TSCA Politics DA – CNDI 2015

NEGATIVE

NotesFor reference/clarification:

The bill this DA is about is known as the "Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act." It is a Senate Bill. It can be found under the label of S-697. The bill is sponsored by Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

You should not confuse it with the house version of reform, which is labeled HR 2576. That is known as the “TSCA Modernization Act.” The Kollipara 6/4 and Owens uniqueness evidence reference this bill as empirical evidence that the Senate bill will pass. All of the internal link and impact evidence is about the Senate bill.

Regarding thumpers/internal links, democrats are probably key.

TSCA Politics DA---1NC Chemical reform will pass, but controversy makes PC key – Top of the docket – vote before AugustWheeler 6/8 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science (Keene State College), “Congress Will Vote on Chemical Law Reform This Summer, McConnell Says,” The Hill, 2015, http://thehill.com/regulation/244276-congress-to-vote-on-chemical-law-reform-before-august-mcconnell-says#THUR}

Congress is expected to vote on legislation to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws before it’s August recess, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Morning Consult. In April the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter’s (R-La.) bill to overhaul the 1976 Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) by a 15-5 vote. In his interview with Morning Consult, McConnell would not give any indication of when exactly the legislation will advance but listed TSCA reform among the bipartisan bills

Congress plans to tackle between now and the August recess . A re-write of No Child Left Behind and cybersecurity legislation, he said, are also on the agenda. Last month, Udall said his bill – the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – could hit the Senate floor for a vote in June. Named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenbeg (D-N.J.), who led the reform effort before

his death in 2013, the Udall-Vitter bill would increase penalties for chemical violations, force the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) to review new and existing chemicals for safety and require safety decisions to be made solely on public health grounds. The bill, however, has been criticized for restricting states’ rights to issue their own

protections for dangerous chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos.

Plan costs capital – 1) breaks status quo balance that’s quelling fights 2) is a flip-flop 3) gets drawn into broader security debates-Yes blame: Obama’s architected previous reforms-Yes UQ: previous fights resolved by June’s “bipartisan agreement” + issue specific uniqueness + last reform smallShear 6/3 {Michael D., Syndicated White House correspondent and columnist on national politics, MPP (Harvard), B.A. in politics (Claremont McKenna College), “In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance,” New York Times, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html#THUR}

For more than six years, President Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by

scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept.

11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program , with new safeguards the

president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question that he owns it . The new surveillance program created by the

USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by

telephone companies available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism

adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.” The president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the

kind of equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support

for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a

healthy skepticism” about the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans.

Either way, Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a

former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former

N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel

Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance

programs. “Obama has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going

to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend political capital changing those programs.” In the case of the telephone program,

Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way

to satisfy the public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly. In

the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown, Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats, while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Mr. Obama’s advocacy put him at the center of a fierce congressional debate over the surveillance program, which officially expired early Monday morning before lawmakers approved changes on Tuesday. In the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, railed against the president’s compromise proposal, saying, “We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive.” At the same time, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, excoriated Mr. Obama, saying, “The president continues to conduct an illegal program,” a reference to a recent ruling

by a federal appeals court that the original N.S.A. telephone data collection program was not authorized by federal law. What emerged from that debate

was a rare bipartisan victory for the president, whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Even some of the president’s most ardent critics in the Republican Party endorsed the approach. “This is a good day for the American people, whose rights will be

protected,” Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week — a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker,

agreeing with Mr. Obama. The compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and- pull for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national security infrastructure from Mr. Bush. As a candidate in 2008, Mr. Obama was harshly critical of some of that

infrastructure, pledging at the time to review every executive order by Mr. Bush “to determine which of those have undermined civil liberties, which are unconstitutional, and I will reverse them with the stroke of a pen.” Once in office, Mr. Obama did roll back some of Mr. Bush’s decisions — in one of his first acts as president, he signed an executive order banning torture. But his national security team has also embraced some of Mr. Bush’s methods, arguing that they are

necessary to protect Americans against attacks and to fight threats abroad. Mr. Obama talked about “putting careful constraints” on surveillance even before Mr. Snowden revealed the existence of the telephone program. Later that year, Mr. Obama explained how his thinking had evolved.

Federal chemical regulation saves the global economy – direct costs, consumer confidence, and business confidence – Regs threatening business now, reform key to streamline the process Musella 15 {John, former Director of Communications for Government and Environmental Affairs at Newhall Land, chairperson of the California Log Cabin Republican Party, “We Need TSCA Reform Now,” The Hill: Congress Blog, 3/18, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/235973-we-need-tsca-reform-now#THUR}

There are lots of great things about California—amazing beaches, expansive parks, Hollywood, and Disneyland. But it’s not all surfing and

celebrity-watching. Just like you wouldn’t want California’s earthquakes shaking your hometown , you don’t

want California’s ridiculous chemical labeling law wrecking your state’s economy . Which is why we need a common sense update to our federal chemical law—and fast. Back in 1986, California voters passed

Proposition 65, which required state regulators to make a list of chemicals that might cause one excess case of

cancer in 100,000 people over 70 years and chemicals that might cause reproductive harm. Any business that uses those chemicals is required to post a warning sign or put a label on the chemical-containing product. Fast forward almost

30 years and the state has listed nearly 900 chemicals, but research shows the law has had no effect on reducing state cancer

rates. Instead, California business owners (along with businesses based around the world ) have

paid hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and attorneys’ fees to “bounty hunters” that scour the state looking for products that contain chemicals on the state’s warning list. The threshold for when a Proposition

65 warning sign is legally required is so low that even coffee chains such as Starbucks are forced to warn customers about cancer risks from coffee. A chemical called acrylamide forms naturally when coffee beans are roasted, and when given in very high doses to rats it may cause cancer. The signs don’t mention that you’d have to drink around 100 cups of coffee a day before you need to start worrying about acrylamide exposure. Of course, if you’re drinking that much coffee, you’ve got a lot of other health problems to worry

about before acrylamide exposure. So why should non-Californians care about our crazy chemical warning law ?

California’s Proposition 65 has been forcing manufacturers to reformulate or place warning labels on their

products for decades. Imagine the r egulatory nightmare if instead of complying with one federal (or California)

standard for products, manufacturers had to comply with a different law in every single state. Unfortunately, that nightmare could easily become reality. Since Congress hasn’t updated our federal

chemical law—the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976—in nearly four decades, states have increasingly taken chemical regulation into their own hands. They’ve considered roughly 170 different bills to

regulate chemicals, following in California’s wandering footsteps. It’s a truly worrying trend . If my state’s experience

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

state standards, even huge companies such as Dunkin Donuts have suspended selling their products in California because of Proposition 65. Luckily, there is a way to stem this tide. New legislation introduced by Sens. David

Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) is a bipartisan effort to strengthen our national chemical law by giving the Environmental Protection Agency more tools to regulate chemicals on the federal level. And while the proposal will allow

California to keep Proposition 65 in place, it would prevent other states from creating their own wonky

chemical laws that conflict with federal standards . Regulating chemicals is clearly Congress’ job; few

manufactured goods are sold only within state lines. As part of its powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the responsibility to set strong federal standards for chemicals in consumer products, ensuring consumers around the country are safe. Consumers don’t need to see warning labels telling them their

morning coffee, evening glass of wine, or even their flip flops might pose a health risk. They need confidence that the

products they use and consume everyday meet strong federal chemical safety standards that actually keep their families safe. California has a lot to offer, but a roadmap on smart chemical regulation isn’t one of them

Economic decline causes nuclear warMerlini 11 – Cesare Merlini 11, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, May 2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, Survival, Vol. 53, No. 2

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature

crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and

traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just

experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, empty ing , perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel

and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.

*** UNIQUENESS

Will Pass---GeneralWill pass – bipartisan support for streamlined regulationsICIS 6/8 {Independent Chemical Information Services, “Senate Bill to Modernise TSCA Would Save Government Some Money,” 2015, http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2015/06/08/9892936/senate-bill-to-modernise-tsca-would-save-government-some-money/#THUR}

WASHINGTON (ICIS)--Pending legislation to modernise federal control of chemicals in commerce would require more regulatory action but also would reduce government spending over the long term, according to a congressional analysis circulated on Monday. In its financial and budgetary analysis of the pending Senate bill to modernise the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that while the bill would require increased regulatory activity - more chemical reviews, more staff and more spending - those additional costs would be offset by income generated from increased fees and additional fines assessed to industry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the 39-year-old TSCA. Among other features, the Senate bill, the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act” (S-697), would require EPA to greatly accelerate its review of the safety of chemicals already in commercial use and any new chemicals being introduced to or imported into the US market. In addition, S-697 would require EPA to assess, for a fee, chemicals nominated for agency review

by companies that want an early determination of safety or its lack. The CBO said it “estimates that EPA would incur additional

administrative costs over the 2016-2020 period to meet new requirements imposed by S-697”. “However, we also estimate that under the bill, EPA would collect sufficient fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to offset the cost of conducting the activities proposed under this legislation,” the CBO analysis said. S-697 also would raise EPA’s funding “because the bill would increase some existing and criminal penalties for violations of TSCA”, the office said.

“On net, we estimate that implementing this legislation would reduce [EPA’s] discretionary costs by $8m over the next five years”, the CBO report said. That is not a substantial savings, considering that EPA’s projected budget for fiscal year 2016 is $481m.

But it is very unusual that a new or expanded federal regulatory programme would represent any sort of savings at all and more likely would bump costs still higher. Within the EPA’s overall FY 2016 proposed budget, enforcement of TSCA, the

current law, is expected to cost $47m or 9.7% of the agency’s total outlays. S-97 won strong bipartisan support

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

More evidence – momentum for house version from committee vote provesOwens 6/3 {Stephen A., former Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Of counsel on environmental, safety and health issues for Squire Patton Boggs LLP, “US House Energy & Commerce Committee Approves TSCA Reform Legislation - Toxic Substances Control Act,” National Law Review, 2015, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-house-energy-commerce-committee-approves-tsca-reform-legislation-toxic-substances#THUR}

In another sign of the momentum building for reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), on June 3,

2015, the US House Committee on Energy & Commerce (E&C Committee) approved HR 2576, the “TSCA Modernization Act of 2015,” by a 47 to 0 vote, with one abstention. A bipartisan bill introduced by Reps. John Shimkus (R-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Fred Upton and Frank Pallone (D-NJ), HR 2576 differs slightly from a “discussion draft” version of the bill that was approved by an E&C Subcommittee on May 14.

More evidence – lobby support, tons of cosponsors, momentum, inside infoVitter 15 {David, senior Republican United States Senator from Louisiana, B.A. (Harvard and Oxford), J.D. (Tulane University Law School), former adjunct law professor at Tulane and Loyola University New Orleans, “Guest Column: Senator David Vitter on TSCA Reform,” Chemical Watch, May, https://chemicalwatch.com/23919/guest-column-senator-david-vitter-on-tsca-reform#THUR}

It’s not often that any legislation has the support of both the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Association of Manufacturers. But that’s exactly who supports the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st

Century Act. In that spirit, Senator Udall and I introduced the bill on 10 March with 18 original cosponsors – nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And the legislation has picked up even more bipartisan support in the weeks since. First and foremost, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is an honest, balanced approach built on compromise. It will strengthen the safety standard to protect public health, our families and future generations. Just as importantly, it will allow America to remain the unquestioned innovation leader in this industry that’s so essential to improving countless aspects of our daily lives. The bill will make sure the EPA can ensure the safety of chemicals in everyday use, which, rather surprisingly, it currently does not have the authority to do. The EPA will be responsible for regulating the safety of chemicals based on the latest science in a predictable and transparent federal system

that does not override existing state actions. In fact, the bill balances state and federal roles in managing chemical safety. Importantly, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act will also provide greater regulatory certainty to the chemical manufacturing industry, which will give American producers the ability to continue to lead, innovate and create quality jobs.

For all these reasons, TSCA reform is too important for consumers and job-creators to not follow through on. Just consider the fact that chemicals are used to produce 96% of all manufactured goods consumers rely on every single day.

Ninety six per cent. Few things compare in terms of impacts on our health and the economy. We cannot put it off any longer, or let this

golden opportunity pass us by. It’s the only realistic shot we have to both vastly improve how we protect human health and safety and allow us to continue to lead and innovate. That’s why I hope to move the bill out of the relevant Senate committee in the next few weeks. That’s why I’ll continue working with Senator Udall and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are serious about this

bipartisan reform. And ultimately, that’s why I’m confident we’ll get this done .

Will Pass---A2: CostWill pass – its bipartisan even with costs and Congress’ climateNeuhauser 3/18 {Alan, syndicated energy, environment and STEM reporter, BA in History with a focus on American Foreign Policy and International Relations (Vassar College), “Green Groups Split on Competing Chemical Reform Bills,” US News and World Report, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/18/green-groups-split-on-competing-chemical-reform-bills#THUR}

The Udall-Vitter bill, in the works for about two years, had attracted nine Democratic and eight Republican

cosponsors as of Tuesday, in addition to support from the Environmental Defense Fund, widely seen as a more centrist advocacy group. "Everyone recognizes that there’s problems with TSCA, and they see the Udall-Vitter bill as moving things forward in significant ways," Konisky says. "The frustration for others in the environmental

community is they’d like it to go further. For them, it’s a bit of all or nothing, whereas the EDF and others see this as making some progress, and making some progress is better than no progress ." Whether either bill progresses through the Senate, however, remains to be seen. At issue, in addition to Democratic opposition, is figuring out how to fund EPA's

enforcement mandates. "Anything fiscal these days creates controversy," Konisky says. " I tend not to be

very optimistic these days about these things in Congress, but I think [it] has a reasonable chance to move forward ."

Will Pass---A2: EmpiricsWill pass – this year is different, we have a vote countPutrich 6/5 {Gayle S., columnist for the Washington Reporter covering federal and state legislative and regulatory matters for the plastics industry, “Trade Groups Adding to Call for a Vote on Chemical Regulations Bill,” Plastic News, 2015, http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20150605/NEWS/150609930/trade-groups-adding-to-call-for-a-vote-on-chemical-regulations-bill#THUR}

Meanwhile, across the Capitol, the Senate version of the bill (S 697) was approved for the floor by the Senate Committee on

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

downs — mostly downs — of TSCA reform over the years remain optimistic. “My prediction is that this is the year,” said Mark Duvall, a principal with law firm Beveridge & Diamond PC and an expert on the chemical law, who has testified in both

chambers on potential changes. “I’m predicting that we will have legislation signed by the president this year.” The reason this particular pair of bills could become law when so many others have failed is due to the tremendous bipartisan support they have, Duvall said. The efforts on TSCA are unique at a time when compromise is in short supply on Capitol Hill. “This is a remarkable situation that we’re

in where Republicans are urging the Congress to give EPA more authority, including conservative Republicans,”

Duvall said. “So the usual practices about difficulty in compromise don’t necessarily apply here . The number of issues that are contentious at this point is quite limited .” The Senate’s highly negotiated bill, much changed since the failed 2013 version, is the result of negotiations aimed at broadening the appeal and reducing the opposition to the bill. “A lot of progress made in resolving conflicts between Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, such that senators like [conservative Oklahoma Republican Jim]

Inhofe and [New Jersey Democrat Corey] Booker can be supportive of the same bill,” Duvall said. Some stumbling blocks may still remain, chief among them the possibility that a federal law will pre-empt state laws that have popped up around the country in the decades of Congressional deadlock on TSCA reform. During the House committee markup, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), who ultimately abstained from the 47-0-1 vote to move the bill, offered and withdrew an amendment that would have attempted to address

preemption concerns. Attorneys General of 12 states, including California, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts and Washington, have

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

list. The question of pre-emption has also hindered TSCA reform progress in the Senate, where Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wants

several changes before she will support the bill, including all possibilities of pre-emption removed from the bill and the naming of specific chemicals as toxic in the legislation, including asbestos. But with 41 bipartisan supporters

and numerous Republicans who have not yet taken a position on the bill, Boxer is unlikely to be able to mount a filibuster and hold up the bill when it reaches the Senate floor.

Will Pass---A2: Environment/Public Health LobbyOpposing lobbies are just “bridges of opportunity” – reform will pass because of compromise nature, sufficient democratic supportBergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. “Regulatory Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” March 19th, http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}

So now what? Does the legislation stand a chance of enactment even with over "hundreds of organizations" claiming that S. 697 is worse than current law (this is the number Senator Boxer cited as

her count). The short answer is yes . The legislation already has eight Democrats as co-sponsors, which, if combined with the 54 Republican members, would be a working majority (over the needed 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster). It appears too soon to expect serious hardball in terms of vote-

counting and floor action, and some of the noises coming from the hearing were bridges of

opportunity to address some of the major issues identified (including deadlines, pace of EPA progress, budget, final agency action status of low priority designations, fees, imports, and regulation of articles to name a few). Preemption was and is the remaining obstacle, but at the end of the day , that could come down to vote counting. If there are 61 votes on the Senate floor, and the House action does

not further complicate matters (not to mention a need for the President to sign the bill), TSCA reform could happen . Will pass – chemical industry support outweighs and Udall shielding vs. environmentalists Dubose 5/21 {Lou, syndicated columnist on national politics, “Why the American Chemistry Council Loves Tom Udall,” Huffington Post: Politics, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/why-the-american-chemistr_b_7342216.html#THUR}

Congress hasn't passed a major environmental bill since 1996, when Bill Clinton signed amendments to the Clean Water Act. Now it seems that the "Frank R.

Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act," is moving through the Senate and might actually make it to Barack Obama's desk. The bill is a fix for the non-functional 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act

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

chemicals should easily win the backing of environmental groups. It has not. Tom Udall, whose family name is an environmentalist brand, has provided this legislation some measure of green credibility , essentially putting lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly.

Here's the ugly. As it turns out, the Vitter-Udall bill, co-sponsored by Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, is a Trojan Horse, cobbled

together by the American Chemistry Council, a huge industry trade association, and pushed

through the Senate by more than 100 lobbyists representing the chemical companies whose products

would be regulated. At an April 28 Committee markup of the bill, California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer complained that one draft of the Vitter-Udall bill

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

senior scientist struggled to vindicate himself at a March 15 hearing of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. In a letter to the committee, California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote that "the preemption of state authority with respect to high-priority chemicals years before federal regulations take effect" is a fundamental flaw in the bill. Testifying at the hearing, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh explained "preemption of state authority." The preemption provisions that are built into this legislation tie the hands of states at nearly every turn. Among these, there is a prohibition on new state chemical restrictions from the moment EPA begins the process of considering regulation of high priority chemicals. It's a plain fact that the bill itself allows this EPA review period to last as long as seven years. Let's say we're talking about a toxic chemical. That's seven years with no federal regulation, seven years during which no state can take action regardless of how dangerous, how toxic, how poisonous a chemical is, regardless of its impact on men, women or children. The EPA testing will be, let's say, protracted. Of 80,000 synthetic chemicals commonly used in the U.S., 1,000 are considered potential health threats. Within the first seven years after implementation of the Vitter-Udall bill, only 25 of those chemicals would be tested by the EPA. Yet there is no provision in the bill that would stop the EPA from listing chemicals that it "is considering" testing, which would protect them from regulation by states. Tom Udall and the Environmental Defense Fund have provided

this legislation some measure of green credibility, essentially putting lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly. Here's the ugly. The American Chemistry Council, Dow, Dupont, BASF, 3M, Honeywell and Koch Industries spent $62.9 million in 2014 lobbying

members of Congress, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and lobbying disclosure forms filed in Congress. While the disclosure forms don't link the lobbyists to specific bills, a study by the Environmental Working Group found that most of the forms referred to TSCA . David Vitter, now running for governor in Louisiana, has been underwritten by the chemical industry for

as long as he's held elected office. Senator Tom Udall, in Congress since 1999, has been largely ignored by the industry-- until the 2014 election , when he turned up in the top 20 recipients of American Chemistry Council money, according to opensecrets.org. The Chemistry Council also ran television ads supporting Udall's successful (54.4-44.6) race against

Republican challenger Allen Weh. It appears they're getting a decent return on their investment . Revisions solve backlash – house efforts proveKollipara 6/4 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, “Chemical Regulation Bill Clears First House Hurdle,” AAAS, 2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/06/chemical-regulation-bill-clears-first-house-hurdle#THUR}

The U.S. House of Representatives yesterday began the process of updating the nation’s decades-old framework for

testing and regulating industrial chemicals. A key House committee unanimously approved a measure to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, just weeks after lawmakers added provisions to address environmental and public health groups’ concerns. The bill still wouldn’t change the law as extensively as a similar U.S. Senate proposal, but it—along with the Senate measure—will likely face additional debate and revisions

spurred on especially by outside advocacy groups. H.R. 2576, which cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee on a 47 to 0 vote

(with one abstention), now moves to the House floor, where it could face additional changes . Its passage comes on the heels of a Senate committee’s 28 April vote to send its own measure, S. 697, to the Senate floor. Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Fred Upton (R–MI) says he hopes both chambers can get a final bill to President Barack Obama this year. “It’s a great accomplishment for something that really deserves a lot of

attention,” Upton said.

A2: Thumpers---Top of DocketTSCA reform comes firstOwens 6/3 {Stephen A., former Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Of counsel on environmental, safety and health issues for Squire Patton Boggs LLP, “US House Energy & Commerce Committee Approves TSCA Reform Legislation - Toxic Substances Control Act,” National Law Review, 2015, http://www.natlawreview.com/article/us-house-energy-commerce-committee-approves-tsca-reform-legislation-toxic-substances#THUR}

Consideration by the Full US House HR 2576 is presently scheduled to be considered by the full US House during the week of June 22 , according to a schedule recently released by the House Majority Leader’s office.

A2: Thumpers---GeneralIssues don’t trade off until it’s at the finish lineDrum, 10 (Kevin, Political Blogger, Mother Jones, http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/03/immigration-coming-back-burner)

Not to pick on Ezra or anything, but this attitude betrays a surprisingly common misconception about political issues in general. The fact is that political dogs never bark until an issue becomes an active one. Opposition

to Social Security privatization was pretty mild until 2005, when George Bush turned it into an active issue. Opposition to healthcare reform was mild until 2009, when Barack Obama turned it into an active issue. Etc. I only bring this up because we often take a look at polls and think they tell us what the public thinks about something. But for the most part, they don't.1 That is, they don't until the issue in question is squarely on the table and both sides have spent a

couple of months filling the airwaves with their best agitprop. Polling data about gays in the military, for example, hasn't changed a lot over the

past year or two, but once Congress takes up the issue in earnest and the Focus on the Family newsletters go out, the push polling

starts, Rush Limbaugh picks it up, and Fox News creates an incendiary graphic to go with its saturation coverage — well, that's when the polling will tell you something. And it will probably tell you something different from what it tells you now. Immigration was bubbling along as sort of a background issue during the Bush administration too

until 2007, when he tried to move an actual bill . Then all hell broke loose. The same thing will happen this time, and

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

A2: Thumpers---TPAObama not pushing with democratsSteinhauer 6/16 {Jennifer, award-winning reporter covering the United States Congress, “House Moves to Delay Action on Trade Bill for 6 Weeks,” New York Times, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/house-moves-to-delay-action-on-trade-bill-for-6-weeks.html#THUR}

In an extraordinary twist that perhaps only a lame duck president can relish, President Obama has largely jettisoned his plan to lure House Democrats to get his trade agenda through Congress, and instead is now working closely with Republican leaders. After weeks of wooing, pleading with and occasionally berating members of his own party in the hope that they would get behind what could be his last major

economic policy achievement, Democrats delivered a mortifying defeat to his trade package on the House floor last Friday,

sparking a change in strategy. Counting on Democrats “has now been abandoned , essentially,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the No. 2-ranking member of his party in the House, told reporters on

Tuesday. So Mr. Obama has now turned his focus to House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority

leader, to find a legislative strategy that would preserve trade promotion authority, which would give the president

accelerated power to negotiate the broader Trans-Pacific Partnership accord with 11 other nations from Japan to Chile. “The speaker and I have spoken with the president about the way forward on trade,” Mr. McConnell told reporters on Tuesday. “It’s still my hope that we can achieve what we’ve set out to achieve together, which is to get a six-year trade promotion authority bill in place that will advantage the next occupant of the White House as well as this one. And obviously there was a malfunction over in the House on Friday that we all watched with great interest, and we are not giving up.”

Not top of the docket – House punted TAA for 6 weeksSteinhauer 6/16 {Jennifer, award-winning reporter covering the United States Congress, “House Moves to Delay Action on Trade Bill for 6 Weeks,” New York Times, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/us/house-moves-to-delay-action-on-trade-bill-for-6-weeks.html#THUR}

The Democrats’ strategy worked in stopping fast-track authority, but it also left open the possibility that Congress would ultimately pass only fast-track authority , with no additional protection for workers. On Tuesday, House Republicans were set to take a second vote on t rade adjustment assistance. But instead, lawmakers voted on, and

approved 236 to 189, another measure that would allow Congress up to six weeks to ponder ways to get the fast-track trade bill to President Obama’s desk before the August recess.

A2: Uniqueness OverwhelmsWill pass – but it still has a long way to go – bipartisan support, momentum, increased democratic backing, compromise edits Kollipara 5/6 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, “U.S. Senate Makes Progress on Chemical Regulation Reform, But Obstacles Await,” AAAS, 2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/05/u-s-senate-makes-progress-chemical-regulation-reform-obstacles-await#THUR}

A bipartisan effort to revamp how the U.S. government tests and regulates toxic industrial chemicals reached a new milestone last week when a Senate panel easily advanced a measure to overhaul the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA). Although the bill gained broader support among Democrats after sponsors revised an early draft,

it still has a long way to go. Some liberal Democrats and environmental groups continue to oppose the measure,

and a lengthy legislative and procedural battle lies ahead. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is working on its own

version of the bill, with an initial vote tentatively set for 14 May. On 28 April, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee took arguably the biggest step toward TSCA reform in decades, voting 15 to 5 to advance S. 697 to the Senate floor. Sponsored by senators Tom Udall (D–NM) and David Vitter (R–LA), the measure aims to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) more power to restrict the thousands of industrial chemicals in U.S. commerce, and to order new safety data from

makers, while striving to craft a more nationally uniform regulatory system. The vote came a day after the bill’s sponsors made changes to the original measure to resolve some concerns from environmental groups and Democrats. The most notable changes scale back how much the measure would restrict state power to issue new chemical

regulations. “Senator Udall and I took the concerns presented by many colleagues and stakeholders and set out to make the bill even stronger,” Vitter said before the vote. He called the bill “a marked improvement over current law” that represents a “significant positive compromise.” But Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), who has opposed S. 697 since its introduction in March, said the newly altered bill was still too weak, and many environmental and health groups agreed. Boxer, the committee’s top Democrat, suggested she will use procedural tactics to stall the bill and will try to amend it on the Senate floor. “I will stand on my feet until I can’t stand on my feet anymore,” Boxer said at the committee meeting, “because I refuse to bend in the face of serious problems in a bill that is said to fix a broken law.” Toxic tug of war The continuing tug of war over S. 697 underscores the long-fraught history of TSCA reform.

Democrats, Republicans, public interest groups, and the chemical industry all say that TSCA needs fixing, but lawmakers have repeatedly failed to resolve differences among stakeholders on how to do it. S. 697 may

represent the best shot yet of reforming TSCA, in the view of the measure’s supporters. The bill now boasts 11 Democrats and 11 Republicans as co-sponsors, as well as support from chemical industry groups and at

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

environment or body; and Toughen requirements for chemical makers and EPA to consider nonanimal forms of testing. The current bill also revises earlier provisions that critics worried would have made it tougher for EPA to regulate products (or “articles”) that contain a known toxic chemical, as well as murky language that might have inadvertently required EPA to keep considering costs in chemical assessments and blocked certain state air and water

pollution laws. With these changes, three more environment committee Democrats backed the bill : Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI), Cory Booker (D–NJ), and Jeff Merkley (D–OR).

*** LINKS

General Surveillance---Popularity---DemsPlan is hyper-unpopular – “soft on crime” labelHancock 14 {Jerry, director of The Prison Ministry Project, “'Soft on Crime' Tactic Works, but at a High Cost,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 6/30, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/soft-on-crime-tactic-works-but-at-a-high-cost-b99301906z1-265307291.html#THUR}

Politicians are addicted to crime . Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives are all addicted to crime and the politics of fear . I recently received a fundraising request from a liberal Democrat, a candidate whose positions

and career I generally respect. In the request, he accused the incumbent of being "soft on crime." I realize that many of us

might agree that it is wrong not to prosecute campaign finance violations — which was the context of the solicitation — but the phrase itself is toxic . It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the causes and problems of mass incarceration. If a liberal Democrat will use "soft on crime" when he thinks it will motivate voters , there is very little hope we will ever be "smart on crime." "Soft on crime" is one of those simple phrases — such as "truth in sentencing" or "three

strikes and you're out" — that so oversimplify complex issues that they suck the life out of people. We see the consequences of "soft on crime" campaigns every time we visit men and women serving sentences without hope in Wisconsin's overcrowded prisons. Any serious candidate should know better. Anyone running for public office should read Michelle Alexander's book, "The New Jim Crow." Alexander details the causes and costs of keeping more than 2 million of our brothers and sisters behind bars and keeping fathers of 2 million children in prison. Alexander explains that mass incarceration results from two explicit public policies: the war on drugs and tough-on-crime laws (such as "truth in sentencing") that have led to more people being put in prison for longer sentences with no chance for parole or

time off for good behavior. Accusing an electoral opponent of being "soft on crime" is a powerful weapon . It motivates voters by preying on their fears — sometimes realistic but often inflated — of becoming victims of crime. The "soft on crime" charge often works , but it comes with a terrible cost. Candidates who get elected by being "tough on crime" mortgage their political and moral future and the future of the citizens they claim to serve. Having been elected by calling their opponents "soft on

crime," they know the power of the allegation. Once elected, they are compelled to do everything they can to show

they will never be "soft on crime ." More prisons get built. Sentences get longer. Parole is denied. Pardons are refused. In the end, Wisconsin ends up spending more on prisons than on its world-class university system or on health care, with no justifiable increase in public safety.

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

examples. “Tough-on-crime” laws are economically unfeasible, ineffective, and unjust; yet their creation continues . Chelsea’s law, the newest “tough-on-crime” law, was enacted just over three years ago. Unfortunately, “tough-on-crime” laws are

a lot like chocolate cupcakes at a soccer mom bake sale. When they’re just an idea, everyone loves them . They’re the “talk of the town.” Upon presentation, eyes grow wide. People begin to salivate. They seem so appeasing . People don’t realize just how bad an idea they are until they’ve had time to digest one. Once the high is over, the reality sets in that they just make everyone feel bad and weren’t very good to begin with. A “tough-on-crime” law is similar, and it’s an easy dish to create if you

have the right ingredients. Like flour, the base ingredient for a “tough-on-crime” law is public fear . It has been said: “Behind every bad

law [there is] a deep fear.” In the context of criminal laws, this fear is of a monstrous villain, and three types of villains

are most often cited: sex offenders, drug addicts, and career criminals. Of these choices, sex offenders are the fiend du jour, with child molesters being more villainous than rapists. Sex offenders are seen as monsters and despised by society. Even in prison, “a society unto itself,” sex offenders have the lowest rank in the social order. The public views sex crimes as the most morally reprehensible crimes and, therefore, sex offenders create a moral panic. Sex offenders may

garner the most attention, but drug addicts and career criminals are also vilified. Drug addiction is seen as a “moral failing,” with drug

addicts being confined to prisons rather than treated for a chronic brain disease. While some drug laws have been reformed, the “War on Drugs” rages on. Only certain career criminals are seen as villains, though. If an offender’s rap sheet is long enough

and sufficiently disturbing, he can become a very powerful villain. A rape, murder, or kidnapping can transform a petty criminal into someone to be feared. The next and most important ingredient, like the sugar in a cupcake, is the media’s continual stream of fear appeals . Fear appeals persuade action by highlighting threats to public safety. The strongest fear appeal is provided by the media’s spotlight on the rape or murder of a white child, preferably a female. Many “tough-on-crime” laws have been named after the children whose murders inspired the legal causes: Chelsea’s law, Megan’s law, Jessica’s Law, Marsy’s Law, the Adam Walsh Act, and the Jacob Wetterling Act. California’s Three Strikes Law was enacted

in response to the media-incited public fear after the murder of Polly Klaas. During the War on Drugs, there were no specific horrendous incidents for the media to amplify. Instead, yellow journalism was used. From Reefer Madness to reports that African-Americans who used cocaine were raping white women, the media used its power to garner support for “tough-on-crime” legislation. As the focus of the media’s fear appeals has changed, so have the villains. From the 1870s until the 1990s, drug addicts were the main villains. In the 1990s, career criminals were the focus. Since 1994, sex offenders have been the

focal point. Similar to our addiction to sugar, people are addicted to the media , and the media continually spoon-feeds these fear appeals to the masses . Unable to abstain from viewing, fears are aroused. This arousal is

uncomfortable. To correct this emotional dysregulation, humans instinctively react to the perceived need to

protect themselves by pressuring politicians for change. Politicians are also controlled by fear. In fact, it is largely due to their fear of not being re-elected that politicians have enacted these unnecessary

laws. Without the addictive media, there would be no “tough-on-crime” laws. For example, a year before Polly Klaas’s murder inspired California’s Three Strikes Law, Kimber Reynolds, another young white girl, was murdered by a career criminal. But, no one supported the Three Strikes Law Kimber’s father was promoting

because there was no media attention surrounding her murder. While a personal or political agenda can be helpful in the creation of

a “tough-on-crime” law, it is simply icing on the cupcake. An agenda can have a strong influence on public perceptions . The media can then promote the agenda. For instance, yellow journalism was used to support Richard

Nixon’s “War on Drugs” political agenda and the media promoted Marc Klaas’s personal agenda to rid the streets of career criminals. Once the media has galvanized the public, pressure can be put on politicians to enact legislation. Politicians , whose

primary agenda is re-election, worry they’ll look “soft-on-crime ” unless “tough-on-crime” laws are passed. Unfortunately, after a “tough-on-crime” law is enacted, it can take decades before the ramifications are fully digested and people recognize how bad the law was in actuality. Once the public realizes the ineffectiveness and vindictiveness of “tough-on-crime” laws, the laws are usually reformed. Forty years after the “War on Drugs” began, the focus on drug policies is slowly changing from incarceration to treatment. Almost twenty years after California’s Three Strikes Law was

implemented, it was reformed to focus on serious or violent felonies. A “tough-on-crime” law is a simple dish with only two main ingredients: our fear of villains and the media’s fear appeals. The media has a debilitating effect on our independent thinking

because it spoon-feeds us fear appeals. To regulate our fear, the public creates fear in politicians. These ingredients are

perfect for a “tough-on-crime” law. Due to their simplicity , these laws will continue to be created. It is only by abstaining from our mindless consumption of the media’s fear appeals that laws will transform from being reactive to proactive.

NSA Reform---Popularity---GOPConservatives hate the plan – security concernsBrinker 14 {Luke, politics editor at Salon, former Equality Matters Researcher at Media Matters for America, M.A. in Social Sciences (University of Chicago), B.A. in history (University of Kansas), “How Senate Republicans Scuttled NSA Reform,” Salon, 11/19, http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/how_senate_republicans_scuttled_nsa_reform/#THUR}

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s USA Freedom Act, a proposal to end the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of

Americans’ phone calls, came just short of the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster last night, with the chamber voting 58 to 42 to take up the legislation. With the exception of Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, the Democratic caucus was united in its support for considering the bill. Meanwhile, Republican Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Dean Heller of Nevada, Mike Lee of Utah, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

broke ranks with the GOP and voted to take up the bill. The legislation’s death followed a concerted conservative campaign against it, with opponents like incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell employing alarmist

rhetoric to attack Leahy’s bill as a boon for terrorists . “If our aim is to degrade and destroy [the Islamic

State militant group, also known as ISIS], as the president has said, then that’s going to require smart policies and firm determination,” McConnell declared. “At a minimum, we shouldn’t be doing anything to make the situation worse. Yet that’s just what this bill would do.” McConnell’s remarks echoed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden and George W. Bush-era Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The piece’s title?

“NSA Reform That Only ISIS Could Love.”

NSA Reform---Popularity---LibertariansPlan doesn’t go far left enough – causes controversyBrinker 14 {Luke, politics editor at Salon, former Equality Matters Researcher at Media Matters for America, M.A. in Social Sciences (University of Chicago), B.A. in history (University of Kansas), “How Senate Republicans Scuttled NSA Reform,” Salon, 11/19, http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/how_senate_republicans_scuttled_nsa_reform/#THUR}

Though GOP opposition to the bill stemmed primarily from national security hawks, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who

fashions himself a civil libertarian, also opposed taking up the measure. But whereas his home-state colleague McConnell

opposed the legislation for making changes he asserted were too sweeping, Paul argued that Leahy’s bill didn’t go far enough. Paul, a long-standing opponent of the Patriot Act, cited a provision in the bill that would have extended the ability of the NSA to comb through Americans’ phone records under the Patriot Act. After the vote, though, Paul said he

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

Patriot Act Reform---Popularity---BipartMass opposition to the plan – key leaders, Obama, 100s of congress-people Eddington 6/1/15 “The Patriot Act Is Not Fit for Purpose. Nor Is Its Replacement” Patrick G. Eddington - policy analyst in homeland security and civil liberties at the Cato Institute, June 1, 2015, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/patriot-act-not-fit-purpose-nor-its-replacement

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and presidential

hopeful Senator Marco Rubio have repeated more times than I can count that these Patriot Act provisions are “vital” to preventing another 9/11. But they are objectively wrong. Last month the Department of Justice Inspector General (DoJ IG) released a partially declassified version of a long overdue Patriot Act compliance report. With respect to Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act, which encompasses the controversial telephone metadata program as well as a much larger business records dragnet that just expired, the report found that, “The agents we interviewed did not identify any major case developments that resulted from the records obtained in response to Section 215 orders … ” Nearly 14 years of using this provision—which has swept up tens of millions of records of innocent Americans in the process—has resulted in zero terrorist plots against America being uncovered, much less disrupted. “Real Patriot Act ‘reform’ should substantively bar the government from indiscriminate bulk surveillance.” And this applies not simply to the telephone metadata program exposed by Edward Snowden two years ago, but to every Sec. 215-related program since the Patriot Act was enacted in October 2001. The DoJ IG report’s findings mirror those of President Obama’s own Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which issued its own report over 18 months ago. This is exactly the same dismal record uncovered by The New York Times’s Charlie Savage with respect to the once-illegal Stellar Wind warrantless surveillance program initiated by then-NSA Director Michael Hayden three days after the 9/11 attacks. And both programs have cost millions to run and to store the personal data of

every American who has ever used a phone, computer, or tablet—a de facto “mass surveillance tax.” Yet this Patriot Act national security boondoggle is held up by senior congressional leaders, and even President Obama himself, as critical to protecting the nation when all available data says exactly the opposite. In his weekly address the day before a fresh Senate debate over renewing the useless authorities, President Obama engaged in the kind of fear-mongering and proffering of demonstrable falsehoods we routinely see from neoconservatives. “Terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL [ISIS] aren’t suddenly going to stop plotting against us at midnight tomorrow,” Obama said in a statement. “And we shouldn’t surrender the tools that help keep us

safe. It would be irresponsible. It would be reckless. And we shouldn’t allow it to happen.” The president and hundreds of members of Congress in both chambers are supporting the maintenance of mass surveillance authorities that don’t work, cost millions annually and have been found either unconstitutional (by one federal district court judge) or illegal (as the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in

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

Link Turns Case---EconomyPartisan spats tank the economy – consumer and investor confidence Harwood 11 {John, Chief Washington Correspondent for CNBC, featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, “Partisan Fighting Carries Risks at Election Time,” The New York Times: The Caucus, 9/4, http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/hostility-among-voters-as-politics-hurt-economy/#THUR}

That is because over the summer, the ideological battles and partisan maneuvers woven into the fabric of the capital began to exert their own damaging effect on the economy , analysts from Washington to Wall Street have concluded. Typically, economic conditions frame the political debate. But in the fight over raising the federal

debt limit, the political debate also influenced economic conditions — and not for the better. Last week’s unemployment report showing no job growth in August provided new evidence that the simultaneous erosion of confidence in the economy and in the government has harmed prospects for American workers and businesses. Thus in the post-Labor Day chapter of divided government, both parties are playing with this politically combustible material : the hostility of voters who see them as not merely failing to solve economic problems but, in fact, actively compounding them . The immediate legislative question is whether rising anxiety can drive Republicans and Democrats toward consensus solutions. So far, there is scant evidence of that happening, as the squabble over scheduling the president’s address to Congress made clear. White House advisers say Mr. Obama, exasperated with Republicans’ refusal to cooperate, is preparing to use his speech on Thursday to fight for an ambitious job-creation proposal costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But Republicans, ridiculing the idea of another stimulus, show limited interest in bargaining — even on tax-cut ideas they previously backed. Both of those calculations now involve heightened risks as the 2012 elections approach. The president is in the

most conspicuous jeopardy. But Congressional Republicans are heading into these new skirmishes with their careers on the line, too. Eroding Confidence What

makes political attitudes so economically consequential now is the role that consumer and business confidence plays in determining whether the stalled recovery kicks into gear — or slips back into recession. Since the 2008 financial crisis, Americans shaken by job losses, stagnant wages and falling home values have been borrowing less and spending less. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York calculated this year that this

“deleveraging” has siphoned $480 billion annually from the cash flow of American consumers. No one expects that lost spending to return.

But the more pessimistic consumers feel, the less likely it is that businesses will see profit in hiring new workers and investing in additional production with the cash now filling their coffers. Research by the Republican pollster Bill

McInturff and his Democratic counterpart Peter Hart for the financial television network CNBC showed that confidence was weak even before the final negotiations over the debt ceiling last month. By June, just 29 percent of Americans expected

their wages to rise in the next year; 50 percent called it a bad time to invest in the stock market; and 30 percent expected their home values to decrease soon, compared with just 15 percent who expected an increase. Since then, Mr. McInturff said, the

infighting in Washington has eroded consumer confidence further than economic conditions themselves might have warranted. Mr. Hart reached the same conclusion in separate research for Citibank that showed Americans with diminishing expectations for recovery even as their assessment of current conditions remained unchanged since January.

Link Turns Case---HegemonyHeightened political polarization makes us look dysfunctional – crushes primacy and eviscerates allies’ trustCollinson 13 {Stephen, syndicated White House correspondent, “World Worries Despite Temporary Truce in Polarized US,” AlterNet, 10/20, http://www.alternet.org/progressive-wire/world-worries-despite-temporary-truce-polarized-us#THUR}

The world got a close-up look at US democracy during Washington's debt default showdown, and was traumatized by

what it saw . Foreign commentators branded America "befuddled," and mocked its

"dysfunctional" political system while French newspaper Le Monde bemoaned a " piteous spectacle "

over a just avoided US debt default. The bad news for America's worried friends is that new stalemates over budgets and

borrowing are looming early next year . Foreign angst over the spectacle -- which saw the far right Republican Tea Party faction

try to hold President Barack Obama to ransom -- is understandable. The globalized economy has world powers chained to America's fate : a US debt default could have caused mayhem across the planet. Obama warned the

showdown diminished US standing and "encouraged our enemies, it's emboldened our competitors and depressed our friends." The two week impasse was sparked when House Republicans tried to

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

Link Turns Case---SignalLink alone turns the entire case’s signalNorris, 11 (John Norris is the Executive Director of the Sustainable Security and Peacebuilding Initiative. 3/18, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/rising_to_the_occasion.html)

The question is: What do our leaders need to do—to the degree that we can influence events—to help guide the region down the path to democracy and stability instead of chaos? First and foremost, we need to channel the late Republican Sen. Arthur

Vandenberg of Ohio, who argued that politics should stop at the water’s edge. In other words, we need to dial down the partisan sniping here at home. The president and Congress need to work together. If we get it wrong in the Middle East, both

parties and the American people will reap that ill reward for years to come. Accordingly, the administration should pull in members of Congress, former national security officials of both parties, and other foreign policy experts on a regular basis. These should not be briefings but discussions about how best to navigate the incredibly tricky path before us. The administration needs to be less insular in its decision making and members of Congress need to avoid the cheap thrill of feeding the 24-hour news machine pithy tweets and a steady diet of second guesses. Indeed, it is truly astounding that we may be lurching toward a government shutdown in the middle of the most important

events on the international stage in decades. Members of both parties need to understand full well that the American public will view our politicians as spoiled 12-year-olds if they shutter the government at this moment. Is partisan gridlock really the message we want to broadcast to protesters across the Middle East as they risk their lives fighting for the same freedoms we already enjoy? Second, our strategy needs to be clearly communicated to the public. It is encouraging that President Barack

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

hurtled through a period of incredible change during the last three months. Millions of people have marched in the face of armed opposition to speak out and demand their rights. There can be no better time for the U nited States to demonstrate its own maturity as a democracy by speaking clearly, listening to a diversity of

voices, cooling the partisan rhetoric, and understanding that such historic moments are few and far between.

A2: Courts ShieldPresidents are the focal point of politics – they always get the blame.CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer 4/28/02

Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent: Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer: Welcome back. Time now for Bruce Morton's essay on the struggle

for balanced coverage on the cable networks. Morton: The Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox and MSNBC -- complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected Democrats. They cite CNN, which they say, from January 1 through March 21, aired 157 live events involving the Bush administration, and 7 involving elected Democrats. Fox and MS, they say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is certainly real, for several reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan, so the president has been an active commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's

praising the Easter Bunny. Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the Pentagon's, maybe the State Department's. Why not? It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are pooled, and in war time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's a reason for the coverage gap that's older than Mr. Bush's administration. In war or peace, the president is a commanding figure -- one man to whose politics and character and, nowadays, sex

life, endless attention is paid. Congress is 535 people. What it does is complicated, compromises on budget items done in

private, and lacks the drama of the White House. There's a primetime TV show about a president. None about the Congress. If a small newspaper has one reporter in Washington, he'll cover two things, the local congressional delegation and, on big

occasions, the White House. So the complaining Democrats have a point, but it's worth remembering that coverage of a president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask the Clintons. 9 Presidents will always get more coverage than Congresses. They're sexier. But it won't always be coverage they lik e.

Appointments mean Obama is blamed for Court decisionsSamuel 9 (Terence, Deputy Editor of the Root, “Obama’s Honeymoon Nears its End,” American Prospect, 5/29, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obamas_honeymoon_nears_its_end)This week, Barack Obama named his first nominee to the Supreme Court, then headed west to Las Vegas and Los Angeles to raise money for

Democrats in the 2010 midterms. Taken together, these two seemingly disparate acts mark the end of a certain period of innocence in the Obama administration: The "blame Bush" phase of the Obama administration is over, and the prolonged honeymoon that the president has enjoyed with the country and the media will soon come to an end as well. Obama is

no longer just the inheritor of Bush's mess. This is now his presidency in his own right. The chance to choose a Supreme Court justice is such a sui generis exercise of executive power -- it so powerfully underscores the vast and unique

powers of a president -- that blame-shifting has become a less effective political strategy , and less becoming as well. Obama's

political maturation will be hastened by the impending ideological fight that is now virtually a guarantee for Supreme Court nominations . Old wounds will be

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

but with his overwhelmingly Democratic Senate, the public may be sending preemptory signals that they are not interested in a huge swing on some of these cultural issues that tend to explode during nomination hearings. Even though Obama will win the Sotomayor fight, her confirmation is likely to leave him less popular in the end because it will involve contentious issues -- questions of race and gender politics like affirmative action and abortion -- that he managed to avoid or at least finesse through his campaign and during his presidency so far.

Gets to Congress – Citizens provesZekeny 10 [JEFF, “Political fallout from the Supreme Court ruling” New York Times -- Jan 21 -- http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/political-fallout-from-the-supreme-court-ruling/]

Today’s ruling upends the nation’s campaign finance laws, allowing corporations and labor unions to spend freely on behalf of political candidates. With less than 11 months before the fall elections, the floodgates for political contributions will open wide, adding another element of intrigue to the fight for control of Congress. At first blush, Republican candidates would seem to benefit from this change in how political campaigns are conducted in America. The political environment – an angry, frustrated electorate seeking change in Washington – was already favoring Republicans. Now corporations, labor unions and a host of other organizations

can weigh in like never before. But the populist showdown that was already brewing – President Obama on Thursday

sought to limit the size of the nation’s banks – will surely only intensify by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The development means that both sides will have even louder megaphones to make their voices and viewpoints heard. Mr. Obama issued a statement – a rare instance of a president immediately weighing in on a ruling from the high court – and said his administration would work with Congressional leaders “to develop a forceful response to this decision.” “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Mr. Obama said. “It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday

Americans.” Republicans, of course, hailed the ruling as a victory for the First Amendment. “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has acted to protect the Constitution’s First Amendment rights of free speech and association,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “These are the bedrock principles that underpin our system of governance and strengthen our

democracy.” Democrats, not surprisingly, said the ruling would be bad for democracy. “Giving corporate interests an outsized

role in our process will only mean citizens get heard less,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic

Senatorial Campaign Committee. “We must look at legislative ways to make sure the ledger is not tipped so far for corporate interests that citizens voices are drowned out.”

A2: Link Turn---DemsDems won’t buy in – fear of being labeled soft on crimeBean 12 {Alan, executive director of Friends of Justice, featured in Newsweek, The Washington Post, USA Today, La Monde and The Chicago Tribune and CNN, “The Conservative War on Prisons: How an Unlikely Coalition of Evangelicals and Libertarians Changed the Politics of Crime,” 11/13, http://friendsofjustice.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/the-conservative-war-on-prisons-how-an-unlikely-coalition-of-evangelicals-and-libertarians-changed-the-politics-of-crime/}I heartily commend this well-crafted article on the unlikely evangelical-libertarian coalition that created the Right on Crime movement. David Dagan and Steven M. Teles appreciate that liberal organizations like the ACLU, the Open Societies Institute and the Public Welfare Foundation carried the torch for criminal justice reform during the

dark ages (1980-2000) of tough-on-crime politic and ever-expanding prison populations. But liberal politicians have been too afraid of the soft- on-crime label to associate themselves with the reform movement; in fact, Democrats like Bill Clinton built careers on out-toughing the conservatives . Real political change required a bi-partisan approach, and this meant that the impetus for reform had to come from the political right . Democrats will vote for change, but only if conservatives give them political cover. Conservatives, especially in deep-red states like Texas, don’t have to worry about looking soft.

A2: Link Turn---Freedom Act ProvesMass opposition to the plan – lobbies, security threats, empirics - it’s meaningfully distinct from Freedom Act – strength of bill and time crunchClabough 3/31/15 “House Members Target Patriot Act with "Surveillance State Repeal Act"” Raven Clabough – staff at The New American, bachelor’s and master’s degrees in English at the University of Albany, Tuesday, 31 March 2015, http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20560-house-members-target-patriot-act-with-surveillance-state-repeal-act *language modified

U.S. Representatives Mark Pocan (D-Wis., photo on left) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who are seeking to repeal the PATRIOT Act in its

entirety and combat any legal provisions that amount to American spying, unveiled their Surveillance State Repeal Ac t on Tuesday. “This isn’t just tinkering around the edges,” Pocan said during a Capitol Hill briefing on the legislation. “This is a meaningful overhaul of the

system, getting rid of essentially all parameters of the PATRIOT Act .” “The PATRIOT Act contains many provisions that violate the

Fourth Amendment and have led to a dramatic expansion of our domestic surveillance state,” added Massie (R-Ky.), who co-authored the legislation with Pocan. “Our Founding Fathers fought and died to stop the kind of warrantless spying and searches that the PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act authorize. It is long past time to repeal the PATRIOT Act and reassert the constitutional rights of all Americans.” The House bill would completely repeal the PATRIOT Act, passed in the days following the 9/11 attacks, as well as the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, which permits the NSA to collect Internet communications — a program exposed by former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden. Likewise, the bill would reform the court that oversees the nation’s spying powers, enhance protections for whistleblowers, and stop the government from forcing technology companies to create easy access into their devices. “The warrantless collection of millions of personal communications from innocent Americans is a direct violation of our constitutional right to privacy,” declared Congressman Pocan, adding, “Revelations about the NSA’s programs reveal the extraordinary extent to which the program has invaded Americans’ privacy. I reject the notion that we must sacrifice liberty for security. We can live in a secure nation which also upholds a strong commitment to civil liberties.” Massie stated, “Really, what we need are new whistleblower protections so that the next Edward Snowden doesn’t have to go to Russia or Hong Kong or whatever the case may be just for disclosing this."

According to The Hill, the bill is not likely to gain much traction, as leaders in Congress “have been worried that

even much milder reforms to the nation’s spying laws would tragically handicap [curtail] the nation’s ability to fight terrorists.” A 2013 Surveillance State Repeal Act never picked up any momentum , and even bills with smaller ambitions have failed to gain passage. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the USA Freedom Act in 2014,

which sought to curtail the amount of mass surveillance that could be performed by the NSA and other groups. As predicted, however, the bill was dramatically watered down during the consensus process. The White House signaled its “strong support” for the bill only

after privacy protections and transparency provisions were substantially weakened . Privacy advocates who once

supported the USA Freedom Act were dismayed by its transformation into a consensus bill, which no longer prevented the NSA or FBI from warrantlessly sifting

through international communications databases. Some critics even argued that the USA Freedom Act in its final form would have expanded NSA authorities because of its vague wording about what constituted a “connection” between

call records. Ultimately, the USA Freedom Act failed to garner enough votes in the Senate, as opponents claimed that its passage would have left the country

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

of Americans’ phone calls. NSA critics have been hopeful that the impending June 1 deadline would be the

appropriate time to strike against unpopular programs such as this one. Privacy advocates such as the American Civil

Liberties Union and the CATO Institute are expected to lobby heavily in support of reform. Patrick Eddington, national security and civil liberties policy analyst for

the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, declared, “All mass surveillance does is violate the rights and put a chilling effect on the American people.” But NSA critics can expect to hear much of the same fear-mongering language from surveillance supporters that has been used against every NSA reform measure proposed in the last few years.

A2: Link Turn---LobbiesNo risk of turns -- lobby impact is overrated – laundry list. Insight on the News 3 [Sept 15 --lexis]

Do we really have the best Congress money can buy? Maybe not. Paul Burstein, a sociology professor at the University of Washington, looked

into the matter and concludes that "Contrary to popular belief and typical media portrayals, big campaign contributions and lobbying do not necessarily win the political influence that determines votes in the U.S. Congress." Writing in the summer 2003 edition of Contexts, the magazine of the American Sociological Association, Burstein says his

research indicates votes are more often than not dictated by public opinion, ideology and party affiliation. "The power of interest groups to get legislators to change their votes in the face of personal ideology and party commitments is real but very

limited," Burstein maintains. And just why does it appear otherwise? The author says that part of the misconception is due to media focus on the egregious actions of a few, and part is due to the individual perception that if government is not doing things "my way," then obviously it is a tool of special interests. Burstein says his study

merely is one of many showing that money and special interests have little influence on the shaping of policy. This

influence is limited by several factors, he says. For one thing, politicalaction-committee campaign contributions are not large compared with campaign costs, so their clout in that regard is limited. For another, "there are so many lobbyists that most cannot gain access to members of Congress, much less influence them." And lastly, "the number of members actually influenced by contributions and lobbying is often too small to determine the outcome of key votes." Burstein analyzed key votes from 2002 in reaching his conclusions. Most followed party affiliation. The major influence on voting, he concludes, is public opinion.

*** INTERNAL LINKS

PC Key---GeneralPC key – overcomes ideology, lobbying, and empirics – specifically answers uniqueness overwhelms the linkChoma 5/28 {Russ, investigate journalist for the Center for Responsive Politics, winner of the Neiman Foundation for Journalism’s I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence, “Chemical Safety Law Rewrite Triggers Strong Reactions,” 2015, http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/chemical-safety-law-rewrite-triggers-strong-reactions/#THUR}

Next month the House will consider a bill to overhaul how the federal government regulates toxic chemicals. That in

itself is a milestone: Despite bipartisan support for the idea, the process has been long and tortured ,

complicated by millions in lobbying and campaign donations. And the fight may be far from over. Lawmakers on both sides wield environmental issues like climate change and pipeline construction as ideological axes. But environmental and health advocates and industry backers alike agree that the regulatory regime for chemical safety needs a rewrite — though what that should look like is a matter of dispute — and each successive news story involving toxics makes the need more urgent. Nearly 40 years after the original legislation in this area, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was passed, practically no chemicals have been banned or regulated, and chemical manufacturers are dealing with an array of state laws passed because so little action was occurring at the federal level. A new issue profile from the Center for Responsive Politics aims

to lay out some of the background of this contentious battle . The latest effort is the TSCA Modernization Act, which, among other things, would give EPA enhanced authority to require testing of new and existing chemicals and make it harder for states to set tougher standards. A similar provision passed the Senate earlier this year, and the bill flew out of a House Energy and Commerce

subcommittee hearing with unanimous support earlier this month. It still faces a hearing with the full committee, which is

expected early next month, followed by consideration by the full House, which supporters hope will happen by the end of June.

But the bill is far from done , as more amendments and reconciliation with the Senate’s version still lie ahead. And similar bills with promising bipartisan support have failed in each of the last several Congresses. There’s a wide array of interests involved, and the tremendous pressure the chemical industry can bring which can sway even stalwart opponents

PC Key---Effectiveness TrickPC key to effective legislation – shapes debate on key provisions like the precautionary principle and what chemicals to prioritizeOberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan – yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar Association, “Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform,” Environmental Law Institute, http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-Larris-ObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}

Determining the Appropriate Safety Standard Defining TSCA’s safety standard could be an area of significant debate .

Under EPA’s recently announced principles, greater responsibility would shift to industry. For example, under the

current law, EPA must show why it believes a chemical poses a health threat and must use the least burdensome alternative to

restrict a chemical’s use. 8 That standard, according to Administrator Jackson, “has been a bugaboo for quite some time.” 9 This is

because the burden is placed on EPA to first establish that a chemical poses a health threat before it can act. Now, EPA wants Congress to shift that burden to industry to prove that a chemical is safe. Under EPA’s proposal, manufacturers will be

required to develop and submit data to show that existing chemicals are safe. 10 Although EPA did not say that it will require industry to submit data for all chemicals, there are concerns that this approach will be similar to the European Union’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulations. The basic principle of REACH is that industry is responsible for ensuring that substances contained in products do not adversely affect human health or the environment, under normal and reasonably foreseeable

conditions of use. 11 REACH is based on the precautionary principle, which advocates taking precautionary action when chemicals pose

possible threats to human health and the environment, rather than waiting for scientific proof of cause and effect. 12 The precautionary principle has not traditionally been a basis for policymaking in the United States. III. Prioritizing Chemical Regulation Another area of likely debate is the task of determining which chemicals should receive priority in regulation. Considering there are

approximately 80,000 chemicals approved for use in commerce, it is essential that there be a statutory and/ or regulatory basis for identifying the chemicals that will be evaluated first. This issue was addressed on November 17, 2009,

during a U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination before the House of Representatives Subcommittee

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 13 At that hearing, representatives of industry and environmental and public health advocacy groups

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

A2: Obama Isn’t PushingYes push – public statements prove that legislation meets Obama requirementsBergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. “Regulatory Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” March 19th, http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}

Jones testified that, while the Obama Administration does not have a position on TMA DD, he would like to offer several observations. As stated in EPA's September 2009 Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management

Legislation, any TSCA reform bill should include improvements that would provide EPA the ability to make timely decisions if a chemical poses a risk and the ability to take action, as appropriate, to address that risk. Jones described a possible "catch-22" in TMA DD, which would require EPA to make a finding regarding the potential for risk prior to beginning the risk evaluation process. Jones also described the deadlines in TMA DD as "unreasonably short" in many cases, and expressed his willingness to discuss more

realistic timelines. According to Jones, while TMA DD removes the least burdensome requirement under TSCA and appears to be consistent with the Obama Administration's principle that TSCA should reflect risk-based criteria protective of human health and the environment, it is ambiguous how EPA is to incorporate manufacturer and other costs into a risk management rule. In addition, TMA DD lacks a source of sustained funding.

History proves yes push – key aimOberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan – yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar Association, “Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform,” Environmental Law Institute, http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-Larris-ObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}

Environmental policy was a key issue during the presidential campaign in 2008. Then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged a major change in U.S. environmental policy: “We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake.”1 In 2009, President Obama has started to deliver on his promise. From the

treatment and storage of nuclear waste, to the programs implemented to slash carbon emissions, to the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act’s inclusion of funds for environmental research and green-collar job creation, it is becoming apparent that this president is serious about environmental reform. The Obama Administration’s most recent focus has included the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 2 President Obama has said that he wants the U.S. Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA. 3 That means that for the first time in 34

years, the law regulating toxic chemicals faces a potential major transformation

A2: PC IrrelevantConsensus of studies prove PC keyAnthony J. Madonna¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia, et al Richard L. Vining Jr.¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia and James E. Monogan III¶ Assistant Professor¶ University of Georgia 10-25-2012 “Confirmation Wars and Collateral Damage:¶ Assessing the Impact of Supreme Court¶

Nominations on Presidential Success in the¶ U.S. Senate”

The selection of Supreme Court justices is just one of several key powers afforded to the¶ modern presidency. Presidents use a wide range of tactics to set policy, including their ¶ ability to influence the legislative agenda and staff vacancies to

key independent boards and¶ lower level federal courts. In terms of influencing the legislative agenda, modern presidents¶ introduce legislation and define policy alternatives (Covington, Wrighton and Kinney 1995;¶ Eshbaugh-Soha 2005, 2010). The State of the

Union Address and other public speeches are ¶ important venue s for this activity (Canes-Wrone 2001; Cohen 1995, 1997; Light

1999; Yates¶ and Whitford 2005), but they are not the only means through which presidents outline their¶ legislative goals.

Presidents also add items to the legislative agenda intermittently in response¶ to issues or events that they believe require

attention. This may be done either by sending ¶ messages to Congress or through presidential communication to legislators'

constituents.¶ While not unconditional, presidents can use their time and resources to secure the passage¶ of key policy proposals (Edwards and Wood 1999; Light 1999; Neustadt 1955, 1960).

PC theory true for Obama – empiricsColor Lines, 10-14-2011 http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_working.html

But what Obama’s new insistence on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in fact, a powerful bully pulpit. No, he can’t just wave a magic wand and pass bills . No one credible has ever argued that. What he can do is use the substantial power of his office to bully Congress into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The first step in doing so is, as the president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president speaks,

it’s news. So he controls the news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, that’s what we’ll all be talking about. The second step is negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical

bullying creates. And we will all desperately need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its grim climax this winter. So let’s hope Marshall is onto something when he says we might be at a turning point in Washington.

Your evidence oversimplifies political capital Light 99 – Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service (Paul, the President’s Agenda, p. 24-25)

Call it push, pull, punch, juice, power, or clout – they all mean the same thing. The most basic and most important of all presidential resources is capital. Though the internal resources time, information, expertise, and energy all have an impact on the domestic agenda, the President is severely limited without capital. And capital is directly linked to the congressional parties. While there is little question that bargaining skills can affect both the composition and the success of the domestic

agenda, without the necessary party support, no amount of expertise or charm can make a difference. Though

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

A2: PC Irrelevant---IdeologyIdeology doesn’t outweigh – presidential success dictates votesLebo 10 (Matthew J. Lebo, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Journal of Politics, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” forthcoming, google)

Keeping this centrality in mind, we use established theories of congressional parties to model the president’s role as an actor within the constraints of the partisan environment of Congress. We also find a role for the president's approval level, a variable of some controversy in the presidential success literature. Further, we are interested in both the causes

and consequences of success. We develop a theory that views the president’s record as a key component of the party politics that are so important to both the passage of legislation and the electoral outcomes that follow. Specifically, theories of partisan politics in Congress argue that cross-pressured legislators will side with their parties in order to enhance the collective reputation of their party (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), but no

empirical research has answered the question: "of what are collective reputations made?" We demonstrate that it is the success of the president – not parties in Congress – that predicts rewards and punishments to parties in Congress. This allows us to neatly fit the president into existing theories of party competition in Congress while our analyses on presidential success enable us to fit existing theories of party politics into the literature on the presidency.

Prefer our studies – examines both presidential and congressional influence – their studies don’t. Lebo 10 [Matthew J., Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, and Andrew O'Geen, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, “The President’s Role in the Partisan Congressional Arena” Journal of Politics -- online]

A similar perspective on the importance of legislative victories is shared by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. His observation that ‘‘When a party fails to govern, it fails electorally,’’ is indicative of a view in Washington that electoral fortunes are closely tied to legislative outcomes. This view is echoed in theories of political parties in Congress (e.g., Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005; Lebo, McGlynn, and Koger

2007). But the consequences of presidential failure to members of his party are largely unexplored in empirical research. Also, while the fairly deep literature on the causes of presidential success has focused a lot on the partisan environment within which the president’s legislative battles are won and lost, it pays less attention to theories of congressional parties. Our attempt to combine these theories with a view of the president as the central actor in the partisan wars is meant to integrate the literatures on the two

institutions. Even as the study of parties in Congress continues to deepen our understanding of that branch, the role of the president is usually left out or marginalized. At the same time, research that centers on the president’s success has developed with little

crossover. The result is that well-developed theories of parties in Congress exist but we know much less about how parties connect the two branches. For example, between models of conditional party government (Aldrich and

Rohde 2001; Rohde 1991), Cartel Theory (Cox and McCubbins 1993, 2005), and others (e.g., Patty 2008), we have an advanced understanding of how parties are important in Congress, but little knowledge of where the president fits. As the head of his party, the president’s role in the partisan politics of Congress should be central.

A2: PC Not Real---OrnsteinOrnstein concludes neg – there is an agenda setting impact and the president matter in close votesNorman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a contributing editor and columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an election eve analyst for BBC News. He served as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch series. 5-8-2013 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-of-presidential-leadership/

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

---their card ends---All this is not to say that leadership is meaningless and the situation hopeless. Obama has failed to use

the bully pulpit as effectively as he could, not to change votes but to help define the agenda, while his adversaries have

often—on health care, the economy, stimulus, and other issues—defined it instead. Shaping the agenda can give your allies traction

and legitimize your policy choices and put your opponents on defense. And any of us could quibble with some of the strategic choices and timing emanating from the White House. But it is past time to abandon selective history and wishful thinking, and realize the inherent limits of presidential power, and the very different tribal politics that Obama faces compared with his predecessors.

A2: Winners WinPC finite – legislative wins don’t spillover – empirics, true for Obama, too polarizedTodd Eberly is coordinator of Public Policy Studies and assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary's College of Maryland. His email is teeberly@smcm.edu. This article is excerpted from his book, co-authored with Steven Schier, "American Government and Popular Discontent: Stability without Success," to published later this year by Routledge Press., 1-21-2013 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-21/news/bs-ed-political-capital-20130121_1_political-system-party-support-public-opinion/2

As Barack Obama prepares to be sworn in for the second time as president of the United States, he faces the stark reality that little of what he hopes to accomplish in a second term will likely come to pass. Mr. Obama occupies an office that many assume to be all powerful, but like

so many of his recent predecessors, the president knows better. He faces a political capital problem and a power trap.¶ In the post-1960s American

political system, presidents have found the exercise of effective leadership a difficult task. To lead well, a president needs support — or at least permission — from federal courts and Congress; steady allegiance from public opinion and fellow partisans in the electorate; backing from powerful, entrenched interest groups; and accordance with

contemporary public opinion about the proper size and scope of government. This is a long list of requirements. If presidents fail to satisfy these requirements, they face the

prospect of inadequate political support or political capital to back their power assertions.¶ What was so crucial about the 1960s? We can trace so

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

election of Richard Nixon in 1968 marked the beginning of an unprecedented era of divided government. Finally, the two parties began ideologically divergent journeys that

resulted in intense polarization in Congress, diminishing the possibility of bipartisan compromise. These changes, combined with the

growing influence of money and interest groups and the steady "thickening" of the federal bureaucracy, introduced significant challenges to presidential leadership.¶ Political capital can best be understood as a combination of the president's party support in Congress, public approval of his job performance, and the president's electoral victory margin. The components

of political capital are central to the fate of presidencies. It is difficult to claim warrants for leadership in an era when job approval, congressional support and partisan affiliation provide less backing for a president than in times

past. In recent years, presidents' political capital has shrunk while their power assertions have grown, making

the president a volatile player in the national political system.¶ Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush joined the small ranks of incumbents defeated while seeking a second term. Ronald Reagan was elected in two landslides, yet his most successful year for domestic policy was his first year in office. Bill Clinton was twice elected by a comfortable margin, but with less than majority support, and despite a strong economy during his second term, his greatest legislative successes came during his first year with the passage of a controversial but crucial budget bill, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. George W. Bush won election in 2000 having lost the popular vote, and though his impact on national security policy after the Sept. 11 attacks was far reaching, his greatest domestic policy successes came during 2001. Ambitious plans for Social Security reform,

following his narrow re-election in 2004, went nowhere.¶ Faced with obstacles to successful leadership, recent presidents have come to rely more on their formal powers. The number of important executive orders has increased significantly since the 1960s, as have the issuance of presidential signing statements. Both are used by presidents in an attempt to shape and direct policy on their terms. Presidents have had to rely more on recess appointments as well, appointing individuals to important positions during a congressional recess (even a weekend recess) to avoid delays and obstruction often encountered in the Senate. Such power assertions typically elicit close media scrutiny

and often further erode political capital.¶ Barack Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided

government.¶ By mid-2011, Mr. Obama's job approval had slipped well below its initial levels, and Congress was proving increasingly intransigent. In the face of declining public support and rising congressional opposition, Mr. Obama, like his predecessors, looked to the energetic use of executive power. In 2012, the president relied on executive discretion and legal ambiguity to allow homeowners to more easily refinance federally backed mortgages, to help veterans find employment and to make it easier for college graduates to consolidate federal student loan debt. He issued several executive orders effecting change in the nation's enforcement of existing immigration laws. He used an executive order to authorize the Department of Education to grant states waivers from the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act — though the enacting legislation makes no accommodation for such waivers.

Contrary to the outcry from partisan opponents, Mr. Obama's actions were hardly unprecedented or imperial. Rather, they represented a rather typical power assertion from a contemporary president.¶ Many looked to the 2012

election as a means to break present trends. But Barack Obama's narrow re-election victory, coupled with the re-election of a somewhat-diminished Republican majority House and Democratic

majority Senate, hardly signals a grand resurgence of his political capital. The president's recent issuance of multiple executive orders to deal with the issue of gun

violence is further evidence of his power trap. Faced with the likelihood of legislative defeat in Congress, the president must rely on claims of unilateral power. But such claims are not without limit or cost and will likely further

erode his political capital.¶ Only by solving the problem of political capital is a president likely to avoid a power trap. Presidents in recent years have been unable to prevent their political capital from eroding. When it did, their power assertions often got them into further political trouble. Through leveraging public support, presidents have at times been able

to overcome contemporary leadership challenges by adopting as their own issues that the public already supports. Bill Clinton's centrist "triangulation" and George W. Bush's careful issue selection early in his presidency allowed

them to secure important policy changes — in Mr. Clinton's case, welfare reform and budget balance, in Mr. Bush's tax cuts and education reform — that at the time received popular approval.¶ However, short-term legislative strategies may win policy success for a president but do not serve as an antidote to declining p olitical c apital over time, as the difficult final years of both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies demonstrate. None of Barack Obama's recent predecessors solved the political capital problem or

avoided the power trap. It is the central political challenge confronted by modern presidents and one that will likely weigh heavily on the current

president's mind today as he takes his second oath of office.

Wins are too slowSilber 07 [PhD Political Science & Communication – focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making – Prof of Poli Sci – Samford, [Marissa, What Makes A President Quack?, Prepared for delivery at the

2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30th-September 2nd, 2007, Understanding Lame Duck Status Through The Eyes Of The Media And Politicians]

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term. If a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that “capital declines over time –

public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur” (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent. The decline of capital makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps determine if such capital can be

replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be developed.

Our internal link is MORE likelyDavid Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, 1/19/13, Obama 2.0: Smarter, tougher -but wiser?, www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1Smarter, tougher, bolder -his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -and for the country's sake, let's

hope so. Yet, there are ample reasons to wonder, and worry.¶ Ultimately, to resolve major issues like deficits, immigration,

guns and energy, the president and Congress need to find ways to work together much better than they did in the first term.

Over the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war on Obama, and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections.¶ But a growing number of Republicans concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama. It's not that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail.¶ House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration, moving away from a

ruinous GOP stance.¶ One senses that the hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big issues is now slipping away.¶ While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don't see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has

risen to 64%.¶ Conceivably, Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a "grand bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.

Winners don’t win on controversial issues – the hill is too polarized. Mann 10 [Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, “American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections” Brookings Institute -- November]

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

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

*** IMPACTS

Economy---Turns Case---Asia WarEcon collapse turns Asia warAuslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2/6/09, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?pg=2)

AS THEY DEAL WITH a collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia, the most heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade

flows can lead to political tension , nationalist outbursts , growing distrust , and ultimately, military

miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict.

But it is also important to remember what has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward, to development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the 1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones

like Thailand and Mongolia to established states like Japan and South Korea. How will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing

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

Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it is unclear if the American military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it clear that the American people, worn out

from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood and treasure for lands across the ocean.

Economy---Turns Case---DiseaseEconomic decline causes disease spreadRobertson 9 [Dr. Andrew, Physician, June 12th, http://www.physorg.com/news163993567.html]

There are concerns that the financial crisis has already hit tuberculosis control, which has global ramifications, says Robertson.“There are already indications that funding for TB diagnosis and management is decreasing in developing countries and a surge of new cases there may flow onto the US and other countries,” he says. Healthcare in developed countries will also suffer if budgets are cut and incomes fall. Fewer people are accessing private health services in the USA, which will increase the burden on public health services. Resources for disease surveillance are often cut back during difficult economic times, jeopardizing the systems we rely on to identify and deal with emerging diseases - including the current swine flu epidemics.The 1995 economic crisis in Mexico led to 27,000 excess deaths in that country alone - but the effect of this far greater, global downturn is currently “impossible to quantify,” according to Robertson.

Economy---Turns Case---HegPerceived economic strength dictates U.S. global influenceGelb 10 (Leslie, Senior Official – State and Defense Department and President Emeritus – CFR, “Fashioning a Realistic Strategy for the Twenty-First Century,” Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 34(2), Summer, http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives/pdfs/34-2pdfs/Gelb.pdf)

Power is what it always has been. It is the ability to get someone to do something they do not want to do by means of your resources and your position. It was always that. There is no such thing in my mind as “soft” power or “hard” power or “smart” power or “dumb” power. It is people who are hard or soft or smart or dumb. Power is power. And people use it wisely or poorly.

Now, what has changed is the composition of power in international affairs. For almost all of history, international

power was achieved in the form of military power and military force. Now, particularly in the last fifty years or so, it has become more and more economic . So power consists of economic power, military power, and diplomatic power, but the emphasis has shifted from military power (for almost all of history) to now, more economic power. And, as President Obama said in his West Point speech several months ago, our economy is the basis of our international power in general and our

military power in particular. That is where it all comes from. Whether other states listen to us and act on what we say depends a good deal on their perception of the strength of the American economy . A big problem for us in the last few years has been the perception that our economy is in decline.

US economic growth key to sustaining military primacyBeckley 12 (Michael- Professor PolSci Tufts, Fellow International Security Program at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Winter, “China’s Century? Why America’s Edge Will Endure” International Security, Vol 36 No 3, ProjectMuse)

Wealth functions as a source of power because it insulates a state from dependence on others and provides things of value that can be used in bargaining situations. As Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye point out, economic interdependence involves relations of asymmetric vulnerability.80 Wealthy states are better equipped to wield market access and economic sanctions as tools of influence over others. They also have more capital to fund technological innovation and military modernization. All states face the dilemma of balancing short-term spending against long-term economic growth. This predicament, however, is less acute for wealthy states, which

can sustain significant investments in innovation and military power with a relatively small percentage of their total resources. The ability to innovate, defined as the creation

of new products and methods of production, also constitutes a source of power. Like wealthy states, innovative countries are less dependent on others and more capable of producing goods that others value. Innovation also creates wealth and tends to beget further innovation as individual discoveries spawn multiple derivative products and improvements. Innovative activity therefore tends to cluster in [End Page 56] particular places and provide certain countries with significant technological

and military advantages. As Joshua Goldstein has shown, “The country creating a major cluster of innovations often finds immediate military applications and both propels itself to hegemonic status and maintains that status by that mechanism.”81 Military power is generally considered to be the “ultima ratio” of power because it functions as a decisive arbiter of disputes when it is used and shapes outcomes among states even when it is not. Military capabilities can be used to destroy, to back up coercive threats, and to provide protection and assistance. When performed well, these actions can alter the behavior of

other states. Military superiority can also generate wealth by, for example, making a country a more secure and attractive place to invest, as well as provide the means to coerce other countries into making economic concessions. The RAND study found that nuclear weapons were of less importance than conventional capabilities for national influence. Thus, I do not consider them in the following analyses. The authors of the RAND study explain: “Even though nuclear weapons have become the ultima ratio regum in international politics, their relative inefficacy in most situations other than those involving national survival implies that their utility will continue to be significant but highly restricted. The ability to conduct different and sophisticated forms of conventional warfare will, therefore, remain the critical index of national power because of its undiminished utility, flexibility, responsiveness and credibility.”82 The key point is that

national power is multifaceted and cannot be measured with a single or a handful of metrics. In the analyses that

follow, I allot more space to economic indicators than to military indicators. This is not because economic power is necessarily more

important than military power, but rather because most declinist writings argue that the United States is in economic, not military, decline. Moreover, military power is

ultimately based on economic strength. International relations scholars tend to view civilian and military realms as separate entities, but militaries are embedded within economic systems. In a separate study, I show that countries that excel in producing commercial products and innovations also tend to excel in producing military force.83 Part of this advantage stems from greater surplus wealth,

which allows [End Page 57] rich states to sustain large military investments. Economically developed states, however, also derive military benefits from their technological infrastructures, efficient production capacities, advanced data analysis networks, stocks of managerial expertise, and stable political environments. In short, economic indicators are, to a significant degree, measures of military capability. Focusing on the former, therefore, does not imply ignoring the latter.

Economy---Turns Case---OppressionEconomic decline turns all forms of oppressionFinsterbusch 98 (Kurt, prof of sociology @ U of Maryland – College Park, The Coming Age of Scarcity: Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in the Twenty-First Century, Eds. Michael N. Dobkowski & Isidor Walliman, p. 157-8)

The fifth explanation of why scarcity decreases integration is that it aggravates all fissures in society. The shrinking pie intensifies the class struggle as discussed earlier, but Blumberg (1980, 220) adds that scarcity “will almost inevitably increase the overall level of social nastiness” and aggravate all fissures and cleavages, “creating social conflict amid a general scramble for self-aggrandizement.” He goes on to describe how racial, gender, educational, generational, and regional conflicts are likely to intensify in the United States .

Economy---Turns Case---PovertyEconomic collapse decimates the poorKlare 9 [Michael T. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies at Hampshire College, March 19, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/the-second-shockwave_b_176358.html]

While the economic contraction is apparently slowing in the advanced industrial countries and may reach bottom in the not-too-distant future, it's only beginning to gain momentum in the developing world, which was spared the earliest effects of the global meltdown. Because the crisis was largely precipitated by a collapse of the housing market in the United States and the resulting disintegration of financial products derived from the "securitization" of questionable mortgages, most developing nations were unaffected by the early stages of the meltdown, for the simple reason that they possessed few such assets. But now, as the wealthier nations cease investing in the developing world or acquiring its exports, the crisis is hitting them with a vengeance. On top of this, conditions are deteriorating at a time when severe drought is affecting

many key food-producing regions and poor farmers lack the wherewithal to buy seeds, fertilizers, and fuel. The likely result: A looming food crisis in many areas hit hardest by the global economic meltdown. Until now, concern over the human impact of the global crisis has largely been focused -- understandably so -- on unemployment and economic hardship in the United States, Europe, and former Soviet Union. Many stories have appeared on the devastating impact of plant closings, bankruptcies, and home foreclosures on families and communities in these parts of the world. Much less coverage

has been devoted to the meltdown's impact on people in the developing world. As the crisis spreads to the poorer countries , however, it's likely that people in these areas will experience hardships every bit as severe as those in the wealthier

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

dropped, erasing an important source of income to poor communities. Add all this up, and it's likely that "the slowdown in growth will likely deepen the deprivation of the existing poor." In many LICs, moreover, "large numbers of people are clustered just above the poverty line and are therefore particularly vulnerable to economic volatility and temporary slowdowns." As the intensity of the crisis grows, more and more of these people will lose their jobs or their other sources of income (such as those all-important remittances) and so be

pushed from above the poverty line to beneath it. The resulting outcome: "The economic crisis is projected to increase poverty by around 46 million people in 2009."

Economy---Turns Case---ProlifEconomic collapse causes proliferationBurrows & Windram 94 [William & Robert, Critical Mass, p. 491-2]

Economics is in many respects proliferation’s catalyst. As we have noted, economic desperation drives

Russia and some of the former Warsaw Pact nations to peddle weapons and technology. The possibility of considerable profits or at least balanced international payments also prompts Third World countries like China, Brazil, and Israel to do the same. Economics, as well as such related issues as overpopulation, drive proliferation just as surely as do purely political motives. Unfortunately,

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

Economy---Turns Case---RacismEconomic decline turns racismNew York Times 90 [October 24, Section A; Page 24; Column 4; Editorial Desk]

The emancipation of the slaves did not lead directly to segregation, as it should have if American society was primarily and fundamentally racist. Rather, segregation arose in response to a threatening biracial political challenge from black and white farmers in the 1890's to the white elite -- which

capitulated to racism after paternalism failed. Segregation collapsed in the face of a civil rights movement sustained by post-World War II prosperity, while racism is now resurgent in an era of economic decline. This oversimplified summary is meant to document the assertion that racism has been and continues to be fostered by competition for limited resources, that is, it is primarily a class issue. It can best be fought by policies for economic and, hence, social justice.

Economy---A2: No Collapse---Intervening ActorsGlobal institutions can’t check – too weak and regional regimes blockWoods 13 (Ngaire, Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, “Global Institutions after the Crisis,” 9/6, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-empty-promise-of-global-institutions-after-the-crisis-by-ngaire-woods)

When Lehman Brothers collapsed and the global financial crisis erupted five years ago, many glimpsed a silver lining: the promise of more effective global economic governance. But, despite a flurry of early initiatives, the world remains as far from that goal as ever. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), established after the G-20 summit in London in April 2009, has no legal mandate or enforcement powers, nor formal processes for including all countries. The International Monetary Fund still awaits the doubling of its capital (another early vow), while its existing resources are heavily tied up in Europe and its governance reforms are stalled. The World Bank has received a modest increase in resources, but it has yet to build capacity to lend rapidly and globally beyond existing borrowers and loan arrangements, and its income trajectory is diminishing. Yet the need for effective global economic governance remains

more urgent than ever. Banks and other financial firms roam internationally, greatly assisted by market-opening rules embedded in trade and investment treaties, but with no legally enforceable responsibility to provision

adequately for their own losses when things go wrong. Instead, massive risks have supposedly been held at bay by voluntary standards promulgated by a patchwork of public and private “standard-setting” organizations. The crisis proved that this was inadequate . The titans of Wall Street and the City of London were exposed as hugely over-leveraged. Extraordinary profits when their bets paid off increased

their financial and political power – which they still enjoy – with taxpayers left to bail them out when their bets turned bad. The G-20 promised stronger global institutions to prevent this from recurring. But the FSB is not a treaty-based global regulator with enforcement powers. It continues to be a “standard setter” in a world

with strong incentives to evade standards and negligible sanctions for doing so. Furthermore, although the FSB’s standards are

ostensibly “universal,” it does not represent all countries or have formal mechanisms to inform and consult them. Regulators face a Sisyphean task , owing to the absence of strong and consistent political support for reining in the financial titans. A well-resourced financial sector intensively

lobbies the most influential governments in global finance. The reforms of the IMF, another pillar of global financial management, cannot be implemented until the US Congress approves them – and there is no sign of that. Even the new Basel 3 banking

standards have been diluted and postponed. For Brazil, Russia, India, and China, the delay in reforming the IMF is a serious annoyance. They

became major contributors to the Fund’s emergency loan pool (the New Arrangements to Borrow) immediately after the crisis and now provide 15.5% of the NAB’s resources. But the greater voice and voting power that they were promised – commensurate with their status as four of the IMF’s top ten shareholders – has not been delivered. Even the selection of the organization’s managing director remains a European droit du seigneur. More seriously, an

astounding 89.2% of the IMF’s General Resources Account is outstanding to European countries, with just three countries (Greece, Portugal, and Ireland) accounting for 68%. The IMF’s resources are neither adequate nor available to respond to a crisis elsewhere. Similarly, the G-20’s pledge in 2009 to protect the poorest and most fragile countries and communities from the effects of the crisis remains unfulfilled . The World Bank is at the heart of these efforts, because it can pool risks globally and offset the capriciousness of official and private-sector aid flows, which create “donor darlings” (like Rwanda) and “donor orphans.” But,

while the Bank has more than doubled its lending relative to the four years prior to 2008, this was achieved mostly by front-loading existing loans. Crisis-hit countries that were not already borrowers were largely left out. The

Bank’s failure to lend to new clients partly reflects its slowness. Even after its loan cycle had been speeded up, the Bank took an average of 13.5 months to approve credits – a long time for a country to await “emergency” help. But the Bank is also

hampered by worsening resource constraints, as the biggest post-crisis capital infusions went to regional development banks. The African Development Bank’s capital was

increased by 200%, as was the Asian Development Bank’s. The Inter-American Development Bank got a 70% increase. Meanwhile, the World Bank received an increase of 30%, while its lending arm for the poorest countries, the International Development Association, received an increase of only 18%. Crucially, it is not obvious that the Bank has “buy-in” from emerging economies, with Brazil, Russia, India, and China, which pledged significant resources to

the IMF, pledging only about 1% of IDA funding. Further exacerbating the Bank’s financial woes, its powerful creditors have opted to “pull back” its lending in order to protect its resources. As a result, compared to the regional development banks, the Bank will be lending less to fee-paying clients, who provide income, and

engaging in more “concessional lending,” which does not. The 2008 crisis highlighted the need for international cooperation to regulate finance and mitigate the effects of a crisis. Yet the global resources and instruments needed to manage (if not

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

Economy---A2: No Collapse---A2: Resiliency Uneven recovery means extreme fragility – county surveys prove Philipps 14{Jim, Manager at the National Association of Counties, “U.S. Economic Recovery Remains Uneven, Fragile across Counties,” NACO, 1/13, http://www.naco.org/newsroom/Documents/Press%20Release%20Documents/county%20tracker.pdf#THUR}

U.S. economic growth continued last year for the 3,069 county economies, but the recovery remained uneven and fragile, according to an analysis of four economic performance indicators by the National Association of Counties (NACo).

As a result of the fragile and uneven recovery, many counties are continuing to struggle with their budgets, meet

financial obligations and provide essential public services. NACo’s new study, County Tracker 2013: On the Path to Recovery assesses the performance of the nation’s county economies by studying annual changes in four indicators – economic output (GDP), employment, the unemployment rate and home prices. The report also contains case studies to illustrate how specific county economies fared during the recession and recovery. The counties profiled include, Tarrant County, Texas (population 1.9 million), Los Angeles County, Calif. (10 million), Linn County,

Iowa (215,000) and Mountrail County, N.D. (9,000). The economic indicators analyzed by NACo suggest that 2013 was a year of growth, but the recovery remained fragile. By 2013, the economic output (GDP) in about half of all county economies recovered or had no declines over the last decade. Home prices were in the same situation. But this is only part of the story . Jobs recovered in one quarter of county economies and in only 54 county economies unemployment is back to pre-recession levels. The low unemployment recovery rates show the fragility of the recovery. The recovery has been also uneven. All counties , large, mid-sized or small, have been affected by the

recession but the patterns of recovery vary significantly . Large county economies were at the core of the recession and the recovery. Only 4 percent of the nation’s large county economies – in counties with more than 500,000 residents – delivered around 58 percent of the county economies’ output (GDP) growth and a similar share of the added jobs over the recovery. Large county economies in the South such as in Tarrant County, Texas bounced back quickly. “While blessed with an economic diversity that enabled us to withstand the national recession better than other areas of the country, we were most impressed with the resilience of Tarrant County’s manufacturing and housing sectors, which allowed them to respond quicker to developing opportunities,” said Roy Brooks, commissioner, Tarrant County, Texas, and chair of NACo's Large Urban County Caucus (LUCC). Employment in medium-size county economies was more stable during the recession, but had a mixed record in 2013. About half of the medium-sized county economies – in counties with populations between 50,000 and 500,000 residents – had shorter and/or shallower job recessions than the national average. “One of the factors that helped stabilize Linn County’s economy through the recession was the amount of post-flood construction and revitalization that took place,” said NACo President Linda Langston, supervisor, Linn County, Iowa. “Nearly $1 billion was reinvested throughout our community from federal, state, local and private sources in the five years since the flood. Linn County also has the benefit of the value-added agriculture industry and expanding new start-up businesses that helped to fully restore

us to pre-recession levels.” The recovery in small county economies covered the entire scale of potential outcomes. Twenty-seven small county economies – in counties with fewer than 50,000 residents – had no recession or fully recovered across all four indicators by 2013. The housing market downturn

was mild in small county economies, with more than half not going through home price declines or already returned to pre-recession home price levels by 2013. This fragile and uneven recovery across county economies adds to the challenges that counties face currently . Most

counties survived through the recession because of their fiscally prudent approaches . “Los Angeles County would not have weathered the recession as strongly as we did without our focus on fiscal prudency , as well as the partnerships we have with our labor unions, who have foregone cost of living increases to avoid furloughs and layoffs,” said

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chairman Don Knabe, member of the NACo Large Urban County Caucus. “Our frugality has paid off through the

rough economic times . Nevertheless, as we see improvements , we must remain disciplined and continue to operate within our means .” Counties with fast growing economies, such as Mountrail County, N.D. have a hard

time to keep up with the necessary service delivery. “The fast growth that Mountrail County experienced for the last several years has been great with jobs, but tough on the county’s infrastructure and on the county’s residents on fixed incomes,” said Greg Boschee, commissioner, Mountrail County, N.D. Other counties, with challenged economies are finding new ways to maintain services and prepare their counties for the future. “Trying to run county government in a contracting economy and declining population base has its challenges. But similar to running a business, if you are successful at making your organization as efficient as possible in delivering quality goods or services in trying times, you prepare your organization for greater success

during more favorable times” said Matthew McConnell, commissioner, Mercer County, Pa. In addition to the situation of their economy, all counties face a triple threat from the uncertainty around major federal policy changes , from tax reform, entitlement

reform and appropriation cuts, not accompanied by cuts in unfunded mandates and federal regulations. “The national economic numbers mask the growth patterns on the ground,” said Emilia Istrate, NACo’s director of research and lead author of the report. “The dynamics within county economies affect the capacity of counties to deliver services and meet their financial obligations. The County Tracker offers a reminder that the U.S. economy happens on the ground , in the 3,069 county economies

that provide the basis for county governments. As fiscal tightening continues to limit the scope of state and federal investment, it is becoming imperative for states and the federal government to work with counties to maintain the fundamentals of the U.S. economy – county economies.”

Economy---A2: No Impact---GeneralWars following economic collapse causes extinctionAuslin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)

What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.

The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20

million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's

neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that

devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets.

Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not

bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries . Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what

they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang .

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

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline ma y increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has

contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle

theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next . As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that

global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that

'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations.

However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . C rises could

potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third,

others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a s trong correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually

reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other . (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89)

Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004),

which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller

(1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has

provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase

in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-

security debate and deserves more attention.

Decline causes escalatory wars in multiple regionsKemp 10 (Geoffrey, Director of Regional Strategic Programs – Nixon Center and Former Director of the Middle East Arms Control Project – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-234)

The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates,

further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial

crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That

in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The

internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the

democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of

nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried

about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these

circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the

Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a

tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences

for two-thirds of the planet’s population

Economy---A2: No War---A2: No Diversionary TheoryYes diversionary theory Rothkopf 9 – David Rothkopf, Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3-11, 2009, “Security and the Financial Crisis,” Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis

--Destabilizing Bilateral or Regional Effects of the Crisis: The weakening of states can produce instability that spills across borders or can produce social pressures that increase migration and create associated tensions along borders. The rise of opposition groups can create an opportunity for like-minded neighbors to support their activities and thus cause rifts and potential conflicts to spread. Political and economic weakness in nations can be seen by opportunistic neighbors (some wishing to produce distractions from their own crises) as an invitation to intervene in their neighbors politics or even to step in and take control of neighboring territories or to

seek to use force to resolve in their favor long-simmering disputes. In the same vein, old animosities may be inflamed by the crisis

either because they produce tensions that play into the origins of old rivalries or because political leaders seek to play on those rivalries to produce a distraction from their inability to manage the economic crisis. Need may enhance tensions and produce conflicts over shared or disputed resources. A desire to preserve national resources, jobs, or capital may produce reactive economic, border or other policies that can increase tension with neighbors. This can include both trade and capital markets protectionism (in traditional and new forms see below), closed or more tightly monitored

borders, more disputes on cross-border issues and thus both an increase in tensions and a decreased ability to effectively cooperate with neighbors on issues of common concern.

Economy---A2: Reform FailsTSCA reform streamlines regulations – key to the industry and increases consumer trustPeplow 15 {Mark, syndicated science journalist, “An unfortunate oversight,” Chemistry World, 4/27, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2015/04/unfortunate-oversight-tsca-reform#THUR}

Every year, the public relations firm Edelman produces a ‘trust barometer’ that surveys public attitudes to

governments, industries and other institutions around the world. The results don’t make happy reading for the chemicals industry: this year, it gained one of the lowest trust ratings among technology-based businesses, similar to banking and – ahem – the media. Transparent and effective third-party oversight is one of the surest ways of securing trust in an industry. Yet in the US, where chemicals are regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA, pronounced ‘Tosca’), that oversight is sadly lacking. Several efforts to reform the act have foundered in

recent years, deadlocked by partisan politics. Now US politicians are taking another crack at rewriting their chemicals legislation,

and claim that this is the best opportunity ever to reform TSCA . Industry and consumers alike should fervently hope that they succeed. The burden of proof TSCA empowers the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess the health and environmental risks of chemicals used in consumer products and industrial processes (food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides are regulated separately). When the act was passed in 1976, chemicals already on the market were assumed to be safe unless the agency could prove otherwise. But henceforth, manufacturers had to alert the EPA if they planned to launch new products, so that the agency could assess them in

advance. In principle , TSCA offered a much-needed tightening of regulation. In practice, the EPA has not had the funding, nor the political clout, to enforce proper oversight. The agency has always struggled to

persuade industry to release the data needed to make a proper risk assessment; and it has been hamstrung by TSCA’s stipulation that the economic impact of restricting a chemical must also be considered – this was at the root of the agency’s failure to ban asbestos for a wide range of construction uses. There are now more than 80,000 different chemical products in TSCA's inventory, and in almost 40 years the EPA has significantly restricted the sale of fewer than 10 of them. This tally does not reassure the public that the remaining 79,990 are entirely benign. It’s not just

environmental groups that say TSCA is ripe for reform – industry is eager for change too. One of the consequences of ineffective national legislation is that individual states often take it upon themselves to ban particular

chemicals, creating a confusing patchwork of standards across the country.

EPA---2NC ModuleTSCA Reform key to EPA Next Gen enforcement – spills over to better environmental lawsNakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), “TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPA’s Next Generation Enforcement Strategy,” Kirkland Alert, http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}

TSCA Reform and Next Gen Present Opportunities for More Vigorous EPA Enforcement Common examples of EPA’s Next Gen strategy involve such programs as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act . For instance, advancements in pollution monitoring devices provide EPA and communities with greater access to information regarding pollution from particular sources. EPA has been advancing these fence line devices in its enforcement settlements and rulemakings. Yet, increasing electronic reporting opportunities is a component of the

Next Gen strategy — and that is one common goal of TSCA reform. OECA intends to expand transparency by making information from electronic reporting more accessible to the public, with the

intention that broader public awareness will foster heightened compliance by the regulated universe. So too,

OCSPP intends to enhance public access to information through TSCA reform (Principle No. 5). There are only a handful of notable cases that EPA has brought under TSCA in the past 12 years. See OECA Civil Cases and

Settlements by Statute Since EPA began identifying enforcement priorities in the late 90’s, TSCA has never been among the programs that the enforcement office has emphasized as a priority area. With history as prologue, EPA has not identified TSCA as an enforcement priority in the 2014-2016 national enforcement initiatives cycle. While OCSPP has publicly emphasized the importance of chemical safety and risk assessment, OECA has remained silent as to the importance of enforcing chemical safety requirements. However, with TSCA reform legislation

in both chambers, EPA’s enforcement office may have the ability to more readily enforce TSCA through its Next Generation approach. For instance, statutory and regulatory requirements that chemical

companies submit data regarding a chemical’s hazard, exposure, and use could hasten EPA enforcement under the Next Gen framework. And, EPA’s goal of making chemical

information more accessible to the public could result in the public pressuring EPA to pursue more

enforcement actions under TSCA . There is already precedent for this — EPA’s largest civil administrative

penalty obtained under TSCA (in 2005) was the result of information that EPA first received from the public.

Thus, the chemical sector may see increased TSCA enforcement as a result of this confluence of TSCA reform and Next Generation Compliance.

ExtinctionMittermeier 11 (Dr. Russell Alan, primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. From Chapter One of the book Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is ¶ irreversible. Human activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer¶

(Novotny et al. 2002). As species vanish, so too does the health security of every ¶ human. Earth’s species are a vast

genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen – cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning

down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration for¶ manufactured

products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems ¶ that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶

inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything

possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities? Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.¶

EPA---A2: No ImpactSustainability prevents extinctionCairns, ‘4[John, Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, “Future of Life on Earth,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, www.int-res.com/esepbooks/EB2Pt2.pdf]

One lesson from the five great global extinctions is that species and ecosystems come and go, but the evolutionary process continues. In short, life forms have a

future on Earth, but humankind’s future depends on its stewardship of ecosystems that favor Homo sapiens. By practicing sustainability ethics, humankind can protect and preserve ecosystems that have services favorable to it. Earth has reached its present state through an estimated 4550 million years and may last for 15000 million more years. The sixth mass

extinction, now underway, is unique because humankind is a major contributor to the process. Excessive damage to the ecological life support system will markedly alter civilization, as it is presently known, and might even result in human extinction.

However, if humankind learns to live sustainably, the likelihood of leaving a habitable planet for posterity will dramatically increase. The 21st century represents a defining moment for humankind—will present generations become good ancestors for their descendants by living sustainably or will they leave a less habitable planet for posterity by continuing to live unsustainably?

Environmental collapse causes extinctionYule 13 {Jeffrey V, Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolution (Stony Brook), Assistant Professor of Biology and Environmental Science (Louisiana Tech), Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies (Maine), “Biodiversity, Extinction, and Humanity’s Future: The Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Human Population and Resource Use,” Humanities 2013, 2, 147–159, 4/2, http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/2/147#THUR}

Past extinctions coupled with the more recent contraction and fragmentation of range for large vertebrates—which increase the extinction risk of the species that rely on them—raise the possibility that today's ecological communities are so short of large species that human activities have reduced not simply species diversity and

ecological interactions but also the future potential of large mammal evolution [12,13]. As a result, at least the immediate human future will be far shorter of large terrestrial animals than the human past. These smaller populations of nondomestic species will also consist of individuals of smaller average size

than earlier in history. Moreover such a result might represent a best-case scenario . Given current trends, the likelihood is that many of these species will simply be lost. If the evolutionary-ecological coin features extinction on one face,

however, the other features speciation. In natural environments, when extinction leaves a niche vacant, over time, adaptation to the

niche by members of an existing species leads to evolution. Given sufficient time, a future world would support newly evolved species, but at the time scales that evolution requires, it is unclear whether humans would still be around to see them. The history of life on earth indicates that larger animals are more extinction-prone than their smaller counterparts, so we have some sense of how long it takes for new large

species to evolve after extinctions. The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, for instance, involved the loss of numerous orders of large reptiles (e.g., dinosaurs; mosasaurs and plesiosaurs, two groups of marine species that filled the niche of today's toothed whales; and flying reptiles, the pterosaurs). Mammals speciated into many of the niches vacated by extinct reptiles, but the process of large mammals evolving from the available raw materials, which consisted mainly of mammal species with average weights well below 10—20 kg, required millions of years. Evolution of one large species from another can occur more rapidly, if it does not require too extensive a modification of the original species. For example, polar bears, the bear species most highly specialized for meat eating and hunting in and around pack ice. evolved in only 100,000-200,000 years from similarly sized and morphologically similar

brown bears [14]. The history of vertebrate life suggests that large predators could once again evolve to fill the niches left vacant by recent or future predator extinctions. The difficulty is that such speciation would most likely take somewhere between 100,000 years (assuming that new. large species were to evolve from generally similar existing large species) to upwards of one million years (assuming that new, larger species evolved from smaller and/or morphologically dissimilar ancestors). Even the shortest end of that range estimate greatly exceeds the duration of human history. We have no direct experience in developing a perspective on such expansive periods of time. As would be expected, a near-term future with a reduced human A'and a more biodiverse world will tend to lead to a human future in

which our species sees not simply more nondomestic species but more large nondomestic species. By contrast, a near-term future with an increased human N and a less biodiverse world will tend to lead toward a human future involving not simply fewer nondomestic species

but fewer large animals. Although large terrestrial species are among the most visible components of ecological communities, others will also be affected. Human actions have taken and continue to take a profound toll on birds, both as a result of overhunting and introducing predators to islands populated by species that

occur nowhere else. More recently, amphibians have also been in crisis, facing extinction threats greater than either mammals or birds [15]. Depending on how people opt to behave now and for the next several generations, in the future humans will experience either a significantly greater or lesser percentage of today's biodiversity . 4. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and the Longevity of Homo sapiens sapiens Ecologists recognize that the particulars of the relationship between biodiversity and community resilience in the face of disturbance (a broad range of phenomena including anything from

drought, fire, and volcanic eruption to species introductions or removals) depend on context [16,17]. Sometimes disturbed communities return relatively readily to pre-disturbance conditions; sometimes they

do not. However, accepting as a general truism that biodiversity is an ecological stabilizer is sensible — roughly

equivalent to viewing seatbelt use as a good idea: although seatbelts increase the risk of injury in a small minority of car accidents, their use overwhelmingly reduces risk.

As humans continue to modify natural environments, we may be reducing their ability to return to pre- disturbance conditions . The concern is not merely academic . Communities provide the ecosystem services on which both human and nonhuman life depends , including the cycling of carbon dioxide and oxygen by photosynthetic

organisms, nitrogen fixation and the filtration of water by microbes, and pollination by insects. If disturbances alter communities to the extent that they can no longer provide these crucial services, extinctions (including, possibly, our own) become more likely . In ecology as in science in general, absolutes are rare. Science deals mainly in probabilities, in large part because it attempts to address the

universe's abundant uncertainties. Species-rich, diverse communities characterized by large numbers of multi-species interactions are not immune to being pushed from one relatively stable state characterized by particular species

and interactions to other, quite different states in which formerly abundant species are entirely or nearly entirely absent. Nonetheless, in specious communities, the removal of any single species is less likely to result in radical change. That said, there are no guarantees that the removal of even a single species from a biodiverse community will not have significant, completely unforeseen consequences . Indirect interactions can be unexpectedly important to community structure and. historically, have been difficult to observe until some form of disturbance (especially the introduction or elimination of a species) occurs.

Experiments have revealed how the presence of predators can increase the diversity of prey species in communities, as when predators of a

superior competitor among prey species will allow inferior competing prey species to persist [18]. Predators can have even more dramatic effects on communities. The presence or absence of sea otters determines whether inshore areas are characterized by diverse kelp forest communities or an alternative stable state of species poor urchin barrens [19]. In the latter case, the absence of otters leaves urchin populations unchecked to overgraze kelp forests,

eliminating a habitat feature that supports a wide range of species across a variety of age classes. Aldo Leopold observed that when trying to determine how a device works by tinkering with it, the first rule of doing the job intelligently is to save all the parts [20]. The extinctions that humans have caused certainly represent a significant problem , but there is an additional difficulty with human investigations of and impacts on ecological and evolutionary processes. Often, our tinkering is unintentional and, as a result, recklessly ignores the necessity of caution. Following the logic inherited from Newtonian physics, humans expect single actions to have single effects. Desiring more game species, for instance, humans typically hunt predators (in North America, for instance, extirpating

wolves so as to be able to have more deer or elk for themselves). Yet removing or adding predators has far reaching effects. Wolf removal has led to prey overpopulation, plant over browsing, and erosion [21]. After wolves were removed from Yellowstone National Park, the K of elk increased. This allowed for a shift in elk

feeding patterns that left fewer trees alongside rivers, thus leaving less food for beaver and, consequently, fewer beaver dams and less wetland [22,23]. Such a situation represents, in microcosm, the inherent risk of allowing for the erosion of species diversity. In addition to providing habitat for a wide variety of species, wetlands serve as natural water purification systems. Although the Yellowstone region might not need that particular

ecosystem service as much as other parts of the world, freshwater resources and wetlands are threatened globally , and the same logic of reduced biodiversity equating to reduced ecosystem services applies. Humans take actions without considering that when tugging on single threads, they unavoidably affect adjacent areas of the tapestry . While human population and per capita resource use remain high, so does the probability of ongoing biodiversity loss . At the very least, in the future people will have an even more skewed perspective than we do about what constitutes a diverse community. In that regard, future generations will be even more ignorant than we are. Of

course, we also experience that shifting baseline perspective on biodiversity and population sizes, failing to recognize how much is missing from the world because we are unaware of what past generations saw [11]. But the consequences of diminished biodiversity might be more profound for humans than that. If the disturbance of communities and ecosystems results in species losses that reduce the availability of ecosystem services, human K and, sooner or later, human A' will be reduced.

EPA---A2: No Impact---Alt Cause--- DeforestationGlobal deforestation trending down Spross 13 [Jeff Spross is a reporter and video editor for ThinkProgress.org, 6-17, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/17/2140461/fighting-deforestation/]

Progress on preventing deforestation is mixed, but overall seems to be trending in the right direction. Brazil recently announced that rainforest deforestation there was reduced 84 percent over the last eight years, hitting 1,764 square miles from mid-2011 to mid-2012 — the lowest rate since the country began monitoring it. (Though there are concerns that failure by the Brazilian government to properly enforce its forestry code could reverse that trend.) At the same time, the Mekong region — which encompasses Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar — lost nearly a third of its

forest cover between 1973 and 2009. Globally, we’ve seen carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation drop by over 25 percent since 2000, in comparison to 1990s levels. Source: Tropical Forests and Climate Policy All that said, we can certainly do better on fighting

deforestation. After assuming relatively high levels of economic and population growth a 2007 study, found that reducing present deforestation rates by 50 percent by 2050, and then holding the line until 2100, could prevent as much as 50 billion metric tons of carbon emissions this century. That’s 12 percent of what’s needed through 2100 to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon at 450 parts per million — the threshold beyond which most scientists agree the threat of catastrophic climate change becomes intolerable. The IPCC estimates this

could be done for less than $20 per ton. There’s also ocean acidification to consider. Approximately 10 billion metric tons of the carbon dioxide that didn’t enter the atmosphere in 2011 was absorbed by the oceans, driving up the creation of carbonic acid and threatening a whole host of marine ecosystems.

EPA---A2: No Impact---Resiliency No adaptation or redundancyKunich 1 (John Charles, Associate Professor of Law – Roger Williams University School of Law, “Preserving the Womb of the Unknown Species With Hotspots Legislation”, Hastings Law Journal, August, 52 Hastings L.J. 1149, Lexis)

It is possible, and even probable, that some currently "insignificant" species could take on a crucial role in the ecosystems of the future. 67 Wild relatives of current crop species can be an invaluable source of genetic diversity in the event the monoculture cultivated plants fall prey to disease or other environmental conditions. 68 And if

environmental conditions change, through global warming, increased pollution, or other habitat alterations, some other

species may possess traits that will prove preadapted to these new circumstances. Some species that occupy key positions in

today's ecosystems may be unable to adapt , and unless other species are available to fill their niche, the ecosystems may suffer catastrophic degradation . The redundancy provided for by millions of years of natural selection

cannot be fully understood and appreciated unless and until it is needed. 69 It is not necessarily the large, obvious life forms

that play these pivotal roles; in fact, the "lower" levels of the food web are the foundation upon which all other components of each ecosystem depend . 70 [*1168] The biosphere that is the planet earth may be conceptualized as an

exceedingly complex "computer program" with millions of parts, each of which is evolving. It would be foolish indeed to destroy, or

to allow the destruction of, the program's codes, because we do not and cannot know their importance, whether at present

or in some unforeseeably altered world of the future. Extinction shuts doors and deprives us forever of the option to discover value in that which we previously found valueless. 71

Magnitude and rapidity of collapse overwhelm resiliencyWatson 6 (Captain Paul, Founder – Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Conservation Activist, “The Politics of Extinction”, Eco Action, http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html)

The facts are clear. More plant and animal species will go through extinction within our generation than have

been lost thorough natural causes over the past two hundred million years. Our single human generation, that is, all people born between 1930 and 2010 will witness the complete obliteration of one third to one half of all the Earth's life forms, each and every

one of them the product of more than two billion years of evolution. This is biological meltdown , and what this really means is

the end to vertebrate evolution on planet Earth. Nature is under siege on a global scale . Biotopes , i.e.,

environmentally distinct regions, from tropical and temperate rainforests to coral reefs and coastal estuaries, are disintegrating in the wake of human onslaught. The destruction of forests and the proliferation of human activity will remove more than 20 percent of all terrestrial plant species over the next fifty years. Because plants form the foundation for

entire biotic communities, their demise will carry with it the extinction of an exponentially greater number of animal species -- perhaps ten times as many faunal species for each type of plant eliminated. Sixty-five million years ago, a natural cataclysmic event resulted in extinction of the dinosaurs. Even with a plant foundation intact, it took more than 100,000 years for faunal biological diversity to re-establish itself. More importantly, the resurrection of biological diversity assumes an intact zone of tropical forests to provide for new speciation after extinction. Today, the tropical rain forests are disappearing more rapidly than any other bio-region, ensuring

that after the age of humans, the Earth will remain a biological , if not a literal desert for eons to come. The present course of civilization points to ecocide -- the death of nature .

EPA---A2: Status Quo SolvesTSCA under-enforced – reform keyNakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), “TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPA’s Next Generation Enforcement Strategy,” Kirkland Alert, http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}

EPA and the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 EPA's authority to regulate chemical substances arises from the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Title I of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629, has not been reauthorized since its enactment. TSCA provides EPA with authority to require reporting, recordkeeping, and testing of chemicals, and to establish restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs,

cosmetics, and pesticides. See EPA’s Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, for more background information. When TSCA was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered approximately 62,000 chemicals , meaning that these chemicals were not

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

Section 8(b). According to Jim Jones, the assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), in the 38 years since TSCA was enacted, EPA has required testing on approximately 200 of the 84,000 TSCA Inventory chemical substances. Testimony of James J. Jones before the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxic and Environmental Health, United States Senate, July 24, 2012 In 2009, EPA initiated an effort to enhance its chemical management program. Later, in 2012, EPA issued the Existing Chemicals Program Strategy, which enunciated a three-pronged approach for its existing chemical management program. The strategy addresses: risk assessment and risk reduction, data collection and

screening, and public access to chemical data and information. EPA continues to implement this strategy to date. While EPA aims to maximize its existing authority under TSCA, it also advocates for legislative reform of TSCA . EPA believes that

its statutory mandate to assess and address the safety of commercial chemicals can only be effectuated through TSCA reform. Towards that end, EPA has prepared a list of Essential Principles for legislation to reform TSCA. EPA identified six essential principles that would give it the mechanisms and authorities to target chemicals of concern and promptly assess and regulate new and existing chemicals.

EPA---A2: Stripping/TSCA Not KeyReform jumpstarts better EPA enforcement effortsNakayama 14 {Granta Y., Partner at King & Spalding, former assistant administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency, J.D. (George Mason University School of Law), M.S. in Nuclear Engineering (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), “TSCA Reform May Facilitate EPA’s Next Generation Enforcement Strategy,” Kirkland Alert, http://www.kirkland.com/siteFiles/Publications/Alert_041414.pdf#THUR}

Lawmakers, stakeholders, and EPA are advocating for reform to the nation’s chemical law, the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA). While there may not be agreement as to how the law should be reformed, new legislation could facilitate EPA’s enforcement strategy, known as “Next Generation Compliance.” Historically,

the chemical industry has not been in EPA’s crosshairs for compliance with TSCA, unlike other sectors of the

regulated universe. However, the confluence of legislation reforming TSCA and the Agency’s heightened interest in Next Generation Compliance may foster a more vigorous TSCA enforcement program.

Health---2NC ModuleTSCA reform key to prevent endocrine disruption – reject biased aff evidence from the chemical industry – current law is insufficientCEH 13 {Center for Environmental Health, “American Health Depends on Stronger TSCA Reform,” http://www.ceh.org/american-health-depends-stronger-tsca-reform/#THUR}

TSCA Reform may be the most important legislation you’ve never heard of. If you have heard about it, it is likely

that what you’ve learned has been misinformation deliberately spread by the chemical industry. What every American needs to know: The US

law on the use of chemicals is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was adopted in 1976. Even then it didn’t do enough to protect our children and families from harmful chemicals. TSCA reform effects us all. Since 1976,

thousands of disease-causing chemicals have made their way into our air, water, food and the products we use everyday. We are all walking around with these dangerous chemicals in our bodies and they’re making us sick . Many of these chemicals have been scientifically linked to cancer, birth defects, developmental

delays, endocrine disruption and a host of other diseases. The current law establishes a “safe until proven poisonous” system which gives chemical companies free reign to release virtually any chemical into the marketplace without first testing it to see if it’s safe for families. The chemical industry wants to put profits before human health. Stronger TSCA reform means that we correct the system so that chemical companies are required to demonstrate that their products are safe before they can put them into the products we buy.

Endocrine disruption causes extinctionTogawa 99 (Tatsuo, Institute of Biomaterials and Bioengineering – Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Technology in Society, August)

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

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

Health---A2: Alt Cause---Food PesticidesFood Pesticide use’s decliningRitter 9 – Stephen K. Ritter, “Pinpointing Trends In Pesticide Use”, Chemical & Engineering News, 2-16, http://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i7/Pinpointing-Trends-Pesticide-Use.html

Data in the report reveal that conventional pesticide use, which includes agricultural and home and garden applications, steadily increased in the U.S. through the 1950s before declining slightly in the 1960s. The amount increased again until 1979, when it reached a peak of

1.46 billion lb of active pesticide ingredients used per year. Pesticide use declined slightly in the 1980s and then leveled off in the 1990s, reaching 1.23 billion lb of active ingredients per year in 1997. The U.S. accounted for about 22% of the 1997 global total of 5.7 billion lb of agricultural pesticides used. About half of the 1997 U.S. total represented herbicide use and the remainder represented insecticides, fungicides, and other types of pesticides. Herbicide use remained steady from 1980 through 1997, whereas insecticide use steadily declined after 1975. The total amount of pesticides used in the U.S. is actually much higher, about 4.6 billion lb in 1997, when nonagricultural uses are factored in. These uses include preservatives for treating wood; chlorine-based bleaches for water treatment and disinfectant applications; and

specialty biocides for plastics, adhesives, and paints and coatings. Aspelin notes in the CIPM report that the overall decline stems from better use of IPM, new low-dose insecticides, and the advent of biopesticides and g enetically m odified food crops . Arsenic-based chemicals dominated pesticide use until the 1950s, Aspelin reports, and then chlorinated organic compounds such as DDT were prevalent. Organophosphates and carbamates replaced those environmentally problematic compounds by 1975. Synthetic versions of natural pyrethrin compounds introduced in the late 1970s took over and led the insecticide market by 1997. Herbicide use took off in the 1960s, with triazine and other nitrogen-based compounds, carboxylic acids such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate leading the way.

Health---A2: Internal Link TurnNo turn – status quo is horrible and reform solvesBergeson & Campbell 15 {Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. “Regulatory Developments: TSCA Reform: Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” March 19th, http://www.lawbc.com/regulatory-developments/entry/tsca-reform-senate-committee-holds-hearing-on-frank-r.-lautenberg-chemical#THUR}

Among the most compelling testimony was Dr. Goldman's reminder to the Committee that she first testified about the need for TSCA amendments in 1994 as Assistant Administrator -- over 20 years ago. In a question and answer with

Senator Vitter, Jones indicated that since 1990 with the current law, almost no chemicals have been banned or tested (one might quibble with the wording about the numbers tested or restricted, but Jones' answers made the point). Also testifying was Senator Lautenberg's widow, who stated that the late Senator believed TSCA reform would be perhaps the most singular achievement of his long

Senate career -- more important than his signature achievement of banning smoking on airplanes years ago. The dueling themes of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" vs. "this bill is worse than current law" will need to be sufficiently brought together even if consensus is too far a goal. The specter of living with the current law for

another 20-40 years is unpalatable to many interested stakeholders of different perspectives (a point made by Goldman). In the end,

the summary slogan of any successful legislation may be " better than the alternative " -- but

stranger things have happened and even that would not have been expected last November when the Senate majority flipped to Republican control.

Health---A2: No Endocrine DisruptionBest studies confirm our impactMnif 11 – Wissem Mnif, Professor at Laboratoire de Biochimie, Unité de Recherche, “Effect of Endocrine Disruptor Pesticides: A Review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, June, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138025/

At the human level, endocrine disruptor pesticides have also been shown to disrupt reproductive and sexual development, and these effects seem to depend on several factors, including gender, age, diet, and occupation. Age is a particularly sensitive factor. Human fetuses, infants and children show greater susceptibility than adults [43–45]. Much of the damage caused by EDC occurs during gametogenesis and the early

development of the fetus [45–48]. However, the effects may not become apparent until adulthood. Moreover, fetuses and infants receive greater doses due to the mobilization of maternal fat reserves during pregnancy [47–50] and breastfeeding [49,51]. Infants are extremely vulnerable to pre and postnatal exposure to endocrine disruptor pesticides, resulting in a wide range of adverse health effects including possible long-term impacts on intellectual

function [52,53] and delayed effects on the central nervous system functioning [54,55]. Likewise, residential proximity to agricultural activity is a factor often described to explain developmental abnormalities in epidemiological studies of low birth weight [56], fetal death [57], and childhood cancers [58]. Additionally, a higher prevalence of cryptorchidism and hypospadias [59,60] was found in areas with extensive farming and pesticide use and in sons of women working as gardeners [61]. Recently, a relation has been reported between cryptorchidism and persistent pesticide

concentration in maternal breast milk [47,62,63]. The impact of endocrine disruptor pesticides on fertility has also been discussed [64]. Based on the

epidemiological studies since 2000, the study concluded that pesticide exposure may affect spermatogenesis leading to poor semen quality and reduced male fertility . Furthermore, an increasing number of epidemiological studies tend to link environmental exposure to pesticides and hormone- dependent cancer risks. High levels of PCBs, DDE, and DDT have been found in fat samples from women with breast cancer [141]. The risk of breast cancer is said to be four times greater in women with increased blood levels of DDE 142]. One of the latest epidemiological studies performed in Spain between 1999 and 2009 shows that among a total of 2,661 cases of breast cancer reported in the female population, 2,173 (81%) were observed in areas of high pesticide contamination [143]. Moreover, it was also suggested that women with hormone responsive breast cancer have a higher DDE body burden than women with benign breast disease [144]. Similar studies have revealed correlations between damage to the immune system and increased amounts of organochlorine residues in certain cancerous tissues [145]. Numerous other studies support the hypothesis that pesticide exposure influences the risk of breast cancer [146], but few of them are really conclusive due to some inconsistent data across the study. Further research is required to explore long-term follow-up beginning in early life, with opportunities for exposure measurement at critical periods of vulnerability. Moreover, improvements are needed in the cohort sample size and standardization of exposure assessments methods. Finally, researchers also need to consider simultaneous co-exposures to these substances and other chemicals and whether they may act in an additive, synergistic, or antagonistic manner [147].

Health---A2: No ImpactEndocrine disruption prevents reproduction – extinctionCAT 4 (Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, 2004, “Toxic Pesticides”, http://www.alternatives2toxics.org/toxicpesticides.htm)

Pesticides, such as oryzalin, metam sodium, simazine or oxyfluorfen, which laboratory studies show affect blood and blood-forming tissues, may be especially dangerous for persons with inherited blood abnormalities or acquired blood diseases. Even sulfur, which is considered relatively low in

toxicity, can be threatening to an asthmatic. * chemical interactions such as synergism and other effects that are created as a result of mixing chemicals together. Research on chemical blends like those in pesticide formulations is limited to lethal effects and

acute eye and skin effects. * endocrine disruption, or alteration to the system that regulates hormones. Although

there is evidence in nature and even in humans, damage to the endocrine system by pesticides and other chemicals is only now beginning to be considered by the EPA for future studies and regulatory action. Endocrine disrupting chemicals often affect reproductive organs and reproduction and they are especially dangerous to fetuses or young children. This is of particular concern to scientists because of the threat to future survival of humans and other species. * immune system depression. Hundreds of scientific studies of humans in agricultural areas in Canada and the former Soviet Union found adverse alterations to immune systems and higher rates of infectious disease than unexposed populations (WRI 1996). Studies in experimental animals prove that many pesticides have the ability to disrupt immune system flinctions following acute and even low-level exposures.

Unregulated industrial toxins cause extinctionMontague 91 (Peter, Editor – Rachel's Health and Environment Weekly, "Real Hope for the Great Lakes: Local Groups Form 'Zero Discharge Alliance'," 3-20, http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rhwn225.htm)

Bioaccumulative toxins are dangerous because amounts that seem harmless are multiplied as they pass through the food chain; often the result is environmental destruction. The adverse consequences of bioaccumulative toxins

may become understood only after it is too late . For example, human breast milk is now contaminated with hundreds of persistent, bioaccumulative toxins (see RHWN #193), but the effects of these poisons upon breast-fed infants is not known except in rare cases. Such dousing of infant children with persistent, bioaccumulative toxins is a massive experiment; the full results may become known in the

future, but one thing is known beyond any doubt today: it cannot help the human species to expose it from birth onward to a constant bath of industrial toxins. (People who are tempted to think that the human species might be improved by random meddling with our genetic structure should remind themselves that a human is something like a TV set [though of course much more complex] and the hope of improving a human by randomly introducing poisons into its diet at an early age is like splashing hot solder into a TV set's electronic circuits hoping to improve the picture.) It is important to note that many of the most toxic, persistent, and bioaccumulative chemicals are formed by the use of the element chlorine. DDT, PCBs, dioxins, CFCs, and many pesticides are chlorine compounds. Most people know of chlorine because it disinfects their drinking water, kills germs in the local swimming pool, or bleaches their clothes in the washing machine. Unfortunately, when it is used by industry, chlorine produces a broad spectrum of toxins that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate. In a very real sense, chlorine lies at the heart of the toxics problem, world-wide. For two decades, government has tried to control toxic pollutants one at a time, by establishing the exact amount that could be safely released into the environment, issuing "permits" giving industry permission to discharge toxics into air and water, then trying to police the polluters to force compliance with the permitted limits. The entire effort was foolish from the start: there are over 40,000 chemicals in use today and 1000 to 2000 new ones enter commercial channels each year. Meanwhile during its 20-year effort, government has managed to establish "safe" limits for fewer than 100 chemicals. Meanwhile, government has gone ahead and issued permits that ignored most chemicals entirely (because there was no basis for saying how

much was safe). Finally, government never showed any real interest (or ability) in enforcing these silly permits. A

classic house of cards. This wrong-headed effort at pollution control (instead of pollution prevention) has led to massive damage to wildlife throughout the Great Lakes (see RHWN #146) and, worldwide , a dangerous accumulation of toxics in creatures that eat at the top of the food chain, like large birds, large fish, bears, and humans. It is now

crystal clear that the old way has been a complete failure, which, if it is continued, can only lead to the extinction of humans.

Endocrine disrupting chemicals cause extinctionNJ 3 (Environment, “Pesticides”, http://www.njenvironment.org/pesticides.htm)

Not only are current gardening practices harmful to local ecosystems, but also e xpanding pesticide use appears to threaten the fertility and viability of human life . Theo Coburn’s extensive research in Our Stolen Future suggests that the declining sperm count worldwide and the aberrations in animal sexuality may be the result of endocrine disrupting chemicals in our environment. Many pesticides mimic human hormones thereby sending inaccurate signals to our endocrine systems.

Health---A2: Reform FailsReform solves Denison 15 {Richard, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, former project analyst at the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Ph.D. in Biochemistry (Yale), “Nation's Toxic Chemical Law Fails To Protect Us,” Environmental Defense Fund, http://www.edf.org/health/chemicals/our-scientist-works-reform-chemicals-policy#THUR}

How do we fix this? Reforming TSCA is our chief goal, as it’s the front line in the effort to truly guarantee chemical safety for Americans, and restore faith in U.S. products. “We must transform the current system that allows dangerous or untested chemicals to stay on store shelves,” he said. Private sector improvements. While updating TSCA remains our

top policy priority, we’ve also sought out additional ways to clean up the marketplace. Specifically, we’re working directly with businesses to identify and remove the most hazardous chemicals from consumer products. For example, we

recently helped Walmart—the world’s largest retailer—establish a chemicals policy that will move priority chemicals out of tens of thousands of personal care and household products. The policy also calls for safer substitutes to ensure that the removal of one hazardous chemical doesn’t lead to replacement with another. Whenever a name brand manufacturer changes

their product supply to comply with Walmart’s new policy, the effect will ripple across the global supply chain. This will help protect consumers everywhere , including the tens of millions of Americans who shop at Walmart. A new law is essential. But , of course, working with a handful of businesses isn’t enough. We must update the law . And that may finally happen: Congress has the best chance in a generation to protect our health by bringing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) into the 21st century. After years of debate and inaction, in March 2015 a

bipartisan group of Senators introduced legislation—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—that fixes the biggest problems with the current law. The bill would update the current law and give EPA the tools necessary to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for

American families. Among other improvements, the bill: mandates safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce replaces TSCA’s burdensome cost-benefit safety standard with a pure, health-based standard, and explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. “Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform that protects the health of American families,” Denison said.

Health---A2: Reform Fails---Asbestos Boxer is wrong – Udall-Vitter covers itWheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science (Keene State College), “Boxer: Chemical Bill Came from Industry,” The Hill, 3/17, http://thehill.com/regulation/235970-sen-boxer-slams-competing-udall-vitter-chemical-bill#THUR}

Unlike the Udall-Vitter bill, Boxer said her bill will guarantee action from the Environmental Protection Agency on hundreds of dangerous chemicals and explicitly direct the agency to address asbestos. “The Udall-Vitter bill only provides for

the assessment of just 25,” she said. Later adding, “Their bill doesn’t even mention the word asbestos.” Udall and Vitter's bill, introduced last week, comes after repeated attempts, led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), faltered in the divided Congress. “I loved Frank Lautenberg very much and it is with very deep respect and a heavy heart that I make these statements about the bill that has been named after him,” Boxer said. “But I remember when Frank said this, ‘It’s time to take

action on TSCA reform and put an end to the chemical companies’ political games.’” Udall has said that his bill – the Frank R.

Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act - is a compromise between Democrats, Republicans, industry and environmental groups that comes after two years of negotiations. In a statement last week, he said his bill doesn’t

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

Health---A2: Reform Fails---Industry BiasNo industry bias – Boxer’s claims are cherry-picked and the ACC had minimal influenceWheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science (Keene State College), “Boxer: Chemical Bill Came from Industry,” The Hill, 3/17, http://thehill.com/regulation/235970-sen-boxer-slams-competing-udall-vitter-chemical-bill#THUR}

But the Environmental Defense Fund, a proponent of the Udall-Vitter bill , said Boxer ' intentionally

hand picked' the draft of the bill that the American Chemical Council gave input on. “I think there were many, many drafts of the bill that were shared over the course of two years with industry, environmental

and health advocacy groups ,” said Jack Pratt, the group's chemicals campaign director. “There was plenty of input from plenty of different stakeholders, plenty of stakeholders who don’t even support the bill at this point.” Udall’s Spokeswoman Jennifer Talhelm said the document Boxer is circulating is a draft of the legislation that a number of groups gave input on. "This bill was written by Sen. Udall and Sen. Vitter in one of the most open and inclusive processes for a major piece of legislation to ensure all sides got a chance to be heard -- environmental advocates, industry, public health NGOs and others all were involved,” she said. “ACC had no more input than environmental groups, and as a result of the input from many stakeholders, the bill has moved further toward what environmental groups and others said they wanted to see."

Health---A2: Reform Fails---States’ RightsCompromise solved states’ rights fearsWheeler 4/27 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science (Keene State College), “Dem Lawmakers Reach Agreement in Negotiating Chemical Reform Bill,” The Hill, 2015, http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/240244-gop-lawmakers-reach-agreement-in-negotiating-chemical-reform#THUR}

In negotiating how best to reform the nation's toxic chemical laws, Democratic lawmakers say they’ve reached

an agreement with Republicans that will expand states’ authority to issue protections, signaling a breakthrough in efforts that have stalled in previous years. Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Jeff Merkley

(Ore.) and Corey Booker (N.J.) said they have reached an agreement in negotiations on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, introduced by Udall and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The bill, which aims to reform the 1976 Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA), was initially criticized for restricting states’ rights to issue their own protections for dangerous

chemicals and for failing to ban asbestos. The compromise agreement reached Monday would allow states to regulate a chemical if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) misses a required deadline in assessing that chemical, would allow states to ask for a waiver to take action on chemicals while EPA is evaluating them for safety and would keep in place any

chemical laws that took effect before Aug. 1, extending the former Jan. 1, 2015 grandfather date. The bill has also been amended to allow the public to challenge any low priority chemical designation from EPA and to clarify that cost should not be considered in regulating toxic chemicals. While the bill is not perfect, Booker said the bipartisan consensus is a significant step forward in long-stalled efforts to improve TSCA first led by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).

Health---A2: Risk CalculusStrong precautionary principle good: allows for the most robust chemical risk assessment that prevents bioaccumulation and is a decision rule – no “decision overload” or critical thinking DA-Answers your public health or environment impact contrivedSachs 10{Noah M, Director of the Robert R. Merhige, Jr. Center for Environmental Studies and Professor (University of Richmond School of Law), Member Scholar with the Center for Progressive Reform, M.P.P. in Public and International Affairs (Princeton), J.D. (Stanford), “Rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from Its Critics,” 2010, #THUR} **Language modified

Congress is now considering the most significant change in American environmental law in a generation – an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. The flaws in the existing statute are well-known. The American chemical industry produces or imports more than seventy-three billion pounds of chemicals per day, yet TSCA does not require any form of

routine chemical risk assessment. As a result, we lack basic toxicity data for the vast majority of chemicals used in cookware, toys, beauty products, food packaging, and other items. In June, when Kellogg’s recalled 28 million boxes of cereal due to an oily smell, which turned out to be from 2-methylnaphthalene in the cereal bags, there was no data available on the health risks of that widely-used chemical. This is emblematic of the data drought in which the U.S. has attempted to manage chemical risks for

decades. The potential population-wide harm is sobering . Carcinogenic chemicals once thought to be safely contained in consumer

products are now present in the bloodstream and tissues of virtually all Americans . This year, there is more momentum for reform than at any time in the past three decades. In 2010, landmark TSCA reform bills were introduced in both houses of Congress, and principles to guide the reform effort have been announced by the Environmental Protection Agency, various U.S. states, environmental groups, and the

largest chemical industry trade association, the American Chemistry Council. As I described in a previous article, the contours of a new statute are still under debate, but the stars are now aligned for significant legislative action. At the same time, critics inside and outside

the academy are attacking the theoretical principle that should be guiding the reform effort–the S trong P recautionary P rinciple . The Strong Precautionary Principle is a controversial approach to risk management that shifts the burden of proof on the safety of a product or activity from government regulators to private firms. I define it as the view that: 1) regulation should presumptively be applied when an activity or product poses serious threats to human health or the environment, even if scientific uncertainty precludes a full understanding of the nature or extent of the threats; and 2) the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of

regulation lies with the proponent of the risk-creating activity or product. A new chemical regulatory statute, grounded in the S trong P recautionary P rinciple, would shift the burden to chemical manufacturers to prove that chemicals do not pose significant risks to human health or the environment. This would reverse current practice under TSCA, where the government bears a stringent burden to demonstrate “unreasonable risk” from a chemical to enact restrictions. That governmental burden, combined with the lack of available toxicity data, has crippled [prevented] protective regulation . According to

Dr. Lynn Goldman, who oversaw TSCA implementation during the Clinton Administration, TSCA will “ never be effective ” unless it is amended to include a shift in the burden of proof. Yet critics of the Strong Precautionary Principle, such as Cass Sunstein, Jonathan Graham, and Jonathan Wiener, have

little interest in further application of the Principle in TSCA, or elsewhere. Instead, they want to bury it. Sunstein has derided Strong Precaution as “senseless,” “ paralyzing ,” and “worse than unhelpful.” He and other detractors have charged that the Strong Precautionary Principle provides no guidance on which risks to address and ignores so-called “risk-risk” tradeoffs in which a precautionary response to one “target” risk may lead to substitute risks that are even worse. The Principle should be rejected, wrote Sunstein, “not because it leads in bad directions, but because it leads in no direction at all. The principle is literally paralyzing--forbidding inaction, stringent

regulation, and everything in between.” This sharply critical scholarship is no mere academic sideshow to the current Beltway battle over chemical regulation. Many of the players in the debate over Strong Precaution hold prominent positions in the Obama Administration and in Congress. Sunstein himself heads the influential Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Executive Office of

the President. If key policymakers continue to maintain that the S trong P recautionary P rinciple is illegitimate, then it is unlikely that TSCA will be reformed in a meaningful way. Congress may miss a once-in-a-generation opportunity to repair the moribund chemical regulatory system. The stakes are high, yet few scholars have offered any sustained defense of Strong Precaution. Most

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

criticism, some breathing space is urgently needed to reconsider the merits and practical applications of Strong Precaution. Indeed, resuscitating TSCA as an effective chemical

regulatory regime depends , in no small part , on rescuing the Strong Precautionary Principle from its critics. In this Article, I

undertake this much-needed reassessment of the Strong Precautionary Principle. I conclude that the Principle, far from being indefensible, provides a cogent framework for managing health and environmental risks in many regulatory arenas. I also demonstrate how the Strong Precautionary Principle could be sensibly implemented in the particular context of TSCA reform legislation, while avoiding the parade of horribles presented by the critics. This debate over TSCA reform will likely

determine the rules that will govern toxicity research, chemical exposure limits, and preventing cancer from environmental pollutants through the middle of the 21st Century. My aim,

therefore, is not only to refute the dismissive scholarship on a theoretical level, but also to lay the groundwork for stronger next-generation chemical legislation in the United States. This Article proceeds in three Parts. In Part I, I provide a brief introduction to the concept of precaution in risk regulation,

distinguishing the Strong Precautionary Principle from its weaker versions. Then, directly considering the merits of Strong Precaution, I justify it both instrumentally, as an incentive to develop information on public health and environmental risks, and deontologically, as a confirmation of the moral obligations of those who seek to market potentially hazardous products. In Part II, I counter the critics’ objections to the Strong Precautionary Principle. Cass Sunstein and other critics contend that Strong Precaution represents

a new and radical alternative to dominant risk management paradigms grounded in cost-benefit analysis. I show, on the other hand, that Strong Precaution is already deeply rooted in American law. It forms the basis for numerous licensing, permitting, and pre-approval programs that are cornerstones of public health and environmental protection in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration review process for

new drugs is the most well-known of hundreds of examples. I demonstrate that the Principle is not nearly as inflexible, extreme, or cost- insensitive as the Principle’s detractors would have us believe. Sunstein’s claim that Strong Precaution

inevitably leads to “ paralysis ” [inaction] is hyperbolic mischaracterization . Applied properly, the Strong Precautionary Principle helps to uncover regulatory alternatives and permits considerations of trade-offs, while raising a wider set of questions than traditional cost-benefit analysis. I concede in Part II that Strong Precaution should not be universalized as a dogmatic solution for every risk our society faces, yet critics intent on blasting Strong Precaution are ignoring the Principle’s “ contextual rationality .” That is, they are ignoring the arenas of risk management where the Principle’s default presumptions, burden shifting, and ex ante review of risks are eminently sensible. In Part

III, I argue that in toxic chemical regulation, protecting public health and the environment demands a Strong Precautionary approach with several components. I advocate shifting the burden of proof for the most hazardous classes of chemicals and allowing limited avenues for

continued marketing of such chemicals (which I call “regulatory offramps”) if the manufacturer can demonstrate that the chemical can be used safely. Shifting the burden of

proof is, to be sure, just one element of dozens of needed changes in TSCA. It is also the game changer. It will dramatically alter incentives, loosen informational bottlenecks, and end our blithe acceptance of “flying blind” in chemical risk management.

Health---A2: SQ SolvesCurrent TSCA ineffectual – reform key Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan – yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar Association, “Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform,” Environmental Law Institute, http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-Larris-ObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}

Since the adoption of TSCA in 1976, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations to control only five chemicals. 4 On September 29, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said there are “troubling gaps” in the available data on many widely used chemicals. 5 “Many are turning to government for assurance that

chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored,” Jackson said. “Right now, we are failing to get this job done .”6

Status quo policy leaves the EPA powerlessDenison 15 {Richard, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, former project analyst at the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, Ph.D. in Biochemistry (Yale), “Nation's Toxic Chemical Law Fails To Protect Us,” Environmental Defense Fund, http://www.edf.org/health/chemicals/our-scientist-works-reform-chemicals-policy#THUR}

Ever watched the dust fly when you flop down on the couch? Most of us have. And that means most of us have been exposed to toxic flame retardants—chemicals linked to several neurocognitive problems in children. They’re in your couch cushions and get in the dust that is released every time you sit on and compress them. For all the downside risks, studies show that they

don’t even do a very good job of what they are meant to do: prevent or slow fires. How can this be? Shouldn’t we be safe from toxic chemicals? EPA powerless to protect us “Most people think somebody must be making sure the

chemicals we use are safe,” says EDF biochemist Richard Denison, Ph.D. “But it’s essentially the Wild West.” This quagmire is due in part to the ineffective, outdated 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). It’s never been updated, even though it’s so weak that it essentially allows manufacturers and companies to use hazardous chemicals in many household products, even if there are known health risks . Two of TSCA’s biggest flaws : Companies don’t have to test a chemical before using it in consumer products, and the Environmental Protection Agency has little power to remove hazardous chemicals from the marketplace.

AFFIRMATIVE

*** UNIQUENESS

Won’t Pass---GeneralWon’t pass – massive opposition and momentum is buildingKustin 4/8 {Mary Ellen, Senior Policy Analyst for the Environmental Working Group, M.P.P in Environmental Policy (University of Maryland), former researcher at Pew Charitable Trusts and the National Wildlife Federation, “Opposition to Industry Chemical Bill Continues To Build,” 2015, http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2015/04/opposition-industry-chemical-bill-continues-build#THUR}

Medical professionals, scientists, states attorneys general, legal scholars and public interest organizations are all speaking up against the Udall-Vitter Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill (S. 697) backed by chemical companies. This industry bill, which is worse than the existing law, is so broken the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hasn’t even

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

safety standard, one based on ‘reasonable certainty of no harm;’” The bill’s murky deadlines and review process would only address “a tiny fraction of the thousands of chemicals to which the public is exposed;” and The imperative for states’ roles to be preserved to protect public health. Additionally, nearly 60 public interest organizations joined together on a letter voicing opposition to the Udall-Vitter bill citing: Problems with its preemption of states abilities to protect people; Failure to fully address legacy chemical contaminations; Inclusion of a weak safety standard; Lack of strict deadlines

and adequate resources; and The addition of hurdles to regulating chemicals in products. A group of scientists also sent an open letter to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee outlining principles to which Congress must adhere in order for a true

chemical safety law reform to be scientifically sound. This outcry is coming on the heals of legal scholars and states attorneys general from Vermont, California, New York, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Oregon and Washington all writing to voice their concerns about the industry’s bill inability to protect public health and safety.

Won’t pass – powerful environmentalists Pearson 4/24 {Sam, syndicated columnist focusing on the environment, former researcher at The Center for Public Integrity, M.A. in Journalism and Public Affairs (American University), B.A. in government-journalism (California State University, Sacramento), “Groups Struggle To Communicate On TSCA Reform -- Especially When Many Voters Think It's Already Happened,” Energy & Environment Publishing, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060017361#THUR}

Opposing a bipartisan chemical safety bill backed by powerful industry groups in a Republican-controlled Congress is no small order. But the scrappy Environmental Working Group has made defeating the legislation one of its top priorities and is striving to get its message out against formidable foes -- and, just

as important, amid public apathy. The group's founder, Ken Cook, said in a recent visit to the group's three-story headquarters at Washington, D.C.'s U Street Corridor -- which features framed copies of chemical industry documents released in toxic tort litigation and

bisphenol-A-free metal cups -- that it can be frustrating trying to gain traction in the chemical safety debate. EWG seldom worked on the federal chemicals law, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, before the group became involved in a campaign to pressure DuPont Co. to reformulate its Teflon product in 2002. DuPont agreed to change Teflon's formula after internal company documents produced during litigation brought on behalf of a group of Parkersburg, W.Va., residents living near DuPont's Teflon plant showed the company knew as early as 1984 that a contaminant -- known as perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA or

C8 -- was entering area drinking water. In 2005, the company settled with U.S. EPA and agreed to pay a $10.25 million administrative fine -- at the time, the largest civil administrative penalty ever obtained under any environmental

law. Today, these once-secret documents on the office walls are a souvenir of EWG's past policy wins , a

reminder for the group's staffers as they work against the chemical industry's top legislative priority of what they say is the industry's duplicitousness.

Won’t pass – preemption concernsIgrejas 4/28 {Andy, National Campaign Director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, former advocate at National Environmental Trust, “Progress, Not Breakthrough, In Senate Reform Fight; Most Important Work Lies Ahead,” 2015, http://saferchemicals.org/2015/04/28/progress-not-breakthrough-in-senate-reform-fight/#THUR}

Last night Senators Merkley (D-OR), Whitehouse (D-RI), and Booker (D-NJ) announced they were joining Senators Udall and Vitter in a new version of the

controversial Senate chemical reform bill. Technically, the new version is a “substitute” of the old that will be adopted today in a voting session of the Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee. The vote is an important milestone but it is not the final word. The three Senators are all strong advocates for public health and the environment. They put their collective backs into getting important changes to the bill. Many, if not most,

of the changes are ones that we have specifically called for. Our hats go off to them, truly. We’re keeping our work boots on , however. And so

should you. If the goal is meaningful reform that does some good and no harm, we’re not there yet . Let’s

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

all quite as meaningful as the hyperbolic press release would have you believe). Here’s the bad news: There is a new rollback to EPA’s authority to

restrict significant new uses of a chemical. The Senators “split the baby” on states’ authority to protect their citizens. People forget that

“splitting the baby” was actually a bad thing in the original Bible story. King Solomon didn’t go through with it. Neither should Congress. What does it mean in this context? The biggest flashpoint in the Senate hearing was the unprecedented timing of preemption in the Senate bill. For the first time in any environmental legislation, states would be blocked from taking action even in the absence of federal regulation. They would have been blocked when EPA began the review of a chemical. That process could drag on for 7 years if EPA met its deadlines under the bill. Many

more if EPA blew its deadlines, as is often the case. All three Senators opposed this policy. The California Attorney General said it created a “regulatory void” where the public can’t be protected. More colorfully, Senator Whitehouse called this mandatory no-protection period a “ death zone .” But the Senators hit a brick wall in trying to get this provision removed. I’m not sure why. A consistent rumor is that the more ideological oil companies will kill any reform

proposal that does not include it, that they need a concrete “get,” if they are to let even modest reform slip through. None of that is on the record anywhere, however. The auto industry loudly objected to the lack of a void in the House TSCA bill back in April, which

surprised me. Perhaps they are behind this hard line on preemption. Nevertheless, faced with the hard line, the three Senators negotiated a work-around. Under the substitute version of the bill, the preemption would begin when EPA published a document specifying the scope of its review of the chemical. States would be blocked from restricting the uses of the chemical specified in the document at that point. If EPA finds the chemical safe for all those uses – after a multi-year review – the preemption sticks. If EPA decides it is unsafe, however, the preemption is lifted while EPA considers its own regulation. Under the deadline of the bill, the void would now last 2.5 years or up to 4.5 with extensions, instead of 7. To sweeten the pot, they allowed states to pursue a waiver of the preemption during the void. EPA has 90 days to decide on the waiver, but if they don’t, the waiver is granted. But wait! The waiver

itself can be challenged. But don’t worry! The 90 day thing kicks in again. And so on and so forth. Got all that? Therein lies the problem. This is an improvement, sure, but it is complicated and process-laden and probably won’t work when the whole point was supposed to be making it easier to regulate chemicals- not initiating a state/federal ping- pong match. The preemption is still unprecedented . The Attorneys General for our largest states still strongly oppose it. Some of their staff have described it as legally incoherent. It has to go. The convoluted outcome brings up a broader point: the original bill was so bad that many of us have been grading it on a curve. It has improved a bunch, to be sure. Our own critique has driven much of that improvement, and several Senators, especially the trio, deserve credit for

making it better. But when you pull back you’re left with a bill that has a lot of unnecessary provisions, some harmful ones, and modest proactive reforms. It needs more work. .

Thumper---TPATPA thumps – Obama pushing, top of the docket and super controversialHughes 6/18 {Siobhan, syndicated Congressional reporter for the Wall Street Journal/Congressional Quarterly/Bloomberg, “House Passes Fast-Track Trade Bill, but Senate Outcome Uncertain,” 2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-passes-fast-track-trade-bill-1434645208#THUR}

WASHINGTON—The House passed legislation Thursday to ease trade pacts through Congress, as Republicans and some

Democrats revived hopes for President Barack Obama’s trade agenda less than a week after liberals sank a similar bill. The House’s 218-208 vote sends the measure to the Senate where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.)

wants to pass the bill as soon as next week. Fast-track authority would give Mr. Obama the power to submit trade deals to

Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendments. But the bill’s fate is intertwined with a related measure to help workers hurt by international trade. Many pro-trade Senate Democrats say they won’t vote for the fast-track bill without evidence that the worker-aid

program, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, will pass both chambers. House and Senate Republican leaders have committed to separately passing the workers’ assistance extension. Late Thursday, Mr. McConnell said that passage of the fast-

track bill was within striking distance, but that it would take “trusting each other to get there.” But Democrats are anxious about whether GOP leaders can deliver. They see the package as four parts: Fast-track, the workers assistance, a separate enforcement measure that would give the U.S. stronger tools to combat against unfair trading practices and one to extend trade preferences with sub-Saharan African nations. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he and other pro-trade

Democratic senators want to make sure all four items get enacted. Labor unions and allied groups of the left vowed to pressure Senate Democrats to oppose fast track, saying the battle isn’t over yet. “If it weren’t for this massive

corporate coalition and all their power and money, this whole trade agenda would be sitting on a curb someplace,” said Lori Wallach, senior

trade expert at Public Citizen, which has been fighting the trade bill. Business groups encouraged the Senate to pass the fast-track bill, noting that it already passed an earlier version last month that was connected to the worker-aid program. “We now call on the U.S. Senate

to once again reaffirm its commitment,” said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue. The next critical moment comes early next week. Senate fast-track supporters would need to line up 60 votes to get around a procedural hurdle before

passing the bill. That is an open question because some of the 14 pro-trade Democrats are wavering. Sen. Ben

Cardin (D., Md.) said Thursday that he wants all four bills to pass together instead of one by one. Mr. McConnell made clear that wouldn’t happen, saying Thursday that a vote on the fast-track bill would come first, followed by a vote on the trade preferences bill. Mr. McConnell said that the workers-aid program would be attached to the trade preferences bill. He promised that Republican votes would “be there to pass” the worker-aid measure—“reluctantly, not happily, but they will be there if it means getting something far more important accomplished for the American people.” In May, 14 Democrats joined 48 Republicans to pass, 62-37, the fast-

track bill, formally known as Trade Promotion Authority, or TPA. Mr. Obama has long pushed for fast-track authority , which many past presidents have had. The power is seen as necessary to wrap up a 12-nation trade pact among countries around the Pacific Rim and possibly, later, a pact with European nations. Talks over the Pacific accord are nearly complete but have come to a standstill because U.S. trading partners are unwilling to make their best, final offers until Congress signals it is on board with the talks and won’t amend any

agreement. House Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), sank the fast-track package last week by voting against a key component which would extend the program to help workers hurt by foreign competition. In response, House Republican leaders stripped out that portion of the bill. Instead, House Republicans brought a stand-alone fast-track measure to the floor Thursday; it received the support of 190 Republicans and 28 Democrats. The vote showed the staying power of the 28 pro-trade Democrats,

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

chambers, would oppose it. Many Republicans call the program an inefficient form of government welfare, and persuading Republicans in

both chambers to support it could present a challenge. Rep. Jim Himes, a pro-trade Democrat from Connecticut who met Wednesday with Mr. Obama, said the president said he would sign the fast-track bill into law before Congress had passed a bill to renew the workers’ aid program. While such a move would put pressure on House Democrats to reverse course and vote for a workers’ aid program they had previously voted against to scuttle

the fast-track bill, the action could cut both ways. Some pro-trade Senate Democrats could withhold their support for the fast-track bill if they thought Mr. Obama was giving up his leverage to force passage of the assistance program. “I can’t predict that,” Mrs. Pelosi said on Thursday when asked if she thought both the fast-track bill and the Trade

Adjustment Assistance, also known as TAA, would pass. “I don’t see a path right now for TAA.” The passage of a narrower fast-track bill

through the House itself depended on the willingness of the small group of pro-trade Democrats to trust that Mr.

McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) can fulfill their promise to find a way to separately renew the workers’ aid

program. Mr. Obama, who has closely coordinated with the two Republicans, worked this week to build that trust, meeting with pro-trade Democrats to convince them there was a separate path for the

renewal of TAA, which expires at the end of September. “The only legislative strategy that the president will support is a

strategy that results in both TPA and TAA coming to his desk,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on Wednesday. “There are a

variety of ways to do that.” Liberal groups weren’t convinced, and one outlined plans to take revenge on Democrats who voted for the fast-track bill. “Any Democrat in Congress who trusts John Boehner or Mitch

McConnell to pass Trade Adjustment Assistance, that will actually help working families, deserves to lose their job,” said Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, in a statement. “Whether it’s this election cycle or election cycles to come,

Democracy for America will actively search for opportunities to make sure they lose their jobs and are replaced with real Democrats committed to fighting growing income inequality, not enabling it.”

Thumper---TPA---Ext---Costs PCTPA creams Obama’s capital – huge pushBerry 6/18 {Deborah Barfield, syndicated national politics correspondent, “Boustany Helps Push GOP Support for Trade Bills,” USA Today through The News Star, 2015, http://www.thenewsstar.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/18/boustany-helps-push-gop-support-trade-bills/28963631/#THUR}

“There are a number of urban myths about Trade Promotion Authority. We’re dispelling those notions,” Boustany said in an interview. “As we get the facts on the table, we’re able to move more members.” The effort is far from over. House Republicans will send the fast track bill back to the Senate, where supporters hope they can muster the 60 votes necessary to pass it as a standalone measure. Albert Samuels, a political

scientist at Southern University in Baton Rouge, said Republicans and the administration haven’t done a good job of explaining the importance of the trade deals. He said last week’s failed effort doesn’t help Boustany. “Whenever you

invest as much political capital in something like this and then it doesn’t turn out , it hurts you,” he

said. “It’s not just him personally that has failed . I’m sure he’s doing probably the best he can. The

president has failed . The president is the biggest proponent of this deal . The president has the bully pulpit.”

Thumper---TPA---Ext---Obama PushingObama pushing hard – speechesStanley-Becker 6/3 {Isaac, former Georgetown Day debater I (rarely) beat, Washington Wire reporter for the Wall Street Journal, “White House Makes Trade Pitch, With Focus on Moderates,” 2015, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/03/white-house-makes-trade-pitch-with-focus-on-moderates/#THUR}

President Barack Obama is ramping up efforts to convince individual House members to grant him fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals, focusing his efforts on a dwindling group of undecided Democratic lawmakers. But

Democrats who have already backed the deal publicly said these members need to be convinced they are not trading away their own political futures for a vote on fast-track. Potentially decisive are moderate, pro-growth members of the New Democrat Coalition. Its vice-chair, Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.), spoke as recently as Monday to the president, after fielding calls from the White House during last week’s recess as well. “He asked me: do you really think — based on my record — do you really think I would be fighting for something that would hurt the American middle class?” Mr.

Himes said. “I’ve got to try to see what he sees.” Mr. Obama told the congressman , now in his fourth term, that he thought he had 20 Democratic votes lined up , Mr. Himes said. The precise number he needs will depend on the number of GOP votes House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) can produce. The bill would allow the president to send trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Mr. Obama hopes to use it for a trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with Japan and 10 other Pacific Rim nations.

*** LINK TURNS

General Surveillance---Tech LobbyTech lobby loves the plan – they’re influentialFrier 14 {Sarah, syndicated technology reporter, bachelor’s degree in Business journalism (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), “Apple, Google Gear Up to Lobby Congress on NSA Reform,” Bloomberg, 1/17, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-18/apple-google-gear-up-to-lobby-congress-on-nsa-reform#THUR}

Apple Inc., Google Inc. and other technology companies are gearing up to bring their fight over U.S. surveillance to Congress after President Barack Obama offered no specific proposals on their central request: to tell customers

more about what the government is doing. The coalition of companies, which has pressed the White House to limit the

National Security Agency’s sweeping global surveillance programs, plans to ramp up lobbying members of Congress next week, according to people with knowledge of the situation, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren’t

public. The president, in his remarks, put the onus of revamping intelligence gathering and storage of data onto the shoulders of Congress, these people said. Obama yesterday laid out new actions to deal with the uproar set off by disclosures last year of phone and Web spying by the NSA. The president said he would require judicial review of requests to query phone call databases and ordered Justice Department and intelligence officials to devise a way to take storage of that data

out of the government’s hands. The technology companies, which have asked to be able to disclose what the NSA asks for to the public, were promised more transparency though no specifics on what kind or when. “Crucial details remain to be addressed on these issues, and additional steps are needed on other important issues, so we’ll continue to work with the administration and Congress to keep the momentum going and advocate for reforms consistent with the principles we outlined in December,” the technology companies said in a joint

statement yesterday. Company Cooperation The group, known as Reform Government Surveillance, also includes Facebook Inc.,

AOL Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Microsoft Corp., Twitter Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. Spokespeople at the companies either didn’t return

requests for comment or declined to comment beyond the statement. The technology companies wanted Obama to let them

disclose more about government orders to provide records of customers’ e-mails and Internet use, while the telephone providers lobbied to prevent themselves from being forced to store years of calling data for

the NSA’s use. Since revelations of the NSA spying programs last year, the technology companies have fought the tarnish of the agency’s use of the consumer data that they collect. Yahoo, Apple, Facebook and Google were among the

companies that signed a Dec. 9 letter to Obama and members of Congress, saying the U.S. should take the lead in changing government surveillance practices. On Dec. 17, 15 technology executives including Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook and

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer met at the White House to press the president on curbing the surveillance programs. Costly Backlash? The scandal’s impact may be costly to companies and to the U.S. economy. The domestic and international backlash could cost the U.S. economy $22 billion to $35 billion over the next three years, said Daniel Castro, an analyst with the Information

Technology and Innovation Foundation. The stakes involved magnified technology companies’ disappointment at the lack of detail from the president yesterday. Browser maker Mozilla said in a statement that Obama’s strategy appears to be to “leave current intelligence processes largely intact and improve oversight to a degree. We’d hoped for, and the Internet deserves, more.” The statement, from Mozilla’s global privacy and policy leader Alex Fowler and senior policy engineer Chris Riley, said Obama had failed to address “the most glaring reform needs,” including ending government efforts to undermine protocols and security standards. They praised Obama’s call to add an independent advocacy panel to weigh in on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, while saying Obama’s speech should be a “floor for reform, not a ceiling.

NSA Reform---Popularity---BipartPlan is bipartisan – spills over to other votesRomboy 6/6 {Dennis, national politics reporter, “Lee Changing Perceptions with Bipartisan Efforts on Spying Bill,” Deseret News, 2015, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865630228/Lee-changing-perceptions-with-bipartisan-efforts-on-spying-bill.html?pg=all#THUR}

Yes, that was conservative Republican Sen. Mike Lee celebrating passage of a major surveillance reform bill with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont last week. The last time the spotlight really shined on him, Lee stood

shoulder-to-shoulder with like-minded Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz fighting the A ffordable Care Act, which resulted in a 16-day government shutdown nearly two years ago. Since then, Utah's junior senator has made speeches to various groups, urging conservatives to help the GOP move beyond being the "party of no." Lee took a big step in that direction this past week, passing perhaps the most significant piece of legislation in his career to date, and doing it in a bipartisan, bicameral way. Contrary to popular belief, he said, he constantly works with Democrats through his service on the

Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly on privacy and criminal justice issues. "I like to find allies wherever I can get them," Lee said. " Sometimes my allies are liberal Democrats ." Although he doesn't believe Lee's reach across the aisle will have a huge

impact on his political image, University of Utah political science professor Matthew Burbank said it helps support the senator's new narrative that he isn't an obstructionist. "I think this at least makes the case that 'I can work other people in the Senate. I can work with other people in the House. I can even agree with the president if I have to. And there's at least some indication I can get things

done,'" Burbank said. Lee took a lead role in whipping up support for the USA Freedom Act, which overwhelmingly passed the House and then the Senate . President Barack Obama signed it into law last Tuesday. The bill restores three provisions of the Patriot Act that expired June 1, but also initiates changes to better protect privacy and increase transparency of the government's spying operations. It also effectively ends the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone records. Leahy, the most senior member of the Senate, told reporters in a news conference

after the bill passed that it was nice to see Republicans and Democrats working together like they did when he took

office 40 years ago. "We've done it by setting aside ideology, setting aside fear-mongering ," he said. "We said we'll protect the security of the United States but we also protect the privacy of Americans." Lee feels strongly about Fourth Amendment rights, even devoting a chapter to it in his book, "Our Lost Constitution." He said he teamed with Leahy and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who shared concerns over the NSA's ability to collect bulk phone data under the Patriot Act. They started drafting legislation about two years ago, writing several versions before the bill that passed. Lee said he put more "shoe leather" and "sweat, blood and tears" into the bill than any legislation he has worked on since being elected in 2010. He spent countless hours on the phone and diligently worked the Senate floor the night of the vote. "At every single step of the way, the odds seemed to be against us. There was no part of it that was easy," he said. Chris Karpowitz, co-director of the BYU Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, called it a substantial accomplishment for Lee and one for which he can and should take a meaningful amount of credit. "I think in this case the stars aligned beautifully for

him and allowed him to play this legislative role," he said. Karpowitz said the country was ready for a change from some of

the practices under the Patriot Act, partly as a result of time since 9/11 and Edward Snowden, the former NSA

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

breaches have occurred either, but said that doesn't mean government officials won't misuse the information in the future to spy on law-abiding people or for political espionage. Lee and Leahy are now turning their attention to a bill to get rid of an obscure 1986 law that lets the government read people's emails that are more

than six months old without a warrant. Lee said he believes their collaboration on the Freedom Act will lead to more confidence and momentum for getting things done. He said people have been asked over and over to expect less of Congress, to expect constant backbiting and gridlock.

"It's experiences like these and outcomes like this one that can help Americans to expect more, to expect bipartisan cooperation where it can happen ," he said.

*** INTERNAL LINKS

Obama Isn’t PushingPC not key to reform and no Obama pushKollipara 6/4 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, “Chemical Regulation Bill Clears First House Hurdle,” AAAS, 2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/06/chemical-regulation-bill-clears-first-house-hurdle#THUR}

The bill still has a long way to go . Lawmakers hope the full House will take up the measure late this month, after which they would

have to sort out their differences with the Senate’s version. The White House, while outlining some TSCA reform

principles, hasn’t endorsed any specific bill. Still, Pallone says he couldn’t have foreseen the progress that lawmakers have made so far. “If anybody told me a year or two ago, or even 6 months ago, that we could come up with a strong compromise bill,” he says, “I would have said that wasn’t very likely.”

Obama has totally stood backKollipara 5/6 {Puneet, syndicated science and environment columnist, “U.S. Senate Makes Progress on Chemical Regulation Reform, But Obstacles Await,” AAAS, 2015, http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/05/u-s-senate-makes-progress-chemical-regulation-reform-obstacles-await#THUR}

Senate floor debate could begin sometime in June, Udall said, after which it may take to 6 weeks to vote on amendments.

After that, the timeline is unclear . The House’s TSCA reform draft makes far fewer changes to existing law, he noted. If both bodies were to pass their measures, they would then need to negotiate a final version, a process that could

take months or longer. And the White House, which wields presidential veto power, has not yet taken a stance on either measure. Still, Udall said he still hoped that lawmakers would finish TSCA reform this year.

PC IrrelevantStudies prove PC makes no differenceRockman 9, Purdue University Political Science professor, (Bert A., October 2009, Presidential Studies Quarterly, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?”, volume 39, issue 4, Academic OneFile)

Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990,

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

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

PC Irrelevant---IdeologyPC not real – it’s a myth- vote based on ideologyFrank Moraes is a freelance writer with broad interests. He is educated as a scientist with a PhD in Atmospheric Physics. He has worked in climate science, remote sensing, and throughout the computer industry. And he has taught physics. 1-8-2013 http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/political-capital-is-myth.html

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait metaphorically scratched his head: "Nominating Hagel Most Un-Obama Thing Ever." He can't understand this nomination given that (1) Hagel will be a hard sell and (2) Obama doesn't much listen to his advisers anyway. It is interesting speculation, but I wouldn't have even thought about it had he not

written, "Why waste political capital picking a fight that isn't essential to any policy goals?"¶ This brought to mind something that

has been on my mind for a while, as in posts like "Bipartisan Consensus Can Bite Me." I'm afraid that just like Santa Claus and most conceptions of

God, "Political Capital" is a myth. I think it is just an idea that Villagers find comforting. It is a neat narrative in

which one can straightjacket a political fight. Otherwise, it is just bullshit .¶ Let's go back to late 2004, after Bush Jr was re-elected. He said, "I earned capital in the political campaign and I intend to spend it." What was this thing that Bush intended to spend? It is usually said that political capital is some kind of mandate from the masses. But that is clearly not what Bush meant. He got a mandate to fuck the poor and kill the gays. But he used his political capital to privatize Social Security. One could say that this proves the point, but does anyone really think if Bush had decided to use his political

capital destroying food stamps and Medicaid that he would have succeeded any better? The truth was that Bush's political capital didn't exist.¶ Let's look at

more recent events: the Fiscal Cliff. Obama didn't win that fight because the people who voted for him demanded it. He won it because everyone knew that in the new year he would still be president. Tax rates were going up. Boehner took the Fiscal Cliff deal because it was the best deal that he felt he could get. He didn't fold because of some magic p olitical c apital that Obama could wave over him.¶ There is no doubt that public opinion does affect how politicians act. Even politicians in small safe

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

PC Not RealPolitical capital theory isn’t true with this congressBouie 11 (Jamelle, graduate of the U of Virginia, Writing Fellow for The American Prospect magazine, May 5, prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2011&base_name=political_capital)

Unfortunately, political capital isn’t that straightforward. As we saw at the beginning of Obama’s presidency, the mere fact of popularity (or a large congressional majority) doesn’t guarantee support from key members of Congress. For Obama to actually sign legislation to reform the immigration system, provide money for jobs, or reform corporate taxes, he needs unified support from his party and support from a non-trivial number of Republicans. Unfortunately, Republicans (and plenty of Democrats) aren’t interested in better immigration laws, fiscal stimulus, or

liberal tax reform. Absent substantive leverage—and not just high approval ratings—there isn’t much Obama can do to pressure these members (Democrats and Republicans) into supporting his agenda. Indeed, for liberals who want to see Obama use

his political capital, it’s worth noting that approval-spikes aren’t necessarily related to policy success. George H.W. Bush’s major domestic initiatives came before his massive post-Gulf War approval bump, and his final year in office saw little policy success. George W. Bush was able to secure No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Act, and the Authorization to Use Military Force in the year following 9/11, but the former two either came with pre-9/11 Democratic support or were

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

History and empirics prove Obama PC irrelevantNorman Ornstein is a long-time observer of Congress and politics. He is a contributing editor and columnist for National Journal and The Atlantic and is an election eve analyst for BBC News. He served as codirector of the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project and participates in AEI's Election Watch series. 5-8-2013 http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/executive/the-myth-of-presidential-leadership/

The theme of presidential leadership is a venerated one in America, the subject of many biographies and an enduring mythology about great figures rising to the occasion. The term “mythology” doesn’t mean that the stories are inaccurate; Lincoln, the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie, conveyed a real sense of that president’s remarkable

character and drive, as well as his ability to shape important events. Every president is compared to the Lincoln leadership standard and to those set by other

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

beyond that, to a willful ignorance of history. No one schmoozed more or better with legislators in both parties than Clinton. How many Republican votes did it get him on his signature initial priority, an economic plan? Zero in both houses. And it took eight months to get enough Democrats to limp

over the finish line. How did things work out on his health care plan? How about his impeachment in the House?¶ No one knew Congress, or the buttons to push with every key lawmaker, better than LBJ. It worked like a charm in his famous 89th, Great Society Congress, largely because he had overwhelming majorities of his own

party in both houses. But after the awful midterms in 1966, when those swollen majorities receded, LBJ’s mastery of Congress didn’t mean squat.¶ No one defined the agenda or negotiated more brilliantly than Reagan. Did he “work his will”? On almost every major issue, he had to make major compromises with Democrats, including five straight years with significant tax increases. But he was able to do it—as he was able to achieve a breakthrough on tax reform—because he had key Democrats willing to work with him and find those compromises.¶ For Obama, we knew from the get-go that he had no Republicans willing to work with him. As Robert Draper pointed out in his book Do Not Ask What Good We Do,

key GOP leaders such as Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan determined on inauguration eve in January 2009 that they would work to keep Obama and

his congressional Democratic allies from getting any Republican votes for any of his priorities or initiatives. Schmoozing was not going

to change that.¶ Nor would arm-twisting. On the gun-control vote in the Senate, the press has focused on the four apostate Democrats who voted

against the Manchin-Toomey plan, and the unwillingness of the White House to play hardball with Democrat Mark Begich of Alaska. But even if Obama had bludgeoned Begich and his three colleagues to vote for the plan, the Democrats would still have fallen short of the 60 votes that are now the

routine hurdle in the Senate—because 41 of 45 Republicans voted no. And as Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., has said, several did so just to deny Obama a victory.¶ Indeed, the theme of presidential arm-twisting again ignores history. Clinton once taught Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama a lesson, cutting out jobs in Huntsville, Ala. That worked well enough that Shelby switched parties, joined the Republicans, and became a reliable vote against Clinton. George W. Bush and Karl Rove decided to teach Sen. Jim Jeffords a lesson,

punishing dairy interests in Vermont. That worked even better—he switched to independent status and cost the Republicans their Senate majority. Myths are so much easier than reality.

Winners WinForcing controversial fights key to Obama’s agenda- try or die for the link turnDickerson 1/18/13 (John, Slate, Go for the Throat!, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.single.html)

On Monday, President Obama will preside over the grand reopening of his administration. It would be altogether fitting if he stepped to the microphone, looked down the mall, and let out a sigh: so many people expecting so much from a government that appears capable of so little. A second inaugural suggests new

beginnings, but this one is being bookended by dead-end debates. Gridlock over the fiscal cliff preceded it and gridlock over the debt limit, sequester,

and budget will follow. After the election, the same people are in power in all the branches of government and they don't get along. There's no indication that the president's clashes with House Republicans will end soon. Inaugural speeches are supposed to be huge and stirring. Presidents haul our heroes onstage, from George Washington to Martin Luther King Jr. George W. Bush brought the Liberty Bell. They use history to make greatness and achievements seem like something you can just take down from the shelf. Americans are not stuck in the rut of the day. But this might be too much for Obama’s second inaugural address: After the last four years, how do you call the nation and its elected representatives to common action while standing on the steps of a building where collective action goes to die? That bipartisan bag of tricks has been tried and it didn’t work. People don’t believe it. Congress' approval rating is 14 percent, the lowest in history. In a December Gallup poll, 77 percent of those asked said the way Washington works

is doing “serious harm” to the country. The challenge for President Obama’s speech is the challenge of his second term: how to be great when the environment stinks. Enhancing the president’s legacy requires something more than simply the

clever application of predictable stratagems. Washington’s partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who

came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP . If he

wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat. President Obama could, of course, resign himself to tending to the achievements of his first term. He'd make sure health care reform is implemented, nurse the economy back to health, and put the military on a new footing after two wars. But he's more ambitious than that. He ran for president as a one-term senator with no executive experience. In his first term, he pushed for the biggest overhaul of health care possible because, as he told his aides, he wanted to make history. He may already have made it. There's no question that he is already a president of consequence. But there's no sign he's content to ride out the second half of the game in the Barcalounger. He is approaching gun control, climate change, and

immigration with wide and excited eyes. He's not going for caretaker. How should the president proceed then, if he wants to be bold? The Barack Obama of the

first administration might have approached the task by finding some Republicans to deal with and then start agreeing to

some of their demands in hope that he would win some of their votes. It's the traditional approach. Perhaps he could add a good deal more

schmoozing with lawmakers, too. That's the old way. He has abandoned that. He doesn't think it will work and he doesn't have the time. As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start

dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name. Obama’s only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in

passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues , he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition's most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it , at least temporarily, in disarray .

Winners Win---A2: Link OutweighsTurn outweighs- comparativeGergen 2k [David, American political consultant and former presidential advisor who served during the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, Director of the Center for Public Leadership and a professor of public service at Harvard Kennedy School, Editor-at-large for U.S. News and World Report, Senior Political Analyst for CNN, Eyewitness to Power, p. 285]

As Richard Neustadt has pointed out, power can beget power in the presidency. A chief executive who exercises leadership well

in a hard fight will see his reputation and strength grow for future struggles. Nothing gives a president more political capital than a strong , bipartisan victory in Congress. That's the magic of leadership. Clinton, after passage of his budget and NAFTA, was at the height of his power as president. Sadly, he couldn't hold.

Winners Win---A2: Not TrueEmpirically true – reciprocal relationship Green 10 [David Michael, Professor of political science at Hofstra University, The Do-Nothing 44th President, June 12th, http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-David-Michael-Gree-100611-648.html]

The fundamental characteristic of the Obama presidency is that the president is a reactive object, essentially the victim of events and other political forces, rather than the single greatest center of power in the country, and arguably on the planet. He is the Mr. Bill of politicians. People sometimes excuse the Obama torpor by making reference to all the problems on his plate, and all the enemies at his gate. But what they fail to understand - and, most crucially, what he fails to understand - is the nature of the modern presidency. Successful presidents today (by which I mean those who get what they want) not only drive outcomes in their preferred direction, but shape the very character of the debate itself. And they not only shape the character of the debate, but they determine which items are on the docket.

Moreover, there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success , nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents

understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press , they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train , they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team . And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did. But the game of successfully governing is substantive as well as

psychological. More often than not, timidity turns out not to yield the safe course anticipated by those with weak knees, but rather their subsequent undoing . The three cases mentioned at the top of this essay are paradigmatic.

Winners Win---A2: Too SlowIt’s about perception- if Obama feels he won he’ll be able to spend it forward in the short termDavid Gura is a reporter for Marketplace, based in the Washington, D.C. bureau. He regularly reports on Congress and the White House, economic and fiscal policy and the implementation of financial reform 11-7-2012 http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/campaign-trail/balance-sheet-political-capital

This is what President George W. Bush told reporters two days after he won a second term: “I earned capital in the campaign, political

capital. And now I intend to spend it.” ¶ P olitical c apital can be very valuable . It gives a politician a sense that

the public has his back, that he can flex a little more muscle when he is negotiating with Congress.¶ But as President Bush learned,

political capital isn’t something a two-term president gets automatically.¶ “It’s not a given, just by winning,” say Brian Brox,

a professor of political science at Tulane University. “It’s how you win.” ¶ A politician can get political capital if he wins by a lot -- think Ronald Reagan, in 1984, or Bill Clinton, in 1996.¶ President Bush’s margin of victory wasn’t huge, and let’s just say he may have ... mis-underestimated how

little political capital he had. His push to revamp Social Security went nowhere.¶ According to Alan Abramowitz, who teaches political science at Emory University, “P olitical c apital is in the eye of the beholder.” ¶ That makes it a really risky asset. A politician can spend more than he actually has.

*** IMPACTS

Impact Defense---EconomyEconomy resilient – debt ceiling and gridlock prove even if crises hinder growth, they don’t prevent itPerez 13 {Tom, US Secretary of Labor, former law professor (Maryland), M.A. Public Policy (Harvard), Ph.D. in Law (Harvard), “The Resilience of the American Economy,” US Department of Labor, 11/8, http://social.dol.gov/blog/the-resilience-of-the-american-economy/#THUR}

The American economy is resilient . October’s jobs report demonstrates continued steady growth , with

the addition of 212,000 total private sector jobs in October. The unemployment rate, which fell in September to a nearly-five year low

of 7.2 percent, remains essentially unchanged at 7.3 percent, while American manufacturers added 19,000 jobs in

the month of October. But while American businesses continue to add jobs — 7.8 million over the last 44 months of private

sector job growth — they do so in spite of Congress , not because of it. October’s job growth was undoubtedly restrained by the brinksmanship and uncertainty created by the federal government shutdown and the near-default on the nation’s debt. The American economy is resilient, but it is not immune to manufactured crises. We see signs that suggest the shutdown had a discouraging effect on America’s continued recovery. We remain concerned about the drop in the labor force participation rate, and American workers on temporary layoffs rose by nearly 448,000, the

largest monthly increase in the history of that series of data. The American people deserve leadership that focuses on growing the economy — not holding it hostage. Let’s keep our eye on the ball by passing immigration reform, which has bipartisan support and would inject a trillion dollars into the economy, and investing in infrastructure upgrades that would create thousands of middle class jobs

right now. Instead of erecting political roadblocks, let’s work together to pave bipartisan roads to full recovery. Today’s employment numbers are a reminder that while the economy continues to grow and create new jobs , it remains on uncertain footing. Too many Americans still find the rungs on the ladder of opportunity beyond their reach. We need to move forward with common-sense proposals that will create jobs, strengthen the middle class, reduce our deficit and expand opportunity for American families. The president and I stand ready to work with Congress to do just that.

No impact to economic decline – prefer new dataDaniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however . The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that "the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Impact Defense---Economy---Ext---No WarNo econ decline war---best and most recent dataDrezner, 12 (Daniel W. Drezner, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgove rnance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greaterinternal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea,

and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion

they draw from the 2012 report is that “The average level ofpeacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in

2007.”38 Interstateviolence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm thatthe Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers

Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however.

Given the severity, reach and depth of the2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

No impactBarnett 9 (Thomas, Senior Strategic Researcher – Naval War College, “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis”, Asset Protection Network, 8-25, http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)

When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk

of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had

virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen

ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new

entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of

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

familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-

Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to

one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends . And with the

U nited S tates effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our

involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest , both leading up to and following the onset of the

economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates

off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn , occasionally pressing the

Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training

local forces. So, to sum up: No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last

year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); Not a single

state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); No great

improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable

great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a

result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political

factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts across the board to insulate

economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but there was no great

slide into "trade wars." Instead, the W orld T rade O rganization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional

efforts toward free-trade agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that

shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent

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

trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic

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

Impact Defense---Economy---A2: Diversionary TheoryDiversionary theory is wrong – leaders turn inwardD. Scott Bennett, Ph.D., The U of Michigan, Distinguished prof of Political Science, and Timothy

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

importance of foreign policy substitution) when he argues that it is shortsighted to conclude that a leader will uniformly

externalize in response to domestic problems at the expense of other possi- ble policy choices (1985, 130). We hope to improve on the study of externalization and behavior within rivalries by considering multiple outcomes in response to domestic

conditions.5 In particular, we will focus on the alternative option that instead of exter- nalizing, leaders may internalize when faced with domestic economic troubles. Rather than diverting the attention of the public or relevant elites through military

action, leaders may actually work to solve their internal problems internally. Tying internal solutions to the external

environment, we focus on the possibility that leaders may work to disengage their country from hostile relationships

in the international arena to deal with domestic issues. Domestic problems often emerge from the challenges of spreading finite

resources across many different issue areas in a manner that satisfies the public and solves real problems. Turning inward for some time

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

ment.6 Second, we believe that fundamental economic conditions are a source of potential political problems to which leaders must pay attention. Slowing growth or worsening economic conditions may lead to mass dissatisfaction and

protests down the road; economic problems may best be dealt with at an early stage before they turn into outward, potentially violent, conflict. This leads us to a third argument, which is that we in fact believe that it may be more

appropriate in general to use indicators of latent conflict rather than manifest conflict as indicators of the potential to divert. Once the

citizens of a country are so distressed that they resort to manifest conflict (rioting or engaging in open protest), it may be too late for a leader to satisfy them by engaging in distracting foreign policy actions. If indeed leaders do attempt to distract people's attention, then if protest reaches a high level, that attempt has actually failed and we are looking for correlations between failed externalization attempts and further diversion.

Best economic models prove—leaders resort to territorial diversions instead of conflictTir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict”, The Journal of Politics, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425)]Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models 3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In

accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert

the public’s attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)—but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity

variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

Impact Defense---Endocrine DisruptionZero impactBreithaupt, 4 (Holger Breithaupt has been the editor for the Science & Society section of EMBO reports since the journal's launch in 2000. He studied biology and computer science at the University of Cologne, Germany and holds a PhD from the University of Dusseldorf in Germany. He is also a graduate of the Science and Environmental Reporting Program at New York University, USA. "A cause without a disease," EMBO Report, January, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1298974/)

E ndocrine- d isrupting c hemicals have become a topic of public concern because they could potentially cause cancer and male infertility. But evidence for a human health problem is hard to find.¶ Endocrine disruptors—or 'gender benders' as they are often referred to by the public—have become the focus of environmentalists and public health advocates who decry a slow poisoning of humans and the

environment by the chemical and consumer goods industries. The term is a rather broad label for substances that are able to interfere with hormone receptors or hormonal pathways in the cell. Endocrine disruptors have caused serious public concern, because their interaction with the hormone system could potentially wreak havoc with prenatal and early development and affect a wide variety of organs. Theo Colborn, a researcher for the World Wildlife Fund, painted a bleak picture of their effects at a 2001 meeting of the US Department of the Interior: “... these chemicals can undermine the development of the brain, and intelligence and behaviour, and the endocrine, immune and reproductive systems. ... there is now a growing collection of studies revealing that some of these chemicals can affect our children's ability to learn, to socially integrate, to fend off disease and to

reproduce” (Colborn, 2001).¶ However, as public fear mounted, the evidence for a creeping epidemic caused by endocrine disruptors in the environment remained elusive.¶ In fact, early observations on wild and laboratory animals showed that some compounds that are able to interact with receptor molecules, in particular with the oestrogen receptor, exert effects on the reproductive system of these animals. These observations were accompanied by reports on the increasing incidence of breast and prostate cancer and declining male fertility, and it was only a matter of time before the press took up the issue and parents became concerned about this slow poisoning of their children. However, as public fear mounted, the evidence for a creeping epidemic caused by endocrine disruptors in the environment remained elusive. Although most scientists now acknowledge that many substances

can have an effect on the human endocrine system, more recent analysis has shown that many of the claims about health effects were either exaggerated or based on flawed analysis of observations. As Stephen H. Safe, Professor of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology and of Biochemistry and Biophysics at Texas A&M University (College Station, TX,

USA) put it: “The hypothesis is okay, but we don't even have a problem.”¶ The scientific chapter of the endocrine disruptor story began in the early 1990s with

a 'hypothesis' article in The Lancet in which Richard M. Sharpe from the MRC Reproductive Unit at the University of Edinburgh, UK, and Niels E. Skakkebaek from the Department of Growth and Reproduction at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, wrote, “exposure to exogenous oestrogens, ... during foetal and neonatal life can lead to an increase in reproductive disorders” (Sharpe & Skakkebaek, 1993). On the basis of a meta-analysis of more than 60 studies published between 1940 and 1990, they suggested that abnormalities in the development of male sex organs and a 50% decline in sperm count could be attributed to exposure to oestrogens in utero. The finding that the prescription of an artificial oestrogen, diethylstilboestrol, for pregnant women from the 1940s to the 1970s had caused an increased rate of cervical cancer among the daughters of these women further supported Sharpe and Skakkebaek's hypothesis, and the fear that men could also be affected did not seem so far-fetched. ¶ Observation of wildlife also provided evidence for the effects of endocrine disruptors on reproductive health. Various publications described how chemicals suspected to have endocrine-disrupting effects, including DDT, dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are all banned, and various pesticides and fungicides, caused a wide range of reproductive disorders and deformities of sexual organs among wild animals in polluted areas. Nonylphenol, a degradation product from many detergents, herbicides, spermicides and cosmetics, has been shown to cause imposex in oysters, which is a pseudo-hermaphroditic condition in which females acquire male sex characteristics (Nice et al, 2003). Scientists in the UK found that oestrogenic compounds in human and agricultural wastewater triggered the feminization of male fish in British lakes and rivers. Else-where, US scientists found that female mosquito fish in Florida exposed to pulp-mill effluent developed a gonopodium, an organ normally found only in males. Similarly, male alligators in various contaminated lakes in Florida suffered from phallus deformations and an impaired immune system. Half of male carp caught in the Tama River in Japan were found to produce unusually large amounts of the yolk precursor protein vitellogenin, specific to female fish.¶ In 1996, Colborn, together with science writers Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, compiled these observations into the book Our Stolen Future and drew a straight line between the effects observed in wild animals and human health effects, including breast and prostate cancer and decreasing male fertility caused by decreasing sperm counts, cryptorchidism (where one or both testicles fail to descend from the body) and hypospadias (deformation of the phallus). Often compared to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Colborn's book had an enormous impact on public opinion and triggered intense media coverage about the suspected epidemic of cancers and male infertility. The media obtained further ammunition when Fred vom Saal and co-workers at the University of Missouri (Columbia, MO, USA) showed that bisphenol A (BPA), a commonly used compound found in many plastics, caused abnormal prostate growth and decreased sperm production in rats at doses far lower than those considered to be safe (Nagel et al, 1997; vom Saal et al, 1998). Patricia Hunt at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH, USA) observed that BPA caused severe aberrations of the meiotic cell division in mouse oocytes in up to 40% of all cases

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

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

fetal development—in other words, endocrine disruptors.¶ The only problem is that nobody actually knows whether the levels of endocrine disruptors in the environment are a threat to public health. “The so-called epidemic of endocrine diseases remains to be established,” said Raphael J. Witorsch, Professor of Physiology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, VA, USA. A working group, convened by the Royal Society of London, UK, that investigated the

health threat of endocrine- disrupting chemicals (EDCs) came to the same conclusion: “whilst high levels of exposure to some EDCs could theoretically increase the risk of such disorders, no direct evidence is available at present”

(The Royal Society, 2000). Richard Sharpe, one of the original authors of the endocrine disruptor hypothesis, also acknowledged that “the threat [to human health] is minimal.” In fact, a series of studies that closely investigated the original publications claiming an increase in breast and prostate cancer and a

decline in male fertility found that this is not so. “We now know that this is absolutely not true,” Safe said about health advocates who warn that endocrine disruptors could cause a worldwide epidemic of disorders and diseases. According to

Witorsch, many of the original epidemiological analyses were flawed and lacked confounding factors.¶ In

addition, large-scale studies among elderly women in the USA and the UK showed that the increase in breast and cervical cancer was caused mainly by hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women (Brower, 2003) rather than hormonally active compounds in the environment. In fact, many of the chemicals under suspicion bind only weakly to the oestrogen receptor and it is not clear whether they have an estrogenic, anti-estrogenic or anti-androgenic effect. Furthermore, critics maintain that EDCs have to compete with more effectively binding natural oestrogens that are abundant in the diet, in medicines and in contraceptives at much higher concentrations. “In terms of magnitude and extent, all such exposures to so-called endocrine disruptors are dwarfed by the extensive use of oral contraceptives and estrogens for the treatment of menopausal and post-menopausal disorders. Also, the exposure to hormonally active xenobiotics is virtually insignificant when compared with the intake of the phytoestrogens that are present in food and beverages,” commented Robert Nilsson, Professor of Toxicology at Stockholm University, Sweden (Nilsson, 2000). “So we've got all these [phytohormones] out there in the diet,” Safe

concluded, but “my scepticism is how could small concentrations [of other chemicals] in the environment be a problem?”

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

Secondly, there’s no known biological support for Swan’s idea that pesticides affect sperm quality. Tests do not indicate that alachlor, diazinon and atrazine, for example, produce toxic effects in the reproductive systems of laboratory animals. A reproductive biologist from the Environmental Protection Agency (search) told USA Today that rodent

studies suggest that even the highest pesticide levels found in Swan’s subjects would have been too low to affect sperm quality. And just because the Missouri men had lower sperm counts and higher pesticide exposure than the Minneapolis

men doesn’t automatically mean that pesticides have anything to do with sperm production. A University of Virginia fertility expert told The Associated Press that he was skeptical of the findings because of the lack of historical documentation of the effect of toxins on sperm. Sperm counts are known to vary geographically. There is no certain explanation for the phenomenon, although some studies indicate that men in colder regions seem to have higher sperm counts than men in warmer areas. And it’s really not surprising that men from the agricultural Boone County, Mo., would have more pesticide exposure than an urban area such as Minneapolis. Swan’s data simply aren’t unexpected and her tenuous conclusions aren’t surprising given her track record of eco-activist, anti-

pesticide “research.” Though anti-pesticide activists (search) have tried for years to link pesticides with

declining sperm counts, one key fact stands in their way -- there’s no evidence that sperm counts are

even declining, much less that pesticides are involved. In 1999, researchers published in the Journal of

Urology (search) a review of all 29 studies from 1938 to 1996 reporting semen analyses of fertile men. They concluded, “there appears to be no significant change in sperm counts in the U.S. during the last 60 years.”

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

No correlations between endocrine disruption and reproductive problemsSafe 4 (7/25/04 (Stephen Safe, Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, “Endocrine disruptors and human health: is there a problem,” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-4CY0H60-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersio n=0&_userid=10&md5=9748c3f8ba3fdb13c0366dec72a77243)

It has been hypothesized that endocrine-active chemicals (EACs) may be responsible for the increased incidence of breast cancer and disorders of the male reproductive tract. Synthetic chemicals with estrogenic activity (xenoestrogen) and the organochlorine environmental contaminants polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDE have been the prime etiologic suspects. However, results of extensive research on PCBs and DDE does not show a correlation between PCB/DDE exposure and development

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

Multiple studies prove Safe 00 (Stephen, “Endocrine Disruptors” in Earth Report 2000 pg. 195)

Other studies in Toulouse, the United States, Finland, Sydney, and Denmark have shown that sperm counts have not decreased during the last 15 to 25 years. For example, sperm concentrations were unchanged from 1977 to 1992 in 302 sperm

donors in a clinic in Toulouse (figure 8-2).21 These results were surprising in light of an earlier report showing sperm counts in 1352 fertile men in Paris "decreased by 2.1 % per year from 80 x · 10^6/mL in 1973 to 50 x 10^6/mL in 1992 (p < 0.001).'>22 Results from the French studies were among the first to show that sperm counts within the same country may be highly variable and that

demographic differences may be an important variable that was not considered in the original meta-analysis. Columbia University fertility specialist Harry Fisch and coworkers reported on 1283·men who banked sperm prior to vasectomy in clinics located

in New York, California and Minnesota.29 Their results (Figure 8,2) showed that sperm quality had not significantly changed from 1970 through 1994 at any of the clinics; however, there were significant differences in mean sperm counts in New York (131.5 ;ci 3.5 x

106mL), Minnesota (100.8;ci 2.9 x 106mL), and California (72.7 jci 3.1 X 106/mL). Three recent studies have confirmed that demography is an important variable in semen quality.32-35 For example, among Danish infertility clients at centers in Aalborg, Aarhus, Odense, and Sinderborg, there were differences

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

and seminal volume varied from 4.3 (Caen) to 3.2 ml (Toulouse and Rennes). Handelsman also reported an additional variable that emerged after analysis of sperm counts from 5 different groups of self-selected volunteers at the Andrology Unit, Royal Prince Albert in Sydney, Australia. The variability in sperm counts was greater than 100percent (142 X 106/mL to 63 X l()6/mL), and he concluded that “This

highlights the invalidity of extrapolating similar finding on sperm output of self-selected volunteers to the general male community or in using such study groups to characterize sperm output in supposedly 'normal' men."

No internal link – exposure to endocrine disruptors does not cause changes in human reproductive organsSafe 00 (S H Safe Department of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, “Endocrine disruptors and human health--is there a problem? An update,” http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1638151)

It has been hypothesized that environmental exposure to synthetic estrogenic chemicals and related endocrine-active compounds may be responsible for a global decrease in sperm counts, decreased male

reproductive capacity, and breast cancer in women. Results of recent studies show that there are large demographic variations in

sperm counts within countries or regions, and analyses of North American data show that sperm counts have not decreased over the last 60 years. Analyses of records for hypospadias and cryptorchidism also show demographic differences in these disorders before 1985; however, since 1985 rates

of hypospadias have not changed and cryptorchidism has actually declined. Temporal changes in sex ratios and fertility are minimal, whereas testicular cancer is increasing in most countries; however, in Scandinavia, the difference between high (Denmark) and low (Finland) incidence areas are not well understood and are unlikely to be correlated with differences in exposure to synthetic industrial chemicals. Results from studies on organochlorine contaminants (DDE/PCB) show that levels were not significantly different in breast cancer patients versus controls.

Thus, many of the male and female reproductive tract problems linked to the endocrine-disruptor hypothesis have not increased and are not correlated with synthetic industrial contaminants. This does not exclude an endocrine-etiology for some adverse environmental effects or human problems associated with high exposures to some chemicals.

Impact Defense---EnvironmentEcosystem collapse won’t cause human extinction Raudsepp-Hearne 10 (Ciarra, PhD in the Department of Geography, September, “Untangling the Environmentalist’s Paradox: Why Is Human Well-being Increasing as Ecosystem Services Degrade?” http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Raudsepp-Hearne.pdf)

Although many people expect ecosystem degradation to have a negative impact on human well-being, this measure ¶ appears to be increasing even as provision of ecosystem ¶ services declines . From George Perkins Marsh’s Man and¶ Nature in 1864 to today (Daily 1997), scientists have described¶ how the deterioration of the many services provided¶ by

nature, such as food, climate regulation, and recreational¶ areas, is endangering human well-being. However, the Millennium ¶ Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a comprehensive study of¶ the world’s resources, found that declines in the majority of ¶ ecosystem services assessed have been accompanied by steady ¶ gains in human well-being at the global scale (MA 2005). We¶ argue that to understand this apparent paradox, we need to¶ better understand the ways in which ecosystem services are¶ important for human well-being, and also whether human¶ well-being can continue to rise in the future despite projected¶ continued declines in ecosystem services. In this article, we¶ summarize the roots of the paradox and assess evidence¶ relating to alternative explanations

of the conflicting trends¶ in ecosystem services and human well-being.¶ The environmentalist’s expectation could be articulated ¶ as: “Ecological degradation and simplification will be followed by a decline in the provision of ecosystem services, leading to a decline in human well-being.” Supporters¶ of this hypothesis cite evidence of unsustainable¶ rates of resource consumption, which in the past have had¶ severe impacts on human well-being, even causing the collapse¶ of civilizations (e.g., Diamond 2005). Analyses of the¶ global ecological footprint have suggested that since 1980,¶ humanity’s footprint has

exceeded the amount of resources¶ that can be sustainably produced by Earth (Wackernagel¶ et al. 2002). Although the risk of local and regional societies ¶ collapsing as a result of ecological degradation is much ¶ reduced by globalization and trade, the environmentalist’s ¶ expectation remains: Depletion of ecosystem services translates¶ into fewer benefits for humans, and therefore lower¶ net human well-being than would be possible under better¶ ecological management.¶ By focusing on ecosystem services—the benefits that¶ humans obtain from ecosystems—the MA set out specifically¶ to identify and assess the links between ecosystems

and¶ human well-being (MA 2005). The MA assessed ecosystem ¶ services in four categories: (1) provisioning services, such ¶ as food, water, and forest products; (2) regulating services, which modulate changes in climate and regulate floods, ¶ disease, waste, and water quality; (3) cultural services, which ¶ comprise recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and ¶ (4) supporting services, such as soil formation, photosynthesis, ¶ and nutrient cycling (MA 2003). Approximately 60%¶ (15 of 24) of the ecosystem services assessed by the MA were¶ found to be in decline. Most of the declining services were¶ regulating and supporting services, whereas the majority of¶ expanding ecosystem services were provisioning services,¶ such as crops, livestock, and fish aquaculture (table 1). At the¶ same time, consumption of

more than 80% of the assessed¶ services was found to be increasing, across all categories. In¶ other words, the use of most ecosystem services is increasing ¶ at the same time that Earth’s capacity to provide these ¶ services is decreasing.¶ The MA conceptual framework encapsulated the environmentalist’s¶ expectation, suggesting tight feedbacks between¶

ecosystem services and human well-being. However, the ¶ assessment found that aggregate human well-being grew ¶

steadily over the past 50 years, in part because of the rapid ¶ conversion of ecosystems to meet human demand for food, ¶ fiber, and fuel (figure 1; MA 2005). The MA defined human¶ well-being with five components: basic materials, health,¶ security, good social relations, and freedom of choice and¶ actions, where freedom of choice and actions is expected to¶ emerge from the other components of well-being. Although¶ the MA investigated each of the five components of well-being¶ at some scales and in relation¶ to some ecosystem services,¶ the assessment of global¶ trends in human well-being¶ relied on the human development¶ index (HDI) because of¶ a lack of other data. The HDI¶ is an aggregate measure of¶ life expectancy, literacy, educational¶ attainment, and per¶ capita GDP (gross domestic¶ product) that does not capture¶ all five components of¶ well-being (Anand and Sen¶ 1992).¶

Ecosystems are resilient McDermott, 9 (Mat, Editor for Business and Energy sections; Master Degree from NYU’s Center for Global Affairs in environment and energy policy. May, 27, 2009: “Good News: Most Ecosystems Can Recover in One Lifetime from Human-Induced or Natural Disturbance”;

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/good-news-most-ecosystems-can-recover-in-one-lifetime-from-human-induced-or-natural-disturbance.html)

There's a reason the phrase "let nature take its course" exists: New research done at the Yale University

School of Forestry & Environmental Science reinforces the idea that ecosystems are quiet resilient and can rebound from pollution and environmental degradation. Published in the journal PLoS ONE, the study shows that most damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within a single lifetime, if the source of pollution is removed and restoration work done. The analysis found that on average forest ecosystems can recover in 42 years, while in takes only about 10 years for the ocean bottom to recover. If an area has seen multiple, interactive disturbances, it can take on average 56 years for recovery. In general, most ecosystems take longer to recover from human-induced disturbances than from natural events, such as hurricanes.¶ To reach these recovery averages, the researchers looked at data from peer-reviewed studies over the past 100 years on the rate of ecosystem

recovery once the source of pollution was removed.¶ Interestingly, the researchers found that it appears that the rate at which an ecosystem recovers may be independent of its degraded condition: Aquatic systems may recover more quickly than, say, a forest, because the species and organisms that live in that ecosystem turn over more rapidly than in the forest.¶ As to what

this all means, Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology at Yale and report co-author, says that this analysis shows that an increased effort to restore damaged ecosystems is justified, and that:¶ Restoration could become a more important tool in the management portfolio of conservation organizations that are entrusted to protect habitats on landscapes.¶ We recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate

nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.

Resource needs make destruction inevitableMora and Sale 11 (Camilo, Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, and Peter, Institute for Water, Environment and Health, United Nations University, “Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea,” 6/28, http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m434p251.pdf)

The causes of biodiversity loss are varied and some are unlikely to be regulated as part of the management of a PA (see Fig. 3). Developing actions to address those other threats requires increased research and attention, but that is not addressed here (see

Mora et al. 2009, Butchart et al. 2010). It is clear from the on going loss of biodiversity (Fig. 1) that current conservation efforts, whether

through PAs alone or in combination with other approaches, are not coping with the challenge. The data also indicate that the likelihood of success is small unless the conservation community radically rethinks the strategies needed. One could safely argue that biodiversity threats are ultimately determined by the size of the world’s human population and its consumption of natural resources (Fig. 3). The explosive growth in the world’s human

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

accumulate (e.g. atmospheric CO2). The cumulative overshoot from the mid-1980s to 2002 resulted in an ‘ecological debt’ that would require 2.5 planet Earths to pay (Kitzes et al. 2008). In a business-as-usual scenario, our demands on planet Earth could mount to the productivity of 27 planets Earth by 2050 (Fig. 4). Exceeding ecological demand beyond regenerative levels leads to the degradation of ecological capital (Kitzes et al. 2008), which is evident in the ongoing declining trend in biodiversity (Fig. 3).

Impact Defense---Environment---Ext---ResiliencyStatus quo destruction proves the environment can’t collapseBoucher 96 (Douglas, Center for environmental and Estuarine Studies, Science and Society, http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg24262.html)

The political danger of catastrophism is matched by the weakness of its scientific foundation. Given the prevalence of the idea that the entire

biosphere will soon collapse, it is remarkable how few good examples ecology can provide of this happening even on the scale of an ecosystem, let alone a continent or the whole planet. Hundreds of ecological transformations, due to introductions of alien species, pollution, overexploitation, climate change and even collisions with asteroids, have been documented. They often change the functioning of ecosystems, and the abundance and diversity of their animals and plants, in dramatic ways. The effects on human society can be far-reaching, and often extremely negative for the majority of the population.

But one feature has been a constant, nearly everywhere on earth: life goes on. Humans have been able to drive thousands of species to extinction, severely impoverish the soil, alter weather patterns, dramatically lower the biodiversity of natural communities, and incidentally cause great suffering for their posterity. They have not generally

been able to prevent nature from growing back. As ecosystems are transformed, species are eliminated—but opportunities

are created for new ones. The natural world is changed, but never totally destroyed. Levins and Lewontin put it well: “The

warning not to destroy the environment is empty: environment, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. What we can do is replace environments we value by those we do not like” (Levins and Lewontin, 1994). Indeed, from a human point of view the most impressive

feature of recorded history is that human societies have continued to grow and develop, despite all the terrible things they have done to the earth. Examples of the collapse of civilizations due to their over- exploitation of nature are few and far between. Most tend to be well in the past and poorly documented, and further investigation often shows that the reasons for collapse were fundamentally political.

Impact Defense---Environment---Ext---Alt CausesGlobal deforestation makes the impact inevitableSarno 8 (Niccolo, Media coordinator for FoEI; May 22, 2008; “Deforestation Threatens Biodiversity Efforts”; http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2008/deforestation-threatens-biodiversity-efforts)

The continuing failure to prevent catastrophic deforestation is hampering global efforts to reverse the loss of biodiversity and has become a major threat to forest-dependent people, warned Friends of the Earth International on ‘International Biodiversity Day’, 22 May. The warning was made during a May 19-30 United Nations meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Bonn gathering, attended by delegates from 191 countries, aims to find ways to meet a globally agreed target for reversing the loss of biodiversity. “The destruction of forests and the consequent erosion of biodiversity severely impact millions of forest-dependent people. But it also affects global food security and accelerates climate change,” according to Belmond Tchoumba, co-coordinator of the Forest and Biodiversity Programme of Friends of the Earth International. “Governments must let local communities and Indigenous Peoples who depend on forests manage their forests, rather than evicting them and selling off the forests,“

added the Cameroonian activist. According to Friends of the Earth International the Bonn conference participants should take immediate action to stop the deforestation of prime forests, to stop the destructive illegal logging and to stop the trade of illegally derived forest products. They should also oppose false solutions such as damaging monoculture tree plantations and genetically engineered (GE) trees. GE trees are as damaging as other monocultures, but they also pose a specific threat to the genetic diversity of trees. “Genetically engineered trees know no borders: once planted, they contaminate large areas,” according to Hubert Weiger, President of BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany.

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

Environmental destruction inevitable – we haven’t felt the effects of past damage yetSample, 12 (Ian Sample, Science Correspondent for ‘The Guardian’, “Amazon's doomed species set to pay deforestation's 'extinction debt'” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/12/amazon-deforestation-species-extinction-debt?newsfeed=true)

The destruction of great swaths of the Brazilian Amazon has turned scores of rare species into the walking dead, doomed to disappear even if deforestation were halted in the region overnight, according to a new study. Forest clearing in Brazil has already claimed casualties, but the animals lost to date in the rainforest region are just one-fifth of those that will slowly die out as the full impact of the loss of habitat takes its toll. In parts of the eastern and southern Amazon, 30 years of concerted deforestation have shrunk viable living and breeding territories enough to condemn 38 species to regional extinction in coming years, including 10 mammal, 20 bird and eight amphibian species, scientists found. The systematic clearance of trees from the Amazon forces wildlife into ever-

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

Amazon, faces water pollution from agricultural runoff and mining operations in the area. Writing in the journal Science, Robert

Ewers and his co-authors reconstructed extinction rates from 1970 to 2008, and then forecast future extinction debts under four different scenarios, ranging from "business as usual" to a "strong reduction" in forest clearance, which required deforestation to slow down 80% by 2020. "For now, the problem is along the arc of deforestation in the south and east where there is a long history of forest loss. But that is going to move in the future. We expect most of the species there to go extinct, and we'll pick up more extinction debt along the big, paved highways which are now cutting into the heart of the Amazon," Ewers

told the Guardian from Belém, northern Brazil. Under the "business as usual" scenario, where around 62 sq miles (160 sqkm) of

forest are cleared each year, at least 15 mammal, 30 bird and 10 amphibian species were expected to die out locally by 2050, from around half of the Amazon. Under the most optimistic scenario, which requires cattle

ranchers and soy farmers to comply with Brazilian environmental laws, the extinction debt could be held close to 38 species. Ewers said the model reveals hotspots in the Brazilian Amazon where conservation efforts should be focused on the most vulnerable wildlife. "This shows us where we are likely to have high concentrations of species which are all in trouble, and that becomes a way for directing our conservation efforts. We are talking about an extinction debt. Those species are still alive, so we have an opportunity to get in

there and restore the habitat to avoid paying that debt," Ewers said. The Brazilian Amazon is home to 40% of the world's tropical forest and one of the most biodiverse regions on the planet. About 54% of the area is under environmental protection, and in the past five years, stricter controls and better compliance have driven deforestation rates down to a historical low. The trend towards less deforestation might not last though. Under pressure from the financial crisis, the Brazilian government has proposed a rapid development programme in the Amazon to fuel the economy. The move foresees the construction of more than 20 hydroelectric power plants in the Amazon basin and an extensive push into the rainforest. Environmentalists are further concerned about an overhaul to Brazil's Forest Code, which is widely expected to weaken the protection of the rainforest, and potentially speed up deforestation once more, according to an accompanying article in Science by Thiago Rangel, an ecologist at the Federal University of Goiás in Brazil. "Extinction debts in the Brazilian

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

TSCA Bad---EconomyExpanded TSCA kills the economy and manufacturing – precaution overwhelming and chemical processing Oberst 10 {Brett H., J.D. (University of Michigan – yuck), B.S. (Cornell), partner at Doll, Amir, and Eley dealing with business litigation and environmental law, member of the executive committee of the Environmental Law Section of the LA County Bar Association, “Obama and EPA Take on TSCA Reform,” Environmental Law Institute, http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Oberst-Hang-Larris-ObamaEPATakeonTSCAReform.pdf#THUR}

IV. The Economic Impact of Expanding EPA’s Authority Under TSCA A significant feature of EPA’s six principles

of reform is placing the burden on industry to evaluate the safety of chemicals. In addition to focusing on chemical and product

manufacturers, EPA would also like to expand its authority to require submission of use and exposure information to “downstream processors and users of chemicals.”18 This would mean that product manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers would each be responsible for providing safety information to EPA and the public. The recently passed Consumer

Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) implemented a similar approach. The CPSIA bans the manufacture for sale, distribution in commerce, or import of children’s products that contain lead or phthalates in greater concentrations than those outlined under the timeline detailed in the CPSIA. Section 102 of the CPSIA requires only the manufacturers of children’s products to obtain certificates of compliance from third parties who test each product. 19 However, even though the testing requirement only falls on manufacturers, retailers or resellers must

abide by regulations in the CPSIA as well and could be subject to hefty fines if a product fails to meet the guidelines. 20 Thus, retailers,

including those who own small shops and second-hand stores, are responsible for knowing the content of their inventory. 21 These retailers can be held liable under the Act for selling noncompliant products. 22 These requirements have resulted in significant impacts on industry , and especially small and medium sized businesses. Smaller businesses have pointed out that they do not have the same resources available as large manufacturers and retailers

to conduct product testing and must turn to expensive outside labs to perform this task. 23 Many of these small businesses had never before been subject to such testing requirements, and the CPSIA adds a great and unanticipated expense to the cost of doing business. 24 Further, the CPSIA offers no exemption from this testing requirement for products that already are in commerce, so thrift stores and other second-hand shops must evaluate their entire inventory, much of it of

unknown origin, to determine which products require testing. 25 The burden and costs involved with these requirements have threatened to drive many small manufacturers and retailers out of business . 26 As a result of protests by several small business groups, the Consumer Product Safety Commission imposed a one-year stay of

testing and certification requirements on January 30, 2009. 27 The same type of impacts may be seen from EPA’s proposal to similarly reform TSCA. The impact on manufacturers alone may be significant, especially given our weakened

economy. If Congress required all manufacturers to produce data for each of the 80,000 chemicals in commerce, regardless of exposure or

frequency of use, this could have disastrous consequences for many small manufacturers who do not have the resources available to test every chemical. Moreover, businesses—both small and large—may not be willing to invest in the research necessary to develop new chemicals because of the costly testing associated with doing

so, even if the new chemical has an extremely low rate of exposure. The potential impact on jobs, innovation, and

economic growth cannot be ignored as inconsequential.

TSCA Bad---Health (Decentralization Best)1NC uniqueness evidence conceded reform preempts state laws – Federal regulations fail – state assistance key to reign in toxic chemical – turns endocrine disruptionSasso 14 “Toxics Across America: Report Details 120 Hazardous, Unregulated Chemicals in the U.S.” Alissa Sasso, Environmental Defense Fund, April 16, 2014, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/16/report-hazardous-unregulated-chemicals-in-u-s/

Recent spills in West Virginia and North Carolina cast a spotlight on toxic hazards in our midst. But as bad as they are, these acute

incidents pale in scope compared to the chronic flow of hazardous chemicals coursing through our lives each day with little notice and minimal regulation. A new report by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Toxics Across America, tallies billions of pounds of chemicals in the American marketplace that are known or strongly suspected to cause increasingly common disorders, including certain cancers, developmental disabilities and infertility. While it’s no secret that

modern society consumes huge amounts of chemicals, many of them dangerous, it is surprisingly difficult to get a handle on the

actual numbers. And under current law it’s harder still to find out where and how these substances are used, though we know enough

to establish that a sizeable share of them end up in one form or another in the places where we live and work. The new report looks at 120 chemicals that have

been identified by multiple federal, state and international officials as known or suspected health hazards. Using the latest—albeit limited—data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the report identifies which of these chemicals are in commerce in the U.S.; in what amounts they are being made; which companies are producing or importing them; where they are being produced or imported; and how they are being used. An interactive online map accompanying

the report lets the user access the report’s data and search by chemical, by company, by state and by site location. Among the findings: At least 81 of the chemicals on the list are produced or imported to the U.S. annually in amounts of 1 million pounds or more. At least 14 chemicals exceed 1 billion pounds produced or imported annually, including carcinogens such as formaldehyde and benzene, and the endocrine disruptor bisphenol A—or BPA . More than 90 chemicals on the list are found in consumer and commercial products. At least eight chemicals are used in children’s products. The interactive map shows these chemicals are produced or imported in all parts of the country, in 45 states as well as the Virgin Islands. Companies with sites in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York reported

producing or importing at least 40 listed chemicals. While the report shows how deeply toxic chemicals are embedded in U.S. commerce, the chemicals identified represent just part of the story. Companies making or importing up to 12-and-a-half tons of a chemical at a given site do not need to report at all. Others claim their chemical data is confidential business information,

masking it from public disclosure. The EPA only collects the data every four years, and chemical companies often don’t know and aren’t required to find out where or how the chemicals they make are being used. Most Americans assume that somebody is regulating these chemicals to make sure we’re safe. In fact, thanks to gaping loopholes in federal law ,

officials are virtually powerless to limit even chemicals—such as those featured in the report—we know or have good reason to suspect

are dangerous. Because none of us has the power to avoid them on our own, we need stronger safeguards that protect us from the biggest risks and give companies that use these chemicals a reason to look for better alternatives.

Federal regulation is caught up in regulatory capture – state regs empirically work Hartmann 14 “There Is an Enormous Amount of Unregulated Poisonous Chemicals In Our Country” Thom Hartmann - author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host, April 18, 2014, http://www.alternet.org/environment/theres-toxic-disaster-inside-every-one-us

We are all lab rats in one giant , toxic , and deadly experiment. The Environmental Defense Fund has released a new report, titled

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

including 8 used in children's products. With billions of pounds of toxic chemicals being produced and used in the United States

each year, you'd think that our government would have strict regulations in place to monitor those chemicals, and to

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

today. And, while we're seeing explosions in obesity, cancer and autism — just to name a few — all around us, it'll be years to decades before we know which of these chemicals are causing what problems. Thanks to weak regulations and safety standards, Big Chem has turned America into one giant science experiment, and we are

all the lab rats, forced without our consent or knowledge to deal with the side effects. Fortunately, there's a way to stop all of this madness, and to prevent America from becoming an even bigger toxic waste dump. It's called the Precautionary Principle. Basically, it means

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

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

TSCA Bad---Health (Decentralization Best)---A2: Reform SolvesFed regs fail – singular authority makes regulatory capture too easyWidman 10 “Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008”Amy Widman - legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy J.D., cum laude, New York University, Fall, 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the operation of the many federal agencies. n29 Rulemaking, the process by which agencies create regulations, was at first an afterthought but eventually became a significant form of agency action. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Congress began creating agencies with direct rulemaking powers. n30 To ensure fairness in the promulgation and enforcement of regulations, the APA requires notice-and-comment procedures and evidence of reasoned decision making. n31 Along with deference and other review doctrines, n32 these are some of the most studied features of administrative law. n33 Enforcement mechanisms are a less recognized and studied means [*174] of ensuring fairness in

administrative procedure. n34 However, all of these doctrines are relevant for assessing the balance of power between federal agencies and states. n35 This Article will focus on one particular agency, its history and enforcement record, and Congress's responses to the agency's failures. Congress created the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 1972 to closely regulate product safety. n36 The CPSC has the authority to set safety standards, require labeling, order recalls, ban products, collect death and injury data, inform the public about consumer product safety, and contribute to the

process by which voluntary standards are set. The executive branch nominates commissioners to run the CPSC. n37 The executive branch also exerts less formal control over agency action through the Office of Management and Budget's Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which reviews agency rules according to a cost-benefit analysis and for general compliance with the administration's policy goals. n38 Such executive control can greatly affect the actions taken, or not taken, by the agencies. n39 Since lobbyists need only focus on one branch - the executive - in order to undercut regulation, the current configuration is ripe for capture. n40 Recently, under an executive administration

particularly favorable toward [*175] industry, the CPSC suffered from lack of leadership and inadequate funding.

Prefer Empirics – fed regs get watered down and aren’t enforced – state power key to fill inWidman 10 “Advancing Federalism Concerns in Administrative Law Through a Revitalization of State Enforcement Powers: A Case Study of the Consumer Product Safety and Improvement Act of 2008”Amy Widman - legal Director, Center for Justice & Democracy J.D., cum laude, New York University, Fall, 2010 Yale Law & Policy Review 29 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 165

II. The Consumer Product Safety Commission Case Study Capture of agencies has been a concern since their creation. n69 Executive administrations in some cases have appointed lobbyists or people with industry ties to ensure that regulatory agencies advance industry priorities. These appointments compromise the appearance and reputation of administrative agencies. n70 The Bush Administration appointed enough lobbyists to positions of power within administrative agencies that special interests appeared to

dominate politics. n71 A 2004 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 64% of Americans [*180] agreed with the statement that "government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." n72 The experience of the CPSC was reflective of the Bush

Administration's general approach to administrative oversight. n73 An examination of the failures of the CPSC and the congressional response to those failures shows how

lax enforcement compromised consumer protection and weakened the Agency. A. The Regulatory Players and Recent Agency Inaction In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Michael Baroody as chair of the CPSC. For thirteen years, Mr. Baroody had been chief lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), an industry trade group representing the largest manufacturing firms. n74 He withdrew his nomination [*181] after his $ 150,000 severance package from NAM was publicized. n75 President Bush never nominated another chair, leaving Nancy Nord, one of the CPSC commissioners he had appointed, as acting chair until the Obama Administration nominated Inez Moore Tenenbaum as chair in May of 2009. n76 Ms. Nord also had ties to corporate lobbying groups, having served as executive director of the American Corporate Counsel Association and Director of Consumer Affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. n77 Senate Democrats and consumer groups repeatedly called for her resignation after she opposed a bill that would have directed more money and resources to the Agency after numerous product recalls in 2007. n78 Meanwhile, the CPSC was not keeping dangerous products out of the marketplace. After nine-month-old Liam Johns suffocated in his Simplicity crib, n79 the CPSC did nothing. Despite Liam's death, two more infant deaths, seven [*182] nonfatal infant injuries, and fifty-five other incidents, all involving Simplicity's drop rail, the CPSC did nothing for over two years. n80 This delay alone is a violation of CPSC regulations. n81 It took a series of articles by the Chicago Tribune and pressure from Illinois's attorney general for the Agency to investigate and recall nearly one million Simplicity cribs in September 2007. n82 The CPSC's missteps continued even after the cribs were recalled, however. Despite the fact that the CPSC is required to ensure that the remedy chosen by the manufacturer makes the product safe, n83 the Agency did not compel Simplicity

to make repair kits immediately available to parents wanting to fix their defective cribs; nor did it bar Simplicity from sending out non-CPSC-approved replacement parts without installation instructions. n84 Even five months after the [*183] recall, the CPSC "refused to release information on the progress of the Simplicity recall, ... [including] refusing to say if kits [had] been mailed out, if further injuries [had] taken place or what actions Simplicity is [had taken] to remedy the situation." n85 This is one example of many where the CPSC failed to follow its own recall and investigatory protocols. n86 The crib problems were not isolated regulatory failures. Throughout these years of inadequate leadership, the CPSC failed to keep

dangerous and defective products off the shelves and had a poor investigatory and enforcement response once dangerous products were discovered. n87 For example, from 2005 to 2007, there were, on average, 62,900

emergency injuries each year linked to products marketed for children younger than five, like baby carriers, car seats, and cribs. n88 Recalls came late, as with the recall of Evenflo high chairs after 1140 reports of injuries. n89 In another example, the dangers posed by magnets in toys were reported to the CPSC as early as 2005, yet no action was taken until March of 2006, and even then the CPSC "issued a weak, confusing recall, leaving dangerous products on store shelves. It wasn't until almost two years later that a full recall was announced." n90 Fines were virtually nonexistent, even for

companies [*184] with repeated recalls. n91 The CPSC showed a tendency to settle with manufacturers rather than prosecute violations of safety regulations. n92 In 2007, some states determined it was time to attempt to fill the vast federal regulatory void. Media investigations and public outcry

spurred a few state attorneys general to act. n93 States such as Oregon, New Jersey, Washington, Maryland, and Illinois passed their own laws governing the recall process in 2008. n94 Although it is unclear whether these recent CPSC failures were due to a regulatory failure, an enforcement failure, an institutional failure resulting from a lack of funding and political support, or some combination of the three, Congress would soon enact comprehensive reform.

TSCA Bad---Health (Specific Bill)Reform worse for health – kills regs – prevents state action, reflects industry interests, and blocks regs of certain chemicalsWheeler 15 {Lydia, syndicated reporter covering politics, governmental regulation, and economic development, B.A. in journalism and political science (Keene State College), “Erin Brockovich Denounces Latest Chemical Law Reform Bill,” The Hill, 3/11, http://thehill.com/regulation/235346-erin-brockovich-denounces-latest-chemical-law-reform-bill#THUR}**language modified

Consumer advocate Erin Brockovich is calling legislation introduced Tuesday to reform the nation’s toxic chemical laws an industry bill. “This bill does not make chemicals safer ,” she said. “I wouldn’t even consider it in my opinion a

[Toxic Chemicals Control Act, or TSCA] bill. It’s an industry bill.” Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) unveiled the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act on Tuesday. It’s the latest push to reform the TSCA of 1976, which

is widely considered broken and unenforceable. But in a press call led by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Wednesday, Brockovich

said the bill would take away states’ rights in regulating harmful chemicals like asbestos. “If we take away states rights and dump this back on the EPA , which is already overburdened, understaffed and without state funds, to me that’s insanity,” [futility] she said. Brockovich is best know for building the case against the California-based Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in 1993. Despite a lack of formal education, she exposed the company for leaking toxic Chromium 6 into the ground water and poisoning residents in the town of Hinkley. Julia Roberts won an Oscar playing Brockovich in the 2000 movie. Now

Brockovich is now an advocate for environmental issues. Though sponsors of the TSCA refrom bill say it will balance state and federal regulations, EWG says the wording of the bill differs from what's being presented. EWG President and

Co-founder Ken Cook said the states would be preempted from taking action on any chemical that the EPA deems a high priority and begins to review, a safety assessment, which under the proposed law could take up to

seven years. The public, he said, should be "very alarmed." “With respect to public health, this is keystone on steroids,” he said.

TSCA Bad---Health (Specific Bill)---A2: No Focus DAYes trade-offPearson 4/24 {Sam, syndicated columnist focusing on the environment, former researcher at The Center for Public Integrity, M.A. in Journalism and Public Affairs (American University), B.A. in government-journalism (California State University, Sacramento), “Groups Struggle To Communicate On TSCA Reform -- Especially When Many Voters Think It's Already Happened,” Energy & Environment Publishing, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060017361#THUR}

Cook says he worries that if Congress passes an inadequate TSCA fix, the public will stop paying attention

again.

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

TSCA Fails---EconomyUdall-Vitter reform doesn’t solve uncertainty and conflicting state regs Brodwin 4/6 {David, vice president of media and communications at American Sustainable Business Council, professor (Golden Gate University), former Executive Director of the Rockridge Institute, B.A. (Harvard), MBA (Stanford University Graduate School of Business), “Let the EPA Be a Real Referee,” US News and World Report, 2015, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2015/04/06/senate-tsca-reform-bill-doesnt-let-epa-be-real-chemical-referee#THUR}

The current situation doesn’t satisfy anyone. The lack of clarity about what products are safe and what products are dangerous

creates legal risk for manufacturers, public health risk for consumers, and makes it hard to raise money to commercialize better

alternatives. In addition, chemical manufacturers hate the complexity and uncertainty that results when any state can create its own unique regulations. This situation cries out for streamlining and offers potential improvements to all stakeholders. A bill is working its way through Congress with the awkward name of the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” and the

unpronounceable acronym “FLCSA.” This bill is co-sponsored by Sens. David Vitter, R-La., and Tom Udall, D-N.M. Despite the presence of the words “chemical safety” in its name, this bill appears designed to delay and drag out the process of testing chemicals to determine their safety. In turn, it will obstruct the innovators who stand poised to bring new and better chemicals to market . The bill mandates a slow pace: only 25 chemicals will

be reviewed in the first three years of work. The bill prevents the EPA from taking action on chemicals found to be toxic without an exhaustive, case-by-case investigation of each specific product in which a hazardous chemical is used (and there could be hundreds). Finally, the bill prevents states from preempting federal regulation, even when no federal regulation has been formulated yet. All of these provisions will have the effect of further slowing an already slow and cumbersome process. These rules are designed to delay decisions as long as possible , rather than make quick decisions quickly based on sound science.

The Senate bill is too complex and doesn’t allow new growthBernstein 6/11 {Zach, Research Associate at the American Sustainable Business Council, M.A. in Public Communication and a B.A. in Political Science (American University), “The Market for Safer Chemistry Is Huge, and Congress Should Help,” GreenBiz, 2015, http://www.greenbiz.com/article/market-safer-chemistry-huge-and-congress-should-help#THUR}

There have been some efforts of late, beginning with a pair of bills in the last Congress and continuing into this session. One

bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — named for the late New Jersey senator, a strong advocate of

reforming TSCA — represents a bipartisan approach. However, this overly complex bill falls short as currently drafted,

and places roadblocks in the safety review process that ultimately would protect incumbent industries. The U.S. House of Representatives is considering its own TSCA reform bill, called the TSCA Modernization Act. This is a narrower bill that shows promise towards creating a functional chemical review process at EPA. With a smarter, workable review process, it will create market signals that will lead to incentives for safer chemistries and safer alternatives.

TSCA Fails---EPAEPA doomed – New Congress feels they have a mandate to reign in regsTrabish 12/29 {Herman K, energy columnist, “Poll finds support for EPA low ahead of standoff with Congress,” Utility Dive, 2014, http://www.utilitydive.com/news/poll-finds-support-for-epa-low-ahead-of-standoff-with-congress/347746/}Dive Brief: Just 32% of likely voters have a favorable impression of the Environmental Protection Agency while 40% think EPA regulations and actions are detrimental to the economy, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll taken December 21 and 22.

The results — the worst in the three years of EPA polling — come as the agency’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions have provoked the incoming Republican Congressional leadership to prioritize limiting EPA authority and its budget. Republican concern with the EPA centers on its proposed Clean Power Plan, which would reduce U.S. GHGs 30% by 2030. The plan would impose on states the requirement to make coal plants more efficient, move from coal to natural gas, switch to more nuclear and renewable power,

or institute more energy efficiency. Dive Insight: Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said his top priority is "to try to

do whatever I can to get the EPA reined in ." Six Democrats and 96 Republicans signed a December 22 letter sent to President Obama asking him to withdraw the Clean Power Plan because it will “threaten electric reliability and drive up energy costs.” The President is not expected to do so.

State lawmakers will trash them too regardless of Congressional mandateChemnick 1/12 {Jean, syndicated environmental affairs columnist for E&E/Scientific American/C-SPAN, “Climate: Republican Statehouse Gains Load the Dice for Anti-EPA Bills,” E&E Publishing/Greenwire, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060011505}Environmentalists are girding for an onslaught of new state bills to delay or kill U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan as state legislatures return to work beginning this week with Republicans now in control of two-thirds of the nation's legislative chambers . November's midterm elections gave the GOP new majorities in 11 legislative chambers, placing 68

of the nation's 98 partisan chambers in its control. And greens worry that these new Republican strongholds could be fertile ground

for legislative proposals by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council that would make it harder to implement the

greenhouse gas rule for the existing power plants. ALEC acts as a clearinghouse for state bills aimed at limiting regulation across a broad swath of topics,

including the environment. The group did not respond to calls for this story. "We're definitely seeing ALEC escalating its environmental rhetoric because there are more Republicans in charge of the legislatures, or we're watching or tracking to see what that really means,"

said Aliya Haq of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Lawmakers from two states -- Virginia and Missouri -- prefiled legislation

before those legislatures returned for the new session on Jan. 8 that could affect the states' ability to submit implementation plans to comply with EPA's deadlines beginning in 2016. One draft pending in Missouri, to be offered by state Sen. Gary Romine (R), would require

the state Division of Environmental Quality to submit a blueprint of any implementation plan for a Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act rule to the Legislature and the governor for review one month ahead of filing it with EPA, complete with an assessment of its potential economic costs. If lawmakers don't move to block it, the measure would travel to EPA for its approval.

The proposal would affect implementation of the existing-plant rule in much the same way as a law Pennsylvania enacted in

October would. It requires state officials to report to the Legislature on plans to implement the Clean Power Plan only. A similar draft is also pending in the Virginia Senate to be offered by state Sen. Charles Carrico (R). The bills are derived from an ALEC proposal that would have required legislatures to approve any state plan -- in effect, a state version of

the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act," a bill likely to be reintroduced this Congress to limit the executive

branch's rulemaking powers. The Pennsylvania law and Carrico's and Romine's proposals do not require legislative action, though

Haq said they would create an "unnecessary delay" before state agencies can submit their plans to EPA for approval. But Missouri Rep. Mike Moon (R) is

planning to introduce a more sweeping bill that would bar state agencies from implementing any federal regulation written under any law without approval from both the Legislature and its Joint Committee on Administrative Rules.

TSCA Fails---EPA---Ext---StrippingCongress will strip the EPA – no increased regulation Copeland 14 {Claudia, Specialist in Resources and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service, “EPA and the Army Corps’ Proposed Rule to Define “Waters of the United States,” Congressional Research Service, 11/21, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43455.pdf}Congressional interest in the proposed rule has been strong since the agencies’ announcement on March 25.

Public and agency witnesses have discussed the proposal at several hearings (House Agriculture Committee, House Natural Resources, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, House Small Business Committee, House Science Committee, and House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee). Legislation addressing the proposal has been introduced. H.R. 5078 would prohibit the Corps or EPA from

finalizing the proposed “waters” rule or using that proposal or similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis of any rulemaking on the scope of CWA jurisdiction, and it would require withdrawal of the interpretive rule. It also would direct the Corps and EPA to consult with state and local officials on CWA jurisdiction issues and develop a report on

results of such consultation. By a 262-152 vote, the House passed this bill on September 9. Other bills have been introduced, as well. H.R. 4923, FY2015 Energy and Water Appropriations act, passed by the House on July 10, includes a provision that would bar the Corps from developing, adopting, implementing, or enforcing any change to rules or

guidance pertaining to the CWA definition of “waters of the United States.” Also, the FY2015 Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, funding EPA (H.R. 5171), contains a provision to similarly block funding for EPA to act on the “waters” rule.

The House Appropriations Committee approved this bill in July. S. 2496, like H.R. 5078, would prohibit the Corps or EPA from finalizing the

proposed “waters” rule or using that proposal or similar proposed rule or guidance as the basis of any rulemaking on the scope of CWA jurisdiction. H.R. 5071 would require the agencies to withdraw the interpretive rule on agricultural exemptions and direct that all soil and water conservation practices shall be treated as “normal farming, ranching, and forestry” activities for purposes of CWA Section 404(f)(1)(A).

TSCA Fails---HealthReform fails – industry influences, preemption of state authority, and faulty chemical prioritization -Specifically indicts evidence from the Environmental Defense FundDubose 5/21 {Lou, syndicated columnist on national politics, “Why the American Chemistry Council Loves Tom Udall,” Huffington Post: Politics, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/washington-spectator/why-the-american-chemistr_b_7342216.html#THUR}

As it turns out, the Vitter-Udall bill, co-sponsored by Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, is a Trojan Horse, cobbled together by the American Chemistry Council, a huge industry trade association, and pushed through the Senate by more than 100 lobbyists representing the chemical companies whose products would be regulated. At an April 28 Committee markup of the bill, California

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer complained that one draft of the Vitter-Udall bill has been traced directly to an American Chemistry Council computer. Boxer also placed in the record letters and statements from a coalition

of 450 environmental, labor and public health groups that oppose the Vitter-Udall bill. Members of the

coalition ranged from the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council to the AFL-CIO and the Breast Cancer Fund. A single green group, the Environmental Defense Fund, is supporting the bill. Its senior

scientist struggled to vindicate himself at a March 15 hearing of the Senate Committee on the Environment

and Public Works. In a letter to the committee, California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote that "the preemption of state

authority with respect to high-priority chemicals years before federal regulations take effect" is a fundamental flaw in the bill. Testifying at the hearing, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh explained "preemption of state authority." The

preemption provisions that are built into this legislation tie the hands of states at nearly every turn . Among these, there is a prohibition on new state chemical restrictions from the moment EPA begins the process of considering regulation of high priority chemicals. It's a plain fact that the bill itself allows this EPA review period to last as long as seven years. Let's say we're talking about a toxic chemical. That's seven years with no federal regulation, seven years during which no state can take action regardless of how dangerous, how

toxic, how poisonous a chemical is, regardless of its impact on men, women or children. The EPA testing will be, let's say,

protracted. Of 80,000 synthetic chemicals commonly used in the U.S., 1,000 are considered potential health threats. Within the first seven years after implementation of the Vitter-Udall bill, only 25 of those chemicals

would be tested by the EPA. Yet there is no provision in the bill that would stop the EPA from listing chemicals that it "is considering" testing, which would protect them from regulation by states . Tom Udall and the Environmental Defense Fund have provided this legislation some measure of green credibility, essentially putting lipstick on a pig to hide the ugly.

Experts agree – the bill is a Trojan horse Curtis 15 {Kathy, Executive director for Clean and Healthy New York, researcher at the Workgroup for Public Policy Reform, former Executive Director at Citizens' Environmental Coalition, “Chemical Industry Gets Free Pass in Vitter-Udall Bill: NYU Study Links Toxic Chemicals to Billions in Health Care Costs,” Workgroup for Public Policy Reform, http://smartpolicyreform.org/for-the-media/news-items/chemical-industry-gets-free-pass-in-vitter-udall-bill-nyu-study-links-toxic-chemicals-to-billions-in-health-care-costs#sthash.vMCrjD3B.dpuf#THUR}

A new bill that claims to update how chemicals are regulated in the United States, introduced today by Senators David Vitter (R-LA) and

Tom Udall (D-NM), is a sweet deal for the chemical industry that would keep exposing Americans to

harmful chemicals while exposing the nation to billions in health care costs, a coalition of community, environmental and health groups said today. The groups pointed to a new study by New York University that documents over $100 billion a year in health care costs in the European Union for diseases associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals, including IQ loss, ADHD, infertility, diabetes and other disorders

that have been rising in the U.S. The Vitter-Udall bill, introduced on Tuesday, March 10th, purports to update the Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, which was meant to protect the public from harmful chemicals but which has allowed tens of thousands of chemicals – including chemicals that cause cancer and other problems noted above – into the marketplace with little or no health

and safety testing. “New research links toxic chemicals with a range of illnesses and billions of dollars in health care costs, yet Senators Udall

and Vitter are proposing a bill that doesn't address major problems with current policies and would give the chemical industry a free pass to keep exposing Americans to harmful chemicals for decades to

come,” said Katie Huffling, RN, CNM, Director of Programs for the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments,

a network of nurses across the U.S. who have been working to reform TSCA. “The chemical industry should not be allowed to draft the very laws meant to regulate them,” said Richard Moore from Los Jardines Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico,

also with the Environmental Justice Health Alliance. “We need serious chemical reform that protects the health of all people including those who are living in ‘hot spots’ or ‘sacrifice zones’ – typically communities of color -- that are highly impacted by

chemical factories.” Moore continued, “It seems that my own Senator, Senator Udall, has forgotten the needs of his constituents in favor of meeting the needs of his industry friends.” The New York Times reported last week that Sen.

Udall has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the chemical industry. Dorothy Felix from Mossville Environmental Action Now (MEAN) in Louisiana, said, “Because of the failure of TSCA, our community is faced with

extensive toxic pollution that is causing us to consider relocating. Senator Vitter and other legislators are well aware of these toxic impacts yet they are proposing a bill that would be even worse than current law . Let's be clear: Senator

Vitter's bill is good for the chemical industry , not for the people who live daily with the consequences of toxic chemical exposures.” “Chemical industry influence over the Vitter-Udall bill is unacceptable and the authors need to come back to the table and listen to the huge community of environmental and health groups that have been working on TSCA reform for decades,” said Martha Arguello, Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles. “The regulatory framework for chemicals must protect health, especially the most vulnerable members of our society, and also must allow states to

regulate toxic chemicals in order to protect their communities,” said Kathy Curtis, Executive Director of Clean and Healthy New York. “State actions to protect their own residents are the only thing prompting federal action, and states should not lose that right.” “We need 21st century, solution-based laws that empower agencies and people to live in a

society that safeguards our health and environment. This bill falls short of that goal,” said Jose Bravo, Executive Director of the Just Transition Alliance. “The bill is called the ‘Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act’ but

unfortunately it is a horrible reminder of what industry special interests can do to undermine our personal and environmental health.”