Agenda Politics GDI 2015

Ex-Im Bank DA

1nc Shell
Uniqueness and Internal Link the Export-Import Bank will likely be reauthorized now, but Obamas
capital is vital
Rothkopf 6/11/15 (David, CEO/Editor @ Foreign Policy, "Are We About to See the High-Water Mark of Obama's
Foreign Policy?" https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/11/high-water-mark-of-obama-foreign-policy-trade-promotionauthority/)
The result has been old-fashioned horse-trading and a refreshingly intensive effort by the White House to use the
presidents power, prestige, and persuasive capabilities to eke out the votes they needed to win the day. Fridays vote will be
close. But with fast-track TPA assuring that there will be only an up or down vote on the ultimate TPP deal that is struck, the way will be clear
for U.S. negotiators to hammer out the final details of the agreement with the Japanese and others who have open issues. The senior economic
official cited above also said that with the TPA in place he expects the TPP deal itself to be done and approved very quickly hopefully this
summer.The senior economic official cited above also said that with the TPA in place he expects the TPP deal itself to be done and approved
very quickly hopefully this summer. The president has made passage of the deal, which he argues will both promote export-driven job
creation and send a message to China not a party to TPP that it will have to rise up and meet international trade standards or risk getting left
behind economically. The positive impact on both fronts is probably somewhat overstated by the White House, but thats always the case in such
campaigns for a new deal. Nevertheless, the deal strengthens economic ties with some of the worlds most dynamic economies, removes key
barriers to exports, and represents the most important progress on global trade since the Uruguay Round and NAFTA in the early 1990s. (It
should be noted that, like both of those deals, the process that led to the deal began in administrations preceding those that will ultimately get to
close and celebrate them. Therefore, Bush administration U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Susan Schwab deserves as much credit on this deal
as current Obama USTR Michael Froman. Both have been among the most effective to occupy the trade reps office.) Speaking of which, firstclass personnel are a key to the international economic teams success. As noted here before, I was once a senior Commerce Department official
who had the privilege to work with a great commerce secretary, the late Ron Brown. I have known every commerce secretary in my adult
lifetime. And I can say without fear of contradiction that Penny Pritzker is among the smartest, most energetic, and capable people ever to hold
the job. Her team is already making plans to follow up the approval of TPP with a series of trips to signatory countries to ensure U.S. companies
can take advantage of the opportunities the deal presents. Another victory

on this front to likely come this summer (and be even

harder won ) will be the reauthorization of the United States Eximbank. Whether that reauthorization occurs before or after the

June 30 due date is still uncertain given the vagaries associated, resulting from the absolutely bizarre politics that have turned what should have
been an automatic reauthorization into one of the most ridiculous displays of Congressional malpractice we have ever seen. And this Congress
has given us a lot of instances to choose from. While slam-dunks have gotten a bad name in Washington ever since George Tenet
abused the term in the days before the Iraq War, the reauthorization

of the U.S. Export-Import Bank (or Exim) should have been one
of them. The bank is led by another of the Obama teams standouts, Fred Hochberg. Hochberg has overseen a vast expansion of its lending,
major pushes to extend its reach and support to small- and medium-sized enterprises, measures to ensure more lending on green projects, and
active support for creating U.S. jobs through leveling the playing field against the super-aggressive tactics of other governments in the export
financing space. Deals and lending have achieved all-time highs under his tenure and unlike most parts of the government, this one

is
actually profitable, returning over $1 billion to U.S. government coffers. Thats right, to shut down the bank,
Congress would actually have to come up with new revenue to make up for that which the bank regularly produces .
Think about that. Despite the fact that Exim is a profitable agency that creates much-needed jobs, supports businesses of every size from coast to
coast, and also ensures fairer global competition , some in Congress have targeted the agency and tried to shut it down. Why?

Because to some, it represents corporate welfare. (Meaning that it is seen as a subsidy to big companies that dont need the help.)
But not only does it finance many deals that couldnt get commercial financing and many for smaller businesses, it
also ensures that U.S. companies dont lose out when other governments subsidize financing to their own
companies. (Which virtually every other developed economy in the world and many smaller ones do.) Would the world be better off if every
export-import financing agency were shut down? Sure. And when that happens we should revisit this discussion. Until then the idea of
shutting down Exim is ridiculous unilateral disarmament at precisely the wrong time penalizes an agency doing
the best work it has ever done. And thats why, in the end, the bank will be reauthorized ; and that will rightly be
considered another victory . But there are still other promising developments in areas outside the national security mess that has
commanded most of the attention directed toward Obamas foreign policy. One thing Exim does is help support some of the
administrations worthy development efforts like Power Africa, programs that can help the neediest economies in the
world grow and have the kind of steady economic growth that is the best defense against instability and extremism.
That work has been led in this administration by an extremely effective partnership between the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID) and the White House. Until recently, USAID has been led by Raj Shah, one of the most creative and impressive senior officials to enter
the U.S. government in many years. Shah not only effectively managed the agency that plays such a key role in post-conflict reconstruction,
stabilization, and development, but he also actively explored the use of new technologies and approaches in ways that triggered a much-needed
rethink about how to make the most of the (too little) the United States spends in this area. Now that Shah has departed the government, President
Obama has nominated Gayle Smith for the job. He could not have made a better choice. Smith, who worked with Shah as the quarterback of
White House efforts on these issues, is someone who had devoted her life to development issues whether as a journalist, in the NGO community,

or during productive stints in the Clinton and Obama White Houses. (She is the co-founder of the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network and
served on a bipartisan Congressional commission on foreign aid.) I know Smith well, having worked with her in the past, and while she is not
someone you want to bump heads with, she is the best kind of public servant, one who deeply believes in the mission and knows how to get
things done. Her confirmation would also be a significant win for the White House.

Link - insert specific link

Impact Reauthorization is key to US economic leadership globally that solves global war
Jones 15 (James, served as national security adviser to President Barack Obama, supreme allied commander
Europe, and commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, 5/19, "Keep the Export-Import bank: Column,"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:p4aLZda8CwJ:www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/19/export-import-bank-charter-tradcolumn/27540639/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Over two centuries ago John Adams observed that "facts are stubborn things." Whether

they are resilient enough to prevail over

ideological passions is being sorely tested in the current congressional debate whether to reauthorize the U.S.
Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), whose charter is set to expire on June 30. Despite the opposition's extreme rhetoric, the basic facts remain.
Fact: America's prosperity and strength depends upon vigorous trade and market access abroad . Fact: 95% of the
world's customers live outside our national borders, where massive middle classes with huge purchasing power are emerging. Fact: America
must compete fiercely in these markets with other countries for sales, for investments, to develop supply chains, and to gain
greater geopolitical influence . Fact: Export credit the kind provided by the Ex-Im bank remains a critical
component of America's competitiveness toolkit . Since its founding during America's effort to emerge from the Great Depression,
the Ex-Im bank has supported American jobs by financing our exports when credit is not commercially available or when U.S.
companies face undue competition in foreign markets from competitors provided financing by their governments. It levels the playing field
for American businesses so they can compete in foreign markets against foreign competitors. Many opponents of reauthorization base their
arguments on a world that doesn't exist, where markets are untrammeled by state-supported export finance. The reality is that throughout the
world approximately 60 export credit agencies are jockeying to offer enticing financing terms with a view to winning
more and more sales for the companies domiciled in their respective nations, often at our expense. China, Europe, Russia and even
Canada have expanded their state-backed export support even as Congress continues to deliberate on the future of
Ex-Im. One of China's multiple export credit arms has authorized more financing in the last two years than Ex-Im has since its founding eight
decades ago. Even some nations that are party to the OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits that sets export financing
limitations and guidelines for OECD member countries including the United States, often lend outside the framework, further disadvantaging
American companies and our nation. Last year alone, Ex-Im backed U.S. exports valued at approximately $27.5 billion and supported 164,000
export-related U.S. jobs. Using the accounting method required by law, Ex-Im has sent to the Treasury $7 billion more than it has received in
appropriations since 1990. Ex-Im's record of strengthening U.S. exports and competitiveness while generating revenue for the U.S. treasury
explain its long history of bipartisan support from Republican and Democratic presidents and the U.S. Congress. It would be a bit nave to

suppose that foreign governments would suddenly about-face and dam their tidal waves of export credits if Congress
were to shutter Ex-Im's doors. Competitors would welcome the United States unilaterally disarming and ending its
export finance program. It would mean more business for their companies and a stronger geopolitical hand around the world for them. The
reality is that if the United States leaves the field on export financing we place more at U.S. business abroad and jobs at
home at risk; we would undermine American influence and economic leadership at a time when it's needed more
than ever . As a former NATO commander, service chief and national security adviser, I have witnessed firsthand
the geostrategic importance of American economic engagement . Where the U.S. private sector is not present,
America's interests and values suffer. The result is a less stable and secure world . After serving over 40 years in uniform, I
have a trained aversion to whatever threatens our nation. The willful undermining of our national economic competitiveness counts among them.
I would agree that a world without state-funded export credits is one to which we should aspire. However, unilaterally disarming by closing ExIm is not the answer. It would destroy the U.S. Treasury's leverage in negotiating reductions to state-backed export finance that would be
observed by all creating the level playing field we should all seek. As Americans, we hope and trust that despite the fractiousness of our
political system, we can still overcome gridlock to do what's best for our nation. The stubborn fact is that reauthorizing the Ex-Im bank is

good for America. It will

help sell more American products abroad, support American jobs, expand U.S. global influence and do
so without adding to our fiscal deficit. Whether slogans prove more stubborn than facts remains to be seen. For our country's sake, let's hope that
John Adams was right and that the facts and our national interest prevail.

***Insert specific impact scenario (great power war or Russia) if so desired

Will Pass 2nc

Ex-Im Bank reauthorization will pass
Johnsson 6/15/15 (Julie, Bloomberg, "Boeing CEO Is Confident Ex-Im Bank Will Survive Funding Vote,"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-15/boeing-ceo-is-confident-ex-im-bank-will-survive-fundingvote)
Boeing Co. Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney said hes confident the U.S. Export-Import bank will survive
conservative lawmakers campaign to cut off funding at the end of the month. The odds for the bank, whose credits support
aircraft sales for the largest U.S. exporter, appear better after two-thirds of the U.S. Senate signaled support for the export
credit agency in a procedural vote last week, McNerney said. That is a huge expression of interest in sustaining the
viability of this bank, McNerney told Bloomberg TV in an interview at the Paris Air Show. Theres some gymnastics that have to
happen to get that attached to another bill and voted on in both the Senate and House. Thats my source of confidence that its going to
happen . Boeing benefits because the bank provides backstop financing of its aircraft to overseas customers, helping them make purchases,
valuable support when credit is squeezed during a global financial crisis. Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, are
divided on the banks future. Democrats and Republicans from both chambers say there is enough support for the
bank to reauthorize it. They just havent figured out a way to get it to the floor before June 30.
Ex-Im Bank reauthorization will pass Senate test vote proves strong support
Rogers 6/11/15 (Alex, National Journal, "Senate Democrats Are Confident They Can Save the Export-Import
Bank," http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-democrats-are-confident-they-can-save-the-export-importbank-20150611)
June 11, 2015 Senate Democrats and a substantial number of Republicans believe they can save an obscure, 81 yearold U.S. government bank, despite almost united opposition from GOP leadership in both chambers of Congress,
after a key test vote Wednesday showed that they have near-filibuster proof support . One such advocate,
Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, pledged that it's not a question of if Congress will reauthorize the
Export-Import Bank, but when. " It will get done ," she said in a news conference Thursday. "Someday."
Will be reauthorized insiders are confident
Cook 6/12/15 (David, Staff @ Christian Science Monitor, "Ex-Im Bank chief is 'confident' Congress will renew
bank's charter," http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0612/Ex-Im-Bank-chief-isconfident-Congress-will-renew-bank-s-charter)
WASHINGTON US

Export-Import Bank chairman and president Fred Hochberg says he is confident Congress will vote to
renew the banks charter before it expires June 30, despite opposition from conservative Republicans. I am still
confident that we are going to get reauthorized, Mr. Hochberg told a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters. The bank guarantees
loans for US companies that sell products overseas. The fact that we create jobs, we send money to the Treasury, and 90 percent of our
customers are small business are compelling arguments, he said. Last year the bank returned $675 million in profits. We need more trade
agreements, Hochberg said, referring to President Obamas battle to win congressional approval of fast-track negotiating powers called trade
promotion authority (TPA) and of a massive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement with a dozen Pacific Rim countries. But the

banks chief executive said he thought Ex-Im would be reauthorized regardless of the outcome of those other trade
battles.

A2 Not Top Priority/Thumpers

Obama spending capital on Ex-Im Bank reauthorization
Grunwald June 15 (Michael, Politico, Interviewing Ex-Im Bank CEO Fred Hochburg, "Frankly, were going to be
reauthorized," June, http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/frankly-were-going-to-be-reauthorized-000064)
MG: Youre

starting to hear some conservatives saying they think they can kill this just by not bringing it up for a vote. How
has made it very clear that the House has to take a vote in some fashion,
and not just let it lapse on us. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Leader, also said theres going to be a vote in June. And President
Obama has been very clear . Now, weve got only 30 days, but lets be clear, thats the President of the United States, the
Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate. MG: The Ex-Im has become a political football . I think a lot of
worried are you? FH: Well, Speaker Boehner

people kind of know theyre fighting about it in Washington, but dont know what it is. What is the Ex-Im? What do you do all day? FH: We start
a lot of conversations saying were not XM the radio station! Weve been around for over 80 years. Were an export credit agency, one of about
70 around the world. All the developed countries of the world have them. And developing countries have them. So we exist to support US jobs, as
do the others in their countries. And when theres a financial crisiswe just came through the worst crisis since the depressionwe can fill in a
gap in the financial markets when theyre retreating or pulling back. So thats what we do, and as a result last year we supported 164,000 jobs.

Will be authorized and top administration priority BUT its a fight

Altman 6/14/15 (Alex, Reporter @ TIME, "This Agency May Have Already Been Killed by the 2016 Campaign,"
http://time.com/3919097/ex-im-bank-2016-campaign/)
The chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank has spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill lately fighting to save his
embattled institution. The bank, whose charter lapses June 30, has been the target of a coordinated campaign
orchestrated by conservatives who call it a form of crony capitalism. Which means chairman Fred Hochberg has been
shuttling between meetings with influential lawmakers, pleading with top House Republicans like Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy
and Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling to keep the credit export agency alive. Im still confident that we are going to get
reauthorized , Hochberg told reporters Friday at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. But he acknowledged the possibility
that it wouldnt happen before the deadline, which would force supporters to find a way to revive the multi-billion dollar institution later on.
Weve got some headwinds, Hochberg conceded. There is no plan B.

A2 Dem Unity Low Now

Dem unity high now ESPECIALLY in support of Ex-Im Bank reauthorization
Grunwald June 15 (Michael, Politico, Interviewing Ex-Im Bank CEO Fred Hochburg, "Frankly, were going to be
reauthorized," June, http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/06/frankly-were-going-to-be-reauthorized-000064)
MG: How about on the left? There have been a lot of complaints that youve backed coal projects in the past, doing
business with dictators who dont like us so much. FH: Frankly, on the Democratic side of the House, we have over
190 co-sponsors, the entire congressional delegation is with us . In the Senate, we had 78 senators vote for us in
2012, and 330 in the House. In both cases, we had every single Democrat vote for the Ex-Im bank extension last
time. MG: Why do you think suddenly this became a thing? What made suddenly Ex-Im became this sexy political
topic?

Capital Key 2nc

Capital key to winning reauthorization
Paletta 14 (Damian covers economic policy for The Wall Street Journal's Washington bureau. Export-Import Bank
101 Jun 24, 2014 http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/24/export-import-bank-101/)
Q: Who are the people worth watching as this unfolds? A: Start with incoming House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.). He lit some business
leaders hair on fire when he proclaimed this weekend that he wanted the bank to go out of business. He voted to support the agency in 2012, and his pivot

helps
the conservative wing of the party gain momentum to shut the place down. Another key figure is Speaker of the House John Boehner
(R., Ohio). A lot of business leaders who support the bank believe hes their best shot for a Hail Mary pass as October approaches. The roles of President Barack

Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) will also be pivotal . Will they really expend political capital to fight for
this agency ?
Capital key to winning support for reauthorization
Madhani 1/13/12 (Aamer, USA Today, "Export-Import Bank reauthorization delayed,"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-11/export-import-bank-republicans-airlines/52523426/1)
WASHINGTON - U.S.

exporters and major airline carriers are fighting over reauthorization of a federal trade bank that
plays a key role in President Obama's jobs plan, according to industry insiders and congressional records. House Republican leaders,
pushed by the major U.S. airlines, delayed a long-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and a decision on whether to increase the
bank's lending cap to $135 billion from the current limit of $100 billion before lawmakers headed home last month. The bank, which

is
quickly edging toward hitting its cap. The bank, which was founded in 1934 and returns a modest amount of revenue to the Treasury,
has been praised by Obama as a vital tool to his goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015. Officials from top exporting
guarantees loans from U.S. banks to foreign businesses that then buy U.S.-made products, approved $32.7 billion in loans last year but

companies including Boeing's James McNerney and General Electric's Jeffrey Immelt warned House leaders in a letter last month that
failure to increase the lending cap could lead to the loss of thousands of U.S. jobs. "The bank's work is at risk of grinding to a halt," said John
Murphy, vice president of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, adding that the bank is on track to max out in April or May.
Airlines for America (AFA), the trade association that represents the leading U.S. air carriers, insists that Congress make fundamental changes to
how the bank operates as part of any increase in the lending cap. The group argues that the bank finances loans to foreign carriers at favorable
terms unavailable to domestic carriers, putting U.S. airlines at a competitive disadvantage. Steve Lott, a spokesman for AFA, said the group wants
Congress to make any increase in the bank's loan ceiling contingent on increasing transparency of aircraft financing transactions and a prohibition
on loan guarantees for foreign airlines with investment grade credit ratings that would allow them to secure financing without the bank's help.
"We're pro-Boeing; we're in support of the president's initiative to double exports but we're concerned with any market distortion that creates
an unleveled playing field," Lott said. In the past decade, the bank has provided more than $52 billion in loan guarantees to buy Boeing aircraft,
Airlines for America says. Foreign airlines took delivery of 792 wide-body aircraft, compared with 189 for U.S. airlines, AFA says. AFA also
recently sued to stop the bank from delivering $1.3 billion in loan guarantees to Air India to buy Boeing aircraft. A federal judge in Washington is
expected to rule today on a request to block the guarantees while he considers the legal challenge. Boeing's backers say that such rule changes
would help foreign competitors, such as Airbus, the European aircraft manufacturer. "Our argument is that if you undermine the credibility and
competitiveness of Ex-Im, you're not going to help the American carriers, you're going to help Airbus," said John Hardy, president of a Coalition
for Employment through Exports, which counts Boeing as a member. The Obama administration supports expanding the cap.

Last month, the president touted the bank for playing a critical role in a multibillion-dollar deal for Indonesia's Lion Air to buy 230
Boeing jets. And earlier this week at a White House conference on "insourcing" American jobs, the White House hailed a $636 million direct loan
from the Ex-Im Bank to finance the sale by Siemens Energy of gas and steam turbines to be installed in Saudi Arabia. The Siemens project will
support 825 jobs in North Carolina. Reauthorizing the bank and expanding its lending cap is an administration

priority, and "we will continue to work closely with Congress to get this done," White House spokeswoman Amy
Brundage said. Both sides have put up big lobbying efforts to make their case to Congress.

Dem Unity Key 2nc

Dem unity key to Ex-Im Bank reauthorization
Levy 6/11/15 (Gabrielle, US News and World Report, "Export-Import Bank Heading Toward Closure,"
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/11/us-export-import-bank-heading-toward-closure)
More than 80 years after it was founded in the midst of the Great Depression, the

U.S. Export-Import Bank could be nearing its end.

And it could come down to partisan politics . The charter authorizing the credit agency, which is charged with accepting credit risk to
help spur the sale of American-made goods abroad, expires at the end of June. While for most of its history, the bank was so uncontroversial that
its charter was renewed without so much as a recorded vote, a growing outcry from conservatives in the past few years has imperiled it. While

most Democrats and many rank-and-file Republicans support reauthorization, opposition from the conservative
wing of the GOP has become loud enough that Republican leadership is wary of bringing it up for a vote. Supporters say the
bank, which primarily guarantees loans taken by U.S. businesses to sell products overseas, is hugely important to small- and medium-size
businesses and is an engine for job creation and opening new markets overseas. In the 2014 fiscal year that ended in October, the bank provided
$20.5 billion in credit assistance. It did so at no cost to the taxpayer, and actually returned $675 million to the U.S. Treasury from interest and
fees. If the bank were to close, a large corporation like Boeing would have to take on more of its own risk, but not stop exporting planes. But
smaller companies often rely on the bank to make loans to foreign buyers for their products, and could see significant hits to their sales and
profits. "The [Export-Import Bank] supported $27.5 billion in economic activity the last year alone," House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, DMd., told reporters Tuesday. "1.3 million jobs are attributable to exports." But critics complain that the credit agency "picks winners and losers," a
charge based on the overwhelming majority of the bank's loan guarantees 87 percent that go to just three companies: Boeing, Caterpillar and
General Electric, earning it the nickname "Bank of Boeing" around Washington. And some of the losers, critics say, are small businesses that
don't get the same treatment as the large companies. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, has led the charge
against renewal, arguing that the bank represents the worst of government cronyism. He has refused to move the charter renewal legislation
through his committee, and on Tuesday, his Senate counterpart, Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said he would do the
same. "If there's not going to be reform, we ought to let it die," Shelby told reporters. "I believe that if at the end of the day it expires, we really
won't miss it." Those reforms, gathered into a bill sponsored by Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., would extend the bank for five years, limit the
bank's president to two four-year terms, increase financial disclosures for employees and contractors, and reverse guidelines opposed by the coal
industry that block financing to foreign power plants that don't adopt green technology. U.S. Export-Import Bank Chairman and President Fred
Hochberg pauses while speaking during the agency's annual conference on April 4, 2013, in Washington. Backers of reauthorization, including
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say failing to renew the bank's charter would immediately leave businesses hanging. Sen. Maria Cantwell, DWash., whose state is home to Boeing, has spearheaded the push to renew the Ex-Im charter. "The Export-Import Bank in the state of Washington
has helped generate $102 billion in exports and helped over 230 exporters in our state," she said at a roundtable supporting reauthorization. "The
idea that we would let a tool of the American economy, which literally helps us grow our businesses, expire when it actually generates money
for our economy and costs us nothing is something very hard for most people to believe." Boeing itself may have undercut arguments to
reauthorize the bank last week when it announced it would use its internal financing arm to support foreign buyers in the event the Export-Import
Bank goes away, which opponents could point to as proof the bank is unnecessary. "We do provide some customer financing, and if there's a
short-term shutdown of Ex-Im, we will work with customers who are scheduled for deliveries to ensure they get the financing they need, even if
we have to provide it ourselves," Tim Neale, a Boeing spokesman, told the Wall Street Journal. In the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy,
R-Calif., and Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., have both come out in opposition to the reauthorization, while Speaker John Boehner has refused to
weigh in on either side. "He's in a very difficult position," says Dan Holler, the communications director for Heritage Action for America, which
has pushed hard against reauthorization of Export-Import. "All the Republican presidential candidates have flipped around is the speaker
willing to lead congressional Republicans in the wrong direction on this issue?" But Republican opposition, at least among the

mainstream, is new, supporters like to point out. They quote the likes of Presidents George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and
Dwight Eisenhower as in favor of the bank. Hoyer on Tuesday said a unified Democratic caucus and about 60 Republicans
who have publicly pledged their support for the bank would give the charter reauthorization enough support to
pass.

Ex-Im Bank Key to Econ Heg 2nc

Ex-Im Bank reauthorization is vital to US economic supremacy
Thompson 6/12/15 (Loren, Business and National Security contributor @ Forbes, "Crazy Crusade To Kill Ex-Im
Bank Hurts America, Helps China," http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/06/12/crazy-crusade-to-killex-im-bank-hurts-america-helps-china/)
With last years non-petroleum trade deficit ranked as the worst ever recorded after adjusting for inflation, youd think
Congress would be moving decisively to help U.S. exporters. Well, guess again. Right-wing Republicans are actually
trying to kill off the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), which would make America the only major trading nation in the
world without an export credit agency. If that ill-conceived campaign succeeds, it will accelerate Chinas rise as a
global economic power and hasten Americas decline . When Ex-Im critics cite their bill of particulars for why abolishing
Americas only export credit agency makes sense, you get the feeling theyve never heard of China. China is the biggest reason for
Americas yawning trade gap, and its use of state funds to push exports around the globe dwarfs anything Ex-Im is
doing. At the moment, Ex-Im has a loan portfolio worth about $110 billion. Over the last two years alone, China has passed out $670 billion in
loans and other financial assistance to its exporters. And unlike Ex-Im programs, Beijings export assistance often takes the form of subsidies. ExIm is required by law to be self-sustaining, so it has to charge fees whenever it provides a loan guarantee or any other type of financial assistance.
In fact, it generates a profit for taxpayers by charging foreign buyers for what amounts to insurance that their deals will be consummated. Chinas
export credit agencies (it has several) supposedly are required to be self-sustaining too under World Trade Organization rules, but their operations
are as opaque as everything else in official China. So it shouldnt come as a surprise that Beijing has provided export assistance to one favored
telecom company Huawei greater in value than Ex-Ims entire loan portfolio. Huawei now routinely beats U.S. rivals for telecom contracts
in places like Brazil, even though it is rumored to have used proprietary technology developed by those rivals in its own offerings. This is

standard operating procedure for Chinese exporters in the developing world, where they typically show up with
inferior products but irresistible financing courtesy of the Beijing government . Over the long haul, Chinas push to replace
U.S. companies in foreign markets may prove more injurious to American power and prosperity than the huge gap in bilateral trade of goods
between the two countries (the U.S. deficit in China trade was $343 billion last year nearly a billion dollars per day). An intelligence

assessment produced early in the Obama Administration warned that the transfer in wealth from West to East
currently under way is without precedent in modern history. But the distracted, divided U.S. political system is ill-equipped to
cope with the challenge Chinas mercantilist trade policies present. The absurd effort to abolish Ex-Im Bank is emblematic of
how intellectually unprepared some lawmakers are to respond to Americas waning economic influence . The
complaints of Ex-Im critics about crony capitalism and corporate welfare sound more like the rants of left-wing liberals in the pre-Reagan era
than the reasoning of people who understand current economic realities. The critics contend that if Ex-Im disappeared, private lenders would fill
the resulting vacuum even though private lenders keep saying they cant or wont. Private lenders often dont like the risk profile of countries
seeking export assistance, or they dont like to do business with small companies (who account for 90% of Ex-Im transactions). Besides, it is
usually commercial lenders who bring Ex-Im into transactions in the first place, because they want the kind of protections available to lenders
who finance the exports of other countries. In fact, theyre willing to pay a fee for that protection, and Ex-Im has proven it can provide assistance
that levels the playing field without incurring significant risk. The default rate on its loans currently stands at less than one fifth of one-percent;
Wells Fargo wishes its loan portfolio looked that good. No private lender has ever complained about competition from Ex-Im, because its services
are crucial to making deals work. So when

Ex-Ims authority to extend credit lapses at the end of this month, there
probably will be a quiet celebration in Beijing that some lawmakers in America are so misguided. Washington is
the only capital in the world where a debate is going on about whether an export credit agency is needed. The debate
in Beijing, and Seoul, and New Delhi, is about how much more money should be spent on export financing, not
whether to do it. The good news is that there are majorities in both chambers of Congress ready to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank; the
bad news is that critics are working hard to prevent a floor vote that would permit the triumph of common sense over mindless ideology.

Shutting down Ex-Im Bank decks US economic leadership globally

Financial Times 15 ("America's wobbly economic leadership," 4/23,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YC4FnOa5or0J:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/35af0bbe-e8f5-11e487fe-00144feab7de.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#axzz3cwW37Mtv)
The underlying theme of last weeks IMF/World Bank spring meetings was rising angst over retreating US
leadership. The gathering took place shortly after Americas closest allies, led by Britain, spurned a plea from Washington to boycott the
China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. More than 50 countries have signed up. Now the US is in danger of inflicting more
damage on itself by shutting down its Export-Import Bank . The banks authorisation expires at the end of June and with it tens
of billions of dollars in guarantees for US exporters. Detractors see the bank as a symbol of crony capitalism because of its support for
companies such as Boeing. They badly misjudge what it does. It gives US companies a modicum of comfort against better

subsidised competitors. Closing Exim would be the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament in a world
bristling with nuclear weapons . Capitol Hills latest brinkmanship is ill-timed. In the past two years, Chinese development banks have
lent $670bn in subsidised credit to help domestic companies win bids all over the world. This exceeds the combined value of all Exim guarantees
since it was set up in the 1930s Depression. Never before has Congress balked at its reauthorisation. Tea Party Republicans say Exim distorts
market outcomes at the taxpayers expense. In fact, it provides credit support where none exists. No private sector bank will

finance 15-year emerging market projects. Other non-US official credit guarantee agencies will readily step into the breach. Exim
also turns a small profit for the US taxpayer by charging user fees and maintaining a low default rate . Yet its critics seem
impervious to the facts. Much like the scaremongering about the impact of vaccines on infants, Exim has become a victim of talk radio
mythology. If anything, now would be a good time to expand its balance sheet. The world needs trillions of dollars in infrastructure finance, only
a fraction of which will be provided by unsecured private lenders. That is why so many countries have rushed to join the AIIB and why the World
Bank and the Asian Development Bank have welcomed the new arrival. There is more than enough demand to go around. The concern is that the
AIIB will not adhere to best practices. At a time when the US is reluctant to fulfil its obligations to Bretton Woods

institutions, let alone join any new ones, US companies will find it tough to win a slice of the pie in Asia and elsewhere.
Exims standards are among the best in the world. It serves as a check on the crony capitalism practised by China and others .
Closing it would sound another US retreat . The concern is that Congress is too polarised to reverse the trend. Most Republicans
disdain global bodies and most Democrats revile trade deals. Congress continues to block the 2010 US-led reforms of the International Monetary
Fund. That is one reason China is setting up its own institutions. There are signs Capitol Hill may be preparing to pass the fast track negotiating
authority the Obama administration needs to wrap up trade deals in the Pacific and the Atlantic. That would be welcome. But Barack Obama will
first need to take on sceptics in his own party. Hillary Clinton, his likely successor, has questioned the merits of another trade deal. Jeb Bush, her
likely opponent, said he would close Exim. There was a time when US gridlock imposed a price on others. Now others are imposing a price on
the US. The world is no longer waiting on Washingtons prevarications.

Ex-Im Bank key to US economic leadership ensures small US companies get the financing necessary to
access growth markets
Snell 3/22/12 (Kelsey, National Journal, "Export-Import Bank on the Firing Line," lexis)
Yet the

bank does serve one crucial purpose that no other organization can fulfill: It helps to deny China a hold on
the world's developing markets. Ex-Im's top export targets include Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Mexico,
Nigeria, South Africa, Turkey, and Vietnam. Today, none of those countries ranks among the top 10 markets for U.S. exports, but the
Export-Import Bank devoted 40 percent of its loans to them. It funded 34 percent of all U.S. exports to Colombia in the months before the United
States approved a free-trade agreement with that country. In an interview, Hochberg said that the bank focuses on pumping aid and attention to
places with the hottest economic activity. The bank can also help American companies beat competitors that don't follow the

same trade rules. In 2011, for instance, it stepped into a bidding war for a Pakistani locomotive contract between General Electric and a
company in China, which does not abide by the rules against below-market pricing set by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development. Ex-Im ponied up $477 million to discount the American trains, putting them on the same playing field as the Chinese ones. The
deal required an OECD waiver that only Ex-Imor some other U.S. government entitycould get. And although huge corporations won't quit their
global businesses, smaller companies might face real trouble without Ex-Im. The bank can be crucial to getting

new trade started for cash-strapped small businesses. It is often the only lender for companies that want to make
deals where Wall Street-style financing doesn't exist growth markets, such as the booming metropolises in South Asia, that aren't
considered safe or aren't members of the World Trade Organization. These are the spots where China is setting up shop. Hochberg and Commerce
Undersecretary Francisco Sanchez tell National Journal that helping small companies to do business in small countries is part of

an overall strategy. Those contracts can mean a foothold for American businesses. If the future of the U.S.
economy depends on exports and the future of America's strategic advantage is in extending its economic
might, then Congress will need to ensure that the American companies that truly need help get it.

Ex-Im Bank Key Russia Specific

Ex-Im Bank likely to be reauthorized now - key to outcompeting Russia
Henry 6/2/15 (Devin, The Hill, "GOP Rep expects Ex-Im Bank to pass the House this month,"
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243739-gop-rep-expects-ex-im-bank-to-pass-the-house-this-month)
A leading Republican said Tuesday he expects the House to pass a bill reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank before it
expires at the end of the month. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a deputy whip, said he thinks the Senate will take up the issue first and attach it to
a broader, must-pass bill that most House Republicans will eventually vote for, teaming up with Democrats to reauthorize the program. Youre
going to have a contingent of the folks on the far-right that dont want it, Kinzinger said at an event hosted by The Hill and sponsored by the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). But I think if it comes to a vote on the floor, youre going to have a majority of Republicans,

and I think youll have, obviously a majority of Democrats. I think the numbers are there in the House. The politics
of Ex-Im are sticky in the House, where Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) supports reauthorizing the program, but Majority Leader Kevin
McCarthy (R-Calif.) and a handful of key committee chairmen oppose it. Tea Party groups have said the bank, which provides governmentbacked loans to companies so they can sell their products overseas, only benefits big corporations, giving them an unfair leg-up in their markets.
McCarthy did not include an Ex-Im reauthorization measure on the Houses June schedule, raising the possibility Congress might miss its end-ofthe-month deadline to keep the program going. One of my concerns about how Washington, D.C. works is we kind of wait until were in an
emergency scenario, Kinzinger said. Everybody knows this is an issue that has to be addressed, but nobody wants to be the one to address it.
Kinzinger was speaking at an event on nuclear power in the United States. The nuclear industry is one of many industries that have pushed
Congress to reauthorize the program. Kinzinger

pitched the bank as a national security issue, giving American companies

the ability to sell their products in overseas markets that might otherwise partner with countries like Russia .

Econ Heg Impacts 1nc Great Power War

US economic strength prevents great power war
Colby and Lettow 14 (Elbridge and Paul, Robert M. Gates fellow @ Center for a New American Security + senior
director for strategic planning on the U.S. National Security Council staff from 2007 to 2009, 7/3, Have We Hit
Peak America?, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america)
In other words, a greater number of Americans are worried about diminishing U.S. influence today than in the face of feared Soviet
technological superiority in the late 1950s, the Vietnam quagmire of the late 1960s, the 1973 oil embargo, the apparent resurgence of Soviet
power around the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan, and the economic concerns that plagued the late 1980sthe five waves of so-called declinist
anxiety that political scientist Samuel Huntington famously identified. Many analysts have attributed Americans current anxiety to the aftershock
of waging two long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the polls actually reflect something deeper and more potenta legitimate,

increasingly tactile uncertainty in the minds of the American people created by changes in the world and in Americas competitive
position , which they feel far more immediately than do the participants in Washington policy debates. Average Americans do not experience
the world through the lens of great-power rivalry or U.S. leadership abroad, but rather through that of an increasingly competitive globalized
labor market, stagnating income growth among the middle class, and deep and unresolved worries about their childrens future. A recent cnn poll,
for instance, found that Americans think by a 2-to-1 margin that their childrens lives will be worse than their own. They are questioning the
promise of growth and expanding opportunitythe very substance of the American dream. This anxiety is real and justified, and it lies behind
much of the publics support for withdrawing from the world, for retrenchment. Yet American leadership and engagement remain

essential. The United States cannot hide from the world. Rather, it must compete. And if it competes well, it can restore not
only its economic health, but also its strength for the long haul. That resilience will preserve Americans ability to determine their
fate and the nations ability to lead in the way its interests require. Unfortunately, absent from current discussions about U.S. foreign policy has
been a hardheaded assessment of what it will actually take to rejuvenate and compete. Policymakers and experts have not yet taken a

clear-eyed look at the data and objectively analyzed the fundamental shifts under way globally and what they mean for Americas
competitive position. Nor have they debated the steps necessary to sustain U.S. power over the long term. THE WORLDS ECONOMIC
CENTER OF GRAVITY The larger a countrys GDP, the greater its pull on the worlds economic center of gravity. So when the Industrial
Revolution spurred massive growth in the United States, the center moved west, eventually out over the Atlantic Ocean. Today, it is moving back
toward Asia. Many foreign-policy experts seem to believe that retaining American primacy is largely a matter of willof how America chooses
to exert its power abroad. Even President Obama, more often accused of being a prophet of decline than a booster of Americas future, recently
asserted that the United States has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world. The question, he continued, is not whether America
will lead, but how we will lead. But will is unavailing without strength. If the United States wants the international system to

continue to reflect its interests and valuesa system, for example, in which the global commons are protected, trade is
broad-based and extensive, and armed conflicts among great nations are curtailed it needs to sustain not just
resolve, but relative power . That, in turn, will require acknowledging the uncomfortable truth that global power and
wealth are shifting at an unprecedented pace, with profound implications. Moreover, many of the challenges America faces are
exacerbated by vulnerabilities that are largely self-created, chief among them fiscal policy. Much more quickly and comprehensively than is
understood, those vulnerabilities are reducing Americas freedom of action and its ability to influence others .

Preserving Americas international position will require it to restore its economic vitality and make policy
choices now that pay dividends for decades to come. America has to prioritize and to act. Fortunately, the United States still enjoys
greater freedom to determine its future than any other major power, in part because many of its problems are within its ability to address. But

this process of renewal must begin with analyzing Americas competitive position and understanding the gravity of the
situation Americans face. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 200 YEARS, MOST GROWTH IS OCCURRING IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD, and
the speed with which that shifta function of globalizationhas occurred is hard to fathom. Whereas in 1990 just 14 percent of cross-border
flows of goods, services, and finances originated in emerging economies, today nearly 40 percent do. As recently as 2000, the gdp of China was
one-tenth that of the United States; just 14 years later, the two economies are equal (at least in terms of purchasing power parity). This shift
reorders what was, in some sense, a historical anomaly: the transatlantic dominance of the past 150 years. As illustrated by the map below, it
wasnt until the Industrial Revolution took hold in the 19th century that the worlds economic center of gravity decisively moved toward
Europe and the United States, which have since been the primary engines of growth. Today, however, the economic center of gravity is
headed back toward Asia, and it is doing so with unique historical speed. This trend will persist even though emerging
economies are hitting roadblocks to growth, such as pervasive corruption in India and demographic challenges and serious distortions in the
banking system in China. For instance, according to the asset-management firm BlackRock and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (oecd), consumption in emerging markets has already eclipsed that in the United States, and spending by the middle classes in AsiaPacific nations is on track to exceed middle-class spending in North America by a factor of nearly six by 2030. U.S. wealth is not

shrinking in absolute termsand it continues to benefit from economic globalizationbut the United States and its allies are
losing might compared with potential rivals. Although Europe and Japan have been responsible for much of the developed worlds lost
relative economic power, the U.S. economy has also slowed from its traditional rates of expansion over the past several decades. Worsening
productivity growth has played a particularly large role in the U.S. slowdown, dropping to around 0.5 percent annually, which the

Financial Times has referred to as a productivity crisis. A range of factors are responsible, including a decline in the skill level of the American
workforce and a drop in resources allocated to research and development. U.S. REVENUE VS. SPENDING By 2043, federal spending on
entitlements and net interest payments will exceed federal revenues, meaning funds for any discretionary programs will be borrowed. Overall, the
U.S. economy has become less competitive. The McKinsey Global Institute, for instance, has measured the relative attractiveness of the United
States across a range of metrics, such as national spending on research and development and foreign direct investment as a percentage of gdp. It
found that U.S. business attractiveness relative to that of competitors fell across 14 of 20 key metrics from 2000 to 2010and
improved in none. And according to the Harvard Business Review, U.S. exports global market share dropped across the board from 1999 to 2009
and suffered particularly sharp falls in cutting-edge fields such as aerospace. This shift in economic growth toward the developing

world is going to have strategic consequences. Military power ultimately derives from wealth. It is often noted that the
United States spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. But growth in military spending correlates with gdp growth, so as
other economies grow, those countries will likely spend more on defense, reducing the relative military power of the
United States. Already, trends in global defense spending show a rapid and marked shift from the United States and its allies toward emerging
economies, especially China. In 2011, the United States and its partners accounted for approximately 80 percent of the military spending by the
15 countries with the largest defense budgets. But, according to a McKinsey study, that share could fall significantly over the next eight years
perhaps to as low as 55 percent. The resulting deterioration in American military superiority has already begun, as the countries benefiting most
rapidly from globalization are using their newfound wealth to build military capacity, especially in high-tech weaponry. As Robert Work and
Shawn Brimley of the Center for a New American Security wrote this year: [T]he dominance enjoyed by the United States in the late
1990s/early 2000s in the areas of high-end sensors, guided weaponry, battle networking, space and cyberspace systems, and stealth technology
has started to erode. Moreover, this erosion is now occurring at an accelerated rate. (Work has since been confirmed as deputy secretary of
defense.)

Econ Heg Impacts Great Power War

Perception of decline triggers lashout and global war
James 14 (Harold, Professor of history at Princeton Universitys Woodrow Wilson School who specializes in
European economic history, 7/2/14, Debate: Is 2014, like 1914, a prelude to world war?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/read-and-vote-is-2014-like-1914-a-prelude-to-worldwar/article19325504/)
it could happen again .
hundredth anniversary of 1914 has put a spotlight on the fragility of the worlds political and
economic security systems . At the beginning of 2013, Luxembourgs Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker was widely ridiculed for
evoking the shades of 1913. By now he is looking like a prophet. By 2014, as the security situation in the South China Sea
deteriorated, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe cast China as the equivalent to Kaiser Wilhelms Germany; and the fighting in Ukraine
and in Iraq is a sharp reminder of the dangers of escalation. Lessons of 1914 are about more than simply the dangers of national
and sectarian animosities. The main story of today as then is the precariousness of financial globalization , and the
consequences that political leaders draw from it. In the influential view of Norman Angell in his 1910 book The Great Illusion, the
interdependency of the increasingly complex global economy made war impossible. But a quite opposite
conclusion was possible and equally plausible and proved to be the case . Given the extent of fragility, a clever
twist to the control levers might make war easily winnable by the economic hegemon. In the wake of an epochal
financial crisis that almost brought a complete global collapse, in 1907, several countries started to think of
finance as primarily an instrument of raw power, one that could and should be turned to national advantage. The 1907 panic emanated
As we get closer to the centenary of Gavrilo Princips act of terrorism in Sarajevo, there is an ever more vivid fear:
The approach of the

from the United States but affected the rest of the world and demonstrated the fragility of the whole international financial order. The aftermath of
the 1907 crash drove the then hegemonic power Great Britain - to reflect on how it could use its financial power. Between 1905 and 1908, the
British Admiralty evolved the broad outlines of a plan for financial and economic warfare that would wreck the financial system of its major
European rival, Germany, and destroy its fighting capacity. Britain used its extensive networks to gather information about opponents. London
banks financed most of the worlds trade. Lloyds provided insurance for the shipping not just of Britain, but of the world. Financial networks
provided the information that allowed the British government to find the sensitive strategic vulnerabilities of the opposing alliance. What pre1914 Britain did anticipated the private-public partnership that today links technology giants such as Google, Apple or Verizon to U.S.
intelligence gathering. Since last year, the Edward Snowden leaks about the NSA have shed a light on the way that global networks are used as a
source of intelligence and power. For Britains rivals, the financial panic of 1907 showed the necessity of mobilizing financial powers themselves.
The United States realized that it needed a central bank analogous to the Bank of England. American financiers thought that New York needed to
develop its own commercial trading system that could handle bills of exchange in the same way as the London market. Some of the dynamics

of the pre-1914 financial world are now re-emerging. Then an economically declining power , Britain, wanted to use
finance as a weapon against its larger and faster growing competitors, Germany and the United States. Now America is in turn
obsessed by being overtaken by China according to some calculations, set to become the worlds largest economy in 2014. In the
aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, financial institutions appear both as dangerous weapons of mass destruction ,
but also as potential instruments for the application of national power. In managing the 2008 crisis, the dependence of foreign banks on U.S.
dollar funding constituted a major weakness, and required the provision of large swap lines by the Federal Reserve. The United States provided
that support to some countries, but not others, on the basis of an explicitly political logic, as Eswar Prasad demonstrates in his new book on the
Dollar Trap. Geo-politics is intruding into banking practice elsewhere. Before the Ukraine crisis, Russian banks were trying to acquire assets in
Central and Eastern Europe. European and U.S. banks are playing a much reduced role in Asian trade finance. Chinese banks are being pushed to
expand their role in global commerce. After the financial crisis, China started to build up the renminbi as a major international currency. Russia
and China have just proposed to create a new credit rating agency to avoid what they regard as the political bias of the existing (American-based)
agencies. The next stage in this logic is to think about how financial power can be directed to national advantage in the case of a diplomatic
tussle. Sanctions are a routine (and not terribly successful) part of the pressure applied to rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. But financial
pressure can be much more powerfully applied to countries that are deeply embedded in the world economy. The test is in the Western imposition
of sanctions after the Russian annexation of Crimea. President Vladimir Putins calculation in response is that the European Union and the United
States cannot possibly be serious about the financial war. It would turn into a boomerang: Russia would be less affected than the more developed
and complex financial markets of Europe and America. The

threat of systemic disruption generates a new sort of uncertainty,

one that mirrors the decisive feature of the crisis of the summer of 1914 . At that time, no one could really know
whether clashes would escalate or not. That feature contrasts remarkably with almost the entirety of the Cold War, especially since the
1960s, when the strategic doctrine of M utually A ssured D estruction left no doubt that any superpower conflict
would inevitably escalate . The idea of network disruption relies on the ability to achieve advantage by surprise, and to win at no or low
cost. But it is inevitably a gamble, and raises prospect that others might, but also might not be able to, mount the same sort of operation. Just as in
1914, there

is an enhanced temptation to roll the dice, even though the game may be fatal .

Decline of relative economic power triggers great power war and undermines the international order
Khalilzad 11 (Zalmay, former consultant @ RAND and US Ambassador to the UN, 'The Economy and National
Security," 2/8, http://www.nationalreview.com/node/259024/print)
We face this domestic challenge while other

major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as
economies are growing faster than
ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power . These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If
U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical
competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our
will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history,
the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been
unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers .
China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their

Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an
American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there

would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively,
in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way,
hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to
emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval,
cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at
denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive
territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South
Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.
Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential
adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the
worlds GDP. American institutions particularly those providing enforceable rule of law set it apart from all the rising powers. Social
cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation,
excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to
quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis
that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near
term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks
and commissions, including President Obamas debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the
recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while
lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both
parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however
difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the
president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction but also to the geopolitical implications.
As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by
signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways.
While Chinas economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama
administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese
policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. Chinas military assertiveness
should enable security cooperation with countries on Chinas periphery particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam in ways that complicate
Beijings strategic calculus. Chinas mercantilist policies and currency manipulation which harm developing states both in East Asia and
elsewhere should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijings over-the-top reaction to the awarding
of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw
supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China. Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and

financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take
this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination
with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems . Regional
hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.

Econ Heg Impacts Data Confirms

Competitiveness ensures conflict prevention and suppression data confirms
Hubbard 10 (Jesse, Program Assistant at Open Society Foundations Washington, District Of Columbia
International Affairs Previous National Democratic Institute (NDI), National Defense University, Office of
Congressman Jim Himes Education PPE at University of Oxford, Hegemonic Stability Theory: An Empirical
Analysis, http://isrj.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/hegemonic-stability-theory/)
Regression analysis of this data shows that Pearsons r-value is -.836. In the case of American hegemony, economic
strength is a better predictor of violent conflict than even overall national power , which had an r-value of -.819. The data
is also well within the realm of statistical significance, with a p-value of .0014. While the data for British hegemony was not as striking, the same
overall pattern holds true in both cases. During both periods of hegemony, hegemonic strength was negatively related with violent conflict, and
yet use of force by the hegemon was positively correlated with violent conflict in both cases. Finally, in both cases, economic power was more
closely associated with conflict levels than military power. Statistical analysis created a more complicated picture of the hegemons role in
fostering stability than initially anticipated. VI. Conclusions and Implications for Theory and Policy To elucidate some answers regarding the
complexities my analysis unearthed, I turned first to the existing theoretical literature on hegemonic stability theory. The existing literature
provides some potential frameworks for understanding these results. Since economic strength proved to be of such crucial importance,
reexamining the literature that focuses on hegemonic stability theorys economic implications was the logical first step. As explained above, the
literature on hegemonic stability theory can be broadly divided into two camps that which focuses on the international economic system, and
that which focuses on armed conflict and instability. This research falls squarely into the second camp, but insights from the first camp are still of
relevance. Even Kindlebergers early work on this question is of relevance. Kindleberger posited that the economic instability between the

First and Second World Wars could be attributed to the lack of an economic hegemon (Kindleberger 1973). But economic
instability obviously has spillover effects into the international political arena. Keynes, writing after WWI, warned in his seminal tract The
Economic Consequences of the Peace that Germanys economic humiliation could have a radicalizing effect on the nations political culture
(Keynes 1919). Given later events, his warning seems prescient. In the years since the Second World War, however, the European continent has
not relapsed into armed conflict. What was different after the second global conflagration? Crucially, the United States was in a far more powerful
position than Britain was after WWI. As the tables above show, Britains economic strength after the First World War was about 13% of the total
in strength in the international system. In contrast, the United States possessed about 53% of relative economic power in the international system
in the years immediately following WWII. The U.S. helped rebuild Europes economic strength with billions of dollars in investment through the
Marshall Plan, assistance that was never available to the defeated powers after the First World War (Kindleberger 1973). The interwar years were
also marked by a series of debilitating trade wars that likely worsened the Great Depression (Ibid.). In contrast, when Britain was more powerful,
it was able to facilitate greater free trade, and after World War II, the United States played a leading role in creating institutions like the GATT
that had an essential role in facilitating global trade (Organski 1958). The possibility that economic stability is an important factor in the overall
security environment should not be discounted, especially given the results of my statistical analysis. Another theory that could provide insight
into the patterns observed in this research is that of preponderance of power. Gilpin theorized that when a state has the preponderance of

power in the international system, rivals are more likely to resolve their disagreements without resorting to armed
conflict (Gilpin 1983). The logic behind this claim is simple it makes more sense to challenge a weaker hegemon than a stronger one. This
simple yet powerful theory can help explain the puzzlingly strong positive correlation between military conflicts engaged in by the hegemon and
conflict overall. It is not necessarily that military involvement by the hegemon instigates further conflict in the international system. Rather, this
military involvement could be a function of the hegemons weaker position, which is the true cause of the higher levels of conflict in the
international system. Additionally, it is important to note that military

power is, in the long run, dependent on economic strength .

as hegemons lose relative economic power, other nations are tempted to challenge them even if
their short-term military capabilities are still strong . This would help explain some of the variation found between the economic

Thus, it is possible that

and military data. The results of this analysis are of clear importance beyond the realm of theory. As the debate rages over the role of the United
States in the world, hegemonic stability theory has some useful insights to bring to the table. What this research makes clear is that a strong
hegemon can exert a positive influence on stability in the international system. However, this should not give policymakers a justification to
engage in conflict or escalate military budgets purely for the sake of international stability. If anything,

this research points to the

central importance of economic influence in fostering international stability . To misconstrue these findings to justify
anything else would be a grave error indeed. Hegemons may play a stabilizing role in the international system, but this role is complicated. It

is
economic strength, not military dominance that is the true test of hegemony. A weak state with a strong military is a
paper tiger it may appear fearsome, but it is vulnerable to even a short blast of wind.
Economic strength prevents great power conflict relative growth is KEY
Goldstein 7 (Avery, David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations @ University of
Pennsylvania, Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics, Senior Fellow at
the Foreign Policy Research Institute, holds a Ph.D. from the University of California-Berkeley, Power transitions,
institutions, and China's rise in East Asia: Theoretical expectations and evidence, Journal of Strategic Studies,
Volume 30, Number 4-5, August-October, p. 647-648)

Two closely related, though distinct, theoretical arguments focus explicitly on the consequences for international politics of a shift in power
between a dominant state and a rising power. In War and Change in World Politics, Robert Gilpin suggested that peace prevails when a

dominant states capabilities enable it to govern an international order that it has shaped . Over time, however, as economic
and technological diffusion proceeds during eras of peace and development, other states are empowered. Moreover, the burdens of international
governance drain and distract the reigning hegemon, and challengers eventually emerge who seek to rewrite the rules of governance. As the

power advantage of the erstwhile hegemon ebbs, it may become desperate enough to resort to the ultima ratio of
international politics, force, to forestall the increasingly urgent demands of a rising challenger. Or as the power of the
challenger rises, it may be tempted to press its case with threats to use force. It is the rise and fall of the great
powers that creates the circumstances under which major wars, what Gilpin labels hegemonic wars , break out .13 Gilpins
argument logically encourages pessimism about the implications of a rising China. It leads to the expectation that international trade,
investment, and technology transfer will result in a steady diffusion of American economic power, benefiting the rapidly
developing states of the world, including China. As the US simultaneously scurries to put out the many brushfires that
threaten its far-flung global interests (i.e., the classic problem of overextension), it will be unable to devote sufficient
resources to maintain or restore its former advantage over emerging competitors like China. While the erosion of the
once clear American advantage plays itself out, the US will find it ever more difficult to preserve the order in Asia that it created during its era of
preponderance. The

expectation is an increase in the likelihood for the use of force either by a Chinese challenger
by a besieged
American hegemon desperate to head off further decline. Among the trends that alarm [end page 647] those who would look at Asia
able to field a stronger military in support of its demands for greater influence over international arrangements in Asia, or

through the lens of Gilpins theory are Chinas expanding share of world trade and wealth (much of it resulting from the gains made possible by
the international economic order a dominant US established); its acquisition of technology in key sectors that have both civilian and military
applications (e.g., information, communications, and electronics linked with the revolution in military affairs); and an expanding military
burden for the US (as it copes with the challenges of its global war on terrorism and especially its struggle in Iraq) that limits the resources it can
devote to preserving its interests in East Asia.14 Although similar to Gilpins work insofar as it emphasizes the importance of shifts in the
capabilities of a dominant state and a rising challenger, the power-transition theory A. F. K. Organski and Jacek Kugler present in The War Ledger
focuses more closely on the allegedly dangerous phenomenon of crossover the point at which a dissatisfied challenger is about to overtake the
established leading state.15 In such cases, when

the power gap narrows, the dominant state becomes increasingly desperate
to forestall , and the challenger becomes increasingly determined to realize the transition to a new international
order whose contours it will define.
Competitiveness is vital to prevent great power conflict
Baru 9 (Sanjaya, Visiting Professor @ Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and Institute of South Asian Studies
(Singapore), Year of the power shift?, Seminar, #593, January, http://www.indiaseminar.com/2009/593/593_sanjaya_baru.htm)
There is no doubt that economics alone will not determine the balance of global power, but there is no doubt either that economics has come to
matter for more. The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from time

immemorial. Kautilyas Arthashastra says, From the strength of the treasury the army is born. men without wealth do not attain their
objectives even after hundreds of trials Only through wealth can material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by
elephants (tamed) A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a liability.4 Hence, economic policies and

performance do have strategic consequences .5 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the
foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. Victory (in war), Kennedy claimed, has
repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base .6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships
between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and
technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to
better combine military and economic strength scored over others. The fact remains, Kennedy argued, that all of the
major shifts in the worlds military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further,
that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the
outcomes of the major Great Power wars , where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material
resources .7 In Kennedys view the geopolitical consequences of an economic crisis or even decline would be
transmitted through a nations inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic
growth and military power the classic guns vs butter dilemma.

Econ Heg Impacts Turns Every Impact

Perceived declines in relative economic weakness spark nuclear war AND complicate every global impact
Lieberthal and O'Hanlon 12 (Kenneth and Michael, Senior Fellows in Foreign Policy @ Brookings, "The Real
National Security Threat: America's Debt," http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economyforeign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)
Lastly, American economic

weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder
about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more
persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt
our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity
and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western
Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely . When running for president last time,
Obama eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world,
controlling global climate change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of
nuclear weapons. These were, and remain, worthy if elusive goals. However, for Obama or his successor , there is now a much more
urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental
prerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished .
Failure to affirmatively defend US relative economic power undermines our ability to solve climate change
and other global, existential risks
Posen 9 (Adam, deputy director and senior fellow @ Peterson Institute for International Economics, "Economic
leadership beyond the crisis," http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN
%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf)
If this assessment is correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic decline , but not outright hostility to the US
model or displacement of the current international economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us in the realm of normal economic
diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more multilaterally and less high-handedly than the US has done over the past 20 years. It also suggests that
adjustment of current international economic institutions is all that is required, rather than desperately defending economic globalisation itself.
For all of that reassurance, however, the need to get buy-in from the rising new players to the current system is more

pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to the crisis, the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial
democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new players is also more limited than it has been in the past,
and will remain so for at least the next few years. The need for the US to avoid excessive domestic self-absorption is a real concern as well, given
the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy agenda and economic insecurity from the financial crisis. Managing the
post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the crisis and
longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however, bears two significant and related

risks: first, that China and perhaps some other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in USoriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s ); second, that a leadership vacuum will arise in international
financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will over time erode support for a globally integrated economy. Both
of these risks if realised would diminish US foreign policy influence, make the economic system less resilient in
response to future shocks (to every countrys detriment), reduce economic growth and thus the rate of reduction in global
poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals like controlling climate change or managing migration and
demographic shifts . If the US is to rise to the challenge, it should concentrate on the following priority measures.
US economic strength is key to managing all global problems its the lure and the whip of 21 st century
international affairs
Gelb 10 (Leslie, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, "GDP Now Matters More than Force,"
Foreign Affairs, p. ebscohost)
No matter the decline in U.S. power, most nations do not doubt that the

United States is the indispensable leader in solving major

international problems. This problem-solving capacity creates opportunities for U.S. leadership in everything from
trade talks to military-conflict resolution to international agreements on global warming. Only Washington can help
the nations bordering the South China Sea forge a formula for sharing the region's resources. Only Washington has a
chance of pushing the Israelis and the Palestinians toward peace. Only Washington can bargain to increase the low value of a
Chinese currency exchange rate that disadvantages almost every nation's trade with China. But it is clear to Americans and non-Americans alike

that Washington

lacks the power to solve or manage difficult problems alone; the indispensable leader must work
with indispensable partners. To attract the necessary partners, Washington must do the very thing that habitually afflicts U.S. leaders with
political hives: compromise. This does not mean multilateralism for its own sake, nor does it mean abandoning vital national interests. The
Obama administration has been criticized for softening UN economic sanctions against Iran in order to please China and Russia. Had the United
States not compromised, however, it would have faced vetoes and enacted no new sanctions at all. U.S. presidents are often in a strong position to
bargain while preserving essential U.S. interests, but they have to do a better job of selling such unavoidable compromises to the U.S. public.
U.S. policymakers must also be patient. The weakest of nations today can resist and delay. Pressing prematurely for decisions--an
unfortunate hallmark of U.S. style--results

in failure, the prime enemy of power. Success breeds power, and failure breeds
weakness. Even when various domestic constituencies shout for quick action, Washington's leaders must learn to buy time in
order to allow for U.S. power--and the power of U.S.-led coalitions--to take effect abroad. Patience is especially valuable in
the economic arena, where there are far more players than in the military and diplomatic realms. To corral all these players takes time.
Military power can work quickly, like a storm; economic power grabs slowly, like the tide. It needs time to erode the
shoreline, but it surely does nibble away . To be sure, U.S. presidents need to preserve the United States' core role as the world's
military and diplomatic balancer--for its own sake; and because it strengthens U.S. interests in economic transactions. But economics has to
be the main driver for current policy , as nations calculate power more in terms of GDP than military might. U.S.
GDP will be the lure and the whip in the international affairs of the twenty-first century . U.S. interests abroad
cannot be adequately protected or advanced without an economic reawakening at home . U.S. leaders forever swear their
allegiance to making the tough choices to restore the U.S. economy. But they never deliver. Equally often, they appear to grasp the need for a new
foreign policy for the age of economic power. But that, too, they fail to deliver. President Barack Obama, in particular, has often struck just the
right themes, only to let them fizzle in the din. In the meantime, Americans of nearly every political stripe are waiting and wondering whether
their leaders are prepared to let the nation that saved the world in the twentieth century sink into history in the twenty-first.

Loss of US economic leadership turns EVERY hotspot

Freidberg 8 (Aaron, Professor of Politics and International Relations Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson
School, The Dangers of a Diminished America, Wall Street Journal, 10-21,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If
so, what would that mean? One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the
primary instruments of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal
position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families
and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both
Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe
Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of
sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and

perhaps even a new era of financially-induced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the
cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war
in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might
well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow
stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather
support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are

the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans
have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our
economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollardenominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are

multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea
are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to
chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now
tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our
presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East
energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global
trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless
fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may
choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The
aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock

us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil
prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign
investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country
where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these
countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when
many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite
its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.
What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is

between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership.

Econ Heg Impacts 1nc Russia Aggression

Economic weakness undercuts the global perception of US resolve - encourages Russian aggression
Kudlow 14 (Larry, former economist @ US Treasury under President Reagan and Editor @ National Review,
"Obama is Crushing the Reagan Link, and Putin Knows It," 7/18,
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/383149/print)
Across his remarkably successful presidency, Ronald Reagan

repeatedly made the link between the U.S. economy and U.S.
international security and defense. He consistently argued that weakness at home leads to weakness abroad. Reagan was aiming at the
dismal Carter years. But he understood for all times that economic strength at home sends a powerful signal for
international security overseas . When Reagan went to Reykjavik to meet with Gorbachev, he believed the resurgent American economy
would hammer the nails on the coffin of Soviet communism. And he explained to Gorbachev that if the Soviets didnt come to the negotiating
table with nuclear weapons, the U.S. would out-produce them on nukes and with technological superiority. Similarly, Reagan would not give up
his vision for strategic missile defense. And in both cases building nukes and SDI Reagan knew the American economy had the resources
capable of achieving these goals, while the sinking Soviet economy couldnt match us. In the end, the Soviet system imploded in one of the
greatest reversals in world history. Freedom won. Communism lost. Now, circumstances are somewhat different today. But the horrible Malaysia
Airlines crash in Ukraine highlights some worrisome facts about American-Russian relations. Mitt Romney was right. Russia is our biggest

threat. We know that the Malaysian plane was brought down by a ground-to-air missile fired from Russian-made SA-11 weapons run by proRussian Ukranian rebel terrorists. We also know that Russia is fighting a proxy war with the U.S. in Ukraine, and that Russian
special forces are leading the terrorist movement in Ukraine. We can add to this the proxy war fought by Russia in the Middle
East, with its main ally Iran, and the fact that Russia is engaging in state-sponsored terrorism. Whether President Obama understands all this, I
dont know. His policies have been alternatively passive (Libya, Egypt), incoherent (Russian reset), and feckless (Syria). But the fact that the
current U.S. economic recovery is the slowest in post-WWII history spanning 70 years is surely a key factor in
Vladimir Putins adventurism . This brings us back to Reagans link. Putin may recognize that Russias economy is a thin deck of cards. But
he surely doesnt fear the weak American economic position. Ditto for the broken economic dictatorships in North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela,

Americas economic weakness is so worrying, one

suspects our friends are losing respect for us too . Whether in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Israel, our allies know that
America has been the backstop for freedom. If not us, who? But can they say that now? As I testified this week before the
congressional Joint Economic Committee, at 2.1 percent average real growth, the U.S. is lagging far behind the 4.1 percent average
recovery pace of the post-war business cycles. The Reagan recovery averaged 5 percent annual growth at the same point as the Obama
and the rising economic dictatorship in China. They dont fear us. In fact,

recovery. Obamas stock market from the depth of the meltdown does beat Reagans market and the post-war average for equities. But heres a
very worrisome trend. Over the entire post-war period, average yearly growth has been 3.2 percent. And in the 1980s and 90s, growth was 3.7
percent. Since 2001, however, under Republican and Democratic presidents and congresses, as the dollar lost over a third of its value growth has
dropped to only 1.8 percent annually. Something has clearly gone very wrong.

Continued Russian aggression triggers global nuclear war deterrence is key

Fisher 9/3/14 (Max, Political Analyst @ Vox, "Obama's Russia paradox: Why he just threatened WWIII in order to
prevent it," http://www.vox.com/2014/9/3/6101507/obama-just-committed-the-us-to-war-against-russia-if-itinvades)
President Obama gave a speech on Wednesday, in a city most Americans have never heard of, committing the United States to possible war
against Russia. He said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a Western military alliance better known as NATO,

would fight to
defend eastern European members like Estonia against any foreign aggression. In other words, if Russian President
Vladimir Putin invades Estonia or Latvia as he invaded Ukraine, then Putin would trigger war with the US and most
of Europe. Obama's speech from the Estonian capital of Tallinn, though just a speech, may well be America's most important and aggressive
step yet against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. While the speech will do nothing for Ukraine, it is meant to stop Russia from invading, or
perhaps from sponsoring rebellions in, other European countries so long as those European countries are part of NATO, as most are. "We'll be
here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania," President Obama said from the capital of Estonia, one of the three
Baltic states that were once part of the Soviet Union but now are members of NATO. "You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you
will never lose it again." Obama was making a promise, and a very public one meant to reverberate not just in European capitals but in Moscow
as well: If Russia invades any member of NATO, even these small Baltic states on the alliance's far periphery, then it will be

at war with all of them including the United States. "The defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the
defense of Berlin and Paris and London," Obama said. To be really clear: that defense means war with Russia, which has the world's
second-largest military and second-largest nuclear arsenal, a prospect so dangerous that even during the angriest moments of the
Cold War, the world managed to avoid it. The idea, though, is not that Obama wants to go to war with Russia, it's that he wants
to avoid war with Russia this is also why the US and Europe are not intervening militarily in Ukraine to push back the Russian tanks

avoiding war with Russia means deterring Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading these Baltic states in
the first place by scaring him off. The risk of such an invasion , by the way, is real: these countries are about one-quarter ethnic

but that

Russian, and Ukraine's own Russian minority which was Putin's excuse for invading Crimea in March. Putin also clearly sees former Soviet
states as fair game; he has invaded Ukraine and Georgia, both marked in red on the above map. So the Baltic states are rightly terrified that they
are next. Here is Obama's dilemma, and Europe's: They want to prove to Putin that they will definitely defend Estonia and Latvia and other
eastern European NATO members as if they were American or British or German soil, so that Putin will not invade those countries as he did in
Ukraine. But the entire world, including Putin, is suspicious as to whether or not this threat is a bluff. And the worst possible thing that could
happen, the thing that could legitimately lead to World War
invade Estonia, and have Obama's bluff turn out to not be a bluff.

Three and global nuclear war , is for Putin to call Obama's bluff,

Econ Heg Impacts - Russian Aggression

Russian aggression causes nuclear war AND collapses collective security
Blank 9 (Dr. Stephen, Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S.
Army War College, March 2009, Russia And Arms Control: Are There Opportunities For The Obama
Administration? http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub908.pdf)
Proliferators or nuclear states like China and Russia can then deter regional or intercontinental attacks either by denial or by threat of
retaliation.168 Given a multipolar world structure with little ideological rivalry among major powers, it is unlikely that they will go to war with

Russia , they will strive for exclusive hegemony in their own sphere of influence and use
nuclear instruments towards that end . However, wars may well break out between major powers and weaker
peripheral states or between peripheral and semiperipheral states given their lack of domestic legitimacy, the absence of the means of crisis
each other. Rather, like

prevention, the visible absence of crisis management mechanisms, and their strategic calculation that asymmetric wars might give them the
victory or respite they need.169 Simultaneously, The states of periphery and semiperiphery have far more opportunities for political
maneuvering. Since war remains a political option, these states may find it convenient to exercise their military power

as a means for achieving political objectives. Thus international crises may increase in number . This has two
important implications for the use of WMD . First, they may be used deliberately to offer a decisive victory (or in
Russias case , to achieve intra-war escalation controlauthor170) to the striker, or for defensive purposes when
imbalances in military capabilities are significant; and second, crises increase the possibilities of inadvertent or
accidental wars involving WMD .171 Obviously nuclear proliferators or states that are expanding their nuclear arsenals like
Russia can exercise a great influence upon world politics if they chose to defy the prevailing consensus and use their
weapons not as defensive weapons, as has been commonly thought, but as offensive weapons to threaten other states and deter
nuclear powers. Their decision to go either for cooperative security and strengthened international military-political norms of action, or for
individual national egotism will critically affect world politics. For, as Roberts observes, But if they drift away from those efforts [to bring

the consequences could be profound . At the very least, the effective functioning of
inherited mechanisms of world order , such as the special responsibility of the great powers in the management of the
interstate system, especially problems of armed aggression, under the aegis of collective security, could be significantly
impaired . Armed with the ability to defeat an intervention, or impose substantial costs in blood or money on an intervening force or the
populaces of the nations marshaling that force, the newly empowered tier could bring an end to collective security
operations , undermine the credibility of alliance commitments by the great powers , [undermine guarantees of extended
deterrence by them to threatened nations and states] extend alliances of their own, and perhaps make wars of aggression on
their neighbors or their own people .172
about more cooperative security],

Extinction
Muller 00 (Dr. Harold, Director of the Peace Research Institute-Frankfurt and Professor of International Relations at
Goethe University Compliance Politics: A Critical Analysis of Multilateral Arms Control Treaty Enforcement
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/72muell.pdf)
In this author's view,3 at least four distinct missions continue to make arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation agreements useful,
even indispensable parts of a stable and reliable world security structure: As long as the risk of great power rivalry and

competition existsand it exists todayconstructing barriers against a degeneration of this competition into major
violence remains a pivotal task of global security policy. Things may be more complicated than during the bipolar age
since asymmetries loom larger and more than one pair of competing major powers may exist. With overlapping rivalries among these
powers, arms races are likely to be interconnected, and the stability of any one pair of rivals might be affected negatively by
developments in other dyads. Because of this greater risk of instability, the increased political complexity of the post-bipolar world calls for
more rather than less arms control. For these competitive relationships, stability or stabilization remains a key goal, and effectively
verified agreements can contribute much to establish such stability. Arms control also has a role to play in securing regional stability. At the
regional level, arms control agreements can create balances of forces that reassure regional powers that their basic security is certain, and
help build confidence in the basically non-aggressive policies of neighbors. Over time, a web of interlocking agreements may

even create enough of a sense of security and confidence to overcome past confrontations and enable
transitions towards more cooperative relationships. At the global level, arms limitation or prohibition agreements, notably
in the field of weapons of mass destruction, are needed to ban existential dangers for global stability, ecological safety,
and maybe the very survival of human life on earth . In an age of increasing interdependence and ensuing complex networks

that support the satisfaction of basic needs, international cooperation is needed to secure the smooth working of these networks. Arms control
can create underlying conditions of security and stability that reduce distrust and enable countries to commit them-selves to far-reaching
cooperation in other sectors without perceiving undesirable risks to their national security. Global agreements also affect regional

reduce the chances that regional conflicts will escalate. Under opportune circumstances,
the normative frameworks that they enshrine may engender a feeling of community and shared security interests
that help reduce the general level of conflict and assist in ushering in new relations of global cooperation . Finally,
balances and help, if successful, to

one aspect that is rarely discussed in the arms control context is arms control among friends and partners. It takes the innocent form of
military cooperation; joint staffs, commands, and units; common procurement planning; and broad and far-reaching transparency. While
these relations serve at the surface to enhance a country's military capability by linking it with others, they are conducive as well to creating a
sense of irreversibility in current friendly relations, by making unthinkable a return to previous, possibly more conflictual times. European
defense cooperation is a case in point.1 Whatever the particular mission of a specific agreement, it will serve these worthwhile

purposes only if

it is implemented appropriately and, if not, means are available to ensure compliance . In other words, the
enduring value of arms control rests very much on the ability to assure compliance.5 Despite the reasons given above for the continuing
utility of arms control, the skeptics may still have the last word if agreements are made empty shells by repeated breaches and a lack of
effective enforcement.

Russian aggression sets a precedent globally sparks SCS conflict

Wash Post 8/28/14 ("The West must make Mr. Putin pay for his aggression,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-west-must-make-mr-putin-pay-for-hisaggression/2014/08/28/0eaa39a0-2eea-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html)
IF ANY international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one
sovereign state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere . That is why
Vladimir Putins decision to send Russian forces openly into Ukraine in the past 48 hours is a watershed, not a mere continuation of
whats been taking place for months, as President Obama understated the case Thursday. If Mr. Putin does not pay a high price for this
naked, if still cynically denied, attack on his neighbors, the precedent could sow instability far and wide from the Baltic
Sea , ringed by small, free states with large Russian minorities, to the South China Sea , dotted with islands that China covets but other
countries claim. The reasons for Mr. Putins escalation, after months of destabilizing Ukraine through more covert means, may be only guessed.
Ukraines military has made gains against Russian-instigated separatists in two key cities, Luhansk and Donetsk, and Mr. Putin may have felt
that he could not abandon them without incurring political risk in Moscow. The Russian armys move on Novoazovsk, well to the south of these
contested areas, relieved the pressure on them and perhaps foreshadows seizing a land corridor to Crimea, which Mr. Putin absorbed through
force and chicanery six months ago but has struggled to resupply by air and sea since. Mr. Putins strategic goal could be even grander: the
takeover of southeastern Ukraine, which he calls New Russia, and its incorporation into his ballyhooed Eurasian Union. What is evident is that
Mr. Putin cares little for diplomatic off-ramps, as the West calls the various face-saving solutions it has dangled since Mr. Putin first began his
squeeze on Crimea, and to which Mr. Obama alluded yet again Thursday. To the contrary: Sending his own regulars to seize Ukrainian

territory suggests that he would rather risk further conflict with the West than see his minions go down to defeat in Donetsk,
Luhansk and elsewhere. There may be some in Washington who conclude from this that Mr. Putins interest in Ukraine
will always be greater than that of the United States, so pressure or sanctions cant work and might even be
counterproductive, given the need for Russian cooperation on other matters such as Irans nuclear program. If the issue were only Russias

given the global repercussions of this

struggle, the United States and its allies cannot afford to let Mr. Putin break the rules . It is time to hit Russia with the

neighborhood, we would still disagree, vehemently, but we would understand the logic. But

full brunt of financial sanctions, to supply Ukraine with the arms and intelligence it needs to defend its territorial integrity (which Russia itself
once pledged to respect), to halt all military sales to Russia by Western nations and to bolster the neglected North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Mr. Obama made little effort Thursday to explain or defend the broader principle that he said is at stake in Europe. Nations around the world
that rely on U.S. leadership and its commitment to the rule of law can only hope that he brings more passion to the cause at what deserves to be a
historic NATO summit in Wales next week.

Extinction AND most probable scenario for war

Mead 10 (Walter Russell, Senior Fellow @ the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-9, Obama in Asia,
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/11/09/obama-in-asia/)
The decision to go to Asia is one that all thinking Americans can and should support regardless of either party or ideological affiliation.

East and South Asia are the places where the 21st century, for better or for worse, will most likely be shaped;
economic growth, environmental progress, the destiny of democracy and success against terror are all at stake
here. American objectives in this region are clear. While convincing China that its best interests are not served by a rash, Kaiser Wilhelmlike dash for supremacy in the region, the US does not want either to isolate or contain China. We want a strong, rich, open and free China in

Our destiny is inextricably linked with Asias ; Asian success will make
America stronger, richer and more secure. Asias failures will reverberate over here, threatening our prosperity,
an Asia that is also strong, rich, open and free.

our security and perhaps even our survival . The worlds two most mutually hostile nuclear states, India and
Pakistan, are in Asia. The two states most likely to threaten others with nukes , North Korea and aspiring rogue
nuclear power Iran, are there. The two superpowers with a billion plus people are in Asia as well. This is where
the worlds fastest growing economies are. It is where the worst environmental problems exist. It is the home of
the worlds largest democracy, the worlds most populous Islamic country (Indonesia which is also among the most democratic
and pluralistic of Islamic countries), and the worlds most rapidly rising non-democratic power as well. Asia holds more oil resources than
any other continent; the worlds most important and most threatened trade routes lie off its shores. East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia
(where American and NATO forces are fighting the Taliban) and West Asia (home among others to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Iraq) are
the theaters in the world today that most directly engage Americas vital interests and where our armed forces are most directly involved.

The worlds most explosive territorial disputes are in Asia as well, with islands (and the surrounding mineral and fishery
resources) bitterly disputed between countries like Russia, the two Koreas, Japan, China (both from Beijing and Taipei), and
Vietnam. From the streets of Jerusalem to the beaches of Taiwan the worlds most intractable political problems are found on
the Asian landmass and its surrounding seas. Whether you view the world in terms of geopolitical security,
environmental sustainability, economic growth or the march of democracy, Asia is at the center of your
concerns. That is the overwhelming reality of world politics today, and that reality is what President Obamas trip is intended to
address.

US/Russia War Outweighs 2nc

US/Russia nuclear war outweighs only existential risk
Bostrom 2 (Nick, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human
Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," 38, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out
nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify
as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear
Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization . Russia and the US
retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is
also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and
Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankinds potential permanently.
US-Russia nuclear war risks extinction
Starr 14 (Steven, Senior Scientist for Physicians for Social Responsibility and Director of the Clinical Laboratory
Science Program @ University of Missouri, Ukraine + NATO = Nuclear War, Truthout, Tuesday, 11 March 2014
13:03 pg. http://tinyurl.com/ohgfk5p)
Furthermore, US/NATO naval forces should not be deployed in the Black Sea, where they would be in close proximity to Russian naval forces. In
the event of a war in which Russian forces were actively engaged, the presence of US forces nearby would create a significant

chance for a mistake in which US or Russian forces would fire upon each other. Supersonic fighters traveling at more than
1,000 mph can easily overfly national boundaries or "hostile" military forces. If NATO and Russian forces to come into direct military conflict,
then the possibility of nuclear conflict increases exponentially. NATO cannot send in its 25,000 man Response Force and expect to
defeat 150,000 Russian troops (or more) in a fight at the Russian border. In a NATO-Russian conventional conflict, in which Russian forces were
prevailing, NATO would have the choice of withdrawing, calling for a ceasefire, or using its nuclear weapons against Russian forces. NATO has
at least a couple hundred US B61 nuclear weapons forward deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The B61 is a
"variable yield" weapon; the two models currently forward-based in Europe, the B61-3 and B61-4 both can be set to have an explosive yield of
300 tons of TNT (0.3 kilotons). In other words, the B61 is designed to be "useable" nuclear weapon, beginning with a "small" detonation that is
roughly 20-30 times larger than our largest conventional weapon. However, the B61-4 can also be set to have an explosive power as much as
50,000 tons of TNT (50 kilotons), and the B61-3 as much as 170,000 tons of TNT (170 kilotons) which is 70% greater than many of the
strategic nuclear warheads carried by US nuclear subs. Even if NATO could manage to use its conventional forces to defeat Russian conventional
forces, Russia would *not* allow such a defeat upon its very border. Russia would certainly use nuclear weapons to stop NATO.

Russia has for some time adopted the policy of "nuclear de-escalation": "In order to maintain a credible nuclear deterrence effect
under the conditions of a regional war, Russia believes it should not rely on strategic nuclear forces, or on them only, but must maintain a range of
options for the limited or selective use of nuclear weapons in order to be able to inflict a precisely set level of damage to the enemy sufficient
to convince him to terminate military confrontation by exposing him to the danger of further nuclear escalation . . . When introducing the
concept of "nuclear de-escalation" in the late 1990s, the Russian defence establishment was obsessed with the possibility of a Kosovo-type
US/NATO intervention in the war ("armed conflict") in Chechnya, which resumed in 1999. It did not exclude the possibility that, in the event of
such a case, Russia would be forced to resort to nuclear weapons." In a NATO-Russian conflict, in which Russia introduced nuclear weapons,
NATO would be fully capable of responding in a tit-for-tat fashion. This would be the same pattern as was seen in the NATO war games of the
Cold War. Once the nuclear "firebreak" is crossed, once nuclear weapons are introduced into a military conflict in which *both sides
have nuclear weapons*, there

would likely be an almost inevitable escalation of conflict, a progressive use of nuclear weapons by
scientific studies predict that a war fought with
hundreds or thousands of US and Russian strategic nuclear weapons would ignite nuclear firestorms over tens of
thousands of square miles. These mass fires would produce between 50 million to 150 million tons of smoke, which would quickly
both sides, with progressively larger targets being taken out. Peer-reviewed

rise above cloud level in to the stratosphere, where winds would carry it around the Earth. In a matter of weeks or months, a global stratospheric
smoke layer would form, which would block up to 70% of warming sunlight, quickly producing Ice Age weather conditions in the
Northern Hemisphere. The scientists predict that temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for about three
years. The smoke, the darkness, and extreme cold weather would last for ten years or longer, eliminating growing seasons, making it

impossible to grow food. Most people and animals would perish from nuclear famine . Nuclear war is suicide for the
human race.
OR Bostrum

Yes Russian Aggression 2nc

Your impact D doesnt apply - Thune says Russian aggression is a LEGITIMATE threat now AND Fisher
says that continued aggression risks US-Russia MISCALC that escalates to global nuclear war
AND Russian aggression increasing now firm signals of US deterrence are vital
Taylor and Ybarra 10/23/14 (Guy and Maggie, Wash Times, "U.S., allies scramble jets almost daily to repel
Russian incursions," http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/vladimir-putin-emboldened-by-weak-usresponse-to-r/print/)
Russian military provocations have increased so much over the seven months since Moscow annexed Crimea from Ukraine
that Washington and its allies are scrambling defense assets on a nearly daily basis in response to air, sea and land incursions by Vladimir Putin's
forces. Not only is Moscow continuing to foment unrest in Eastern Ukraine , U.S. officials and regional security experts say

Russian fighter jets are testing U.S. reaction times over Alaska and Japan's ability to scramble planes over its
northern islands all while haunting Sweden's navy and antagonizing Estonia's tiny national security force. The
White House months ago leveled economic sanctions on several Russian businesses and political players, and recent weeks have seen
President Obama intensify his rhetoric toward Moscow. But many in Washington's national security community say the
response is simply not firm enough and that, as a result , Mr. Putin actually feels emboldened to push the
envelope Cold War-style . " What's going on is a radical escalation of aggressive Russian muscle flexing and
posturing designed to demonstrate that Russia is no longer a defeated power of the Cold War era," says Ariel Cohen, who heads the
Center for Energy, National Resources and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security in
Washington. " The more we retreat, the more we are encouraging Russia to behave in a more aggressive way ," Mr.
Cohen said. "We need to be engaging more deeply with our Central Asian allies, but instead we are in the process of abandoning turf to Russia,
and it's wrong it's against our interests geopolitically to let Russia feel that they all of a sudden have won all the turf without firing a shot."

Russian aggression increasing now on the brink of a new Cold War

Taylor and Ybarra 10/23/14 (Guy and Maggie, Wash Times, "U.S., allies scramble jets almost daily to repel
Russian incursions," http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/23/vladimir-putin-emboldened-by-weak-usresponse-to-r/print/)
Putin has appeared undeterred . NATO officials confirmed this week that the Russian air force flew an Ilyushin-20 spy
plane into Estonian airspace Tuesday, triggering a swift reaction from NATO fighter jets patrolling the area. The incursion came just days
after Sweden made international headlines by scrambling a fleet of naval vessels to search for a suspected submarine sighted
But Mr.

about 30 miles off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic Sea. Swedish authorities avoided pinning the incident directly on Russia, and Moscow
denied involvement. But regional analysts like Mr. Cohen say they'd be surprised if the sub was not Russian . The development, the

analysts say, fits within a growing list of similar Russian actions, including some directly challenging U.S. territory. The North
American Aerospace Defense Command scrambled jets to scare off two Russian strategic bombers that suddenly
appeared to conduct practice runs in airspace just 65 miles off Alaska in June. A similar incident occurred in September, with U.S. and Canadian
fighters scrambling to deter six Russian aircraft, including two nuclear bombers, two fighter jets and two refueling tankers, according to news
reports. Around the same time, Russian ground forces were making the unprecedented move of arresting an Estonian

security official at gunpoint near the Baltic nation's border with Russia. The official is reportedly now in Moscow facing espionage
charges. More worrisome are reports that Japan has had to scramble fighter jets to ward off Russian bombers and spy planes
twice as often as usual over the past six months. Japanese government figures released this week show flights dispatched to meet Russian
aircraft in the latest six months soared to 324 from 136 over the preceding six months, according to a report by Reuters. Steve Ganyard, the
president of Avascent International, a global security consulting firm in Washington, says Russia's moves reflect Mr. Putin's desire to

bring about a new era of cat and mouse-style games that were "prevalent in the Cold War." Tuesday's Estonia incursion, for
instance, was "quite deliberate," said Mr. Ganyard, a former Marine Corps fighter pilot who has also held past posts at the Pentagon and State
Department. Mr. Putin is engaged in a ploy to garner international recognition as a way to reassure Russian citizens that

their nation remains a formidable military power, he said. "Military has its own appeal to nationalism, and that is what helps him
keep [his] power and keep his approval ratings so high," he said. "Putin knows how to play domestic politics," Mr. Ganyard added. "Right now,
one of his platforms is to return Russia to its glory, and part of that means its military glory" by bolstering the "myth of the Red Army saving the
motherland." In February, Mr. Putin's defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, made headlines by claiming the Russian military was engaged in talks with
Algeria, Cyprus, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Seychelles, Vietnam and Singapore and that the Russian navy was seeking permission to use
ports in Latin America and Asia. Such claims are in keeping with "a Russian narrative of a more assertive and powerful country," said William
Pomeranz, a national security analyst at the Wilson International Center for Scholars and Russian law professor at Georgetown University. Mr.
Pomeranz said that while the past decade saw Mr. Putin build a reputation as a "relatively conservative international player," the Ukraine

crisis has pushed the Russian president into a kind of "corner," creating internal pressure on him to make a show of
force to the world. The crisis began in early 2014 when, in the aftermath of a revolution that forced former Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych to flee the country, pro-Russian forces took control of the Crimean Peninsula. The takeover caused an uproar in Ukraine, and Mr.
Putin responded by sending thousands of military troops to the Russian border with the nation. Mr. Pomeranz said the massing of troops

and the "rubbing up" against U.S. and NATO airspace by Moscow are designed to show the Russian military has
advanced since its last major international feud with nearby Georgia in 2008.

A2 Cant Deter Russia

US-led pressure key to containing Russia and offsetting its rising power
Herman 10/7/14 (Arthur, Senior Fellow @ Hudson Institution, "Fighting Obamapolitik,"
http://www.hudson.org/research/10693-fighting-obamapolitik)
A second major step would be to downgrade Russias influence in the world and, correspondingly, restore ours to its
former strength. Putin has used the pretense of Russias great-power status to win popularity at home he has
never ridden so high in domestic opinion polls as he does now and to humiliate the United States in Iran, Syria,
and Ukraine. In response, the United States should stop regarding Russia as a superpower and instead conduct
foreign policy in ways that take advantage of its declining military capability, its shrinking population, and its
crumbling economy (whose growth now depends on commodity prices). Reducing the international position of
Russia and its authoritarian allies would neatly match the steps discussed above to strengthen U.S. allies. In the
absence of any policy from President Obama, Congress should again take the lead.
Continued Russian aggression risks miscalc and war US-led signals are key to deterring Putin
Ignatius 14 (David, an associate editor and columnist for the Washington Post, former Adjunct Lecturer at the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and currently Senior Fellow to the Future of Diplomacy
Program, co-hosts PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues at Washingtonpost.com, with Fareed
Zakaria, "David Ignatius: Putins error in Ukraine is the kind that leads to catastrophe,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-putins-error-in-ukraine-is-the-kind-that-leads-tocatastrophe/2014/03/02/d376603e-a249-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html)
The Russian leaders nostalgia for the past was on display at the Sochi Olympics. As David Remnick wrote last week in the New Yorker, Putin

regards the fall of the Soviet Union as a tragic error, and the Olympics celebrated his vision that a strong Russia is back. That
attitude led Putin to what Secretary of State John Kerry described on Sunday as a brazen act of aggression and a violation of
international obligations. Kerry called on Putin to undo this act of invasion. The Russian leader would save himself immense grief by
following Kerrys advice, but that seems unlikely. His

mistake in Sevastopol may lead to others elsewhere , though hopefully

Putin will avoid reckless actions. But the more Putin seeks to assert Russias strength, he will actually underline its weakness. Perhaps
inevitably, given Washingtons political monomania, the big subject over the weekend wasnt Putins criminal attack on Crimea but whether
Obama had encouraged it by being insufficiently muscular. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Obamas foreign policy, especially in
Syria, but the notion that Putins attack is somehow the United States fault is perverse. For two months the Obama administration has been
prodding the European Union to take the Ukraine crisis more seriously. Im told that U.S. reporting showed that Putin was impatient with
Ukraines pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, and wanted him to crack down even harder on the protesters in Kievs Maidan Square.
Putins distaste for Yanukovych has been obvious since he fled the capital a week ago. What Putin misunderstands most is that the center of
gravity for the former Soviet Union has shifted west. Former Soviet satellites such as Poland and the Czech Republic are prosperous members of
the E.U. The nations that made up what was once Yugoslavia have survived their bloody breakup, and most have emerged as strong democracies.
Ukraine was set to join this movement toward the European Union last November when Yanukovych suddenly suspended trade and financial
talks with the E.U. and accepted what amounted to a $15 billion bribe from Putin to stay in Russias camp. To the tens of thousands of courageous
Ukrainians who braved the cold and police brutality to protest, Yanukovychs submission to Moscow looked like an attempt to reverse history.
The opportunity for Putin is almost precisely opposite his atavistic vision of restoration. It is only by moving west, toward Europe, that Russia
itself can reverse its demographic and political trap. Year by year, the Russian political system becomes more of a corrupt Oriental despotism
with Moscow closer to Almaty than Berlin. The alternative is for Ukraine to pull Russia with it toward the West. As former national security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski explained in a 2008 book, If Ukraine moves to the West, first to the EU and eventually to NATO, the probability
that Russia will move toward Europe is far greater. ... Russians will eventually say, Our future will be safest, our control over the Far East
territories most assured ... if there is a kind of Atlantic community that stretches from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Putins Russia may well

make more mistakes: We may see a cascading chain of error that brings Russian troops deeper into Ukraine and
sets the stage for civil war. Those are the kind of miscalculations that lead to catastrophic consequences , and
Obama would be wise to seek to deter Russian aggression without specifying too clearly what the U.S. ladder of
escalation might be. But Americans and Europeans should agree that this is a story about Putins violation of the international order. Id be
happy if we could interrupt Russias mistakes, but so far Putin insists on doing the wrong thing.

A2 Econ Heg Not Deter Russia

US economic strength key to deterring Russian aggression failure sets a destabilizing precedent globally
Bilotti 14 (Michael, Contributor @ Fordham Political Review, "Halting Russia Begins With Economics,"
http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/halting-russia-begins-with-economics/)
Russian President Vladimir Putins recent

use of force in the Crimean Peninsula has pushed the West into a huddle to determine
how best to show Russia that it will not tolerate this reckless land-grab. Analysts around the world have noticed a warmer
relationship emerging between the United States and Europe as policymakers from both regions ensure they are not alone in pushing for a
punishment for Russia. President Obamas relations with Europe have been strained in recent years due to his pivot to Asia and the NSA spying
scandals, however the most recent series of events expose one the main reasons close ties between Europe and the US are needed. Putin
convinced the now-ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich to back out of an economic deal with the West in preference for one with
Russia. This crisis began with the economy and should be handled with the economy. The US and the EU should begin
looking into cooperative economic means to both bolster their own economies so as to look healthier relative to a corrupt Russian system and
assist other Eastern European nations that might be affected by Russian intervention. The West has three main ways of doing this: push for energy
independence in Eastern Europe by developing long-term strategies to wane natural gas needs off Russia; continue with the development and

If
the West wants to put up a front to Russian aggression, it should be one of economic, rather than military, might .

passage of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP); and join in unison to subject biting sanctions on the Russian economy.

The European Union imports upwards of 35% of its natural gas from Russia, a statistic that weighs heavily over the heads of European
policymakers. The situation is even more dire for countries in Eastern Europe (see figure 1 below). With some countries importing 100% of their
natural gas needs from Russia, any price change could send their respective economies into turbulence with the only way to quell such volatility
coming from Mr. Putin. Already, Russia has spiked the price of natural gas to Ukraine by 44%; other countries remain just as vulnerable to these
fluctuations. The United States is in an extraordinary position regarding its ability to assist with the natural gas needs of Eastern Europe. The US
produces more natural gas than any other country and its production has increased 20% between 2007 and 2011. Unfortunately, there is only one
port in the United States built to transform natural gas into the liquid form for transport; however, there are nine more specially fitted ports set for
construction and even more should receive swift investment. The ports would take a few more years before we see any significant changes in
export levels but, if we want to change the exposure of Eastern European energy sources to Russian interference, then we must plan for the longterm. Many Americans against developing natural gas ports might argue that domestic prices will increase as we enter the global gas market.
Natural gas producers can continue to offer competitive domestic prices by planning ahead with the expectation for increased exports in the next
few years. If the government wanted to assist, it could open new lands up to natural gas exploration. To further bolster Western unification, the
United States and the European Union should move forward with the TTIP. This agreement would lift the US and EU GDPs by $124 billion and
$165 billion, respectively. This partnership creates would show those in Eastern Europe interested in close ties to Russia that the West offers
standards of living and wealth unlike any other nation in the world. The partnership would also make any collective sanctions all the more painful
for Russian diplomats and oligarchs. The TTIP would combine the two largest economies in the world in the name of democracy, business, and
diplomatic cooperation. The European Union and the United States already rely on each other militarily through NATO, making it only logical
that the support should continue on the economic side of the relationship through the TTIP. One of the most immediate issues that need to be
addressed that of financial assistance for Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Over the past few weeks, the United States, the International Monetary
Fund, and other European nations have provided large financial aid packages to the Ukrainian government. Both the House and the Senate passed
a $1 billion aid bill that would provide loan guarantees as well as institute sanctions on a list of Russians closest to Putin. The IMF has pledged
upwards of $18 billion in a single aid package while also freeing up funds for another $9 billion to be provided over the next two years, including
large contributions from the UK and Japan. The West has been impressive in jumping to aid Ukraine, but unfortunately more must be done. The
packages from the US and the IMF would total $28 billion over the next two years, 20% short of the target the Ukrainian finance ministry
believes would be needed to avoid default. Elsewhere in Eastern Europe, the IMF should be looking to deliver aid in other forms of loan
guarantees that would reduce pressure to form economic partnerships with Russia. Until a substantive peace agreement has been negotiated, we

should not underestimate the lengths Putin will go to in order to reestablish Russias power , therefore we must financially
protect our most vulnerable allies in the east. When Crimea fell into Russian hands on March 18th, the West was outraged at the most credible
threat to world security since the end of the Cold War. The precedent Russia set by performing this illegal land-grab under the guise of
protecting ethnic Russians is

extraordinarily dangerous. If the West fails to protect its allies and show developing nations that it will
could very easily begin aggressive behavior towards each other. The ramifications
resulting from the failure of the West to substantively answer Russias antagonism would be far-reaching and severely
destabilizing . It is for this reason that the West should produce a unified economic front to show the world that it stands with its principles of
not tolerate such activities, states

a free economy, self-governance, and international cooperation.

Ex-Im Bank Key to Satellites 2nc

Ex-Im Bank reauthorization key to future satellite projects
Communications Daily 3/26/12 ("Fight Over Ex-Im Bank Threatens Future Satellite Financing," lexis)
An ongoing standoff in Congress over reauthorizing the U.S. Export-Import Bank puts at risk an entity that has
been increasingly important for satellite projects, say industry executives. The bank, which provides loan and loan guarantees
for U.S.-made exports, is facing the expiration of its congressional authorization and possibly reaching the loan exposure
limits of its charter, said Phil Cogan, vice president-communications. The bank has never lost its authorization and it remains unclear exactly
what would happen if it did, he said. The bank, an independent agency that provided $1.3 billion in satellite financing in 2011, is operating on an
extension of its authorization. The 5-year reauthorization, passed by Congress in 2006, ended Dec. 31 and the most recent extension of the
authorization is up May 31, Cogan said. Overall, the bank provided some $33 billion in financing in 2011, he said. It has helped fund

other telecom projects, including cell and radio services, though satellite has been the largest recipient within the
telecom industry, he said. The bank has been especially important in recent years for big-ticket exports, such as planes,
said a satellite industry lawyer. The inherent complexities of gaining financing approval through the bank often makes the process only
worthwhile for larger projects, he said. Ex-Im agreed last year to provide $700 million in financing for Inmarsat's purchase of its Ka-band
constellation, Global Xpress, from Boeing.

Sats Key to Econ/Heg

That tanks the global economy and undermines US global hegemony
Dolman 6 (Everett C., Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the U.S. Air Forces School of
Advanced Air and Space Studies, A Debate About Weapons in Space: For U.S. Military Transformation and
Weapons in Space SAIS Review vol. XXVI no. 1, WinterSpring)
No nation relies on space more than the United Statesnone is even closeand its reliance grows daily. A
widespread loss of space capabilities would prove disastrous for American military security and civilian welfare.
Americas economy would collapse, bringing the rest of the world down with it. Its military would be obliged to
hunker down in a defensive crouch while it prepared to withdraw from dozens of then-untenable foreign
deployments. To prevent such disasters from occurring, the United States militaryin particular the United States
Air Forceis charged with protect- ing space capabilities from harm and ensuring reliable space operations for the
foreseeable future. As a martial organization, the Air Force naturally looks to military means to achieve these desired
ends. And so it should.

Sats Solve Terrorism

US satellite supremacy key to winning the war on terrorism
Ruppersberger 11 (C.A. Dutch, Worldwide Threats Hearing Opening Statement American politician, has been a
Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 2003, representing the 2nd District of
Maryland. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland, was educated at University of Maryland and the University of
Baltimore, and was a lawyer and member of the Baltimore City Council before entering the House.
http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house
gov/files/documents/RMOpeningWorldwideThreatsHearing.pdf)
The last issue I would like to discuss is space. We have some of the best satellite systems. America is the most
powerful country in the world, in part, because we control the skies. Satellites are important because they keep us
safe. We use satellites and their images to track suspected terrorists around the world and stop future attacks.
Satellites allow us to monitor important global developments and provide real-time data to our troops on the ground
in Iraq and Afghanistan. When our troops climb a hill on the battlefield, they know what is on the other side of that
hill because of our technology. We can find that needle in the haystack because we have the best satellites in the
world. You may have heard the President of the United States mention our Sputnik moment. Well, he stole my
line. I have been talking about this for years. More than 50 years ago, the Soviet Union rocked our world by
launching Sputnik into space. Just 12 years later, America answered the challenge and landed a man on the moon.
The space industry was born. America made a massive investment in research and development, employed the best
and brightest scientists, mathematicians and engineers, and put unprecedented emphasis on science education.
America made worldwide headlines and just about every kid on Earth wanted to be Neil Armstrong. Today,
Americas dominance in space is fragile.

Sats Key to Environment/Solve Warming

Satellite developments key to effective global environmental monitoring
Pace 9 (House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Hearing; Keeping the Space
Environment Safe for Civil and Commercial Users; Testimony by Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute,
George Washington University Congressional Documents and Publications April 28, 2009 lexis)
Space activities contribute to the long-term well being of society through improved scientific understanding in every
field of knowledge, most notably with respect to the global environment. The design, development, and operation
of space systems constitute major technical and managerial challenges in systems engineering and thus help
strengthen the engineering capacities of participating nations. China and India are but the latest examples of nations
that see the value of space to their further development. Most immediately, space systems such as satellite
communications, environmental monitoring, and global navigation satellite systems are crucial to the productivity of
many types of national and international infrastructures such as air, sea, and highway transportation, oil and gas
pipelines, financial networks, and global communications. Information services enabled by the unique capabilities
and global reach of space systems are crucial to the functioning of the global economy. In a time of global economic
crisis, the United States and other space-faring nations need to cooperate more closely to protect space systems from
intentional or unintentional interference. The space environment today is a very different from what it was in 1957
when the first satellite was launched, or 1972 when the international convention on liability for damage caused by
space objects was signed. In the past two years, a Chinese anti-satellite test and communications satellite collision
have added thousands of orbital debris to the local space environment, much of which will be in orbit for many years
to come. Today, the Joint Space Operations Center is tracking over 19,000 man-made objects and that number is
growing. The space environment is not safe - it might be fairly characterized as an environment in which everything
is trying to kill you and your spacecraft. It can however be made sustainable in that the vital functions we use space
for today can be reliably maintained for generations to come.
Improving satellite capabilities are a necessary condition for solving climate change accurate data,
demonstration of climate leadership
Lewis et al., 2010 (James A., Director and Senior Fellow, Technology and Public Policy Program CSIS, Sarah O.
Ladislaw, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program CSIS, Denise E. Zheng, Congressional Staffer Salary Data, Earth Observation for Climate Change, June,
http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf)
Climate change will have pervasive and unavoidable effects on economic and national security. Managing these consequences and mitigating
them when possible are new and difficult tasks for governments. Progress in mitigating and adapting to climate change will require the worlds
countries to agree to coordinate their actions. Reaching such agreement will be no easy task. That said, climate change offers a unique
opportunity for the United States to engage other nations in pursuing common interests and addressing future challenges. Not only is the

United States well positioned to lead on this issue because of its significant space and scientific capacity, it also
faces global expectations that it should shoulder the leadership burden for climate change. A commitment to building the
space and information infrastructure needed to manage climate change could demonstrate the U.S.
leadership, based on competence and advancing the global good, that the world respects and admires. Operationalization is the next step for
dealing with climate changeto make the data and knowledge generation by satellites and science easier to use in policymaking.
Operationalization requires a new approach. Climate change has largely been an issue of science. The existing vehicles

for
international cooperation and data sharing are aimed at the scientific community. Effective global management of climate
requires a new approach with three integrated elementsspace, networks, and collaboration. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and
share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure
the effects of mitigation policies, and guide planning on how to adapt to changes in the environment. Achieving such a concerted effort will
require coordination must occur on several different levels if it is to have a meaningful effect. The first the collection and

measurement of relevant datadepends largely on satellites. Without the proper data, it would be very
difficult to develop and aggregate a global picture of climate change and its nature and pace. It would be
difficult to measure the effects of mitigation efforts, determine when or whether policies are effective, or
predict when and how climate effects will affect local communities. The second level is to expand the analysis and sharing of
information. In some ways, we are only in the early stages of developing a global enterprise for assessing climate change. Much of the research
and analysis conducted thus far has been focused on understanding the nature and pace of climate change, forecasting future changes in Earths
natural systems based on changes in different variables, and substantiating theories about how human efforts to reduce the effects of climate
change might actually have some effect. More work is needed in each area to improve our understanding and update it as the natural environment

continues to change. Finally, data must move from the scientific community to the policy communityto governments and policymakersif
data are to guide change. While the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tailored analysis to meet policymakers needs in the hopes
of reaching a global consensus for action, the challenge today is to extend and strengthen connections between the science and policy
communities. A coordinated multinational effort to better inform the policy process can change this. Our belief is that a concerted effort to
analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change,
better measure the effects of mitigation, and guide planning on adapting to changes in the environment. To this end, our recommendations follow:
The U.S. approach to climate change policy needs to inform decisionmakers and planners in both government and the private sector by providing
understandable metrics and analyses of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, mitigation programs and adaption plans. The customers for this
should include federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector users, and other nations. To better serve the national interest, the

United States should increase its Earth observation capabilitiesespecially space-based sensors for carbon monitoring
to improve our ability to understand the carbon cycle and to inform any future international agreement. This means that until these capabilities are
adequate for monitoring climate change, investment in Earth observation satellites should take precedence over other space
programs. Increased spending on earth observation
until the current capability shortfall is eliminated.

satellites specifically designed for climate change should be maintained

New Link Work

Surveillance Splits Dems

Ending metadata surveillance splits the Dems
Greenwald 13 (Glenn, investigative reporter @ The Guardian, "Democratic establishment unmasked: prime
defenders of NSA bulk spying" 7/25, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/25/democraticestablishment-nsa)
Even more notable than the Obama White House's defense of the NSA's bulk domestic spying was the behavior of the

House Democratic
leadership. Not only did they all vote against de-funding the NSA bulk domestic spying program - that includes
liberal icon House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, who voted to protect the NSA's program - but Pelosi's deputy, Steny Hoyer,
whipped against the bill by channeling the warped language and mentality of Dick Cheney. This is the language the Democratic leadership
circulated when telling their members to reject Amash/Conyers: "2) Amash/Conyers/Mulvaney/Polis/Massie Amendment Bars the NSA and
other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act (as codified by Section 501 of FISA) to collect records, including telephone call records,
that pertain to persons who may be in communication with terrorist groups but are not already subject to an investigation under Section 215."
Remember when Democrats used to object so earnestly when Dick Cheney would scream "The Terrorists!" every

time someone tried to rein in the National Security State just a bit and so modestly protect basic civil liberties? How well they
have learned: now, a bill to ban the government from collecting the telephone records of all Americans, while expressly allowing it to collect
the records of anyone for whom there is evidence of wrongdoing, is - in the language of the House Democratic Leadership - a bill to Protect The
Terrorists. None of this should be surprising. Remember: this is the same Nancy Pelosi who spent years during the Bush administration
pretending to be a vehement opponent of the illegal Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program after it was revealed by the New York Times,
even though (just as was true of the Bush torture program) she was secretly briefed on it many years earlier when it was first implemented. At the
end of June, we published the top secret draft report by the Inspector General's office of the NSA that was required to provide a comprehensive
history of the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program secretly ordered by Bush in late 2001. That report included this passage: "Within the first
30 days of the Program, over 190 people were cleared into the Program. This number included Senators Robert Graham and Richard Shelby,
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, and
Presidential Assistant I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby." So the history of Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi isn't one of

opposition to mass NSA spying when Bush was in office, only to change positions now that Obama is. The history is
of pretend opposition - of deceiving their supporters by feigning opposition - while actually supporting it.
Metadata surveillance fights split the Democrats
Associated Press 14 ("NSA Surveillance Debate Exposes Divisions In Democratic, Republican Parties,"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/18/nsa-surveillance-debate_n_4807707.html)
some leading Democrats are reluctant to condemn the dragnet surveillance of
Americans' phone records, the Republican Party has begun to embrace a libertarian shift opposing the spy agency's broad powers. But the
WASHINGTON (AP) While

lines are not drawn in the traditional way. The Republican National Committee and civil libertarians like Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul have joined
liberals like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren on one side of the debate a striking departure from the aggressive national security policies
that have defined the Republican Party for generations. On the other side, defending surveillance programs created under the Bush

administration and continued under President Barack Obama, are Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, Democratic former Secretary
of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the House and Senate leadership of both parties . As a result, the debate about whether
to continue the National Security Agency's sweeping surveillance tactics has highlighted intraparty divisions that could
transform the politics of national security. The split in each party could have practical and political consequences ahead of the 2014 midterm
elections. There are already signs that the debate is seeping into the next presidential contest. Speaking Tuesday to New Hampshire voters, Rep.
Darrell Issa, R-Calif., cited the spy agency's surveillance methods as another example of broad overreach in what he called Obama's "imperial
presidency." Issa called for reforms that would ensure American people are represented during secret court proceedings that decide the scope of
the NSA surveillance. Obama has called for more oversight, too, and Issa stopped short of endorsing the plan to eliminate the bulk collection
program. Congress may address government surveillance this spring in one of its last major moves before members head home to focus on the
November elections. But if Congress punts the surveillance debate to next year, it would resurface just as the presidential primary campaigns are
beginning. The bulk collection of Americans' phone records was authorized under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. Details of the program
were secret until June when a former NSA systems analyst, Edward Snowden, leaked classified documents that spelled out the scope of the
government's activities. The bulk collection provision in the law is set to expire June 1, 2015, unless Congress acts to renew it. More than a
decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Americans have become less willing to support invasive surveillance tactics in the name of national
security. Recent polls show a sharp decline in public support for the NSA programs. The Obama administration justifies continuing the
surveillance program, in part, by pointing to Congress' continued approval and support. In an effort to win back public trust, Obama has called for
some changes that would provide more privacy protections and transparency but not end the program. Clinton, the overwhelming Democratic
favorite should she seek the presidency, has been virtually silent on the NSA debate for months. Last fall she called for a "full, comprehensive
discussion" about the practices but also defended the surveillance. "From my own experience, the information-gathering and analyzing has
proven very important and useful in a number of instances," she said. A Clinton spokesman declined to offer further comment last week. Paul, a
prospective Republican presidential hopeful and tea party favorite, contrasted Clinton's position with his own aggressive opposition to Bush-era
intelligence programs, as polls suggest that a growing majority of Republicans tea party supporters in particular are deeply skeptical of the

federal government. "I think in 2016 if you had a more libertarian-leaning Republican, and you had someone like Hillary Clinton, I think you
could actually completely transform where people think they are and what party people think they have allegiance for," Paul said at a recent
Washington conference. Last week, he filed a lawsuit against Obama and others in the administration over the so-called 215 program. The
Republican National Committee in January approved a resolution "to immediately take action to halt current unconstitutional surveillance
programs and provide a full public accounting of the NSA's data collection programs." There was an immediate backlash from Bush-era
Republican intelligence officials who described the resolution in a letter to RNC Chairman Reince Priebus as a dangerous "recipe for partisan
oblivion." Other Republicans also pushed back against the intraparty shift. Rubio said this week that "we need to be careful about weakening" the
nation's surveillance capabilities. Rubio said Americans' privacy expectations and rights need to be protected. "But we also need an effective
surveillance capability," he told the Tampa Bay Times. "Every other country in the world, certainly those that are hostile to our interests, has
robust intelligence programs." There was an unexpectedly close vote in the Republican-controlled House last July on a measure that would have
ended the bulk collection of phone records. The amendment failed, but it was the first chance for lawmakers to take a stand on the secret
surveillance program since the Snowden leaks. A Pew Research Center poll found last month found that Republicans, fueled by tea party
supporters, now disapprove of the program by 56 percent to 37 percent. Democrats are almost evenly split on the program 46
percent approve and 48 disapprove. Facing increasingly vocal activists at home, nine Republicans who didn't vote or voted against the
amendment last year have signed onto bipartisan legislation that would end the bulk collection surveillance program. Lawmakers are expected to
get another chance to weigh in this spring when Republican House leaders plan to allow a vote on an amendment to a Defense Department bill
that would curtail some of the NSA's surveillance authority. If approved, the measure would give GOP members political cover with their party's
most aggressive NSA critics. In the Democratic Party, progressive members are more likely to be aligned with tea party

Republicans than Clinton and Obama on the issue. Warren, a liberal favorite, said that while Obama's proposed reforms were "a
significant step forward," they didn't go far enough. She is among more than a dozen Democratic and three Republican senators who support
legislation that would end the 215 program. "Congress must go further to protect the right to privacy, to end the NSA's dragnet surveillance of
ordinary Americans, to make the intelligence community more transparent and accountable," Warren said in a statement to The Associated Press.

The intraparty divisions are clear on both sides , but at least one Republican strategist sees a silver lining.
Surveillance reform splits the Dems - USA Freedom Act proves
Fleitz 15 (Fred, "senior vice president for policy and programs for the Center for Security Policy," 5/11,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418207/nsa-data-collection-necessary-or-unconstitutional-fred-fleitz,
Congress also has struggled with NSA reform . Last May, the House passed the 2014 USA Freedom Act, which would put significant
restrictions on the 215 program, including a mandate that metadata be retained by the phone companies, not the NSA. Although I viewed this as a
bad bill, I endorsed it in a June 23, 2014, National Review article because I believed that, regardless of the merits and capabilities of the metadata
program, it has been so damaged by fear-mongering attacks by the press and some politicians that it could not continue in its current form.
Unfortunately, the House version of the USA Freedom Act was made substantially worse by Patrick Leahy, then-chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, who added restrictions that would effectively kill the metadata program and interfere with the
operation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of Leahys changes to the House version of the 2014 USA Freedom Act, it did
not garner a filibuster-proof majority last November, and the Senate failed to pass it. The top members of the Senate Intelligence

Committee then-chairman Feinstein

and Saxby Chambliss said Leahys bill went too far. Former CIA director Michael
Hayden and former attorney general Michael Mukasey condemned the bill in a November 17, 2014, Wall Street Journal op-ed titled NSA
Reform That Only ISIS Could Love. The challenge for Congress now is to pass legislation to extend the metadata program before it expires at
the end of this month. Members of Congress and staff have been working over the past three months to devise a 2015 version of the USA
Freedom Act. On April 30, the House Judiciary Committee approved this bill by a vote of 25 to 2. An identical version has been sponsored in the
Senate by Senators Leahy and Lee. The Houses 2015 USA Freedom Act is slightly better than the 2014 Senate version. The metadata program
would continue, although the data would be held by phone companies. NSA searches of metadata databases would be narrowed. The bill also
would create a panel of experts to advise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on privacy, civil liberties, and technological matters.
Significant FISC decisions would be declassified. The bill includes concessions to the House Intelligence Committee, such as allowing the NSA
authority to conduct surveillance for 72 hours without obtaining a warrant on foreign targets who enter the United States, and to monitor domestic
targets on whom it has a probable-cause warrant when they travel overseas. The NSA will also be allowed to use the Patriot Act to collect data
domestically in an emergency. The Left and privacy groups are split over the 2015 version of the USA Freedom Act. Some
have endorsed it, because they believe that it is the best they can get and that it will open the door to greater reform down the road. These groups
are pressuring Congress to remove the concessions made to the House Intelligence Committee. Several of these groups have stepped up their
efforts to amend the bill in the light of the May 7 New York Court of Appeals decision. Others on the left, such as the ACLU and the New York
Times, do not support the 2015 USA Freedom Act, since they would prefer that the electronic-surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act be
allowed to expire.

A2 Courts = Obama Avoids Blame

Liberal rulings cause massive backlash to the democrats and Obamas agenda gets blamed due to Kagan
and Sotomayor
Mirengoff 10 (Paul, attorney in Washington, D.C. A.B., Dartmouth College J.D., Stanford Law School, June 23 The
Federalist Society Online Debate Series, http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/dbtid.41/default.asp)
The other thing I found interesting was the degree to which Democrats used the hearings to attack the "Roberts Court." I don't recall either party
going this much on the offensive in this respect during the last three sets of hearings. What explains this development? My view is that liberal

Democratic politicians (and members of their base) think they lost the argument during the last three confirmation battles. John Roberts and
Samuel Alito "played" well, and Sonia Sotomayor sounded like a conservative. The resulting frustration probably induced the Democrats to be
more aggressive in general and, in particular, to try to discredit Roberts and Alito by claiming they are not the jurists they

appeared to be when they made such a good impression on the public. I'm pretty sure the strategy didn't work. First, as I said, these hearings
seem not to have attracted much attention. Second, Senate Democrats are unpopular right now, so their attacks on members of a more popular
institution are not likely to resonate. Third, those who watched until the bitter end saw Ed Whelan, Robert Alt and others persuasively counter the
alleged examples of "judicial activism" by the Roberts Court relied upon by the Democrats -- e.g., the Ledbetter case, which the Democrats
continue grossly to mischaracterize. There's a chance that the Democrats' latest partisan innovation will come back to haunt

them. Justice Sotomayor and soon-to-be Justice Kagan are on record having articulated a traditional, fairly minimalist view of
the role of judges. If a liberal majority were to emerge -- or even if the liberals prevail in a few high profile cases -- the charge of
"deceptive testimony" could be turned against them. And if Barack Obama is still president at that time, he likely will receive some of
the blame .
Democrats get the blame for liberal rulings like the plan
Tucker 95 (D.F.B., associate professor of political science at the University of Melbourne, The Rehnquist Court and
Civil Rights, p. 40-41)
The point I have been illustrating is that the

backlash generated by an activist Supreme Court is likely to influence the

political process of other political actors; indeed, that it is likely to provide an enormous advantage to those
politicians who are unscrupulous enough to oppose the Court. We see this in recent presidential contests in the United States
for the strategies adopted by the major political parties when conducting election campaigns have been shaped by an
on-going debate about liberal values, partly provoked by the activities of the Supreme Court . This phenomenon has been
very significant in the South because the Supreme Court was involved as a key instiuttion when the federal government brought segregation to an
end. But the Warren-Burger Courts role as an unwitting agent provocateur for the Republicans, encouraging conservative communities to shift
political allegiance away from the Democrats by presenting as a symbol of unpopular liberal principles, has not been confined to the issue of
racial justice. The Supreme Court expanded the liberal agenda enormously by bringing down unpopular and

controversial rulings relating to police powers, separation of Church and State, speech, and privacy. In a series of decisions, that stretch the
legal imagination and ingenuity even of their defenders, it recognized a number of new rights that protected stigmatized groups
that had little or no community support (for example, criminals, prisoners, athiests, pornographers, drug users); even more
controversially, it acted aggressively to withdraw protection from traditionally protected communities (such as poorly educated rural whaites and
the religious communities) by refusing to uphold claims to state autonomy (made in the name of the federal agreement originally embodied in the
Constitution). The Supreme Court justices acted in the name of liberal values and conditions of the federal division of powers that were widely
recognized and accepted. These interventions had the effect of placing progressive leaders in the Democratic Party

in a very vulnerable position . Although they knew that they were unable to secure public support for the rights and
liberties that the Court had decided to recognize, they felt obligated to defend the agenda the Court had foisted
upon them . This was partly because of their own personal values. (How can someone who strongly believes that liberal ideals are worthy
easily enter into a campaign to discredit the Courts imposition of those very values?)

Obama gets the electoral blame for liberal Court rulings

Loftin 10 (Britton, Political Strategist and Director of a Legislative & Government Affairs firm, "Is Obama To
Blame for Decline in Supreme Court Approval Ratings," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:CwTZ3gilzFQJ:politic365.com/2010/10/12/is-obama-to-blame-for-decline-in-supreme-court-approvalratings/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
Although the 2010 percentage is low compared to the previous year, the approval ratings for 2007 and 2008 are near the current rate. Could it be
that President Obamas declining approval ratings over the past year have resulted in guilt by association for the Supreme Court? Instead, is it
possible that the Supreme Courts recent 5-4 decision to reverse a position it took in 2003 to uphold government restrictions on political
expenditures by corporations has been perceived negatively in the public eye? The Supreme Court had great public approval ratings in 2009,

perhaps, in part, evidenced by the outpouring of support it received for then-appointee Justice Sonya Sotomayor. At the time, fervent support for a
Latino woman to be appointed to the Court seemed to generate positive feelings about its general performance. During President Obamas 2010
appointment of now Justice Elana Kagan, however, the Courts job approval numbers declined, even in spite of overwhelming support by the
Democratic base. The Presidents first Supreme Court appointment was a sign of transition from the previous

Republican era to a new Democratic administration. Further, America was engaged through wide media coverage of both of the
Presidents Supreme Court nominations. Sotomayor marked the first appointment of a Latino to the nations highest court. And as Democratic
excitement fueled President Obamas nomination, the Courts approval ratings remained high, according to Gallup, which polled American
approval ratings at 53% satisfied versus 33% dissatisfied. So whats changed? President Obama has now made two lifetime

appointment to the Supreme Court, and yet, the Democratic leaning presence has yet to politically balance the
bench. Ironically though, the view of most people polled by Gallup is that the bench has become more liberal. Thus, the Courts overall approval
ratings have declined. Its also interesting to note that as President Obamas approval ratings declined throughout 2010, so too did
overall satisfaction with the job performance of the Supreme Court. In the 2010-2011 Supreme Court Session, the cases
coming before the justices involve emotion driven topics: undocumented immigrant rights, information privacy, and free speech,
all issues that are sure to engage the American electorate. Back in 2009, the Courts approval ratings were bolstered by an
energized Democratic base consisting primarily of African Americans, Latinos and young people. Now, given a marked shift toward more
conservative ideology in the wake of continued economic recession and unemployment, it seems that satisfaction with the Supreme

Court is based less on actual job performance than it is on the perception that the Court has become too liberal
Obamas watch.

under

A2 Courts Not Perceived

Courts arent insulated from politicscontroversial, significant Court rulings generate national political
controversy
Champagne 6 (Anthony, Professor of Political Science, University of Texas, Dallas, 39 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 839,
lexis)
Attacks on the judiciary are nothing new in the sense that judges have always been subject to criticism in American politics. n80 In another sense,
however, a new development is emerging in the current criticisms of the judiciary. During the Roosevelt era, and for many
years afterwards, most of the heated battles in American politics were over economic issues and foreign policy questions such as involvement in
the Korean and Vietnam Wars. n81 Courts limited their involvement in these debates and, for the most part, deferred to the political branches. n82
However, courts steadily increased their involvement with controversial issues beginning with civil liberties [*849] questions during the Warren
Court era and continuing with social issues such as abortion, the free exercise of religion, women's rights, and gay rights. n83 Resolution of these
issues was in the judiciary, rather than the political process. n84 Ultimately, the involvement of the judiciary did have political

consequences. Over a period of several decades, social con-servatives who viewed many of these court decisions as reflecting
immoral or inappropriate values, reacted with a sense of moral urgency. n85 At the same time, people with less traditional or more
secular values strongly supported these same decisions. n86 As the previously discussed data demonstrates, these two groups' competing views of
judicial decisions materialized in the increasingly divergent views of the Democratic and Republican parties. The gulf between the

perspectives of Democrats and Republicans regarding court decisions with significant social ramifications
guaranteed that the courts, judges, and their decisions would become part of the national political debate . It
does not appear that the political controversy over the courts will diminish any time soon . The era of "umbrella"
political parties where each party had numerous members reflecting a variety of views is gone. Today's parties increasingly reflect sharply
divergent views. n87 This development, of course, explains the lack of cooper-ation and the proliferation of partisanship in Washington. There is
no evidence that this pattern will change in the near future. Nor is it likely that the courts can now remove themselves from the

political thicket. How, for example, could the courts avoid controversy over such questions as abortion? A reaffirmation of Roe v. Wade n88
would lead to intense criticism of the Court by Roe's opponents. Yet, to overturn the decision would lead to a similar response from Roe's
supporters. What we now have, for good or ill, is a new era for the American judiciary - an era when battles over

control of the judiciary and criticism of the bench reflect the underlying division in the country over its social
values. Long ago, Justice Felix Frankfurter warned against the Court entering the "political thicket" when commenting on the issue of
reapportionment of legislatures. n89 The battle over the judiciary today with respect to social issues demonstrates that once the
courts enter the "political thicket", it is impossible for them to escape . Yet, courts have survived political controversies in the
past, even when, like the thicket of reapportionment, they pose longstanding and seemingly unsolvable problems. There is no reason to believe
that the thicket of social issues will be any different. [*851]

There's only risk of the linknegative public reactions to Supreme Court decisions are more intense and
longer-lasting than positive public reactions
Friedman 5 (Barry, Prof of Law @ NYU, 84 Tex. L. Rev. 257, lexis)
Although the Court's degree of freedom of movement around public opinion may not be certain, positive scholars are fairly confident that one
major determinant is information. The dynamics here are complex, but some generalities may be possible . Both negative and positive

reactions to the Court influence public opinion, but negative reactions seem to be more intense and have a shorter
half-life . n395 Perhaps it is for this reason that the less people hear about the Court, the better for it . n396 As time passes,
people develop a store of good feelings about the Supreme Court, reflected in the Court's relatively strong performance in public mood indicators.
n397 Commentators who have studied public opinion and the Court regularly advise it to keep a low profile . n398

Ex-Im Bank Answers

Reauthorization Wont Pass

Ex-Im Bank reauthorization won't pass - strong conservative opposition
Cama 6/1/15 (Timothy, The Hill, "Nuclear industry intensifies push to reauthorize Ex-Im Bank,"
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/243598-nuclear-industry-intensifies-push-to-reauthorize-ex-im-bank)
The nuclear power industry is rushing against the clock to convince lawmakers to authorize the Export-Import Bank
before it expires June 30. Companies that make reactors and related equipment say the Ex-Im program is essential to
continuing their business and the thousands of jobs that rely on it, because the international market for their goods
and services is much more active than the domestic one. They face tough odds, including major, high-ranking
opposition in the House from Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Ways and Means
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), along with major
conservative organizations. Opponents like conservative group Americans for Prosperity label the bank as corporate
welfare and say that businesses shouldnt need government help to sell their products across the globe.

Not Key to Econ Heg 2ac

Ex-Im Bank financing not key to economic strength its impact is exaggerated
Zarroli 6/11/15 (Jim, Columnist @ NPR, "U.S. Export-Import Bank Targeted By Conservatives,"
http://www.npr.org/2015/06/11/413619367/u-s-export-import-bank-targeted-by-conservatives)
Richard Beranek,

president of Miner Elastomer Products Corp., which makes manufacturing parts, says that without the Ex-Im
Bank, the Illinois company wouldn't be able to export as much as it does. "Would it put me out of business? It would not. Would it
slow my business down? I think it would," he says. But John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that in many cases, U.S. companies
have to have the backing of a big credit agency such as the Ex-Im Bank or they can't get foreign contracts. "For instance, foreign infrastructure
projects. If you want to bid most of the time you need to have Ex-Im support," Murphy says. "If it's a nuclear power plant project abroad, Ex-Im
support is required and without it you can't even bid." But the biggest thing the Ex-Im Bank does is guarantee loans to foreign companies so they
can buy U.S.-made products. For instance, foreign airlines that want to buy Boeing jets often do so with loans underwritten by the Ex-Im Bank.
Murphy says a lot of countries now offer similar loan guarantees to help their businesses export more. "So if the United States and our exporters
don't have something similar, that's one knock against us," he says. But to a lot of free market conservatives, what the Ex-Im Bank does amounts
to crony capitalism, and they want Congress to let the bank's charter expire June 30. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at

George Mason University says the Ex-Im Bank distorts the economy. For example, she says loan guarantees for foreign
airlines may be great for Boeing, but they're bad for U.S. airlines. "Domestic airlines can't have access to subsidies to buy
airplanes, but they have to compete with foreign companies like [Emirates and] Air India," she says. And those airlines are getting a subsidy,

supporters of the bank are vastly exaggerating its importance . She says some
U.S. companies will do just fine without it. "All of the companies that
export, a vast majority do it without any help from the governmen t and yet there are those selected few who got
cheaper financing," she says.
thanks to the Ex-Im Bank. De Rugy says

companies reap benefits from it, but she says most

Not Key to Econ Heg 1ar

Ex-Im Bank not key to US manufacturing or the US economy big exporters dont need the financing
Snell 3/22/12 (Kelsey, National Journal, "Export-Import Bank on the Firing Line," lexis)
But opponents (deficit hawks, laissez-faire types) point out that neither its mission nor its track record merits renewal. Ex-Im

was
responsible for backing just $40 billion (2 percent) of the nearly $2 trillion U.S. export market last year, according to
bank Chairman Fred Hochberg. What's more, about 80 percent of its funds went to giant multinationals that hardly need
incentives to stay active in global markets. After all, big U.S. corporations wouldn't suddenly stop trading in some
iffy markets if federal financing dried up. Boeing would keep selling planes across Africa. Caterpillar would keep
sending backhoes to dig ditches in Costa Rica. General Electric would keep selling components across the globe.
Ex-Im Bank not key to the economy - it's resources directly trade off with more efficient private sector efforts
at job creation
James 3/14/12 (Sallie, Trade Analyst @ CATO, "Expanding Ex-Im's Mandate Is A Big Mistake,"
http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/expanding-exims-mandate-is-big-mistake)
Proponents of the Ex-Im Bank rely on four chief rationales for the bank's existence.2 First, they argue that the bank creates jobs, a
dubious proposition when one considers that the bank's resources are simply diverted from other uses where
they would be employed more productively by the private sector. The bank has special programs for certain types of
industries green energy, for example and certain groups of people (women, minorities). The conditions and preferences that the
bank sets in its activities compound the market distortions stemming from the bank's intervention in credit markets,
leaving the economy less efficient and less prosperous than it would be overall , even if certain firms or groups happen to
benefit.

Impact Turn Hurts Econ Heg

Abolishing Ex-Im Bank is key to US economic leadership boosts global economic soft power
Evenett 15 (Simon, Prof of Econ @ Univ. of St Gallen - Switzerland, "A possible precursor to greater US
leadership," 4/27, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fw3C5KB2R8J:www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec33974c-e9e5-11e4-a68700144feab7de.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#axzz3cwW37Mtv)
Your customary good sense on trade policy was not reflected in your editorial on the US Export-Import Bank (The wobbly
that closing this bank, in the face of more subsidised foreign rivals, is an act of
unilateral disarmament amounts to a form of mercantilism and piling trade distortion upon trade distortion. I would certainly agree,
Sir,

economic leadership from America, April 24). Arguing

however, that the hidden subsidisation of exports through export credit agencies and perhaps even more significantly through national tax
systems has grown significantly since the onset of the global economic crisis. You mention the $670bn of subsidised credit given by Chinese
banks to help companies win contracts abroad. To this could be added an elaborate system of Chinese VAT rebates for exporters that, unlike other
countries, has been fine-tuned throughout the crisis in a manner that is nothing less than a policy of export management. Significant new tax
breaks for exports are offered by Brazil and India as well, among others. This form of beggar-thy-neighbour activity amounts to stealing market
share from trading partners in third markets. For sure, the economics of subsidies is different from tariffs, but the harm to disadvantaged foreign
rivals is still there. You may have overlooked one potential systemic benefit of closing the US Export-Import Bank.

With the US eschewing this form of largesse for exporters, it would likely become the leading proponent for tougher
international rules on subsidies. A deal could be forged between the big players, ideally in the context of the World Trade Organisation,
assuming that body recovers its salience. Governments in the rest of the world, that can neither afford these export incentives
or are not prepared to allow their banking systems to overlend to exporters, would applaud . It is quite possible that
abolishing the US Export-Import Bank is a precursor to greater US global economic leadership, not less .

Impact Turn Helps Mexican Cartels

Ex-Im Bank loans empower Mexican drug cartels past reports prove
Drennen 3/22/12 (Kyle, Newsbusters, "NBC's Mitchell Bashes GOP 'Idiots' Opposing Government Bank That
Subsidized Drug Cartels, Solyndra," http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2012/03/22/nbcs-mitchell-bashsrepublican-idiots-opposing-government-bank-subsidi#ixzz1qWdMSSDv)
On her eponymous MSNBC program on Wednesday, host Andrea Mitchell

slammed congressional Republicans for voting down

reauthorization and funding of the U.S. Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank: "If I'm sitting out there and watching this program, I would, you
know, likely say right now these people in Congress are idiots." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump] Mitchell interviewed the
bank's director, Fred Hochberg, and lobbed softballs: "What happens in the real world with an agency that is supposed to create jobs is going to
have to lay people off if you don't get reauthorized?" What she failed to ask Hochberg about was the bank providing loans to

companies fronting for Mexican drug cartels or to European companies hoping to buy solar panels from bankrupt solar energy
company Solyndra. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is essentially to provide subsidies to foreign companies in order to encourage them to buy
American goods. However, over recent years, the taxpayer-funded government agency has made some highly dubious

loans. According to a 2007 report from WFAA Channel 8 in the Dallas/Forth Worth area (h/t to Tim Carney of The Examiner), the
Ex-Im Bank made $234 million worth of loans to Mexican small businesses between 2002 and 2005 that were
actually phony companies setup by violent drug cartels.
Mexican drug cartels enable nuclear terrorist attacks within the United States
Rapacki 12 (Lyle, Security Consultant @ Sentinel Intelligence Services, Member @ ASIS International, PhD in
Foreinsic Profiling/Threat Assessments, "Middle East Terrorists Operating along Arizona Southern Border,"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YxV2odtLXqoJ:www.aim.org/guest-column/middle-eastterrorists-operating-along-arizona-southern-border/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
The southern border of Arizona remains unsecure with a growing threat from those who detest America in every way and
intend to destroy our country. This threat is not simply Mexican drug dealers, although they are posing an ever increasing and
violent presence as they move into Arizona, and then launch their activities into257 known American cities, according to the National Association
for Retired Border Patrol Officers. A more ominous threat of the unsecure southern border into the U.S. is the increased activity of

Middle Eastern terrorists. Since Oct, 2003, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson, AZ sector apprehended 5,510 illegals from countries other
than Mexico, Central or South America. In this Tucson sector, captured illegals were Middle Eastern and spoke Farsi or Arabic. A large number of
these that were apprehended escaped capture and disappeared into the United States. The Arizona desert is littered with evidence of illegals
coming from countries that are violently opposed to and stated enemies of America; especially countries like Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Syria,

Further evidence demonstrates the growing

relationship and cooperation by these terrorist groups and drug cartels , as well as criminal gangs like MS-13. Much of this

Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and the spreading al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

activity stems from miles of open borders in Arizona, and the fierce open miles of desert unique to southern Arizona. One cannot fully appreciate,
much less understand, the rough and unforgiving regions of desert unless you actually have been there pictures alone will not suffice. Cartels

and gangs have taken up residence on multiple pathways, created desert roadways, mountains and command activity within their
dedicated region or sector. With military grade weapons, satellite communications, high powered vision aide, these scouts and small
pockets of soldiers are becoming increasingly formidable. This aids in the movement of small groups of suspected
terrorists through the desert deep into Arizona, and then to a final destination. FOR YOUR ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION 1. The U.S.
Congress Committee on Foreign Affairs received testimony on February 2nd, 2012, that demonstrated Irans growing influence along the U.S.
Border south of Arizona. Michael Braun, a former chief of operations for DEA, testified that Hezbollah has developed

strong and sophisticated relationships with Mexican drug cartels . One dimension to this relationship is the control of the
southern Border of Arizona, then corridors into every region of America. 2. There is growing chatter that Iran will strike the United States from
within if Irans nuclear program is attacked. Once again, the southern Border of Arizona comes into focus, as a significant corridor for assets
hostile to America to travel. 3. Besides Iran and Hezbollah, South American satellite terrorist-sponsoring nations like Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador,
Nicaragua are assisting with the massing and training of terrorists, weapons (including medium-range missiles), logistics and other support.
Latin America is quickly becoming a platform from which an attack against the United States can be launched. This
includes moving aforesaid terrorist groups, with cooperation from Mexican drug cartels , right up to the border
south of Arizona and into Arizona, an activity that was revealed in testimony before the U.S. Congress Committee on Homeland Security,
subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence on 7 July 2011. 4. Back in 2005, a captured ranking al-Qaeda agent revealed

the
plan to move nuclear materials from South America through the border and into America for attacks at a later date. Adnan ashShukrijumah, one of the worlds most wanted terrorists, it was learned, was chosen by bin Laden to serve as the field commander for the terrorist
attack on U.S. soil. The code name: The American

Hiroshima plan was affixed. This plan purportedly is to launch

simultaneous explosions on American cities . American law enforcement agencies have been seriously looking for Adnan ash-

Shukrijumah since 2005. The latest FBI Most Wanted reports (1/19/2012) indicate that Shukrijumah is still at large. 5. The Federal Government
is proclaiming how border apprehensions are down 40%. This is misleading. What is not being shared with the public is the fact that Fed policy is
to count only selected groups and allow others to go free or to turn south back to Mexico counting neither category. This is a quick overview of
just one segment of the multifaceted problems associated with the Arizona Border Wars. Although short, the contents should be alarming
concerning the sophisticated and dedicated forces accumulating along Arizonas Border. The Federal Government knows all of this, and more.
The general public does not. The Federal Government is quite aware the border (both the southern border and that along Canada) is porous in
many ways, and true undesirables are streaming across. This briefing is not about the migrant looking for seasonal work, but about the hardened
criminal, the dedicated terrorist whose plans are to destroy the United States of America in any manner possible.

Nuke terror causes extinction tech and poor response mechanisms

Myhrvold 13 (Nathan, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton, and founded Intellectual
Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic
Terrorism: A Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf)
Several powerful

trends have aligned to profoundly change the way that the world works. Technology now allows
stateless groups to organize, recruit, and fund themselves in an unprecedented fashion. That, coupled with the extreme
difficulty of finding and punishing a stateless group, means that stateless groups are positioned to be lead players on
the world stage. They may act on their own, or they may act as proxies for nation-states that wish to duck
responsibility. Either way, stateless groups are forces to be reckoned with. At the same time, a different set of technology trends means
that small numbers of people can obtain incredibly lethal power. Now, for the first time in human history, a small group can
be as lethal as the largest superpower. Such a group could execute an attack that could kill millions of people. It is technically
feasible for such a group to kill billions of people, to end modern civilizationperhaps even to drive the human race to
extinction. Our defense establishment was shaped over decades to address what was, for a long time, the only strategic threat our nation
faced: Soviet or Chinese missiles. More recently, it has started retooling to address tactical terror attacks like those launched on the morning of
9/11, but the reform process is incomplete and inconsistent. A real defense will require rebuilding our military and intelligence

capabilities from the ground up. Yet, so far, strategic terrorism has received relatively little attention in defense agencies,
and the efforts that have been launched to combat this existential threat seem fragmented. History suggests what will happen.
The only thing that shakes America out of complacency is a direct threat from a determined adversary that confronts us with our shortcomings
by repeatedly attacking us or hectoring us for decades.

Impact Turn Causes Warming

Ex-Im Bank loans are used to finance fossil-fuel projects globally increases global warming via substantial
carbon emissions
Drajem 10 (Mark, Bloomberg, "Obamas Trade Goal Fights His Clean-Energy Plan (Update4),"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=azsyfkxGOAkY)
March 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obamas

goals of boosting U.S. exports and combating climate change are

colliding as the U.S. Export-Import Bank expands financing for oil, gas, mining and power-plant projects .
Bank-supported ventures approved in the year ended Sept. 30 will emit an estimated 17.9 million metric tons of carbon
annually, more than triple the previous year and the most since the lender started releasing data in 2001, according to its annual reports.
Among companies aided were General Electric Co. and Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexicos state-owned oil business. Ex-Im is on a fossilfuel binge, said Doug Norlen, policy director at PacificEnvironment, an environmental advocacy group in San Francisco. The
Washington-based Export-Import Bank works to boost U.S. sales overseas by providing government-backed loans or guarantees to exporters.
Obama, who has made doubling exports over the next five years a top goal, praised the bank for increasing financing to a record during the global
downturn last year. Well continue to increase the amount of trade financing Ex-Im offers, Obama said at the banks annual conference in
Washington today. At the same time, Obama is pushing for a global agreement to curtail carbon emissions blamed for climate change. In
September he persuaded nations in the Group of 20 to pledge an end of subsidies to oil, gas and coal. Historic End to Aid Stopping aid for
fossil fuels will mark an historic effort to increase energy security and combat climate change, Obama said when the announcement was made.
As private credit dried up with the recession, the Export- Import Banks financing grew 50 percent to $21 billion in the last fiscal year. More

lending means more projects, such as power plants, that generate carbon emissions, said James Mahoney, the banks vice
president for engineering and the environment. Our primary purpose is to create and sustain jobs through exports, John McAdams, the banks
senior vice president, said in an interview. The largest project yet approved by the lender, $3 billion in financing announced in December for a
liquefied natural-gas plant and pipeline sponsored by Exxon Mobil Corp. and its partners in Papua New Guinea, will generate 3.1 million tons of
emissions each year, according to company projections. Colombia, Brazil In addition, the bank is considering funding for an aluminum smelter
in the United Arab Emirates and has pledged $1 billion to Ecopetrol SA, Colombias state oil producer. The bank also may provide $5 billion in
financing for U.S. suppliers of Brazils oil producer, Petroleo Brasileiro SA. The Export-Import Bank says it increased lending for solar, wind
and other clean-energy technology exports to $101 million in the year ended Sept. 30, more than three times the year before. The bank on March
9 approved a plan to provide fast- track approval for renewable-energy deals, a spokesman, Phil Cogan, said. The bank says it has already taken
steps, such as disclosing emissions in its annual report and requiring environmental assessments before approvals, to deal with the effects of
development. We are very sensitive to these projects and the concerns over emissions, McAdams said. The projects we have approved
represent that sensitivity. Caterpillar, Halliburton Exporters including Caterpillar Inc., GE and Halliburton Co. have relied on the government
support to sell bulldozers, electric turbines and oil-field drilling equipment. Restricting the bank in the name of clean energy would completely
undermine the presidents goal of doubling exports, Bill Lane, Washington director for Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar, said in an interview.
Ex-Im Bank is the bank of last resort, so you would be ceding important export markets to our foreign competitors, said Lane, whose company
is the worlds largest maker of bulldozers and excavators. Environmental advocates such as Norlen say the Obama administration should swear
off oil and gas projects. Another government lender, the Overseas Private Investment Corp., pledged to cut emissions from its

projects by 20 percent over the next decade. The Export-Import Bank hasnt set a similar goal. Makes a Mockery The
banks environmental policy is a disappointment because it would allow an increase in spending on coal and other
technologies harmful to the environment, said Steve Kretzmann, who runs Washington-based Oil Change International, which seeks
to curb government aid to fossil-fuel companies. It makes a mockery of the Obama administrations supposed
commitment to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies, Kretzmann said in an interview. The project in Papua New Guinea led by Irving,
Texas-based Exxon has become a particular point of contention. The pipelines construction will destroy pristine tropical forests,
PacificEnvironments Norlen said in a submission to the lender in September.

CO2basedwarmingisreal,humancaused,andcausesextinctionactingnowkey
Mccoy14(Dr.DavidMcCoyetal.,MD,CentreforInternationalHealthandDevelopment,UniversityCollege
London,ClimateChangeandHumanSurvival,BRITISHMEDICALJOURNALv.348,4214,doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510)
TheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)hasjustpublisheditsreportontheimpactsofglobalwarming.Buildingonitsrecent
updateofthephysicalscienceofglobalwarming[1],theIPCCsnewreportshouldleavetheworldinnodoubt aboutthescale

andimmediacy ofthethreattohumansurvival ,health,andwellbeing.TheIPCChasalreadyconcludedthatitis virtually

certain thathumaninfluencehaswarmedtheglobalclimatesystemandthatitis
extremelylikely thatmorethan
halfoftheobservedincreaseinglobalaveragesurfacetemperaturefrom1951to2010isanthropogenic[1].Itsnewreport
outlinesthefuturethreatsoffurtherglobalwarming:increasedscarcityoffoodandfreshwater;extremeweatherevents;
riseinsealevel;lossofbiodiversity;areasbecominguninhabitable; andmasshumanmigration,conflictand

violence.Leakeddraftstalkofhundredsofmillionsdisplacedinalittleover80years.Thismonth,theAmericanAssociationforthe
AdvancementofScience(AAAS)addeditsvoice:thewellbeingofpeopleofallnations[is]atrisk.[2]Suchcommentsreaffirmthe
conclusionsoftheLancet/UCLCommission:thatclimatechangeisthegreatestthreat tohumanhealthofthe21stcentury.[3]
Thechangesseensofarmassivearcticicelossandextremeweatherevents,forexamplehaveresultedfromanestimatedaveragetemperature
riseof0.89Csince1901.Furtherchangeswilldependonhowmuchwecontinuetoheattheplanet.Thereleaseofjustanother
275gigatonnesofcarbondioxidewouldprobablycommitustoatemperatureriseofatleast2Canamountthatcouldbeemittedinlessthan
eightyears.[4]Businessasusual willincreasecarbondioxide

concentrationsfromthecurrentlevelof400partspermillion
(ppm),whichisa40%increasefrom280ppm150yearsago,to936ppmby2100,witha50:50chancethatthiswilldeliverglobalmean
temperaturerisesofmorethan4C.Itisnowwidelyunderstoodthatsuchariseisincompatiblewithanorganisedglobalcommunity.[5].The

IPCCwarnsof tippingpoints intheEarthssystem,which,ifcrossed,couldleadtoacatastrophiccollapse of

interlinkedhumanandnaturalsystems.TheAAASconcludesthatthereisnowarealchanceofabrupt, unpredictable
andpotentiallyirreversible changeswithhighlydamaging impactsonpeoplearoundtheglobe.[2]Andthisweekareport
fromtheWorldMeteorologicalOffice(WMO)confirmedthatextremeweathereventsareaccelerating.WMOsecretarygeneralMichelJarraud
said,Thereisnostandstillinglobalwarming...Thelawsofphysicsarenonnegotiable.[6]

Impact Turn Causes Protectionism 2ac

Ex-Im Bank sparks protectionist, retaliatory policies
James 3/14/12 (Sallie, Trade Analyst @ CATO, "Expanding Ex-Im's Mandate Is A Big Mistake,"
http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/expanding-exims-mandate-is-big-mistake)
Perhaps the

most worrying aspect of the administration's plans is the apparent lack of standards or limits on where this
subsidy race would end. Multilateral efforts to solve the growth of official export credits the best way of dealing with this problem
don't appear to feature prominently in the administration's plans. The administration and other bank supporters have expressed concerns in the
past about China, which is not a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and thus not bound by its 1978
agreement that limits export finance subsidies. But the "solution" put forward by the administration appears to accept export

credit subsidies as a fact of life, as a substitute for trying to open dialogue to limit the export credit arms race. The
administration's proposal, in other words, would see the United States match "export" financing, including for sales on home
turf, to a pace and scope set by Beijing. Rather than set off an ever-escalating round of tit-fortat export credit
subsidies, the federal government should seek to promote free markets at home and abroad and, in any case, refrain
from growing ever larger in a futile and counterproductive attempt to micromanage the economy. The Ex-Im Bank's activities, even now,
do not constitute a legitimate role of the federal government. Expanding the bank would be a mistake. Legislators should be looking toward
winding down the bank completely, not expanding its role.

Protectionism causes multiple scenarios for global WMD conflict

Panzner 8 (Michael, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and
currency markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank,
and JPMorgan Chase Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, pg. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew
forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series
of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and
devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a
mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify.
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call
for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly
difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on
foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying

to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on
investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets , disrupting
global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business
confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial
pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily
spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be
viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated
arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of
production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or
basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand
seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become
more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters , often with minimal
provocation. In some instances, economic

conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from
cultural and religious differences . Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems
by channeling frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology
and the waning threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their
horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage
aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue nations running amok . Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated
sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark
on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies
from around the world into a growing number of conflicts . Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the
University of Chicago, have even speculated that an intense confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable at some point.
More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be

transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate
quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or
nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause
widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new
world war .

Impact Turn Protectionism 1ar

Ex-Im Bank financing triggers protectionist retaliation
James 3/14/12 (Sallie, Trade Analyst @ CATO, "Expanding Ex-Im's Mandate Is A Big Mistake,"
http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/expanding-exims-mandate-is-big-mistake)
The fourth justification for the bank's existence is that it "levels the playing field" by stepping in to match official
export credit provided to U.S. firms' rivals by their own governments. This justification is slightly more defensible than the
others, but it is still motivated by a misguided mercantilist worldview in which foreign governments' subsidies are seen as something to lament
and correct. In any event, spending by rich-country governments on official export credit has actually fallen in

recent years, although the bank and its supporters claim that export credit financing has increased markedly in fast-growing developing
countries against which U.S. firms have to compete. It is this last role that the Obama administration hopes to expand in size and scope, by
increasing Ex-Im's exposure cap and by allowing the bank to finance domestic sales. It

is not difficult to imagine a never-ending

cycle of subsidies and countersubsidies as official export credit agencies seek to gain advantages at home and
abroad.
Ex-Im Bank loans spark protectionist retaliatory policies AND serve to undermine domestic industries like
airlines
Will 3/16/12 (George, Syndicated Columnist, Wash Post, "Export-Import Banks damage to American firms,"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/export-import-banks-damage-to-americanfirms/2012/03/15/gIQAFDSNHS_story.html)
The bank, whose current reauthorization expires May 31 and which two months before that might hit the $100billion cap on its loan exposure,

subsidizes myriad export transactions with guaranteed loans to make U.S. exports cheaper. Mission creep is a metabolic
urge of government agencies, but there may be mission gallop at the bank as it tries to correct the collateral damage it does to some U.S.
companies and as it is pushed to further politicize credit markets by mirroring the market-distorting policies of foreign governments. The banks
Web site says that it helps to level the playing field for U.S. exporters by matching the financing that other governments provide to their
exporters. But a levelers work is never done. There is a reason critics have called Ex-Im Boeings bank. Americas biggest
exporter is by far the biggest beneficiary of the banks activities. But when

the banks interventions in financing help Boeing sell

planes to China, India and other nations, it enhances the ability of those nations airlines to compete often using
discounted excess capacity with U.S. international carriers. The bank is only lightly constrained by the law that supposedly leashes
it. The bank is required to consider any serious adverse effect on U.S. companies before supporting foreign purchasers to help other U.S.
companies. But Richard B. Hirst, general counsel of Delta Air Lines, charges that the bank exempts 99.8 percent of its transactions from this
requirement. Hirst says that, from 2005 to 2010, the bank financed or guaranteed the financing for purchases of 634 Boeing aircraft and in
2011 it authorized over $11.4 billion in financing for foreign airlines to purchase Boeing aircraft. Because airlines are capital-intensive,
subsidized loans give foreign carriers a competitive advantage over U.S. international carriers. Hirst says that if Delta had been eligible for
similar subsidies, it could have saved approximately $100 million a year in financing costs and could have used that money to hire more
workers or even purchase additional aircraft from Boeing. To which Washingtons likely response will be: Fine, lets expand the banks
mandate. Speaking last month at a Boeing plant in Everett, Wash., President Obama pledged to give American companies a fair shot by
matching the unfair export financing that their competitors receive from other countries. This looks like a promise to compound market
distortions by further politicizing credit markets, while enunciating no limiting principle. Obama is directing the bank to offer United Airlines a
subsidy to match any subsidy Canada offers to persuade United to choose the Montreal-made Bombardier as United chooses between it, Boeing
and Airbus. So American taxpayers will subsidize United to subsidize Boeing, which is already being subsidized in ways injurious to Delta and
others. There is an understandable urge to counter the subsidies that foreign governments give to companies

competing with U.S. companies. The result, however, is an increasingly mercantilist world. And as Hirsts argument
indicates, it is difficult to prove that the net effect is to increase employment rather than just redistribute employment to different and,
inevitably, politically astute companies and sectors. As Sallie James says, public choice theory teaches that government favors flow to the
politically connected. Favor-dispensing institutions such as the Export-Import Bank are dispensing incentives for private interests to develop
lucrative political connections. What next? Look for proposals to authorize the bank to subsidize U.S. manufacturers competing with foreign
imports that have price advantages because of government subsidies. And so it goes, subsidies begetting counter-subsidies , as U.S.
trade policy is increasingly set by foreign governments.