Notes

Hello GDI campers! This summers politics disad is about immigration reform. This is an issue thats been brought before Congress before but they never got it done and its now one of the biggest issues on Obamas agenda in his second term. Just one term to note: CIR = comprehensive immigration reform.

Neg

Shells

1NC Immigration Politics

Immigration reform is passing now with bipartisan support, but differences remain CNN 5-16 [House group agrees on immigration reform, May 16th, 2013 ,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/16/breaking-house-reaches-immigration-agreement/, Chetan]
Washington (CNN) - After

months of intense negotiations, a bipartisan U.S. House group has reached an "agreement in principle" on immigration reform, according to Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, one of the GOP members of the group. A Democratic aide familiar with the discussions confirmed that all the members signed on and told CNN both Democrats and Republicans "will now run the whole package past their respective leadership and colleagues" and aim to formally introduce legislation at the beginning of June. Diaz-Balart declined to get into the details of the deal, but said, " there's going to be a lot of differences in a lot of areas," from a bipartisan measure working its way through the Senate. "Filing a real
bipartisan bill a serious, enforceable commonsense bill is, I think, a huge step. But it's the first step of the process a very important s tep," Diaz-Balart told reporters outside the House floor Thursday. The four Republican members of the House group include Diaz-Balart, Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho, and Rep. John Carter and Rep. Sam Johnson, both of Texas. The four Democrats are Reps. Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren, both of California, Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, and Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Carter told reporters earlier on Thursday that the last sticking point involved whether the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States would get access to government health care benefits. It's unclear how the group resolved that issue. Carter also said that because Republican and Democratic negotiators were unable to come to an agreement on a program overseeing guest workers, the group decided to leave that issue out of the bill. But both planned to offer their proposals separately, likely as amendments to the main legislation. Both sides

differed on how many worker visas should be allowed for construction companies and other industries relying on low skilled labor workers. House Speaker John Boehner pledged that any immigration bill would move through the
appropriate committees in the House before any vote by the full chamber. A key test for the bipartisan deal will come when the House Judiciary Committee takes it up, because that panel includes a significant number of conservatives, who have pledged to block any measure that allows a path to citizenship for undocumented workers. Boehner signaled he wanted the House to have its own version to negotiate a final immigration bill with the Democratic-led Senate. "I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will," Boehner said on Thursday. The Senate plan is now being considered by the Judiciary Committee.

OCS drilling cooperation with Cuba drains Obamas political capital massive backlash Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist
in Latin American Affairs, Cubas Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf, Chetan] On the opposite side of the policy debate, a number of policy groups and members of Congress oppose engagement with Cuba, including U.S. investment in Cubas offshore energy development . A legislative initiative introduced in the 111th Congress, H.R. 5620, would have gone further by imposing visa restrictions and economic sanctions on foreign companies and their executives who help facilitate the development of Cubas petroleum resources. The bill asserted that offshore drilling by or under the authorization of the Cuban government poses a serious economic and environmental threat to the Unite d States because of the damage that an oil spill could cause. Opponents of U.S. support for Cubas offshore oil development also argue that such involvement would provide an economic lifeline to the Cuban government and thus prolong the continuation of the communist regime. They maintain that if Cuba reaped substantial economic benefits from offshore oil development, it could reduce societal pressure on Cuba to enact market-oriented economic reforms. Some who oppose U.S. involvement in Cubas energy develo pment contend that while Cuba might have substantial amounts of oil offshore, it will take years to develop. They maintain that the Cuban government is using the enticement of potential oil profits to break down the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba .78

Obamas capital is critical to overcome those differences to negotiate a deal Washington Post 5-2 [Why is immigration going so much better for Obama than the budget, May 2nd, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/02/why-is-immigration-going-so-much-better-forobama-than-the-budget/, Chetan]
In his news conference on Tuesday, Obama expressed confidence that Congress would overhaul immigration laws what he said would be an historic achievement while he was less optimistic about whether he could achieve a grand bargain on the debt. Somehow, the election and public opinion more generally have produced two different outcomes. On immigration, Senate Republicans led by 2016 presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) are eager to strike and sell a deal. But they seem content to stand their ground on the budget. Why? The question has prompted much discussion about the structural forces shaping Congress and Obamas limited power to overcome them. The conventional thinking is that on immigration, Republicans are in survival mode: They recognize they need Hispanics to win national elections. On the other hand, Republicans do not see much to lose in a budget fight with Obama, and they see much more to lose if they make themselves vulnerable to primary challenges from the right. This argument is elegant in that it looks at the incentives facing Republicans, and to a large degree it is fair. But its also

an oversimplification. Obamas role has been more important than it may seem in shaping the political forces in Washington, but the underlying dynamics favoring an immigration deal and auguring against a budget agreement are even stronger than many recognize. In asking why Republicans seem responsive to public opinion on immigration but impervious on the budget, consider the following chart: Its extremely unlikely that Republicans would be considering an immigration deal in the absence of Obamas aggressive pursuit of an overhaul . In words and action, Obama forced Republicans to take a position on the issue. He also created space for more voters to support a pathway to citizenship by being quite tough on illegal immigrants facing deportation often to the displeasure of the
Hispanic community. Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, staked out a far different position, opposing any pathway to citizenship. Republicans were savaged on Election Day: exit polling showed Obama winning Hispanics by 44 percentage points.

CIR spurs economic growth --- it produces jobs, tax revenue and increases wages. Center for American Progress, 1/14/2010 (How Immigration Reform Would Help the Economy, p.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2010/01/14/7130/how-immigration-reform-would-helpthe-economy/) A new report, Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, by Dr. Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, finds that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants and enables a future flow of legal workers would result in a large economic benefit a cumulative $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years. In stark contrast, a deportation- only policy would
result in a loss of $2.6 trillion in GDP over 10 years. Hinojosa uses a computable general equilibrium model based on the historical experience of

C omprehensive i mmigration r eform that includes a legalization program for unauthorized immigrants would stimulate the U.S. economy . Immigration reform would increase U.S. GDP by at least 0.84 percent. This would translate into at least a $1.5 trillion cumulative increase in GDP over 10 years, which includes approximately $1.2 trillion in consumption and $256 billion in investment. The benefits of additional GDP growth would be spread broadly throughout the U.S. economy , but immigrant-heavy sectors such as textiles, electronic equipment, and construction would see particularly large increases. The higher earning power of newly legalized workers would mean increased tax revenues of $4.5 billion to $5.4 billion in the first three years. Higher personal income would also generate increased consumer spendingenough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the United States. Experience shows that legalized workers open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses, further stimulating the U.S. economy . Comprehensive immigration reform increases all workers wages. The real wages of less-skilled newly legalized workers would increase by roughly $4,405 per year, while higher-skilled workers would see their income increase $6,185 per year. The wages of native-born high-skill and low-skill U.S. workers also increase modestly under comprehensive
the 1986 legalization program, and finds that: immigration reform because the wage floor rises for all workers. Legalized workers invest more in their human capital, including education, job training, and English-language skills, making them even more productive workers and higher earners. Mass deportation is costly, lowers wages, and harms the U.S. economy. Mass deportation would reduce U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent, amounting to a cumulative $2.6 trillion loss in GDP over 10 years, not including the actual costs of deportation. The Center for American Progress has estimated that mass deportation would cost $206 billion to $230 billion over five years. Wages would rise for less-skilled native-born workers under a mass deportation scenario, but

higher-skilled natives wages would decrease, and there would be widespread job loss. Studies

from various researchers with divergent political perspectives confirm these findings. A report by the libertarian CATO Institute using a similar CGE model came to startlingly similar conclusions. CATO found that legalization would yield significant income gains for American workers and households. Legalization would boost the incomes of U.S. households by $180 billion in 2019. CATO also concluded that tighter restrictions and a reduction in less-skilled immigration would impose large costs on native-born Americans by shrinking the overall economy and lowering worker productivity .

Econ decline risks multiple hotspots for global nuclear war OHanlon 12 Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Director of the John L. Thornton China Center and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and
Development at the Brookings Institution, former Professor at the University of Michigan, served as special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Asia on the National Security Council, holds a Ph.D. from Columbia University, and Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of Research and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University, Adjunct Professor at Johns Hopkins University, holds a Ph.D. from Princeton University, 2012 (The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt, Los Angeles Times, July 10th, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)

Alas, globalization and automation trends of the last generation have increasingly called the American dream into question for the working classes. Another decade of underinvestment in what is required to remedy this situation will make an isolationist or populist president far more likely because much of the country will question whether an internationalist role makes sense for America especially if it costs us well over half a trillion dollars in defense spending annually yet seems correlated with more job losses. Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purport 7ed 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 friendswill 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 amuch more urgent big-picture issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamentalprerequisite to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.

Uniqueness

2NC Uniqueness Wall

Immigration reform is passing now our CNN evidence indicates there is a bipartisan agreement in principle to push through immigration reform theyre just resolving issues over health care and worker visas More evidence theres bipartisan agreement on CIR now, some details are still being ironed out WSJ 5-16 [Bipartisan House Group Reaches Broad Immigration Deal, May 16th, 2013,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323398204578487851658723968.html, Chetan]
WASHINGTONAfter

months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers has reached a broad agreement on a bill to overhaul the immigration system, one of its Republican members said Thursday. "We have an agreement in principle," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) told reporters. "The big hurdles are taken care of." A Democratic aide confirmed that a deal had been reached. But Democratic lawmakers in the group were largely quiet on the agreement, and one suggested that some provisions remained unsettled. Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, writing on Twitter, called it an "important breakthrough'' and added: "Some details still to be worked out, but very pleased things are moving forward." The
eight House lawmakers revealed few details of their plan, other than to say it would differ from the bipartisan proposal unveiled in the Senate last month. "There are going to be differences with the Senate bill ," Mr. Diaz-Balart said. The House legislation still must be put into final form, and lawmakers plan to pore over it line-by-line before filing the bill, he said. The announced deal was reached in a meeting late Thursday with six of the eight House lawmakers present and one listening over the phone. The group's eighth member, GOP Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, was in the hospital recovering from hernia surgery, but his chief of staff was present, Mr. Diaz- Balart said. He didn't specify how widespread support was for different provisions of the bill. Earlier Thursday, lawmakers had said they were still hammering out differences over whether the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country should be eligible to receive taxpayer subsidies toward the cost of health insurance and how many guest workers should be admitted into the country on work visas. Rep. John Carter (R., Texas) told reporters before the deal was announced that Republicans planned to introduce legislation the first week of June even if their four Democratic negotiating partners didn't to sign off on the final product. Mr. Carter said House lawmakers were likely to diverge from the Senate on the number of work visas to be created for construction workers, though he wouldn't specify how many such visas the House bill would allow. The Senate bill would designate 15,000 visas a year for foreign construction workers. Mr. Carter said that number wouldn't even meet the demand for construction workers in his home state of Texas. The deal's announcement came after House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) publicly worried Thursday about the group's progress. Mr. Boehner told reporters that he was "concerned" that the bipartisan group had been unable to reach an agreement. For weeks, Mr. Boehner has praised the House lawmakers' efforts, making it clear that he saw their work as a plausible way to initiate House action on an immigrationoverhaul bill. Lawmakers working on the deal also included Democratic Reps. Xavier Becerra and Zoe Lofgren, both of California, John Yarmuth of Kentucky and Republican Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho. Separately, senior members of the House Judiciary

Committee have said they intend to begin consideration of individual pieces of legislation aimed at fixing parts of immigration law. That approach has been seen by many in the House and outside activists as a possible fall-back option in the
event that the House group of lawmakers were unable to reach an agreement.

Immigration reform is gaining momentum in Congress its moving through the committees ABC 5-17 [Immigration Reform: Where we Stand Today, May 17th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-reform-stand/story?id=19200803#.UZZ_VrU3vzw, Chetan]
The loud kerfuffle over the heavy-handed IRS and post-Benghazi spin has had one positive effect: immigration

reform is quietly moving ahead under the cable noise and political posturing of dysfunctional Washington. Both houses of Congress are now expected to have bills ready to debate by the fall session. The bipartisan Senate "gang of 8" appears to be holding together and its broad outline of border security, pathway to citizenship, guest worker, employment verification and legal immigration future flow moves through committee largely intact. The Senate Judiciary Committee has completed its third day of hearings of the sweeping immigration bill and so far the original architecture of the bill has held strong. The four "gang of 8" members on the committee, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick
Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), have stuck together for the most part to maintain the integrity of their original bill. Border security and E-verify amendments to the bill have been completed, as well as most of the

amendments addressing non-immigrant visas. There have been some changes, however. Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa)
amendment which calls for border security strategies to apply to all nine border sectors, not just the "high risk" ones identified in the original bill, passed. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) also passed a bill on border security that restricts drones' ability to fly more than three miles from the border in San Diego and El Centro sectors, a smaller section compared to the 100 miles counted as "border" in the original bill.

Reform is passing in the Senate BECAUSE of Obamas PC, continued pressure is key Politico 4-25 [70+ votes for immigration reform?, April 25th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/leaders-at-least-70-votes-for-immigration-reform-90626.html, Chetan] The two lead negotiators in the Senates Gang of Eight said on Thursday that they believe their immigration reform bill will not just have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate but majority support from both parties.
I think it is doable, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the bill cannot slip by with 60 votes because the House would feel less pressure to take it up. Others in the negotiating group have said they think the bill could win at least 70 Senate votes. But the predictions of majority support from Republicans and Democrats is a more ambitious goal than any members have previously stated. We want a large Republican vote, Schumer said at the breakfast. He said the Gang of Eight had vote counting in mind while they were negotiating a deal between agricultural workers and growers on a visa program for the industry. Schumer said the group worked hard to win over growers in the Southeast, which is predominantly represented by Republicans and conservative Democrats. The senators said they support amending the immigration overhaul bill to address shortcomings in the system that led to the Boston Marathon bombings. It is too early know exactly what needs to be fixed, McCain said, but the potential solutions should be clear by the time the bill reaches the Senate floor in June. We are completely open to amendments that would in any way prevent what happened in Boston, McCain said. McCain said members of the Gang of Eight remain in contact with key House members. He said he spoke Wednesday with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to thank him for backing comprehensive immigration reform at an event Monday. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has addressed the Republican Study Committee, McCain said. But McCain added that the more serious conversations wont take place until after the Senate passes a specific package.

McCain praised President Barack Obamas role in the process , with Schumer adding that it has been just about perfect.

AT: House Delay

The House will move on immigration quickly all members are compromising and moving the bill through the committees to a floor vote ABC 5-16 [Immigration Overhaul: House Has Agreement in Principle, May 16th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/immigration-overhaul-senate-moves-forward-house-playscatchup/#agreement, Chetan] The House bipartisan Gang of Eight has reached an agreement in principle on immigration overhaul, including major points such as a pathway to citizenship, border security, health care and guest workers , a member of the group told ABC News tonight. The lower chamber now expects to work out details next week before taking the
Memorial Day break and introducing the bill June 4. Over hoagie sandwiches, a two-hour meeting of a bipartisan group of congressmen nearly fell apart today over who would pay for immigrant health care, the House Gang member said. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, was the last holdout who had to call into the meeting from Idaho where his daughter had a recital, the member said. Labrador, described as the most influential Republican in the House Gang of Eight because he represents Majority Leader Eric Cantors interests, finally

agreed when language proposed by Democrats ensured that taxpayer money would not pay for immigrant health care. Although not a member of the Gang of Eight, Wisconsin congressman and former vice presidential contender Paul Ryan was
instrumental in bringing the Republicans along in the agreement. The House bipartisan group that seemed to have stalled earlier today announced it is finally moving forward on its own version of immigration overhaul. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters earlier today that he was concerned that the bipartisan group has been unable to wrap up their work. I know that there are some very difficult issues that have come up, but I continue to believe that the House needs to deal with this and the House needs to work its will, he said. How we get there, were still dealing with it. But Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., told reporters this evening that the group has an agreement in principle that were drafting. That agreement was struck after the two-hour meeting late this afternoon. It is a very well-thought out, responsible, serious, enforceable proposal, he said. I feel really, really, really, really comfortable with the fact that this is a very complete bill, that fulfills what Ive always wanted, which is to fix whats broken. The whole package will now be run past their respective leadership and colleagues before the

the bill is imminent. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee has completed three days of markups and had addressed a total of 82 of the 300 amendments introduced to the
final language is finished and reviewed. But Diaz-Balart said legislation, which was written by the Senate Gang of Eight. That meant they had earlier addressed more than a quarter of th e amendments. A spokesman for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told ABC News earlier today that

they were making good progress and by far most

amendments have passed on bipartisan basis. Last week, we met for hours and worked through scores of amendments, Leahy noted at Tuesdays hearing. Some termed our efforts a lesson in democracy. Many noted that senators showed a commitment to fairness and compromise.

Link

2NC Link Wall

Congress HATES any cooperation with Cuba over oil drilling several bills have been brought to sanction companies that even try Nerurkar and Sullivan 11 [Neelesh Nerurkar - Specialist in Energy Policy and Mark P. Sullivan - Specialist
in Latin American Affairs, Cubas Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations, November 28th, 2011, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf, Chetan] five legislative initiatives have been introduced taking different approaches, and two congressional hearings have been held examining the issue. H.R. 372 (Buchanan), introduced January 26, 2011, would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to deny oil and gas leases and permits to persons who engage in activities with the government of any foreign country that is subject to any sanction or an embargo by the U.S. government . The intent of the legislation is to provide a disincentive to companies involved, or contemplating becoming involved, in Cubas oil development, although the scope of the legislation is much broader and could affect other oil companies, including U.S. companies, not involved in Cuba. Because
Interest in Cubas offshore oil development has continued in the 112th Congress as foreign oil companies have moved forward with plans to begin exploratory drilling. To date, the bill does not define sanction, the term could be used to refer to such U.S. restrictions as export controls or limits on foreign assistance. With this use of the term, many countries worldwide could be construed as being subject to a U.S. sanction, and as a result, any energy company that engages in activities with one of these countries could be denied an oil and gas lease in the United States under the proposed legislation. S. 405 (Bill Nelson), the Gulf Stream Protection Act of 2011, introduced February 17, 2011, would require a company that is conducting oil or gas operations off the coasts of Cuba to submit an oil response plan for their Cuba operations and demonstrate sufficient resources to respond to a worst case scenario if the company wanted to lease drilling rights in the United States. The bill would also require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out an oil spill risk analysis and planning process for the development and implementation of oil spill response plans for nondomestic oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior would be required, among other things, to include recommendations for Congress on a joint

Ros-Lehtinen), would impose visa restrictions on foreign nationals and economic sanctions on companies that help facilitate the development of Cubas offshore petroleum resources . The bill would exclude from the United States aliens who invest $1 million or more that contributes to the enhancement of the ability of Cuba to develop its offshore oil resources. It would also require the imposition of sanctions (two or more from a menu of listed sanctions) if the President determined that a person had made an investment of $1 million on or after January 10, 2005, that contributed to Cubas offshore oil development.
contingency plan with the countries of Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas to ensure an adequate response to oil spills located in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. H.R. 2047 ( the Caribbean Coral Reef Protection Act of 2011 (identical to a bill introduced in the 111th Congress and noted above), was introduced May 26, 2011, and

Obama has to use his PC Orth 11 (Derek Orth, J.D. expected May 2012, Rutgers School of Law (Newark, N.J.); Managing Articles Editor
for the Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 2011 University of Oregon, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, 26 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 509, Lexis, 2011)
The Deepwater Horizon was constructed in 2001 and was "capable of operating in water up to 8,000 feet deep and able to drill down to 30,000 feet." n6 The disaster occurred while Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) was mounting production casing and [*512] cement on a 5,000 feet deep exploratory well in the Macondo Prospect. Ironically, integrity tests were due to be performed on the Macondo well at the time the explosion occurred, after which the well would have been capped until BP was prepared to begin extraction operations. n7 Tragically, the fiery explosion that occurred onboard the Deepwater Horizon threw BP's plans into disarray, resulting in eleven deaths, n8 millions of barrels of spewing oil, n9 and immense damage to the

Gulf Coast. n10 The subsequent proliferation of monetary claims, lawsuits, and legislation n11 has raised numerous issues that stand to forever alter the regulatory structure of the offshore oil industry n12 as well as the liability schemes of international oil companies operating in the United States' coastal waters. n13 A bill's passage through Congress is fraught with danger at every turn . In general, most bills are submitted by individual members of Congress, examined and voted upon by specialized committees, presented to both the House and Senate for approval, and, finally, submitted to the President for his signature . Thus, a well-meaning and complex bill can often only gain approval through an expenditure of serious political capital by at least one party or the occurrence of an event that exerts public pressure on both political parties to react expediently and deal with the crisis.

OCS sparks fights in Congress- environmental and military backlash Bolton 10 (Alexander Bolton, The Hill, Obamas drilling proposal sparks battle among Senate Dems,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/90049-obamas-drilling-proposal-sparks-battle-among-senate-democrats, March 31, 2010) Obamas decision to open the nations coastline to offshore drilling has set up a fracas with Senate Democrats. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the leading Senate opponents of offshore drilling, has blasted Obamas plan.But Virginia Democratic Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner are on board, urging Obama to move quickly to open mid-Atlantic shores for oil and gas exploration.Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a statement. Giving Big Oil more access to our nations waters is really a Kill, Baby, Kill policy : it threatens to kill jobs, kill marine life and kill coastal economies that generate billions of dollars , he added. Offshore drilling isnt the solution to our energy problems, and I will fight this policy and continue to push for 21st century clean energy solutions. Democratic
President Barack Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) also took a strong stance against Obamas proposal Wednesday. I have le t the administration know that offshore drilling is a non-starter for me, Menendez told The Newark Star-Ledger. A spill in Virginia ends up in Cape May, New Jersey. Obama has proposed opening a vast stretch of the Atlantic coast, from the northern tip of Delaware to mid-Florida, to offshore drilling.Webb and Warner pushed the administration to act in a letter to U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in January."We would urge you to promptly commence these steps in order to ensure that the Virginia lease sale is conducted in a manner that is timely and consistent with the interests of the environment and our national

Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, also raised concerns over how the new drilling proposal might affect military exercises in his state. Ive talked many times to Secretary Salazar and told him if they drilled too close to Floridas beaches theyd be risking the states economy and the environment, Nelson said in a statement. I believe this plan shows they heeded that con cern. Now I need to hear from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Nelson added. And I want him to look me in the eye and assure me that this plan will not compromise national security by interfering with the unfettered space we have for training and testing our most sophisticated military weapons systems.Republican critics, such as former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have also put pressure on Obama to develop the nations energy resources.Environmentalists argue the potential energy gains are not worth the expected impact on beaches and marine life.Lautenberg argues that an oil spill could create severe ecological damage within a 500-mile radius putting the New Jersey shoreline in danger. He
security," the lawmakers wrote.Sen. Bill said the beaches and beach towns of New Jersey generate about $50 billion in economic activity every year and employ 500,000 people. The government estimates that 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas may lie off Virginias shores.The Bush administration crafted a plan in 2008 to begin leasing an oil and gas patch off Virginias coast beginning in 2011. The Virginia senators contacted Salazar after progress on the lease slowed. Warner applauded the plan Obama announced Tuesday. "This is good news and a positive step forward as we work to expand our nation's domestic energy production, Warner said in a statement. Moving forward on the mid-Atlantic off-shore proposal will provide an opportunity to determine the scope of our region's off-shore energy resources, the economic viability of accessing those resources, and the potential impacts on our environmental and national security priorities. In September, two Democratic senators voted for an amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) that would have prohibited delaying the Bush administrations Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasi ng

A lobbyist for an environmental group said that liberals such as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would raise objections to Obamas proposal. Democratic senators from Washington, Oregon and Rhode Island have also voiced
Program. They were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Ben Nelson (Neb.). Fifty-four Democrats and two independents voted to support the Obama administrations suspension of the plan. objections to offshore drilling in the past.

Relaxing drilling restrictions empirically causes backlash---no risk of offense

Broder 10 John is a writer for the New York Times. Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time, March 31, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?_r=0 But while Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters supporting nuclear power, for example the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision will take some of his supporters aback. And it is no sure thing that it will win support for a climate bill from undecided senators close to the oil industry, like Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, or Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of
Louisiana. The Senate is expected to take up a climate bill in the next few weeks the last chance to enact such legislation before midterm election concerns take over. Mr. Obama and his allies in the Senate have already made significant concessions on coal and nuclear power to try to win votes from Republicans and moderate Democrats. The new plan now grants one of the biggest items on the oil industrys wish list access to vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling. But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he

risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental risks.

Plan costs political capital

MART 8 Mergers and Acquisitions Round Table, This section includes quotes from Andrew Spitzer, Founder of the Energy and Power Group at Harris and Williams Co., and Douglas Korn of Irving Place Partners. Combustible; The volatility of the energy sector has turned the industry upside down. Top players in the space discuss what this means for investors and how dealmakers can capitalize., Dec 1, Lexis
But its also important to remember that oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set on a worldwide basis. Ultimately, w e have to focus on domestic production to help with the supply issue, and, internationally, see if we cant encourage the national oil companies to open up more acreage for competition. This is a worldwide problem; not just a US problem.Mergers & Acquisitions: Is it even possible, though, to completely eliminate demand for foreign oil? Is this something that could happen in our lifetime? Spitzer:The economics certainly make it extremely challenging, and frankly, without the political willpower to put in a variety of reforms whether its

CAFE standards or relieving offshore drilling inhibitors its not something that would get done without some form of government intervention. Korn: That being said, the recent turmoil in the market and the governments response have created a very difficult fiscal situation going into 2009. You have the normal cyclical impacts of a downturn in government receipts and that overlays all of the government support to shore up the markets. You have to go back to the question of whether or not there will there be the political will. There are important reasons behind why we haveto become less reliant on foreign energy; from a geopolitical point of view, from a carbon emissions point of view. But how now you have to ask, How do we make that happen in an environment where the government will be under some severe fiscal constraints. Thats going to be the real challenge . Spitzer: And regulation is effectively a silent taxation policy. So instituting that in the face of the pocketbook issues that people are dealing with is going to be tough. Any administration would have to burn a lot of political capital to push through an energy policy that tries to accomplish what either candidate proposed.

Plan can only hurt Obama only opposition to the plankills democrat support
Margaret Kriz Hobson 12, E&E reporter, April 18, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's

development plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S.
history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan. Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years. While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President Obama's oil spill commission. That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation. An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate." As the 2012

Obama's offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital . The environmental community hates the drilling proposals . The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's rhetoric. According to the GOP political firm Resurgent Republic, independent
presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon, voters in Colorado and Virginia don't understand what Obama's "all of the above" energy mantra means. The report said, however, that once the policy was "described as oil, gas, coal, nuclear power, solar and other alternative energies, participants became enthusiastic and view such a strategy as credible and necessary to becoming more energy independent." A recent Gallup poll indicated that American voters are polarized on energy issues. The survey found that 47 percent of the public believes energy development is more important than environmental protection, while 41 percent of the public ranks protecting the environment as a bigger priority. In that political climate, Obama's

offshore oil development policies are not likely to affect the nation's most conservative or liberal voters, noted Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "The environmentalists have no
place to go except Obama, and Obama isn't going to convince any conservatives or Republicans to back him" based on his oil and gas proposals, Sabato said. "He's obviously aiming at swing independents," Sabato added. "He's trying to show that he's pursuing a middle path, the one many independents like. Maybe it will work." Back to the original plan, minus 2 pieces Obama's all-of-the-above energy policy is in keeping with his pre-oil-spill offshore oil and gas development proposal. After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the White House slapped a six-month moratorium on all new oil and gas development. Since the moratorium ended, Obama has systematically reintroduced most of the early oil development proposals. Two pieces of the old plan are missing. Obama backtracked on his proposal to allow oil exploration off Virginia's coast. The new East Coast offshore plan lays the groundwork for seismic studies, but not drilling, along the mid- and south Atlantic. The White House also dropped a proposal to allow exploration in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, an area off limits due to a congressional moratorium. During 2010 negotiations, the administration offered to allow oil leasing in the region if Congress lifted the moratorium and passed a global warming bill. When the climate change legislation died, however, the drilling provision lost White House favor. Since the Republicans took control of the House in 2011, GOP

leaders have advanced a series of bills that would go far beyond Obama's offshore oil drilling policies, essentially allowing development along all U.S. shores. But those measures have been thwarted by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans and industry officials long for the offshore oil and gas plan floated by former President George W. Bush
during his last days in office. That proposal would have offered 31 federal lease sales and included regions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. By comparison, Obama's 2012 to 2017 leasing blueprint includes a dozen sites in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico and excludes the West Coast and northern East Coast.

No turns---liberals hate the plan and conservatives wont give Obama credit for it
Walsh 11, Bryan, TIME Senior editor, November 9, Why Obamas Offshore Drilling Plan Isnt Making Anyone Happy, http://science.time.com/2011/11/09/why-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-isnt-making-anyonehappy/#ixzz26snhDbbI Nonetheless, Obama has set a target of reducing U.S. oil imports by a third by 2025, and greater domestic oil production is going to have to be a part of thatincluding oil from the Arctic. Unfortunately for the President, no ones likely to cheer him. Conservatives and the oil industry wont be happy until just about every square foot of the country is available for drillingthough it is

worth noting that oil production offshore has actually increased under Obama and environmentalists

arent going to rally to support any sort of expanded drilling . With energy, as with so many other issues for Obama, its lonely at the center .

Empirics
E&E Daily 12 (Environment and Energy Daily, 1/17, lexis)
Despite an impressive track record at clearing energy and public lands measures, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee didn't see a single measure debated on the Senate floor in 2011. Retiring committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) is likely to keep the pressure on Senate leaders to take those measures up in the full chamber as his time in the Senate comes to a close at the end of this year. And he'll also likely encourage discussions of his upcoming clean energy standard legislation. The measure isn't likely to gain much traction among Republicans in either chamber -- a fact Bingaman acknowledges -- but he says it will still be important to start debate on the issue. Other highlights Lessons learned from 2011 The committee last year kept up its famously bipartisan appearances, churning out an impressive 61 bills. But the panel still suffered

from bouts of partisanship that brought action on certain issues -- like a a standstill. The addition of several new tea party-backed GOP freshmen to the roster also caused some strife at committee meetings and in negotiations on seemingly noncontroversial bills. Head-butting isn't likely to go away on key issues as election-year politics dominate discussions throughout the Capitol. CES: Bingaman has vowed to float legislation
response to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- to early this session that would create a federal clean energy standard requiring utilities to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from lowcarbon sources in the coming decades. Once introduced, the measure is sure to get ample face time in the committee, but partisan roadblocks in the full Senate and a sure death in the House will likely prevent it from moving beyond the panel. Smaller bipartisan bills: The committee last year cleared dozens of smaller energy bills on a bipartisan basis -- many of them breakouts from a broad 2009 energy bill that stalled in the full Senate -- but none have seen floor time. Bingaman will likely push Senate leaders to move on some of those measures as he sees the clock ticking on his time in the Senate. Offshore drilling: Efforts last year to advance offshore drilling safety language stalled after ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) urged the inclusion of coastal revenue-sharing language in a bill responding to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bingaman isn't likely to advance the legislation this session, but the committee could take a look at other offshore drilling issues, such as Interior's five-year leasing plan. Republicans and the oil industry want to see the areas included in that plan beefed up, while environmentalists and many Democrats say it already infringes on too many sensitive areas.

Forces political energy fights- saps capital

Geman 10
[Ben, The Hill, 4/1/10, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/90137-drilling-push-shakes-up-climate-fight-]

expanded drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would require congressional approval. That will surely play a role in the fight over energy and climate legislation that Democrats hope to bring to the floor. Republicans called Obamas plan too narrow, as it closes off or delays leasing or sales in other areas. The energy consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners, in a research note
While most of the drilling proposal can be undertaken using executive power, Wednesday, said the limits of the White House plan give architects of the Senate energy and climate bill an opening to woo ne w support. One obvious implication of todays announcement:

But the White House and the architects of Senate legislation Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) risk losing support among liberal Democrats and environmentalists as they seek expanded drilling . For instance, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) attacked the plan Wednesday. Drilling off the Virginia coast would endanger many of New Jerseys beaches and vibrant coastal economies, Lautenberg said in a prepared statement. Environmental groups that are on board with efforts to craft a compromise climate change and energy bill such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council also slammed the proposal.
delaying and canceling OCS [Outer Continental Shelf] s ales gives lawmakers the opportunity to sweeten a climate bill by restoring or accelerating sales, ClearView states.

Offshore drilling costs capital upsets base

Numerick, 10 (Kevin, "Does the President Treat his Political Opponents Fairly?", Helium, September 5, http://www.helium.com/debates/239736-does-president-obama-treat-his-political-opponents-fairly/side_by_side) President Obama has tried to re-implement nuclear power, which disturbed his base, but is strongly supported by most republicans as a viable and must-have source of energy production in the future. Not long after, he went even further and spoke of adding more off-shore drilling, which really went against his base of supporters . Regardless, the Republican Party still said no, accusing him of playing politics. Shortly after, the BP Deep Water Horizon event happened. President Obama is also a supporter of Clean Coal Technology which is certainly considered a bipartisan goa l, though many Democrats disagree with it fiercely.

Bipartisan opposition
Greenwire 6 (Rough going seen for efforts to lift congressional moratoria , 5-26-6, http://www.noia.org/website/download.asp?id=295)

With a growing number of Republican lawmakers facing stiff midterm races, efforts to open more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling will find tough going on Capitol Hill, environmentalists and others tracking the issue say. For
now, industry groups say momentum is on their side. Though the House voted 217-203 on Thursday to reject removing congressional moratoria on most offshore natural gas drilling, industry lobbyists point out that Rep. John Peterson's (R-Pa.) plan got 46 more votes than it did last year. If there is an offshore drilling component to an upcoming House energy package, it is expected to be shaped largely by House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Pombo's plan would allow states to "opt-out" of offshore oil and gas drilling bans. States that opt-out would receive a share of offshore production revenues. Environmentalists are hopeful the bipartisan coastal coalition that opposes wider leasing will not be swayed in sufficient numbers to endorse an opt-out plan or other efforts that are less aggressive than Peterson's but still relax current bans. Heather Taylor, deputy legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the argument that Thursday's vote puts industry within striking distance of winning changes to current restrictions a "stretch." "We still won. Period," Taylor said in an interview Friday. "The bottom line is that [the] vote proves that people care about our coasts, and any proposal that comes through that hurts our coasts will be rejected ." Also, a House floor vote last week that would also have lifted congressional coastal oil drilling bans lost by a large margin. That prompted an environmentalist to

note that an opt-out covering both oil and gas would face hurdles that could be greater than Peterson's gasonly proposal. One lobbyist who works on environmental and energy issues does not believe the House is ready to adopt the opt-out idea, which was most recently floated through legislation offered by Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) that largely mirrors an opt-out and state revenue-sharing plan Pombo floated last year. "I don't see how an opt-out passes," the lobbyist said. "We have never lost a vote on this on the floor," added an aide to a Democratic lawmaker. "To succeed, Pombo has to play the middle
ground. I am not sure if he is there yet." Still, an industry lobbyist seeking wider drilling said Friday the vote on Peterson's plan "proves a nuanced approach to things ... has a lot of credibility on the Hill right now." Yet the fight could get tougher if it does not happen this year. Republicans are bracing for a tough midterm election, and while votes on offshore drilling are not quite partisan

showdowns, more Democrats oppose wider offshore leasing.

Pisses off Obamas base

Maize, 10 (Kennedy, Copenhagen: The Case for Climate Adaptation, Managing Power, March 1, http://www.managingpowermag.com/opinion_and_commentary/Copenhagen-The-Case-for-ClimateAdaptation_227.html) Energy legislation is dead for 2010, except for possible subsidies for nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore drilling, designed to appeal to Republicans. But that reach across the partisan divide likely will enrage Obamas base among liberals and environmentalists. The predictable outcome: more gridlock and name-calling. No
action.

That Tanks capital

Campbell, 11 (James E., Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department and the University of Buffalo, Political
Forces on the Obama Presidency: From Elections to Governing, http://www.polsci. buffalo.edu/documents/ObamaPresidencyChapter4.pdf) Since neither the ideological base of a party not its supporters in the center can be ignored-and since both have different demandspresidents must arrive at some balance between them. In no small part, the success of presidents in governing depends on their success

in striking the right balance between governing to please their partys base and governing to please the political center. Like every presidency before his, this is the challenge for Obamas presidency. Its success in
governing the nation, as well as the possibility of a second term, may hinge on how well the president strikes the right balance between appealing to his liberal base and simultaneously to his supporters in the political center. The principal reason why a presidents success in office

depends on his ability to maintain the support of the presidents electoral coalition (the combined partisan base and centrist supporters) is that this is also his governing coalition. Since political views are generally stable, a president should expect to receive most of his support while in office from the same quarters that supported him in his election. As a consequence, the success of a president in office depends to a great extent on his ability to maintain both the support of his base and the center. Just as the presidents electoral success depended on maintaining his electoral coalition, his success in governing depends on maintaining the support of that same coalition. In effect, there is no bright line between the politics of governing
and the politics of elections. In its most basic sense, the permanent campaign to maintain the presidents constituency of supporters from election to office and on to the next election is fundamental to presidential politics.

Plan is a flip flop

Sexton 12
[John, 3/30/12, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas]

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put

off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years: The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Tanks capital Goddard, 9 (Taegan, Creator Political Wire, (One of the Most Widely-Read and Influential Political Web Sites
on the Internet), "Does Obama Practice a Different Kind of Politics?", CQ Politics, 3-19, http://innovation.cq.com/ liveonline/51/landing)
# Dan from Philadelphia: How quickly is Obama burning through his political capital? Will he have anything left to actually keep some of his promises? With potential shifts from his campaign stances on the question of Gitmo, Iraq troop withdrawals and taxing employer healthcare benefits, it seems he is in for tough fights on all fronts. # Taegan Goddard: That's a great question. I think Obama spends some of his political capital every time he makes an exception to his principles -- such as hiring a lobbyist to a key position or overlooking an appointee not paying their taxes.

Policy reversals such as the ones you note burn through even

more of this precious capital .

AT: Lifting Moratorium Popular

Even if it has support- triggers Congressional battles which sap capital

AP 12
[Associated Press, 7/25/12, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/25/house-gop-rejects-obama-plan-for-offshore-drilling/] In an election-year swipe at President Barack Obama's energy policies, the Republican-led House on Wednesday voted to revoke Obama's five-year plan for offshore drilling, replacing it with its own plan that calls for more ambitious oil and gas development off the U.S. coast. The

legislation will likely go nowhere in the Senate and the White House has issued a veto threat , but as with the tax and regulatory bills the House is also taking up this month, it puts lawmakers on the record on the issues that divide the two parties . Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, said the bill would offer lawmakers a choice
between Obama's restrictive plan and the far more expansive Republican version that opens up areas off the Atlantic and southern California for drilling. The Republican proposal passed 253-170 with 25 Democrats supporting it. The House also voted 261-164 to reject the president's plan. The Interior Department on June 28 announced its 2012-2017 offshore oil and gas leasing program that schedules 12 potential lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and three off the coast of Alaska. The White House, in its veto threat issued earlier this week, said its plan makes available for development more than 75 percent of estimated, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in U.S. oceans. The House bill, by contrast, provides for 29 lease sales over the same five-year period, and includes areas of the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia, and areas off the southern coast of California as well as Alaska and Gulf areas. Hastings said the administration's plan proposed fewer leases than any administration since the Jimmy Carter presidency. Singling out an election swing state, he said "Virginia will be left out in the cold" until 2017 at the earliest, cheating the commonwealth of thousands of jobs. The Obama plan, he said, keeps 85 percent of America's offshore areas off-limits to energy production. He and other Republicans said the Bush administration, responding to $4 gas prices in the summer of 2008, had newly opened nearly all offshore areas to energy production, but that Obama tossed that decision aside when he took office in 2009. The Obama administration, he said, has spent the past 3 1/2 years on a plan "that effectively re-imposes the drilling moratoria lifted in 2008." Hastings said the GOP plan would generate $600 million in additional revenue and create tens of thousands of new jobs. But Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, top

Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, chided Republicans for bringing six " giveaways to Big Oil " to the House floor, "all far too extreme to pass the Senate." The Republican bill, he said "would place drill rigs right off our beaches in Southern California" as well as off beaches in Maine and other eastern states. Democrats also argued that more domestic oil is in production today than at any time during the past 14 years and that oil companies already have leases in the Gulf that contain 18 billion barrels of oil and are sitting idle. The White House said the GOP bill would mandate Outer Continental Shelf lease sales in areas "without regard for significant issues such as state and local concerns and
impacts on important fishing areas and with inadequate consideration of military use conflicts."

AT: No Link - Presidential Action

Congress has to do it-costs capital

Malkin 8 (Michelle, Drill bits: The uphill battle to lift domestic restrictions Update: McCain. Ugh. , 6-11-8, http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/11/drill-bits-the-uphill-battle-to-lift-domestic-restrictions/)
Supporters of a proposal to allow drilling for oil and gas off the U.S. coastline are expected to make their case to a House panel Wednesday.

Offshore oil and gas production has been banned off most of the U.S. coastline since Congress approved the O uter C ontinental S helf moratorium in 1981, which prevented the leasing of coastal waters for fossil fuel development. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., wants to change that with an amendment to the Interior Department spending bill to be considered by a House Appropriations subcommittee. The amendment would lift the prohibition on exploration 50 to 200 miles offshore but continue to ban drilling within 50 miles of the coastline. For 27 years, Congress has deliberately locked-up vast offshore oil and natural gas reserves, Peterson said. With the price at the pump increasing daily with no end in sight and the cost of natural gas trading at record levels, Congress needs to unlock these reserves. He cites estimates from the Minerals
Management Service that there are 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas located offshore

Internals

2NC PC Key

Obamas political capital is necessary to ensure passage our Washington Post evidence indicates that its unlikely that Republicans will consider a deal without AGGRESSIVE Obama push Sustained pressure is key to win support Obama needs to use his capital RCP 5-1 [Real Clear Politics, Obama Eyes Higher Profile Role on Immigration, May 1st, 2013,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/01/obama_eyes_higher_profile_role_on_immigration_118204.ht ml, Chetan]
But now

that the Gang of Eight bill is public and is winning some Republican support , White House advisers say there's less risk in Obama taking on a larger public role in the debate too. The focus on immigration in the capital comes
as rallies are expected in dozens of cities around the country Wednesday in what has become an annual cry for easing the nation's immigration laws. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a favorite of conservatives and potential GOP presidential candidate in 2016, is one if the bill's architects, as is Arizona's Republican Sen. John McCain. And even in the Republican-led House, where an immigration overhaul faces a steeper challenger, the Gang of Eight measure has won praise from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. The bill would strengthen border security, allow tens of thousands of new high- and low-skilled workers into the country, require all employers to check their workers' legal status and provide an eventual path to citizenship for some 11 million immigrants now here illegally. The measure is similar to the immigration principles Obama outlined in January during a visit to Las Vegas, his only immigration-focused trip of the year, though there are key differences. For example, the Senate bill makes the pathway to citizenship contingent on securing the border, which Obama opposes, and does not recognize gay couples, which Obama supports. Many immigration advocates say they support Obama getting more involved in the

debate as the draft bill weaves its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and likely to the Senate floor. " He needs to be an advocate and push for the bill in the Senate to make sure this gets done ," Eliseo Medina of the Service Employees International Union said of the president. " We need continued sustained pressure from all facets." McCain also welcomed the prospect of a more proactive Obama , saying the president is committed to being heavily engaged. But the Arizona
Republican, who has spoken with Obama about the immigration negotiations several times in recent weeks, added that the president "doesn't want to harm the passage of the bill either. And I believe him."

Obamas PC is key to win Congressional support on border security NPR 5-2 [Obama To Pitch Immigration Overhaul In Mexico, May 2nd 2013,
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/02/180485455/obama-to-pitch-immigration-overhaul-in-mexico, Chetan]
Though the role

played by Latino voters in last year's U.S. presidential election gets much credit for the current momentum for changing immigration laws and providing a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants in the U.S.
illegally, another reason for the change in attitudes is that stronger border protections and the recession have been disincentives to cross into the U.S. As a result, illegal immigration has declined. "With Mexico, first and foremost, they are critical to our ability to secure the border," said Ben Rhodes, an Obama deputy national security adviser. "All the immigration plans that have been contemplated put a focus on securing the border as an essential priority and starting point for immigration reform." Even better than a strong border is an economy that keeps people from fleeing. "If the Mexican economy is growing, it forestalls the need for people to migrate to the United States to find work," Rhodes added. Eager to focus on the economy and immigration, the administration is downplaying Pena Nieto's recent steps to end the broad access Mexico gave U.S. security agencies to help fight drug trafficking and organized crime under his predecessor, Felipe Calderon. Still, the changes are likely to be a subject during the two leaders' private talks. Obama said this week he wouldn't judge the new moves until he heard directly from Mexican officials. Pena Nieto took office in December, and for Obama the trip is an opportunity to take his measure of the Mexican leader early in his tenure. "It's really important to go there while this new president is forming his own plans and judgments about what he's going to do about the border, about where he's going to be on immigration, about where he is on trade," U.S. Chamber of Commerce President/CEO Thomas Donohue said in an interview. The chamber long has worked to improve U.S.-Mexico trade, noting that now about 6 million U.S. jobs depend on commerce with Mexico. Striking

the right note on border security is key , Donohue said, because it is a central to winning support in Congress for the rest of the immigration legislation. "That's what everybody wants to hear, and we have to do that in a way

that makes these guys down there feel like we're doing it in conjunction with them and for them, so we can do this thing on immigration well, so we can expand our trade, so we can deal with our political issues as they are trying to deal with theirs," Donohue said. Still, with 33 million U.S. residents of Mexican origin, Obama's message in Mexico is also bound to resonate in the U.S., where Latinos could

increase pressure on Congress to act. "It helps keep these passions alive as far as an issue to promote for the administration," said Carl Meacham, a former senior Latin America adviser on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But Meacham, now director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, cautioned that despite some bipartisan support to create a path to citizenship in the immigration bill, there is skepticism in Latin America. "They've been brought to the
altar so many times by different American administrations that there's a little bit of a lack of trust," he said. For Pena Nieto, Obama's visit is a chance for him to showcase his country's economic gains. After suffering along with the U.S. during the recession, its economy is now growing at a better clip than that of the U.S. Per capita income has gone from an annual $7,900 two years ago to $10,146. But Diana Negroponte, a Latin America expert at the Brookings Institution, says corruption remains endemic, human rights are still a problem, and efforts to change and improve the judicial system have been too slow. "There is concern on our side of the border that greater help needs to be given in order for Mexico to reform its system," she said. Pena Nieto's changes in the security relationship with the U.S. have prompted some U.S. officials to speculate that the new president might be embracing the policies of his Institutional Revolutionary Party, which long has favored centralized political and bureaucratic control. Among those watching the new steps is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has held up $228 million sought by the Obama administration for Mexico under a security cooperation agreement. Under the agreement, known as the Merida Initiative, Congress has already given Mexico more than $1.9 billion in aid since 2008. But Leahy, chairman of the Senate Appropriations

subcommittee that oversees the State Department budget, has been a critic of how the money has been used and with the results. "Congress has been asked for a significant new investment, but it's not clear what the new Mexican
government's intensions are," Leahy said in a statement to The Associated Press. "We're in a period of uncertainty until we know enough to be able to reset that part of our relationship. I'm not ready to sign off on more money without a lot more details."

AT: No Obama Push

Obama is pressuring Congress now and will continue to do so The Hill 5-12 [White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan]

The White House plans to use an inside-outside game to pressure Congress as it seeks a political victory for President Obama on immigration reform. The inside game includes meetings with key stakeholder groups, such as one this week with Asian American and Pacific Islander leaders. In recent days, the meetings have gained steam with Obama holding at least one meeting per week, according to White House guidance of the president's schedule. It also includes Obamas second-term charm offensive with members of Congress, in which Obama, who needs an immigration win to help solidify his second term legacy, has used dinner dates and golf outings to engage with his political opponents. We want to make sure we dont lose any Democrats and work with Republicans to move this forward, one senior administration official said. At the same time, Obama is expected to pressure Congress from the outside by hitting the road in the next few months, one administration official said. Obama will crisscross the country in the coming months to build public pressure on Congress, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive immigration bill and a path to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

AT: Poison Pill

No poison pill GOP welcomes Obamas efforts and his PC is key for Senate passage The Hill 5-12 [White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan]
Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University agreed, saying Obama has to keep a comfortable distance from the issue. Its a delicate thing because conservatives in the House are allergic to Obama, Jillson said. A full court press might not serve him well so hes got to figure out exactly what his posture will be. Jillson argues

the inside game, however, could help carry the legislation over the top in the Senate, with 70 or more Senators voting in support of it. Its sensible for the president to work carefully with persuadable Republicans to get this done, Jillson said. The difficulty he faces is the more he stakes his political capital on this issue, the more
the Tea Party conservatives in the House wont let him have this. The real question is how forward can he be without raising the temperature of Republicans in the House," he added. Jillson and other observers predict that if

the Senate does pass the legislation, itll put some pressure on the House to follow suit. Even Republicans agree that Obamas efforts to reach across the aisle might help pass immigration . But it also might have come a little too late. Its probably leading to more fruitful discussions, Mackowiak said. But its one of those things
that probably should have happened in his first or second year. You have to plant those seeds, water it and watch them grow.

AT: PC Not Key

Presidential leadership shapes the agenda

Kuttner 11 (Robert, Senior Fellow Demos and Co-editor American Prospect, Barack Obama's Theory of Power, The American Prospect, 5-16, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)
As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President John F. Kennedy, the essence of a presidents power is the power to persuade. Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents

amass power by making strategic choices about when to use the latent

authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to move Congress . In one of Neustadts classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad pub lic and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a

president possesses several points of leverage . He can play an effective outside game, motivating and shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public agenda

Political capital is finite and drives decision-making key to agenda success

Schier 9, Professor of Poliitcal Science at Carleton, (Steven, "Understanding the Obama Presidency," The Forum: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Berkely Electronic Press, http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol7/iss1/art10) In additional to formal powers, a presidents informal power is situationally derived and highly variable . Informal power is a function of the political capital presidents amass and deplete as they operate in office. Paul Light defines
several components of political capital: party support of the president in Congress, public approval of the presidential conduct of his job, the Presidents electoral margin and patronage appointments (Light 1983, 15). Richard Neustadts concept of a presidents professional reputation likewise figures into his political capital. Neustadt defines this as the impressions in the Washington community about the skill and will with which he puts [his formal powers] to use (Neustadt 1990, 185). In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bushs

political capital surged, and both the public and Washington elites granted him a broad ability to prosecute the war on terror. By the later stages of Bushs troubled second term, beset by a lengthy and unpopular occupation of Iraq and an aggressive Democratic Congress, he found that his political capital had shrunk . Obamas informal powers will prove variable, not stable, as is always the case for presidents. Nevertheless, he entered office with a formidable store of political capital. His solid electoral victory means he initially will receive high public support and strong backing from fellow Congressional partisans, a combination that will allow him much leeway in his presidential appointments and with his policy agenda. Obama probably enjoys the prospect of a happier honeymoon during his first year than did George W. Bush,
who entered office amidst continuing controversy over the 2000 election outcome. Presidents usually employ power to disrupt the political order they inherit in order to reshape it according to their own agendas. Stephen Skowronek argues that presidents disrupt systems , reshape political landscapes, and pass to successors leadership challenges that are different from the ones just faced (Skowronek 1997, 6). Given their

limited time in office and the hostile political alignments often present in Washington policymaking networks and among the electorate, presidents must force political change if they are to enact their agendas . In recent decades,
Washington power structures have become more entrenched and elaborate (Drucker 1995) while presidential powers through increased use of executive orders and legislative delegation (Howell 2003) have also grown. The presidency has more powers in the early 21st

century but also faces more entrenched coalitions of interests, lawmakers, and bureaucrats whose agendas often differ from that of the president. This is an invitation for an energetic president and that seems to describe Barack Obama to engage in major ongoing battles to impose his preferences .

Presidents perceive their capital as finite our theory is true in practice

Marshall and Prins 11, BRYAN W. MARSHALL Miami University BRANDON C. PRINS University of Tennessee & Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center for Public Policy Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force Presidential Studies Quarterly 41, no. 3 (September) 2011

We argue that the

more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents anticipate how the use of force may affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brul, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewherein essence, the presidential calculus to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on
Capitol Hill. However,

political capital is finite so spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas. That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (CanesWrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress .

Prefer issue specific evidence

Jacobs and King 10, University of Minnesota, Nuffield College, (Lawrence and De smond, Varieties of Obamaism: Structure, Agency, and the Obama Presidency, Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 793 -802) Yet if presidential personality and leadership style come up short as primary explanations for presidential success and failure, this does not render them irrelevant. There is no need to accept the false choice between volition and structurebetween explanations that reduce politics to personality and those that focus only on system imperatives and contradictions. The most satisfying explanations lie at the intersection of agency and structure what we describe as structured agency. Presidents have opportunities to lead, but not under the circumstances they choose or control. These circumstances both restrict the parameters of presidential impact and highlight the significance of presidential skill in accurately identifying and exploiting opportunities. Indeed, Obama himself talks about walking this tightropeexercising ruthless pragmatism in seizing opportunities for reform while acce pting the limits and seeking to bridge that gap between the status quo and what we know we have to do for our future.12

AT: Winners Win

Obama thinks that pol cap is finite hell back off controversial issues even if hes winning
Kuttner 9 (Robert , co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos, author of "Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, 4/28/9, Obama Has Amassed Enormous Political Capital, But He Doesn't Know W hat to Do with It, http://www.alternet.org/economy/138641/obama_has_amassed_enormous_political_capital,_but_he_doesn%27t_kn ow_what_to_do_with_it/?page=entire) We got a small taste of what a more radical break might feel like when Obama briefly signaled with the release of Bush's torture memos that he might be open to further investigation of the Bush's torture policy, but then backtracked and quickly asked the Democratic leadership to shut the idea down. Evidently, Obama's political self wrestled with his constitutional conscience, and won. Civil libertarians felt a huge letdown, but protest was surprisingly muted. Thus the most important obstacle for seizing the moment to achieve enduring change: Barack Obama's conception of what it means to promote national unity. Obama repeatedly declared during the campaign that he would govern as a consensus builder. He wasn't lying. However, there are two ways of achieving consensus. One is to split the difference with your political enemies and the forces obstructing reform. The other is to use presidential leadership to transform the political center and alter the political dynamics. In his first hundred days, Obama has done a little of both, but he defaults to the politics of accommodation.

Controversial wins bleed momentum not build it

Politico, 1/20/2010 (Obama's first year: What went wrong, p. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4DF829C9-18FE-70B2-A8381A971FA3FFC9) Obama believed that early success would be self-reinforcing, building a powerful momentum for bold government action. This belief was the essence of the White Houses theory of the big bang that success in passing a big stimulus package would lead to success in passing health care, which in turn would clear the way for major cap-and-trade environmental legislation and re-regulation of the financial services sector all in the first year. This proved to be a radical misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts combined with the inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage meant that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum rather than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many Americans by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care.

Winners lose any major win is the quickest way to kill future proposals. The GOP will backlash
The Economist, 2/16/2011 (Whats the equilibrium here?, p. lexis)
The Obama administration's theory of policymaking amid divided government is a frustrating one. What most people want from the president is to lead. And leading, in this case, means giving a speech, getting behind some unpopular ideas, trying to change public opinion... But the White House has come to the conclusion that that type of leadership doesn't work. It believes that the

quickest way to kill a controversial proposal in a polarized political system is to have the president endorse it. Once a high-profile proposal is associated with the White House, Republicans (correctly) view its passage as a threat to their political fortunes. That's why the Obama administration didn't endorse a payroll tax holiday until after the election, when it emerged as part of the tax deal. Endorsing it before the election would've " poisoned the well ," one administration official told me after. Republicans would have had to attack it, and that would have made it impossible for them to endorse it later. The Obama
administration may have a point here. Consider one item that the president has repeatedly, openly pushedinvestment in America's long-neglected intercity rail system. Republican governors are cancelling rail plans as fast as they can. Florida Governor Rick Scott just scrapped a Florida plan, despite the fact that the federal government was going to cover most of the capital costs, while private companies were offering to cover the rest in exchange for the right to operate the line. On the other hand, Mr Obama responded to Republican budget proposals that avoided addressing entitlements by...releasing a budget that avoided addressing entitlements. And lo and behold, Republican congressional leaders are now scrambling to include entitlement reforms in new budget plans. Maybe the president has this whole reverse psychology thing figured out. But I doubt this is a stable equilibrium. The GOP's reflexive anti-Obama streak is motivated, one presumes, by a desire to win

elections. One supposes that they feel they must deny him legislative victories in order to be successful at the ballot box.
So for a while, presidential abdication of leadership may create political space for something like honest legislative negotiations over policy. But a grand bargain that takes place under Mr Obama's watch is a political victory for Mr Obama, whether or not he led the charge. And the GOP is unlikely to let the president have such a win.

AT: Hirsh 13

Hirsh concedes PC is real Hirsh 13 National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2 -9-13, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207] The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aftermath of a decisive electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.

Regardless of general capital, the plan pushes immigration off the agendaHirsch concedes this matters even if capital isnt true Hirsh 13 National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital," National J ournal, 2-9-13, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207] Presidents are limited in what they can do by time and attention span, of course, just as much as they are by electoral balances in the House and Senate. But this, too, has nothing to do with political capital. Another wellworn meme of recent years was that Obama used up too much political capital passing the health care law in his first term. But the real problem was that the plan was unpopular , the economy was bad, and the president didnt realize that the national mood (yes, again, the national mood) was at a tipping point against big-government intervention, with the tea-party revolt about to burst on the scene. For Americans in 2009 and 2010haunted by too many rounds of layoffs, appalled by the Wall Street bailout, aghast at the amount of federal spending that never seemed to find its way into their pocketsgovernment-imposed health care coverage was simply an intervention too far. So was the idea of another economic stimulus. Cue the tea party and what ensued: two titanic fights over the debt ceiling. Obama, like Bush, had settled on pushing an issue that was out of sync with the countrys mood. Unlike Bush, Obama did ultimately get his idea passed. But the bigger political problem with health care reform was that it distracted the governments attention from other issues that people cared about more urgently, such as the need to jump-start the economy and financial reform. Various congressional staffers told me at the time that their bosses didnt really have the time to understand how the Wall Street lobby was riddling the Dodd-Frank financial-reform legislation with loopholes. Health care was sucking all the oxygen out of the room , the aides said.

Bipart is premised on pressure

John Dickerson, 1/31/13, Bipartisan Baloney, www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/gang_of_eight_immigration_reform_why_republicans_ and_democrats_agreeing.html Amateur meteorologists claim to have spotted other flickers of the bipartisan phenomena . President Obama and
Republican leaders reached a deal on a three-month extension of the debt limit and a bill to aid the victims of Hurricane Sandy. These are not historic acts, but why not raise a glass in tribute if for no other reason than to break the monotony of having to constantly raise a glass to drown our frustration. But let's not mistake this for genuine bipartisanship. Or, if this is the new standard for bipartisanship,

then we should change our definition of it. These examples of ghost bipartisanship are born from pressure, not cooperation . Lawmakers aren't reasoning together; one side is crying uncle. That will almost certainly be true of any immigration reform measure that passes (if the reform effort doesnt break down under the weight of the partisanship itself).

The folk story of bipartisanship goes like this: The two parties tackle a common problem, they fight like hell, but both sides ultimately give up something to get a deal. In 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill negotiated a compromise over Social Security. In 1990, George H.W. Bush forged a deal to reduce the deficit with Democratic leaders. In 1997, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich hammered out a balanced budget agreement. These bipartisan moments were not simply the product of reason divorced from acrimony and politics. As President Truman said, "There was never a nonpartisan in politics. A man cannot be a nonpartisan and be effective in a political party." But todays droplets of bipartisanship are distinct from that tradition. They come not from shared sacrifice but from one side giving in. Charles Krauthammer says Republicans got rolled on the fiscal cliff talks. The Weekly Standard and Sen. Rand Paul say Republicans blinked on the debt limit fight. On the issue of immigration, the bipartisan opportunities exist not because wise men from both parties have decided to solve one of the nation's most pressing issues, but because Republicans are giving in to the pressure created by the last election. This fact is clear by the host of Republicans who once opposed or were skeptical of any immigration-reform package that included amnesty but who are now supporting it. Its not about policy; its about politics . Similarly, on the question of gun control, there is an emerging consensus that Congress will support background checks for gun purchases. This too could be called bipartisanship, except that its an emergency event brought on by the Newtown, Conn., massacre, which means it tells us nothing about the baseline health of bipartisanship. If recent cooperation shouldnt be confused with new bipartisan vigor, theres another new reason to be skeptical: history. Barack Obama's re-election marks only the second time that three consecutive presidents have served consecutive two-year terms. The last time was Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. This gives us three modern examples of the presidential learning curve. After re-election, presidents of both parties draw the same conclusion: Bipartisanship is a pipe dream. In Bill Clinton's second inaugural address, he declared his election would bring about a new bipartisan era. "The American people returned to office a president of one party and a Congress of another. Surely they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore." This was true long enough for the president to reach a budget deal with Republicansjust before his second term devolved into impeachment hearings. When Republicans pursued him for lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, Clinton interpreted it as nothing more than blind partisanship. In 2004, after George W. Bush was re-elected, the man who once promised to unite and not divide entered his second term with a far dimmer view of compromise. "I've got the will of the people at my back," he said despite his narrow victory. Bushs definition of bipartisanship meant other p eople falling in line: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals." Bush later admitted that when giving his State of the Union address, he relished the partisan reaction it provoked. "Sometimes I look through that teleprompter and see reactions. I'm not going to characterize what the reactions are, but nevertheless it causes me to want to lean a little more forward into the prompter, if you know what I mean. Maybe it's the mother in me." Like Clinton, President

Obama faces the prospect of hammering out deals with a divided government, but he reached the opposite conclusion.
The presidents aggressive second-term trajectory was evident even before he gave his inauguration speech, but the speech set the emotional tone for a second term full of conflicts. When Obamas top political adviser argues that Democrats dont have an opposition party worthy of the opportunity, it cemented the proof. There may be bipartisan progress in the months to come, but it will be of a tougher kind. Members of the two parties may join arms and make a deal, but it wont be the result of fellow feeling, conciliation, or understanding. If theres going to be gang-like behavior that achieves bipartisanship, its more likely to come through a headlock than a hug.

AT: Benghazi/IRS Scandals

The scandals have no effect on immigration reform and are even expediting its process ABC 5-17 [Why Immigration Reform Will Survive Obama's Scandals, May 17th, 2013,
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/immigration-reform-survive-president-obamasscandals/story?id=19203730#.UZcRIbU3vzw, Chetan] The trio of scandals facing President Obama have many in Washington asking whether this marks the beginning of the end for his legislative agenda. An issue such as tax reform might be impeded considering that the Internal Revenue Service is at the center of one of the scandals. But an initiative that could emerge unscathed, or even strengthened, is immigration reform. Before the scandals, immigration appeared to be the item on Obama's second-term agenda that
seemed likeliest to pass through Congress. Deep fault lines have developed between both parties on issues like gun control, the deficit, and debt reduction. But on immigration, there is strong political incentive for GOP leaders in Washington to join in the

effort to pass a bill. And the scandals haven't changed that. Although it's only been a few days since the scandals have overtaken the political atmosphere in Washington, developments on immigration have quietly chugged along . A bipartisan group in the House announced Thursday evening they have reached a deal in principle on a comprehensive bill
after four years of on-again, off-again talks. And in just three markup sessions, the Senate Judiciary Committee has considered 82 of the 300 amendments offered by its members, over a quarter of the total. Supporters and opponents of the bill believe that the

immigration reform

effort can make it through the scandal-obsessed environment in Washington. "I think the conditions are ripe for the [immigration] bill to make it through. The president's been very helpful. He's been there when we've asked him to be, he's laid low when we ask him, and I've got no complaints about the president and I think he can be very helpful getting it over the finish line," Sen. Lindsey Graham (RS.C.), a member of the Gang of Eight, told Politico. The publication noted that he is one of "Obama's chief Benghazi critics." Mickey Kaus, a political blogger and well known critic of the Senate Gang of Eight bill, said last week that the scandals could take away attention from the immigration reform effort, claiming that could improve its chances of success. "I actually think these distracting scandals help the bill's chances of passage ," he said at an event sponsored by BuzzFeed. "The problem with this bill
is: the elites like it, the voters don't like it. Every time there is publicity, every time it's at center stage, its chances of passage get worse." (We would note that polls show that Americans who know about the bill are divided over it, while a plurality haven't yet formed an opinion. But moving on...) So, yes, there

are plenty of reasons immigration reform might fail. But scandals just aren't one of

them .

Scandals wont derail immigration Congress is still pushing it through NBC Latino 5-15 [Will the controversy over IRS, DOJ and Benghazi derail immigration reform?, May 15th,
2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/15/will-the-controversy-over-irs-doj-and-benghazi-derail-immigration-reform/, Chetan] Legislators in Congress especially Republicans are turning their attention to plenty of issues the IRS and Tea Party groups, Benghazi, and the Justice Departments seizure of journalist records. Republican legislators like Florida Senator Marco Rubio have been calling for investigations and firings over these latest controversies. Some say this can quickly become a liability for the Obama administration as it tries to move its agenda forward. If they (the Administration) cant get a hold and change the narrative, its going to cause a lot of trouble for the White House, said Republican strategist Danny Vargas on MSNBC today. So will the focus on these issues and controversies derail an immigration bill from reaching the Presidents desk by the end of the summer? Immigration supporters in the Senate say this is not the case . We are really making a lot of headway through the Senate Judiciary Committee right now; in fact, its getting done as we speak, says Jos Parra, director of Hispanic media and Deputy Director of Communications for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Senator Reid has said from the beginning this is one of his top if not the top priority, and he continues to think so, states Parra. He intends to have it on the floor in the month of
June, he adds. Katherine Vargas, White House Director of Hispanic Media, says the President summed it up best in a recent news conference . I feel confident that the bipartisan work thats been done on immigration reform will result in a bill that pa sses the Senate, passes the House, and gets on my desk. And thats going to be a historic achievement, said President Obama, when asked about the prospects of immigration legislation this year.

GOP wont use the scandals to damage Obamas PC they want to remain committed to the legislative agenda NY Times 5-16 [G.O.P., Energized, Weighs How Far to Take Inquiries, May 16th, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/energized-gop-weighs-how-far-to-go-ininquiries.html?pagewanted=all, Chetan]

WASHINGTON The

investigations ensnaring the White House have unified the Republican Party, energized a political base shattered by election losses and given common purpose to lawmakers divided over a legislative agenda. The most pressing question for Congressional Republicans is no longer how to finesse changes to immigration law or gun control, but
how far they can push their cases against President Obama without inciting a backlash of the sort that has left them staggering in the past. With the House set on Friday to convene the first of its hearings into the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service, the lessons learned from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, which cost Republicans in elections in 1998, have been on display in recent days.

Republicans took obvious pains to balance their investigatory zeal with a promise to stay committed to a legislative agenda . In a television appearance Wednesday, Representative Darrell Issa, the often aggressive California Republican who is leading multiple inquiries, struck a notably calm tone and promised to work with Mr. Obama . Just hours earlier, Mr. Issa had a nasty exchange with Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. during a House Judiciary Committee hearing. Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio struck a similar theme Thursday. Our job is to legislate, and were trying to legislate things that will help create jobs in our country, Mr. Boehner said. But we also have a responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide oversight of the executive branch of government. In private, House lawmakers say, the speaker a member of the leadership in the Clinton era has also urged caution. Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who has led the charge on the Obama administrations handling
of the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, said the speaker had urged him to move slowly and methodically contrary, he acknowledged, to his inclinations. And House leaders have shown great reluctance to allow House committees to issue subpoenas , even as rank-and-file members and the conservative political base have been demanding them, Mr. Chaffetz said. Representative Charles Boustany Jr., Republican of Louisiana and a key driver in an investigation of the I.R.S. by the Ways and Means Committee, said, Im

being very cautious not to overplay my hand.

Impact

2NC Impact Overview

Disad outweighs and turns case economic decline causes other countries to pursue nuclear weapons because they perceive our weakness causes major power war with less restrained nukes which results in extinction. Turns case economic decline means we cant trade with Cuba or afford drilling in the OCS which tanks aff solvency

Econ Decline = War

Decline cause miscalculation and conflict prefer statistically significant evidence Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213 215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global

economy are associated with the rise and fall of a preeminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a
rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external

conflicts selfreinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006)
find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economicsecurity debate and deserves more attention.

Econ decline causes nuke war Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence
Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many

history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in
possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,

a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal w ill decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most da ngerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become selfradicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economicallyinduced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nucleararmed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dualcapable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important
geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and moderniza tion efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval

If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog eatdog world.
capabilities.

Impact Economy

CIR is key to the economy --- it spurs growth and productivity.

Creamer, 2/2/2010 (Robert author of Stand Up Straight, political organizer and strategist, Immigration Reform is Necessary for America's Economic Recovery, The Huffington Post, p. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robertcreamer/immigration-reform-is-nec_b_445688.html) In fact, c omprehensive i mmigration r eform is critical for America's long term economic success and is one of the few political initiatives that could receive genuine bipartisan support in the current Congress. The immigration system is broken -- and it costs the American economy billions in lost productivity, wasted resources, underdeveloped human capital, depressed wages, and uncollected tax revenue. The immigration reform issue is also very acutely and personally important to the
many recent immigrants to America, their families, friends and communities. The way it is addressed in Congress will have profound long-term political consequences. The Current Immigration System is an Economic Albatross The roughly twelve million undocumented immigrants in the United States create a permanent underclass of workers who exist in the shadows of our society. Their lack of legal status makes them easy prey for economic exploitation by unscrupulous employers that drag down wages and working conditions for everyone. Unscrupulous companies that hire undocumented aliens and pay below-standard wages, also undercut law-abiding employers,

leading a race to the bottom and preventing law-abiding companies from being able to compete. The result is a growing number of immigrant -- and non-immigrant-workers -- who receive lower wages and as a consequence spend less on the economy's goods and services. Just as bad, the current immigration laws prevent undocumented immigrants from investing in their own education and training -- the principal engine of economic growth . Current law makes it nearly
impossible for undocumented immigrants to get financial support for higher education. Even those who grew up in America, after being brought here as children, are barred from receiving federal assistance for college. Several weeks ago, the

C enter for A merican P rogress published a study concluding that c omprehensive i mmigration r eform would lead to a $1.5 trillion growth in gross domestic product over the next ten years. That finding is based on surveys indicating that newly legalized immigrants experience substantial increases in wages, go on to better jobs, and invest heavily in higher education . The study concluded that
reform would raise the "wage floor" for all workers, increase willingness of newly-legalized immigrants to invest in the economy and purchase big-ticket items like homes, produce more income and spending, and as a consequence generate more tax revenue for government. The effect of immigration reform would be especially pronounced when it comes to tax revenue and government expenditures. Currently employers often pay undocumented workers "under the table." That costs government -- and the Social Security Trust Fund -- billions of dollars in lost revenue. At the same time, billions more are expended to apprehend, detain and deport productive members of society. And, of course, the status quo diverts precious law enforcement resources from apprehending serious criminals and terrorists to chasing down bus boys and farm workers.

America's long-term economic success requires that we fix the broken immigration system . We can't rebuild a
strong, robust economy on top of a broken immigration system.

Solves the economy

Krudy, 13 (Edward, Immigration reform seen boosting US economic growth, January 29 th, 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/immigration-reform-seen-boosting-us-economic-growth1C8159298) The sluggish U.S. economy could get a lift if President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of senators succeed in what could be the biggest overhaul of the nation's immigration system since the 1980s. Relaxed immigration rules could encourage entrepreneurship, increase demand for housing, raise tax revenues and help reduce the budget deficit, economists said. By helping more immigrants enter the country legally and allowing many illegal immigrants to remain, the United States could help offset a slowing birth rate and put itself in a stronger demographic position than aging Europe, Japan and China. "Numerous industries in the United States can't find the workers they need, right now even in a bad economy, to fill their orders and expand their production as the market demands," said Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration specialist at the libertarian Cato Institute. The emerging consensus among economists is that immigration provides a net benefit. It increases demand and productivity, helps drive innovation and lowers prices, although there is little agreement on the size of the impact on economic growth. First Thoughts: Obama to embrace Senate immigration deal President Barack Obama plans to launch his second-term push for a U.S. immigration overhaul
during a visit to Nevada on Tuesday and will make it a high priority to win congressional approval of a reform package this year, the White House said. The chances of major reforms gained momentum on Monday when a bipartisan group of senators agreed on a framework that could eventually give 11 million illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. Their proposals would also

include means to keep and attract workers with backgrounds in science, technology, engineering and

mathematics. This would be aimed both at foreign students attending American universities where they are earning advanced degrees and
high-tech workers abroad. An estimated 40 percent of scientists in the United States are immigrants and studies show immigrants are twice as likely to start businesses, said Nowrasteh. Boosting legal migration and legalizing existing workers could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. economy over the next 10 years, estimates Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a specialist in immigration policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. That's an annual increase of 0.8 percentage points to the economic growth rate,

currently stuck at about 2 percent.

Prevents collapse
Ozimek 2-7 (Adam, Contributor, Does An Aging Population Hurt The Economy? Forbes, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/02/07/does-an-aging-population-hurt-the-economy/) The economic benefit of immigration is in part about how big of a problem our aging population is . Immigrants are in general younger, and our best way to fight against a growing ratio of retirees to workers . But
this raises the question of how big of a problem is this ratio and our aging population in general. While many are concerned about this, Dean Baker argues it is not a problem. He agrees that the ratio has increased and will continue to increase in the future as the population ages, but he argues that we havent seen any problems yet so we wont see any later: We have already seen a sharp decline in the ratio of workers to retirees, yet even people who follow the economy and economic policy closely, like Klein, were apparently not even aware of this fact. Since this decline is never cited as factor causing our current economic problems, why would we think the comparatively mild decline in this ratio projected for future decades will be a large burden? Dean is wrong that the ratio of workers to retirees is not cited as a factor in the current economic problems. The most prominent example comes from newly appointed Council of Economic Advisors member James Stock and his co-author Mark Watson. In their paper Disentangling the Channels of the 2007 -2009 Recession they specifically cite demographic trends as a cause of our slow recovery. The variable Stock and Watson ultimately cite is the decline in labor force participation, and they argue it is driven by the aging of the workforce and the overall distribution of workers by age. Dean may argue that this technically isnt the dependency ratio, bu t that would be quibbling: changes in these two measures capture the same basic economic phenomenon of the aging population and a lower percentage of the population working. Not

only has the aging population contributed to the slow recovery , Stock and Watson argue there is

good reason to believe it will mean slow recoveries in the future too: The main conclusion from this demographic work is that, barring a new increase in female labor force participation or a significant increase in the growth rate of the population, these demographic factors point towards a further decline in trend growth of employment and hours in the coming decades. Applying this demographic view to

recessions and recoveries suggests that the future recessions with historically typical cyclical behavior will have steeper declines and slower recoveries in output and employment. Furthermore, this is just the impact of the aging population on business cycles, there is also the very serious problem of how it will affect our finances. Dean knows that by increasing the workforce immigration improves Social Securitys finances. In 2006 he wrote that if futur e
immigration was at 2001-2002 levels instead of at around 900,000 per year it would reduce the Social Security trust funds long-term shortfall by 12%. A shortfall means we will reduce benefits or pay for it in higher taxes, and either are going to result in lower welfare for someone.

Impact Cyberterror

Immigration reform generates an effective base of IT experts.

McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored Independent Task Force, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/ publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States. We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security, certainly noteworthy attacks here very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was there any discussion or any interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more effective group of IT experts here in the U nited S tates, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic institutions from overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive disadvantage going forward. MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are gifted, talented, really

have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of technology and scientific advances , we're going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .

That deters and solves the impact to cyberattacks

Saydjari 8 (O. Sami, Cyber Defense Agency, LLC, Structuring for Strategic Cyber Defense: A Cyber Manhattan Project Blueprint, 2008 Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, http://www.acsac.org/2008/program /keynotes/saydjari.pdf)
As a step toward a security research plan that includes such capabilities, we should identify endstates goals in terms of how we want our systems to ideally operate. This fresh perspective includes the overall strategic picture and connects clearly with strategic actions that significantly mitigate strategic vulnerabilities. If, for example, the nation has a capability to quickly recover its critical

information infrastructure, then the end-state is that strategic attack damages are mitigated and critical services are restored quickly, possibly deterring adversaries from attempting a future attack. Desired End-States. The National Cyber
Defense Initiative (NCDI) Opening Moves Workshop [4] identified important end-states, the outcome of a 10- year research effort to create critical capabilities. The following end-states appear in the workshop proceedings: --Continuity of Critical Information Infrastructure Operations. Create

technology that would be the basis for a resilient US cyber infrastructure that would sustain critical functions in the face of attacks, including those that could be affected by determined adversaries. --Well-Defended Critical Assets. Make it economically prohibitive for an adversary to cause strategic damage to critical US infrastructures. Currently, adversaries can
attack critical systems without investing substantial resources.

Nuclear war. Lawson 9 (Sean, Assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, Cross-Domain Response to Cyber Attacks and the Threat of Conflict Escalation, May 13th 2009, http://www.seanlawson.net/?p=477)
Introduction At a time when it seems impossible to avoid the seemingly growing hysteria over the threat of cyber war,[1] network security expert Marcus Ranum delivered a refreshing talk recently, The Problem with Cyber War, that took a critical look at a number of the assumptions underlying contemporary cybersecurity discourse in the United States. He addressed one issue in partiuclar that I would like to riff on here, the issue of conflict escalationi.e. the

offensive use of cyber attacks could escalate to the use of physical force. As I will show, his concerns are entirely legitimate as current U.S. military cyber doctrine assumes the possibility of what I call cross-domain responses to cyberattacks. Backing Your Adversary (Mentally) into a Corner Based on the premise that completely blinding a potential adversary is a good indicator to that adversary that an attack is i minent, Ranum has argued that The best thing that you could possibly do if you want to start World War III is launch a cyber attack. [...] When people talk about cyber war like its a practical thing, what theyre really doing is messing with the OK button for starting World War III. We need to get them to sit the f-k down and shut the f-k up. [2] He is making a point similar to one that I have made in the past: Taking away an adversarys ability to make rational decisions could backfire. [3] For example, Gregory Witol cautions that attacking the decision makers ability to perform rational calculation s may cause more problems than it hopes to resolve Removing the capacity for rational action may result in completely unforeseen consequences,
possibility that including longer and bloodier battles than may otherwise have been. [4] Cross-Domain Response So, from a theoretical standpoint, I think his concerns are well founded. But the current state of U.S. policy may be cause for even greater concern. Its not just worrisome that a hypothetical blinding attack via cyberspace could send a signal of immin ent attack and therefore trigger an irrational response from the adversary. What is also cause for concern is

current U.S. policy indicates that kinetic attacks (i.e. physical use of force) are seen as potentially legitimate responses to cyber attacks. Most worrisome is that current U.S. policy implies that a nuclear response is possible, something that policy makers have not denied in recent press reports. The
that

reason, in part, is that the U.S. defense community has increasingly come to see cyberspace as a domain of warfare equiva lent to air, land, sea, and space. The definition of cyberspace as its own domain of warfare helps in its own right to blur the online/offline, physical-space/cyberspace boundary. But thinking logically about the potential consequences of this framing leads to some disconcerting conclusions. If cyberspace is a domain of warfare, then it becomes possible to define cyber attacks (whatever those may be said to entail) as acts of war. But what happens if the U.S . is attacked in any of the other domains? It retaliates. But it usually does not respond only within the domain in which it was attacked. Rather, responses are typically cross-domain responsesi.e. a massive bombing on U.S. soil or vital U.S. interests abroad (e.g. think 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) might lead to air strikes against the attacker. Even more likely given a U.S. military way of warfare that emphasizes multidimensional, joint operations is a m assive conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) response against the attacker in all domains (air, land, sea, space), simultaneously. The possibility of kinetic action in response to cyber attack, or as part of offensive U.S. cyber operation s, is part of the current (2006) National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations [5]: Of course, the

while this may seem far fetched, it has not been ruled out by U.S. defense policy makers and is, in fact, implied in current U.S. defense policy documents . From the
possibility that a cyber attack on the U.S. could lead to a U.S. nuclear reply constitutes possibly the ultimate in cross -domain response. And National Military Strategy of the United States (2004): The term WMD/E relates to a broad range of adversary capabilities th at pose potentially devastating impacts. WMD/E includes chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and enhanced high explosive weapons as well as other, more asymmetrical weapons. They may rely more on disruptive impact than d estructive kinetic effects. For example, cyber attacks on US commercial information systems or attacks against transpor tation networks may have a greater economic or psychological effect than a relatively small release of a lethal agent. [6] T he authors of a 2009 National Academies of Science report on cyberwarfare respond to

the United States will regard certain kinds of cyberattacks against as being in the same category as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and thus that a nuclear response to certain kinds of cyberattacks (namely, cyberattacks with devastating impacts) may be possible. It also sets a relevant scalea cyberattack that has an impact larger than that associated
this by saying, Coupled with the declaratory policy on nuclear weapons described earlier, this statement implies that the United States with a relatively small release of a lethal agent is regarded with the same or greater seriousness. [7] Asked by the New York Times to comment on this, U.S. defense officials woul d not deny that nuclear retaliation remains an option for response to a massive cyberattack: Pentagon and military officials confi rmed that the United States reserved the option to respond in any way it chooses to punish an adversary responsible for a catastrophic cyberattack. While the options could include the use of nuclear weapons, officials said, such an extreme counterattack wa s hardly the most likely response. [8] The rationale for this policy: Thus, the United States never declared that it would be bound to respond to a Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional invasion with only American and NATO conventional forces. The fear of escalating to a nuclear conflict was viewed as a pillar of stability and is credited with helping deter the larger Soviet-led conventional force throughout the cold war. Introducing the possibility of a nuclear response to a catastrophic cyberattack would be expected to serve the same purpose. [9] Non -unique, Dangerous, and In-credible? There are a couple of interesting things to note in response. First is the development of a new acronym, WMD/E (weapons of mass destruction or effect). Again, this acronym indicates a weakening of the requirement of physical impacts. In this new definition, mass effects that are not necessarily physical, nor necessarily destructive, but possibly on ly disruptive economically or even psychologically (think shock and awe) are seen as equivalent to WMD. This new emphasis on effects, disruption, and psychology reflects both contemporary, but also long-held beliefs within the U.S. defense community. It reflects current thinking in U.S. military theory, in which it is said that U.S. forces should be able to mass fires and mass effects without having to physically mass forces. There is a sliding scale in which the physical (often referred to as the kinetic) gradually retreatsi.e. massed forces are most physical; massed fire is less physical (for the U.S. anyway); and massed effects are the least physical, having as the ultimate goal Sun Tzus pinnacle of excellence, winning without fighting. But the emphasis on disruption and psychology in WMD/E has also been a key component of much of 20th century military thought in the West. Industrial theories of warfare in the early 20th century posited that industrial societies were increasingly interdependent and reliant upon mass production, transportation, and consumption of material goods. Both industrial societies and the material links that held them together, as well as industrial people and their own internal linkages (i.e. nerves), were seen as increasingly fragile and prone to disruption via attack with the latest industrial weapons: airplanes and tanks. Once interdependent and fragile industrial societies were hopelessly disrupted via attack by the very weapons they themselves created, the nerves of modern, industrial men and women would be shattered, leading to moral and mental defeat and a loss of will to fight. Current thinking about the possible dangers of cyber attack upon the U.S. are based on the same basic premises: technologically dependent and therefore fragile societies populated by masses of people sensitive to any disruption in expected standards of living are easy targets. Ultimately, however, a number of researchers have pointed out the pseudo-psychological, pseudo-sociological, and a-historical (not to mention non-unique) nature of these assumptions. [10] Others have pointed out that these assumptions did not turn out to be true during WWII strategic bombing campaigns, that modern, industrial societies and populations were far more resilient than military theorists had assumed. [11] Finally, even some military theorists have questioned the assumptions behind cyber war, especially when assumptions about our own technology dependence-induced societal fragility (dubious on their own) are applied to other societies, especially non-Western societies (even more dubious). [12] Finally, where deterrence is concerned, it is important to remember that a deterrent has to be credible to be effective. True, the U.S. retained nuclear weapons as a deterrent during the Cold War. But, from the 1950s through the 1980s, there was increasing doubt among U.S. planners regarding the credibility of U.S. nuclear deterrence via the threat of massive retaliation. As early as the 1950s it was becoming clear that the U.S. would be reluctant at best to actually follow through on its threat of massive retaliation. Unfortunately, most money during that period had gone into building up the nuclear arsenal; conventional weapons had been marginalized. Thus, the U.S. had built a force it was likely never to use. So, the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s saw the development of concepts like flexible response and more emphasis on building up conventional forces. This was the big story of the 1980s and the Reagan build-up (not Star Wars). Realizing that, after a decade of distraction in Vietnam, it was back in a position vis-a-viz the Soviets in Europe in which it would have to rely on nuclear weapons to offset its own weakness in conventional forces, a position that could lead only to blackmail or holocaust, the U.S. moved to create stronger conventional forces. [13] Thus, the question where cyber war is concerned: If it was in-credible that the U.S. would actually follow through with massive retaliation after a Soviet attack on the U.S. or Western Europe, is it really credible to say that the U.S. would respond with nuclear weapons to a cyber attack, no matter how disruptive or destructive? Beyond credibility,

deterrence makes many other assumptions that are problematic in the cyber war context. It assumes an adversary capable of being deterred . Can most of those who would perpetrate a cyber attack be deterred? Will al-Qaida be deterred ? How about a band of nationalistic or even just thrill-seeker, bandwagon hackers for hire? Second, it assumes clear lines of command and control . Sure, some hacker groups might be funded and assisted to a great degree by states. But ultimately, even cyber war theorists will admit that it is doubtful that states have complete control over their armies of hacker mercenaries. How will deterrence play out in this kind of scenario?

Cyberterrorism will cause accidental launch that triggers the Dead Hand and nuclear war
Fritz 9 (Jason, BS St. Cloud, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control, Study Commissioned on Nuclear Non Proliferation and Disarmament, July, www.icnnd.org/Documents/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.doc) Direct control of launch
The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present and in agreement during critical stages of nuclear command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine, both the commanding officer and executive officer must agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message (EAM) is needed. This is a preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and consist of a complex code read by a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the event of destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control centres. Once a command centre has confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the weapons and the message is sent out. These messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency Global Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of

Some reports have noted a Pentagon review, which showed a potential electronic back door into the US Navys system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to Trident submarines (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists could potentially infiltrate this network and insert false orders for launch. The investigation led to elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders (Blair 2003). Adding further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submari ne launched nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft Windows operating system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The choice of operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as alarming as the advertising of such a system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the necessary reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the operating system would play a direct role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating system may lead to the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges, tracking, valuable information, and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a launch. Remember from Chapter 2 that the UKs nuclear submarines have the authority to launch if they believe the central command has been destroyed. Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating strike could also be used to engage fail-deadly systems. Open source knowledge is scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However evidence suggests that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated system set to launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation strike against Soviet leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message
VLF submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception. to the bunkers, switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links with top military commanders, the system would send low-frequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other military sites, these rockets in turn would

broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can be fired automatically. (Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate Perimetr, and then fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task, the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine and learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level officialsanyone who has reportedly worked on such a project, or individuals involved in military operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located at Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008) Indirect Control of Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be tra nsmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down these centres computer networks completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine. A radar operator used Krokus to notify a general on duty who decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the countdown for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes before the missile was properly identifieda considerable amount of time considering the speed with which a nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in these early warning systems would be relatively easy using computer network operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network. However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the details, such as passwords and software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the operators believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no

This could add pressure to the decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round EMP burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as the one used by Norway, in an attempt to fool the system. The number of states who possess such technology is far greater than the number of states who possess nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when enhancing operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional terrorist methods with cyber techniques opens opportunities neither could accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations might be more vulnerable to a computer attack, while satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a laser beam, thus together they deny dual phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and
longer verify it.

automated scanning devices created by more experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a highly complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the worlds most powerful and well funded militari es. Yet, there are recurring gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially available software for voice-morphing could be used to capture voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes into phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a nuclear war. **[they cut off the paragraph]** In June 1998, a gro up of international hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web site of Indias Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page showing a mushroom cloud and the text If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream (Denning 1999). Hacker web -page defacements like these are often derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a nuisance which causes no significant harm. However, web-page defacements are becoming more common, and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia, a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was planted on his political party website (Grant 2007). This took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.

Impact US/India Relations

Immigration reform expands skilled labor --- spurs relations and economic growth in China and India.
L os A ngeles Times, 11/9/2012 (Other countries eagerly await U.S. immigration reform, p. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/11/us-immigration-reform-eagerly-awaited-by-sourcecountries.html) "Comprehensive immigration reform will see expansion of skilled labor visas ," predicted B. Lindsay Lowell, director of policy studies for the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University . A former research chief for the congressionally appointed Commission on Immigration Reform, Lowell said he expects to see at least a fivefold increase in the number of highly skilled labor visas that would provide "a significant shot in the arm for India and China ." There is widespread consensus among economists and academics that skilled migration fosters new trade and business relationships between countries and enhances links to the global economy , Lowell said. "Countries like India and China weigh the opportunities of business abroad from their expats with the possibility of brain drain, and I think they still see the immigration opportunity as a bigger plus than not ," he said.

US/India relations averts South Asian nuclear war.

Schaffer, Spring 2002 (Teresita Director of the South Asia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Security, Washington Quarterly, p. Lexis) Washington's increased interest in India since the late 1990s reflects India's economic expansion and position as Asia's newest rising power. New Delhi, for its part, is adjusting to the end of the Cold War. As a result, both giant democracies see that they can benefit by closer cooperation . For Washington, the advantages include a wider network of friends in Asia at a time when the region is changing rapidly, as well as a stronger position from which to help calm possible future nuclear tensions in the region . Enhanced trade and investment benefit both countries and are a prerequisite for improved U.S. relations with India . For India, the country's ambition to assume a stronger leadership role in the
world and to maintain an economy that lifts its people out of poverty depends critically on good relations with the United States

Aff

Uniqueness

2AC - Wont Pass

CIR wont pass Senate and House bills differ greatly and there isnt even any House legislation Politico 5-17 [Immigration reform no sure bet, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]
After years of false starts, Washington finally appears to be on the path to rewriting the nations immigration laws. The Senate Gang of Eight bill is holding its own in committee and is expected to hit the Senate floor in June. And in the House this week,

members of a bipartisan group agreed in principle on a big bill to be revealed in June. But in this case, looks are deceiving . There are still major hurdles before immigration reform can reach President Barack Obamas desk. The biggest one is the GOP-controlled House. Right now, the Senate bill has no chance of making it to the House floor . Key senators such as Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) have stressed that their bill would need upwards of 70 Senate votes in order to enact pressure on the House. But House GOP negotiators flatly say the margin of votes in the Senate no matter how big wont matter. I dont think it can pass the House, said Rep. John
Carter (R-Texas) said of the Senate bill, echoing the quiet conversation of top House Republican leaders. I think our bill has a better chance of passing the House than the Senate bill. We went more into detail than they did. Theyve got holes all through their bill. There are many

reasons for the Senate bill being anathema to House conservatives, including its shorter pathway to citizenship for the 11 million illegal immigrants, a guest worker program viewed as too generous to labor unions and border security measures they say are too weak. But even getting a measure through the House will be enough of a challenge. And if the House manages to approve its own bill, then the two chambers would have to hammer out a compromise or let immigration reform die. The Houses legislation is still not finished , according to multiple sources. They agree broadly on how to deal with the issue of health care for undocumented immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship, but havent worked out the details. The party also threw in the towel on a consensus on low-skilled worker visas.

Wont pass House wants piecemeal approach and Judiciary Committee will block Politico 5-17 [Immigration reform no sure bet, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]
So when House members say they have an agreement in principle, thats shorthand for this can all still fall apart. For example, Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, a member of House Democratic leadership and of the House immigration group, hasnt signed on to the deal and he wants specific bill language before publicly backing it. If the House group actually releases something, it has to go through the Judiciary Committee a panel with a volatile mix of progressive liberals like New York Rep. Jerry Nadler and staunch conservatives like Iowa Rep. Steve King and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert. King and Gohmert, flanked by other House conservatives, held a press conference this week denouncing the Senate bill. Judiciary

is going to be a tough row to hoe, said Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), a member of the group. But I think well be all

right. I think that a lot of the things that make it important are going to stay in pla ce. At least Im very hopeful. Not to mention, that committees chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), has said he wants to overhaul immigration in bite-sized bills not the comprehensive approach of the eight-person group. His committee members say the same thing. Im in favor of an incremental approach, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R -Utah) said. I think you do this one step at a time. Find common ground and move onto the next issue. House Republicans are leaving open the option to break up the groups immigration bill and move separate pieces through different committees. Judiciary will have the primary jurisdiction, but for instance border security provisions could be taken up by the Homeland Security Committee. But Democrats who have consistently rallied for one comprehensive bill are expected

to raise ferocious objections to a piecemeal approach in the House. If the House bill survives the entire chamber, the House and Senate will need to negotiate the considerable differences . The House bill, reflecting its
Republican members, is already more conservative, and is likely to become even more so after making its way through that chamber.

1AR Wont Pass

Wont pass Senate provisions are too controversial for House conservatives Politico 5-17 [Immigration reform no sure bet, May 17th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/immigration-reform-no-sure-bet-91573.html, Chetan]

The Senate bill alone is a delicate bipartisan compromise, and pulling that legislation too much to the right or left could risk unraveling the entire agreement . A more conservative House bill will run into resistance from liberal Democratic senators several of whom have already proposed changes to the Senate bill that makes the pathway to citizenship more generous or add provisions to cover gay partners. On top of that, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his leadership team need to keep an eye on the far right, because conservatives like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are already denouncing any kind of reform. If theres anything that looks like amnesty thats brought before this Congress it would be exactly the wedge that splits the Republican Party in this House, he said in an interview. There are a whole lot of conservatives that havent spoken out. Theyre increasing in their intensity in this thing. I can just feel it. And with all the attention on Sen. Marco Rubios (R Fla.) bipartisan work with Schumer (D-N.Y.), you would think that bill could sail through the conservative House.

Link

2AC Plan Popular

Oil companies massively support the plan and lobby for it---determines Congressional sentiment Sadowski 11 Richard Sadowski 11, J.D., Hofstra University School of Law, Fall 2011, IN THIS ISSUE:
NATURAL RESOURCE CONFLICT: CUBAN OFFSHORE DRILLING: PREPARATION AND PREVENTION WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO, Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 12 Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 37, p. lexis
A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba's offshore oil fields hold at least four and a half billion barrels of recoverable oil and ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas. n29 Cupet, the state-owned Cuban energy company, insists that actual reserves are double that of the U.S. estimate. n30 One estimate indicates that Cuba could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day. n31 Given this vast resource, Cuba has already leased offshore oil exploration blocks to operators from Spain, Norway, and India. n32 Offshore oil discoveries in Cuba are placing

increasing pressure for the United States to end the embargo. First, U.S. energy companies are eager to compete for access to Cuban oil reserves. n33 [*38] Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued to warrant U.S. investment and technology. n34 Finally, the concern over Cuban offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a failure and harms human rights. ECONOMICS: U.S. COMPANIES WANT IN For U.S. companies, the embargo creates concern that they will lose out on an opportunity to develop a nearby resource. n35 Oil companies have a long history of utilizing political pressure for self-serving purposes . n36 American politicians, ever fearful of high energy costs , are especially susceptible to oil-lobby pressures . n37 This dynamic was exemplified in 2008, when then-Vice President Dick Cheney told the board of directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that "oil is being drilled right now sixty miles off the coast of Florida. But we're not doing it, the Chinese are , in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply " n38 This pressure for U.S. investment in oil is exacerbated by America's expected increase in consumption rates. n39 Oil company stocks are valued in large part on access to reserves. n40 Thus, more leases, including those in Cuban waters , equal higher stock valuation. n41 "The last thing that American energy companies want is to be trapped on the sidelines by sanctions while European, Canadian and Latin American rivals are free to develop new oil resources on the doorstep of the United States." n42

Rubio loves the plan Abramson 10 (Andrew, Rubio says Obama's offshore drilling proposal "right decision for
country",http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/rubio-says-obamas-offshore-drilling-proposalright/nL5tX/) Considering that Marco Rubio has spent months attacking Republican governor Charlie Crist for supporting President Obama's stimulus plan, Rubio praising Obama for anything might be the last thing Rubio supporters' expected. But at a campaign luncheon at the First Baptist Church at 1101 S. Flagler Drive this afternoon, Rubio a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate said he was surprised when Obama announced his intentions to open offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. "It was the first time I think the administration has ever signaled a willingness to look at that," Rubio said to reporters after his speech. "I think it's important that the country has all of its domestic energy resources at its disposal. "It's the right decision for our country." Rubio said he still needed to learn more details of the proposal, but that he wants more drilling off the coast of Florida.

Rubio will make or break the bill Politico 5-6 [Gang of Eight plots path to Senate supermajority, May 6th, 2013,
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/gang-of-eight-immigration-supermajority-90949_Page2.html, Chetan] The second tier of senators, who are less likely to back the bill but could be swayed , includes John Barrasso of Wyoming, John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho and Johnny Isakson of Georgia. This is a group that could

vote yes if Rubio is still on board and other conservatives are falling into line. The key is Rubio , said Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. Without Rubio, this bill would not get anywhere with Republicans. He gives them the cover.

1AR Popularity Turn

Drilling in the OCS is popular

Russell 12 [Barry Russell is President of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, August 15, 2012, Energy Must Transcend
Politics, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php#2238176] There have been glimpses of great leadership, examples when legislators have reached across the aisle to construct and support common-sense legislation that encourages American energy production. Recent legislation from Congress which would replace the Obama administrations five-year offshore leasing plan and instead increase access Americas abundant offshore oil and natural gas

is one example of such bipartisan ship. The House passed legislation with support from 25 key Democrats. The support from Republicans and Democrats is obviously not equal, but this bipartisan legislative victory demonstrates a commitment by the House of Representatives to support the jobs, economic growth and national security over stubborn allegiance to political party . The same is happening on the Senate side. Democratic Senators Jim Webb (VA), Mark Warner (VA), and Mary Landrieu (LA) cosponsored the Senates legislation to expand offshore oil and natural gas production with Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Hoeven (ND), and Jim Inhofe (OK). Senator Manchin (WV) is another Democratic leader who consistently
votes to promote responsible energy development.

Committee votes
Hastings 12
[Doc, R- Wash, 7/23/12, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/239529-president-obamas-offshore-drilling-plan-must-bereplaced]

the Congressional Replacement of President Obamas Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan, would replace President passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee with bipartisan support and will be considered by the full House this week. It sets up a clear choice between the presidents drill-nowherenew plan and the Congressional replacement plan to responsibly expand offshore American energy production. President Obamas plan doesnt open one new area
H.R. 6082, Obamas plan with an environmentally responsible, robust plan that supports new offshore drilling. This plan for leasing and energy production. The Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast and most of the water off Alaska are all placed off-limits. This is especially frustrating for Virginians who had a lease sale scheduled for 2011, only to have it canceled by President Obama. The president added further insult to injury by not including the Virginia lease sale in his final plan, meaning the earliest it could

The presidents plan only offers 15 lease sales limited to the Gulf of Mexico and, very late in the plan, small parts of Alaska. It doesnt open one new area for leasing and energy production. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, President Obamas 15 lease sales represent the lowest number
happen is late 2017. ever included in an offshore leasing plan. President Obama rates worse than even Jimmy Carter.

GOP Support
Largen 12 [Stephen, Post and Courier, 6/12/12, http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120612/PC16/120619771/haley-congressionalrepublicans-push-offshore-drilling]
All can and should be in the Palmetto States future, a trio of some of the states said Monday as they renewed . But an environmental group said its unclear that theres sufficient oil and natural gas deposits off the coast to support drilling, and doing so would risk the bread and butter of South Carolinas economy: tourism. U.S. Sen. Lindsey

leading Republicans

launched a

push for offshore drilling

Graham and U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan said Monday that they will introduce companion bills that would open the states coastline for oil and natural gas exploration from 10 to 50 miles offshore. Lets get on with it, Graham said during a news conference with Duncan and Gov. Nikki Haley. Im tired of talking about being energy independent. Im tired of sending the hardworking people of Americas money overseas to buy oil from people who hate our guts. In 2005, Graham said offshore drilling could harm the coastal
economy due to concerns about the impact of drilling on the environment and tourism. And he said offshore drilling represented nothing more than buying time and not addressing the fundamental problem with fossil fuels. He explained his change of heart Monday by saying that his bill addresses environmental concerns with its requirement that no drilling be allowed within the 10-mile buffer. South Carolina would also have to clear all exploration within the 10- to 50-mile zone off the coast, he said. Grahams measure would allocate 37.5 percent of all revenue from any drilling to the state. Fifty percent of revenue would be used to pay down the federal debt, and the remaining 12.5

. Graham said his bill also would allow drilling off Virginias coast and has the support of the commonwealths two U.S. senators. The S.C. Republicans and several business groups in attendance Monday highlighted a new report estimating that drilling could bring $87.5 million in annual revenue to the Palmetto State years down the line.
percent would be used to fund conservation efforts

1AR Rubio Turn

Rubio Pushes Human Events 10 [Exclusive Human Events Interview with Marco Rubio, May 7th, 2010,
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/05/07/exclusive-human-events-interview-with-marco-rubio/, Chetan] offshore drilling. Whats your position on that? Rubio: America has an energyindependence problem that it still needs to confront and solve . And not even the most optimistic believers in alternative sources of energy believe that anywhere and anytime in the near future that were going to be able to provide that without a reliance on petroleum. So the fundamental question for the American people is: How dependent on foreign sources of energy are we prepared to become? There is going to be drilling off the shore of the United States .
HE: Segueing into another issue: Its going to be done by China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russians and others who have openly announced plans to explore off Floridas coasts and in the Gulf region etc. And so, naturally, now we are in the midst of a very serious economic, ecological, and environmental disaster. One that needs to be dealt with to minimize the damage its going to cause. The second thing we need to figure out is why it happened. Primarily, to make sure that the responsible parties pay for it and to ensure that it never happens again because there are thousands of rigs operating all over the world right now. But ultimately, when all of that is settled, we still have an energy-independence issue, an energy-independence goal. I believe alternative energies and in the development of new energy technologies. Thats going to take time. And, in the interim,

America should invest heavily America has to have all of its domestic

in

energy resources at least at its disposal.

HE: So you would approve of drilling in ANWR? Rubio: As long as it can be done safely, absolutely. And thats probably

the debate were going to be having here very shortly. What caused this accident? Was it BP oriented? Was it human error? Was it specific to that rig? There are thousands of other drilling operations all over the world and this is not happening on them. So we need to figure out that first. But

I think calls for moratoriums are premature.

Internals

Aff Obama Wont Push

Obama wont push immigration hes taking a hands-off approach Washington Post 4-13 [With domestic legacy in lawmakers hands, Obama considers his options, April
13th, 2013, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-13/politics/38507684_1_president-obama-senaterepublicans-agenda, Chetan] After outlining what he wants in an immigration bill, Obama has largely taken a hands-off approach to designing the legislation, now the subject of negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight. The strategy was adopted soon after his second-term inauguration, when Obama, eager to push the issue after winning more than 70 percent of the Latino vote, prepared to introduce his own bill during a visit to Las Vegas to break a long-standing deadlock among Senate negotiators. Administration officials said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a Gang of Eight member, called the White House a few days before the Jan. 29 event. Schumer said the group was close to reaching consensus on a bill and asked Obama to hold off on announcing his own in order to avoid disrupting the talks. Obama agreed. On any issue where there is progress being made, we dont want to get in the way , said a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the White House legislative strategy and assess its prospects. Every one of these issues has potential pitfalls and potential opportunities.

Aff PC Not Key

PC not key other factors shape the agenda mofre Dickinson 9 professor of political science at Middlebury College and taught previously at Harvard University
where he worked under the supervision of presidential scholar Richard Neustadt (5/26/09, Matthew, Presidential Power: A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics, Sotomayor, Obama and Presidential Power, http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/05/26/sotamayor-obama-and-presidential-power/, JMP)
As for Sotomayor, from here the path toward almost certain confirmation goes as follows: the Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to hold hearings sometime this summer (this involves both written depositions and of course open hearings), which should lead to formal Senate approval before Congress adjourns for its summer recess in early August. So Sotomayor will likely take her seat in time for the start of the new Court session on October 5. (I talk briefly about the likely politics of the nomination process below). What is of more interest to me, however, is what her

Political scientists, like baseball writers evaluating hitters, have devised numerous means of measuring a presidents influence in Congr ess. I will devote a separate post to discussing these, but in brief, they often center on the creation of legislative box scores designed to measure how many times a presidents preferred piece of legislation, or nominee to the executive branch or the courts, is approved by Congress. That is, how many pieces of legislation that the president supports actually pass Congress? How often do members of Congress vote with the presidents preferences? How often is a presidents policy position supported by roll call outcomes? These measures, however, are a misleading gauge of presidential power they are a better indicator of congressional power. This is because how members of Congress vote on a nominee or legislative item is rarely influenced by anything a president does. Although journalists (and political scientists) often focus on the legislative endgame to gauge presidential influence will the President swing enough votes to get his preferred legislation enacted? this mistakes an outcome with actual evidence of presidential influence. Once we control for other factors a member of Congress ideological and partisan leanings, the political leanings of her constituency, whether shes up for reelection or not we can usually predict how she will vote without needing to know much of anything about what the president wants. (I am ignoring the importance of a presidents veto power for the moment.) Despite the much publicized and celebrated instances of presidential armtwisting during the legislative endgame, then, most legislative outcomes dont depend on presidential lobbying .
selection reveals about the basis of presidential power.

No PC - Consensus of political scientists goes aff Beckman and Kumar 11 [Mathew N and Vival, Department of Political Science, University of California.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, vol 23, no 1, January 2011 How presidents push, when presidents win: A model of positive presidential power in US lawmaking.http://jtp.sagepub.com/content/23/1/3.abstract]
Deciding how best to promote the presidents policy initiatives on Capitol Hill is a frequent concern inside the modern White House. Legislative strategy sessions attract senior ofcials and fervent debate; they implicate the presidents policy positions and (p otentially) his public standing. What is more, White House staffers say the decisions they make in these meetings are vitally important for determining the pr esidents fate in Congress. For Beltway insiders, then, it comes as no surprise that the president s advisors expend considerable amounts of their time, expertise, and energy devising a legislative strategy and translating it into a lobbying enterprize. For political scientists, however, the resources allocated to formulating and implementing the Whit e Houses lobbying offensive appear puzzling , if not altogether misguided. Far from highlighting each presidents capacity to marshal legislative proposals through Congress, the prevailing wisdom now stresses contextual factors as predetermining his agendas fate on Capitol Hill. From the particular political time in which they happen to take ofce (Skowronek, 1993) to the state of the budget (Brady and Volden, 1998; Peterson, 1990), the partisan composition of Congress (Bond and Fleisher, 1990; Edwards, 1989) (see also Gilmour (1995), Groseclose and McCarty (2001), and Sinclair (2006)) to the preferences of specic pivotal voters (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbie, l998), current research suggests a presidents congressional fortunes are basically beyond his control. The implication is straightforward, as Bond and Fleisher indicate: presidential success is determined in large measure by the results of the last election. If the last election brings individuals to Congress whose local interests and preferen ces coincide with the presidents, then he will enjoy greater success. If, on the other hand, most members of Congress have preferences different from the

presidents, then he will suffer more defeats, and no amount of bargaining and persuasion can do much to
improve his success. (Bond and Fleisher, 1990: 13) Fortunately for those inside the West Wing, some researchers paint a more optimistic picture regarding presidents potential for passing important planks of their legislative agenda. Covington et al. ( 1995), Barrett and Eshbaugh-Soha (2007), Edwards III and Barrett (2000), Kellerman (1984), Light (1982), Peterson (1990), and Rudalevige (2002) all observe that presidents secure greater support for their priority items, and when they exert effort pushing them. In addition, Covington (1987) concludes that White House ofcials can occasionally win greater support among legislators by working behind the scenes, while Canes -Wrone (2001, 2005) shows that presidents can induce support from a recalcitrant Congress by strategically going public when advocating popular proposals (see also

Kernell (1993)). Sullivan (1987, 1988) nds that presidents can amass winning congressional coalitions by changing members p ositions as a bill moves through the legislative process. However, even among these relative optimists, the prescription for presidents appears to be an ephemeral combination of luck and effort, not a systematic strategy . In discussing the challenge for a president looking to push legislation on Capitol Hill, Samuel Kernell offers a comparable assessment. He writes, The number and variety of choices place great demands upon [presidents] strategic calculation, so much so that pluralist leadership must be understood as an artan ability to sense right choices. (Kernell, 1993: 36) Furthermore, the seemingly paradoxical ndings noted above, that is, a general (if modes t) pattern of president-supported legislative success on passage and policy content, but not on key roll-call votes, remain unexplained. This paper aims to demystify the White Houses legislative strategies, both their logic and their effects. Developing a non -cooperative game in which the president allocates scarce political capital to induce changes in legislators behavior, we deduce two lobbying strategies White House ofcials may execute and, in turn, investigate their impact on the laws that result. Interestingly, we theorize that presidents foremost inuence comes from bargaining with congressional leaders over policy alternatives before bills reach the oor, not bargaining with pivotal voter s for their support once they do. Precisely because so much of the presidents inuence comes in the legislativ e earlygame (rather than the endgame), we theorize that typical roll-call-based tests of presidents legislative inuence" have missed most of it.

Aff Winners Win

PC theory is wrong - winners win Hirsh 13 National Journal chief correspondent, citing various political scientists [Michael, former Newsweek
senior correspondent, "Theres No Such Thing as Political Capital," National Journal, 2 -9-13, www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207] The idea of political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. On Tuesday,
in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do what every president does this time of year. For about 60 minutes, he will lay out a sprawling and ambitious wish list highlighted by gun control and immigration reform, climate change and debt reduction. In response, the pundits will do what they always do

talk about how unrealistic most of the proposals are, discussions often informed by sagacious reckonings of how much political capital Obama possesses to push his program through. Most of this talk will have no bearing on what actually happens over the next four years. Consider this: Three months ago, just before the November election, if someone had talked seriously about
this time of year: They will Obama having enough political capital to oversee passage of both immigration reform and gun-control legislation at the beginning of his second termeven after winning the election by 4 percentage points and 5 million votes (the actual final tally) this person would have been called crazy and stripped of his pundits license. (It doesnt exist, but it ought to.) In his first ter m, in a starkly polarized country, the president had been so frustrated by GOP resistance that he finally issued a limited executive order last August permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally as children to work without fear of deportation for at least two years. Obama didnt dare to even bring up gun control, a Democratic third rail that has cost the party elections and that actually might have been even less popular on the right than the presidents health care law. And yet, for reasons that have very little to do with Obamas personal prestige or popularityvariously put in terms of a mandate or political capitalchances are fair that both will now happen. What changed? In the case of gun control, of course, it wasnt the election. It was the horror of the 20 first-graders who were slaughtered in Newtown, Conn., in mid-December. The sickening reality of little girls and boys riddled with bullets from a high-capacity assault weapon seemed to precipitate a sudden tipping point in the national conscience. One thing changed after another. Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association marginalized himself with poorly chosen comments soon after the massacre. The pro-gun lobby, once a phalanx of opposition, began to fissure into reasonables and crazies. Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head two years ago and is still struggling to speak and walk, started a PAC with her husband to appeal to the moderate middle of gun owners. Then she gave riveting and poignant test imony to the Senate, challenging lawmakers: Be bold. As a result, momentum has appeared to build around some kind of a plan to curtail sales of the most dangerous weapons and ammunition and the way people are permitted to buy them. Its impossible to say now whether such a bill will pass and, if it does, whether it will make anything more than cosmetic changes to gun laws. But one thing is clear: The political compromise on immigration didnt a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, the Republican

tectonics have shifted dramatically in very little time . Whole new possibilities exist now that members of the Senates so-called Gang of Eight are pushing hard for a new spirit of

reform, a sharp change after an election year in which the GOP standard-bearer declared he would make life so miserable for the turnaround has very little to do with Obamas personal influencehis political mandate, as it were. It has almost entirely to do with just two numbers: 71 and 27. Thats 71 percent for Obama, 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the breakdown of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 presidential election. Obama drove home his advantage by giving a speech on
11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. that they would self-deport. But this immigration reform on Jan. 29 at a Hispanic-dominated high school in Nevada, a swing state he won by a surprising 8 percentage points in November. But the movement on immigration has mainly come out of the Republican Partys recent introspection, and the realization by its more t houghtful members, such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, that without such a shift the party may be facing demographic death in a country where the 2010 census

Its got nothing to do with Obamas political capital or, indeed, Obama at all. The point is not that political capital is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for mandate or momentum in the aft ermath of a decisive
showed, for the first time, that white births have fallen into the minority. electionand just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasnt, he has a better claim on the countrys mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. Its an unquantifiable but meaningful concept, says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. You cant really look at a president and say hes got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, its a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side. The real problem is that the idea of

political capitalor mandates, or momentumis so poorly defined that presidents and pundits often get it wrong. Presidents usually
over-estimate it, says George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. The best kind of political capitalsome sense of an electoral mandate to

political capital is a concept that misleads far more than it enlightens. It is distortionary. It conveys the idea that we know more than we really do about the ever-elusive concept of political power, and it discounts the way unforeseen events can suddenly change everything . Instead, it suggests, erroneously, that a political figure has a concrete amount of political capital to invest, just as someone might have real
do somethingis very rare. It almost never happens. In 1964, maybe. And to some degree in 1980. For that reason, investment capitalthat a particular leader can bank his gains, and the size of his account determines what he can do at any given moment in history. Naturally, any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economyat the moment, still stuckor some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the

pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is

kindergarten simple: You just dont know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, Winning wins. In theory, and in practice, depending on Obamas handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second -term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political presidencies say that political

scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a presidents popularity, but theres no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless , says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is

never any known amount of capital. The idea here is, if

an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and [they]he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors Ornstein says. If they think hes going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side . Its a bandwagon effect. ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ Sometimes, a clever practitioner of power can get more done just because [theyre]hes aggressive and knows the hallways of Congress well. Texas A&Ms Edwards is right to say that the outcome of the 1964 election, Lyndon Johnsons landslide victory over Barry Goldwater, was one of the few that conveyed a mandate. But one of the main reasons for that mandate (in addition to Goldwaters ineptitude as a candidate) was President Johnsons masterful use of power leading up to that election, and his ability to get far more done than anyone thought possible, given his limited political capital. In the newest volume in his exhaustive study of LBJ, The
Passage of Power, historian Robert Caro recalls Johnson getting cautionary advice after he assumed the presidency from the assassinated John F. Kennedy in late 1963. Dont focus on a long-stalled civil-rights bill, advisers told him, beca use it might jeopardize Southern lawmakers support for a tax cut and appropriations bills the president needed. One of the wise, practical people around the table [said that] the presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtnt to expend it on this, Caro writes. (Coinage, of course, was what political capital was called in those days.) Johnson replied, Well, what the hells the presidency for?

Johnson didnt worry about coinage, and he got the Civil Rights Act enacted, along with much else: Medicare, a tax cut, antipoverty programs. He appeared to understand not just the ways of Congress but also the way to maximize the momentum he possessed in the lingering mood of national grief and determination by picking the right issues, as Caro records. Momentum is not a mysterious mistress, LBJ said. It is a controllable fact of political life. Johnson had the skill and wherewithal to realize that, at that moment of history, he could have
unlimited coinage if he handled the politics right. He did. (At least until Vietnam, that is.)

Winners win
Green 10 (Green 6/11/10 professor of political science at Hofstra University (David Michael Green, 6/11/10, "The Do-Nothing 44th President ", http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Do-Nothing-44th-Presid-by-DavidMichael-Gree-100611-648.html)
Moreover, there

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

Aff Poison Pill

Obama using PC backfires causes the GOP to be reluctant to give Obama another agenda win The Hill 5-12 [White House strategy for winning immigration fight comes with some risks, May 12th, 2013,
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/299129-white-house-strategy-for-immigration-win-comes-with-somerisks, Chetan] This outside pressure, however, comes with some risks for a president who governs over a divided country. If Obama wants to make progress, some Republicans suggest he should stay out of the immigration debate at least for the time being. The president engaging is not helpful at this stage, said Matt Mackowiak, a Republican strategist. Ninety-five percent of Democrats will vote for this. This is now about how many Republicans he can get. But the president engaging on this will only make it harder for conservative Republicans to be for it . Its the exact reason why [Sen.] Marco Rubio
(R-Fla.) hasnt been going to the White House that much or locking arms with the president. The White House feels emboldened to keep up some public pressure given the desire by many Republicans to push immigration over the finish line. Unlike the recent battle over gun control, the White House is banking on the fact that Republicans need an immigration win on the heels of the 2012 election. Seventy-one percent of the Latino vote went for Obama in the 2012 election, compared to 27 percent for Republican Mitt Romney. Thats the lowest percent age for a GOP presidential candidate in the last three elections. Thats what keeps this [issue] separate from the debate over the fiscal cliff and guns, said the administration official. Its in their political incentive to get this done. High profile Republicans like Jeb Busha contender for the 2016 presidential racehave said the GOP needs a fundamental makeover on issues like immigration. Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, Bush declared at the Conservative Political Action Conference annual dinner in March. Still, Republicans warn their party still includes many opponents to reform, and that Obama could pull a defeat from the jaws of victory with too aggressive an approach. This battle is going to be won on the Hill, Mackowiak added. The White House has no role to play in that. Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University agreed, saying Obama has to keep a comfortable distance from the issue. Its a delicate thing because conservatives in the House are allergic to Obama, Jillson said. A full court press might not serve him well so hes got to figure out exactly what his posture will be. Jillson argues the inside game, however, could help carry the legislation over the top in the Senate, with 70 or more Senators voting in support of it. Its sensible for the president to work carefully with persuadable Republicans to get this done, Jillson said. The difficulty he faces is

the more he stakes his political capital on this issue, the more the Tea Party conservatives in the House wont let him have this . The real question is how forward can he be without raising the

temperature of Republicans in the House," he added. Jillson and other observers predict that if the Senate does pass the legislation, itll put some pressure on the House to follow suit. Even Republicans agree that Obamas efforts to reach across the aisle might help pass immigration. But it also might have come a little too late. Its probably leading to more fruitful discussions, Mackowiak said. But its one of thos e things that probably should have happened in his first or second year. You have to plant those seeds, water it and watch them grow.

Aff Benghazi/IRS Thumper

GOP will use the Benghazi and IRS scandals to deplete Obamas PC and stall his agenda NY Times 5-16 [G.O.P., Energized, Weighs How Far to Take Inquiries, May 16th, 2013,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/us/politics/energized-gop-weighs-how-far-to-go-ininquiries.html?pagewanted=all, Chetan]

Working against those methodical plans, however, are the personal passions of the rank and file. Mr. Chaffetz on Thursday repeated his refusal to take the impeachment of the president off the table. Representative Michele Bachmann, the Republican firebrand from Minnesota, joined in. As I have been home in my district in the Sixth District of Minnesota,
Mrs. Bachmann said, there isnt a weekend that hasnt gone by that someone says to me: Michele, what in the world are you all waiting for in Congress? Why arent you impeaching the president? Hes been making unconstitutional actions since he came into office. Republicans say they are mainly determined to get at the truth, and they question efforts to put their intensifying pursuit of the administration in political terms. Even the most ardent conservatives have adopted a tone of sobriety. Its not like were trying to hurry or trying to slow it down. Were just trying to proceed at the speed that gets to the truth, said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, who was one of the first lawmakers to dig into the I.R.S. controversy. But Republicans privately acknowledge political benefits like rekindling

the fervor of the Tea Party a key ingredient in 2010 Congressional victories particularly given the fact that the I.R.S. was subjecting those very groups to special scrutiny. Few things can get the conservative base as fired up as being targeted by an agency in the government of a president they already strongly dislike , said
Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is already using the I.R.S. case against some Senate Democrats who are up for re-election. As of now, Republican strategists say they do not expect voters to flood the polls in November 2014 to vote against the presidents party over Benghazi, the seizure of phone logs of Associated Press reporters, or even the politi cal intrusion by the I.R.S. Instead, they say,

Republicans will use the controversies to undermine Mr. Obamas credibility, question his competence and diminish his political capital . The cases also help them tar the health care law, gun control efforts and Mr.

Obamas regulatory agenda as just more examples of government overreach.

Republicans in the House will use the scandals as an excuse to not move immigration reform NBC Latino 5-15 [Will the controversy over IRS, DOJ and Benghazi derail immigration reform?, May 15th,
2013, http://nbclatino.com/2013/05/15/will-the-controversy-over-irs-doj-and-benghazi-derail-immigration-reform/, Chetan]
But others, like University of Notre Dame professor Allert Brown-Gort, are not so sure. Its not whether Benghazi or the IRS or AP sucks the oxygen out of the room for immigration reform its whether some Republicans, especially in the House,

will use this as an excuse to put off hearings and not move the legislation forward , says Brown-Gort, a faculty fellow at the Kellogg Institute for International Studies at the University of Notre Dame. Brown-Gort says that while the Republican party leadership and the intelligentsia are pushing for it, their base is saying no the Republicans got hoisted on their own petard on the
success of the word amnesty, he adds. Immigration reform advocates point to the fact that only a small group of House Republicans joined a press conference yesterday against the current immigration reform bill. The House press conference underscored the fact that these opponents are rapidly losing influence, said Americas Voice Frank Sharry. Conservative Republican Congressman Steve Stockman said in the press conference they will have a gang of millions against the bill. In the meantime, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets tomorrow again and at least in the Senate, the bill is on its way.

Benghazi and IRS scandals thump Obamas PC could make his second term useless Telegraph 5-14 [Benghazi and the IRS: the curse of the second term is haunting Barack Obama, May 14 th,
2013, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100216827/benghazi-and-the-irs-the-curse-of-the-second-termis-haunting-barack-obama/, Chetan]

Barack Obama was meant to be different. After

a surprisingly emphatic re-election last year, he seemed to have the political capital necessary to implement a substantive second-term agenda. He had reckoned without a pair of scandals . The US Internal Revenue Service this week admitted to targetting conservative groups for tax investogations especially those
with "tea party" in their names before the 2012 election. The White House press secretary later admitted these actions were "inappropriate", although that seems a rather kind way of describing the politicisation of bureaucracy. George F Will, one of America's leading political commentators, has said that he sees "echoes of Watergate" in it all. The second scandal relates to the deaths of four Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, last September. Obama faced awkward questions about it at the last election, but now that emails have been released showing a dispute between the State Department and the CIA over the tragedy, they are more pressing than ever. The fifth year of a presidency should represent a high point: buoyed by re-election and freed from the burden of running again, the president has a window for action before obsessing over the next election begins. Instead Obama faces two crises with the potential to rumble interminably on and the unanswered questions over Benghazi could also prevent Hillary Clinton from succeeding him in the White House, too. There remains confusion over exactly what Clinton knew as Secretary of State and with her none-too-subtle desire to run in 2016, the Republicans aren't about to let her forget. Obama's second term is only four months old, but already there is a

sense that it risks being shrouded in failure , with the lack of progress over gun control and the triumph of expediency over a longterm resolution in budgetary negotiations .

Impact

AT: Economy Internal

CIR doesnt solve the economy trades of with native jobs and will use welfare programs more than they provide in job creation Ruark and Graham 11 [Eric Ruark and Matthew Graham Directors of Research at the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners the Harmful effect of Unskilled immigrants on American Workers, May 2011, http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf, Chetan] calls for comprehensive immigration reform are nothing short of a push for a massive amnesty that would give permanent status to millions of illegal aliens who are not needed in the workforce , and it would reward
Current unscrupulous employers who profited from hiring illegal workers, providing them with a legal low-wage workforce that would continue to have a negative impact on native workers. The border is not secured and there is much opposition to the mandatory use of E-Verify and interior enforcement. Those who argue against enforcement are not going to decide overnight to support these measures, and politicians have long ago proven that their promise to enforce immigration laws after granting amnesty are not to be believed. This report contains the following findings: In

less than 6 percent of legal immigrants were admitted because they possessed skills deemed essential to the U.S. economy. Studies that find minimal or no negative eects on native workers from low-skill immigration are based upon lawed assumptions and skewed economic models, not upon observations of actual labor market conditions. There is no such thing as an immigrant job. The reality is that immigrants and natives compete for the same jobs and native workers are increasingly at a disadvantage because employers have access to a steady supply of low-wage foreign workers. Low-skilled immigrants are more likely than their native-born counterparts to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and to utilize welfare programs. Immigrants and their children made up
2009, 32 percent of those in the United States without health insurance in 2009. Research done by the Center for American Progress has found that reducing the illegal alien population in the United

Defenders of illegal immigration often tout the findings of the so-called Perryman Report to argue that illegal aliens are responsible for job creation in the United States; yet, if one accepts the Perryman findings as true, that would mean that only one job is created in the United States for every three illegal workers in the workforce. It is true that if the
States by one-third would raise the income of unskilled workers by $400 a year. illegal alien population decreased the overall number of jobs in the U.S. would be reduced, but there would be many more jobs available to native workers jobs that paid higher wages and oered better working conditions

CIR doesnt increase the tax intake full amnesty more than doubles their accessed welfare and they dont acquire enough jobs to compensate in taxes Ruark and Graham 11 [Eric Ruark and Matthew Graham Directors of Research at the Federation for
American Immigration Reform, Immigration, Poverty and Low-Wage Earners the Harmful effect of Unskilled immigrants on American Workers, May 2011, http://www.fairus.org/docs/poverty_rev.pdf, Chetan] Proponents of amnesty often tout the fact that amnestied illegal aliens would become taxpayers , and some proposals even stipulate that
these people would have to pay back taxes. Amnesty advocates also highlight the fact that most illegal immigrants pay Social Security taxes, ignoring the fact that this happens largely because 75 percent of illegal aliens use a stolen Social Security number (usually from children, who more easily fall victim to this type of fraud).63 It is true that illegal aliens do account for a meager tax

However, amnesty would make them eligible for the full range of tax credits and welfare benefits (the wait The argument that amnesty would turn illegal immigrants into taxpaying citizens is designed to disguise the proposals harmful fiscal impact. Steven Camarotas analysis of Current Population Survey data revealed that in 2002, the average illegal immigrant household used $2,700 more in federal government services than it paid in taxes. However, if illegal aliens were amnestied and accessed welfare at the same rate as immigrants of the same income and education level, this number would rise to S7.700.*4 These findings should not surprise anyone, as it is well known that the poor pay very little in taxes, are eligible for tax credits that may be larger than their tax payment, and use many government services. The large tax subsidies and wage impacts on the poor are not justified by the supposed economic benefits claimed by supporters of amnesty and large-scale unskilled migration. Often, the impact of a particular immigration policy on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is used to argue that even illegal aliens benefit the economy. GDP measures the total amount of production of goods and services , meaning that even a person who earned or spent just one dollar in the U.S. last year technically made a contribution to its GDP A GDP increase does little to measure the accompanying benefits or consequences. The extremely small GDP increase that results from illegal or unskilled legal immigration does not translate into improvements in the standards of living of the quality of life for most Americans, especially the poor. The immigration of legal and illegal unskilled workers has contributed to the overall size of the U.S. economy, but this has not translated into overall economic benefits for Americans. In fact, even the estimates cited by those who tout an economic windfall from immigration often reveal less than impressive results when put in context. A 2008 study by the Perryman Group estimated that the economic impact of illegal immigration supports 2.8 million permanent jobs in the U.S. Using the Pew Research Centers estimates of 8.3 million illegal aliens in the workforce, this works out to one permanent job for every three illegal workers. Their
contribution. period before amnestied individuals would be eligible to receive government benefits varies according to which amnesty bill one references).

claimed $245 billion contribution to the GDP amounts to less than $20,000 per illegal worker.67* Illegal aliens increase the overall
size of the pie {creating more potential profit for the corporations that fund pro-amnesty groups), but they do not improve each individuals slice.

AT: Economy Impact

Economic decline doesnt cause war

Tir 10 [Jaroslav Tir - Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict, The Journa l of Politics, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425)] Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models 34.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 12 and 56, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert the publics attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the conflictinitiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant
relationship (in Models 34), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordhams (2002) revision of Gowas (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the publics attention from a poor econo my. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond

with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing
the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

AND - even if wars occur, they wont escalate.

Bennett & Nordstrom 2k [Department of Political Science Professors @ Penn state U, D. Scott and Timothy, Foreign Policy Substitutability and Internal Economic problems in Enduring Rivalries Journal of Conflict Resolution, Feb., p33-61] When engaging in diversionary actions in response to economic problems, leaders will be most interested in a cheap, quick victory that gives them the benefit of a rally effect without suffering the long-term costs (in both economic and popularity terms) of an extended confrontation or war. This makes weak states particularly inviting targets for diversionary action since they may be less likely to respond than strong states and because any response they make will be less costly to the initiator . Following Blainey (1973), a state facing poor economic
conditions may in fact be the target of an attack rather than the initiator. This may be even more likely in the context of a rivalry because rival states are likely to be looking for any advantage over their rivals. Leaders may hope to catch an economically challenged rival looking inward in response to a slowing economy. Following the strategic application of diversionar y conflict theory and states desire to engage in only cheap conflicts for diversionary purposes, states should avoid conflict initiation against target states experiencing economic problems.

93 examples are on our side

Miller 2k [Morris Miller, Winter 2K. economist and adjunct professor in the University of Ottawas Faculty of Administration and former Executive Director and Senior Economist at the World Bank. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 25.4]

Do wars spring from a popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of
The question may be reformulated. such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war.

According to a study undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that:19 Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong ... The severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes ... (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence ... In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling
elites responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).

AT: Cyberterror Impact

The grids fine now

Kemp 12 -- Reuters market analyst (John, 4/5/12, "COLUMN-Phasors and blackouts on the U.S. power grid: John Kemp," http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/05/column-smart-grid-idUSL6E8F59W120120405)
The hoped-for solution to grid instability is something called the North American SynchroPhasor Initiative (NASPI), which sounds like something out of Star Trek but is in fact a collaboration between the federal government and industry to improve

grid monitoring and control by using modern communications technology. More than 500 phasor monitoring units have so far been installed across the transmission network to take precise measurements of frequency, voltage and other aspects of power quality on the grid up to 30 times per second (compared with once every four seconds using conventional technology). Units are synchronised using GPS to enable users to build up a comprehensive real-time picture of how power is flowing across the grid (www.naspi.org/Home.aspx and). It is a scaledup version of the monitoring system developed by the University of Tennessee's Power Information Technology Laboratory using inexpensive frequency monitors that plug into ordinary wall sockets. Tennessee's FNET project provides highly aggregated data to the public via its website. The systems being developed under NASPI provide a much finer level of detail that will reveal congestion and

disturbances on individual transmission lines and particular zones so that grid managers can act quickly to restore balance or isolate failures ().

Nuclear weapons are protected from hacking

Green 2 (Joshua, Editor Washington Monthly, The Myth of Cyberterrorism, Washington Monthly, November, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0211.green.html#byline)

When ordinary people imagine cyberterrorism, they tend to think along Hollywood plot lines, doomsday scenarios in which terrorists hijack nuclear weapons, airliners, or military computers from halfway around the world. Given the colorful history of federal boondoggles--billiondollar weapons systems that misfire, $600 toilet seats--that's an understandable concern. But, with few exceptions, it's not one that applies to preparedness for a cyberattack. "The government is miles ahead of the private sector when it comes to cybersecurity," says Michael Cheek, director of intelligence for iDefense, a Virginia-based computer security company with government and private-sector clients. "Particularly the most sensitive military systems." Serious effort and plain good fortune have combined to bring this about. Take nuclear weapons. The biggest fallacy about their vulnerability, promoted in action thrillers like WarGames, is that they're designed for remote operation. "[The movie] is premised on the assumption that there's a modem bank hanging on the side of the computer that controls the missiles," says Martin Libicki, a defense analyst at the RAND Corporation. "I assure you, there isn't." Rather, nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems enjoy the most basic form of Internet security: they're "air-gapped," meaning that they're not physically connected to the Internet and are therefore

inaccessible to outside hackers. (Nuclear weapons also contain "permissive action links," mechanisms to prevent weapons from being armed without inputting codes carried by the president.) A retired military official was somewhat indignant at the
mere suggestion: "As a general principle, we've been looking at this thing for 20 years. What cave have you been living in if you haven't considered this [threat]?"

AT: US/India Relations

Cant solve relations- visa fees Smith 13 [Allen Smith, J.D., is manager, workplace law content, for SHRM. Higher Visa Fees, Penalties
Foreseen with Immigration Reform, January 30th, 2013, http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/comprehensive-immigration-reform.aspx, Chetan] Obama outlined four of his priorities in immigration reform. First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement, he noted. To be fair, most businesses
want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out whos here legally, whos not. So we need to impl ement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someones employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties. Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. The third principle, he explained, is weve got t o bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the

If youre a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here. No Pain, No Gain So, what does all the new energy mean for employers and HR? So far, there arent that many specifics, according to Ian Macdonald, an attorney with Littler Mendelson in Atlanta. Expect more H-1B and other visas, but at higher fees , Jorge Lopez, a Littler attorney in its Miami office, told SHRM Online. If a large group of people are legalized to work, that will go hand in hand with increased enforcement, Macdonald said. Visa fees wont be the only thing hiked, he predicted. Penalties for noncompliance likely will be raised as well.
realities of our time. For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldnt have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America. And he added,

No indo pak war

Giorgio et al 10 (Maia Juel, Tina Sndergaard Madsen, Jakob Wigersma, Mark Westh, Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: An Assessment of Deterrence and Stability in the Indian Pakistan Conflict, Global Studies, Autumn, http://dspace.ruc.dk/bitstream/1800/6041/1/Project%20GS-BA%2c%20Autumn%202010.pdf) To what extent has nuclear deterrence enhanced stability in the India-Pakistan conflict? Recalling the logical structure of the paper, we here wish to reconcile the three analyses and offer a coherent synthesis of the results in relation to the research question. In order to gather the threads it is beneficial to shortly reflect upon the main results of the three analyses. Firstly, the aim with the thesis was to explore if there is nuclear deterrence between India and Pakistan, based upon Waltz three requirements. After having undertaken this analysis, we can conclude that Waltzs requirements for effective nuclear deterrence are in fact fulfilled in both countries. Thus, from a neorealist perspective, is it then possible to deduce that stability reigns between India and Pakistan as a result of nuclear deterrence? Taking a point of departure in neorealist assumptions and nuclear deterrence theory, there is indeed stability between India and Pakistan, as no major war has taken place between the countries, and more importantly, nuclear war has been avoided . Nuclear deterrence has thus been successful in creating stability on a higher structural level.