eddington, national security and
civil liberties policy analyst for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, declared, All mass surveillance does is violate the rights and
put a chilling effect on the American people.

But NSA critics can expect to hear much of the same

fear-mongering language from surveillance supporters that has been used against
every NSA reform measure proposed in the last few years.

A2: Link Turn---Lobbies

No risk of turns -- lobby impact is overrated laundry list.
Insight on the News 3 [Sept 15 --lexis]
Do we really have the best Congress money can buy? Maybe not. Paul Burstein, a sociology professor at the

"Contrary to popular belief and

typical media portrayals, big campaign contributions and lobbying do not
necessarily win the political influence that determines votes in the U.S. Congress ."
University of Washington, looked into the matter and concludes that

Writing in the summer 2003 edition of Contexts, the magazine of the American Sociological Association, Burstein

votes are more often than not dictated by public opinion,

ideology and party affiliation. "The power of interest groups to get legislators to change their votes in the
says his research indicates

face of personal ideology and party commitments is real but very limited," Burstein maintains. And just why does it

part of the misconception is due to media focus on the

egregious actions of a few, and part is due to the individual perception that if
government is not doing things "my way," then obviously it is a tool of special
interests. Burstein says his study merely is one of many showing that money and special interests have
little influence on the shaping of policy. This influence is limited by several factors, he says. For one
thing, politicalaction-committee campaign contributions are not large compared with
campaign costs, so their clout in that regard is limited. For another, "there are so
many lobbyists that most cannot gain access to members of Congress, much less
influence them." And lastly, "the number of members actually influenced by
contributions and lobbying is often too small to determine the outcome of key
votes." Burstein analyzed key votes from 2002 in reaching his conclusions. Most followed party affiliation. The
appear otherwise? The author says that

major influence on voting, he concludes, is public opinion.

*** INTERNAL LINKS

PC Key---General
PC key overcomes ideology, lobbying, and empirics
specifically answers uniqueness overwhelms the link
Choma 5/28 {Russ, investigate journalist for the Center for Responsive Politics,
winner of the Neiman Foundation for Journalisms I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic
Independence, Chemical Safety Law Rewrite Triggers Strong Reactions, 2015,
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/chemical-safety-law-rewrite-triggersstrong-reactions/#THUR}
Next month the House will consider a bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates
toxic chemicals. That in itself is a milestone: Despite bipartisan support for the idea, the
process has been long and tortured, complicated by millions in lobbying and
campaign donations. And the fight may be far from over.
Lawmakers on both sides wield environmental issues like climate change and pipeline
construction as ideological axes. But environmental and health advocates and industry
backers alike agree that the regulatory regime for chemical safety needs a rewrite though
what that should look like is a matter of dispute and each successive news story involving
toxics makes the need more urgent. Nearly 40 years after the original legislation in this area, the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), was passed, practically no chemicals have been banned or
regulated, and chemical manufacturers are dealing with an array of state laws
passed because so little action was occurring at the federal level. A new issue profile
from the Center for Responsive Politics aims to lay out some of the background of this

contentious

battle. The latest effort is the TSCA Modernization Act , which, among
other things, would give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of new and existing chemicals and make it
harder for states to set tougher standards. A similar provision passed the Senate earlier this year, and the bill flew
It still
faces a hearing with the full committee, which is expected early next month, followed by
consideration by the full House, which supporters hope will happen by the end of June. But the bill is
far from done, as more amendments and reconciliation with the Senates version
still lie ahead. And similar bills with promising bipartisan support have failed in each
of the last several Congresses. Theres a wide array of interests involved, and the
tremendous pressure the chemical industry can bring which can sway even stalwart opponents
out of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing with unanimous support earlier this month.

PC Key---Effectiveness Trick
PC key to effective legislation shapes debate on key
provisions like the precautionary principle and what chemicals to
prioritize
Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at
Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member
of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar
Association, Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform, Environmental Law Institute,
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-LarrisObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}
Defining TSCAs safety standard could be an area of
significant debate. Under EPAs recently announced principles, greater responsibility
would shift to industry. For example, under the current law, EPA must show why it believes a
chemical poses a health threat and must use the least burdensome alternative to restrict a chemicals use. 8
That standard, according to Administrator Jackson, has been a bugaboo for quite some time.9
This is because the burden is placed on EPA to first establish that a chemical poses a health
threat before it can act. Now, EPA wants Congress to shift that burden to industry to prove that a
Determining the Appropriate Safety Standard

chemical is safe. Under EPAs proposal, manufacturers will be required to develop and submit data to show that existing chemicals

Although EPA did not say that it will require industry to submit data for all
chemicals, there are concerns that this approach will be similar to the European
Unions Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations. The basic principle
are safe. 10

of REACH is that industry is responsible for ensuring that substances contained in products do not adversely affect human health or
the environment, under normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. 11

REACH is based on the

precautionary principle, which advocates taking precautionary action when chemicals pose possible threats to human
health and the environment, rather than waiting for scientific proof of cause and effect. 12 The precautionary principle has
not traditionally been a basis for policymaking in the United States. III. Prioritizing Chemical
Regulation Another area of likely debate is the task of determining which chemicals
should receive priority in regulation. Considering there are approximately 80,000 chemicals approved
for use in commerce, it is essential that there be a statutory and/ or regulatory basis for
identifying the chemicals that will be evaluated first . This issue was addressed on
November 17, 2009, during a U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination
before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 13 At that hearing,

representatives of industry and environmental and public health advocacy groups agreed that human health
should be the top factor to consider in determining whether or not a chemical is safe; however, the
groups diverged on whether this was the only priority to consider , and how this factor could
be measured.

A2: Obama Isnt Pushing

Yes push public statements prove that legislation meets
Obama requirements
Bergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Regulatory
Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, March 19th,
http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senatecommittee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}
Jones testified that, while the Obama Administration does not have a position on TMA DD,
he would like to offer several observations. As stated in EPA's September 2009 Essential
Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation, any TSCA reform bill should include
improvements that would provide EPA the ability to make timely decisions if a chemical
poses a risk and the ability to take action, as appropriate, to address that risk. Jones described a possible
"catch-22" in TMA DD, which would require EPA to make a finding regarding the potential for risk prior to beginning
the risk evaluation process. Jones also described the deadlines in TMA DD as "unreasonably short" in many cases,

TMA DD removes
the least burdensome requirement under TSCA and appears to be consistent
with the Obama Administration's principle that TSCA should reflect risk-based
criteria protective of human health and the environment , it is ambiguous how EPA is to
and expressed his willingness to discuss more realistic timelines. According to Jones, while

incorporate manufacturer and other costs into a risk management rule. In addition, TMA DD lacks a source of
sustained funding.

History proves yes push key aim

Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at
Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member
of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar
Association, Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform, Environmental Law Institute,
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-LarrisObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}
Environmental policy was a key issue during the presidential campaign in 2008. ThenSen. Barack Obama pledged a major change in U.S. environmental policy: We cannot afford
more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake .1 In 2009,
President Obama has started to deliver on his promise. From the treatment and storage of
nuclear waste, to the programs implemented to slash carbon emissions, to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Acts inclusion of funds for environmental research and green-collar job creation, it is
becoming apparent that this president is serious about environmental reform. The
Obama Administrations most recent focus has included the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). 2 President Obama has said that he wants the U.S. Congress to reauthorize
and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA . 3 That means that for the
first time in 34 years, the law regulating toxic chemicals faces a potential major
transformation

A2: PC Irrelevant
Consensus of studies prove PC key
Anthony J. Madonna Assistant Professor University of Georgia, et al Richard L.
Vining Jr. Assistant Professor University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III
Assistant Professor University of Georgia 10-25-2012 Confirmation Wars and
Collateral Damage: Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court Nominations on
Presidential Success in the U.S. Senate
The selection of Supreme Court justices is just one of several key powers afforded to the modern presidency.

Presidents use a wide range of tactics to set policy, including their ability to
influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to key independent boards and lower level federal
courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents introduce legislation and
define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995; Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State
of the Union Address and other public speeches are important venues for this activity (Canes-Wrone
2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light 1999; Yates and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means
through which presidents outline their legislative goals. Presidents also add items to the legislative
agenda intermittently in response to issues or events that they believe require attention. This may be
done either by sending messages to Congress or through presidential communication to legislators'
constituents. While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and resources to
secure the passage of key policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt
1955, 1960).

PC theory true for Obama empirics

Color Lines, 10-14-2011
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_workin
g.html
Obamas new insistence on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in
fact, a powerful bully pulpit. No, he cant just wave a magic wand and pass bills .
No one credible has ever argued that. What he can do is use the substantial power of his
office to bully Congress into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The
first step in doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president
speaks, its news. So he controls the news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks
about jobs every day, thats what well all be talking about . The second step is
negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical bullying creates. And we will all
But what

desperately need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its grim climax this winter. So lets hope
Marshall is onto something when he says we might be at a turning point in Washington.

Your evidence oversimplifies political capital

Light 99 Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the Presidents
Agenda, p. 24-25)
Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout they all mean the same thing. The most basic and
most important of all presidential resources is capital . Though the internal resources
time, information, expertise, and energy all have an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is
severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the congressional parties. While there
is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic agenda,

without the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a

difference.

Though bargaining is an important tool of presidential power, it does not take place in a neutral environment. Presidents bring certain
advantages and disadvantages to the table.

A2: PC Irrelevant---Ideology
Ideology doesnt outweigh presidential success dictates
votes
Lebo 10 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science,
Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political
Science, Stony Brook University, Journal of Politics, The Presidents Role in the
Partisan Congressional Arena forthcoming, google)
we use established theories of congressional parties to
model the presidents role as an actor within the constraints of the partisan
environment of Congress. We also find a role for the president's approval level, a variable of some
Keeping this centrality in mind,

controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes and consequences

the presidents record as a key component of the

party politics that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the
electoral outcomes that follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics in Congress
argue that cross-pressured legislators will side with their parties in order to
enhance the collective reputation of their party (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), but no
empirical research has answered the question: "of what are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it
is the success of the president not parties in Congress that predicts rewards
and punishments to parties in Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing
of success. We develop a theory that views

theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing
theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.

Prefer our studies examines both presidential and

congressional influence their studies dont.
Lebo 10 [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony
Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political
Science, Stony Brook University, The Presidents Role in the Partisan Congressional
Arena Journal of Politics -- online]
A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm
Emanuel. His observation that When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally, is indicative of a view in
Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of

the
consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely unexplored
in empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the causes of presidential
success has focused a lot on the partisan environment within which the presidents
legislative battles are won and lost, it pays less attention to theories of
congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a view of
the president as the central actor in the partisan wars is meant to
integrate the literatures on the two institutions. Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to
deepen our understanding of that branch, the role of the president is usually left out or
marginalized. At the same time, research that centers on the presidents success has developed with little
crossover. The result is that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we
know much less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between models
political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger 2007). But

of conditional party government (Aldrich and Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins 1993,

we have an advanced understanding of how parties are

important in Congress, but little knowledge of where the president fits. As the head
2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008),

of his party, the presidents role in the partisan politics of Congress should be
central.

A2: PC Not Real---Ornstein

Ornstein concludes neg there is an agenda setting impact
and the president matter in close votes
Norman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a
contributing editor and columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an
election eve analyst for BBC News. He served as codirector of the AEI-Brookings
Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch series. 5-8- 2013
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-ofpresidential-leadership/
The theme of presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great figures rising
to the occasion. The term mythology doesnt mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real
sense of that presidents remarkable character and drive, as well as his ability to shape important events. Every president is compared to the Lincoln
leadership standard and to those set by other presidents, and the first 100 days of every term becomes a measure of how a president is doing. I have
been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obamas failure to lead. Of course,
that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the
idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership tasknot building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not
working his will the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did. Now, after the failure to get the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and
columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I have grown increasingly frustrated with how the mythology of leadership has been spread in recent
weeks. I have yelled at the television set, Didnt any of you ever read Richard Neustadts classic Presidential Leadership? Havent any of you taken Politics
101 and read about the limits of presidential power in a separation-of-powers system? But the issue goes beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history.
No one schmoozed more or better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his signature initial priority,
an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats to limp over the finish line. How did things work out on his
health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House? No one knew Congress, or the buttons to push with every key lawmaker, better than LBJ. It
worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party in both houses. But
after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJs mastery of Congress didnt mean squat. No one defined the agenda or
negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he work his will? On almost every major issue, he had to make major compromises with Democrats,
including five straight years with significant tax increases. But he was able to do itas he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reformbecause he
had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises. For Obama, we knew from the get-go that he had no Republicans willing to
work with him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, key GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan determined on
inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and his congressional Democratic allies from getting any Republican votes for any
of his priorities or initiatives. Schmoozing was not going to change that. Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the press has
focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted against the Manchin-Toomey plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball with
Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three colleagues to vote for the plan, the Democrats would still have
fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the routine hurdle in the Senatebecause 41 of 45 Republicans voted no. And as Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has
said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory. Indeed, the theme of presidential arm-twisting again ignores history. Clinton once taught Sen. Richard
Shelby of Alabama a lesson, cutting out jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched parties, joined the Republicans, and became
a reliable vote against Clinton. George W. Bush and Karl Rove decided to teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson, punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That
worked even betterhe switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their Senate majority. Myths are so much easier than reality.

---their card ends--All this is not to say that leadership is meaningless and the situation
hopeless. Obama has failed to use the bully pulpit as effectively as he could , not to
change votes but to help define the agenda, while his adversaries have oftenon health care, the
economy, stimulus, and other issuesdefined it instead. Shaping the agenda can give your allies traction
and legitimize your policy choices and put your opponents on defense . And any of us
could quibble with some of the strategic choices and timing emanating from the White House. But
it is past time to abandon selective history and wishful thinking, and realize the inherent limits of presidential
power, and the very different tribal politics that Obama faces compared with his predecessors.

A2: Winners Win

PC finite legislative wins dont spillover empirics, true for Obama,
too polarized
Todd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the
Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is
teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with
Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without
Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21- 2013
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2
Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of
what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an
office that many assume to be all powerful, but like so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He
faces a political capital problem and a power trap . In the post-1960s American political system, presidents
have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs
support or at least permission from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful,
entrenched interest groups; and accordance with contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If
presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the prospect of inadequate political support or
political capital to back their power assertions . What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so much of what defines
As Barack

contemporary politics to trends that emerged then. Americans' confidence in government began a precipitous decline as the tumult and tragedies of the 1960s gave way to the scandals
and economic uncertainties of the 1970s. Long-standing party coalitions began to fray as the New Deal coalition, which had elected Franklin Roosevelt to four terms and made
Democrats the indisputable majority party, faded into history. The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the

two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that resulted in intense polarization in Congress,
diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the growing influence of money and interest
groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential
leadership. Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the
president's electoral victory margin. The components of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval,

In recent years, presidents' political

capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making the president a volatile
congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times past.

player in the national political system. Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in
two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support,
and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family
and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security
policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform, following his narrow re-election in
2004, went nowhere. Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has
increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms.
Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays
and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny and often further erode political capital. Barack Obama's election in 2008
seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon
Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first
year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His
impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his
approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government. By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial
levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the
energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to
help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's
enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers. Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly
unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president. Many looked to the 2012 election as a means to break present
trends. But Barack

Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and
hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of

Democratic majority Senate,

multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely
on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further erode his political capital. Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president

Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political

capital from eroding. When it did, their power assertions often got them into further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at
likely to avoid a power trap.

times been able to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W.
Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed them to secure important policy changes in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts

short-term legislative strategies may win policy

success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining political capital over time, as the
and education reform that at the time received popular approval. However,

the political capital

is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and

difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved
problem or avoided the power trap. It

one that will likely weigh heavily on the current president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Wins are too slow

Silber 07 [PhD Political Science & Communication focus on the Rhetoric of
Presidential Policy-Making Prof of Poli Sci Samford, [Marissa, What Makes A
President Quack?, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American
Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, Understanding
Lame Duck Status Through The Eyes Of The Media And Politicians]
Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be
replenished over a term. If a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it
be replaced? Light suggests that capital declines over time public approval consistently falls: midterm losses
occur (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent. The decline of capital
makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy.
If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps
determine if such capital can be replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little . Before determining
this, a definition of a lame duck President must be developed.

Our internal link is MORE likely

David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter,
tougher -but wiser?, www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obamatwo/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps

there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry. Ultimately,

to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy, the president and Congress need
to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term. Over the past two years,
Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama,
and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections. But a
growing number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that
they had to move away from extremism toward a more center-right position, more
open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed;
-and for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet,

they didn't want their party to fail. House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on
the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on

the hope, small as it was, to take a brief

timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now slipping away .
immigration, moving away from a ruinous GOP stance. One senses that

While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new
toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and
negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign
apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their

Conceivably, Obama's tactics could

pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be
spoiling for more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a
thread.
retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.

Winners dont win on controversial issues the hill is too

polarized.
Mann 10 [Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, American Politics on the
Eve of the Midterm Elections Brookings Institute -- November]

That perception of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by
which Obamas initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent
years developed a highly polarised party system , with striking ideological differences between
the parties and unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in

Republicans adopted a strategy

of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the
Presidents agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on matters of great national
import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in killing, weakening,
slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic majority.
which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place.

*** IMPACTS

Economy---Turns Case---Asia War

Econ collapse turns Asia war
Auslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,
2/6/09,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?
pg=2)
a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around
the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is
this truer than in Asia, the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with
ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade flows can lead to political
AS THEY DEAL WITH

tension , nationalist outbursts , growing distrust , and ultimately, military

miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that
Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also important to remember what has helped keep the peace in
this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore,
China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to
development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in
many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely
from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need
to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis,
led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of
thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide.
The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles,
including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over
natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of
governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to
established states like Japan and South Korea.

How will overburdened political leaders react to

internal unrest? What happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship
collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's political infrastructure may not be
strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and conflict. This would be a
political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly
drag America in at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South
Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to
those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in Asia has been kept in
good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized
conflicts, of course, but nothing approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would

it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the
American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more
blood and treasure for lands across the ocean.
be far more bloody, and

Economy---Turns Case---Disease
Economic decline causes disease spread
Robertson 9 [Dr. Andrew, Physician, June 12th,
http://www.physorg.com/news163993567.html]
There are concerns that the financial crisis has already hit tuberculosis control,
which has global ramifications, says Robertson.There are already indications that funding for
TB diagnosis and management is decreasing in developing countries and a surge
of new cases there may flow onto the US and other countries, he says. Healthcare
in developed countries will also suffer if budgets are cut and incomes fall. Fewer
people are accessing private health services in the USA, which will increase the burden on public health
services.

Resources for disease surveillance are often cut back during difficult
economic times, jeopardizing the systems we rely on to identify and deal with
emerging diseases - including the current swine flu epidemics.The 1995 economic
crisis in Mexico led to 27,000 excess deaths in that country alone - but the effect
of this far greater, global downturn is currently impossible to quantify,
according to Robertson.

Economy---Turns Case---Heg
Perceived economic strength dictates U.S. global influence
Gelb 10 (Leslie, Senior Official State and Defense Department and President
Emeritus CFR, Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for the Twenty-First Century,
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 34(2), Summer,
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf)
Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do
not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such
thing in my mind as soft power or hard power or smart power or dumb power. It is people who are hard or

what has changed is the

composition of power in international affairs . For almost all of history, international power was
achieved in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has
become more and more economic. So power consists of economic power, military
power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for
almost all of history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point
soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly. Now,

speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our international power in general and our military power

Whether other states listen to us and act on

what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the
American economy. A big problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy
in particular. That is where it all comes from.

is in decline.

US economic growth key to sustaining military primacy

Beckley 12 (Michael- Professor PolSci Tufts, Fellow International Security
Program at Harvards Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Winter,
Chinas Century? Why Americas Edge Will Endure International Security, Vol 36
No 3, ProjectMuse)
Wealth functions as a source of power because it insulates a state from dependence
on others and provides things of value that can be used in bargaining situations . As
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye point out, economic interdependence involves relations of asymmetric
vulnerability.80 Wealthy states are better equipped to wield market access and
economic sanctions as tools of influence over others. They also have more capital to
fund technological innovation and military modernization. All states face the
dilemma of balancing short-term spending against long-term economic growth. This
predicament, however, is less acute for wealthy states, which can sustain significant investments in innovation and military power with a relatively small

The ability to innovate, defined as the creation of new products and methods of production, also
constitutes a source of power. Like wealthy states, innovative countries are less dependent on
others and more capable of producing goods that others value. Innovation also
creates wealth and tends to beget further innovation as individual discoveries
spawn multiple derivative products and improvements . Innovative activity therefore tends to cluster in [End
Page 56] particular places and provide certain countries with significant technological and military advantages. As Joshua Goldstein has shown, The
country creating a major cluster of innovations often finds immediate military
applications and both propels itself to hegemonic status and maintains that status
by that mechanism.81 Military power is generally considered to be the ultima ratio
of power because it functions as a decisive arbiter of disputes when it is used and
shapes outcomes among states even when it is not . Military capabilities can be used to destroy, to back up
percentage of their total resources.

coercive threats, and to provide protection and assistance. When performed well, these actions can alter the behavior of other states. Military superiority
can also generate wealth by, for example, making a country a more secure and attractive place to invest, as well as provide the means to coerce other

countries into making economic concessions. The RAND study found that nuclear weapons were of less importance than conventional capabilities for
national influence. Thus, I do not consider them in the following analyses. The authors of the RAND study explain: Even though nuclear weapons have
become the ultima ratio regum in international politics, their relative inefficacy in most situations other than those involving national survival implies that
their utility will continue to be significant but highly restricted. The ability to conduct different and sophisticated forms of conventional warfare will,
therefore, remain the critical index of national power because of its undiminished utility, flexibility, responsiveness and credibility.82 The key point is that

national power is multifaceted and cannot be measured with a single or a handful of

metrics. In the analyses that follow, I allot more space to economic indicators than to military
indicators. This is not because economic power is necessarily more important than military power, but rather because most declinist writings
argue that the United States is in economic, not military, decline. Moreover, military power is ultimately based on
economic strength. International relations scholars tend to view civilian and military realms as separate entities, but militaries
are embedded within economic systems. In a separate study, I show that countries that excel in
producing commercial products and innovations also tend to excel in producing
military force.83 Part of this advantage stems from greater surplus wealth, which allows [End Page 57] rich states to sustain large military
investments. Economically developed states, however, also derive military benefits from their
technological infrastructures, efficient production capacities, advanced data
analysis networks, stocks of managerial expertise, and stable political environments .
In short, economic indicators are, to a significant degree, measures of military
capability. Focusing on the former, therefore, does not imply ignoring the latter.

Economy---Turns Case---Oppression
Economic decline turns all forms of oppression
Finsterbusch 98 (Kurt, prof of sociology @ U of Maryland College Park, The
Coming Age of Scarcity: Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in the Twenty-First
Century, Eds. Michael N. Dobkowski & Isidor Walliman, p. 157-8)
scarcity decreases integration is that it aggravates all fissures in society.
The shrinking pie intensifies the class struggle as discussed earlier, but Blumberg (1980, 220)
adds that scarcity will almost inevitably increase the overall level of social nastiness
and aggravate all fissures and cleavages, creating social conflict amid a general
scramble for self-aggrandizement. He goes on to describe how racial, gender,
educational, generational, and regional conflicts are likely to intensify in the United
States.
The fifth explanation of why

Economy---Turns Case---Poverty
Economic collapse decimates the poor
Klare 9 [Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at
Hampshire College, March 19, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-tklare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html]
While the economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial
countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant future, it's only beginning
to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the earliest effects
of the global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market
in the United States and the resulting disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of
questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by the early stages of the meltdown, for the
simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in the
developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions
are deteriorating at a time when severe drought is affecting many key food-producing regions and poor farmers

The likely result: A looming food crisis in

many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern
over the human impact of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so
-- on unemployment and economic hardship in the United States, Europe, and former Soviet
lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel.

Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings, bankruptcies, and home
foreclosures on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage has been devoted to
the meltdown's impact on people in the developing world.

countries,

As the crisis spreads to the poorer

however, it's likely that people in these areas will experience hardships every bit as severe as

the gains
achieved in eradicating poverty over the last decade or so will be wiped out,
forcing tens or hundreds of millions of people from the working class and the
lower rungs of the middle class back into the penury from which they escaped.
Equally worrisome is the risk of food scarcity in these areas, resulting in widespread
those in the wealthier countries -- and, in many cases, far worse. The greatest worry is that most of

malnutrition, hunger, and starvation. All this is sure to produce vast human misery, sickness, and death, but
could also result in social and political unrest of various sorts, including riot, rebellion, and ethnic strife. The
president, Congress, or the mainstream media are not, for the most part, discussing these perils. As before,
public interest remains focused on the ways in which the crisis is affecting the United States and the other major
industrial powers. But the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and U.S. intelligence officials, in
three recent reports, are paying increased attention to the prospect of a second economic shockwave, this time
affecting the developing world.Sinking Back Into Penury In late February, the World Bank staff prepared a
background paper for the Group of 20 (G-20) finance ministers meeting held near London on March 13 and 14.
Entitled "Swimming Against the Tide: How Developing Countries Are Coping with the Global Crisis," it provides a
preliminary assessment of the meltdown's impact on low-income countries (LICs). The picture, though still hazy,
is one of deepening gloom. Most LICs were shielded from the initial impact of the sudden blockage in private
capital flows because they have such limited access to such markets. "But while slower to emerge," the report
notes, "the impact of the crisis on LICs has been no less significant as the effects have spread through other
channels." For example, "many LIC governments rely on disproportionately on revenue from commodity exports,
the prices of which have declined sharply along with global demand." Likewise, foreign direct investment is
falling, particularly in the natural resource sectors. On top of this, remittances from immigrants in the wealthier
countries to their families back home have dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor
communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that " the

slowdown in growth will likely deepen the

deprivation of the existing poor." In many LICs, moreover, "large numbers of
people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore particularly
vulnerable to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis
grows, more and more of these people will lose their jobs or their other sources of
income (such as those all-important remittances) and so be pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it.

The resulting outcome: "The

economic crisis is projected to increase poverty by around

46 million people in 2009."

Economy---Turns Case---Prolif
Economic collapse causes proliferation
Burrows & Windram 94 [William & Robert, Critical Mass, p. 491-2]
Economics is in many respects proliferations catalyst. As we have noted, economic
desperation drives Russia and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons
and technology. The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced international payments also
prompts Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as well as such related
issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. Unfortunately, that

relatively
secure societies like todays Japan are less likely to buy or sell superweapon
technology than those that are insecure, needy, or desperate. Ultimately, solving
economic problems, especially as they are driven by population pressure, is the surest way to
defuse proliferation and enhance true national security.
subject is beyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say that, all things being equal, well-of,

Economy---Turns Case---Racism
Economic decline turns racism
New York Times 90 [October 24, Section A; Page 24; Column 4; Editorial Desk]
The emancipation of the slaves did not lead directly to segregation , as it should have if
American society was primarily and fundamentally racist. Rather, segregation
arose in response to a threatening biracial political challenge from black and
white farmers in the 1890's to the white elite -- which capitulated to racism after paternalism
failed. Segregation collapsed in the face of a civil rights movement sustained by
post-World War II prosperity, while racism is now resurgent in an era of economic
decline. This oversimplified summary is meant to document the assertion that
racism has been and continues to be fostered by competition for limited
resources, that is, it is primarily a class issue. It can best be fought by policies for
economic and, hence, social justice.

Economy---A2: No Collapse---Intervening Actors

Global institutions cant check too weak and regional regimes
block
Woods 13 (Ngaire, Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of
Oxford, Global Institutions after the Crisis, 9/6, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/the-empty-promise-of-global-institutions-after-the-crisisby-ngaire-woods)
When Lehman Brothers collapsed and the global financial crisis erupted five years ago, many glimpsed a silver
lining: the promise of more effective global economic governance . But, despite a flurry of early
initiatives, the world remains as far from that goal as ever. The Financial Stability Board (FSB),
established after the G-20 summit in London in April 2009, has no legal mandate or enforcement powers, nor formal
processes for including all countries . The International Monetary Fund still awaits the doubling of
its capital (another early vow), while its existing resources are heavily tied up in Europe and its governance reforms
are stalled. The World Bank has received a modest increase in resources, but it has yet to build capacity to lend
rapidly and globally beyond existing borrowers and loan arrangements, and its
income trajectory is diminishing. Yet the need for effective global economic governance remains more urgent than ever. Banks and other financial
firms roam internationally, greatly assisted by market-opening rules embedded in trade and investment treaties, but with no legally enforceable responsibility to provision adequately for
their own losses when things go wrong. Instead, massive risks have supposedly been held at bay by voluntary standards promulgated by a patchwork of public and private standardsetting organizations.

The crisis proved that this was inadequate. The titans of Wall Street and the City of London were exposed as

hugely over-leveraged. Extraordinary profits when their bets paid off increased their financial and political power which they still enjoy with taxpayers left to bail them out when their

the FSB is not a treaty-based global

regulator with enforcement powers. It continues to be a standard setter in a world with
strong incentives to evade standards and negligible sanctions for doing so. Furthermore,
although the FSBs standards are ostensibly universal, it does not represent all countries or have formal mechanisms to inform and consult them. Regulators face
a Sisyphean task, owing to the absence of strong and consistent political support
for reining in the financial titans. A well-resourced financial sector intensively lobbies the most influential governments in global finance. The
reforms of the IMF, another pillar of global financial management, cannot be
implemented until the US Congress approves them and there is no sign of that . Even
the new Basel 3 banking standards have been diluted and postponed. For Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the delay in
reforming the IMF is a serious annoyance. They became major contributors to the Funds emergency loan pool (the New Arrangements to Borrow)
bets turned bad. The G-20 promised stronger global institutions to prevent this from recurring. But

immediately after the crisis and now provide 15.5% of the NABs resources. But the greater voice and voting power that they were promised commensurate with their status as four of
the IMFs top ten shareholders has not been delivered. Even the selection of the organizations managing director remains a European droit du seigneur. More seriously, an astounding

The IMFs
resources are neither adequate nor available to respond to a crisis elsewhere. Similarly, the G20s pledge in 2009 to protect the poorest and most fragile countries and
communities from the effects of the crisis remains unfulfilled . The World Bank is at the heart
89.2% of the IMFs General Resources Account is outstanding to European countries, with just three countries (Greece, Portugal, and Ireland) accounting for 68%.

of these efforts, because it can pool risks globally and offset the capriciousness of official and private-sector aid flows, which create donor darlings (like Rwanda) and donor orphans.
But, while the Bank has more than doubled its lending relative to the four years prior to 2008, this was achieved mostly by front-loading existing loans. Crisis-hit countries that were not

failure to lend to new clients partly reflects its slowness. Even after its loan
the Bank took an average of 13.5 months to approve credits a long
time for a country to await emergency help. But the Bank is also hampered by
worsening resource constraints, as the biggest post-crisis capital infusions went to regional development banks. The African Development Banks
already borrowers were largely left out. The Banks
cycle had been speeded up,

capital was increased by 200%, as was the Asian Development Banks. The Inter-American Development Bank got a 70% increase. Meanwhile, the World Bank received an increase of
30%, while its lending arm for the poorest countries, the International Development Association, received an increase of only 18%. Crucially, it is not obvious that the Bank has buy-in

Further
exacerbating the Banks financial woes, its powerful creditors have opted to pull
back its lending in order to protect its resources. As a result, compared to the regional development banks, the Bank will be lending less to fee-paying clients, who
provide income, and engaging in more concessional lending, which does not. The 2008 crisis highlighted the need for
international cooperation to regulate finance and mitigate the effects of a crisis. Yet
the global resources and instruments needed to manage (if not avert) the next crisis have
from emerging economies, with Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which pledged significant resources to the IMF, pledging only about 1% of IDA funding.

not been secured. Instead, regions and countries are quietly finding their own ways to manage
finance, create pooled emergency funds, and strengthen development finance an outcome that heralds a more fragmented and
decentralized set of regulatory regimes and a modest de-globalization of finance and aid.

Economy---A2: No Collapse---A2: Resiliency

Uneven recovery means extreme fragility county surveys
prove
Philipps 14
{Jim, Manager at the National Association of Counties, U.S. Economic Recovery
Remains Uneven, Fragile across Counties, NACO, 1/13,
http://www.naco.org/newsroom/Documents/Press%20Release%20Documents/county
%20tracker.pdf#THUR}
U.S. economic growth continued last year for the 3,069 county economies, but the recovery
remained uneven and fragile, according to an analysis of four economic
performance indicators by the National Association of Counties (NACo). As a result of the fragile and
uneven recovery, many counties are continuing to struggle with their budgets, meet financial
obligations and provide essential public services. NACos new study, County Tracker 2013: On the Path to Recovery assesses the performance of the
nations county economies by studying annual changes in four indicators economic output (GDP), employment, the unemployment rate and home prices.
The report also contains case studies to illustrate how specific county economies fared during the recession and recovery. The counties profiled include,
Tarrant County, Texas (population 1.9 million), Los Angeles County, Calif. (10 million), Linn County, Iowa (215,000) and Mountrail County, N.D. (9,000). The

indicators analyzed by NACo suggest that 2013 was a year of growth, but
the recovery remained fragile. By 2013, the economic output (GDP) in about half of all county
economies recovered or had no declines over the last decade. Home prices were in the same
situation. But this is only part of the story. Jobs recovered in one quarter of
county economies and in only 54 county economies unemployment is back to prerecession levels. The low unemployment recovery rates show the fragility of the
recovery. The recovery has been also uneven. All counties , large, mid-sized or small, have been
affected by the recession but the patterns of recovery vary significantly. Large county economies were at
the core of the recession and the recovery. Only 4 percent of the nations large county economies in
counties with more than 500,000 residents delivered around 58 percent of the county economies
output (GDP) growth and a similar share of the added jobs over the recovery . Large county
economic

economies in the South such as in Tarrant County, Texas bounced back quickly. While blessed with an economic diversity that enabled us to withstand the
national recession better than other areas of the country, we were most impressed with the resilience of Tarrant Countys manufacturing and housing
sectors, which allowed them to respond quicker to developing opportunities, said Roy Brooks, commissioner, Tarrant County, Texas, and chair of NACo's
Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC). Employment in medium-size county economies was more stable during the recession, but had a mixed record in 2013.
About half of the medium-sized county economies in counties with populations between 50,000 and 500,000 residents had shorter and/or shallower job
recessions than the national average. One of the factors that helped stabilize Linn Countys economy through the recession was the amount of post-flood
construction and revitalization that took place, said NACo President Linda Langston, supervisor, Linn County, Iowa. Nearly $1 billion was reinvested
throughout our community from federal, state, local and private sources in the five years since the flood. Linn County also has the benefit of the value-

recovery in
small county economies covered the entire scale of potential outcomes. Twentyadded agriculture industry and expanding new start-up businesses that helped to fully restore us to pre-recession levels. The

seven small county economies in counties with fewer than 50,000 residents had no recession or fully recovered across all four indicators by 2013. The
housing market downturn was mild in small county economies, with more than half not going through home price declines or already returned to prerecession home price levels by 2013.

This fragile and uneven recovery across county economies

counties
survived through the recession because of their fiscally
prudent approaches. Los Angeles County would not have weathered the
adds to the challenges that counties face currently. Most

recession as strongly as we did without our focus on fiscal prudency, as well as the
partnerships we have with our labor unions, who have foregone cost of living increases to avoid furloughs and layoffs, said Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors Chairman Don Knabe, member of the NACo Large Urban County Caucus.

Our frugality has paid off through

the rough economic times. Nevertheless, as we see improvements ,

we must
remain disciplined and continue to operate within our
means. Counties with fast growing economies, such as Mountrail County, N.D. have a hard time to keep up with the necessary service
delivery. The fast growth that Mountrail County experienced for the last several years has been great with jobs, but tough on the countys infrastructure
and on the countys residents on fixed incomes, said Greg Boschee, commissioner, Mountrail County, N.D. Other counties, with challenged economies are

finding new ways to maintain services and prepare their counties for the future. Trying to run county government in a contracting economy and declining
population base has its challenges. But similar to running a business, if you are successful at making your organization as efficient as possible in delivering
quality goods or services in trying times, you prepare your organization for greater success during more favorable times said Matthew McConnell,

In addition to the situation of their economy, all counties face a

triple threat from the uncertainty around major federal policy changes , from tax reform,
entitlement reform and appropriation cuts, not accompanied by cuts in unfunded mandates and federal regulations. The national
economic numbers mask the growth patterns on the ground, said Emilia Istrate,
NACos director of research and lead author of the report. The dynamics within county economies affect the
capacity of counties to deliver services and meet their financial obligations. The
County Tracker offers a reminder that the U.S. economy happens on the ground,
in the 3,069 county economies that provide the basis for county governments. As fiscal tightening continues to limit the
scope of state and federal investment, it is becoming imperative for states and the
federal government to work with counties to maintain the fundamentals of the U.S.
economy county economies.
commissioner, Mercer County, Pa.

Economy---A2: No Impact---General
Wars following economic collapse causes extinction
Auslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond
Lachman Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy
Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and

global

chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from
America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not
know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist
The threat of
instability is a pressing concern . China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just
reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced
upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year . A sustained downturn poses grave and
possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced
economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.

with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's

Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its
Far East as well as in downtown Moscow . Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil
liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression
inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is
likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict.
neighbors.

As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency
economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this
decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010;
Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is
haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.

Europe as a whole

will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from
poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five
million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2

A prolonged
global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these
countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic
and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders
actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that
coalesce into a big bang .
million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe.

Economy---A2: No War---General
Economic decline causes global war
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department
of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of
Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political
Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)
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
Less intuitive is how periods of

behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions

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)
follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that

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

future expectation of trade' is a significant

variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states . He
level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that '

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

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'
conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the

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

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 economicevidence showing that

security debate and deserves more attention.

Decline causes escalatory wars in multiple regions

Kemp 10 (Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs Nixon Center and
Former Director of the Middle East Arms Control Project Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing
Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234)
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong

world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and
Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy
demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energyproducing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That
in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited
to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed
states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by
Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger
of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran , always worried about an
extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances
nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel
and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases,
and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states
may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like
impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire
does go wrong. The

consequences for

two-thirds of

the planets population

Economy---A2: No War---A2: No Diversionary

Theory
Yes diversionary theory
Rothkopf 9 David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 3-11, 2009, Security and the Financial Crisis, Testimony
Before the House Armed Services Committee, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis
The weakening of states can produce instability
that spills across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration
and create associated tensions along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create
an opportunity for like-minded neighbors to support their activities and thus cause
rifts and potential conflicts to spread . Political and economic weakness in nations
can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some wishing to produce distractions from
their own crises) as an invitation to intervene in their neighbors politics or even to step in
and take control of neighboring territories or to seek to use force to resolve in their favor longsimmering disputes. In the same vein, old animosities may be inflamed by the crisis either because they produce
tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on those
rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis.
Need may enhance tensions and produce conflicts over shared or disputed
resources. A desire to preserve national resources, jobs, or capital may produce
reactive economic, border or other policies that can increase tension with
neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets protectionism (in traditional and new forms see below),
closed or more tightly monitored borders, more disputes on cross-border issues and thus both an increase in tensions and a
decreased ability to effectively cooperate with neighbors on issues of common
concern.
--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis:

Economy---A2: Reform Fails

TSCA reform streamlines regulations key to the industry and
increases consumer trust
Peplow 15 {Mark, syndicated science journalist, An unfortunate oversight,
Chemistry World, 4/27, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/unfortunateoversight-tsca-reform#THUR}
Every year, the public relations firm Edelman produces a trust barometer that surveys
public attitudes to governments, industries and other institutions around the world. The results dont
make happy reading for the chemicals industry : this year, it gained one of the lowest
trust ratings among technology-based businesses, similar to banking and ahem the media.
Transparent and effective third-party oversight is one of the surest ways of
securing trust in an industry. Yet in the US, where chemicals are regulated under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, pronounced Tosca), that oversight is sadly lacking. Several
efforts to reform the act have foundered in recent years, deadlocked by partisan politics. Now US
politicians are taking another crack at rewriting their chemicals legislation, and claim that this
is the best opportunity ever to reform TSCA. Industry and consumers alike should
fervently hope that they succeed. The burden of proof TSCA empowers the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the health and environmental risks of chemicals used in consumer products and
industrial processes (food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides are regulated separately). When the act was passed in
1976, chemicals already on the market were assumed to be safe unless the agency could prove otherwise. But
henceforth, manufacturers had to alert the EPA if they planned to launch new products, so that the agency could

In principle, TSCA offered a much-needed tightening of regulation.

In practice, the EPA has not had the funding, nor the political clout, to enforce
proper oversight. The agency has always struggled to persuade industry to release the data
needed to make a proper risk assessment; and it has been hamstrung by TSCAs stipulation
that the economic impact of restricting a chemical must also be considered this was at
the root of the agencys failure to ban asbestos for a wide range of construction uses. There
are now more than 80,000 different chemical products in TSCA's inventory, and in
almost 40 years the EPA has significantly restricted the sale of fewer than 10 of them. This
assess them in advance.

tally does not reassure the public that the remaining 79,990 are entirely benign. Its not just environmental groups

industry is eager for change too. One of the

consequences of ineffective national legislation is that individual states often take it
that say TSCA is ripe for reform

upon themselves to ban particular chemicals, creating a

patchwork

of standards across the country.

confusing

EPA---2NC Module
TSCA Reform key to EPA Next Gen enforcement spills over to
better environmental laws
Nakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant
administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason
University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPAs Next Generation Enforcement
Strategy, Kirkland Alert,
http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}
Common examples
of EPAs Next Gen strategy involve such programs as the Clean Air Act and Clean
Water Act. For instance, advancements in pollution monitoring devices provide EPA and
communities with greater access to information regarding pollution from particular sources.
EPA has been advancing these fence line devices in its enforcement settlements
and rulemakings. Yet, increasing electronic reporting opportunities is a component
TSCA Reform and Next Gen Present Opportunities for More Vigorous EPA Enforcement

of the Next Gen strategy and

that is one common goal of

TSCA reform. OECA intends to expand transparency by making information

more accessible to the public, with the intention that broader public
awareness will foster heightened compliance by the regulated universe. So too, OCSPP
from electronic reporting

intends to enhance public access to information through TSCA reform

(Principle No. 5). There are only a handful of notable cases that EPA has brought under
TSCA in the past 12 years. See OECA Civil Cases and Settlements by Statute Since EPA began
identifying enforcement priorities in the late 90s, TSCA has never been among the
programs that the enforcement office has emphasized as a priority area. With history as
prologue, EPA has not identified TSCA as an enforcement priority in the 2014-2016
national enforcement initiatives cycle. While OCSPP has publicly emphasized the importance
of chemical safety and risk assessment, OECA has remained silent as to the importance of
enforcing chemical safety requirements. However, with TSCA reform legislation in
both chambers, EPAs enforcement office may have the ability to

more

readily enforce TSCA

through its Next Generation approach. For instance,

statutory and regulatory requirements that chemical companies submit data regarding a

could hasten EPA enforcement

under the Next Gen framework. And, EPAs goal of making
chemicals hazard, exposure, and use

chemical information more accessible to the public could result in the public pressuring
EPA to pursue more enforcement actions under TSCA. There is already
precedent for this EPAs largest civil administrative penalty obtained under TSCA (in 2005)
was the result of information that EPA first received from the public . Thus, the
chemical sector may see increased TSCA enforcement as a result of this confluence of
TSCA reform and Next Generation Compliance .

Extinction
Mittermeier 11 (Dr. Russell Alan, primatologist, herpetologist and biological
anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves
as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. From
Chapter One of the book Biodiversity Hotspots F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.),
DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011.
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_rol
e_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is
irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to
athousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the
consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for future resource use.
Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and

As species vanish, so too does the

health security of every human. Earths species are a vast genetic storehouse that may
harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen cures waiting to be discovered.
understood the biology of even fewer (Novotny et al. 2002).

Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial medicines even more
in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints
and inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other innovations
(Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without

With loss of species, we lose the ultimate

source of our crops and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience , the inspiration
for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems that
support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond material welfare
knowing the content of 90% or more of the books.

and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs
inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake, and wild plants and animals are
integral to the fabric of all the worlds cultures (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to
people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely
et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human
mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease
outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly
connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss,
more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earths natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in
the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced
diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example,
more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs
elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earths climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only
increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009). In many respects, conservation is local. People
generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems
the most and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe
that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything

Extinction is
a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More
possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?

practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the
world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget perhaps 90% originates in and is spent in
economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available in
the hundreds of millions annually be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global
goal of reducing biodiversity loss.

EPA---A2: No Impact
Sustainability prevents extinction
Cairns, 4
[John, Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Future of Life on Earth, Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, www.intres.com/esepbooks/EB2Pt2.pdf]
One lesson from the five great global extinctions is that species and ecosystems come and go, but the evolutionary process

humankinds future depends on its stewardship

of ecosystems that favor Homo sapiens. By practicing sustainability ethics ,
humankind can protect and preserve ecosystems that have services favorable to it .
continues. In short, life forms have a future on Earth, but

Earth has reached its present state through an estimated 4550 million years and may last for 15000 million more years. The sixth

Excessive damage
to the ecological life support system will markedly alter civilization , as it is presently known,
and might even result in human extinction. However, if humankind learns to live
sustainably, the likelihood of leaving a habitable planet for posterity will
dramatically increase. The 21st century represents a defining moment for
humankindwill present generations become good ancestors for their descendants
by living sustainably or will they leave a less habitable planet for posterity by
continuing to live unsustainably?
mass extinction, now underway, is unique because humankind is a major contributor to the process.

Environmental collapse causes extinction

Yule 13 {Jeffrey V, Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution (Stony Brook), Assistant
Professor of Biology and Environmental Science (Louisiana Tech), Assistant Professor
of Environmental Studies (Maine), Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanitys Future:
The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource
Use, Humanities 2013, 2, 147159, 4/2, http://www.mdpi.com/20760787/2/2/147#THUR}
Past extinctions coupled with the more recent contraction and fragmentation of
range for large vertebrateswhich increase the extinction risk of the species that rely on them
raise the possibility that today's ecological communities are so short of large species
that human activities have reduced not simply species diversity and ecological interactions but also the
future potential of large mammal evolution [12,13]. As a result, at least the immediate human future will be far
shorter of large terrestrial animals than the human past . These smaller populations of nondomestic
species will also consist of individuals of smaller average size than earlier in history. Moreover such a result might represent a best-case
scenario. Given current trends, the likelihood is that many of these species will simply
be lost. If the evolutionary-ecological coin features extinction on one face , however, the
other features speciation. In natural environments, when extinction leaves a niche vacant , over time,
adaptation to the niche by members of an existing species leads to evolution. Given sufficient time, a future
world would support newly evolved species, but at the time scales that evolution requires, it is unclear
whether humans would still be around to see them. The history of life on earth indicates that
larger animals are more extinction-prone than their smaller counterparts, so we have some sense of how long it takes for new
large species to evolve after extinctions. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, for instance, involved the loss of numerous orders of large reptiles (e.g., dinosaurs; mosasaurs and
plesiosaurs, two groups of marine species that filled the niche of today's toothed whales; and flying reptiles, the pterosaurs). Mammals speciated into many of the niches vacated by
extinct reptiles, but the process of large mammals evolving from the available raw materials, which consisted mainly of mammal species with average weights well below 1020 kg,
required millions of years. Evolution of one large species from another can occur more rapidly, if it does not require too extensive a modification of the original species. For example,
polar bears, the bear species most highly specialized for meat eating and hunting in and around pack ice. evolved in only 100,000-200,000 years from similarly sized and
morphologically similar brown bears [14]. The history of vertebrate life suggests that large predators could once again evolve to fill the niches left vacant by recent or future predator
extinctions. T

he difficulty is that such speciation would most likely take somewhere between 100,000 years

upwards of one million years (assuming that

Even the shortest end of that range estimate
greatly exceeds the duration of human history. We have no direct experience in
developing a perspective on such expansive periods of time. As would be expected, a near-term future with a reduced
(assuming that new. large species were to evolve from generally similar existing large species) to
new, larger species evolved from smaller and/or morphologically dissimilar ancestors).

human A'and a more biodiverse world will tend to lead to a human future in which our species sees not simply more nondomestic species but more large nondomestic species. By

a near-term future with an increased human N and a less biodiverse world will
tend to lead toward a human future involving not simply fewer nondomestic species but
fewer large animals. Although large terrestrial species are among the most visible
components of ecological communities, others will also be affected. Human actions have taken and continue to take a profound toll on
contrast,

birds, both as a result of overhunting and introducing predators to islands populated by species that occur nowhere else. More recently, amphibians have also been in crisis, facing

Depending on how people opt to behave now and for the next
several generations , in the future humans will experience either a significantly greater
or lesser percentage of today's biodiversity. 4. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and the Longevity of Homo sapiens
sapiens Ecologists recognize that the particulars of the relationship between biodiversity and
community resilience in the face of disturbance (a broad range of phenomena including anything from drought, fire, and volcanic eruption to species
introductions or removals) depend on context [16,17]. Sometimes disturbed communities return relatively readily to pre-disturbance conditions; sometimes they
do not. However, accepting as a general truism that biodiversity is an ecological stabilizer is
sensible roughly equivalent to viewing seatbelt use as a good idea: although seatbelts increase the risk of
injury in a small minority of car accidents, their use overwhelmingly reduces risk. As humans continue to modify natural
environments, we may be reducing their ability to return to pre-disturbance
conditions. The concern is not merely academic. Communities provide the
ecosystem services on which both human and nonhuman life depends, including
the cycling of carbon dioxide and oxygen by photosynthetic organisms, nitrogen fixation and the filtration of
water by microbes, and pollination by insects. If disturbances alter communities to the extent
that they can no longer provide these crucial services, extinctions (including,
possibly, our own) become more likely. In ecology as in science in general, absolutes are rare. Science deals mainly in
extinction threats greater than either mammals or birds [15].

probabilities, in large part because it attempts to address the universe's abundant uncertainties. Species-rich, diverse communities characterized by large numbers of multi-species
interactions are not immune to being pushed from one relatively stable state characterized by particular species and interactions to other, quite different states in which formerly

in specious communities, the removal of any single

species is less likely to result in radical change . That said, there are no
guarantees that the removal of even a single species from a biodiverse
community will not have significant, completely unforeseen consequences .
Indirect interactions can be unexpectedly important to community structure and.
historically, have been difficult to observe until some form of disturbance (especially the introduction or
elimination of a species) occurs. Experiments have revealed how the presence of predators can increase the
diversity of prey species in communities, as when predators of a superior competitor among prey species will allow inferior competing prey species to persist [18].
abundant species are entirely or nearly entirely absent. Nonetheless,

Predators can have even more dramatic effects on communities. The presence or absence of sea otters determines whether inshore areas are characterized by diverse kelp forest
communities or an alternative stable state of species poor urchin barrens [19]. In the latter case, the absence of otters leaves urchin populations unchecked to overgraze kelp forests,

Leopold observed that when trying to

determine how a device works by tinkering with it, the first rule of doing the job intelligently is to save
all the parts [20]. The extinctions that humans have caused certainly represent a
significant problem, but there is an additional difficulty with human investigations
of and impacts on ecological and evolutionary processes. Often, our tinkering is unintentional and, as a result,
recklessly ignores the necessity of caution. Following the logic inherited from Newtonian physics, humans expect
single actions to have single effects. Desiring more game species, for instance,
humans typically hunt predators (in North America, for instance, extirpating wolves so as to be able to have more deer or elk for themselves ).
Yet removing or adding predators has far reaching effects. Wolf removal has led to prey
overpopulation, plant over browsing, and erosion [21]. After wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the K of elk increased. This allowed for
a shift in elk feeding patterns that left fewer trees alongside rivers, thus leaving less food for beaver and, consequently, fewer beaver dams and less wetland [22,23]. Such a
situation represents, in microcosm, the inherent risk of allowing for the erosion of
eliminating a habitat feature that supports a wide range of species across a variety of age classes. Aldo

species diversity. In addition to providing habitat for a wide variety of species, wetlands serve as
natural water purification systems. Although the Yellowstone region might not need that particular ecosystem service as much as other parts of
the world, freshwater resources and wetlands are threatened globally , and the same
logic of reduced biodiversity equating to reduced ecosystem services applies.
Humans take actions without considering that when tugging on single
threads, they unavoidably affect adjacent areas of the tapestry . While
human population and per capita resource use remain high, so does the
probability of ongoing biodiversity loss. At the very least, in the future people
will have an even more skewed perspective than we do about what constitutes a
diverse community. In that regard, future generations will be even more ignorant than we are. Of course, we also experience that shifting baseline perspective on
biodiversity and population sizes, failing to recognize how much is missing from the world because we are unaware of what past generations saw [11]. But the
consequences of diminished biodiversity might be more profound for humans
than that. If the disturbance of communities and ecosystems results in species
losses that reduce the availability of ecosystem services, human K and, sooner or
later, human A' will be reduced.

EPA---A2: No Impact---Alt Cause--- Deforestation

Global deforestation trending down
Spross 13 [Jeff Spross is a reporter and video editor for ThinkProgress.org, 6-17,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/17/2140461/fighting-deforestation/]
Progress on preventing deforestation is mixed , but overall seems to be trending in the
right direction. Brazil recently announced that rainforest deforestation there was reduced 84 percent over the last eight
years, hitting 1,764 square miles from mid-2011 to mid-2012 the lowest rate since the country began monitoring it. (Though there
are concerns that failure by the Brazilian government to properly enforce its forestry code could reverse that trend.) At the same
time, the Mekong region which encompasses Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar lost nearly a third of its forest

Globally, weve seen carbon dioxide emissions from

deforestation drop by over 25 percent since 2000, in comparison to 1990s levels. Source: Tropical
cover between 1973 and 2009.

Forests and Climate Policy All that said, we can certainly do better on fighting deforestation. After assuming relatively high levels of

reducing present deforestation rates by 50

percent by 2050, and then holding the line until 2100, could prevent as much as 50
billion metric tons of carbon emissions this century . Thats 12 percent of whats needed through 2100
economic and population growth a 2007 study, found that

to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon at 450 parts per million the threshold beyond which most scientists agree the
threat of catastrophic climate change becomes intolerable. The IPCC estimates this could be done for less than $20 per ton.

Theres also ocean acidification to consider. Approximately 10 billion metric tons of the
carbon dioxide that didnt enter the atmosphere in 2011 was absorbed by the
oceans, driving up the creation of carbonic acid and threatening a whole host of
marine ecosystems.

EPA---A2: No Impact---Resiliency
No adaptation or redundancy
Kunich 1 (John Charles, Associate Professor of Law Roger Williams University
School of Law, Preserving the Womb of the Unknown Species With Hotspots
Legislation, Hastings Law Journal, August, 52 Hastings L.J. 1149, Lexis)
some currently "insignificant" species could take on a
crucial role in the ecosystems of the future. 67 Wild relatives of current crop species can
be an invaluable source of genetic diversity in the event the monoculture cultivated plants fall
prey to disease or other environmental conditions. 68 And if environmental conditions change , through
global warming, increased pollution, or other habitat alterations, some other species may possess traits
that will prove preadapted to these new circumstances. Some species that occupy key positions in today's
ecosystems may be unable to adapt, and unless other species are available to fill their
niche, the ecosystems may suffer catastrophic degradation. The redundancy provided
for by millions of years of natural selection cannot be fully understood and appreciated unless and
until it is needed. 69 It is not necessarily the large, obvious life forms that play these pivotal roles; in fact,
the "lower" levels of the food web are the foundation upon which all other
components of each ecosystem depend. 70 [*1168] The biosphere that is the planet earth may be
conceptualized as an exceedingly complex "computer program" with millions of parts, each of which is evolving. It
would be foolish indeed to destroy, or to allow the destruction of, the program's codes, because we
do not and cannot know their importance , whether at present or in some unforeseeably altered world of
the future. Extinction shuts doors and deprives us forever of the option to discover value
It is possible, and even probable, that

in that which we previously found valueless. 71

Magnitude and rapidity of collapse overwhelm resiliency

Watson 6 (Captain Paul, Founder Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and
Conservation Activist, The Politics of Extinction, Eco Action, http://www.ecoaction.org/dt/beerswil.html)
The facts are clear. More plant and animal species will go through extinction within our
generation than have been lost thorough natural causes over the past two hundred
million years. Our single human generation, that is, all people born between 1930 and 2010 will witness the
complete obliteration of one third to one half of all the Earth's life forms, each and every one of them the product of

This is biological meltdown, and what this really

means is the end to vertebrate evolution on planet Earth. Nature is under siege on a
global scale. Biotopes, i.e., environmentally distinct regions, from tropical and temperate rainforests to
coral reefs and coastal estuaries, are disintegrating in the wake of human onslaught . The
destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than
20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the
foundation for entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an
exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for
more than two billion years of evolution.

each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the
dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to reestablish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests
to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than

the Earth will remain a biological, if not a

literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -the death of nature.
any other bio-region, ensuring that after the age of humans,

EPA---A2: Status Quo Solves

TSCA under-enforced reform key
Nakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant
administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason
University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPAs Next Generation Enforcement
Strategy, Kirkland Alert,
http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}
EPA's authority to regulate chemical substances
arises from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Title I of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601-2629, has
not been reauthorized since its enactment. TSCA provides EPA with authority to require
EPA and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976

reporting, recordkeeping, and testing of chemicals, and to establish restrictions relating to chemical substances
and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs,
cosmetics, and pesticides. See EPAs Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, for more background

When TSCA was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered approximately 62,000

chemicals, meaning that these chemicals were not subject to pre-manufacture review before
information.

being commercially available in the United States. There are currently over 84,000 chemicals on the TSCA
Inventory, which is a list of all chemicals in commerce in the United States that EPA is required to maintain under

According to Jim Jones, the assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), in the 38 years since TSCA was enacted, EPA has required
testing on approximately 200 of the 84,000 TSCA Inventory chemical substances.
TSCA Section 8(b).

Testimony of James J. Jones before the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on
Superfund, Toxic and Environmental Health, United States Senate, July 24, 2012 In 2009, EPA initiated an effort to
enhance its chemical management program. Later, in 2012, EPA issued the Existing Chemicals Program Strategy,
which enunciated a three-pronged approach for its existing chemical management program. The strategy
addresses: risk assessment and risk reduction, data collection and screening, and public access to chemical data

While EPA aims to maximize its

existing authority under TSCA, it also advocates for legislative reform of TSCA. EPA
and information. EPA continues to implement this strategy to date.

believes that its statutory mandate to assess and address the safety of commercial chemicals can

only be effectuated through TSCA reform. Towards that end, EPA

has prepared a list of Essential Principles for legislation to reform TSCA . EPA identified six
essential principles that would give it the mechanisms and authorities to target chemicals of concern and promptly
assess and regulate new and existing chemicals.

EPA---A2: Stripping/TSCA Not Key

Reform jumpstarts better EPA enforcement efforts
Nakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant
administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason
University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of
Technology), TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPAs Next Generation Enforcement
Strategy, Kirkland Alert,
http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}
Lawmakers, stakeholders, and EPA are advocating for reform to the nations chemical law,
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). While there may not be agreement as to how the law should be
reformed,

new legislation could

facilitate EPAs enforcement

strategy, known as Next Generation Compliance. Historically, the chemical

industry has not been in EPAs crosshairs for compliance with TSCA, unlike other sectors
of the regulated universe. However, the confluence of legislation reforming TSCA and the
Agencys heightened interest in Next Generation Compliance may foster a more
vigorous TSCA enforcement program.

Health---2NC Module
TSCA reform key to prevent endocrine disruption reject
biased aff evidence from the chemical industry current law is
insufficient
CEH 13 {Center for Environmental Health, American Health Depends on Stronger
TSCA Reform, http://www.ceh.org/american-health-depends-stronger-tscareform/#THUR}
TSCA Reform may be the most important legislation youve never heard of. If you
have heard about it, it is likely that what youve learned has been misinformation deliberately spread by the

The US law on the use of chemicals is the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was adopted in 1976. Even then it didnt do enough
to protect our children and families from harmful chemicals. TSCA reform effects us
all. Since 1976, thousands of disease-causing chemicals have made their way into our
air, water, food and the products we use everyday. We are all walking around
with these dangerous chemicals in our bodies and theyre making us sick. Many
of these chemicals have been scientifically linked to cancer, birth defects, developmental delays,
chemical industry. What every American needs to know:

endocrine disruption

and a host of other diseases. The current law

establishes a safe until proven poisonous system which gives chemical
companies free reign to release virtually any chemical into the marketplace
without first testing it to see if its safe for families. The chemical industry wants to put
profits before human health. Stronger TSCA reform means that we correct the
system so that chemical companies are required to demonstrate that their products
are safe before they can put them into the products we buy.

Endocrine disruption causes extinction

Togawa 99 (Tatsuo, Institute of Biomaterials and Bioengineering Tokyo Medical
and Dental University, Technology in Society, August)
Advanced technology provides a comfortable life for many people, but it also
produces strong destructive forces that can cause extinction of the human race if
used accidentally or intentionally. As stated in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955, hydrogen bombs might
possibly put an end to the human race.1 Nuclear weapons are not the only risks that arise from modem
technologies. In 1962, Rachel Carson wrote in her book, Silent Spring [2], that the amount of the pesticide parathion
used on California farms alone at that time could provide a lethal dose for five to ten times the whole world's

chemical pollution by endocrine

destructive chemicals began to appear as the result of advanced technology, and
they are now considered to be potential causes of extinction of the human race
unless they are effectively controlled.
population. Destruction of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect, and

Health---A2: Alt Cause---Food Pesticides

Food Pesticide uses declining
Ritter 9 Stephen K. Ritter, Pinpointing Trends In Pesticide Use, Chemical &
Engineering News, 2-16, http://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i7/Pinpointing-TrendsPesticide-Use.html
Data in the report reveal that conventional pesticide use, which includes agricultural and home and
garden applications, steadily increased in the U.S. through the 1950s before declining slightly in the 1960s. The
amount increased again until 1979, when it reached a peak of 1.46 billion lb of active pesticide ingredients used per
year. Pesticide use declined slightly in the 1980s and then leveled off in the 1990s, reaching 1.23
billion lb of active ingredients per year in 1997. The U.S. accounted for about 22% of the 1997 global total of 5.7
billion lb of agricultural pesticides used. About half of the 1997 U.S. total represented herbicide use and the
remainder represented insecticides, fungicides, and other types of pesticides. Herbicide use remained steady from
1980 through 1997, whereas insecticide use steadily declined after 1975. The total amount of pesticides used in the
U.S. is actually much higher, about 4.6 billion lb in 1997, when nonagricultural uses are factored in. These uses
include preservatives for treating wood; chlorine-based bleaches for water treatment and disinfectant applications;

the
overall decline stems from better use of IPM, new low-dose insecticides, and the
advent of biopesticides and genetically modified food crops. Arsenic-based chemicals
and specialty biocides for plastics, adhesives, and paints and coatings. Aspelin notes in the CIPM report that

dominated pesticide use until the 1950s, Aspelin reports, and then chlorinated organic compounds such as DDT
were prevalent. Organophosphates and carbamates replaced those environmentally problematic compounds by
1975. Synthetic versions of natural pyrethrin compounds introduced in the late 1970s took over and led the
insecticide market by 1997. Herbicide use took off in the 1960s, with triazine and other nitrogen-based compounds,
carboxylic acids such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate leading the way.

Health---A2: Internal Link Turn

No turn status quo is horrible and reform solves
Bergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Regulatory
Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, March 19th,
http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senatecommittee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}
Among the most compelling testimony was Dr. Goldman's reminder to the Committee
that she first testified about the need for TSCA amendments in 1994 as Assistant
Administrator -- over 20 years ago. In a question and answer with Senator Vitter, Jones indicated that since
1990 with the current law, almost no chemicals have been banned or tested (one might
quibble with the wording about the numbers tested or restricted, but Jones' answers made the point). Also testifying
was Senator Lautenberg's widow, who stated that the late Senator believed TSCA reform would be perhaps the
most singular achievement of his long Senate career -- more important than his signature achievement of banning

dueling themes of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of

the good" vs. "this bill is worse than current law" will need to be sufficiently
brought together even if consensus is too far a goal. The specter of living with the current
law for another 20-40 years is unpalatable to many interested stakeholders of different perspectives (a
point made by Goldman). In the end, the summary slogan of any successful legislation may
smoking on airplanes years ago. The

be "better

than the alternative

" -- but stranger things have happened and even

that would not have been expected last November when the Senate majority flipped to Republican control.

Health---A2: No Endocrine Disruption

Best studies confirm our impact
Mnif 11 Wissem Mnif, Professor at Laboratoire de Biochimie, Unit de
Recherche, Effect of Endocrine Disruptor Pesticides: A Review, International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138025/
At the human level, endocrine disruptor pesticides have also been shown to disrupt
reproductive and sexual development, and these effects seem to depend on several factors, including gender,
age, diet, and occupation. Age is a particularly sensitive factor. Human fetuses, infants and children show greater susceptibility than
adults [4345]. Much of the damage caused by EDC occurs during gametogenesis and the early development of the fetus [4548].
However, the effects may not become apparent until adulthood . Moreover, fetuses and infants receive
greater doses due to the mobilization of maternal fat reserves during pregnancy [4750] and breastfeeding [49,51]. Infants are
extremely vulnerable to pre and postnatal exposure to endocrine disruptor pesticides, resulting in a wide range of adverse health
effects including possible long-term impacts on intellectual function [52,53] and delayed effects on the central nervous system

proximity to agricultural activity is a factor often described

to explain developmental abnormalities in epidemiological studies of low birth weight [56],
functioning [54,55]. Likewise, residential

fetal death [57], and childhood cancers [58]. Additionally, a higher prevalence of cryptorchidism and hypospadias [59,60] was found
in areas with extensive farming and pesticide use and in sons of women working as gardeners [61]. Recently, a relation has been
reported between cryptorchidism and persistent pesticide concentration in maternal breast milk [47,62,63]. The impact of endocrine

Based on the epidemiological studies since

2000, the study concluded that pesticide exposure may affect spermatogenesis
leading to poor semen quality and reduced male fertility. Furthermore, an
increasing number of epidemiological studies tend to link environmental
exposure to pesticides and hormone-dependent cancer risks . High levels of PCBs, DDE, and DDT
disruptor pesticides on fertility has also been discussed [64].

have been found in fat samples from women with breast cancer [141]. The risk of breast cancer is said to be four times greater in
women with increased blood levels of DDE 142]. One of the latest epidemiological studies performed in Spain between 1999 and
2009 shows that among a total of 2,661 cases of breast cancer reported in the female population, 2,173 (81%) were observed in
areas of high pesticide contamination [143]. Moreover, it was also suggested that women with hormone responsive breast cancer
have a higher DDE body burden than women with benign breast disease [144]. Similar studies have revealed correlations between
damage to the immune system and increased amounts of organochlorine residues in certain cancerous tissues [145]. Numerous
other studies support the hypothesis that pesticide exposure influences the risk of breast cancer [146], but few of them are really
conclusive due to some inconsistent data across the study. Further research is required to explore long-term follow-up beginning in
early life, with opportunities for exposure measurement at critical periods of vulnerability. Moreover, improvements are needed in
the cohort sample size and standardization of exposure assessments methods. Finally, researchers also need to consider
simultaneous co-exposures to these substances and other chemicals and whether they may act in an additive, synergistic, or
antagonistic manner [147].

Health---A2: No Impact
Endocrine disruption prevents reproduction extinction
CAT 4 (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, 2004, Toxic Pesticides,
http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/toxicpesticides.htm)
Pesticides, such as oryzalin, metam sodium, simazine or oxyfluorfen, which laboratory studies show affect blood and bloodforming tissues, may be especially dangerous for persons with inherited blood abnormalities or acquired blood
diseases. Even sulfur, which is considered relatively low in toxicity, can be threatening to an asthmatic. * chemical
interactions such as synergism and other effects that are created as a result of mixing chemicals
together. Research on chemical blends like those in pesticide formulations is limited to lethal effects and
acute eye and skin effects. * endocrine disruption, or alteration to the system that
regulates hormones. Although there is evidence in nature and even in humans, damage
to the endocrine system by pesticides and other chemicals is only now beginning to be considered
by the EPA for future studies and regulatory action. Endocrine disrupting chemicals often affect
reproductive organs and reproduction and they are especially dangerous to fetuses
or young children. This is of particular concern to scientists because of the threat to
future survival of humans and other species. * immune system depression. Hundreds of scientific studies of humans
in agricultural areas in Canada and the former Soviet Union found adverse alterations to immune systems and higher rates of
infectious disease than unexposed populations (WRI 1996). Studies in experimental animals prove that many pesticides have the
ability to disrupt immune system flinctions following acute and even low-level exposures.

Unregulated industrial toxins cause extinction

Montague 91 (Peter, Editor Rachel's Health and Environment Weekly, "Real
Hope for the Great Lakes: Local Groups Form 'Zero Discharge Alliance'," 3-20,
http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn225.htm)
Bioaccumulative toxins are dangerous because amounts that seem harmless are
multiplied as they pass through the food chain ; often the result is environmental destruction. The
adverse consequences of bioaccumulative toxins may become understood only after it is
too late. For example, human breast milk is now contaminated with hundreds of persistent, bioaccumulative
toxins (see RHWN #193), but the effects of these poisons upon breast-fed infants is not known except in rare cases.
Such dousing of infant children with persistent, bioaccumulative toxins is a massive experiment; the full results may

it cannot help the human

species to expose it from birth onward to a constant bath of industrial toxins . (People
become known in the future, but one thing is known beyond any doubt today:

who are tempted to think that the human species might be improved by random meddling with our genetic
structure should remind themselves that a human is something like a TV set [though of course much more complex]
and the hope of improving a human by randomly introducing poisons into its diet at an early age is like splashing
hot solder into a TV set's electronic circuits hoping to improve the picture.) It is important to note that many of the
most toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals are formed by the use of the element chlorine. DDT, PCBs,
dioxins, CFCs, and many pesticides are chlorine compounds. Most people know of chlorine because it disinfects
their drinking water, kills germs in the local swimming pool, or bleaches their clothes in the washing machine.
Unfortunately, when it is used by industry, chlorine produces a broad spectrum of toxins that persist in the
environment and bioaccumulate. In a very real sense, chlorine lies at the heart of the toxics problem, world-wide.
For two decades, government has tried to control toxic pollutants one at a time, by establishing the exact amount
that could be safely released into the environment, issuing "permits" giving industry permission to discharge toxics
into air and water, then trying to police the polluters to force compliance with the permitted limits. The entire effort
was foolish from the start: there are over 40,000 chemicals in use today and 1000 to 2000 new ones enter
commercial channels each year. Meanwhile during its 20-year effort, government has managed to establish "safe"
limits for fewer than 100 chemicals. Meanwhile, government has gone ahead and issued permits that ignored most
chemicals entirely (because there was no basis for saying how much was safe). Finally,

government never

showed any real interest (or ability) in enforcing these silly permits. A classic house of cards.
This wrong-headed effort at pollution control (instead of pollution prevention) has led to massive

damage to wildlife throughout the Great Lakes (see RHWN #146) and, worldwide, a
dangerous accumulation of toxics in creatures that eat at the top of the food chain,
like large birds, large fish, bears, and humans . It is now crystal clear that the old way has been
a complete failure, which, if it is continued, can only lead to the extinction of humans .

Endocrine disrupting chemicals cause extinction

NJ 3 (Environment, Pesticides, http://www.njenvironment.org/pesticides.htm)
Not only are current gardening practices harmful to local ecosystems, but also expanding
pesticide use appears to threaten the fertility and viability of human life. Theo Coburns
extensive research in Our Stolen Future suggests that the declining sperm count worldwide
and the aberrations in animal sexuality may be the result of endocrine disrupting chemicals
in our environment. Many pesticides mimic human hormones thereby sending inaccurate signals
to our endocrine systems.

Health---A2: Reform Fails

Reform solves
Denison 15 {Richard, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, former
project analyst at the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Ph.D. in
Biochemistry (Yale), Nation's Toxic Chemical Law Fails To Protect Us,
Environmental Defense Fund, http://www.edf.org/health/chemicals/our-scientistworks-reform-chemicals-policy#THUR}
Reforming TSCA is our chief goal, as its the front line in the effort to
truly guarantee chemical safety for Americans, and restore faith in U.S. products. We must
transform the current system that allows dangerous or untested chemicals to stay
How do we fix this?

on store shelves, he said. Private sector improvements. While updating TSCA remains our top policy priority, weve

Specifically, were working directly with

businesses to identify and remove the most hazardous chemicals from consumer products.
For example, we recently helped Walmartthe worlds largest retailerestablish a chemicals
policy that will move priority chemicals out of tens of thousands of personal care and
household products. The policy also calls for safer substitutes to ensure that the removal of one hazardous
also sought out additional ways to clean up the marketplace.

chemical doesnt lead to replacement with another. Whenever a name brand manufacturer changes their product

the effect will ripple across the global supply

chain. This will help protect consumers everywhere, including the tens of millions of
Americans who shop at Walmart. A new law is essential. But, of course, working with a
handful of businesses isnt enough. We must update the law. And that may finally
happen: Congress has the best chance in a generation to protect our health by
bringing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) into the 21st century. After years of debate
and inaction, in March 2015 a bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislationthe Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Actthat fixes the biggest problems
with the current law. The bill would update the current law and give EPA the tools
necessary to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health
protections for American families. Among other improvements, the bill: mandates safety reviews
for all chemicals in active commerce replaces TSCAs burdensome cost-benefit safety
standard with a pure, health-based standard, and explicitly requires protection of
vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. Rare political circumstances have
opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of
American families, Denison said.
supply to comply with Walmarts new policy,

Health---A2: Reform Fails---Asbestos

Boxer is wrong Udall-Vitter covers it
Wheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental
regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science
(Keene State College), Boxer: Chemical Bill Came from Industry, The Hill, 3/17,
http://thehill.com/regulation/235970-sen-boxer-slams-competing-udall-vitterchemical-bill#THUR}
Boxer said her bill will guarantee action from the Environmental Protection
Agency on hundreds of dangerous chemicals and explicitly direct the agency to
address asbestos. The Udall-Vitter bill only provides for the assessment of just 25, she said. Later
adding, Their bill doesnt even mention the word asbestos . Udall and Vitter's bill, introduced
Unlike the Udall-Vitter bill,

last week, comes after repeated attempts, led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), to reform the 1976 Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), faltered in the divided Congress. I loved Frank Lautenberg very much and it is with
very deep respect and a heavy heart that I make these statements about the bill that has been named after him,
Boxer said. But I remember when Frank said this, Its time to take action on TSCA reform and put an end to the

Udall has said that his bill the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
is a compromise between Democrats, Republicans,
industry and environmental groups that comes after two years of negotiations. In a
statement last week, he said his bill doesnt single out any specific chemical because it
chemical companies political games.
Safety for the 21st Century Act -

gives the EPA the authority to regulate any of the 84,000 chemicals in commerce.
Our bill gives EPA the strongest possible authority to protect Americans from
harmful substances like asbestos, BPA, styrene and other threats to public health, he
said.

Health---A2: Reform Fails---Industry Bias

No industry bias Boxers claims are cherry-picked and the
ACC had minimal influence
Wheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental
regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science
(Keene State College), Boxer: Chemical Bill Came from Industry, The Hill, 3/17,
http://thehill.com/regulation/235970-sen-boxer-slams-competing-udall-vitterchemical-bill#THUR}
But

the Environmental Defense Fund, a proponent of the Udall-Vitter bill, said

Boxer ' intentionally hand picked' the draft of the bill that the American Chemical
Council gave input on. I think there were many, many drafts of the bill that were
shared over the course of two years with industry, environmental and health
advocacy groups, said Jack Pratt, the group's chemicals campaign director. There was plenty
of input from plenty of different stakeholders, plenty of stakeholders who dont even
support the bill at this point. Udalls Spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said the document
Boxer is circulating is a draft of the legislation that a number of groups gave
input on. "This bill was written by Sen. Udall and Sen. Vitter in one of the most open
and inclusive processes for a major piece of legislation to ensure all sides got a chance to
be heard -- environmental advocates, industry, public health NGOs and others all
were involved, she said. ACC had no more input than environmental groups, and
as a result of the input from many stakeholders, the bill has moved further
toward what environmental groups and others said they wanted to see."

Health---A2: Reform Fails---States Rights

Compromise solved states rights fears
Wheeler 4/27 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental
regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science
(Keene State College), Dem Lawmakers Reach Agreement in Negotiating Chemical
Reform Bill, The Hill, 2015, http://thehill.com/regulation/energyenvironment/240244-gop-lawmakers-reach-agreement-in-negotiating-chemicalreform#THUR}
In negotiating how best to reform the nation's toxic chemical laws, Democratic
lawmakers say theyve reached an agreement with Republicans that will

expand

states authority to issue protections, signaling a breakthrough in efforts that

Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and
Booker (N.J.) said they have reached an agreement in negotiations on the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).
The bill, which aims to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was initially criticized for
restricting states rights to issue their own protections for dangerous chemicals and for failing to ban
asbestos. The compromise agreement reached Monday would allow states to regulate a
chemical if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) misses a required deadline in assessing
that chemical, would allow states to ask for a waiver to take action on chemicals while EPA is
have stalled in previous years. Sens. Tom
Corey

evaluating them for safety and would keep in place any chemical laws that took effect before Aug. 1, extending the

The bill has also been amended to allow the public to

challenge any low priority chemical designation from EPA and to clarify that
cost should not be considered in regulating toxic chemicals. While the bill is not
perfect, Booker said the bipartisan consensus is a significant step forward in longstalled efforts to improve TSCA first led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
former Jan. 1, 2015 grandfather date.

Health---A2: Risk Calculus

Strong precautionary principle good: allows for the most
robust chemical risk assessment that prevents
bioaccumulation and is a decision rule no decision overload or
critical thinking DA
-Answers your public health or environment impact contrived

Sachs 10
{Noah M, Director of the Robert R. Merhige, Jr. Center for Environmental Studies and
Professor (University of Richmond School of Law), Member Scholar with the Center
for Progressive Reform, M.P.P. in Public and International Affairs (Princeton), J.D.
(Stanford), Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics, 2010,
#THUR} **Language modified
Congress is now considering the most significant change in American
environmental law in a generation an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The flaws in the existing
statute are well-known. The American chemical industry produces or imports more than seventythree billion pounds of chemicals per day, yet TSCA does not require any form of routine
chemical risk assessment. As a result, we lack basic toxicity data for the vast majority of chemicals
used in cookware, toys, beauty products, food packaging, and other items. In June, when Kelloggs recalled 28 million boxes of cereal due to an oily smell,
which turned out to be from 2-methylnaphthalene in the cereal bags, there was no data available on the health risks of that widely-used chemical. This is

potential populationwide harm is sobering. Carcinogenic chemicals once thought to be safely contained in consumer products
are now present in the bloodstream and tissues of virtually all Americans. This year,
there is more momentum for reform than at any time in the past three decades. In 2010, landmark
TSCA reform bills were introduced in both houses of Congress, and principles to guide the reform effort have been
emblematic of the data drought in which the U.S. has attempted to manage chemical risks for decades. The

announced by the Environmental Protection Agency, various U.S. states, environmental groups, and the largest chemical industry trade association, the

contours of a new statute are still under

debate, but the stars are now aligned for significant legislative action. At the same
time, critics inside and outside the academy are attacking the theoretical principle that should be
guiding the reform effortthe Strong Precautionary Principle. The Strong Precautionary Principle is
American Chemistry Council. As I described in a previous article, the

a controversial approach to risk management that shifts the burden of proof on the safety of a product or activity from government regulators to private
firms. I define it as the view that: 1) regulation should presumptively be applied when an activity or product poses serious threats to human health or the
environment, even if scientific uncertainty precludes a full understanding of the nature or extent of the threats; and 2) the burden of overcoming the

A new chemical regulatory

statute, grounded in the Strong Precautionary Principle, would shift the burden to
chemical manufacturers to prove that chemicals do not pose significant risks to human health
or the environment. This would reverse current practice under TSCA, where the government bears a
stringent burden to demonstrate unreasonable risk from a chemical to enact restrictions. That
governmental burden, combined with the lack of available toxicity data, has crippled [prevented]
protective regulation. According to Dr. Lynn Goldman, who oversaw TSCA implementation during the Clinton Administration, TSCA
will never be effective unless it is amended to include a shift in the burden of
proof. Yet critics of the Strong Precautionary Principle, such as Cass Sunstein, Jonathan Graham, and Jonathan Wiener, have little interest in
further application of the Principle in TSCA, or elsewhere. Instead, they want to bury it. Sunstein has derided Strong
Precaution as senseless, paralyzing, and worse than unhelpful. He and other detractors
presumption in favor of regulation lies with the proponent of the risk-creating activity or product.

have charged that the Strong Precautionary Principle provides no guidance on which risks to address and ignores so-called risk-risk tradeoffs in which a
precautionary response to one target risk may lead to substitute risks that are even worse. The Principle should be rejected, wrote Sunstein, not
because it leads in bad directions, but because it leads in no direction at all. The principle is literally paralyzing--forbidding inaction, stringent regulation,

This sharply critical scholarship is no mere academic sideshow to

the current Beltway battle over chemical regulation. Many of the players in the
debate over Strong Precaution hold prominent positions in the Obama Administration and in Congress.
and everything in between.

If key policymakers
continue to maintain that the Strong Precautionary Principle is illegitimate, then it is
unlikely that TSCA will be reformed in a meaningful way. Congress may miss a once-ina-generation opportunity to repair the moribund chemical regulatory system. The stakes are high, yet few scholars
Sunstein himself heads the influential Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of the President.

have offered any sustained defense of Strong Precaution. Most scholars of the role of precaution in risk regulation have instead kept to the safer terrain of
defending so-called weak versions of the Precautionary Principle, which do not involve burden shifting. While literature advocating weak precaution is
voluminous, the scholarly terrain on the Strong Precautionary Principle has been ceded to its opponents. Under their avalanche of criticism, some

resuscitating TSCA as
an effective chemical regulatory regime depends, in no small part, on rescuing the Strong
Precautionary Principle from its critics. In this Article, I undertake this much-needed reassessment of the Strong Precautionary Principle.
I conclude that the Principle, far from being indefensible, provides a cogent framework for managing
health and environmental risks in many regulatory arenas. I also demonstrate how the Strong Precautionary Principle could be
breathing space is urgently needed to reconsider the merits and practical applications of Strong Precaution. Indeed,

sensibly implemented in the particular context of TSCA reform legislation, while avoiding the parade of horribles presented by the critics. This debate over
TSCA reform will likely determine the rules that will govern toxicity research, chemical exposure limits, and preventing cancer from environmental

My aim, therefore, is not only to refute the dismissive scholarship on a theoretical level, but also
to lay the groundwork for stronger next-generation chemical legislation in the United States. This
pollutants through the middle of the 21st Century.

Article proceeds in three Parts. In Part I, I provide a brief introduction to the concept of precaution in risk regulation, distinguishing the Strong

directly considering the merits of Strong Precaution, I

justify it both instrumentally, as an incentive to develop information on public health and
environmental risks, and deontologically, as a confirmation of the moral obligations of
those who seek to market potentially hazardous products. In Part II, I counter the critics objections to the
Precautionary Principle from its weaker versions. Then,

Strong Precautionary Principle. Cass Sunstein and other critics contend that Strong Precaution represents a new and radical alternative to dominant risk

that Strong Precaution is already

deeply rooted in American law. It forms the basis for numerous licensing, permitting, and pre-approval
programs that are cornerstones of public health and environmental protection in the United
States. The Food and Drug Administration review process for new drugs is the most well-known of hundreds of examples. I demonstrate that the
Principle is not nearly as inflexible, extreme, or cost-insensitive as the Principles
detractors would have us believe. Sunsteins claim that Strong Precaution inevitably
leads to paralysis [inaction] is hyperbolic mischaracterization. Applied
properly, the Strong Precautionary Principle helps to uncover regulatory alternatives
and permits considerations of trade-offs, while raising a wider set of questions than traditional cost-benefit analysis. I
concede in Part II that Strong Precaution should not be universalized as a dogmatic solution for every risk
our society faces, yet critics intent on blasting Strong Precaution are ignoring the Principles
contextual rationality. That is, they are ignoring the arenas of risk management
where the Principles default presumptions, burden shifting, and ex ante review of
risks are eminently sensible. In Part III, I argue that in toxic chemical regulation, protecting public
health and the environment demands a Strong Precautionary approach with several
management paradigms grounded in cost-benefit analysis. I show, on the other hand,

components. I advocate shifting the burden of proof for the most hazardous classes of chemicals and allowing limited avenues for continued marketing of

Shifting the
burden of proof is, to be sure, just one element of dozens of needed changes in TSCA. It is also the game changer. It will
dramatically alter incentives, loosen informational bottlenecks, and end our blithe
acceptance of flying blind in chemical risk management.
such chemicals (which I call regulatory offramps) if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the chemical can be used safely.

Health---A2: SQ Solves
Current TSCA ineffectual reform key
Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at
Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member
of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar
Association, Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform, Environmental Law Institute,
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-LarrisObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}
Since the adoption of TSCA in 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued
regulations to control only five chemicals. 4 On September 29, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson said there are troubling gaps in the available data on many widely used
chemicals. 5 Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been
assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks havent been ignored, Jackson said.
Right

now, we are failing to get this job done.6

Status quo policy leaves the EPA powerless

Denison 15 {Richard, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, former
project analyst at the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Ph.D. in
Biochemistry (Yale), Nation's Toxic Chemical Law Fails To Protect Us,
Environmental Defense Fund, http://www.edf.org/health/chemicals/our-scientistworks-reform-chemicals-policy#THUR}
Ever watched the dust fly when you flop down on the couch? Most of us have. And
that means most of us have been exposed to toxic flame retardants chemicals linked to
several neurocognitive problems in children. Theyre in your couch cushions and get in the dust that is released
every time you sit on and compress them. For all the downside risks, studies show that they dont even do a very

How can this be? Shouldnt we be safe

from toxic chemicals? EPA powerless to protect us Most people think somebody
must be making sure the chemicals we use are safe , says EDF biochemist Richard Denison,
good job of what they are meant to do: prevent or slow fires.

But its essentially the Wild West. This quagmire is due in part to
the ineffective, outdated 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Its never been
updated, even though its so weak that it essentially allows manufacturers and
companies to use hazardous chemicals in many household products, even if
there are known health risks. Two of TSCAs biggest flaws: Companies dont have
to test a chemical before using it in consumer products, and the Environmental Protection
Agency has little power to remove hazardous chemicals from the marketplace.
Ph.D.

AFFIRMATIVE

*** UNIQUENESS

Wont Pass---General
Wont pass massive opposition and momentum is building
Kustin 4/8 {Mary Ellen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Environmental Working
Group, M.P.P in Environmental Policy (University of Maryland), former researcher at
Pew Charitable Trusts and the National Wildlife Federation, Opposition to Industry
Chemical Bill Continues To Build, 2015,
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/04/opposition-industry-chemical-bill-continuesbuild#THUR}
Medical professionals, scientists, states attorneys general, legal scholars and public
interest organizations are all speaking up against the Udall-Vitter Toxic Substances Control
Act reform bill (S. 697) backed by chemical companies. This industry bill, which is worse than the existing law, is
so broken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasnt even been able to ban asbestos under its authority.

Opposition has continued to mount in the few weeks since EWG last noted
strong voices speaking out against the bill and Sen. Boxer highlighted 450
organizations that oppose the industry bill at the March 18th Senate hearing on Udall-Vitter
industry bill. Two weeks ago, more than 40 medical professionals penned their discontent
with the bill in a letter to the Senate underscoring: The need for a truly health-protective safety standard, one

The bills murky deadlines and review process

would only address a tiny fraction of the thousands of chemicals to which the public is exposed;
and The imperative for states roles to be preserved to protect public health .
Additionally, nearly 60 public interest organizations joined together on a letter
voicing opposition to the Udall-Vitter bill citing: Problems with its preemption of states abilities to
based on reasonable certainty of no harm;

protect people; Failure to fully address legacy chemical contaminations; Inclusion of a weak safety standard; Lack of

A
group of scientists also sent an open letter to the Senate Environmental and Public Works
strict deadlines and adequate resources; and The addition of hurdles to regulating chemicals in products.

Committee outlining principles to which Congress must adhere in order for a true chemical safety law reform to be

This outcry is coming on the heals of legal scholars and states

attorneys general from Vermont, California, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa,
Maine, Maryland, Oregon and Washington all writing to voice their concerns about the industrys
scientifically sound.

bill inability to protect public health and safety.

Wont pass powerful environmentalists

Pearson 4/24 {Sam, syndicated columnist focusing on the environment, former
researcher at The Center for Public Integrity, M.A. in Journalism and Public Affairs
(American University), B.A. in government-journalism (California State University,
Sacramento), Groups Struggle To Communicate On TSCA Reform -- Especially When
Many Voters Think It's Already Happened, Energy & Environment Publishing, 2015,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060017361#THUR}
Opposing a bipartisan chemical safety bill backed by powerful industry groups in a
Republican-controlled Congress is no small order . But the scrappy Environmental
Working Group has made defeating the legislation one of its top priorities and is
striving to get its message out against formidable foes -- and, just as important, amid public
apathy. The group's founder, Ken Cook, said in a recent visit to the group's three-story headquarters at
Washington, D.C.'s U Street Corridor -- which features framed copies of chemical industry documents released in

it can be frustrating trying to gain

traction in the chemical safety debate. EWG seldom worked on the federal chemicals law,
toxic tort litigation and bisphenol-A-free metal cups -- that

the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, before the group became involved in a campaign
to pressure DuPont Co. to reformulate its Teflon product in 2002. DuPont agreed to change Teflon's
formula after internal company documents produced during litigation brought on behalf of a group of Parkersburg,
W.Va., residents living near DuPont's Teflon plant showed the company knew as early as 1984 that a contaminant --

In 2005, the company

settled with U.S. EPA and agreed to pay a $10.25 million administrative fine -- at the time, the
largest civil administrative penalty ever obtained under any environmental law. Today,
these once-secret documents on the office walls are a souvenir of EWG's past policy
wins, a reminder for the group's staffers as they work against the chemical
industry's top legislative priority of what they say is the industry's duplicitousness.
known as perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA or C8 -- was entering area drinking water.

Wont pass preemption concerns

Igrejas 4/28 {Andy, National Campaign Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy
Families, former advocate at National Environmental Trust, Progress, Not
Breakthrough, In Senate Reform Fight; Most Important Work Lies Ahead, 2015,
http://saferchemicals.org/2015/04/28/progress-not-breakthrough-in-senate-reformfight/#THUR}
Last night Senators Merkley (D-OR), Whitehouse (D-RI), and Booker (D-NJ) announced they were joining Senators Udall and Vitter in
a new version of the controversial Senate chemical reform bill. Technically, the new version is a substitute of the old that will be

the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The vote is an

important milestone but it is not the final word. The three Senators are all strong advocates for
adopted today in a voting session of

public health and the environment. They put their collective backs into getting important changes to the bill. Many, if not most, of

Were keeping our work

boots on, however. And so should you. If the goal is meaningful reform that does some good
the changes are ones that we have specifically called for. Our hats go off to them, truly.

and no harm,

were not there yet

. Lets get there. Heres the good news: The rollbacks to EPAs
authority over imports and consumer products that were in the previous version have been removed. The potential loophole where
chemicals can be set aside without a safety review (low priority designations) will now be subject to the accountability of citizen
suits. States ability to co-enforce federal restrictions is restored (though with some caveats). The bill makes some progress in
getting EPA to prioritize Persistent, Bio-accumulative Toxins and potentially regulate them more thoroughly. There are other positive
changes that are meaningful, and for which they deserve credit (if not all quite as meaningful as the hyperbolic press release would

Heres the bad news: There is a new rollback to EPAs authority to restrict significant new uses of a
chemical. The Senators split the baby on states authority to protect their citizens. People forget that
splitting the baby was actually a bad thing in the original Bible story. King Solomon didnt go through with it.
Neither should Congress. What does it mean in this context? The biggest flashpoint in the
Senate hearing was the unprecedented timing of preemption in the Senate bill. For the
first time in any environmental legislation, states would be blocked from taking
action even in the absence of federal regulation. They would have been blocked
when EPA began the review of a chemical. That process could drag on for 7 years if EPA met
its deadlines under the bill. Many more if EPA blew its deadlines, as is often the case. All three Senators
opposed this policy. The California Attorney General said it created a regulatory
void where the public cant be protected. More colorfully, Senator Whitehouse called this mandatory noprotection period a death zone. But the Senators hit a brick wall in trying to get
this provision removed. Im not sure why. A consistent rumor is that the more ideological oil
companies will kill any reform proposal that does not include it, that they need a
concrete get, if they are to let even modest reform slip through. None of that is on the
have you believe).

record anywhere, however. The auto industry loudly objected to the lack of a void in the House TSCA bill back in April, which

Nevertheless, faced with the hard line,

the three Senators negotiated a work-around . Under the substitute version of the bill, the preemption
surprised me. Perhaps they are behind this hard line on preemption.

would begin when EPA published a document specifying the scope of its review of the chemical. States would be blocked from
restricting the uses of the chemical specified in the document at that point. If EPA finds the chemical safe for all those uses after a
multi-year review the preemption sticks. If EPA decides it is unsafe, however, the preemption is lifted while EPA considers its own

regulation. Under the deadline of the bill, the void would now last 2.5 years or up to 4.5 with extensions, instead of 7. To sweeten
the pot, they allowed states to pursue a waiver of the preemption during the void. EPA has 90 days to decide on the waiver, but if
they dont, the waiver is granted. But wait! The waiver itself can be challenged. But dont worry! The 90 day thing kicks in again.

Therein lies the problem. This is an improvement, sure, but

it is complicated and process-laden and probably wont work when the whole
point was supposed to be making it easier to regulate chemicals- not initiating a
state/federal ping-pong match. The preemption is still unprecedented. The
Attorneys General for our largest states still strongly oppose it. Some of their
staff have described it as legally incoherent. It has to go. The convoluted outcome
brings up a broader point: the original bill was so bad that many of us have
been grading it on a curve. It has improved a bunch, to be sure. Our own critique has driven much of that
improvement, and several Senators, especially the trio, deserve credit for making it better. But when you pull back
youre left with a bill that has a lot of unnecessary provisions, some harmful ones,
and modest proactive reforms. It needs more work..
And so on and so forth. Got all that?

Thumper---TPA
TPA thumps Obama pushing, top of the docket and super
controversial
Hughes 6/18 {Siobhan, syndicated Congressional reporter for the Wall Street
Journal/Congressional Quarterly/Bloomberg, House Passes Fast-Track Trade Bill, but
Senate Outcome Uncertain, 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-fasttrack-trade-bill-1434645208#THUR}
House passed legislation Thursday to ease trade pacts through Congress, as
Republicans and some Democrats revived hopes for President Barack Obamas trade
agenda less than a week after liberals sank a similar bill. The Houses 218-208 vote sends
the measure to the Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) wants to pass the
WASHINGTONThe

bill as soon as next

week. Fast-track authority would give Mr. Obama the power to submit trade deals to

Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendments. But the bills fate is intertwined with a related
measure to help workers hurt by international trade. Many pro-trade Senate Democrats say they wont vote for the

TAA, will
House and Senate Republican leaders have committed to separately
passing the workers assistance extension. Late Thursday, Mr. McConnell said that passage of the fast-track
bill was within striking distance, but that it would take trusting each other to get there. But Democrats are
anxious about whether GOP leaders can deliver. They see the package as four parts: Fast-track,
fast-track bill without evidence that the worker-aid program, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or
pass both chambers.

the workers assistance, a separate enforcement measure that would give the U.S. stronger tools to combat against
unfair trading practices and one to extend trade preferences with sub-Saharan African nations. Sen. Ron Wyden of
Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he and other pro-trade Democratic senators want

Labor unions and allied groups of the left vowed to

pressure Senate Democrats to oppose fast track, saying the battle isnt over yet .
to make sure all four items get enacted.

If it werent for this massive corporate coalition and all their power and money, this whole trade agenda would be

Wallach, senior trade expert at Public Citizen, which has been

fighting the trade bill. Business groups encouraged the Senate to pass the fast-track bill, noting that it
sitting on a curb someplace, said Lori

already passed an earlier version last month that was connected to the worker-aid program. We now call on the

The
next critical moment comes early next week. Senate fast-track supporters would need
to line up 60 votes to get around a procedural hurdle before passing the bill. That is an open
question because some of the 14 pro-trade Democrats are wavering. Sen. Ben Cardin
(D., Md.) said Thursday that he wants all four bills to pass together instead of one by one . Mr.
McConnell made clear that wouldnt happen , saying Thursday that a vote on the fast-track bill
U.S. Senate to once again reaffirm its commitment, said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue.

would come first, followed by a vote on the trade preferences bill. Mr. McConnell said that the workers-aid program
would be attached to the trade preferences bill. He promised that Republican votes would be there to pass the
worker-aid measurereluctantly, not happily, but they will be there if it means getting something far more
important accomplished for the American people. In May, 14 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass, 62-37, the
fast-track bill, formally known as Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. Mr.

Obama has

long

pushed for

fast-track authority, which many past presidents have had. The power is seen as necessary to wrap up a
12-nation trade pact among countries around the Pacific Rim and possibly, later, a pact with European nations. Talks
over the Pacific accord are nearly complete but have come to a standstill because U.S. trading partners are
unwilling to make their best, final offers until Congress signals it is on board with the talks and wont amend any

House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), sank the fasttrack package last week by voting against a key component which would extend the program to help
agreement.

workers hurt by foreign competition. In response, House Republican leaders stripped out that portion of the bill.
Instead, House Republicans brought a stand-alone fast-track measure to the floor Thursday; it received the support
of 190 Republicans and 28 Democrats. The vote showed the staying power of the 28 pro-trade Democrats, who also

Even
with the leaders commitments however, supporters of TAA are concerned that
Republicans, who are in the majority in both chambers, would oppose it. Many Republicans call the
voted for fast-track authority last week, when the trade-negotiating power was part of the larger measure.

program an inefficient form of government welfare, and persuading Republicans in both chambers to support it

Himes, a pro-trade Democrat from Connecticut who met Wednesday

with Mr. Obama, said the president said he would sign the fast-track bill into law
before Congress had passed a bill to renew the workers aid program. While such a
move would put pressure on House Democrats to reverse course and vote for a workers
aid program they had previously voted against to scuttle the fast-track bill, the
action could cut both ways. Some pro-trade Senate Democrats could withhold
their support for the fast-track bill if they thought Mr. Obama was giving up his leverage
to force passage of the assistance program. I cant predict that, Mrs. Pelosi said on Thursday when asked if
could present a challenge. Rep. Jim

she thought both the fast-track bill and the Trade Adjustment Assistance, also known as TAA, would pass. I dont

The passage of a narrower fast-track bill through the House itself

depended on the willingness of the small group of pro-trade Democrats to trust that
Mr. McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) can fulfill their promise to find a way to
separately renew the workers aid program. Mr. Obama, who has closely coordinated with
see a path right now for TAA.

the two Republicans, worked this week to build that trust, meeting with
pro-trade Democrats to convince them there was a separate path for the renewal of TAA,
which expires at the end of September. The only legislative strategy that the president will
support is a strategy that results in both TPA and TAA coming to his desk, White House spokesman Josh
Earnest said on Wednesday. There are a variety of ways to do that. Liberal groups werent
convinced, and one outlined plans to take revenge on Democrats who voted
for the fast-track bill. Any Democrat in Congress who trusts John Boehner or Mitch
McConnell to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, that will actually help working families, deserves

to lose their job, said Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, in a statement.
Whether its this election cycle or election cycles to come, Democracy for America will actively search for
opportunities to make sure they lose their jobs and are replaced with real Democrats committed to fighting growing
income inequality, not enabling it.

Thumper---TPA---Ext---Costs PC
TPA creams Obamas capital huge push
Berry 6/18 {Deborah Barfield, syndicated national politics correspondent,
Boustany Helps Push GOP Support for Trade Bills, USA Today through The News
Star, 2015, http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/boustanyhelps-push-gop-support-trade-bills/28963631/#THUR}
There

are a number of urban myths about Trade Promotion Authority. Were dispelling
those notions, Boustany said in an interview. As we get the facts on the table, were
able to move more members. The effort is far from over. House Republicans will
send the fast track bill back to the Senate, where supporters hope they can muster the
60 votes necessary to pass it as a standalone measure. Albert Samuels, a political scientist
at Southern University in Baton Rouge, said Republicans and the administration havent
done a good job of explaining the importance of the trade deals. He said last weeks failed
effort doesnt help Boustany. Whenever you invest as much political capital in something
like this and then it doesnt turn out,

it hurts you, he said. Its not just him

The
president has failed. The president is the biggest proponent of
this deal. The president has the bully pulpit.
personally that has failed. Im sure hes doing probably the best he can.

Thumper---TPA---Ext---Obama Pushing
Obama pushing hard speeches
Stanley-Becker 6/3 {Isaac, former Georgetown Day debater I (rarely) beat,
Washington Wire reporter for the Wall Street Journal, White House Makes Trade
Pitch, With Focus on Moderates, 2015,
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/03/white-house-makes-trade-pitch-withfocus-on-moderates/#THUR}
Obama is ramping up efforts to convince individual House members
to grant him fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals, focusing his efforts on a dwindling
group of undecided Democratic lawmakers. But Democrats who have already backed the deal
publicly said these members need to be convinced they are not trading away their
own political futures for a vote on fast-track. Potentially decisive are moderate, pro-growth
members of the New Democrat Coalition. Its vice-chair, Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.), spoke as recently
as Monday to the president, after fielding calls from the White House during last
weeks recess as well. He asked me: do you really think based on my record do you really think I
President Barack

would be fighting for something that would hurt the American middle class? Mr. Himes said. Ive got to try to see

Obama told the congressman, now in his fourth term, that he thought he
had 20 Democratic votes lined up, Mr. Himes said. The precise number he needs will depend on the
what he sees. Mr.

number of GOP votes House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) can produce. The bill would allow the president to
send trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Mr. Obama hopes to use it for a trade deal, the TransPacific Partnership, with Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations.

*** LINK TURNS

General Surveillance---Tech Lobby

Tech lobby loves the plan theyre influential
Frier 14 {Sarah, syndicated technology reporter, bachelors degree in Business
journalism (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Apple, Google Gear Up to
Lobby Congress on NSA Reform, Bloomberg, 1/17,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-18/apple-google-gear-up-tolobby-congress-on-nsa-reform#THUR}
Apple Inc., Google Inc. and other technology companies are gearing

up to

bring their fight

over U.S. surveillance to Congress after President Barack Obama

offered no specific proposals on their central request: to tell customers more about what the government is doing.
The coalition of companies, which has pressed the White House to limit the National
Security Agencys sweeping global surveillance programs, plans to ramp up lobbying
members of Congress next week, according to people with knowledge of the situation, who asked not to
be identified because the plans arent public. The president, in his remarks, put the onus of
revamping intelligence gathering and storage of data onto the shoulders of
Congress, these people said. Obama yesterday laid out new actions to deal with the uproar
set off by disclosures last year of phone and Web spying by the NSA. The president said he
would require judicial review of requests to query phone call databases and ordered Justice Department and

technology
companies, which have asked to be able to disclose what the NSA asks for to the
public, were promised more transparency though no specifics on what kind or when. Crucial
details remain to be addressed on these issues, and additional steps are needed on
other important issues, so well continue to work with the administration and
Congress to keep the momentum going and advocate for reforms consistent with
the principles we outlined in December, the technology companies said in a joint statement
yesterday. Company Cooperation The group, known as Reform Government Surveillance, also includes
Facebook Inc., AOL Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Microsoft Corp., Twitter Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. Spokespeople
at the companies either didnt return requests for comment or declined to comment beyond the statement. The
technology companies wanted Obama to let them disclose more about government orders
to provide records of customers e-mails and Internet use, while the telephone providers
lobbied to prevent themselves from being forced to store years of calling data for
the NSAs use. Since revelations of the NSA spying programs last year, the technology
intelligence officials to devise a way to take storage of that data out of the governments hands. The

companies have fought the tarnish of the agencys use of the consumer data that they
collect. Yahoo, Apple, Facebook and Google were among the companies that signed a Dec. 9
letter to Obama and members of Congress, saying the U.S. should take the lead in changing
government surveillance practices. On Dec. 17, 15 technology executives including Apple Chief Executive
Officer Tim Cook and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer met at the White House to press the president on curbing the

The scandals impact may be costly to companies

domestic and international backlash could cost the U.S. economy

surveillance programs. Costly Backlash?

and to the U.S. economy. The

$35 billion over the next three years, said Daniel Castro, an analyst with the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation. The stakes involved magnified technology
companies disappointment at the lack of detail from the president yesterday. Browser
$22 billion to

maker Mozilla said in a statement that Obamas strategy appears to be to leave current intelligence processes
largely intact and improve oversight to a degree. Wed hoped for, and the Internet deserves, more. The statement,
from Mozillas global privacy and policy leader Alex Fowler and senior policy engineer Chris Riley, said Obama had
failed to address the most glaring reform needs, including ending government efforts to undermine protocols and

security standards. They praised Obamas call to add an independent advocacy panel to weigh in on the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act court, while saying Obamas speech should be a floor for reform, not a ceiling.

NSA Reform---Popularity---Bipart
Plan is bipartisan spills over to other votes
Romboy 6/6 {Dennis, national politics reporter, Lee Changing Perceptions with
Bipartisan Efforts on Spying Bill, Deseret News, 2015,
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630228/Lee-changing-perceptions-withbipartisan-efforts-on-spying-bill.html?pg=all#THUR}
Yes, that was conservative Republican Sen. Mike Lee celebrating passage of a major
surveillance reform bill with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont last week. The last
time the spotlight really shined on him, Lee stood shoulder-to-shoulder with like-minded Texas GOP
Sen. Ted Cruz fighting the Affordable Care Act, which resulted in a 16-day government shutdown nearly two
years ago. Since then, Utah's junior senator has made speeches to various groups, urging conservatives to help the
GOP move beyond being the "party of no." Lee took a big step in that direction this past week, passing perhaps the most significant
piece of legislation in his career to date, and doing it in a bipartisan, bicameral way. Contrary to popular belief, he said, he
constantly works with Democrats through his service on the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly on privacy and criminal

justice issues. "I

like to find allies wherever I can get them," Lee said. " Sometimes my
allies are liberal Democrats." Although he doesn't believe Lee's reach across the aisle will have a
huge impact on his political image, University of Utah political science professor Matthew Burbank said it
helps support the senator's new narrative that he isn't an obstructionist . "I think this at
least makes the case that 'I can work other people in the Senate. I can work with other people in the House. I can
even agree with the president if I have to. And there's at least some indication I can get things done,'" Burbank

Lee took a lead role in whipping up support for the USA Freedom Act, which
overwhelmingly passed the House and then the Senate . President Barack Obama signed it
into law last Tuesday. The bill restores three provisions of the Patriot Act that expired June 1, but also initiates
changes to better protect privacy and increase transparency of the government's spying
operations. It also effectively ends the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans'
phone records. Leahy, the most senior member of the Senate, told reporters in a news conference
after the bill passed that it was nice to see Republicans and Democrats working
together like they did when he took office 40 years ago. "We've done it by setting aside
ideology, setting aside fear-mongering," he said. "We said we'll protect the
security of the United States but we also protect the privacy of Americans." Lee
feels strongly about Fourth Amendment rights , even devoting a chapter to it in his book, "Our Lost
Constitution." He said he teamed with Leahy and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee
who shared concerns over the NSA's ability to collect bulk phone data under the
said.

Patriot Act. They started drafting legislation about two years ago, writing several versions before the bill that passed. Lee said
he put more "shoe leather" and "sweat, blood and tears" into the bill than any legislation he has worked on since being elected in
2010. He spent countless hours on the phone and diligently worked the Senate floor the night of the vote. "At every single step of
the way, the odds seemed to be against us. There was no part of it that was easy," he said. Chris Karpowitz, co-director of the BYU
Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, called it a substantial accomplishment for Lee and one for which he can and
should take a meaningful amount of credit. "I think in this case the stars aligned beautifully for him and allowed him to play this

Karpowitz said the country was ready for a change from some
of the practices under the Patriot Act, partly as a result of time since 9/11 and Edward
Snowden, the former NSA subcontractor who leaked secret information about its surveillance activities. The
issue also created an interesting confluence of the right and the left, Karpowitz said.
legislative role," he said.

But he doesn't see Lee becoming a "grand legislative wheeler-dealer" in Congress forging lots of

compromises because
"that's not who he is." Lee's support of the Freedom Act put him at odds with tea party colleague and presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky,
who forced a two-day delay on the vote and ultimately voted against the bill. Lee also found himself opposite Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, on the issue. Hatch
staunchly defended the Patriot Act, which Congress passed in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He led the Judiciary Committee at the time and was a
principal sponsor of the legislation. The seven-term senator said those who voted for the reform legislation last week didn't see that devastation and don't
realize why lawmakers created the Patriot Act. The "far left" and "far right" joined together on the bill worrying that people's telephones would be tapped,
"which certainly wasn't the case," he said. "To me, it's a ridiculous bill. It's going to put us at more risk than we need to be. The Patriot Act worked very,
very well," Hatch said. In response, Lee said, "I respectfully but most emphatically disagree. That simply isn't true." Lee said the legislation delicately
balances national security and privacy rights. The intelligence community can't identify one act of terrorism that would have happened but for the NSA's
data gathering program, he said. At the same time, he concedes that no data breaches have occurred either, but said that doesn't mean government

and Leahy are now turning their

attention to a bill to get rid of an obscure 1986 law that lets the government read people's emails that are more
officials won't misuse the information in the future to spy on law-abiding people or for political espionage. Lee

than six months old without a warrant.

Lee said he believes their collaboration on the Freedom Act

will lead to more confidence and momentum for

getting things done. He said people have been asked over and over to
expect less of Congress, to expect constant backbiting and gridlock. "It's
experiences like these and outcomes like this one that

can help Americans

to expect more, to expect bipartisan cooperation
where it can happen," he said.

*** INTERNAL LINKS

Obama Isnt Pushing

PC not key to reform and no Obama push
Kollipara 6/4 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist,
Chemical Regulation Bill Clears First House Hurdle, AAAS, 2015,
http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/06/chemical-regulation-bill-clears-firsthouse-hurdle#THUR}
The bill still has a long way to go. Lawmakers hope the full House will take up the measure late this
month, after which they would have to sort out their differences with the Senates version. The White House,
while outlining some TSCA reform principles, hasnt

endorsed any

specific bill. Still, Pallone says he couldnt have foreseen the progress that
lawmakers have made so far. If anybody told me a year or two ago, or even 6 months ago,
that we could come up with a strong compromise bill, he says, I would have said
that wasnt very likely.

Obama has totally stood back

Kollipara 5/6 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, U.S.
Senate Makes Progress on Chemical Regulation Reform, But Obstacles Await, AAAS,
2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/05/u-s-senate-makes-progresschemical-regulation-reform-obstacles-await#THUR}
Senate floor debate could begin sometime in June, Udall said, after which it may take to 6 weeks
to vote on amendments. After that, the timeline is unclear. The Houses TSCA reform draft makes far
fewer changes to existing law, he noted. If both bodies were to pass their measures, they
would then need to negotiate a final version, a process that could take months or longer. And
the White House, which wields presidential veto power, has

not yet taken a stance

on either measure. Still, Udall said he still hoped that lawmakers would finish TSCA reform this
year.

PC Irrelevant
Studies prove PC makes no difference
Rockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009,
Presidential Studies Quarterly, Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off
with the president's head"?, volume 39, issue 4, Academic OneFile)
Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George

Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have tested Neustadt's
ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with other actors . In this, Neustadt's
ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical scientists
that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president's agenda
and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among a
president's support base. We know now, too, that a president's purported skills at
schmoozing, twisting arms, and congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to
getting what he (or she) wants from Congress . That was a lot more than we knew prior to the publication
of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared

That the
empirical tests demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes
with the territory. That is how science progresses. But the reality is that there was almost nothing of a propositional nature
on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test.

prior to Neustadt.

PC Irrelevant---Ideology
PC not real its a myth- vote based on ideology
Frank Moraes is a freelance writer with broad interests. He is educated as a
scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science,
remote sensing, and throughout the computer industry. And he has taught physics.
1-8-2013 http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/political-capital-is-myth.html
Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: "Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever." He can't understand
this nomination given that (1) Hagel will be a hard sell and (2) Obama doesn't much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting
speculation, but I wouldn't have even thought about it had he not written, "Why

waste political capital picking a

fight that isn't essential to any policy goals?" This brought to mind something that has been on my mind for a while,
as in posts like "Bipartisan Consensus Can Bite Me." I'm afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of
God, "Political Capital" is a myth. I think it is just an idea that Villagers find
comforting. It is a neat narrative in which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just
bullshit. Let's go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said, "I earned capital in the political
campaign and I intend to spend it." What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually said that
political capital is some kind of mandate from the masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the
poor and kill the gays. But he used his political capital to privatize Social Security. One could say that this proves the point, but does
anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have

Let's look at more recent events: the Fiscal

Cliff. Obama didn't win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won it
because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president. Tax rates were going up. Boehner
took the Fiscal Cliff deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He
didn't fold because of some magic political capital that Obama could wave over him. There is no
succeeded any better? The truth was that Bush's political capital didn't exist.

doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians act. Even politicians in small safe districts have to worry that larger political

they really don't care. If they

Obama won a mandate and the associated political
capital. But they don't, because presidential elections have consequences -- for who's in the White House. They don't
have much consequence for the representative from the Third District of California.
trends may end up making them look stupid, out of touch, or just cruel. But beyond that,
did, then everyone in the House would now be a Democrat: after all,

PC Not Real
Political capital theory isnt true with this congress
Bouie 11 (Jamelle, graduate of the U of Virginia, Writing Fellow for The American
Prospect magazine, May 5, prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?
month=05&year=2011&base_name=political_capital)
political capital isnt that straightforward. As we saw at the beginning of Obamas
presidency, the mere fact of popularity (or a large congressional majority) doesnt guarantee
support from key members of Congress. For Obama to actually sign legislation to
reform the immigration system, provide money for jobs, or reform corporate taxes, he needs unified
support from his party and support from a non-trivial number of Republicans.
Unfortunately, Republicans (and plenty of Democrats) arent interested in better
immigration laws, fiscal stimulus, or liberal tax reform. Absent substantive leverageand not just
high approval ratingsthere isnt much Obama can do to pressure these members (Democrats
Unfortunately,

and Republicans) into supporting his agenda. Indeed, for liberals who want to see Obama use his political capital,

approval-spikes arent necessarily related to policy success. George

H.W. Bushs major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War
approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success . George W. Bush was
its worth noting that

able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the
year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were Democratic

the presidency is a
limited office with limited resources. Popularity with the public is a necessary part of
presidential success in Congress, but its far from sufficient.
initiatives to begin with. To repeat an oft-made point, when it comes to domestic policy,

History and empirics prove Obama PC irrelevant

Norman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a
contributing editor and columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an
election eve analyst for BBC News. He served as codirector of the AEI-Brookings
Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch series. 5-8- 2013
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-ofpresidential-leadership/
presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an
enduring mythology about great figures rising to the occasion. The term mythology doesnt mean that the stories are inaccurate;
The theme of

Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that presidents remarkable character and drive, as well as his ability to shape

Every president is compared to

Lincoln

important events.
the
leadership standard and to those set by other presidents,
and the first 100 days of every term becomes a measure of how a president is doing. I have been struck by this phenomenon a lot recently, because at
nearly every speech I give, someone asks about President Obamas failure to lead. Of course, that question has been driven largely by the media, perhaps
most by Bob Woodward. When Woodward speaks, Washington listens, and he has pushed the idea that Obama has failed in his fundamental leadership
tasknot building relationships with key congressional leaders the way Bill Clinton did, and not working his will the way LBJ or Ronald Reagan did. Now,
after the failure to get the background-check bill through the Senate, other reporters and columnists have picked up on the same theme, and I have grown
increasingly frustrated with how the mythology of leadership has been spread in recent weeks. I have yelled at the television set, Didnt any of you ever
read Richard Neustadts classic Presidential Leadership? Havent any of you taken Politics 101 and read about the limits of presidential power in a

No one schmoozed more or

better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his
signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats to limp over the finish line. How
did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House? No one knew Congress, or the
buttons to push with every key lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress,
largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own party in both houses. But after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen
majorities receded, LBJs mastery of Congress didnt mean squat. No one defined the agenda
or negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he work his will? On almost every major issue,
separation-of-powers system? But the issue goes beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history.

he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with
significant tax increases. But he was able to do itas he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reformbecause he had key
Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises. For Obama, we knew from the get-go that he had no Republicans willing to work with

GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan

determined on inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and his congressional
Democratic allies from getting any Republican votes for any of his priorities or initiatives. Schmoozing
was not going to change that . Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the
him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do, key

press has focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted against the Manchin-Toomey plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball

even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three colleagues to vote for the
plan, the Democrats would still have fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the routine hurdle in the Senatebecause 41
of 45 Republicans voted no. And as Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory. Indeed, the theme of
presidential arm-twisting again ignores history. Clinton once taught Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama a
with Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But

lesson, cutting out jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched parties, joined the Republicans, and became a reliable vote
against Clinton. George W. Bush and Karl Rove decided to teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson, punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That worked even better
he switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their Senate majority.

Myths are so much easier than reality.

Winners Win
Forcing controversial fights key to Obamas agenda- try or die
for the link turn
Dickerson 1/18/13 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!,
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second
_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)
On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped
to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears
capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates.

Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester, and budget will follow. After the
election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they
don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will
end soon. Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George
Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements
seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much
for Obamas second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to
common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been
tried and it didnt work. People dont believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup

The challenge for

Obamas speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the
environment stinks. Enhancing the presidents legacy requires something more than
simply the clever application of predictable stratagems. Washingtons partisan rancor, the size of the
problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all
point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship
and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform
American politics, he must go for the throat. President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the
poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works is doing serious harm to the country.
President

achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the
military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no
executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he
wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But
there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate
change, and immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he

Obama of the first administration might have approached the task by

finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to some of their demands in hope that he would
win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more schmoozing with
lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will
work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the
Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by
schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other
constraints will limit the chance for cooperation . Republican lawmakers worried
about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most
18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obamas only remaining
option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to
delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues,
he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the
party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
wants to be bold? The Barack

Winners Win---A2: Link Outweighs

Turn outweighs- comparative
Gergen 2k [David, American political consultant and former presidential advisor
who served during the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, Director
of the Center for Public Leadership and a professor of public service at Harvard
Kennedy School, Editor-at-large for U.S. News and World Report, Senior Political
Analyst for CNN, Eyewitness to Power, p. 285]
A chief executive who
exercises leadership well in a hard fight will see his reputation and strength grow for
future struggles. Nothing gives a president more political capital than a strong,
bipartisan victory in Congress. That's the magic of leadership. Clinton, after passage of his
As Richard Neustadt has pointed out, power can beget power in the presidency.

budget and NAFTA, was at the height of his power as president. Sadly, he couldn't hold.

Winners Win---A2: Not True

Empirically true reciprocal relationship
Green 10 [David Michael, Professor of political science at Hofstra University, The
Do-Nothing 44th President, June 12th, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-DoNothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html]
The fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a
reactive object, essentially the victim of events and other political forces, rather than the single greatest center of
power in the country, and arguably on the planet. He is the Mr. Bill of politicians. People sometimes excuse the
Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But what they
fail to understand - and, most crucially, what he fails to understand - is the nature of the modern presidency.
Successful presidents today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive outcomes in their
preferred direction, but shape the very character of the debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the

is a continuously evolving and

reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way
that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving
his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around . This
is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially
the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan
and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all
too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a
clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless
hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By
jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next
to power, of being part of the winning team . And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now
debate, but they determine which items are on the docket. Moreover, there

retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did. But the game of successfully governing is substantive as well

timidity turns out not to yield the safe course

anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent undoing .
as psychological. More often than not,

three cases mentioned at the top of this essay are paradigmatic.

The

Winners Win---A2: Too Slow

Its about perception- if Obama feels he won hell be able to
spend it forward in the short term
David Gura is a reporter for Marketplace, based in the Washington, D.C. bureau.
He regularly reports on Congress and the White House, economic and fiscal policy
and the implementation of financial reform 11-7- 2012
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/campaign-trail/balance-sheet-politicalcapital
Bush told reporters two days after he won a second term: I earned capital
And now I intend to spend it. Political capital can be very
valuable. It gives a politician a sense that the public has his back, that he can flex a little
more muscle when he is negotiating with Congress. But as President Bush learned, political capital
isnt something a two-term president gets automatically. Its not a given, just by winning, say
Brian Brox, a professor of political science at Tulane University. Its how you win. A politician can get
political capital if he wins by a lot -- think Ronald Reagan, in 1984, or Bill Clinton, in 1996. President Bushs
This is what President George W.

in the campaign, political capital.

margin of victory wasnt huge, and lets just say he may have ... mis-underestimated how little political capital he had. His push to

According to Alan Abramowitz, who teaches political science

at Emory University, Political capital is in the eye of the beholder. That makes it a really risky
asset. A politician can spend more than he actually has .
revamp Social Security went nowhere.

*** IMPACTS

Impact Defense---Economy
Economy resilient debt ceiling and gridlock prove even if crises
hinder growth, they dont prevent it
Perez 13 {Tom, US Secretary of Labor, former law professor (Maryland), M.A.
Public Policy (Harvard), Ph.D. in Law (Harvard), The Resilience of the American
Economy, US Department of Labor, 11/8, http://social.dol.gov/blog/the-resilienceof-the-american-economy/#THUR}
The American economy is resilient. Octobers jobs report demonstrates
continued steady growth, with the addition of 212,000 total private sector jobs in October. The
unemployment rate, which fell in September to a nearly-five year low of 7.2 percent, remains
essentially unchanged at 7.3 percent, while American manufacturers added 19,000 jobs
in the month of October. But while American businesses continue to add jobs 7.8 million over
the last 44 months of private sector job growth they do so in spite of Congress, not because of
it. Octobers job growth was undoubtedly restrained by the brinksmanship and
uncertainty created by the federal government shutdown and the near-default on the
nations debt. The American economy is resilient, but it is not immune to manufactured
crises. We see signs that suggest the shutdown had a discouraging effect on Americas
continued recovery. We remain concerned about the drop in the labor force participation rate, and American
workers on temporary layoffs rose by nearly 448,000, the largest monthly increase in the history of that series of
data. The American people deserve leadership that focuses on growing the economy not
holding it hostage. Lets keep our eye on the ball by passing immigration reform, which has bipartisan support and
would inject a trillion dollars into the economy, and investing in infrastructure upgrades that would create
thousands of middle class jobs right now. Instead of erecting political roadblocks, lets work together to pave

employment numbers are a reminder that while the

economy continues to grow and create new jobs, it remains on uncertain
footing. Too many Americans still find the rungs on the ladder of opportunity beyond their reach. We need to
bipartisan roads to full recovery. Todays

move forward with common-sense proposals that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, reduce our deficit
and expand opportunity for American families. The president and I stand ready to work with Congress to do just
that.

No impact to economic decline prefer new data

Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic
Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1,
January 2014, pp. 123-164
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the
Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of
the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to
increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine
concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict
whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a
ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in
the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled
impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest
otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that
"the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in
2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the

financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other

studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent
conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular
decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.
Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in
protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Impact Defense---Economy---Ext---No War

No econ decline war---best and most recent data
Drezner, 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, The Irony of Global Economic
Governance: The System Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgove rnance.org/wpcontent/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-EconomicGovernance.pdf
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted
that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for
staying in power.37 Whether through greaterinternal repression, diversionary wars,
arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict, there were genuine concerns that the
global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the
South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public
disorder. The aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and
Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012
report is that The

average level ofpeacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in

2007.38 Interstateviolence in particular has declined since the start of the financial
crisis as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm
thatthe Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict ; the secular
decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes,
the

crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic
exclusion that might have been expected.40 None of these data suggest that the global economy
is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational
capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank
lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar
recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the
Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard V-shaped
recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of

Given the severity, reach and depth

of the2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by
that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and
contained depression.41 The key word is contained, however.

Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most
severe global recession since World War II and not even worse must be regarded as fortunate.42

No impact
Barnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher Naval War College, The New
Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis, Asset Protection Network, 825, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financialcrisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with
all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of
the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and
recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over
the past year and realize how globalization's first truly

worldwide recession has had virtually no

impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than threedozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global

recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine)
predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last
century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war"
begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the
opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S.
presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two
breakaway regions. Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil

Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dustthe only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both
tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global
conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements.
up,

economic trends. And with the U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major
interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the
planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the
usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with
pirates off Somalia's coast).

Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it

burn , occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for
example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: No significant
uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece,
Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single
state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises
even triggered); No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the
emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing
efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any
rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's
occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United
States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in
Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the
late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented
"stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-

Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to

radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies
remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both
markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate economies from
immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no
great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was
designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic
radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the
Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as alQaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting evangelicalism as
power dynamic caused by the crisis.
political

disconnecting fundamentalism. At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening
to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -- and
much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary
reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in
it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world
of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly
constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes
undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that this global financial crisis has proven the
great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses

along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I

expect the fantastic fear-

mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.

Impact Defense---Economy---A2: Diversionary

Theory
Diversionary theory is wrong leaders turn inward
D. Scott Bennett, Ph.D., The U of Michigan, Distinguished prof of Political Science,
and Timothy Nordstrom, Associate prof. Director of Graduate Studies @ U of
Mississippi, February 2000, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 44, No.1
INTERNAL CONDITIONS AND EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR: IMPROVEMENTS By coming at externalization from the
substitutability perspective, we hope to deal with some of the theoretical problems raised by critics of diversionary
conflict theory. Substitutability can be seen as a particular problem of model specification where the dependent
variable has not been fully developed. We believe that one of the theoretical problems with studies of
externalization has been a lack of attention to alternative choices; Bueno de Mesquita actually hints toward this

it is shortsighted to conclude
a leader will uniformly externalize in response to domestic problems at the expense
of other possi- ble policy choices (1985, 130). We hope to improve on the study of externalization and
(and the importance of foreign policy substitution) when he argues that
that

behavior within rivalries by considering multiple outcomes in response to domestic conditions.5 In particular, we will

leaders may internalize when faced

with domestic economic troubles. Rather than diverting the attention of the public or relevant elites
through military action, leaders may actually work to solve their internal problems internally.
Tying internal solutions to the external environment, we focus on the possibility that leaders may work to
disengage their country from hostile relationships in the international arena to deal with
domestic issues. Domestic problems often emerge from the challenges of spreading finite resources across
many different issue areas in a manner that satisfies the public and solves real problems. Turning inward for
some time may free up resources required to jump-start the domestic economy or may simply provide
leaders the time to solve internal distributional issues . In our study, we will focus on the
focus on the alternative option that instead of exter- nalizing,

condition of the domestic economy (gross domes- tic product [GDP] per capita growth) as a source of pressure on
leaders to externalize. We do this for a number of reasons. First, when studying rivalries, we need an indicator of
potential domestic trouble that is applicable beyond just the United States or just advanced industrialized
democracies. In many non-Western states, variables such as election cycles and presidential popularity are
irrelevant. Economics are important to all countries at all times. At a purely practical level, GDP data is also more
widely available (cross-nationally and historically) than is data on inflation or unemploy- ment.6 Second, we believe

economic conditions are a source of potential political problems to which

leaders must pay attention. Slowing growth or worsening economic conditions may lead to
mass dissatisfaction and protests down the road; economic problems may best be dealt with at
an early stage before they turn into outward , potentially violent, conflict. This leads us to a
that fundamental

third argument, which is that we in fact believe that it may be more appropriate in general to use indicators of
latent conflict rather than manifest conflict as indicators of the potential to divert.

Once the citizens of a

are so distressed that they resort to manifest conflict (rioting or engaging in open
it may be too late for a leader to satisfy them by engaging in distracting
foreign policy actions. If indeed leaders do attempt to distract people's attention, then if protest reaches a high
country

protest),

level, that attempt has actually failed and we are looking for correlations between failed externalization attempts
and further diversion.

Best economic models proveleaders resort to territorial

diversions instead of conflict
Tir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign and is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs
at the University of Georgia, Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and
Territorial Conflict, The Journal of Politics, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425)]

Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that
poor economic performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial
conflict initiation is significant only in Models 34.14 The weak results are not
altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In accordance with the
insignificant relationships of Models 12 and 56, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood
that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create
incentives both to divert the publics attention with a foreign adventure and to focus
on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad . Similarly,
Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between a poor
economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the
conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic
conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global
studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in Models 34), Hess and
Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent
U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordhams (2002) revision of Gowas (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad
economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the publics attention from a poor
economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence
of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the
behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are
sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic
underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on
territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in
the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via

These results suggest that embattled leaders are much more

likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g.,
strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic
malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a
the economic growth variable.

more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal
territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for
the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent
with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

Impact Defense---Endocrine Disruption

Zero impact
Breithaupt, 4 (Holger Breithaupt has been the editor for the Science & Society
section of EMBO reports since the journal's launch in 2000. He studied biology and
computer science at the University of Cologne, Germany and holds a PhD from the
University of Dusseldorf in Germany. He is also a graduate of the Science and
Environmental Reporting Program at New York University, USA. "A cause without a
disease," EMBO Report, January,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1298974/)
E ndocrine- d isrupting c hemicals have become a topic of public concern
because they could potentially cause cancer and male infertility. But evidence for
a human health problem is hard to find. Endocrine disruptorsor 'gender benders' as they are often referred to by the public
have become the focus of environmentalists and public health advocates who decry a slow poisoning of humans and the environment by the chemical and consumer goods
industries. The term is a rather broad label for substances that are able to interfere with hormone receptors or hormonal pathways in the cell. Endocrine disruptors have caused
serious public concern, because their interaction with the hormone system could potentially wreak havoc with prenatal and early development and affect a wide variety of organs.
Theo Colborn, a researcher for the World Wildlife Fund, painted a bleak picture of their effects at a 2001 meeting of the US Department of the Interior: ... these chemicals can
undermine the development of the brain, and intelligence and behaviour, and the endocrine, immune and reproductive systems. ... there is now a growing collection of studies

However,
as public fear mounted, the evidence for a creeping epidemic caused by
endocrine disruptors in the environment remained elusive. In fact, early observations on
revealing that some of these chemicals can affect our children's ability to learn, to socially integrate, to fend off disease and to reproduce (Colborn, 2001).

wild and laboratory animals showed that some compounds that are able to interact with receptor molecules, in
particular with the oestrogen receptor, exert effects on the reproductive system of these animals. These
observations were accompanied by reports on the increasing incidence of breast and prostate cancer and
declining male fertility, and it was only a matter of time before the press took up the issue and parents became
concerned about this slow poisoning of their children. However, as public fear mounted, the evidence for a
creeping epidemic caused by endocrine disruptors in the environment remained elusive. Although most

more
recent analysis has shown that many of the claims about health effects were
either exaggerated or based on flawed analysis of observations. As Stephen H. Safe,
scientists now acknowledge that many substances can have an effect on the human endocrine system,

Professor of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology and of Biochemistry and Biophysics at Texas A&M
University (College Station, TX, USA) put it:

a problem.

The hypothesis is okay, but we don't even have

The scientific chapter of the endocrine disruptor story began in the early 1990s with a 'hypothesis' article in The Lancet in which Richard M. Sharpe from the MRC Reproductive Unit at the

University of Edinburgh, UK, and Niels E. Skakkebaek from the Department of Growth and Reproduction at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, wrote, exposure to exogenous oestrogens, ... during foetal and neonatal life
can lead to an increase in reproductive disorders (Sharpe & Skakkebaek, 1993). On the basis of a meta-analysis of more than 60 studies published between 1940 and 1990, they suggested that abnormalities in the
development of male sex organs and a 50% decline in sperm count could be attributed to exposure to oestrogens in utero. The finding that the prescription of an artificial oestrogen, diethylstilboestrol, for pregnant women
from the 1940s to the 1970s had caused an increased rate of cervical cancer among the daughters of these women further supported Sharpe and Skakkebaek's hypothesis, and the fear that men could also be affected did not
seem so far-fetched. Observation of wildlife also provided evidence for the effects of endocrine disruptors on reproductive health. Various publications described how chemicals suspected to have endocrine-disrupting effects,
including DDT, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are all banned, and various pesticides and fungicides, caused a wide range of reproductive disorders and deformities of sexual organs among wild animals in
polluted areas. Nonylphenol, a degradation product from many detergents, herbicides, spermicides and cosmetics, has been shown to cause imposex in oysters, which is a pseudo-hermaphroditic condition in which females
acquire male sex characteristics (Nice et al, 2003). Scientists in the UK found that oestrogenic compounds in human and agricultural wastewater triggered the feminization of male fish in British lakes and rivers. Else-where, US
scientists found that female mosquito fish in Florida exposed to pulp-mill effluent developed a gonopodium, an organ normally found only in males. Similarly, male alligators in various contaminated lakes in Florida suffered
from phallus deformations and an impaired immune system. Half of male carp caught in the Tama River in Japan were found to produce unusually large amounts of the yolk precursor protein vitellogenin, specific to female
fish. In 1996, Colborn, together with science writers Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, compiled these observations into the book Our Stolen Future and drew a straight line between the effects observed in wild
animals and human health effects, including breast and prostate cancer and decreasing male fertility caused by decreasing sperm counts, cryptorchidism (where one or both testicles fail to descend from the body) and
hypospadias (deformation of the phallus). Often compared to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Colborn's book had an enormous impact on public opinion and triggered intense media coverage about the suspected epidemic of
cancers and male infertility. The media obtained further ammunition when Fred vom Saal and co-workers at the University of Missouri (Columbia, MO, USA) showed that bisphenol A (BPA), a commonly used compound found in
many plastics, caused abnormal prostate growth and decreased sperm production in rats at doses far lower than those considered to be safe (Nagel et al, 1997; vom Saal et al, 1998). Patricia Hunt at Case Western Reserve

Although industrial
and academic researchers have so far failed to reproduce vom Saal's findings, his
work has become the main argument for public health advocates who seek to
ban chemicals such as BPA because they can exert their toxic effects at
extremely low doses. In fact, a series of studies that closely investigated the
original publications claiming an increase in breast and prostate cancer and a
decline in male fertility found that this is not so. The political reaction to these reports was swift, particularly in the USA.
University (Cleveland, OH, USA) observed that BPA caused severe aberrations of the meiotic cell division in mouse oocytes in up to 40% of all cases (Hunt et al, 2003).

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened two workshops in 1995 to make recommendations for research into the health threat of endocrine disruptors, including
their effects on reproductive, neurological and immunological function and carcinogenic activity. In 1996, the US Congress amended the Food Quality Protection Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act to require the testing of food-use pesticides and drinking water contaminants for endocrine activity, which mandated the EPA to screen up to 70,000 chemicals
regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act for endocrine-disruptive effects. In 1999, the EPA launched the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and is now
developing animal tests and other assays to screen for hormone activity. In Japan, the Ministry of the Environment decided to start risk assessment studies on more than 40
substances suspected to have endocrine-disrupting effects (Iguchi et al, 2002). On 29 October 2003, the European Commission proposed a new regulatory framework for all
chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of more than a tonne per year. Among the chemicals labelled as being of 'very high concern' that require authorization for

The only problem is

that nobody actually knows whether the levels of endocrine disruptors in the
particular use are substances that could cause reproductive damage or affect fetal developmentin other words, endocrine disruptors.

environment are a threat to public health. The so-called epidemic of endocrine

diseases remains to be established, said Raphael J. Witorsch, Professor of Physiology at Virginia
Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA, USA. A working group, convened by the Royal Society of London,
UK, that investigated the health threat of endocrine- disrupting chemicals (EDCs) came to the same conclusion:
whilst

high levels of exposure to some EDCs could theoretically increase the risk
of such disorders, no direct evidence is available at present (The Royal Society, 2000).
Richard Sharpe, one of the original authors of the endocrine disruptor hypothesis,
also acknowledged that the threat [to human health] is minimal. In fact, a
series of studies that closely investigated the original publications claiming an
increase in breast and prostate cancer and a decline in male fertility found that
this is not so. We now know that this is absolutely not true , Safe said about health
advocates who warn that endocrine disruptors could cause a worldwide epidemic of disorders and diseases.

many of the original epidemiological analyses were flawed and

lacked confounding factors. In addition, large-scale studies among elderly women in the USA
and the UK showed that the increase in breast and cervical cancer was caused
mainly by hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women (Brower,
2003) rather than hormonally active compounds in the environmen t. In fact, many
of the chemicals under suspicion bind only weakly to the oestrogen receptor and
it is not clear whether they have an estrogenic, anti-estrogenic or anti-androgenic
effect. Furthermore, critics maintain that EDCs have to compete with more
effectively binding natural oestrogens that are abundant in the diet, in medicines
and in contraceptives at much higher concentrations. In terms of magnitude and
extent, all such exposures to so-called endocrine disruptors are dwarfed by the
extensive use of oral contraceptives and estrogens for the treatment of
menopausal and post-menopausal disorders. Also, the exposure to hormonally
active xenobiotics is virtually insignificant when compared with the intake of the
phytoestrogens that are present in food and beverages, commented Robert Nilsson,
According to Witorsch,

Professor of Toxicology at Stockholm University, Sweden (Nilsson, 2000). So we've got all these
[phytohormones] out there in the diet, Safe concluded, but my

scepticism is how could small

concentrations [of other chemicals] in the environment be a problem?

No endocrine disruption
Milloy 3 (Steven - adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, June 20, Fox News,
Pesticide-Sperm Count Link Is Impotent
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89913,00.html)
Secondly,

theres no known biological support

for Swans idea

that pesticides

affect sperm quality. Tests do not indicate that alachlor, diazinon and atrazine, for
example, produce toxic effects in the reproductive systems of laboratory animals. A reproductive
biologist from the Environmental Protection Agency (search) told USA Today that rodent studies suggest that even
the highest pesticide levels found in Swans subjects would have been too low to
affect sperm quality. And just because the Missouri men had lower sperm counts and higher pesticide
exposure than the Minneapolis men doesnt automatically mean that pesticides have anything to do with sperm

A University of Virginia fertility expert told The Associated Press that he was skeptical
of the findings because of the lack of historical documentation of the effect of toxins
on sperm. Sperm counts are known to vary geographically . There is no certain explanation for
production.

the phenomenon, although some studies indicate that men in colder regions seem to have higher sperm counts
than men in warmer areas. And its really not surprising that men from the agricultural Boone County, Mo., would
have more pesticide exposure than an urban area such as Minneapolis. Swans data simply arent unexpected and

her tenuous conclusions arent surprising given her track record of eco-activist, anti-pesticide research.

Though anti-pesticide activists

(search)

have tried for years to link

pesticides with declining sperm counts, one key fact stands in their way -theres no evidence that sperm counts are even declining, much less that
pesticides are involved. In 1999, researchers published in the Journal of Urology (search)
a review of all 29 studies from 1938 to 1996 reporting semen analyses of fertile men. They
concluded, there appears to be no significant change in sperm counts in the U.S.
during the last 60 years.

Impact Defense---Endocrine Disruption---Ext---No

Endocrine Disruption
No correlations between endocrine disruption and
reproductive problems
Safe 4 (7/25/04 (Stephen Safe, Department of Veterinary Physiology and
Pharmacology, Endocrine disruptors and human health: is there a problem,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-4CY0H602&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVer
sio n=0&_userid=10&md5=9748c3f8ba3fdb13c0366dec72a77243)
It has been hypothesized that endocrine-active chemicals (EACs) may be responsible
for the increased incidence of breast cancer and disorders of the male reproductive tract.
Synthetic chemicals with estrogenic activity (xenoestrogen) and the organochlorine environmental contaminants
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDE have been the prime etiologic suspects. However, results of extensive
research on PCBs and DDE does not show a correlation between PCB/DDE exposure and development of breast

Studies also show that sperm count levels vary with demography, and the
hypothesized coordinate global decrease in sperm counts and other disorders of the
male reproductive tract is not supported by published data. In contrast, testicular
cancer is increasing in most countries, and causal environmental/lifestyle factors for
this disease are unknown.
cancer.

Multiple studies prove

Safe 00 (Stephen, Endocrine Disruptors in Earth Report 2000 pg. 195)
sperm counts
have not decreased during the last 15 to 25 years. For example, sperm concentrations were
unchanged from 1977 to 1992 in 302 sperm donors in a clinic in Toulouse (figure 8-2).21 These
results were surprising in light of an earlier report showing sperm counts in 1352 fertile men in
Other studies in Toulouse, the United States, Finland, Sydney, and Denmark have shown that

Paris "decreased by 2.1 % per year from 80 x 10^6/mL in 1973 to 50 x 10^6/mL in 1992 (p < 0.001).'>22 Results
from the French studies were among the first to show that sperm counts within the same country may be highly
variable and that

demographic differences may be an important variable that was not

considered

in the original meta-analysis. Columbia University fertility specialist Harry Fisch and coworkers
reported on 1283men who banked sperm prior to vasectomy in clinics located in New York, California and
Minnesota.29 Their results (Figure 8,2) showed that sperm quality had not significantly changed
from 1970 through 1994 at any of the clinics; however, there were significant differences in mean sperm counts in
New York (131.5 ;ci 3.5 x 106mL), Minnesota (100.8;ci 2.9 x 106mL), and California (72.7 jci 3.1 X 106/mL). Three
recent studies have confirmed

that demography is an important variable

in semen quality.32-35 For

example, among Danish infertility clients at centers in Aalborg, Aarhus, Odense, and Sinderborg, there were differences in mean sperm count values
between centers; however, semen quality and quantity had not declined during the period from 1922 to 1972 (by birth), whereas from 1950 onward, there
was a decline in sperm counts but not in semen volume. A study of infertility clients from 11 centers in Canada showed that sperm count differences
between centers in 1984 (51 to 121 X 106/mL) and 1996 (43 to 137 X 106/mL) were greater than mean value differences in sperm concentrations in the
meta, analysis by Carlsen and coworkers.13.35 Over the 1984 to 1996 period, sperm counts decreased in 6 and increased in 5 of the centers, and analysis
of the combined results showed that sperm counts decreased slightly over the 13-year period, whereas no changes were observed if results from 1975 to
1983 were included. Geographic variability was also observed among 4710 fertile semen donors in the following cities in France: Paris, Caen, Grenoble,
Toulouse, Bordeaux, Lille, Rennes, and Tours.32 Sperm concentration varied from 103 (Lille) to 82 x l06/mL (Grenoble); sperm motility varied from 69
percent (Bordeaux) to 59 percent (Tours); and seminal volume varied from 4.3 (Caen) to 3.2 ml (Toulouse and Rennes). Handelsman also reported

an

additional variable that emerged after analysis of sperm counts from 5 different
groups of self-selected volunteers at the Andrology Unit, Royal Prince Albert in Sydney, Australia. The variability
in sperm counts was greater than 100percent (142 X 106/mL to 63 X l()6/mL), and he concluded that This

highlights the invalidity of extrapolating similar finding on sperm output of self-selected

volunteers to the general male community or in using such study groups to characterize sperm output
in supposedly 'normal' men."

No internal link exposure to endocrine disruptors does not

cause changes in human reproductive organs
Safe 00 (S H Safe Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology,
Endocrine disruptors and human health--is there a problem? An update,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1638151)
It has been hypothesized that environmental exposure to synthetic estrogenic
chemicals and related endocrine-active compounds may be responsible for a global
decrease in sperm counts, decreased male reproductive capacity, and breast cancer in women. Results
of recent studies show that there are large demographic variations in sperm counts within countries or
regions, and analyses of North American data show that sperm counts have not decreased over
the last 60 years. Analyses of records for hypospadias and cryptorchidism also show demographic differences in these disorders before
1985; however, since 1985 rates of hypospadias have not changed and cryptorchidism has actually declined. Temporal changes in sex ratios and fertility
are minimal, whereas testicular cancer is increasing in most countries; however, in Scandinavia, the difference between high (Denmark) and low (Finland)
incidence areas are not well understood and are unlikely to be correlated with differences in exposure to synthetic industrial chemicals. Results from

Thus,
many of the male and female reproductive tract problems linked to the endocrinedisruptor hypothesis have not increased and are not correlated with synthetic
industrial contaminants. This does not exclude an endocrine-etiology for some adverse environmental
studies on organochlorine contaminants (DDE/PCB) show that levels were not significantly different in breast cancer patients versus controls.

effects or human problems associated with high exposures to some chemicals.

Impact Defense---Environment
Ecosystem collapse wont cause human extinction
Raudsepp-Hearne 10 (Ciarra, PhD in the Department of Geography,
September, Untangling the Environmentalists Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being
Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade? http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-pressreleases/resources/Raudsepp-Hearne.pdf)
Although many people expect ecosystem degradation to have a negative impact on
human well-being, this measure appears to be increasing even as provision of
ecosystem services declines. From George Perkins Marshs Man and Nature in 1864 to today (Daily
1997), scientists have described how the deterioration of the many services provided by nature, such as food,

the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a comprehensive study of the worlds resources, found that
declines in the majority of ecosystem services assessed have been accompanied
by steady gains in human well-being at the global scale (MA 2005). We argue that to
climate regulation, and recreational areas, is endangering human well-being. However,

understand this apparent paradox, we need to better understand the ways in which ecosystem services are
important for human well-being, and also whether human well-being can continue to rise in the future despite
projected continued declines in ecosystem services. In this article, we summarize the roots of the paradox and
assess evidence relating to alternative explanations of the conflicting trends in ecosystem services and human

The environmentalists expectation could be articulated as: Ecological

degradation and simplification will be followed by a decline in the provision of
ecosystem services, leading to a decline in human well-being. Supporters of this
well-being.

hypothesis cite evidence of unsustainable rates of resource consumption, which in the past have had severe
impacts on human well-being, even causing the collapse of civilizations (e.g., Diamond 2005). Analyses of the
global ecological footprint have suggested that since 1980, humanitys footprint has exceeded the amount of

Although the risk of local

and regional societies collapsing as a result of ecological degradation is much
reduced by globalization and trade, the environmentalists expectation remains:
resources that can be sustainably produced by Earth (Wackernagel et al. 2002).

Depletion of ecosystem services translates into fewer benefits for humans, and therefore lower net human wellbeing than would be possible under better ecological management. By focusing on ecosystem servicesthe
benefits that humans obtain from ecosystemsthe MA set out specifically to identify and assess the links

The MA assessed ecosystem services in

four categories: (1) provisioning services, such as food, water, and forest products;
(2) regulating services, which modulate changes in climate and regulate floods,
disease, waste, and water quality; (3) cultural services, which comprise
recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and (4) supporting services, such as
soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling (MA 2003). Approximately 60% (15 of 24)
between ecosystems and human well-being (MA 2005).

of the ecosystem services assessed by the MA were found to be in decline. Most of the declining services were
regulating and supporting services, whereas the majority of expanding ecosystem services were provisioning
services, such as crops, livestock, and fish aquaculture (table 1). At the same time, consumption of more than

the use of
most ecosystem services is increasing at the same time that Earths capacity to
provide these services is decreasing. The MA conceptual framework encapsulated the
80% of the assessed services was found to be increasing, across all categories. In other words,

environmentalists expectation, suggesting tight feedbacks between ecosystem services and human well-being.

However, the assessment found that aggregate human well-being grew steadily
over the past 50 years, in part because of the rapid conversion of ecosystems to
meet human demand for food, fiber, and fuel (figure 1; MA 2005). The MA defined human wellbeing with five components: basic materials, health, security, good social relations, and freedom of choice and
actions, where freedom of choice and actions is expected to emerge from the other components of well-being.
Although the MA investigated each of the five components of well-being at some scales and in relation to some
ecosystem services, the assessment of global trends in human well-being relied on the human development

index (HDI) because of a lack of other data. The HDI is an aggregate measure of life expectancy, literacy,
educational attainment, and per capita GDP (gross domestic product) that does not capture all five components
of well-being (Anand and Sen 1992).

Ecosystems are resilient

McDermott, 9 (Mat, Editor for Business and Energy sections; Master Degree
from NYUs Center for Global Affairs in environment and energy policy. May, 27,
2009: Good News: Most Ecosystems Can Recover in One Lifetime from HumanInduced or Natural Disturbance; http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/goodnews-most-ecosystems-can-recover-in-one-lifetime-from-human-induced-or-naturaldisturbance.html)
There's a reason the phrase "let nature take its course" exists: New research done
at the Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Science reinforces the idea that
ecosystems are quiet resilient and can rebound from pollution and environmental
degradation. Published in the journal PLoS ONE, the study shows that most damaged
ecosystems worldwide can recover within a single lifetime, if the source of pollution
is removed and restoration work done. The analysis found that on average forest ecosystems
can recover in 42 years, while in takes only about 10 years for the ocean bottom to
recover. If an area has seen multiple, interactive disturbances, it can take on
average 56 years for recovery. In general, most ecosystems take longer to recover from
human-induced disturbances than from natural events, such as hurricanes. To reach
these recovery averages, the researchers looked at data from peer-reviewed studies over the past 100 years on the

the researchers found

that it appears that the rate at which an ecosystem recovers may be independent of
its degraded condition: Aquatic systems may recover more quickly than, say, a forest, because the species
rate of ecosystem recovery once the source of pollution was removed. Interestingly,

and organisms that live in that ecosystem turn over more rapidly than in the forest. As to what this all means,

Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology at Yale and report co-author, says that this
analysis shows that an increased effort to restore damaged ecosystems is justified,
and that: Restoration could become a more important tool in the management
portfolio of conservation organizations that are entrusted to protect habitats on
landscapes. We recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its
own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for
many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.

Resource needs make destruction inevitable

Mora and Sale 11 (Camilo, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, and
Peter, Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University,
Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a
review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and
sea, 6/28, http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m434p251.pdf)
The causes of biodiversity loss are varied and some are unlikely to be regulated as
part of the management of a PA (see Fig. 3). Developing actions to address those other threats requires increased
research and attention, but that is not addressed here (see Mora et al. 2009, Butchart et al. 2010). It is clear from

conservation efforts, whether through PAs alone or in

are not coping with the challenge. The data also indicate that the
likelihood of success is small unless the conservation community radically rethinks
the strategies needed. One could safely argue that biodiversity threats are ultimately
determined by the size of the worlds human population and its consumption of
the on going loss of biodiversity (Fig. 1) that current
combination with other approaches,

natural resources (Fig. 3). The explosive growth in the worlds human population in the last century
has led to an increasing demand on the Earths ecological resources and a rapid
decline in biodiversity (Fig. 3). According to recent estimates, about 1.2 Earths would be
required to support the different demands of the 5.9 billion people living on the
planet in 1999 (our Fig. 4, Kitzes et al. 2008). This excess use of the Earths resources or overshoot is
possible because resources can be harvested faster than they can be replaced and because waste can accumulate

The cumulative overshoot from the mid-1980s to 2002 resulted in an

ecological debt that would require 2.5 planet Earths to pay (Kitzes et al. 2008). In a
business-as-usual scenario, our demands on planet Earth could mount to the productivity of
27 planets Earth by 2050 (Fig. 4). Exceeding ecological demand beyond regenerative levels leads to the
(e.g. atmospheric CO2).

degradation of ecological capital (Kitzes et al. 2008), which is evident in the ongoing declining trend in biodiversity
(Fig. 3).

Impact Defense---Environment---Ext---Resiliency
Status quo destruction proves the environment cant collapse
Boucher 96 (Douglas, Center for environmental and Estuarine Studies, Science
and Society, http://www.mail-archive.com/penl@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg24262.html)
The political danger of catastrophism is matched by the weakness of its scientific foundation. Given the prevalence

it is remarkable how few good examples

ecology can provide of this happening even on the scale of an ecosystem, let alone a
continent or the whole planet. Hundreds of ecological transformations, due to introductions of
alien species, pollution, overexploitation, climate change and even collisions with
asteroids, have been documented. They often change the functioning of ecosystems, and the abundance and
of the idea that the entire biosphere will soon collapse,

diversity of their animals and plants, in dramatic ways. The effects on human society can be far-reaching, and often

one feature has been a constant, nearly

everywhere on earth: life goes on. Humans have been able to drive thousands of species
to extinction, severely impoverish the soil, alter weather patterns, dramatically
lower the biodiversity of natural communities, and incidentally cause great suffering for their posterity.
They have not generally been able to prevent nature from growing back. As ecosystems are
transformed, species are eliminatedbut opportunities are created for new ones. The natural world is
changed, but never totally destroyed. Levins and Lewontin put it well: The warning not to destroy the
environment is empty: environment, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. What we can do is
extremely negative for the majority of the population. But

replace environments we value by those we do not like (Levins and Lewontin, 1994). Indeed, from a human point

human societies have continued to

grow and develop, despite all the terrible things they have done to the earth. Examples of the
of view the most impressive feature of recorded history is that

collapse of civilizations due to their over- exploitation of nature are few and far between. Most tend to be well in the
past and poorly documented, and further investigation often shows that the reasons for collapse were
fundamentally political.

Impact Defense---Environment---Ext---Alt Causes

Global deforestation makes the impact inevitable
Sarno 8 (Niccolo, Media coordinator for FoEI; May 22, 2008; Deforestation
Threatens Biodiversity Efforts;
http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2008/deforestation-threatens-biodiversityefforts)
The continuing failure to prevent catastrophic deforestation is hampering global
efforts to reverse the loss of biodiversity and has become a major threat to forestdependent people, warned Friends of the Earth International on International Biodiversity Day, 22
May. The warning was made during a May 19-30 United Nations meeting of the
Convention on Biological Diversity. The Bonn gathering, attended by delegates from
191 countries, aims to find ways to meet a globally agreed target for reversing the
loss of biodiversity. The destruction of forests and the consequent erosion of
biodiversity severely impact millions of forest-dependent people . But it also affects
global food security and accelerates climate change , according to Belmond Tchoumba, cocoordinator of the Forest and Biodiversity Programme of Friends of the Earth International. Governments must let
local communities and Indigenous Peoples who depend on forests manage their forests, rather than evicting them

According to Friends of the Earth

International the Bonn conference participants should take immediate action to stop
the deforestation of prime forests, to stop the destructive illegal logging and to stop
the trade of illegally derived forest products. They should also oppose false
solutions such as damaging monoculture tree plantations and genetically
engineered (GE) trees. GE trees are as damaging as other monocultures, but they also pose a specific
and selling off the forests, added the Cameroonian activist.

threat to the genetic diversity of trees. Genetically engineered trees know no borders: once planted, they
contaminate large areas, according to Hubert Weiger, President of BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany.

Planting GE trees flies in the face of the precautionary approach of the Convention
on Biological Diversity. GE trees should be strongly and urgently opposed by this UN
Convention and by all national governments, he added. Forest-dependent local communities and
Indigenous Peoples around the world know how to conserve and restore forests. Their community-based activities
are successfully geared towards sustainable forest use, said Isaac Rojas, co-coordinator of the Forest and
Biodiversity Programme of Friends of the Earth International. Community forest management not only ensures the
conservation of biological diversity, it also ensures sustainable livelihoods for forest-dependent people, added the
Costa Rican activist.

Environmental destruction inevitable we havent felt the

effects of past damage yet
Sample, 12 (Ian Sample, Science Correspondent for The Guardian, Amazon's
doomed species set to pay deforestation's 'extinction debt'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/12/amazon-deforestation-speciesextinction-debt?newsfeed=true)
The destruction of great swaths of the Brazilian Amazon has turned scores of rare
species into the walking dead, doomed to disappear even if deforestation were
halted in the region overnight, according to a new study. Forest clearing in Brazil has already claimed
casualties, but the animals lost to date in the rainforest region are just one-fifth of those that will slowly die out as
the full impact of the loss of habitat takes its toll. In parts of the eastern and southern Amazon, 30 years of
concerted deforestation have shrunk viable living and breeding territories enough to condemn 38 species to
regional extinction in coming years, including 10 mammal, 20 bird and eight amphibian species, scientists found.
The systematic clearance of trees from the Amazon forces wildlife into ever-smaller patches of ground.

Though

few species are killed off directly in forest clearances, many face a slower death
sentence as their breeding rates fall and competition for food becomes more
intense. Scientists at Imperial College , London, reached the bleak conclusion after
creating a statistical model to calculate the Brazilian Amazon's "extinction debt", or
the number of species headed for extinction as a result of past deforestation. The model draws on historical
deforestation rates and animal populations in 50 by 50 kilometre squares of land. It stops short of naming the
species most at risk, but field workers in the region have drawn attention to scores of creatures struggling to cope
with habitat destruction and other environmental threats. White-cheeked spider monkeys, which feed on fruits high
in the forest canopy, are endangered largely because of the expansion of farmland and road building. The
population of Brazilian bare-faced tamarins has halved in 18 years, or three generations, as cities, agriculture and
cattle ranching has pushed into the rainforest. The endangered giant otter, found in the slow-moving rivers and

Writing
in the journal Science, Robert Ewers and his co-authors reconstructed extinction
rates from 1970 to 2008, and then forecast future extinction debts under four
different scenarios, ranging from "business as usual" to a "strong reduction" in
forest clearance, which required deforestation to slow down 80% by 2020. "For now,
the problem is along the arc of deforestation in the south and east where there is a
long history of forest loss. But that is going to move in the future. We expect most of
the species there to go extinct, and we'll pick up more extinction debt along the big,
paved highways which are now cutting into the heart of the Amazon ," Ewers told the
Guardian from Belm, northern Brazil. Under the "business as usual" scenario , where around 62 sq
miles (160 sqkm) of forest are cleared each year, at least 15 mammal, 30 bird and 10 amphibian
species were expected to die out locally by 2050, from around half of the Amazon.
Under the most optimistic scenario, which requires cattle ranchers and soy farmers to comply with
Brazilian environmental laws, the extinction debt could be held close to 38 species. Ewers said
swamps of the Amazon, faces water pollution from agricultural runoff and mining operations in the area.

the model reveals hotspots in the Brazilian Amazon where conservation efforts should be focused on the most
vulnerable wildlife. "This shows us where we are likely to have high concentrations of species which are all in
trouble, and that becomes a way for directing our conservation efforts. We are talking about an extinction debt.
Those species are still alive, so we have an opportunity to get in there and restore the habitat to avoid paying that

The Brazilian Amazon is home to 40% of the world's tropical forest and
one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet . About 54% of the area is under environmental
debt," Ewers said.

protection, and in the past five years, stricter controls and better compliance have driven deforestation rates down
to a historical low. The trend towards less deforestation might not last though. Under pressure from the financial
crisis, the Brazilian government has proposed a rapid development programme in the Amazon to fuel the economy.
The move foresees the construction of more than 20 hydroelectric power plants in the Amazon basin and an
extensive push into the rainforest. Environmentalists are further concerned about an overhaul to Brazil's Forest
Code, which is widely expected to weaken the protection of the rainforest, and potentially speed up deforestation
once more, according to an accompanying article in Science by Thiago Rangel, an ecologist at the Federal
University of Gois in Brazil. "Extinction debts in the Brazilian Amazon are one debt that should be defaulted on," he

Reducing the rate that extinction debts build up is not enough to preserve the
Amazon's biodiversity, Rangel argues. "The existing debt may eventually lead to the
loss of species. To prevent species extinctions, it is necessary to take advantage of
the window of opportunity for forest regeneration. Restored or regenerated forests
initially show lower native species richness than the original forests they replaced,
but they gradually recover species richness, composition and vital ecosystems
functions, reducing extinction debt and mitigating local species loss," he writes.
writes.

TSCA Bad---Economy
Expanded TSCA kills the economy and manufacturing
precaution overwhelming and chemical processing
Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at
Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member
of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar
Association, Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform, Environmental Law Institute,
http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-LarrisObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}
IV. The Economic Impact of Expanding EPAs Authority Under TSCA A significant
feature of EPAs six principles of reform is placing the burden on industry to evaluate the safety of
chemicals. In addition to focusing on chemical and product manufacturers, EPA would also like to expand its
authority to require submission of use and exposure information to downstream processors and
users of chemicals.18 This would mean that product manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers
would each be responsible for providing safety information to EPA and the public. The recently
passed Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) implemented a similar approach . The
CPSIA bans the manufacture for sale, distribution in commerce, or import of childrens products that contain lead or
phthalates in greater concentrations than those outlined under the timeline detailed in the CPSIA. Section 102 of
the CPSIA requires only the manufacturers of childrens products to obtain certificates of compliance from third
parties who test each product. 19 However, even though the testing requirement only falls on manufacturers,
retailers or resellers must abide by regulations in the CPSIA as well and could be subject to hefty fines if a product

retailers, including those who own small shops and second-hand stores,
are responsible for knowing the content of their inventory. 21 These retailers can be
held liable under the Act for selling noncompliant products. 22 These requirements have resulted in
significant impacts on industry, and especially small and medium sized
businesses. Smaller businesses have pointed out that they do not have the same
resources available as large manufacturers and retailers to conduct product testing and
must turn to expensive outside labs to perform this task. 23 Many of these small
businesses had never before been subject to such testing requirements, and the
CPSIA adds a great and unanticipated expense to the cost of doing business. 24 Further, the CPSIA
fails to meet the guidelines. 20 Thus,

offers no exemption from this testing requirement for products that already are in commerce, so thrift stores and
other second-hand shops must evaluate their entire inventory, much of it of unknown origin, to determine which

The burden and costs involved with these requirements have

threatened to drive many small manufacturers and retailers out of business. 26 As
a result of protests by several small business groups, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission imposed a one-year stay of testing and certification requirements on January 30, 2009.
27 The same type of impacts may be seen from EPAs proposal to similarly reform
TSCA. The impact on manufacturers alone may be significant , especially given our weakened
economy. If Congress required all manufacturers to produce data for each of the 80,000 chemicals in commerce,
regardless of exposure or frequency of use, this could have disastrous consequences for many
small manufacturers who do not have the resources available to test every chemical.
Moreover, businessesboth small and largemay not be willing to invest in the
research necessary to develop new chemicals because of the costly testing associated
with doing so, even if the new chemical has an extremely low rate of exposure. The potential impact on
products require testing. 25

jobs, innovation, and economic growth

inconsequential.

cannot be ignored

as

TSCA Bad---Health (Decentralization Best)

1NC uniqueness evidence conceded reform preempts state
laws Federal regulations fail state assistance key to reign in
toxic chemical turns endocrine disruption
Sasso 14 Toxics Across America: Report Details 120 Hazardous, Unregulated
Chemicals in the U.S. Alissa Sasso, Environmental Defense Fund, April 16, 2014,
http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/report-hazardous-unregulated-chemicals-in-u-s/
Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad
as they are, these acute incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous
chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new
report by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in
the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly
common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities and
infertility. While its no secret that modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals , many
of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the actual numbers. And under current law its harder still
to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough to establish that a sizeable share of them
end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work. The new report looks at 120 chemicals that have
been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or
suspected health hazards. Using the latestalbeit limiteddata collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
report identifies which of these chemicals are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or
importing them; where they are being produced or imported; and how they are being used. An interactive online map accompanying the report lets the

At least 81 of the
chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the U.S. annually in amounts of 1
million pounds or more. At least 14 chemicals exceed 1 billion pounds produced or imported
annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine
disruptor bisphenol Aor BPA. More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and
commercial products. At least eight chemicals are used in childrens products. The interactive map shows
user access the reports data and search by chemical, by company, by state and by site location. Among the findings:

these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas,

the report shows how

deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce , the chemicals identified represent just
part of the story. Companies making or importing up to 12-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a
given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential
business information, masking it from public disclosure. The EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies
often dont know and arent required to find out where or how the chemicals they
make are being used. Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these
chemicals to make sure were safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law, officials are
virtually powerless to limit even chemicalssuch as those featured in the reportwe know or have good
reason to suspect are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger
safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use
these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals. While

Federal regulation is caught up in regulatory capture state

regs empirically work
Hartmann 14 There Is an Enormous Amount of Unregulated Poisonous
Chemicals In Our Country Thom Hartmann - author and nationally syndicated daily

talk show host, April 18, 2014, http://www.alternet.org/environment/theres-toxicdisaster-inside-every-one-us

We are all lab rats in one giant,

toxic, and deadly

experiment.

The

Environmental Defense Fund has released a new report, titled "Toxics Across America," which looks at the billions of pounds of toxic and potentially deadly
chemicals that are currently in the American marketplace. The report looks at 120 chemicals that have been identified by state, federal and international
officials as hazardous to our health. It also looks at which of those chemicals are currently distributed in the U.S, what amounts they are being produced
in, where they are being manufactured and which companies are responsible for them. The report's key findings include that at least 81 of the chemicals
studied are produced in or imported to the U.S. each year in amounts of 1 million pounds or more. Also, 14 of the chemicals studied come in at quantities
of 1 billion pounds or more per year, including known carcinogens, or cancer-causing chemicals, like formaldehyde and benzene. And, at least 90 of the

With billions
of pounds of toxic chemicals being produced and used in the United States each year, you'd
think that our government would have strict regulations in place to monitor those
chemicals, and to keep Americans safe from them. You would be wrong. Thanks to
billions of dollars from Big Chem and relentless lobbying efforts, regulations on deadly
chemical production and use in America are virtually non-existent. So, where are these unregulated, toxic and potentially deadly
chemicals that the EDF studied are commonly found in consumer and commercial products, including 8 used in children's products.

chemicals being used? All around us, making us all lab rats for Big Chem. Four million households in America still have dangerous levels of lead, despite
lead being banned in paints back in 1978. As result, the CDC estimates that more than 500,000 children in the U.S. have "elevated" levels of lead in their
blood. Even small amounts of lead in children have been linked to crime, behavioral problems, dyslexia, decreased IQ and a variety of other health
problems. Meanwhile, the carcinogen formaldehyde, used by funeral homes to embalm bodies, is a common chemical found in plywood, hardwood
paneling and even furniture. As formaldehyde ages, it evaporates and turns into a vapor, which we breathe in, and which accumulates in our bodies,
increasing our risks of developing cancer. We're literally being embalmed by our houses and offices! Another category of popular chemicals used in
household furniture is flame retardants. While they sounded like a great idea back in the 1970s when they were first introduced to the market, we now
know that flame retardant chemicals can cause a variety of health problems, including early-onset puberty, diminished IQ and thyroid problems. And
according to the CDC, flame retardant chemicals are now found in the bodies of "nearly all" Americans. Then there's Teflon, the chemical used to treat the
pots and pans that we use for cooking, so that they're non-sticking. According to the Science Advisory Board of the EPA, Teflon is in all of us, and it's most
likely a carcinogen. These are just a few of the thousands of potentially deadly chemicals that surround us every day, and that are building up in our
bodies. Back in 2001, as part of a story on chemicals in the environment, Bill Moyers had his blood tested for industrial chemicals that had built up in his
body. The results showed that he had 84 industrial chemicals present in his blood that were not supposed to be there. That was 10 years ago. Imagine how

while we're seeing explosions in

obesity, cancer and autism just to name a few all around us, it'll be years to decades
before we know which of these chemicals are causing what problems. Thanks to
weak regulations and safety standards, Big Chem has turned America into one giant
science experiment, and we are all the lab rats, forced without our consent or knowledge to deal
with the side effects. Fortunately, there's a way to stop all of this madness , and to prevent
many more chemicals are in Bill's blood, and in the blood of you and me, today. And,

America from becoming an even bigger toxic waste dump. It's called the Precautionary Principle. Basically, it means that if something could potentially be
harmful or deadly, then it has to be proven safe BEFORE millions of people can be exposed to it. Countries all over the world follow the precautionary
principle, to ensure that their citizens are safe and that dangerous products don't make it to market. In fact, the precautionary principle is so important in
the European Union that it's been made a law, and even has its own website. But here in America, when giant corporations hear "precautionary principle,"
they think about money, and the millions of dollars they would have to "waste" on testing products before throwing them into our food, putting them into
our homes, or pouring them over our bodies. And, since corporations are running things these days in Washington thanks to the Roberts Supreme Court,

communities in America who are waking up.

Back in 2005, the City of San Francisco passed a "precautionary principle purchasing"
ordinance, which requires that city to look at the environmental and health costs of
every purchase it makes, from office paper to keyboard cleaners.
our lawmakers are afraid of the precautionary principle too. There are, however, some

TSCA Bad---Health (Decentralization Best)---A2:

Reform Solves
Fed regs fail singular authority makes regulatory capture too
easy
Widman 10 Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a
Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product
Safety and Improvement Act of 2008Amy Widman - legal Director, Center for
Justice & Democracy J.D., cum laude, New York University, Fall, 2010 Yale Law &
Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the operation of the many federal agencies. n29 Rulemaking, the process by which agencies create
regulations, was at first an afterthought but eventually became a significant form of agency action. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Congress began
creating agencies with direct rulemaking powers. n30 To ensure fairness in the promulgation and enforcement of regulations, the APA requires notice-andcomment procedures and evidence of reasoned decision making. n31 Along with deference and other review doctrines, n32 these are some of the most
studied features of administrative law. n33 Enforcement mechanisms are a less recognized and studied means [*174] of ensuring fairness in
administrative procedure. n34 However, all of these doctrines are relevant for assessing the balance of power between federal agencies and states. n35

This Article will focus on one particular agency, its history and enforcement record,
and Congress's responses to the agency's failures. Congress created the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972 to closely regulate product safety . n36 The CPSC has the authority to set safety
standards, require labeling, order recalls, ban products, collect death and injury data, inform the public about consumer product safety, and contribute to

executive branch nominates commissioners to run the

CPSC. n37 The executive branch also exerts less formal control over agency action
through the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which reviews agency
rules according to a cost-benefit analysis and for general compliance with the
administration's policy goals. n38 Such executive control can greatly affect the actions
taken, or not taken, by the agencies . n39 Since lobbyists need only focus on one
branch - the executive - in order to undercut regulation, the current configuration is
ripe for capture. n40 Recently, under an executive administration particularly favorable toward [*175] industry, the CPSC
suffered from lack of leadership and inadequate funding.
the process by which voluntary standards are set. The

Prefer Empirics fed regs get watered down and arent

enforced state power key to fill in
Widman 10 Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a
Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product
Safety and Improvement Act of 2008Amy Widman - legal Director, Center for
Justice & Democracy J.D., cum laude, New York University, Fall, 2010 Yale Law &
Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165
Capture of agencies has been a concern since their
creation. n69 Executive administrations in some cases have appointed lobbyists or people with
industry ties to ensure that regulatory agencies advance industry priorities . These
appointments compromise the appearance and reputation of administrative agencies. n70 The Bush
II. The Consumer Product Safety Commission Case Study

Administration appointed enough lobbyists to positions of power within administrative agencies that special interests appeared to dominate politics. n71 A

"government is pretty
much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." n72 The experience of
the CPSC was reflective of the Bush Administration's general approach to administrative oversight. n73 An
examination of the failures of the CPSC and the congressional response to those failures shows how lax enforcement
compromised consumer protection and weakened the Agency. A. The Regulatory Players and Recent
2004 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64% of Americans [*180] agreed with the statement that

Agency Inaction In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Michael Baroody as chair of the CPSC. For thirteen years, Mr. Baroody had been chief
lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), an industry trade group representing the largest manufacturing firms. n74 He withdrew his
nomination [*181] after his $ 150,000 severance package from NAM was publicized. n75 President Bush never nominated another chair, leaving Nancy

Nord, one of the CPSC commissioners he had appointed, as acting chair until the Obama Administration nominated Inez Moore Tenenbaum as chair in May of 2009. n76 Ms. Nord also had
ties to corporate lobbying groups, having served as executive director of the American Corporate Counsel Association and Director of Consumer Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. n77 Senate Democrats and consumer groups repeatedly called for her resignation after she opposed a bill that would have directed more money and resources to the Agency after
numerous product recalls in 2007. n78 Meanwhile, the CPSC was not keeping dangerous products out of the marketplace. After nine-month-old Liam Johns suffocated in his Simplicity crib, n79 the CPSC did nothing. Despite Liam's
death, two more infant deaths, seven [*182] nonfatal infant injuries, and fifty-five other incidents, all involving Simplicity's drop rail, the CPSC did nothing for over two years. n80 This delay alone is a violation of CPSC regulations. n81
It took a series of articles by the Chicago Tribune and pressure from Illinois's attorney general for the Agency to investigate and recall nearly one million Simplicity cribs in September 2007. n82 The CPSC's missteps continued even
after the cribs were recalled, however. Despite the fact that the CPSC is required to ensure that the remedy chosen by the manufacturer makes the product safe, n83 the Agency did not compel Simplicity to make repair kits
immediately available to parents wanting to fix their defective cribs; nor did it bar Simplicity from sending out non-CPSC-approved replacement parts without installation instructions. n84 Even five months after the [*183] recall, the

CPSC "refused to release information on the progress of the Simplicity recall, ... [including] refusing to say if kits [had] been mailed out, if further injuries [had] taken place or what
actions Simplicity is [had taken] to remedy the situation." n85 This is one example of many where the CPSC failed to follow its own recall and investigatory protocols. n86 The crib

problems were not isolated regulatory failures. Throughout these years of inadequate leadership, the CPSC failed to keep dangerous and de ective products off the shelves and had a
poor investigatory and enforcement response once dangerous products were discovered. n87 For example, from 2005 to 2007, there were, on average, 62,900 emergency injuries each
year linked to products marketed for children younger than five, like baby carriers, car seats, and cribs. n88 Recalls came late, as with the recall of Evenflo high chairs after 1140

reports of injuries. n89 In another example, the dangers posed by magnets in toys were reported to the CPSC as early as 2005, yet no action was taken
until March of 2006, and even then the CPSC "issued a weak, confusing recall, leaving dangerous products on store shelves. It wasn't until almost two
years later that a full recall was announced." n90 Fines were virtually nonexistent, even for companies [*184] with repeated recalls. n91 The CPSC showed

some states determined

it was time to attempt to fill the vast federal regulatory void. Media investigations and public outcry
spurred a few state attorneys general to act. n93 States such as Oregon, New Jersey, Washington,
Maryland, and Illinois passed their own laws governing the recall process in 2008 . n94
a tendency to settle with manufacturers rather than prosecute violations of safety regulations. n92 In 2007,

Although it is unclear whether these recent CPSC failures were due to a regulatory failure, an enforcement failure, an institutional failure resulting from a
lack of funding and political support, or some combination of the three, Congress would soon enact comprehensive reform.

TSCA Bad---Health (Specific Bill)

Reform worse for health kills regs prevents state action,
reflects industry interests, and blocks regs of certain chemicals
Wheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental
regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science
(Keene State College), Erin Brockovich Denounces Latest Chemical Law Reform
Bill, The Hill, 3/11, http://thehill.com/regulation/235346-erin-brockovich-denounceslatest-chemical-law-reform-bill#THUR}**language modified
Brockovich is calling legislation introduced Tuesday to reform the nations
toxic chemical laws an industry bill. This bill does not make chemicals safer, she
said. I wouldnt even consider it in my opinion a [Toxic Chemicals Control Act, or TSCA] bill. Its an
industry bill. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) unveiled the Frank R. Lautenberg
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on Tuesday. Its the latest push to reform the TSCA of 1976, which is
widely considered broken and unenforceable. But in a press call led by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)
Wednesday, Brockovich said the bill would take away states rights in regulating
Consumer advocate Erin

harmful chemicals like asbestos. If we

take away

states rights and

dump

this back on the EPA, which is already overburdened, understaffed and without
state funds, to me thats

insanity, [futility] she said. Brockovich is best know for building the case
against the California-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in 1993. Despite a lack of formal education, she exposed
the company for leaking toxic Chromium 6 into the ground water and poisoning residents in the town of Hinkley.
Julia Roberts won an Oscar playing Brockovich in the 2000 movie. Now Brockovich is now an advocate for

Though sponsors of the TSCA refrom bill say it will balance state and
federal regulations, EWG says the wording of the bill differs from what's being
presented. EWG President and Co-founder Ken Cook said the states would be preempted from
taking action on any chemical that the EPA deems a high priority and begins to
review, a safety assessment, which under the proposed law could take up to seven years.
environmental issues.

The

public, he said, should be "very alarmed." With respect to public health, this

keystone on steroids, he said.

is

TSCA Bad---Health (Specific Bill)---A2: No Focus DA

Yes trade-off
Pearson 4/24 {Sam, syndicated columnist focusing on the environment, former
researcher at The Center for Public Integrity, M.A. in Journalism and Public Affairs
(American University), B.A. in government-journalism (California State University,
Sacramento), Groups Struggle To Communicate On TSCA Reform -- Especially When
Many Voters Think It's Already Happened, Energy & Environment Publishing, 2015,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060017361#THUR}
Cook says he worries that if Congress passes an inadequate TSCA fix , the public will
stop paying attention again.
"A setback on TSCA will be a huge setback for the entire environmental

movement," Cook said. "I don't think it's dawned on people yet that this could
be a real black eye and set a really bad precedent for the environmental
community if this thing gets away from us. We've got to fight it, and we will."

TSCA Fails---Economy
Udall-Vitter reform doesnt solve uncertainty and conflicting state
regs
Brodwin 4/6 {David, vice president of media and communications at American
Sustainable Business Council, professor (Golden Gate University), former Executive
Director of the Rockridge Institute, B.A. (Harvard), MBA (Stanford University
Graduate School of Business), Let the EPA Be a Real Referee, US News and World
Report, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economicintelligence/2015/04/06/senate-tsca-reform-bill-doesnt-let-epa-be-real-chemicalreferee#THUR}
The current situation doesnt satisfy anyone . The lack of clarity about what products are safe and
what products are dangerous creates legal risk for manufacturers, public health risk for consumers, and makes it
hard to raise money to commercialize better alternatives. In addition, chemical manufacturers
hate the complexity and uncertainty that results when any state can create its own
unique regulations. This situation cries out for streamlining and offers potential improvements to all
stakeholders. A bill is working its way through Congress with the awkward name of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the
21st Century Act, and the unpronounceable acronym FLCSA. This bill

is co-sponsored by Sens. David Vitter, RLa., and Tom Udall, D-N.M. Despite the presence of the words chemical safety in its name, this
bill appears designed to delay and drag out the process of testing chemicals to
determine their safety. In turn, it will obstruct the innovators who stand poised to
bring new and better chemicals to market. The bill mandates a slow pace: only
25 chemicals will be reviewed in the first three years of work. The bill prevents the EPA
from taking action on chemicals found to be toxic without an exhaustive, case-bycase investigation of each specific product in which a hazardous chemical is used (and there could be
hundreds). Finally, the bill prevents states from preempting federal regulation, even
when no federal regulation has been formulated yet. All of these provisions will have
the effect of further slowing an already slow and cumbersome process. These rules
are designed to delay decisions as long as possible, rather than make quick
decisions quickly based on sound science.

The Senate bill is too complex and doesnt allow new growth
Bernstein 6/11 {Zach, Research Associate at the American Sustainable
Business Council, M.A. in Public Communication and a B.A. in Political Science
(American University), The Market for Safer Chemistry Is Huge, and Congress
Should Help, GreenBiz, 2015, http://www.greenbiz.com/article/market-saferchemistry-huge-and-congress-should-help#THUR}
There have been some efforts of late, beginning with a pair of bills in the last Congress and
continuing into this session. One bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
named for the late New Jersey senator, a strong advocate of reforming TSCA represents a bipartisan approach.

However, this overly complex bill falls short as currently drafted, and places
roadblocks in the safety review process that ultimately would protect
incumbent industries. The U.S. House of Representatives is considering its own TSCA reform bill,
called the TSCA Modernization Act. This is a narrower bill that shows promise towards
creating a functional chemical review process at EPA. With a smarter, workable review process, it

will create market signals that will lead to incentives for safer chemistries and safer
alternatives.

TSCA Fails---EPA
EPA doomed New Congress feels they have a mandate to
reign in regs
Trabish 12/29 {Herman K, energy columnist, Poll finds support for EPA low
ahead of standoff with Congress, Utility Dive, 2014,
http://www.utilitydive.com/news/poll-finds-support-for-epa-low-ahead-of-standoffwith-congress/347746/}
Dive Brief: Just 32% of likely voters have a favorable impression of the Environmental Protection
Agency while 40% think EPA regulations and actions are detrimental to the economy, according
to a Rasmussen Reports poll taken December 21 and 22. The results the worst in the three years of
EPA polling come as the agencys efforts to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have
provoked the incoming Republican Congressional leadership to prioritize limiting EPA
authority and its budget. Republican concern with the EPA centers on its proposed Clean Power Plan, which would
reduce U.S. GHGs 30% by 2030. The plan would impose on states the requirement to make coal plants more efficient, move from
coal to natural gas, switch to more nuclear and renewable power, or institute more energy efficiency. Dive Insight: Incoming Senate

McConnell (R-KY) said his top priority is "to try to do whatever I can
to get the EPA reined in." Six Democrats and 96 Republicans signed a December 22
letter sent to President Obama asking him to withdraw the Clean Power Plan because it will threaten
Majority Leader Mitch

electric reliability and drive up energy costs. The President is not expected to do so.

State lawmakers will trash them too regardless of

Congressional mandate
Chemnick 1/12 {Jean, syndicated environmental affairs columnist for
E&E/Scientific American/C-SPAN, Climate: Republican Statehouse Gains Load the
Dice for Anti-EPA Bills, E&E Publishing/Greenwire, 2015,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011505}
Environmentalists are girding for an onslaught of new state bills to delay or kill
U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as state legislatures return to work beginning this week with Republicans
now in control of two-thirds of the nation's legislative chambers. November's midterm
elections gave the GOP new majorities in 11 legislative chambers, placing 68 of the nation's 98
partisan chambers in its control. And greens worry that these new Republican strongholds could be
fertile ground for legislative proposals by the conservative American Legislative Exchange
Council that would make it harder to implement the greenhouse gas rule for the existing power plants. ALEC acts as a
clearinghouse for state bills aimed at limiting regulation across a broad swath of topics, including the environment. The group did
not respond to calls for this story. "We're definitely

seeing ALEC escalating its environmental

rhetoric because there are more Republicans in charge of the legislatures, or we're watching or tracking to
see what that really means," said Aliya Haq of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Lawmakers from two states -Virginia and Missouri -- prefiled legislation before those legislatures returned for the new session on Jan. 8
that could affect the states' ability to submit implementation plans to comply with EPA's
deadlines beginning in 2016. One draft pending in Missouri, to be offered by state Sen. Gary Romine (R), would require
the state Division of Environmental Quality to submit a blueprint of any implementation
plan for a Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act rule to the Legislature and the governor
for review one month ahead of filing it with EPA, complete with an assessment of its potential economic
costs. If lawmakers don't move to block it, the measure would travel to EPA for its approval. The proposal would
affect implementation of the existing-plant rule in much the same way as a law Pennsylvania enacted
in October would. It requires state officials to report to the Legislature on plans to
implement the Clean Power Plan only. A similar draft is also pending in the Virginia Senate to be offered by state

The bills are derived from an ALEC proposal that would have
required legislatures to approve any state plan -- in effect, a state version of the "Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act," a bill likely to be reintroduced this Congress
to limit the executive branch's rulemaking powers. The Pennsylvania law and Carrico's and Romine's proposals do
not require legislative action, though Haq said they would create an "unnecessary delay" before state agencies can
submit their plans to EPA for approval. But Missouri Rep. Mike Moon (R) is planning to introduce a more
sweeping bill that would bar state agencies from implementing any federal
regulation written under any law without approval from both the Legislature and its
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.
Sen. Charles Carrico (R).

TSCA Fails---EPA---Ext---Stripping
Congress will strip the EPA no increased regulation
Copeland 14 {Claudia, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy for the
Congressional Research Service, EPA and the Army Corps Proposed Rule to Define
Waters of the United States, Congressional Research Service, 11/21,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43455.pdf}
Congressional interest in the proposed rule has been strong since the agencies
announcement on March 25. Public and agency witnesses have discussed the proposal at several
hearings (House Agriculture Committee, House Natural Resources, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, House
Small Business Committee, House Science Committee, and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee). Legislation
addressing the proposal has been introduced . H.R. 5078 would prohibit the Corps or EPA from
finalizing the proposed waters rule or using that proposal or similar proposed rule or
guidance as the basis of any rulemaking on the scope of CWA jurisdiction , and it
would require withdrawal of the interpretive rule . It also would direct the Corps and EPA
to consult with state and local officials on CWA jurisdiction issues and develop a report on results of such
consultation. By a 262-152 vote, the House passed this bill on September 9. Other bills have
been introduced, as well. H.R. 4923, FY2015 Energy and Water Appropriations act, passed by the House on
July 10, includes a provision that would bar the Corps from developing, adopting,
implementing, or enforcing any change to rules or guidance pertaining to the CWA definition of waters
of the United States. Also, the FY2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, funding EPA
(H.R. 5171), contains a provision to similarly block funding for EPA to act on the waters
rule. The House Appropriations Committee approved this bill in July. S. 2496, like H.R. 5078, would prohibit the
Corps or EPA from finalizing the proposed waters rule or using that proposal or similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis of

H.R. 5071 would require the agencies to

withdraw the interpretive rule on agricultural exemptions and direct that all soil and water
any rulemaking on the scope of CWA jurisdiction.

conservation practices shall be treated as normal farming, ranching, and forestry activities for purposes of CWA Section 404(f)(1)
(A).

TSCA Fails---Health
Reform fails industry influences, preemption of state
authority, and faulty chemical prioritization
-Specifically indicts evidence from the Environmental Defense Fund
Dubose 5/21 {Lou, syndicated columnist on national politics, Why the
American Chemistry Council Loves Tom Udall, Huffington Post: Politics, 2015,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/why-the-americanchemistr_b_7342216.html#THUR}
the Vitter-Udall bill, co-sponsored by Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, is a
Trojan Horse, cobbled together by the American Chemistry Council, a huge industry
As it turns out,

trade association, and pushed through the Senate by more than 100 lobbyists representing the chemical companies
whose products would be regulated. At an April 28 Committee markup of the bill, California Democratic Senator

Boxer complained that one draft of the Vitter-Udall bill has been traced directly to
an American Chemistry Council computer. Boxer also placed in the record letters
and statements from a coalition of 450 environmental, labor and public health groups
that oppose the Vitter-Udall bill. Members of the coalition ranged from the Sierra Club
and Natural Resources Defense Council to the AFL-CIO and the Breast Cancer Fund. A
single green group, the Environmental Defense Fund, is supporting the bill. Its
Barbara

senior scientist

struggled to vindicate himself

at a March 15 hearing of
the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. In a letter to the committee, California Attorney
General Kamala

Harris wrote that "the preemption of state authority with respect to high-priority

chemicals years before federal regulations take effect"

is a fundamental flaw in the

bill. Testifying at the hearing, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh explained "preemption of state
preemption provisions that are built into this legislation tie the hands
of states at nearly every turn. Among these, there is a prohibition on new state
chemical restrictions from the moment EPA begins the process of considering
regulation of high priority chemicals. It's a plain fact that the bill itself allows this EPA review
period to last as long as seven years. Let's say we're talking about a toxic chemical. That's
seven years with no federal regulation, seven years during which no state can
take action regardless of how dangerous, how toxic, how poisonous a chemical is,
regardless of its impact on men, women or children. The EPA testing will be, let's say, protracted. Of
80,000 synthetic chemicals commonly used in the U.S., 1,000 are considered potential
health threats. Within the first seven years after implementation of the Vitter-Udall bill,
only 25 of those chemicals would be tested by the EPA. Yet there is no provision in the bill that
would stop the EPA from listing chemicals that it "is considering" testing, which
would protect them from regulation by states. Tom Udall and the Environmental
Defense Fund have provided this legislation some measure of green credibility, essentially putting
lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly.
authority." The

Experts agree the bill is a Trojan horse

Curtis 15 {Kathy, Executive director for Clean and Healthy New York, researcher
at the Workgroup for Public Policy Reform, former Executive Director at Citizens'
Environmental Coalition, Chemical Industry Gets Free Pass in Vitter-Udall Bill: NYU
Study Links Toxic Chemicals to Billions in Health Care Costs, Workgroup for Public
Policy Reform, http://smartpolicyreform.org/for-the-media/news-items/chemical-

industry-gets-free-pass-in-vitter-udall-bill-nyu-study-links-toxic-chemicals-to-billionsin-health-care-costs#sthash.vMCrjD3B.dpuf#THUR}
A new bill that claims to update how chemicals are regulated in the United States, introduced today by
Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM), is a sweet deal for the chemical industry
that would keep exposing Americans to harmful chemicals while exposing the nation to
billions in health care costs, a coalition of community, environmental and health groups said today. The groups
pointed to a new study by New York University that documents over $100 billion a year in health care costs in the
European Union for diseases associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals, including IQ loss, ADHD, infertility,
diabetes and other disorders that have been rising in the U.S.

The Vitter-Udall bill,

introduced on Tuesday,

March 10th, purports to update the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which was meant to
protect the public from harmful chemicals but which has allowed tens of thousands of chemicals including
chemicals that cause cancer and other problems noted above into the marketplace with little or no health and
safety testing. New research links toxic chemicals with a range of illnesses and billions of dollars in health care
costs, yet Senators

Udall and Vitter are proposing a bill that doesn't address

major

problems with current policies and would give the chemical industry a free pass
exposing Americans to harmful chemicals for decades to come, said Katie
Huffling, RN, CNM, Director of Programs for the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy
Environments, a network of nurses across the U.S. who have been working to reform TSCA. The chemical
industry should not be allowed to draft the very laws meant to regulate
them, said Richard Moore from Los Jardines Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, also with the
Environmental Justice Health Alliance. We need serious chemical reform that protects the
to keep

health of all people including those who are living in hot spots or sacrifice zones typically communities of color
-- that are highly impacted by chemical factories. Moore continued, It

seems that my own Senator, Senator

Udall, has forgotten the needs of his constituents in favor of meeting the needs
of his industry friends. The New York Times reported last week that Sen. Udall has received tens of
thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the chemical industry. Dorothy Felix
from Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN) in Louisiana, said, Because of the failure of TSCA, our community

Vitter and other

legislators are well aware of these toxic impacts yet they are proposing a bill that
is faced with extensive toxic pollution that is causing us to consider relocating. Senator

would be even worse than current law. Let's be clear: Senator Vitter's bill is

good

for the chemical industry, not for the people who live daily with the
consequences of toxic chemical exposures. Chemical industry influence over the
Vitter-Udall bill is unacceptable and the authors need to come back to the table and listen to the huge
community of environmental and health groups that have been working on TSCA reform for decades, said Martha
Arguello, Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. The regulatory framework for chemicals
must protect health, especially the most vulnerable members of our society, and also must allow states to regulate
toxic chemicals in order to protect their communities, said Kathy Curtis, Executive Director of Clean and Healthy
New York. State

actions to protect their own residents are the only thing prompting
federal action, and states should not lose that right. We need 21st century,
solution-based laws that empower agencies and people to live in a society that safeguards our
health and environment. This bill falls short of that goal, said Jose Bravo, Executive Director of
the Just Transition Alliance. The bill is called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act but unfortunately it is a horrible reminder of what industry special
interests can do to undermine our personal and environmental health.