BVN ptx

Elections
 Hillary Wins
Betting markets prove
Levine 10-9 — finance writer, editor and digital content consultant
Maya Kachroo-Levine, 10-9-2016, People Are Placing Actual Bets On The Election (And Tonight's
Debate), http://www.forbes.com/sites/mayakachroolevine/2016/10/09/people-are-placing-
actual-bets-on-the-election-and-tonights-debate/2/#2073a0167aa2, Date Accessed: 10-10-2016
//NM
It’s not just polls that you can look to for likely 2016 election results. Bookies and odds makers also have a say now. The Las Vegas
odds makers have made their predictions, which help guide the odds offered by gambling sites. As of late September, theodds
makers are predicting a likely Clinton victory . They gave her 72% odds of winning the 2016
election. The odds makers seemingly did not comment on the odds of Clinton wearing a blue pants suit, or the likelihood of
Donald Trump saying “huge” at tonight’s debate, but several gambling sites have odds for both categories. When I looked up
offshore gambling site Bovada a few days ago, their odds showed that if you bet $100 on Hillary Clinton to win the election, you’d
get a return of $33. Yesterday, however, the odds in Clinton’s favor went up (on their site), and the return is now only
$20. Bovada has Donald Trump at +300, which means that if you bet $100 and Trump wins, you get a $300 return.
 AT UQ Overwhelms
Hillary wins, but it’s close --- swing states and voter turnout are key
Peters 10-11 — New York Times
Jeremy W. Peters, 10-11-2016, Early Voting Could Point to Hillary Clinton Victory Well Before
Nov. 8, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/early-voting-registration.html, Date
Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM
But despite Mrs. Clinton’s growing lead in the polls, her campaign to defeat Mr. Trump with early
get-out-the-vote efforts is advancing along a tenuous path . Nowhere is the trench warfare
over registration and early voting closer or more vital than in Florida. In a sign of how thin the margin
of victory could be, the state Democratic Party sued the Republican governor, Rick Scott, to extend
Tuesday’s voter registration deadline because of the disruptions caused last week by Hurricane
Matthew. On Monday, a federal judge agreed to push back the deadline by one day and set a hearing
for Wednesday to consider delaying it further. Barring a huge shake-up in other swing states, Mr. Trump will lose the race
if he loses Florida. Florida Republicans have significantly narrowed a voter registration gap with
Democrats, which stood at more than half a million people four years ago. As of mid-September, it had shrunk to
just over 274,000. Republicans were also increasing their numbers in North Carolina, Nevada
and Pennsylvania. “We’ve really moved the margins in so many of these states,” said Chris Young,
the national field director for the R epublican N ational C ommittee. “And the reality is the Democrats are out of time
when it comes to voter registration. In a majority of states, they’ve got a week, maybe two, tops.”

Hillary win not inevitable – Trump is gaining popularity among early voters –
October is key
AP 10-6 — associated press
Ap, 10-6-2016, Election will likely be won or lost for Hillary Clinton in October,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-will-likely-be-won-or-lost-for-hillary-clinton-in-
october/, Date Accessed: 10-10-2016 //NM
WASHINGTON — Each night, Hillary Clinton’s data experts head to a conference room on the 11th floor of her Brooklyn
headquarters, to start counting votes. The sessions in the “early voter boiler room,” as it’s been dubbed by campaign aides, stretch
into the early hours of the morning. The team pores over turnout patterns in states where advance voting is already underway,
projects how many votes Clinton and Republican Donald Trump have already received, and updates crucial targeting lists of the
voters she still needs. For Clinton, October is when she’s likely to win or lose the election, not Nov. 8.
By the third week of this month, Clinton’s campaign hopes to have a solid enough sample of the early vote to know whether the
Democrat is on track to win the White House. “Many battleground states are already voting so every day is
Election Day,” said Matt Dover, Clinton’s voter analytics director. In several competitive states, including North
Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Florida and Nevada, at least 45 percent of the total vote is expected to
come in early. Initial metrics show good news for Clinton in North Carolina, a must-win state for Trump. There are modestly
positive signs for the Republican in Iowa, but that’s a state the Democrat can likely afford to lose. The Republican National
Committee, which oversees early voting and turnout operations for Trump, is also encouraging supporters to take
advantage of opportunities to cast ballots before Nov. 8. The party has significantly stepped up
its analytics and voter targeting operations since being outmatched by Democrats in the past two presidential
elections, but the 2016 race is the first test of its strength in a national election. Despite improvements, the RNC system was always
intended to be a complement to whatever operations the eventual GOP nominee brought to the table. Trump arrived in the general
election with intense enthusiasm among his core supporters but few ways to harness it into trackable voter data. Unlike Clinton,
whose travel schedule is being built around voter registration deadlines and the start of early voting in key states, Trump’s
battleground stops haven’t been pegged to those benchmarks. However, there is a noticeably more robust registration effort at
Trump rallies and the candidate himself is making explicit early voting appeals to supporters.

Hillary wins, but it’s not inevitable

Johnson 10-8 — reporter
Brent Johnson, 10-8-2016, Poll: Do you think Clinton or Trump will win the presidential
election?,
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/10/poll_will_clinton_or_trump_win_the_presidenti
al_election_in_a_month.html, Date Accessed: 10-10-2016 //NM
Polls, meanwhile, show both candidates are polarizing to voters. The Real Clear Politics average of
polls show Clinton with a 4.5 percent lead over Trump, the former Atlantic City casino magnate. But there
are still two debates between the contenders, including Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern time. And some voters prefer
neither candidate, choosing to support Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, or independent Evan
McMullin. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll showed Clinton at 45 percent, Trump at 40,
Johnson at 6, and Stein at 3.
 2AC UQ Overwhelms
The election is already over --- early voting in swing states
Peters 10-11 — New York Times
Jeremy W. Peters, 10-11-2016, Early Voting Could Point to Hillary Clinton Victory Well Before
Nov. 8, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/early-voting-registration.html, Date
Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM
With early voting already underway in many of the states that will decide the presidency, Hillary
Clinton is beginning to reap the benefits of years of Democratic efforts to target and register
voters, even as Republicans steadily close their disadvantage in party registration. The first wave of data from states
like Florida and North Carolina shows preliminary signs that Mrs. Clinton was building a slight
edge even before the revelation that Donald J. Trump had bragged about sexual assault roiled the race. Democrats
are requesting more absentee ballots in Florida than they were at this point in 2012, with increases of 50
percent in the heavily Hispanic areas around Miami and Orlando. In North Carolina, where Mitt Romney built enough of a
lead in early voting four years ago to eke out a victory over President Obama, Democrats are requesting mail-in
ballots in larger numbers than in 2012, while Republicans’ participation is declining . These results will
have more effect than ever this year, as record numbers of people are expected to cast their votes early. So many
Americans will have voted by Election Day — more than 40 percent in swing states, according
to the Clinton campaign — that the winner could be all but settled before November .

High voter turnout for Hillary overwhelms the link

Peters 10-11 — New York Times
Jeremy W. Peters, 10-11-2016, Early Voting Could Point to Hillary Clinton Victory Well Before
Nov. 8, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/us/politics/early-voting-registration.html, Date
Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM
“We are literally in the midst of the highest peak in voter registration for our campaign,” he said last
week during a conference call with reporters, in which he called on Mr. Scott to extend the deadline because of the storm.
“President Obama definitely saw the same thing back in 2012. So we know you will see those voter rolls change, but it will take a
little time.” Vote-by-mail requests among Hispanics in Florida, Mr. Mook added, are up 77 percent . And
voter registration data there backs up his assertion that they are breaking for the Democratic Party in unprecedented numbers.
Since Jan. 1, just 16 percent of new Hispanic voters registered as Republicans. That is down significantly compared with Hispanic
voters who registered before 2013: 28 percent of them registered as Republicans, according to Daniel A. Smith, a political science
professor at the University of Florida. TheClinton campaign has undertaken an ambitious effort to find
likely supporters, identifying and modeling the voting behavior of every voter in the swing
states. Few states are expected to be closer than Florida , which Mr. Obama won by just 73,000 votes in 2012,
and North Carolina, which he lost by 97,000 and where polls now show a statistical tie between Mrs. Clinton
and Mr. Trump. Early indications are that the Clinton campaign’s efforts in North Carolina are
paying off . If Mr. Trump does not win there, his path to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House
becomes far more complicated and uncertain — and that assumes he hangs on in Florida.
 Impact OV
Trump causes a nuclear war – weakens alliance commitments – he doesn’t even
need to exit them to cause the impact because it is based on misperception of
US commitment to its allies – that invites Russian aggression in the Baltics
which causes a nuclear war because of Russia’s weak military – that’s
Beauchamp. Prefer our evidence – its backed by stats that prove defensive
alliances prevent escalation.
Senate Elections
 1NC Shell – Biotech
INSERT UNIQUENESS AND LINK
A democratic senate is key to make Clinton’s push for CIR successful
Waldman 7-11-16 - senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for
The Washington Post
Paul, How a Donald Trump rout could lead to immigration reform in 2017, The Week,
http://theweek.com/articles/634824/how-donald-trump-rout-could-lead-immigration-reform-
2017
But now there are some in Congress who think that after years of frustration, we might actually
get a reform of our immigration laws and a solution to the problem of the undocumented immigrants
now living in the United States. Last week Politico reported that members of the Senate are suddenly optimistic
that 2017 could be the year it finally happens. "Several influential lawmakers see another
opening for immigration reform in 2017, especially if Hillary Clinton wins and the GOP takes
another hit among Latinos," they write. "Mitt Romney was hammered for his 'self-deportation' rhetoric four years ago. But that
pales in comparison to Donald Trump's vow to remove 11 million immigrants here illegally and calling Mexicans who cross the
border illegally 'rapists' and 'murderers.'"¶ In other words, the
basic logic hasn't changed: Democrats are
virtually unanimous in their support for comprehensive reform, but Republicans are torn.
Increase the urgency of their national problem with a presidential election in which they get crushed among Latinos, and the more
local problem of individual members of the House who fear upsetting anti-immigrant constituencies might be solved.¶ There are
reasons to be skeptical, though. Republican leaders would still be asking their caucus to vote against their own interests by
supporting reform. Most of them come from overwhelmingly conservative districts where the only question their constituents ask is
how much tougher they'll get on immigration. The argument the leaders would make to their members — "You should vote for this
bill because it's good for the party, even though your constituents hate it and it will probably mean you'll get a primary challenge
from the right in your next election" — won't be much more persuasive in 2017 than it was in 2013.¶ There's one other key piece of
this dynamic, which is that after 2016, the Republican caucus in the House is likely to be even more conservative than it is now. With
Trump at the top of the ticket, Republicans will probably lose some seats, and where are those losses going to come? In swing
districts, where their representatives are more moderate. So Speaker of the House Paul Ryan will preside over a caucus that is
slightly smaller and more dominated by tea partiers.¶ Of course, if
Trump were to win in November, none of this
would matter. His election would almost certainly mean that Republicans also held on to both houses of Congress, a feat
accomplished despite Trump's intensely anti-immigrant campaign. The only question Republicans would debate would be how tall to
make the "Trump" letters on our new gold-plated border wall.¶ But that's not a particularly likely outcome. So
let's consider the most likely one, which is that Hillary Clinton wins, Democrats take the Senate,
and Republicans hold the House. While Democrats are hoping that an anti-Trump landslide could give them control of
both houses of Congress, the House may be out of reach, simply because there are so few swing districts.¶ That would leave
us with President Clinton, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (a member of the original Gang of 8),
and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Two out of three of them start eager for reform, which would
be unlikely to face much difficulty in the Senate. The Gang of 8 bill passed in 2013 by a vote of
68-32, and while the next Senate will not be exactly the same as that one, there's not much
reason to believe that it will be substantially more reluctant to pass reform, particularly after
Republicans just lost an election in no small part because of the anger of the Latino electorate.¶ That
will be a key part of the story that will be told about 2016, even if many in the GOP will insist that the party lost because it didn't
nominate a "true" conservative, or that Donald Trump was such a uniquely repellent nominee that his loss contains no lessons for
the party other than "don't nominate Donald Trump." The far more persuasive argument will be right there in the exit polls. Almost
everyone understood that the GOP needed to improve its performance among the fast-growing Latino electorate in order to win the
presidency, and when Trump loses Latinos by 80 percent to 20 percent or 90 percent to 10 percent, the facts will be impossible to
ignore.¶ But you'd
still have the problem of those Republican House members and their anti-
immigrant constituencies. How could it be solved? The answer is simple: Paul Ryan could just
decide to make it happen.¶ He might do it by working to win over some of the conservative
opponents with a complex process of negotiation, in which they could be won over by the inclusion of beefed-up
border control and improvements to the E-Verify system through which employers are supposed to check employees' immigration
status (depending on the details, pro-reform Democrats would be just fine with that). But it's possible that most
conservative Republicans would oppose any bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for the
undocumented, no matter what else it contains.¶ In that case, Ryan could solve the impasse by
giving his caucus a simple message: I know most of you would catch hell if you voted for this. But if we're ever
going to have a chance of taking back the White House, we need to show Latinos we don't
hate them, and passing comprehensive immigration reform is a necessary (if not sufficient) step toward that end. So I'm putting
the bill up for a vote. Vote "no" if you have to, but it's going to pass.¶ Most of them would vote no — maybe two-
thirds, maybe even more. But the rest, combined with almost all the Democratic votes, would be
enough to pass the bill. And while it's possible that because of it, Ryan could face a revolt of the kind that continually
beset John Boehner when he was speaker, he probably wouldn't have too much trouble surviving, particularly
since no one else really wants the job. And then he could present himself as the kind of leader
who can get things done in a divided Washington — the perfect first step for a presidential run
in 2020.¶ That's a lot of hypotheticals, and we've seen before how difficult it can be to keep together the kind of fragile coalition
you'd need to pass immigration reform. But it doesn't seem as crazy an idea as it once did. And if it
happens, we'd have Donald Trump to thank.

Immigration reform is key the viability of the US biotech industry—solves

emerging disease pandemics
ICAF 7
The Industrial College of the Armed Forces: National Defense University, Spring 2007 Industry
Study Final Report Biotechnology Industry http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a475052.pdf

The biotechnology industry is a key sector of the American economy. It employs hundreds of
thousands of people and generates billions of dollars in revenue. It is a relatively young
industry, coming into existence in the 1970’s. Its future is bright with promise, but it also faces
several hurdles in order to meet this promise.¶ In the past few decades, its products have
revolutionized medicine. The industry has developed new vaccines and therapeutics for
previously untreatable and emerging diseases. It promises the delivery of drugs tailored to an
individual’s genetic makeup in order to achieve optimal effect - something unthinkable 20 years
ago. The medical advances in biotech are more important then ever as the growth of global
trade and travel have also increased the threat of global pandemic, such as avian influenza.¶
Biotech has revolutionized agriculture. Genetically enhanced cotton in the US and India has
reduced the amount of pesticide, fertilizer and water required to grow the crop. The promise of
genetically enhanced food crops could result in a second green revolution capable of feeding the
world’s growing population. In some cases, medicinal and agricultural applications are merging
as companies begin exploring ways to create human proteins using animals and plants as
production factories. Finally, new and improved manufacturing processes and consumer
products, such as biofuels, biodegradable plastics and nanoparticles are entering the
marketplace, thus improving the quality of life globally.¶ The biotechnology industry is
innovation intensive and requires a substantial number of qualified scientists and technicians
to push the boundaries of science. Unfortunately, the US, like many countries, is not producing
enough qualified personnel. While US needs are partially met by foreign nationals wishing to
pursue research opportunities in the US, immigration policies are making it difficult to quickly
recruit these researchers. The shortage of qualified personnel will continue to slow advances
in the biotechnology industry.
That’s comparatively the largest impact
Milne 4 – Formerly a practicing veterinarian in New Jersey and Maryland, Dr. Milne attended
Johns Hopkins University in 1987-88 where he earned a master's degree in public health with a
concentration in epidemiology. For six years, he worked for the New Jersey Department of
Health in risk assessment as well as legislative and regulatory review, and finally served as
Emergency Response Coordinator. Dr. Milne joined Tufts University's Center for the Study of
Drug Development in 1998 as a Senior Research Fellow, after graduation from law school. His
research interests include the evaluation of regulatory initiatives affecting the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology industries, and incentive programs for the development of new medicines for
neglected diseases of the developing world. Dr. Milne is currently Assistant Director at the
Center and a member of the bar in New Hampshire
(Christopher, “Racing the Globalization of Infectious Diseases: Lessons from the Tortoise and the
Hare,” 11 New Eng. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1)
Although we have faced planet-killing events such as nuclear brinkmanship during the Cold War and mega-meteors colliding with earth in
pre-history, the most imminent threat is one we face everyday from the globalization of infectious diseases . Leading authorities in
government, medical institutions, and schools of public health have been ringing the warning bell for over a decade about the major threats to global public health. 2Link to the text of the note Threats such as

infectious diseases in the developing world, drug resistant bacteria, and the problem of multiple HIV strains, remain
unaddressed. The public health community lacks answers to key scientific questions for an AIDS vaccine, and needs to press harder on research for a tuberculosis (TB) vaccine, a process which
could take twenty to fifty years. 3Link to the text of the note Experts believe that the threat warning level has risen from orange

to red, comparing the circumstances favoring a pandemic today to the " Perfect Storm," due to the continuing increase of worldwide
antimicrobial resistance, diminished U.S. capacity to recognize and respond to microbial threats, and the likelihood of
intentional releases of biological agents.¶ The sources of this public health challenge derive from a panoply of emerging and re-emerging natural plagues, thirty of
which have been recognized just in the last few decades with thirteen occurring in North America. 4Link to the text of the note According to Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes [3] of Allergies and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID), emerging diseases are defined as ones that have not been previously recognized, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) or severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
Comparatively, re-emerging disease has usually been in existence for a long time but has changed location, as did the West Nile Virus. Dr. Fauci considers bioterrorism to be a part of the continuum of emerging

Infectious diseases with

and re-emerging diseases, and points out that when it comes to bioterror: "The Worst Bioterrorist May be Nature Itself." 5Link to the text of the note¶

the potential to be global killers come in two basic forms: the "slow epidemic," taking months or years to reach pandemic status, with
an insidious onset and long latency, that resists treatment - the archetypical example being AIDS, 6Link to the text of the note and the "fast epidemic," rapidly

spreading from country to country, typically aerosol-borne, with fairly quick onset, and high mortality
and morbidity - most recently manifested in pandemic SARS. 7Link to the text of the note Both forms have potential uses as bioweapons,
although most of the counter-terror attention focuses on the SARS-like diseases.¶ Part II of this article will discuss the scenarios for a global pandemic presented by SARS, AIDS, or bioweaponized incarnations -
what they have done, what they could do, and why it is so hard to stop them. Part III will describe the scope of the public health problem, particularly the globalization factors that serve as enablers of the
pandemic potential of these diseases, as well as a host of ill-defined "x" factors that have served to further complicate the dynamics of dealing with these global killers. Part IV will consider solutions to the problem
by discussing what we have versus what we need. Part V will present recommendations for how government, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as international non-governmental organizations
can be part of the solution. Lastly, Part VI provides a conclusion.¶ "Ring around the rosie, pocket full of posies,¶ Ashes, ashes - we all fall down!" - According to legend, a children's rhyme dating from the time of
the plague in medieval Europe.¶ II. Scenes from a Plague¶ SARS has been compared to the bubonic plague of the Middle Ages, but the Black Death was not a "fast epidemic" due to the limitations of its [4] mode
of transmission, as well as the modes of medieval transportation. While SARS is somewhat comparable to flu epidemics of the last century and to the putative bioterror agents of today, AIDS has the dubious
distinction of being closer to the experience of the Black Death. However, unlike that ancient pandemic, which was more limited temporally and geographically, AIDS is embarking upon what, Dr. Peter Piot,
executive director of UNAIDS, refers to as a "true globalization phase." 8Link to the text of the note ¶ A. Black Death Redux¶ The superlatives used to describe the public health impact of AIDS never seem to be
exhausted. One commentator noted that AIDS will soon exceed the death toll of the Bubonic Plague, making it the most "numerically lethal pandemic" the world has ever known. 9Link to the text of the note The
World Health Organization (WHO) refers to it more prosaically, but with similar notoriety, as the "toughest health assignment the world has ever faced." 10Link to the text of the note Even after twenty years, AIDS
is still something of a medical and scientific conundrum. Diversity of the virus increases with duration of infection, further complicating drug treatment. 11Link to the text of the note Vaccine development is
similarly complicated due to existence of ten major genetic types or clades of HIV-1, each with a distinct geographical spread. 12Link to the text of the note ¶ What we do know is that AIDS is caused by an infection
with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), transmitted through unprotected sex, sharing hypodermic needles, transfusions of contaminated blood, or from mother to child during pregnancy, labor, delivery, or
breast-feeding. The virus attacks the immune system by infecting white blood cells, known as CD4+ cells, making it difficult for the body to fight off infections. AIDS itself is considered the final stage of HIV disease.
13Link to the text of the note Without treatment, HIV will progress to full-blown AIDS within nine to eleven years, and is usually fatal within two years after that point. 14Link to the text of the note The AIDS/HIV
toll is [5] approaching forty million infected, with fourteen thousand new infections daily and ninety-five percent of new infections occurring in the developing world. 15Link to the text of the note ¶ What we do
not know is just how soon and how much of an impact AIDS will have. In sub-Saharan Africa, only an estimated ten percent of the predicted illness and death has occurred; the full impact on people, communities,
and economies is still to come. 16Link to the text of the note Nonetheless, one forecast is that seventy million will die of AIDS by 2020, mostly in Africa and Asia. 17Link to the text of the note Besides its own
death-dealing impact, AIDS exacerbates the morbidity and mortality of other "slow epidemics" like malaria and tuberculosis, and drains resources that would otherwise be dedicated to their treatment. 18Link to
the text of the note By 2010, a report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) states that five countries - Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, India, and China - will suffer a total of fifty to seventy-five million cases of
HIV/AIDS. 19Link to the text of the note¶ For a preview of the AIDS wasteland that faces us without a serious course change, consider the devastation wrought by AIDS on Botswana. Before the AIDS epidemic
reached Botswana in the early 1990s, per-capita income had risen tenfold over the previous thirty years, primary school enrollment had doubled, and infant mortality had decreased almost threefold. A decade
after AIDS swept over the land, thirty percent of the country's economic growth was erased and the number of years each citizen is expected to contribute to the economy has been reduced from fifteen-to-thirty
productive years to just five. Moreover, one-fifth of Botswana's children will soon be AIDS orphans. 20Link to the text of the note Botswana now has the lowest life expectancy of any country in the world at 30.8
years of age, which is about three times less than the highest life expectancy of 83.5 years in the European nation of Andorra. 21Link to the text of the note At the current pace, close to [6] fifty percent of the
world's population could live in countries gripped by the AIDS pandemic by the end of the decade. ¶ B. Cold Virus on Steroids¶ The official acronym for severe acute respiratory syndrome is SARS-CoV, which
derives from the fact that it is a coronavirus, the same family of viruses that cause the common cold. However, SARS acts more like a cold virus pumped up on anabolic steroids. According to statistics, the recent
outbreak of SARS was both debilitating and deadly: eleven percent of its victims died; sixty percent required hospitalization; twenty to thirty percent needed treatment in intensive care units with intubations; six
to twenty percent suffered respiratory sequelae; and thirty to sixty percent experienced post-traumatic stress. 22Link to the text of the note Ultimately, the SARS pandemic led to ten billion dollars in economic
losses. 23Link to the text of the note¶ The SARS incubation period is typically six days, but can range anywhere from two to twenty days. SARS is more environmentally stable than other respiratory viruses.
However, unlike most respiratory viruses the role of seasonality is unknown, noting that most respiratory viruses are winter creatures. SARS is primarily transmitted by respiratory droplets or fomites (i.e.,
inanimate objects or substances that transfer an infectious agent), in health care and hospital settings, but also by contaminated sewage. Old age and co-existing illness are contributory factors to SARS, but
children tend to contract a more mild form of the illness. SARS is believed to be of an animal origin, but unlike most other species jumpers, SARS has also become efficient at human-to-human transmission. 24Link

to the text of the note¶ Although we are still learning from the SARS pandemic, some lessons are clear: animal pathogens pose major risks; a problem in a remote area
can become a world problem within weeks; molecular virology can identify and sequence genetic structures of new pathogens within weeks; the epidemiological tracks of a disease can be followed even in remote
areas; basic infection control measures work well; and the phenomena of the superspreader (i.e., an infected person responsible for a disproportionate number of transmissions), airborne transmission, and
heightened risk to health care workers (i.e., twenty-one percent of SARS infections were in health care workers 25Link to the text of the note) complicate control efforts. 26Link to the text of the note Another
lesson is that [7] humans can be the worst enemy regarding transmission. Four SARS outbreaks occurred within one year in Singapore, Taipei, and Beijing from laboratory accidents. 27Link to the text of the note
The loose ends that dangle perilously from the tail of the SARS epidemic caused one SARS researcher to remark ominously: "this is not the end of the story… ." 28Link to the text of the note¶ C. Black Wind of
Death¶ A warning on a radical Islamic fundamentalist website stated that a "Black Wind of Death" would soon be visited upon the enemies of Islam. Some believe that this statement refers to the use of a
bioweapon. A conservative estimate of the number of naturally occurring potential bioterror agents is about seventy to eighty, but the possibilities for genetically engineered pathogens are practically limitless. In
fact, the pioneers of the Soviet bioweapons program were able to refine the "binary inoculary," in which treatment of the first microbe would set off infection with a more deadly second microbe. The
combinations were limitless, but the results were always the same - the ultimate nightmare. For example, if a person contracts a dreaded disease, such as the plague, and is treated with tetracycline, the treatment
may unleash a second disease lying dormant, such as Ebola, for which there is no cure. ¶ The question remains: How much lethal know-how is out there? In the 1980s, the Soviets' bioweapons industry employed
about sixty thousand people, half of whom were scientists. In the past thirty years, critical masses of two to three thousand new pathogens have appeared; some developing from nature and some designed in the
lab, but not always as bioweapons. Fully mapping and understanding the complex interactions of hosts and pathogens for the known biological entities that could be weaponized would take decades. 29Link to the
text of the note D.A. Henderson, senior advisor for the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh, framed this problem: "Like it or not, I'm afraid the threat is with us forever." 30Link to the text of the
note¶ [8] "Globalization, after all, is fundamentally about market expansion, the rise of new political, social, and cultural movements, and changes in the state and institutions." - Hitchner, Tufts University¶ III.
Scope¶ For better or worse, globalization is also about public health. The scope of the public health challenge faced today must now be considered within the context of other globalization factors. Just as

globalization, public health must also be taken into account. This is especially true for infectious diseases,
addressing the problems of

as West Nile virus, monkey pox, SARS, avian flu, and antibiotic-resistant bugs are only the beginning. According to
one expert, "the new normal" has become a public health problem uniquely created by globalization. 31Link to the text of the note ¶ A. The Global Village: A Good Place to Raise Deadly Offspring ¶ 1. The
Urbanization Triplets: Crowding, Poverty, and Destruction of Habitat¶ Certain sequelae of globalization have been identified as facilitating the spread of global infectious diseases. Urbanization, which is defined as
rapid population growth in the cities, especially in tropical and subtropical areas in less developed countries, results in large populations coming into closer contact with one another, increasing the probability of
infectious diseases. Urbanization is also characterized by poverty and poor sanitation. 32Link to the text of the note Poverty is considered both a cause and an effect of widespread disease. For instance, poverty
often results in malnutrition, which in turn weakens the population's ability to fight off diseases, such as malaria. Malaria can cause the deaths of up to half of a million children per year in sub-Saharan Africa
alone, resulting in a loss of one percent of the region's GNP. 33Link to the text of the note Urbanization and poverty also contribute to overcrowding in hospitals and health care facilities, which then leads to a
struggle with sterilization and isolation procedures. Cross-contamination through blood and instruments occurs more readily. Due to the favorable environment, microbes increase in number and become more
diverse through mutations. If a virulent "bug" pops up, it has a good chance of becoming established quickly.¶ Urbanized areas are often large population centers and are served by [9] modern transportation
routes. Once an individual becomes infected, they are only a plane ride away from anywhere in the world. 34Link to the text of the note Urbanization also causes destruction of natural habitats, resulting in the
release of previously unknown infectious diseases. Many such diseases have been unleashed by the increased human contact with animal reservoirs, due to altered land-use patterns and changing movement of
animal and human populations. 35Link to the text of the note In fact, many of the thirty or so new pathogens recognized in the past three decades originated in animals. 36Link to the text of the note¶ 2. The "T-

travel, trade, and tourism - humans have inadvertently paved the

way" of Global Plague¶ Through the pathways provided by the "3Ts" of globalization -

way for pandemics. Two million people travel internationally everyday, 37Link to the text of the note with approximately five hundred million traveling by commercial airlines every year,
38Link to the text of the note and millions of tons of food, hazardous materials, and waste in transport daily. 39Link to the text of the note With international travel increasing by fifty percent each decade, the
prospects of containing new outbreaks of disease are diminishing. 40Link to the text of the note We are no longer protected by formerly formidable natural barriers like oceans, and even less so by artificial
barriers, such as political borders.¶ B. The "X" Factors: The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknowable¶ The factors discussed are complex and their impacts are still under study, but to some degree, they are
"known" factors that are quantifiable in the calculus of planning for the future. There are also a number of biological, environmental, socioeconomic, cultural, legal, and political factors that continue to crop up in
unpredictable manners. Some were previously unknown but have been factored into the problem equation. Others seem to be so random in occurrence and incalculable as to outcomes [10] that the ultimate
impacts remain "unknowable."¶ 1. Microbial Resistance¶ Resistant strains to antibiotics developed within a few years of the discovery of antibiotics some fifty years ago. However, according to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the difference now is that resistance is no longer an isolated problem, especially in hospitals. 41Link to the text of the note For example, in the United States, about seventy
percent of bacteria causing infections in hospitals are resistant to at least one of the most common drugs used to treat them. 42Link to the text of the note In the United Kingdom, the infection rate for methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a common hospital contaminant, has risen six-hundred percent over the last ten years. 43Link to the text of the note The WHO warned that due to the overuse of antibiotics in rich
countries and the under use in poor countries, drug resistance is a worldwide problem. The result is wasting of billions of dollars that could have been better spent on research and development (R&D) for
infectious disease treatments over the last few years. 44Link to the text of the note¶ Antibiotics are not the only medicines with resistance problems. The main drugs used to combat AIDS, the so-called anti-
retrovirals (ARVs), are also a source of concern. A recent study showed that ten percent of all newly infected patients in Europe 45Link to the text of the note are infected with drug-resistant strains. In San
Francisco, the rate is twenty-seven percent. 46Link to the text of the note According to a recent survey of infectious disease specialists in the U.S., only forty-one percent of patients are able to be treated with the
most commonly used ARV regimen, while another forty-five percent are on back-up regimens. For fourteen percent of infected patients, treatment with ARVs has all but failed. 47Link to the text of the note¶ [11]
Experts agree that resistance is also a problem in the developing world, 48Link to the text of the note further complicated by factors such as counterfeit drugs, irregular access to treatments, environmental
degradation, inconsistent compliance, and diversion of drugs to the black market. 49Link to the text of the note ¶ 2. Sociocultural¶ None of the problems associated with the globalization of infectious diseases
seem to be confined to one part of the world. For instance, half of reported polio cases worldwide occurred in Nigeria, due to disruption of vaccination efforts. This interruption stemmed from a rumor that the
United States government was clandestinely implementing population control by adding contraceptives to the vaccine. 50Link to the text of the note In the U.S., a surgeon recently reported that a several-year-
long effort to convince a hospital staff to regularly use a sixty percent alcohol gel for hand disinfection was almost thwarted by a rumor that the gel would reduce fertility. 51Link to the text of the note ¶ Actions
taken by the general public are often at cross-purposes with actions taken to protect the public health. One of the most crucial problems involved with tackling AIDS in the developing world is the extreme fear and
social stigma associated with the disease. These sentiments are exemplified by violence and abuse against woman in Africa 52Link to the text of the note and discrimination against HIV patients by their own
families and hospitals in India. 53Link to the text of the note In the U.S., the population is so risk-averse that the construction of three Biosafety Level Four labs in California, Texas, and Massachusetts are being
vigorously disputed by residents. 54Link to the text of the note¶ [12] ¶ 3. Legal¶ The criminal element always seems to find a way to further complicate an already complicated situation, which is not dissimilar to
opportunistic infections. Up to ten percent of the world's drug supply is counterfeit, and may be perhaps as high as fifty percent in many developing countries. 55Link to the text of the note Diversion of medicines
to the black market is most common in certain parts of the developing world, but occurs universally. Serostim, a growth hormone prescribed to fight wasting syndrome in AIDS patients, has found an underground
recreational use as a bodybuilding drug in the United States. The drug costs about eighty thousand dollars for a year's supply, often paid for by Medicaid, but on the black market, it can fetch two thousand dollars
for a week's supply. 56Link to the text of the note Even a new disease, such as SARS, did not take long to develop a criminal element. In May 2002, the FDA issued a special alert regarding internet marketing of
bogus SARS prevention products. 57Link to the text of the note¶ In addition to violations of the law, tensions exist within the law as well. The needs of bioscience and the concerns for biosecurity are often
adverse. The regulations for "select agents" are so confusing that one researcher was reportedly arrested simply because he traversed a room where a select agent was stored. 58Link to the text of the note Such
incidents are one reason why an international group of scientists seeks to keep SARS off the select agents list, arguing [13] that restrictions would stifle research and hurt public health efforts. 59Link to the text of
the note However, other experts acknowledge that the transfer of knowledge among scientists is often a leaky process, and scientists may become unwitting accomplices to global bioterror. 60ALink to the text of
the note careful balance must be struck between freedom in research endeavors and controls designed to prevent the misuse of material and knowledge. 61Link to the text of the note¶ Conflicts of law also exist
between public health and privacy. Due to the evolving nature of the newly implemented medical privacy regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 62Link to the text of
the note state health officials believe themselves to be limited in releasing information regarding deaths from the flu or other reportable diseases, due to new legal protections afforded to patients. However,
HIPAA contains a public health exception, and most officials argue that releasing certain information is required by state public health laws to provide information about risk factors that the public should be aware
of. 63Link to the text of the note¶ The United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has become embroiled in this problem as well. SEC regulations are an issue, not only due to antitrust laws prohibiting
collaboration on countermeasures by "competing" companies, 64Link to the text of the note but also due to accounting regulations that determine when a company can recognize revenue from a stockpile. Under
the current scheme, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) plans to purchase vaccines, but have companies store them until needed to avoid additional cost and logistical problems for

Global
HHS. Problems then arise under current SEC regulations, as entities may not declare revenue from undelivered products. 65Link to the text of the note ¶ [14] ¶ 4. The Ultimate "X" Factor¶

infectious disease, bioterror, and national security are becoming strange bedfellows. The HHS Secretary
announced in the fall of 2003 that grants totaling 350 million dollars over five years would be made available for the establishment of eight Regional Centers of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious
Diseases Research (RCEs), stating: "These new grants add to this effort and will not only better prepare us for a bioterrorism attack, but will also enhance our ability to deal with any public health crisis, such as
SARS… ." 66Link to the text of the note Concern regarding the public health crisis precipitated by SARS was believed to have caused some "holdouts" waffling on support of Bioshield to come on board. 67Link to
the text of the note The President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials believes that the infusion of dollars into bioterrorism awareness has helped to improve the public health system
capacity to deal with health emergencies in general. 68Link to the text of the note ¶ Internationally, the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) discussed a health issue for the first time as a threat to world
stability: HIV/AIDS in Africa. 69Link to the text of the note The African, Caribbean, and Pacific Ocean sectors of the World Trade Organization (WTO) petitioned the WTO's Council for Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to find a solution to the deadlock over access to affordable drugs, as the outbreak of diseases such as SARS had made it "a matter of urgency." 70Link to the text of the note The
deadlock was broken. In a report by the United States National Intelligence Council, experts emphasized the worldwide threat presented by infectious disease to military capacity, socioeconomic development,
international trade and travel, and global stability. 71Link to the text of the note ¶ [15] However, common goals can sometimes result in competition instead of cooperation when time, money, and resources are
limited. The media reported that National Institute of Health (NIH) studies on AIDS, TB, malaria, and other infectious diseases would be shortened in length due to a White House mandate shifting funding to
development of an anthrax vaccine. 72Link to the text of the note While the NIAID budget grew twenty-fold from 1980 to 2004, the increase was mainly due to efforts to combat changing priorities of life-
threatening infectious diseases, such as AIDS in the 1990s and bioterror in the 2000s. 73Link to the text of the note In fact, the NIAID budget allotment for AIDS R&D has flat lined for 2002 through 2005, while the
biodefense budget went up from $ 200 million in 2002 to $ 1.6 billion slated for 2005. 74Link to the text of the note In a survey of nearly four hundred scientists, forty-six percent felt that government spending on
bioterror R&D diverts monies from more important investigative work. 75Link to the text of the note Internationally, in January 2002, the WHO's Executive Board stated that it was focusing attention on the health
effects of poverty, but also needed to devote attention to preparations for "newer threats such as the deliberate use of anthrax and smallpox agents." 76Link to the text of the note¶ C. The World as a
Marketplace, Health Care as a Business¶ Due to the globalization of infectious diseases, the distinction between national and international public health programs have as little relevance as political borders.
77Link to the text of the note However, this also implies that public health counter-measures must be considered within the context of market realities driving globalization. There is a strengthening current within
the international public health community to consider access to health care as a universal human right shared by rich and poor alike. 78Link to the text of the note However, one must inquire: Where does the
money for health research come from? Independent [16] foundations and charities contribute only about four percent of the billions spent globally each year on health research. 79Link to the text of the note

the lion's share of the funding for applied

Regarding medicine, a sizeable amount of the funding for basic research comes from governments, but

research that turns concepts brewing in test-tubes on lab benches into bottles for injection on clinic shelves comes from private industry. In particular, these are the major
pharmaceutical companies, also known as "big pharma." 80Link to the text of the note¶ They don't call it big pharma for nothing! The industry's financial might and resources are
impressive. When the list of the world's one hundred largest public companies by market value is released each year, close to one-fifth are pharmaceutical companies. Monsanto, a life-science multinational

corporation, has a R&D budget more than twice the R&D budget of the entire worldwide network of public sector tropical medicines research institutes. 81Link to the text of the note¶ These
resources must be brought to bear if the global community is to make any headway against
the globalization of infectious diseases. However, this is where the economic and political realities of globalization are actualized. According to previous work on
providing incentives to industry to conduct R&D for neglected parasitic and infectious diseases in the developing world, five disincentives must be addressed: lack of interest on the part of big pharma; an
unfavorable cost/risk ratio for big pharma; the fact that only impoverished markets exist for the products of such R&D; the difficulty of directing capacity in the Northern hemisphere to address the needs of the
South; and the realities of the vaccine market. 82Link to the text of the note
 1NC Shell – Khalizad
INSERT UNIQUENESS AND LINK
A democratic senate is key to make Clinton’s push for CIR successful
Waldman 7-11-16 - senior writer with The American Prospect magazine and a blogger for
The Washington Post, Paul, How a Donald Trump rout could lead to immigration reform in 2017,
The Week, http://theweek.com/articles/634824/how-donald-trump-rout-could-lead-
immigration-reform-2017
But now there are some in Congress who think that after years of frustration, we might actually
get a reform of our immigration laws and a solution to the problem of the undocumented immigrants
now living in the United States. Last week Politico reported that members of the Senate are suddenly optimistic that
2017 could be the year it finally happens. "Several influential lawmakers see another opening
for immigration reform in 2017, especially if Hillary Clinton wins and the GOP takes another hit
among Latinos," they write. "Mitt Romney was hammered for his 'self-deportation' rhetoric four years ago. But that pales in comparison to Donald
Trump's vow to remove 11 million immigrants here illegally and calling Mexicans who cross the border illegally 'rapists' and 'murderers.'"¶ In other
words, the
basic logic hasn't changed: Democrats are virtually unanimous in their support for
comprehensive reform, but Republicans are torn. Increase the urgency of their national problem with a presidential
election in which they get crushed among Latinos, and the more local problem of individual members of the House who fear upsetting anti-immigrant
constituencies might be solved.¶ There are reasons to be skeptical, though. Republican leaders would still be asking their caucus to vote against their
own interests by supporting reform. Most of them come from overwhelmingly conservative districts where the only question their constituents ask is
how much tougher they'll get on immigration. The argument the leaders would make to their members — "You should vote for this bill because it's
good for the party, even though your constituents hate it and it will probably mean you'll get a primary challenge from the right in your next election"
— won't be much more persuasive in 2017 than it was in 2013.¶ There's one other key piece of this dynamic, which is that after 2016, the Republican
caucus in the House is likely to be even more conservative than it is now. With Trump at the top of the ticket, Republicans will probably lose some
seats, and where are those losses going to come? In swing districts, where their representatives are more moderate. So Speaker of the House Paul Ryan
will preside over a caucus that is slightly smaller and more dominated by tea partiers.¶ Of course, if Trump were to win in
November, none of this would matter. His election would almost certainly mean that Republicans also held on to both houses of
Congress, a feat accomplished despite Trump's intensely anti-immigrant campaign. The only question Republicans would debate would be how tall to
make the "Trump" letters on our new gold-plated border wall.¶ But that's not a particularly likely outcome. So let's
consider the most likely one, which is that Hillary Clinton wins, Democrats take the Senate, and
Republicans hold the House. While Democrats are hoping that an anti-Trump landslide could give them control of both houses of
Congress, the House may be out of reach, simply because there are so few swing districts.¶ That would leave us with President
Clinton, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (a member of the original Gang of 8), and Speaker of the
House Paul Ryan. Two out of three of them start eager for reform, which would be unlikely to face
much difficulty in the Senate. The Gang of 8 bill passed in 2013 by a vote of 68-32, and while
the next Senate will not be exactly the same as that one, there's not much reason to believe
that it will be substantially more reluctant to pass reform, particularly after Republicans just
lost an election in no small part because of the anger of the Latino electorate.¶ That will be a key part of the story
that will be told about 2016, even if many in the GOP will insist that the party lost because it didn't nominate a "true" conservative, or that Donald
Trump was such a uniquely repellent nominee that his loss contains no lessons for the party other than "don't nominate Donald Trump." The far more
persuasive argument will be right there in the exit polls. Almost everyone understood that the GOP needed to improve its performance among the fast-
growing Latino electorate in order to win the presidency, and when Trump loses Latinos by 80 percent to 20 percent or 90 percent to 10 percent, the
facts will be impossible to ignore.¶ But you'd
still have the problem of those Republican House members and
their anti-immigrant constituencies. How could it be solved? The answer is simple: Paul Ryan
could just decide to make it happen.¶ He might do it by working to win over some of the
conservative opponents with a complex process of negotiation, in which they could be won over by the inclusion
of beefed-up border control and improvements to the E-Verify system through which employers are supposed to check employees' immigration status
(depending on the details, pro-reform Democrats would be just fine with that). But it's
possible that most conservative
Republicans would oppose any bill that provides a pathway to citizenship for the
undocumented, no matter what else it contains.¶ In that case, Ryan could solve the impasse by
giving his caucus a simple message: I know most of you would catch hell if you voted for this. But if we're ever going
to have a chance of taking back the White House, we need to show Latinos we don't hate
them, and passing comprehensive immigration reform is a necessary (if not sufficient) step toward that end. So I'm putting the bill up for a vote.
Vote "no" if you have to, but it's going to pass.¶ Most of them would vote no — maybe two-thirds, maybe even

more. But the rest, combined with almost all the Democratic votes, would be enough to pass the
bill. And while it's possible that because of it, Ryan could face a revolt of the kind that continually beset John Boehner when he was speaker, he
probably wouldn't have too much trouble surviving, particularly since no one else really wants the
job. And then he could present himself as the kind of leader who can get things done in a
divided Washington — the perfect first step for a presidential run in 2020.¶ That's a lot of hypotheticals,
and we've seen before how difficult it can be to keep together the kind of fragile coalition you'd need to pass immigration reform. But it doesn't
seem as crazy an idea as it once did. And if it happens, we'd have Donald Trump to thank.

CIR solves the deficit

Wasson 13 – Bloomberg congressional reporter Erik, 6-19, CBO: Senate immigration bill will
cut deficit $197B over 10 years, The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306311-cbo-
immigration-bill-cuts-deficit
The Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday the Senate immigration bill would reduce deficits
by $197 billion over 10 years, handing supporters a new economic argument for the bill as the upper chamber marches
toward a final vote.¶ The CBO said the bill would increase spending by $262 billion between 2014 and 2023 by requiring new
border security measures, but would increase revenue by $459 billion as those given legal status and
newly admitted temporary workers pay taxes.¶ Perhaps even more importantly, the budget office said
the bill would also reduce deficits by $700 billion between 2024 and 2033. ¶ That finding directly
contradicted predictions and estimates from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and other critics of the bill who said it would add red ink to
the budget as more immigrants are granted access to entitlements. ¶ Supporters of the Senate bill hailed the CBO numbers, which
they said would boost the bill ahead of an expected Senate vote next week. ¶ “This report is a huge momentum boost for
immigration reform,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a member of the Gang of Eight that crafted the bill. ¶ “This debunks
the idea that immigration reform is anything other than a boon to our economy, and robs the bill’s
opponents of one of their last remaining arguments,” he said. ¶ Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), the key Republican sponsor, said the CBO
“has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net
benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers.” ¶ While Rubio said the measure should still be “tightened” to
prevent those who have broken immigration laws from accessing federal benefits, “the CBO report offers encouraging evidence that
the status quo is unacceptable and we can end it without burdening our already burdened
taxpayers and, in fact, reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.” ¶ The White House said the score
offered “more proof” that the bill would be good for economic growth and deficit reduction. ¶
The budget office used a form of dynamic scoring to judge the immigration bill, something the office generally declines to do. ¶ The
office said it and the Joint Committee on Taxation chose to use dynamic scoring in this case because of the unusual nature of the
immigration bill, which would significantly increase the size of the U.S. labor force. ¶ The use of
dynamic scoring allows the CBO to assume there would be 6 million more workers in 2023 and 9 million more in 2033. These
additional workers would increase Social Security payroll taxes paid to the government by
$214 billion, and other tax revenue by $245 billion. The budget office assumes the immigrant population would
generally work more than average adults.¶ Using the dynamic scoring, the CBO sees the bill increasing economic
growth by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033. But it finds that average wages would decrease
slightly, by 0.1 percent, in 2023 because new workers would receive lower pay than current workers, but wages increase after that.
Due to higher growth, interest rates would be expected to rise.¶ The CBO dynamically scores the president’s budget every year and
used the scoring method when the Senate considered immigration legislation in 2006. ¶ It has resisted doing so for other bills
despite conservative pressure to apply such scoring to bills that cut taxes. The CBO has argued that dynamic scoring does not usually
have much of an impact and that it is not feasible for its staff to complete the analysis.¶ The budget office estimated the bill will lead
to 10.4 million residents in the U.S over the next 10 years. It said 8 million unauthorized workers would be legalized under the
measure, and that over 20 years, there would be 16 million more people in the U.S. if the bill passes.¶ It said the bill requires new
appropriations of $22 billion over 10 years to implement policies like enhanced border security. If Congress lifts current budget caps
to implement the bill, the net deficit reduction is $175 billion over 10 years, it said.
Deficit reduction key to prevent economic collapse, abrupt retrenchment and
great power war
Khalilzad 11 — Zalmay Khalilzad, the one and only, was the United States ambassador to
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the
director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. National Review
Online, 2-8, The Economy and National Security,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-
khalilzad?pg=3
Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’

position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of
rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy
toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even
war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a
mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two
decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350
percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of
wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. Thedecline of tax revenues and massive
countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly
held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic
growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous
proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are
larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that
would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call
a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over
its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly
compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would
reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during
World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s,
British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized
under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet
Union to fragment. If
the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to
retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this
domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have
profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global
distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its
rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for
local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or
respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In
modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S.
leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics
resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar
international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have
devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could
rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a
heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out
conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United
States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As
rival powers rise, Asia
in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s
economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise,
and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s
strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas
around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive
territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its
relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant
barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on
restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such
as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions —
particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S.
demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a
vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded
pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The
policy question is
how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the
near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks
and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent
increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering
individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on
Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might
be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of
Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its
economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic
challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While China’s economic rise enables
its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen
relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United
States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s
periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency
manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced
trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European
leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.
Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled
America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted.
Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination
with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems.
Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new,
dangerous era of multi-polarity.
 1NC UQ
Hillary will win --- flips the Senate, but large margins are key to dem majority
McManus 10-12 – LA Times
Doyle McManus, 10-12-2016, Hillary Clinton will (almost certainly) win — but her margin
matters, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-election-margin-matters-
20161012-snap-story.html, Date Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM
Less than four weeks remain before one of the most consequential elections in recent American history.
No, not the presidential election. Donald Trump has already lost that one several times over —
through his serial attacks on women and minorities, the appearance of a videotape in which he
describes himself as a sexual abuser, and his overall failure to turn himself into a credible president-in-
waiting. Still at stake on election day, though, is what kind of presidency Clinton will be allowed to have — and that
depends mostly on who is elected to the Senate and House of Representatives. If Democrats
win a majority in both chambers, Clinton will be able to pass significant parts of her platform,
much as Obama did in 2009 and 2010. But if Republicans keep their majorities, she’ll have to negotiate
with an angry opposition in which the loudest voices are likely to revive the obstructionism they have perfected over the
last six years. President Clinton will almost certainly be negotiating with a Republican House. And in the
likeliest case — a Congress between those extremes with a closely divided Senate and a slim GOP majority in the House — the
consequences are unpredictable. Democratic and Republican strategists broadly agree on the range of possible electoral outcomes.
The Senate is balanced on a knife edge . Republicans hold 54 of the Senate’s 100 seats; if
Democrats net four additional seats, they’ll have 50, and can rely on Vice President Tim Kaine to break the tie.
The closest races are in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire , where Republican incumbents are
struggling to hold off scrappy Democratic challengers. But Republican senators could also lose
their seats in North Carolina and Missouri. “We need to win three of those four seats to get to
51,” GOP pollster David Winston told me. He said he was worried by a recent poll — taken immediately after the Trump videotape
surfaced — that suggested only 74% of Republican voters were still supporting the nominee. “If he comes in with 74% of
the Republican vote, the party is completely blown out of this election,” Winston said. “ He needs
90% .” The House is more complicated — and much harder for Democrats to take. Republicans currently
hold 246 of 435 seats; Democrats need a net gain of at least 30 to win a majority. “It’s possible to imagine,
but it’s unlikely ,” Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said. He estimated that Clinton would need to win the
presidency by a margin of 10% or more for the House to change hands. That’s not likely to happen; the
last candidate to win by more than 10% was Ronald Reagan in 1984. (In the most recent polling released by NBC News and the Wall
Street Journal, Clinton was leading by 7%.) Why is it so difficult to flip the House? Redistricting, which guarantees that most
incumbents can rely on loyal partisans to keep them in office. In the 2012 election, Republicans lost the popular vote for all House
candidates by more than 1.4 million, but still won a majority of seats. So President Clinton will almost certainly be
negotiating with a Republican House — one, moreover, whose majority will be splintered into angry factions, pro-
Trump and anti-Trump. If her electoral majority is huge, she’ll be able to claim some measure of a
popular mandate — even though some Republicans will argue that she won only because they nominated a bad candidate
(or, for die-hard Trumpists, because the election was “rigged”). That would give her an opportunity to seek
cooperation from pragmatic Republicans — yes, there still are some. “If there’s a backlash against the
awful nature of the campaign, there could be real public pressure to let her get a few things
done,” Norman J. Ornstein, a scholar of Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, told me. “She could pass an infrastructure
program; that’s got support in both parties. She could pass some technical fixes for Obamacare.” But that’s about all — and that’s “a
rosy scenario,” he added. In a darker scenario, “Republicans will decide that they want to replay what they did in 2010 and 2014 —
delegitimize the president and block whatever they can,” Ornstein said. Clinton can help nudge the new Congress toward the first
scenario if she continues to proclaim her desire to be a president for members of both parties, a theme she’s taken up over the last
few weeks of the campaign. Even more important, she could name a Republican or two to her Cabinet and quickly launch bipartisan
conversations to search for common ground. That won’t transform a GOP that will still be dominated by her fiercest critics — but it
will improve her chances of accomplishing the changes she wants. First, though, she has to win as many votes as she can. The
presidential margin will matter as well as voters’ choices for members of the Senate and House. No matter what Trump does over
the next four weeks, no
matter what new revelations about the candidates emerge, and no matter
what the polls say, every vote will still count .
 2NC UQ
Blowout Hillary win is key to a dem majority in the senate – she’s tying GOP
senators to Trump, but the plan is the one factor that flips the script
--large Hillary win key to tie gop senate candidates to Trump and raise money
Sargent
Sargent 10-11 — New York Times
Greg Sargent, 10-11-2016, How Clinton can help Democrats in down-ballot races,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/10/11/how-clinton-can-help-
democrats-in-down-ballot-races/?utm_term=.7b543c689fc6, Date Accessed: 10-13-2016 //NM
If Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump remains substantial — and a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll puts
her up nine points nationally — you’ll see the conversation shift hard into the question of what more
Clinton can be doing to help Democrats take back the Senate , and possibly even the House. After
talking to a number of Democratic operatives, it seems they want Clinton to help in three ways: Message,
margin, and money. With, perhaps, an emphasis on the margin (of victory) and the money. Senior Democrats involved in the
Senate and House races tell me that they aren’t particularly focused on the question of whether Clinton will campaign with
Democratic candidates. More important, they say, is that Clinton devote more time to elevating a message about GOP incumbents’
relationship to Trump. Specifically, theywant to hear Clinton use her command of the media to amplify
the message that those Republicans who are now distancing themselves from Trump are
doing so only for political reasons, cravenly waiting until the sex tape revelations gave them no choice, after sticking
with him for months despite his racism, misogyny, hate speech, and abuse directed at individuals and groups alike. This
message, they say, would be particularly helpful in states and districts where Clinton is running
well. One Democrat, for instance, says it would be most helpful to hear this in swing states like
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Florida. And so, when the Clinton campaign signaled
recently that she would be doing more of this in coming days, Democrats were cheered . Per Politico,
Clinton spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri said this to reporters last week: “One thing that we would note is people like John McCain,
Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Congressman [Joe] Heck, we think they have a lot to answer for. These are leaders of the Republican
Party that legitimized Donald Trump’s candidacy, that propped him up a number of times. Kelly Ayotte herself has said on 30
different occasions that she supports him, she said as recently as a week ago that he was a role model.” Democrats tell me they
want to see — and expect — more like this from Clinton in coming days. This is particularly true now that Republicans
appear to be abandoning Trump with a new level of urgency . The basic calculus that will drive this is that
Hillary Clinton is running somewhat ahead of some of the Dem Senate candidates, partly because some constituencies are
motivated against Trump in the presidential race, but that motivator doesn’t necessarily
translate into support down-ticket. So you can expect a more concerted effort by Clinton to sound such a message to
African Americans, independent college educated and/or suburban women, and millennials, in areas where she’s performing well.
Obviously other surrogates — such as Barack and Michelle Obama — might have even more success with millennials and African
Americans, so they’ll likely be doing more of this in coming days, too. As I noted this morning, internal
Dem polling shows
that Republicans may not gain all that much with swing voters from distancing themselves from
Trump. But also key here is the core Dem constituencies: a message reminding them that their incumbent GOP Senator or House
member stuck with Trump through his summer of racism, sexism, and hate might motivate them, too. Now, money. Last month, the
Democratic National Committee shoveled $5 million into the Senate and House races, sending $2.5 million to both the DSCC and the
DCCC. In another key tell, today we learned that the pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA is eying ways to get more involved in
Senate races. If
Clinton continues to hold a solid lead over Trump, you can expect the requests for
more money from the Clinton campaign and associated groups to amplify . This will be particularly true
if Republicans do end up making good on their long-running threat to continue shifting resources from the presidential contest — in
effect giving up on Trump — into their efforts to hold Congress.
 AT Won’t Win/Warming and TPP !
dem blowout in senate now – key to solve warming and pass TPP
Fox 10-12 — CNBC reporter
Michelle Fox, 10-12-2016, A Democratic sweep is a realistic possibility, conservative scholar
says, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/12/a-democratic-sweep-is-a-realistic-possibility-
conservative-scholar-says.html, Date Accessed: 10-13-2016 //NM
With Donald Trump down in the polls and openly feuding with some members of the Republican Party, there is a
" realistic possibility " the Democrats will sweep the White House, Senate and House of
Representatives this election, said Jimmy Pethokoukis , a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
"If you are worried about political risk in 2017 and 2018, I think you need to take this into account," he told CNBC's "Closing Bell"
Wednesday. The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday shows Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with 46 percent of
support from likely voters in a four-way race, compared with 37 percent for Trump. The GOP
nominee has also lashed
out at Republicans he claims have been "disloyal." House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he would no
longer defend Trump in the wake of a 2005 video showing Trump bragging about groping women. Other big-name
Republicans have also announced they were withdrawing their support. While Trump's troubles could
pull support away from other Republican candidates, voters may also opt to pull the lever for Trump and ignore those who are not
supporting him, said Pethokoukis, who is also a CNBC contributor. Now Democrats "are
talking about a clean
sweep and being able to re-run the first term of Obama the way they would have liked to
have done if it wasn't overshadowed by the financial crisis," he said. That means things like the return
of cap and trade , which is geared toward controlling greenhouse gas emissions, executive pay
reform, paid leave and the Pacific Trade Deal , he noted.
Agenda
 TPP – Will Pass – PC Key
Will pass – pc key
---must use PC to persuade lawmakers on the fence and persuade Republicans to hold a vote
Calmes 10-4 — New York Times
Jackie Calmes, 10-4-2016, Obama Hails Enforcement on Trade Deals to Win Support for T.P.P.,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/business/international/obama-trade-tpp.html, Date
Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM2
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has used a flurry of tough-sounding trade enforcement
announcements in recent weeks to counter complaints from the left and right that free trade
is not fair trade — and to assist President Obama in the struggle to win approval of his trade pact with 11 Pacific Rim nations.
As evidence that past trade agreements are being policed, Mr. Obama and his cabinet members have trumpeted
new complaints filed against nations alleged to be cheating, as well as the administration’s latest victories in
previous cases taken to the World Trade Organization, the referee of global commerce. Days apart in September, for example,
actions were taken against Chinese grain exports, India’s barriers to solar-power parts, European subsidies for airliner manufacturing
and foreign fishing subsidies. On Monday, the administration announced that it would press the W.T.O. for a special hearing
demanding “the rapid enforcement” of the organization’s favorable rulings on exports of airliners and solar products. With each
announcement, administration officials have added a good word for the pending T rans- P acific P artnership
agreement, arguing that it would raise trade standards and provide more tools to enforce them. Even opponents of trade
agreements have said positive things about the administration’s enforcement record, though they say they will not be won over to
the Pacific pact. Whether fence-sitting lawmakers can be persuaded is the question. Yet it might never be answered if Mr. Obama
cannot get Congress’s Republican leaders — lashed by antitrade sentiment during this campaign season, especially from the party’s
presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump — to hold a vote on the pact in a postelection lame duck session.
 TPP – Will Pass
Will pass – bipart support
Kasich 10-12—gov of ohio
John Kasich, 10-12-2016, John Kasich: Refusing to ratify TPP risks America’s role as the world
leader, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-kasich-refusing-to-ratify-tpp-risks-
americas-role-as-the-world-leader/2016/10/12/a8f8d6fe-9092-11e6-9c52-
0b10449e33c4_story.html?utm_term=.1feebd699602, Date Accessed: 10-13-2016 //NM
That’s why the TPP agreement enjoys full-throated, bipartisan support from America’s most
respected national-security leaders, including former defense secretaries Robert Gates, Leon
Panetta and Donald Rumsfeld and former secretaries of state Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and James Baker.

*TPP will pass in the lame-duck session of congress – Obama has enough votes,
but PC is key
Purdy 10-10 — global business reporter for Quartz
Chase Purdy, 10-10-2016, Trump and Clinton don't like Obama's TPP trade deal, but American
farmers are trying to save it, http://qz.com/800209/trump-and-clinton-dont-like-obamas-tpp-
trade-deal-but-american-farmers-are-trying-to-save-it/, Date Accessed: 10-13-2016 //NM
The pork council’s Giordano said he thinks there are enough supportive lawmakers to pass the deal, albeit
narrowly . But Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell has suggested the deal is “too toxic” to even bring it to a vote. For all
their hopes that Obama will aggressively pursue passage of the deal in a lame-duck session , it’s worth
remembering that agricultural groups spent the last several years routinely trashing many of the president’s food-related
policy initiatives, including the revamping of the Nutrition Facts panel, updating inspection requirements at poultry plants, and
approving the government’s nutrition recommendations. Now they’re depending on him to clinch them a win .

Obama’s using every ounce of PC on the TPP --- will pass --- their evidence
doesn’t assume Obama’s aggressive push
--Their won’t pass ev doesn’t assume Obama’s push
RNW 10-12 — Rural News Group
Rural News Group, 10-12-2016, Lame-duck effort — Editorial,
http://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/item/10793-lame-duck-effort-editorial, Date Accessed: 10-
13-2016 //NM
It's all happening on Capitol Hill. US lawmakers are bracing for a charm offensive from the White
House. President Obama is using the last days of his presidency to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement in Congress, a tough task given that most politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington are against the
deal. There is talk of the White House tabling the TPP legislation during the ‘lame-duck session’, so
lawmakers are bracing for calls from the White House. Connecticut Democrat representative Rosa DeLauro
told a news conference the White House would do “virtually anything they need to do to get the
votes”. ‘We should anticipate more free rides on Air Force One, visits to the White House,
special events in members’ districts to try to gain favor for the deal. The administration will
be relentless .” US dairy farmers are backing the deal: National Milk Producers Federation president Jim
Mulhern says although TPP “achieves less than we wanted in terms of throwing open new markets in Japan and Canada, I am
particularly pleased that we did not concede to a huge surge in new imports”.

Don’t overestimate their uq ev – there is support for TPP

McBride 10-11 — chairman of Bass Berry & Sims International Trade Practice Group.
Thad Mcbride, 10-11-2016, Trans-Pacific Partnership strengthens our economy, national
security, http://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/contributors/2016/10/11/trans-pacific-
partnership-strengthens-our-economy-national-security/91892050/, Date Accessed: 10-13-2016
//NM
After the election, Congress is slated to take up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, also known as TPP. TPP is a trade
agreement. TPP is not perfect — no trade agreement is — and a number of groups are opposing or are
lukewarm to it. But on balance, free trade helps more people than it hurts, and TPP is no exception.
 ! Heg
The goal of TPP is to make it easier for American businesses to sell American products in the
Asia-Pacific region, a growing economic and geopolitical force. TPP will also lower barriers to
entry for products made outside the United States, which means lower prices and greater
options for American consumers.

The Asia-Pacific region is important to the United States. The region contributes about 40
percent to global GDP, and spending power in the region is estimated to grow nearly $10 trillion
in the next five years. This is — by far — the largest emerging market in the world. And TPP will
help ensure that American businesses, large and small, in a host of different industries, have
access to this enormous market.

But there is another reason to approve TPP: to protect against China and Russia dominating the
Asia-Pacific region to the exclusion of the United States.

Neither China nor Russia is a member of TPP.

By voting in favor of TPP, the United States will send a strong signal to its allies — such as Japan
and Vietnam — that it is committed to active engagement in the Asia-Pacific. So doing will give
other members of TPP, and other countries in the Asia-Pacific more generally, confidence that
the United States is a reliable partner. TPP will help give member countries a tangible alternative
to what China is offering.

China seems to recognize this. While Congress decides what it will do, China is trying to fill the
void left behind if TPP fails. In particular, China is leading the efforts and negotiations on the
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a trade agreement much like TPP —
except that it does not include the United States.

In the absence of TPP, RCEP would allow China to enhance its position as the dominant
economic and geopolitical player in the region. It is thus not surprising that China is ambivalent
— at best — about TPP. Without TPP, and the U.S. commitment to the Asia-Pacific region that
TPP will establish, it may be difficult for countries in the region to avoid turning toward China for
economic and even military support, thereby undercutting U.S. influence in the region.

If TPP is not passed, Russia may also benefit. Like the United States, Russia sees the Asia-Pacific
region as strategically important. RCEP, which does include Russia, could help Russia to assert
power in the Asia-Pacific in partnership with China — and to the detriment of U.S. interests.
 TPP – Won’t Pass
Won’t pass – both pres candidates are protectionist
Tan and Soong 10-6 — CNBC
Huileng Tan, Martin Soong, 10-6-2016, China 'ready to pounce' if TPP doesn’t pass: US ExIm
Bank, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/06/tpp-failure-will-be-uss-loss-chinas-gain-exim-bank-
boss-says.html, Date Accessed: 10-12-2016 //NM
The U.S. and 11 countries in the Pacific region last year reached an accord to liberalize trade, set
common trade standards and cut barriers. But doubts have grown over whether U.S. Congress
would ratify the agreement, after both U.S. presidential candidates adopted a more
protectionist stance ahead of the November elections.