Politics Updates

Thursday File 1-9-2014
Immigration Reform .................................................................................................................................. 5

1NC Immigration Reform ...................................................................................................................... 6
U- Yes Pass- 2NC ................................................................................................................................... 7
U- Yes Pass- Boehner and U.S. Chamber of Commerce ........................................................................ 9
U- Yes Pass- Republican - Priority ....................................................................................................... 10
U- Yes Pass- Boehner Push .................................................................................................................. 11
U- Yes Pass- Republicans Support ....................................................................................................... 14
U- Yes Pass- AT Tea Party .................................................................................................................... 15
Top Priority.......................................................................................................................................... 16
AT Elections ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Delay Link ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Obama Pushing Immigration Reform ................................................................................................. 21
AT No Political Capital Immigration Reform .................................................................................... 22
Iran Sanctions .......................................................................................................................................... 23
1NC Iran Sanctions .............................................................................................................................. 24
U- 2NC Iran Sanctions Wont Pass ...................................................................................................... 25
U- Uncertain ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Yes Floor Vote ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Thumpers ................................................................................................................................................ 28
General Thumper ................................................................................................................................ 29
Yes Political Capital ............................................................................................................................. 31
AT Spending Fight Thumper ................................................................................................................ 32
AFF ANSWERS ......................................................................................................................................... 33
2AC Immigration Reform .................................................................................................................... 34
1AR- Wont Pass .................................................................................................................................. 37
Yes Iran Sanctions ............................................................................................................................... 38
2AC Tax Reform ................................................................................................................................... 40
2AC Unemployment Insurance ........................................................................................................... 41
2014 Elections- Republicans Will Win Senate ..................................................................................... 47
Yes Spending Bills ................................................................................................................................ 50
Previous Thursday File ............................................................................................................................ 51
Immigration................................................................................................................................................. 52
1NC .......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Uniqueness.............................................................................................................................................. 59
Geneeral .............................................................................................................................................. 60
Obama Pushing Immigration Reform ................................................................................................. 64
Boehner on board ............................................................................................................................... 65
A/T NO Political Capital ....................................................................................................................... 67
Top Priority.......................................................................................................................................... 68
Impacts .................................................................................................................................................... 69
Key to Economy .................................................................................................................................. 70
Prevents Russia & China war .............................................................................................................. 73
Prevents War:General ......................................................................................................................... 74
Hegemony ........................................................................................................................................... 75
Econ Impact Warming ...................................................................................................................... 77
Affirmative .......................................................................................................................................... 78
Unemployment Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 79
Uniqueness .......................................................................................................................................... 80
Economy .............................................................................................................................................. 82
Obama pushing UB ............................................................................................................................. 83
Top of docket ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Democrats pushing UB ........................................................................................................................ 85
A/T Unemployment low ...................................................................................................................... 86
A/T Quo will increase jobs .................................................................................................................. 87
Aff Answers ......................................................................................................................................... 88
Iran .......................................................................................................................................................... 90
1NC .......................................................................................................................................................... 91
Sanctions Undermine Nuke Deal ............................................................................................................ 96
Key to Middle East Peace ........................................................................................................................ 97
Affirmative Answers ................................................................................................................................ 98
Midterms ................................................................................................................................................. 99
GOP will take the Senate .................................................................................................................. 100
GOP will keep the house ................................................................................................................... 101
Midterms Key to Obamas agenda .................................................................................................... 102
Executive Orders ............................................................................................................................... 103
Affirmative Answers: General ............................................................................................................... 104
Thumpers .......................................................................................................................................... 105
Previous Thursday Files ............................................................................................................................. 106
Negative Cards .......................................................................................................................................... 107
Iran Sanctions Obama Winning ....................................................................................................... 108
Congress United ............................................................................................................................... 111
AT: Debt Ceiling Thumper ................................................................................................................ 114
AT: Nominations Thumper ............................................................................................................... 115
Political Capital High Now ................................................................................................................ 117
Immigration Reform Will Pass ......................................................................................................... 118
Affirmative Cards...................................................................................................................................... 120
Debt Ceiling Thumper ...................................................................................................................... 121
Nomination Thumper ....................................................................................................................... 123
Iran Sanctions Obama Losing ........................................................................................................... 125
Political Capital Low Now................................................................................................................. 127
Thumpers .......................................................................................................................................... 129
Immigration Reform Wont Pass ..................................................................................................... 131
PREVIOUS THURSDAY FILES ..................................................................................................................... 132
Iran Cards from 12/12 .......................................................................................................................... 133
U 1NC ................................................................................................................................................ 134
U 2NC ................................................................................................................................................ 136
AT Democrats Back from Deal ......................................................................................................... 138
Yes House.......................................................................................................................................... 139
Menendez IL ..................................................................................................................................... 141
AT Obama Veto ................................................................................................................................ 143
AT: Johnson Shelved Decision .......................................................................................................... 144
AT: HC Thumper................................................................................................................................ 145
2NC Impact Overview ....................................................................................................................... 146
Turns Hegemony .............................................................................................................................. 152
Turns US Credibility .......................................................................................................................... 154
Turns Economy ................................................................................................................................. 155
Central Asia Impact .......................................................................................................................... 157
General Nuclear War Impact ........................................................................................................... 158
Middle East War Module ................................................................................................................. 159
Syria Module ..................................................................................................................................... 161
Impacts: AT: Iran will be deterred ................................................................................................. 165
AT: Cant Trust Rouhani................................................................................................................... 166
AT: Deal Fails .................................................................................................................................... 167
AT: Sanctions Wont Hurt Deal ........................................................................................................ 168
Aff- Iran Sanctions ................................................................................................................................ 172

Immigration Reform
1NC Immigration Reform

Immigration reform will pass now but Obamas political capital is key
Daily Tribune, 1-8 (There's new hope Congress will pass immigration reform this year,
http://www.dailytribune.com/government-and-politics/20140108/theres-new-hope-congress-
will-pass-immigration-reform-this-year)
His agenda tattered by last years confrontations and missteps, President Barack Obama begins
2014 clinging to the hope of winning a lasting legislative achievement: an overhaul of
immigration laws.
It will require a deft and careful use of his powers, combining a public campaign in the face of
protests over his administrations record number of deportations with quiet, behind-the-
scenes outreach to Congress, something seen by lawmakers and immigration advocates as a
major White House weakness.
In recent weeks, both Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have sent signals that
raised expectations among overhaul supporters that 2014 could still yield the first
comprehensive change in immigration laws in nearly three decades. If successful, it would fulfill
an Obama promise many Latinos say is long overdue.
The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security,
provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million
immigrants living in the United States illegally. House leaders, pressed by tea party
conservatives, demanded a more limited and piecemeal approach.
Indicating a possible opening, Obama has stopped insisting the House pass the Senate version.
And two days after calling Boehner to wish him happy birthday in November, Obama made it
clear he could accept the Houses bill-by-bill approach, with one caveat: In the end, were
going to have to do it all.
Boehner, for his part, in December hired Rebecca Tallent, a former top aide to Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., and most recently the director of a bipartisan think tanks immigration task
force. Even opponents of a broad immigration overhaul saw Tallents selection as a sign
legislation had suddenly become more likely. Boehner also fed speculation he would ignore tea
party pressure, bluntly brushing back their criticism of Decembers modest budget agreement.
We believe immigration reform is going to pass, White House spokesman Jay Carney said
Tuesday. Its going to pass, you know, and its up to the House to decide when. But its going to
happen.
Republican pollster David Winston, who regularly consults with the House leadership, said the
task ahead for both sides is to distinguish the key issues they must have in the legislation from
those that are merely preferences.
The question is what are the core things that Republicans cant move away from, what are the
core things that Democrats cant walk away from, he said. Thats part of the process of going
back and forth.
If successful, an immigration compromise could restore some luster to Obamas agenda,
tarnished in 2013 by failures on gun legislation, bipartisan pushback on his efforts to take
military action against Syria and the disastrous enrollment start for his health care law.

U- Yes Pass- 2NC

Immigration reform will pass now but Obama needs political capital to court Congress to
ensure passage. Recent administration support for piecemeal approach, Boehners indication
of making immigration a top priority and brushing off the Tea Party ensures passage. Thats
Daily Tribune.

Deal will be struck around legalization and key filing deadlines will provide election coverage
for Republicans
Daily Tribune, 1-8 (There's new hope Congress will pass immigration reform this year,
http://www.dailytribune.com/government-and-politics/20140108/theres-new-hope-congress-
will-pass-immigration-reform-this-year)
But some advocates of reform are beginning to rally around an idea to grant immigrants legal
status in the U.S. and leave the question of citizenship out of the legislation. In other words,
they can work, but not vote.
I dont think this is a good idea because citizenship is important, but I dont think it is a big deal
breaker either, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a leading congressional advocate for overhauling U.S.
immigration law, said in a speech last month. Right now we have to stop the deportations that
are breaking up families. And if we do not get citizenship this year, we will be back next year
and the year after that.
While strong majorities of Hispanics continue to back a pathway to citizenship, a Pew Research
Center poll last month found that being able to live and work in the U.S. legally without the
threat of deportation was more important to Latinos by 55 percent to 35 percent.
Is the sticking point going to be we have to have immediate voting privileges for those who
came here illegally?, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican who voted against the Senate
immigration bill, said Sunday on ABC. If the Democrats are willing to come halfway, I think we
can pass something, some meaningful reform that would help the 11 million who are here.
A House Republican retreat later this month could help GOP leaders devise a strategy. Some
Republicans and Democrats say Boehner could wait until after the filing deadlines for 2014
primary elections, thus protecting some incumbents from tea party or other conservative
challenges. That would mean no meaningful votes until after April.

Top priority for Republican- Obamas push is key
Daily News, 1-6 (Boehner cracks open the door,
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/boehner-cracks-open-door-article-1.1565890)
Boehner cracks open the door
Good news: Immigration reform could be back on Congress' agenda
Push, and keep pushing.
Comes word from permanently paralyzed Washington that House Speaker John Boehner is said
to be bucking Tea Party hardliners and moving immigration reform to the front of the GOPs
agenda this year. Keep your fingers crossed.
The right thing to do for the economy and for basic human decency would be to rescue
the comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate and failed in the House last year. This
being the nations capital, that is probably off the table. Which makes Boehners apparent
willingness to at least play small ball the next best thing. May his commitment be sincere and
sustained.

Pro-business, CBO, elections and recent Boehner hire show immigration support
Washington Times, 1-5 (Schumer: Immigration reform possible in 2014 because of Boehners
tea party break, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/5/schumer-immigration-
reform-possible-2014-because-b/)
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, said he thinks Congress will reform immigration
in 2014 because of Speaker John A. Boehners break with the tea party during the budget
debate.
For the first time, Speaker Boehner said he wont let the minority of his caucus the tea party
minority run the show, Mr. Schumer said Sunday on ABCs This Week with George
Stephanopoulos.
Mr. Boehner, Ohio Republican, criticized tea party members of his caucus as well as outside
conservative organizations who came out against the budget deal in December before it was
even finalized. He also hired an immigration expert to be his assistant last month, which many
have said is a good sign Mr. Boehner is ready to open the conversation on immigration reform.
Mr. Schumer pointed out that some conservative parts of the Republican Party, like businesses,
want immigration reform and that the Congressional Budget Office has said it would improve
the economy.
As an election year, Republicans will also be aware that passing immigration reform could
improve their chances of coming out ahead in November.
The Republican leadership realizes if we dont do immigration and get immigration reform
done, it hurts them politically, Mr. Schumer said.

RNC wants it off the table- business and ag lobby support as well
AZ Central, 1-2 (Immigration reform still hinges on Boehner,
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20140101boehner-reform-hinges.html)
So far, Boehner and other House GOP leaders have not said how they will deal with the
contentious issue of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Some House
Republicans have said they could support such a provision if it were limited to so-called
dreamers, immigrants brought here by their parents when they were minors. Whether such a
pared-down immigration proposal could pass the Senate is far from certain. And whether such
a measure would help the GOP with Hispanic voters is also unclear. Roy Beck, CEO and founder
of NumbersUSA, which opposes giving citizenship to undocumented immigrants, said Boehner
is pushing immigration reform at the behest of deep-pocketed business donors. He wants it,
Number 1, to give the tech contributors what they want on tech visas and, Number 2, to give
the ag lobbyists what they want on farmworker visas, Beck said. He also is heavily influenced
by the Republican National Committee consultants who just want to get the issue off the
table.

U- Yes Pass- Boehner and U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Boehners and U.S. Chamber of Commerce announcement is a game changer
Newsmax, 1-8 (Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014,
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-boehner-eric-cantor-republicans-
law/2014/01/08/id/545986)
Meanwhile, Daniel Horowitz, policy director for the conservative Madison Project and a
contributing editor for RedState.com, said in an op-ed piece for the site that the announcement
was a "coordinated effort" by Boehner and Cantor to issue their call at the same time U.S.
Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue was making his own call for amnesty. "We're
determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted," Donohue said in
his 2014 State of American Business address, reports CNN. "The chamber will pull out all the
stops through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics, and partnerships with unions,
faith organization, law enforcement and other to get it done." Further, Donohue said, he
disagrees with the belief that immigration reform cannot pass the House in 2014 because it's an
important election year. "We hope to turn that assumption on its ear," he said. "It's based on a
simple theory: if you can't make them see the light, then at least make them feel some heat."

Chamber of Commerce support
Washington Post, 1-8 (U.S. Chamber to pull out all stops to pass immigration reform,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/us-chamber-to-pull-out-all-stops-
to-pass-immigration-reform/2014/01/08/ce7f899c-7883-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html)
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will pull out all stops to push immigration reform through
Congress this year, the trade associations president and chief executive said Wednesday during
the Chambers annual State of American Business address in Washington.
Were determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted, Thomas
Donohue said. The Chamber will pull out all the stops through grassroots lobbying,
communications, politics and partnerships with unions, faith organizations, law enforcement
and others to get it done.
Donohue, however, did not offer specifics about provisions or bills, speaking generally about
the importance of immigration in encouraging innovation in the U.S. economy.
Donohue also pushed for tax and entitlement reform, expanding trade agreements with Asia
and Europe, increasing domestic energy production, and improving the nations education
system that he said would ultimately help the economy by better training the future workforce.
Donohues comments came as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was telling House
Republicans that the GOP leadership would soon release an outline of its position on
immigration reform.

U- Yes Pass- Republican - Priority

Republicans are now making it a priority
law/2014/01/08/id/545986)
Boehner, Cantor: Immigration Reform a Priority for 2014, House Speaker John Boehner and
Majority Leader Eric Cantor want to overhaul the immigration system in 2014, discussing a
rewrite among other priority topics with fellow Republican lawmakers in a closed meeting
Wednesday.
Arizona Republican Rep. Matt Salmon told The Wall Street Journal after the meeting that
Boehner informed the lawmakers that "'this is an issue we have to deal with, and I continue to
believe that.'"
Republicans have long sought immigration change as a gradual process, not the sweeping
"Gang of Eight" bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last year.

U- Yes Pass- Boehner Push

Boehner is coordinating an immigration policy
LA Times, 1-8 (House GOP writing 'principles' for immigration reform,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-house-gop-principles-immigration-
reform-20140108,0,7778446.story#axzz2prNTUndl)
House speaker John A. Boehner told rank-and-file Republicans that his leadership team was
drafting principles for overhauling immigration laws that will be presented in coming weeks.
Boehner made the remarks Wednesday during the first private meeting of House Republicans
in the new year. House Republicans have struggled to respond to the Senate's immigration bill
that passed in June, which would create a path to citizenship for 11 million immigrants who
entered the U.S. illegally. Boehner refused to bring the Senate bill up for a vote in the House
last year and instead said the House should consider a series of narrower measures.
"We are working on a standards or principles document," Boehner said, according to a person
in the room granted anonymity to discuss the private session. The document is being drafted by
Boehner, his leadership team, including House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), as well as other members
interested in the issue.
House Republican leaders believe that the GOP needs to support an immigration overhaul to
woo Latino voters in advance of the 2016 presidential election.
For several months, Boehner has said he wants to take a step-by-step approach to changing
immigration laws. This would mean passing a raft of separate bills that would boost the number
of visas for high-tech workers, fast-track legalization for farm workers in the country illegally
and allow immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to apply for citizenship,
among other provisions.
The small team of GOP members and staff has been working to draft a statement of basic
principles on immigration policy for several weeks. The effort is being coordinated by Rebecca
Tallent, former immigration advisor to Arizona Sen. John McCain and a veteran of the previous
effort to pass immigration reform during the second term of President George W. Bush.
Boehner hired Tallent in December.

Pressure is bringing Boehner on board
With pressure mounting on House Speaker John Boehner to tackle the politically and
emotionally charged issue of immigration reform, activists on both sides of the debate are
gearing up for a major legislative clash in 2014.
Boehner said last year that he was committed to pushing immigration legislation through the
House. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, declined to set a timeline, but in a move that energized
many pro-reform activists, he recently hired a new, well-regarded legislative aide to deal with
the issue.
This is a very important issue, Boehner said at a Nov.21 news conference. There are a lot of
private conversations under way to try to figure out how do we best move on a common-sense,
step-by-step basis to address this.

Boehner will push- let him capture his legacy and politically and emotionally charged issue
But experts also say the issue presents Boehner with an opportunity to shape the future of the
Republican Party as well as his own legacy.
If Boehner helped craft a compromise on immigration, it would give him a prominent role in the
GOPs efforts to woo Hispanic voters, one of the fastest-growing segments of the electorate,
said Clarissa Martinez De Castro, director of immigration and national campaigns at the
National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic civil-rights organization in the United States.
Latinos voted for President Barack Obama over GOP nominee Mitt Romney by 71percent to
27percent, according to data from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the nonpartisan Pew
Research Center.
(Republicans) would be mending fences to start building a stronger relationship with the
Latino community in the mid- and long term, Martinez De Castro said. And Boehner would be
able to say that he took on a difficult problem that is hurting children and families and stepped
up and created a solution.
Theres no question that immigration strikes a more personal, emotional chord with many
voters than the fiscal fights that have dominated Boehners speakership so far. Boehner has
gotten a taste of that himself.
Pro-reform activists have organized prayer vigils and caroling outside Boehners Capitol Hill
office. Hes been accused in radio ads of helping to deport thousands of children. And two
immigrant teenagers recently confronted him while he was eating breakfast at his favorite
Washington diner to tell him what it was like to live with the threat of their parents possible
deportation because of the House GOPs refusal to pass immigration reform.
Im trying to find a way to get this thing done, he told them. Its, you know, not easy.
Asked at a news conference recently if Republicans were losing the moral argument on
immigration reform, Boehner sidestepped the question but pledged to push for a common
sense overhaul of the nations immigration system. And he has hired Rebecca Tallent, a former
aide to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an immigration leader, to help him accomplish that.
I think its an excellent sign, McCain said of Boehners decision to hire Tallent. She is one of
the foremost experts on immigration.
The Senate passed a sweeping immigration bill in June that would double the number of Border
Patrol agents, increase the number of employer-based visas and require companies to use a
federal database to verify that workers are legally eligible to work in the U.S. It would also pave
the way for the estimated 11million unauthorized immigrants currently living in the U.S. to
become American citizens if they met certain requirements.

Boehner is committed to immigration reform
Frank Sharry, executive director and founder of Americas Voice, an immigrant-rights group that
supports the bipartisan Senate bill, said that strategy would be a big mistake for Boehner.
Sharry believes Boehner genuinely wants to pass a compromise bill. If (Republicans) continue
to alienate the fastest-growing group of new voters, theyre going to devolve into a regional
minority party that cant compete for national office, Sharry said. I think the speaker wants to
save the GOP from extinction.

U- Yes Pass- Republicans Support

Republicans are in sync with the House GOP plan
Washington Post, 1-8 (Boehner says GOP will soon outline immigration position,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/08/boehner-says-gop-will-
soon-outline-immigration-position/)
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told House Republicans on Wednesday morning that the GOP
leadership would soon release an outline of the conferences position on immigration reform,
signaling his intent to address an issue that has often caused controversy within his party.
Several House Republicans told The Washington Post that Boehner did not specify the details of
the framework, and said Boehners comments were brief. He also did not discuss a specific
timeline for its release.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), speaking with reporters, described the announcement as part of
Boehners wide-ranging announcement of his 2014 agenda.
John said that hes going to come out with principles *on immigration+, King said. He didnt
say when, but I got the impression that itd be sooner rather than later.
Leadership aides say the document will focus on step by step reforms and border security.
House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and other Republicans who have
been deeply involved in immigration policy for the past year are said to be the chief authors.
There was no talk, at all, about going to conference with the Senates comprehensive bill, said
one House leadership aide. The speaker and the conference are focused on commonsense
reforms and that will be laid out in the principles.
Boehner alerted members about his plans at a closed-door GOP conference meeting at the
Capitol. His remarks on immigration came at the beginning of the session, which was the first
large gathering of House Republicans since members returned from the winter recess.
Leaving the meeting, most House conservatives, who have at times been at odds with Boehner
and the leadership, did not seem worried about the House GOPs plan to publish a position
paper on immigration reform. As they listened to Boehner, they said, they did not get the sense
that the speaker would surprise them and break from his long-held position.
Yes, said conservative Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), when asked whether he and the speaker are
in sync on how to move forward. We want to focus on securing our border and strengthening
our visa program. Thats our first priority.

U- Yes Pass- AT Tea Party

Room for compromise- Boehner will break from Tea Party
Moffett, 1-6 (Schumer: House Speaker Boehner May Move on Immigration Reform,
http://immigration.about.com/b/2014/01/06/schumer-house-speaker-boehner-may-move-on-
reform-bill.htm)
Immigration reform optimists are hoping that U.S. House Speaker John Boehner may be willing
to break ranks with the Tea Party as Congress gets back from its holiday break.
The right wing of Boehner's Republican party has opposed comprehensive immigration reformand
threatened to go after the seats of members who do. But Sunday, on ABC's This Week With
George Stephanopoulos Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he believes Boehner is ready to
ignore the Tea Party and work with Democrats on a reform bill.
"For the first time, Speaker Boehner said he won't let the minority of his caucus -- the Tea Party
minority -- run the show," Schumer said on ABC. "The Republican leadership realizes that if we
don't do immigration and get immigration reform done, it hurts them politically."
The Hispanic and immigrant vote cost Republicans dearly in the 2012 presidential election and they do have
political motivations for reaching out to those communities. Heightened border control and more visas
for skilled immigrants could be two issues that bring more Republicans into reform cause.

Top Priority

Immigration reform top of the agenda- this evidence assumes a crowded docket
Fox News Latino, 12-27 (President Obama Eyes Immigration Reform As A Top Priority For 2014,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2013/12/27/president-obama-eyes-immigration-
reform-as-top-priority-for-2014/)
The last vestiges of 2013's political wrangling officially behind him, President Barack Obama is
setting his sights on the coming year, when a number of unfinished tasks will increasingly
compete for attention with the 2014 midterm elections.
High on the agenda for the start of the year is a renewed push on immigration. Bipartisan
consensus about the need for action on immigration in the wake of the 2012 presidential
election gave way in 2013 to opposition from conservative House Republicans.
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has started offering subtle signs he'll put more
weight behind the issue despite continued resistance from the tea party.

Immigration vote next months
Politico, 1-7 (Immigration reforms narrow window for survival,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/comprehensive-immigration-reform-congress-senate-
house-2014-101612.html)
House Republican leaders have said publicly that they still want to take up immigration reform
but have not committed to a specific time frame for bringing bills up for a vote. In a memo sent
to members earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) listed immigration
among several issues that may be brought to the floor over the next few months.

Immigration reform top of his priorities
CNN, 1-8 (Chamber to 'pull out all the stops' to pass immigration reform in 2014,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/chamber-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-to-pass-
immigration-reform-in-2014/)
The president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vowed Wednesday that 2014 will be the year
his organization pulls "out all of the stops" to pass immigration reform, pledging that the
Chamber will turn the 2014 midterm elections "into a motivation for change."
"We're determined to make 2014 the year that immigration reform is finally enacted,"
Donohue said at his 2014 State of American Business address. "The Chamber will pull out all the
stops through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics and partnerships with unions,
faith organization, law enforcement and other to get it done."
Donohue refuted the idea that immigration reform would not pass in 2014, a midterm election
year when very little, if anything, gets done on Capitol Hill.
"We hope to turn that assumption on its ear," he said. "It's based on a simple theory: If you
can't make them see the light, then at least make them feel some heat."
Immigration reform, despite passing the Senate in June and being named one of President
Barack Obama's top priorities for his second term, has seen very little movement in the House
of Representatives.
Late last year, House Speaker Boehner insisted that while immigration reform was "absolutely
not" dead, he had "no intention" of negotiating with the Democratic-led Senate over its
comprehensive immigration proposal.
Many Republicans in Congress who oppose the Senate plan which includes an eventual
pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States
have said they want to deal with immigration reform through a number of smaller bills, not one
larger piece of legislation. Boehner has said he backs that approach.

AT Elections

Chamber of Commerce will provide cover for elections
CNN, 1-8 (Chamber to 'pull out all the stops' to pass immigration reform in 2014,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/chamber-to-pull-out-all-the-stops-to-pass-
immigration-reform-in-2014/)
Donohue's remarks highlight how the Chamber of Commerce plans to be an aggressive player
in the 2014 midterm elections and how immigration reform is set to be at the center of those
plans.
A source with knowledge of the Chamber's election plans told CNN that the group is set to
spend "at least $50 million" in the 2014 midterms. The group has already spent money in four
midterms races, according to the source: defending House Republican Mike Simpson of Idaho,
supporting Shelly Moore Capito in West Virginia's Senate race, backing Evan Jenkins, a
Democrat-turned-Republican challenging Democrat Nick Rahall in West Virginia, and supporting
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, who is facing a tea party challenger.
The source said the group will "spend early to help set the terms of the debate." In his speech,
Donohue said the group will be active in at least half a dozen races and "will support candidates
who want to work within the legislative process to solve the nation's problems."
The Chamber, which has long been reliably Republican, played a major role in a 2013 special
election in Alabama, helping Republican Bradley Byrne, a former state senator, defeat
businessman Dean Young, a tea party backed candidate.
After the speech, at a press conference with reporters, Donohue said "thank God" that Bryne
won in Alabama.
Donohue said that the Chamber was primarily against candidates who plan to come to
Washington and "burn down the town," not specifically against tea party backed lawmakers.

Primary deadlines provides a window of opportunity
house-2014-101612.html)
Immigration reform backers see a narrow window in late spring to push a sweeping overhaul
through the House a goal that eluded them in 2013.
The politics of immigration in the Republican-controlled chamber is still tough and might be
impossible with many lawmakers opposed to any measure that could be seen as providing
amnesty to millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
But proponents of an immigration rewrite on and off Capitol Hill hope the tension will ease
once Republicans get past primary season and dont have to worry about challenges to their
conservative credentials.
For many members, theyd be more comfortable when their primaries are over, said
California Rep. Darrell Issa, an influential Republican who has favored immigration reform.
Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles,
said waiting out the primaries makes perfect sense although hes not convinced that the
GOP base is as riled up over immigration as it is over other issues such as Obamacare.
However, perception is reality, so you have members that are concerned, and the perception
is out there that our base does not like this, Aguilar said.
Jeremy Robbins, the executive director of the Partnership for a New American Economy the
pro-reform group with ties to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said reform
certainly gets easier after the primaries pass.
I think there are multiple viable windows and that makes us optimistic, Robbins said,
adding that primary deadlines are a big factor.
We are planning all of our organizing around these windows, he said.
The Democratic-controlled Senate passed a broad immigration overhaul last June, but the
effort stalled in the House, where Republicans are pursuing a piecemeal strategy of individual
bills instead of one comprehensive piece of legislation.
House Republican leaders have said publicly that they still want to take up immigration reform
but have not committed to a specific time frame for bringing bills up for a vote. In a memo sent
to members earlier this month, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) listed immigration
among several issues that may be brought to the floor over the next few months.

Delay Link

Tight window of opportunity for immigration reform
house-2014-101612.html)
Immigration reform backers see a narrow window in late spring to push a sweeping overhaul
through the House a goal that eluded them in 2013.
The politics of immigration in the Republican-controlled chamber is still tough and might be
impossible with many lawmakers opposed to any measure that could be seen as providing
amnesty to millions of immigrants living in the United States illegally.
But proponents of an immigration rewrite on and off Capitol Hill hope the tension will ease
once Republicans get past primary season and dont have to worry about challenges to their
conservative credentials.
For many members, theyd be more comfortable when their primaries are over, said
California Rep. Darrell Issa, an influential Republican who has favored immigration reform.
Alfonso Aguilar, the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles,
said waiting out the primaries makes perfect sense although hes not convinced that the
GOP base is as riled up over immigration as it is over other issues such as Obamacare.
However, perception is reality, so you have members that are concerned, and the perception
is out there that our base does not like this, Aguilar said.

Obama Pushing Immigration Reform

Obama is making immigration reform his top priority
Miller 12/25 [Emily, senior editor, Washington Times, "Miller: Obama's dangerous
immigration reform agenda and amnesty"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/obamas-immigration-reform-agenda-
may-lead-amnesty/?page=all
Before leaving on his 17-day vacation in Hawaii, President Obama declared that one of his top
priorities for 2014 will be immigration reform, with amnesty. He knows that congressional
Republicans feel pressure to do something to woo Hispanic voters.
Mr. Obama will leverage those political forces for the midterm elections, even though he
doesnt even enforce the existing immigration laws.
Mr. Obama held a rare press conference Friday before hopping on Air Force One for the direct
flight to Honolulu. It was in an attempt to buck up his plummeting poll numbers after a year of
failures.
Immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that I wanted to get done this year, we saw
progress. It passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote, he asserted.

AT No Political Capital Immigration Reform

Obama still has political capital, but time is running out. He can use the State of the Union as
a jumpstart to pass immigration reform
Hohmann 1/1 [James, Politico, "As D.C. turns: 14 dates to watch in 2014"
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/2014-14-dates-to-watch-101627.html?hp=f3

Obama becomes more of a lame duck with each annual update to Congress, and, faced with
strong Republican opposition, its likely many of the priorities he outlines will go nowhere.
Still, the State of the Union is an important platform for any president, and this is a chance for
Obama to convey how much of his diminishing political capital he will invest in pursuing
immigration reform, making the health care law work and other priorities.

Budget deal gives Obama enough political capital to pass immigration reform
Political Wire 12-13 ["Budget vote gives immigration reform advocates hope"
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/12/13/budget_vote_gives_immigration_reform_advoca
tes_hope.html

The Hill: "Both sides in the immigration debate are watching Speaker John Boehner closely
after Thursday evening's emphatic House vote in favor of a bipartisan budget deal. The
calculus is clear in the minds of immigration-reform advocates. They believe that Boehner
wants to get some kind of deal done on immigration, and any development that replenishes
his political capital helps their cause."

Iran Sanctions
1NC Iran Sanctions

Obamas political capital is key to ensuring Congress doesnt receive a veto-proof majority
Lobe, 12-27 (Iran sanctions bill: Big test of Israel lobby power,
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=World&article=8046)
Their hope now is to pass it either as a free-standing measure or as an amendment to another
must-pass bill after Congress reconvenes Jan. 6.
To highlight its bipartisan support, the two sponsors gathered a dozen other senators from each
party to co-sponsor it.
Republicans, many of whom reflexively oppose President Barack Obamas positions on any
issue and whose core constituencies include Christian Zionists, are almost certain to support
the bill by an overwhelming margin. If the bill gets to the floor, the main battle will thus take
place within the Democratic majority.
The latter find themselves torn between, on the one hand, their loyalty to Obama and their fear
that new sanctions will indeed derail negotiations and thus make war more likely, and, on the
other, their general antipathy for Iran and the influence exerted by AIPAC and associated
groups as a result of the questionable perception that Israels security is uppermost in the
minds of Jewish voters and campaign contributors (who, by some estimates, provide as much
as 40 percent of political donations to Democrats in national campaigns).
The administration clearly hopes the Democratic leadership will prevent the bill from coming to
a vote, but, if it does, persuading most of the Democrats who have already endorsed the bill to
change their minds will be an uphill fight. If the bill passes, the administration will have to
muster 34 senators of the 100 senators to sustain a veto a difficult but not impossible task,
according to Congressional sources.
That battle has already been joined. Against the 13 Democratic senators who signed onto the
Kirk-Menendez bill, 10 Democratic Senate committee chairs urged Majority Leader Harry Reid,
who controls the upper chambers calendar, to forestall any new sanctions legislation.
As negotiations are ongoing, we believe that new sanctions would play into the hands of those
in Iran who are most eager to see negotiations fail, wrote the 10, who included the chairs of
the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, respectively.
They also noted that a new intelligence community assessment had concluded that new
sanctions would undermine the prospects for a successful comprehensive nuclear agreement
with Iran.
Their letter was followed by the veto threat by White House spokesman Jay Carney and a
strong denunciation of the bill by State Department spokesperson Marie Harf. She accused the
sponsors of directly contradict*ing+ the administration work. If Congress passes this bill, it
would be proactively taking an action that would undermine American diplomacy and make
peaceful resolution to this issue less possible.

U- 2NC Iran Sanctions Wont Pass

Wont pass- administration is courting against veto-proof votes
PressTV, 1-9 (Anti-Iran sanctions not going to pass: Franklin Lamb,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/07/344315/antiiran-sanctions-not-going-to-pass/)
Many of these 48 and certainly the leaders are essentially paid and bought agents of Israel.
Increasingly the public is becoming aware of this. They know they are not going to succeed at
this because they are paid for and it is expected of them, they are going along with this but it is
an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment to all Americas allies that we have such a right-wing
neocon anti-Arab anti-Muslim Pro-Zionist click in Congress.
So I think it is going to be that the voters are going to have to decide if this is the kind of
Congressmen that they want representing us even when the intelligence community, the White
House, the Pentagon, our allies are all saying 'do not do sanctions right now.' That is explosive,
things are delicate, let diplomacy work. These fellows do not want diplomacy to work. They
want war and I do not think that is an exaggeration.
...They take their instructions from you know these conglomerate of something like 52 Zionist
organizations, all putting Israel ahead of our country. So it is an embarrassment.
It is not going to pass. They need 12 more vote apparently to get veto-proof, 60 to prevent
closure. I do not think Harry Reid, he may not bring them to the floor but in any case the
President is going to veto it and the President is going to have the support of the American
people of both parties I believe, both political parties and our allies.

U- Uncertain

Uncertain if it will have the votes- uniqueness is uncertain
Gardner, 1-07 (Iran sanctions bill opposed by Obama gains Senate backers,
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28897:iran-
sanctions-bill-opposed-by-obama-gains-senate-backers&catid=8&Itemid=124)
While the bill has gained support, it remains uncertain if backers can put together the two-
thirds majority in the Senate needed to override a veto by President Barack Obama.
The Obama administration has insisted the bill would damage delicate talks being held between
Iran and world powers over the nuclear program, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has said a new sanctions law would kill the interim
agreement.
While senior Democrats in the Senate like Menendez, from New Jersey, and Charles Schumer,
from New York, support the new sanctions, there is a strong bloc of opposition in the party. Ten
Democratic senators, all leaders of committees, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid last month expressing their opposition to the bill.
A bipartisan group of nine senior foreign policy experts urged Menendez and Kirk not to pass
the new sanctions, saying the penalties could potentially move the United States closer to war.

Yes Floor Vote

Floor vote is fully expected
The Jerusalem Post, 1-7 (Fifty US senators line up behind new Iran sanctions bill,
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/Fifty-senators-line-up-behind-new-Iran-sanctions-
bill-337397)
One senior Senate aide told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday that a vote is "fully expected" on
the measure, despite suggestions from the White House that the bill would not reach the floor.
"We don't think this action is necessary," White House press secretary Jay Carney said on
December 19. "We don't think it will be enacted. If it were enacted, the president would veto
it.
But another aide familiar with the bill thought a path forward was possible between Senate
leadershipincluding Menendez and senators Charles Schumer and Mark Kirk, who co-
authored the billand the White House.
"Rhetoric aside, everyone can get something here," the aide told the Post. "The administration
gets up to a year of flexibility to negotiate, Iran gets its limited sanctions relief and Congress
gets the insurance policy we've been seeking." In the House of Representatives, Republican
leadership scheduled floor time for Iran legislation this month. Democratic whip Steny Hoyer
and Republican majority leader Eric Cantor have jointly written a resolution framed in support
of the Senate measure.

Thumpers
General Thumper

Spending fights, Farm Bill and Iran
Weber, 1-5 (Hill Democrats, Republicans set 2014 agendas with midterm elections in mind,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/05/hill-democrats-and-republicans-set-2014-
agendas-with-midterm-elections-in-mind/)
Lawmakers also face a Jan. 15 deadline to agree on a spending bill to keep the government
running and avoid a partial shutdown that roiled Congress last fall. Passage of legislation in
December scaling back the automatic, across-the-board cuts gave the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees time to draft a massive, trillion-dollar-plus measure to run the
government through September.
A short-term measure is likely this month just to let the government continue operating.
The House and Senate spent a chunk of last year wrangling over renewing the nation's farm bill
after passing competing versions of the five-year, roughly $500 billion measure. In dispute are
crop subsidies and how deeply to cut the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, with the
House slashing $4 billion and the Senate $400 million annually.
Several other contentious issues also loom in the near term.
Twenty-six senators have signed on to a new Iran sanctions bill that Obama opposes while his
administration negotiates with the Iranian government over its nuclear program. Proponents of
the legislation are seeking to gain the support of further senators when Congress reconvenes,
with the hope of a full Senate vote this month.
Although the issue may not be an immediate legislative priority for returning lawmakers, it
could become a major point of discussion as advocates and opponents of fresh penalties make
their cases.
Reid spared the administration a vote in December, but this month he may not be able to hold
off proponents of tough sanctions.

Multiple controversies and fights for Obama- midterms, NSA, minimum wage
AFP, 1-9 (With ambitions trimmed, Obama on dogged comeback trail - See more at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/with-ambitions-trimmed-obama-on-dogged-
comeback-trail/article1-1170754.aspx#sthash.rLVqqopC.dpuf)
Obama will formally lay out plans for the year, shaped into a narrative of fighting for the middle
class, in his State of the Union address on January 28.
The speech will also include a push for a raising of the US federal minimum wage from $7.25 an
hour that will likely prove popular but may be politically impossible to implement.
Before then, he will unveil proposed reforms to National Security Agency spying programs in
the wake of the revelations by fugitive intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
White House aides are daring to hope the worst failures of the Obamacare website may be over
-- and that the president's signature achievement beds down more smoothly.
Not only is the law crucial to Obama's legacy, its problems are a millstone around the neck of
vulnerable Democrats in November's elections.
Republicans need only six seats to capture the Senate and have a better than even chance of a
result that would consign Obama in his final two years in office to a uniformly hostile Congress.
While Obama's political aides -- including new addition, respected Clinton era veteran John
Podesta -- are preoccupied with domestic troubles, international crises also stalk the White
House.
A widening sectarian war and a resurgence of Al-Qaeda inspired groups in the Middle East, has
Obama's regional policy under sharp scrutiny.
Obama also faces a tough sell in Congress for any final deal he can reach with Iran on its nuclear
program.
And rising territorial tensions in Asia -- which Obama will visit in April, also worry his foreign
policy team.

Yes Political Capital

Obamas recharged into 2014- victory in unemployment benefits give him short term win
AFP, 1-9 (With ambitions trimmed, Obama on dogged comeback trail - See more at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/with-ambitions-trimmed-obama-on-dogged-
comeback-trail/article1-1170754.aspx#sthash.rLVqqopC.dpuf)
With soaring ambitions trimmed, the White House is charting a dogged course to repair
President Barack Obama's popularity and to limit a natural waning of his political powers.
Obama endured a brutal 2013 -- which crushed the promise of much of his second White House
term and pitched his
approval ratings to 40% or below.
For once, his Hawaii Christmas vacation was uninterrupted by crises at home or abroad, and the
president and his stuff -- running on empty in December -- were able to recharge.
Several new faces have also joined his famously insular White House crew, as the reenergized
president tries to fashion a rebound in frigid Washington.
He took the stage Tuesday in his first public appearance of the New Year, demanding an
extension to long-term unemployment benefits, which lapsed for 1.3 million Americans when
Congress left town for Christmas without acting.
The event repositioned Obama as the warrior for the struggling middle classes -- and
Republicans as their hard hearted enemy -- a tableau that swept him to reelection in 2012.
"When times get tough, we are not a people who say, you're on your own," Obama said.
"We're a people who believe that we're all in it together. And we know, 'there but for the grace
of God go I.'"
It was perhaps the opening shot of this year's mid-term elections race in which a third of the
Senate, and all of the House of Representatives will be up for grabs.
His words also played into a growing theme in American politics -- the struggles of many people
to make ends meet despite a quickening but uneven economic recovery.
Several Republican lawmakers, including possible presidential hopefuls Paul Ryan and Marco
Rubio are expected to make speeches and unveil initiatives on poverty reduction in coming
weeks.
The White House was Tuesday cheered by an early symbolic victory, after six Republican
senators joined Democrats in the Senate to advance the move to extend unemployment
benefits to a final vote.

AT Spending Fight Thumper

Spending fights wont cost major fights- basically done
The Hill, 1-8 (Appropriators fight to beat clock, Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-
money/appropriations/194849-spending-bill-scramble-intensifies#ixzz2pv4zgXkx)
Lawmakers scrambled Wednesday to maintain their momentum and complete writing an
omnibus spending bill by Friday.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), however, acknowledged that
some sort of short stopgap measure would now be likely to avoid a Jan. 16 shutdown.
Because of the Senate procedures, we are probably going to have to do a couple of days
*continuing resolution+, Rogers said. He added that such a measure could run through Jan. 17,
when Congress departs for another weeklong recess.
Yet Rogers said negotiators are clearly making progress, with eight of the 12 parts of the
omnibus done.
We probably have eight or so that are absolutely done, he said. Were reducing the number
of items that are in disagreement.
That represents progress from Tuesday when Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said six out of 12 were done.
Getting the bill written by Friday would allow Congress to vote next week on the $1 trillion
measure containing hundreds of pages of funding details.
Sources said the Labor, Health and Education measure which involves ObamaCare and union-
related provisions remained a problem on Wednesday. ObamaCare funding issues shut down
the government for 16 days in October.
In a positive sign for the omnibus, the controversial Interior and Environment portion appeared
to be close to final.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee in charge of Environmental Protection
Agency funding said the level of EPA funding had been finalized.
Calvert also signaled that major policy riders were not going to be in the bill.
There is nothing in there thats a showstopper, he said. He added that he believes the bill will
be done by Friday
AFF ANSWERS
2AC Immigration Reform

Wont pass- House republicans wont want to shift focus away from healthcare
Cassata, 1-8 (Immigration foes dig in amid expectations in House,
http://www.kcautv.com/story/24397098/immigration-foes-dig-in-amid-expectations-in-house)
Opposition remains steadfast in the House, with several Republicans unwilling to give Obama
one of his top second-term priorities.
More than a dozen conservative House Republicans on Wednesday signed a letter to Obama
arguing that the immigration overhaul he supports would increase the number of guest workers
and give work permits and permanent residency to 30 million immigrants over the next 10
years, forcing a reduction in wages and hurting American workers.
"So-called comprehensive immigration reform may be a good deal for big businesses who want
to reduce labor costs, and it may be a good deal for progressive labor unions seeking new
workers from abroad, but it's an awful deal for U.S. workers - including African-American and
Hispanic communities enduring chronically high unemployment," the letter states. It was
spearheaded by Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a chief foe of comprehensive immigration overhaul, said the issue
would divide the GOP caucus and shift the focus from what he called the "calamity" of the
health care law.
Republicans sense an election-year lift in the problem-plagued rollout of the health care law,
highlighting reports of canceled policies, higher premiums and other troubles. Republicans are
looking to tighten their grip on the House and seize control of the Senate in November's
midterm elections.
"It would be a colossal mistake for us to take up anything that just ends up changing the subject
and getting it off Obamacare and splitting the Republican Party," King said after the closed-door
session.
King said Obama and the Democrats "want to debate immigration, they want to debate
unemployment, they want to debate minimum wage," and Republicans should be wary of any
diversion from health care.
The Senate last year passed a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that addressed border security,
provided enforcement measures and offered a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million
immigrants living in the United States illegally. House leaders, pressed by tea party
conservatives, demanded a more limited and piecemeal approach.
The House Judiciary Committee has approved piecemeal bills, but they have languished since
the summer despite intense pressure from a diverse coalition of religious groups, business led
by the Chamber of Commerce, labor unions and immigration advocates.
Although House Republican leaders say they want to resolve the issue, which has become a
political drag for the GOP, many rank-and-file Republicans have shown little inclination to deal
with immigration. Many argue that a path to citizenship for those here illegally amounts to
amnesty.

Boehner is all talk- wants to manage it politically and appear as constructive but not get it
through- even if it does its just piecemeal
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which also opposes
proposals that offer a broad pathway to citizenship, said he thinks Boehner wants to appear
constructive, but that doesnt mean he wants to get anything accomplished. I think hes
drunk the Kool-Aid on the (importance of the) Hispanic vote and believes that his party must
pass immigration reform to get that vote, Krikorian said. (But) John Boehners goal is not
necessarily to get to the finish line. Its to manage this issue politically. Krikorian sees the
immigration issue as pitting struggling American workers against big business, which wants
more immigrants for cheap labor, and he argues that Republicans would be hurting themselves
politically if they supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, especially
in the still-tough economy. Boehner could finesse the issue politically by pushing through the
incremental bills, letting them stall in the Senate, and blame Democrats for inaction, Krikorian
said. Limited legislation that passes the House but is ultimately not acted on by the Senate
may be the best outcome from Boehners perspective, he said.

Farm Bill, debt ceiling and funding bills will crowd out immigration
house-2014-101612.html)
Even if they wanted to, it would be tough to push immigration to the top of the agenda. The
beginning of the congressional year is clogged with deadlines for other must-do legislative
items such as passing a funding bill to keep the government running and approving a new five-
year farm bill.
And another major fiscal deadline looms in late February or early March: the debt ceiling.
The primary season will be in full swing by that point. Though primaries can occur as late as
September, most of the filing deadlines for more than 80 percent of sitting House Republicans
will have come and gone by the end of April, according to a POLITICO analysis.
Three of the five states with the largest number of House Republicans in their delegations
Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio will have held their primaries by the end of May. Texas is the
earliest, with a March 4 primary. The two others California and Florida are where
Republican lawmakers generally have been more amenable to an immigration overhaul.

White House political capital isnt key to reform
Fox News, 1-7 (Obama And Congress Give One More Push For Immigration Reform,
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/01/07/obama-and-congress-give-one-more-
push-for-immigration-reform/)
The White House's own strategy has not impressed before. Immigration advocates and
Democratic lawmakers say the White House last year mistakenly assumed that the bipartisan
Senate bill would create enough momentum to bulldoze its way through the House.
"They completely misunderstood the impact that the Senate bill would have," said Rep. Zoe
Lofgren of California, a key Democrat on immigration who sits on the House Judiciary
Committee. "To think that that would magically transform the House of Representatives was
never in the cards."

1AR- Wont Pass
Conservative push back
law/2014/01/08/id/545986)
Conservative immigration critics, however, said addressing the issue this year would be a
mistake when lawmakers should instead be concentrating on defeating Obamacare. "It would
be a colossal mistake for us to take up anything that would end up just changing the subject
and getting it off Obamacare and onto something that splits the Republican Party," Republican
Steve King of Iowa told The Journal. Meanwhile, Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming said
Republicans would feel comfortable tightening the U.S.-Mexico border but would likely resist
anything else. "There's going to be a lot of push-back because we have a president we can't
trust," he said.

Chabot opposes he is key
The citizenship provision is a non-starter for many conservatives in Boehners conference who
say it amounts to amnesty for lawbreakers. Thats unfair to the millions of people who are
trying to come to this country and follow the rules as they are, said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio,
a member of the Judiciary Committee, which has a lead role in shaping the House approach to
immigration. Chabot said that he couldnt envision any scenario under which he could support
such a measure and argued that Republicans should resist getting stampeded into something
thats not good for the country. Chabot said Republicans do need to reach out to Hispanic
voters and do much better with those groups, adding, But I dont think the immigration bill
itself is something thats going to accomplish that. Boehner has repeatedly rejected the Senate
proposal and instead touted a series of incremental bills crafted by the House Judiciary and
Homeland Security committees. The American people are skeptical of big comprehensive bills,
and frankly, they should be, he said at a recent news conference. The only way to make sure
immigration reform works this time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time.
The narrower House bills would: Require the Department of Homeland Security to craft a
strategy for gaining operational control of U.S. borders within two years. Make the federal E-
Verify employment database system mandatory for employers nationwide. Allocate more
green cards to foreign graduates of U.S. universities who earn advanced degrees in math and
science. Create a guest-worker program for agricultural workers. Grant states and local
governments the right to enforce federal immigration laws.

Yes Iran Sanctions

Senators are signing onto Iran sanctions- it will reach a veto-proof majority
Johnson, 1-8 (Bridget, Veto-Proof Majority on Iran Sanctions Bill Looking More Likely,
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/01/08/veto-proof-majority-on-iran-sanctions-bill-looking-
more-likely/)
The number of co-sponsors backing the Iran sanctions bill introduced before the holiday by
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-
Ill.) has now reached 50, according to the Jerusalem Post.
The last recorded number in the Library of Congress database is 47 co-sponsors. The most
recent bump shows that not only would the bill that angers the White House pass on a
bipartisan basis, but would likely hit a veto-proof majority on a bipartisan basis.
At least 14 Democrats have signed on board the bill, including Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.),
Chris Coons (D-Del.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Mary
Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Mark
Warner (D-Va.).
Supporters need 67 votes for a veto-proof majority. Assuming all Republicans vote for the bill,
that leaves 22 Democrats needed come voting time.
Both Colorado senators Mark Udall (D) and Michael Bennet have previously supported
sanctions legislation. Other potential votes could include Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.),
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.),
Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Clarie McCaskill (D-Mo.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Debbie Stabenow (D-
Mich.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).
The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act was introduced Dec. 19 by more than a quarter of the
Senate. The bipartisan legislation proposes prospective sanctions against Irans petroleum,
engineering, mining and construction sectors should the regime violate the interim Joint Plan of
Action agreed to in Geneva or should Iran fail to reach a final agreement with the P5+1.
With regards to this particular measure, we dont think it will be enacted. We certainly dont
think it should be enacted, White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the time, promising
a presidential veto. And the reason why it should not and does not need to be enacted is
because if Iran does not comply with its obligations under the Joint Plan of Action, the
preliminary agreement, or if Iran fails to reach agreement with the P5-plus-1 on the more
comprehensive agreement over the course of six months, we are very confident that we can
work with Congress to very quickly pass new, effective sanctions against Iran. And it is our view
that it is very important to refrain from taking an action that would potentially disrupt the
opportunity here for a diplomatic resolution of this challenge.
The Menendez-Kirk effort already has high-ranking support from House leadership, with a
similar resolution offered by Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer
(D-Md.).

Democrats will continue to pick on and support Iran sanctions
Gardner, 1-07 (Iran sanctions bill opposed by Obama gains Senate backers,
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28897:iran-
sanctions-bill-opposed-by-obama-gains-senate-backers&catid=8&Itemid=124)
U.S. senators pushing a bill to slap new sanctions on Iran if it goes back on an interim deal
under which it agreed to limit its nuclear program have gained support since the legislation was
introduced in December, aides said on Monday.
The bill, which the White House has threatened to veto, requires further reductions in Iran's oil
exports and would apply new penalties on other industries if Iran either violates the interim
agreement or fails to reach a final comprehensive deal.
Iran signed the six-month interim deal in Geneva on November 24 with the United States,
Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
The "Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act" had about 48 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate on
Monday, up from 26 when the bill was introduced on December 19, an Senate aide said.
"Expect that number to keep growing over next couple of days as folks who were out of town
and staff get back in," the aide said.
The bill was introduced by Robert Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois.
"We expect several Democrats to kind of cross the picket line and come on board this week,"
the aide said.
Veto proof majority will make it impossible for Reid to prevent it from reaching the floor
ArmBruster, 1-6 (Ben, Security Experts Ask Senators To Pull Back Iran Sanctions Bill,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2014/01/06/3122551/crocker-experts-senate-iran-sanctions-
bill/)
CQ Roll Call reported last week that Reid still has not publicly signaled his intentions on a floor
vote on the Kirk-Menendez bill.
The bill had 47 co-sponsors signed up before Christmas and we expect at least a dozen more
to sign up in the first couple of days back in session, a Senate aide said via e-mail to CQ. Once
there are 60 co-sponsors, meaning the bill can clear a cloture motion, it will be difficult for
Harry Reid to delay a vote on the bill; if it gets to a veto-proof majority of co-sponsors, it will be
nearly impossible.
The White House has been lobbying Congress against passing new sanctions. Secretary of State
John Kerry told a House Panel last month that it would be gratuitous in the context of this
situation.

2AC Tax Reform

No tax reform will pass and the economy is getting better
Washington Post, 1-8 (U.S. Chamber to pull out all stops to pass immigration reform,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/us-chamber-to-pull-out-all-stops-
to-pass-immigration-reform/2014/01/08/ce7f899c-7883-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html)
Comprehensive tax reform and entitlement reform are unlikely to pass this year, Donohue said
in a news conference following the address.
Donohue expressed some optimism about the economic recovery, predicting the U.S. economy
will grow nearly 3 percent in 2014, surpassing estimated growth for 2013 of between 1.8 and 2
percent.
Housing is recovering and overall household wealth has now surpassed its pre-recession level,
he said. This has boosted consumption, which is leading to more business investment and
some new hiring.

2AC Unemployment Insurance

Wont pass- Republicans are looking for offsets
Washington Post, 1-7 (Senate moves ahead with measure to extend long-term unemployment
benefits, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-moves-ahead-with-measure-to-
extend-long-term-unemployment-benefits/2014/01/07/f6b3d486-77ac-11e3-8963-
b4b654bcc9b2_story.html)
The triumph may be temporary, because the measure still faces big hurdles in the Senate and
longer odds of passing the House.
The crux of the negotiations now is the GOP demand for offsetting savings from other portions
of the budget. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.), calls for
an estimated $6.5 billion to grant an additional three months of benefits for the long-term
unemployed.
GOP leaders are increasingly concerned about public perceptions that they are insensitive to
those who are still struggling in the slow economic recovery. In a recent memo to rank-and-file
Republicans, House GOP leaders urged a show of empathy toward the jobless and advised
members to view unemployment as a personal crisis for individuals and families.
Seemingly poised for defeat, the legislation instead cleared an early hurdle by the narrowest of
margins as six Senate Republicans sided with Democrats to advance it. The sides are now
engaged in negotiations over legislation that would allow 1.3 million jobless workers to
continue receiving unemployment insurance. The procedural vote in the Senate came as the
two parties jockeyed over the political issue of rising income inequality, with Democrats
pushing more aid for the jobless and an increased minimum wage. In his speech after the vote,
the president called unemployment insurance a vital economic lifeline for the millions who
are jobless.
Several prominent Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor (Va.), plan to tout conservative alternatives to the Democratic proposals and other
anti-poverty programs Wednesday as they mark the 50th anniversary of the beginning of
President Lyndon B. Johnsons War on Poverty.
For now, the fight over unemployment has become the main focus of the debate. At the end of
December, the emergency laws that extended jobless benefits beyond the traditional 26 weeks
expired, forcing about 1.3 million people off the program. More unemployed Americans will
lose their benefits as the year progresses and they surpass their states normal timelines.

Wont pass and Political capital cant solve
Green, 1-7 (Obama's Shame Offensive on Unemployment Insurance,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-07/obamas-shame-offensive-on-
unemployment-insurance)
Still, theres a reason why the bully pulpit cant accomplish much, and we were quickly
reminded of it: House Republicans. They appear to be immune from presidential shaming.
Heres a statement from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) after todays vote, shooting the
Senate bill to pieces:
One month ago I personally told the White House that another extension of temporary
emergency unemployment benefits should not only be paid for but include something to help
put people back to work. To date, the president has offered no such plan. If he does, Ill be
happy to discuss it, but right now the House is going to remain focused on growing the
economy and giving Americas unemployed the independence that only comes from finding a
good job.
In other words, the Senate bill, if it passes, is dead on arrival, like most bills sent to the House.

Senate Republicans will back out if theres no offset
Washington Post, 1-7 (Senate moves ahead with measure to extend long-term unemployment
benefits, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-moves-ahead-with-measure-to-
extend-long-term-unemployment-benefits/2014/01/07/f6b3d486-77ac-11e3-8963-
b4b654bcc9b2_story.html)
Obama called at least three key Republicans Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.) and
Rob Portman (Ohio) in the run-up to the vote, signaling that he is willing to discuss other
spending cuts.
When he called, the president did not eliminate the possibility of paying for an extension, but
he did not get into how exactly he would do that, Collins said Tuesday.
White House advisers said that Obama is willing to discuss spending offsets only for a longer-
term extension of unemployment benefits, not the three-month bill under consideration.
That sets up a delicate negotiation. Of the six Republican senators who voted yes Tuesday
Collins, Portman, Heller, Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Dan Coats (Ind.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
five said they were unlikely to support the legislation as it is currently drafted. The six voted
with 54 members of the Democratic caucus to approve a motion allowing the measure to move
ahead, but Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) will need to clear a second 60-vote
hurdle to bring it to a final vote.
In the House, Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took a hard line on what it would take to pass
the extension in his chamber; among the GOPs possible demands are exemptions from
Obamas health-care law and approval for the building of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.
For now, House GOP aides said, Boehners leadership team is content to see how the talks play
out in the Senate before they consider other options.
Senate Democrats questioned whether Republicans were leading them to a negotiating dead
end in which no one could find reductions that would be agreeable to enough Democrats and
still win approval from House and Senate Republicans. We dont want a Mexican standoff
where we put in our pay-for and they put in their pay-for, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told
reporters after the vote.

Politico, 1-8 (In surprise move, unemployment benefits advance,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/unemployment-insurance-benefits-vote-101835.html)
Democrats were able to secure six Republican votes to advance the three-month extension of
unemployment benefits, nabbing just the 60 votes that are necessary to move ahead. But now
they must work with centrist Republicans to strike a bipartisan accord that would offset the
legislations $6.5 billion cost, a tall task in a Senate still brimming with partisan divisions.
But its not at all clear that the Republicans who sided with Democrats to break the filibuster
will vote for final passage. Two of them said Tuesday they would most likely oppose it without
the offsets they are seeking.
(Also on POLITICO: Why the GOP could win it all in 2014)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he spoke to White House chief of staff Denis
McDonough on Tuesday about finding spending cuts or new revenue to pay for the bill
McDonough told Reid hed run the traps on it. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has also begun
discussing pay-for proposals with Democrats.
Though Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seemed buoyed by Reid and
McDonoughs openness to find a way to fund the bill, Reid warned that theres no such thing as
easy money in this political climate.
If they come with something thats serious, Ill talk to them. But right now everyone should
understand, the low-hanging fruit is gone, Reid said.
(WATCH: Tom Coburn slams jobless benefits 'spin')
Senate Democrats hope to hold a vote on final passage by the end of the week ahead of work
on a government spending bill that must pass before Jan. 15.
Several Republicans voted to advance the bill with the expectation that the Senate will find a
way to pay for it and perhaps make structural reforms to the unemployment insurance
program. Republicans will have another opportunity to block the bill before it can move to final
passage, and may eventually vote to scuttle the bill if they are dissatisfied with the amendment
process.
GOP Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Rob Portman of Ohio who supported breaking the
filibuster said they would very likely end up opposing the legislation if money is not found to
pay for it.
(Driving the Day: GOP don't want to make themselves the story)
I voted to proceed with the debate over how to address unemployment insurance with the
hope that during the debate the Senate will agree to pay for the extension and work to improve
the unemployment insurance program so it works better to connect those unemployed with
available jobs, Portman said.
In return for several Republican yes votes, Democrats began to back away from their position
that the legislation should not be paid for, a key development for the legislation not only to
clear the Senate but also for its future in the Republican-controlled House.

Boehner will block
Politico, 1-6 (White House unemployment benefits push kicks into high gear,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/white-house-unemployment-benefits-
101763.html#ixzz2ptyQPHU1)
President Barack Obama returns from his Hawaii holiday toting a familiar message blame the
Republicans as the White House and its allies launch a fresh weeklong effort to spotlight
Congresss failure to renew long-term unemployment benefits.
The push kicks into high gear Tuesday, as the president hosts a group of unemployed Americans
at the White House.
That event which comes as Democrats ramp up what they hope is a midterm-friendly focus
on income inequality will be followed by daily White House efforts to keep the story in the
news, a White House official said. Obamas political arm, Organizing for Action, has also
planned events in 30 cities Tuesday to pressure Republicans, according to people familiar with
the plans.
Labor and progressive groups are organizing phone calls to the Capitol and holding a
Wednesday rally there featuring unemployed workers and supportive Democratic members of
Congress. And on Thursday, Americans United for Change will begin airing TV ads to make the
case that the GOP alone is responsible for the cancelled unemployment benefits.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said he would consider any unemployment benefit
extension only if it is paid for, a position Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated Sunday.
But National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling said in an interview airing Sunday on
Meet the Press that precedent from the George W. Bush years dictates unemployment
benefits be extended without being paid for.
Fourteen of the last 17 times that emergency unemployments been extended there have
been no strings attached, Sperling said. All five times that President Bush extended
unemployment benefits there were no pay-fors.
(Also on POLITICO: Dems seize on income inequality)
And a White House official said theres no need to offset spending in the three-month
extension Senate Democrats and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) have proposed.
There is no reason why we should have to offset emergency UI because it brings back more
money into the economy than it spends, and Congress has passed bipartisan emergency
extensions in the past without strings attached, the White House official said.
Democrats think the issue is high political ground for them an area far more advantageous
than Obamacare and its tortured rollout. It comes as the White House is preparing a season of
events focusing on income inequality and a minimum wage hike that has no hope of passing the
House.

House Republicans wont cave on unemployment benefits
Politico, 1-8 (Jobless benefits not top priority to House GOP,
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/unemployment-benefits-expansion-house-
republicans-gop-101942.html#ixzz2pu7pEufv)
President Barack Obamas desire to renew emergency jobless benefits is running into a familiar
avalanche of indifference: the House.
House Republicans are showing little appetite, urgency and interest in extending the program,
and are hinting that they are content to let the issue disappear if the Senate fails to pass its own
legislation.
The reasons for this stance are plentiful. Some Republicans think the nation is awash with
unoccupied jobs, others are wary of shuffling more government money to the unemployed and
nearly every GOP lawmaker wants to see seismic changes to the way benefits are administered.
(Also on POLITICO: Democrats downbeat on paying for unemployment)
And as the Senate wrestles with its bill, senior House Republicans think the Senate will offset
the bill in a way the lower chamber finds unacceptable. Adding to their demands, House
Republicans say they wont pass a bill that doesnt contain something they deem a job-
creation measure. Some rank-and-file Republicans are already floating the construction of the
Keystone XL pipeline as a price for jobless benefits.
There are loads of Republicans who simply think the current policy is garbage.
Five-and-a-half years of emergency, temporary extensions stacks up at some point and I hear
and understand all the statements about it stimulating the economy and all those things. The
challenge is we continue to borrow another $6.5 billion from the future, said Oklahoma Rep.
James Lankford, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee. The impression that I
get is times are tough now, so well make it tougher on our kids to make it easier on us. I just
think thats a problem.
Add all of these elements together, and it seems that a knife has been driven into the White
Houses first agenda item of 2014.
(Also on POLITICO: Prominent GOPers talk poverty)
Republicans are making a multifaceted political and policy calculation. They think
unemployment insurance is a broken program, and that most voters wont label them
coldhearted for allowing the stimulus-era program to expire. Not to mention that the totality of
jobless benefits wont disappear just extended benefits, which originated during the depths
of the economic recession.
Senior Republican aides and lawmakers also believe that attacks over failing to act on jobless
benefits will pass, similar to what happened when they ignored Obamas pleas for gun control.
But theres danger in this approach. First, the preponderance of public polling shows support
for such benefits. Republicans are three weeks away from their legislative retreat in Cambridge,
Md., and as of right now, they have no legislative agenda. So if the Senate clears its
unemployment bill, the House operating in an environment bereft of other legislative issues
could feel pressure to move one.
Obamas timing for his jobless benefit push coincides with the 50th anniversary of President
Lyndon B. Johnsons War on Poverty speech. High-profile Capitol Hill Republicans like Wisconsin
Rep. Paul Ryan and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are using the occasion to promote their
alternative to current social safety net policies.
At this stage, House Republicans say they will not craft their own extension of jobless benefits
but instead will wait to see if the Senate can pass its legislation. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)
said he is willing to consider a package that is paid for and if there were provisions that we
could agree to that would get our economy moving again and put the American people back to
work. Boehner said Wednesday that Obamas chief of staff Denis McDonough called him just
one week before the December recess to request he pass an extension of the benefits.
(Also on POLITICO: Nancy Pelosi defends income equality push)
Were all concerned about those who have had a difficult time trying to find a job, Boehner
said Wednesday. Thats why weve passed dozens of bills to try to help improve the economy
so that those jobs will be created. Were going to continue to do our work but the Senate ought
to be looking at ways to really solve this problem and thats to help the American people get
the jobs that they want.
But as of right now most Hill Republicans are content with turning this issue around on Obama,
incessantly saying that his request for additional benefits highlights failed economic policies.

There wont be an offset
CNN, 1-8 (Prospects worsen for Senate passage of unemployment benefits,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/prospects-worsen-for-senate-passage-of-
unemployment-benefits/)
(CNN) - The prospects for passing an extension of benefits for the long-term unemployed got
significantly worse Wednesday after two Republican senators who voted with Democrats
earlier this week said they will pull their much-needed support unless Democrats come up with
a way to pay for the $6.4 billion bill.
Without the votes of Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who
voted on Tuesday to begin debate on the bill, Democrats wont be able to get over a 60 vote
threshold needed to break a GOP filibuster and end debate on the measure, which would
extend the benefits for the next three months.
Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to be hardening their position. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New
York, who had been working with Democrats and Republicans to see if they could find offsets
acceptable to both parties, issued a statement saying a deal was unlikely.
I dont think theres much enthusiasm for a three-month offset deal on our side, Schumer
said.

2014 Elections- Republicans Will Win Senate

Republicans will win major in the Midterms
Sabato, 1-6 (Larry J. Sabato has been forecasting elections and analyzing the resultscorrectly
predicting 98 percent of Senate, House and governor winners in, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012.
Starting with this column, Sabato, a university professor of politics and director of the
University of Virginia Center for Politics, joins Politico Magazine as a regular contributor. Twice
a month, hell be sharing his insights on how the 2014 midterm races are shaping upand the
factors that really matter, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-
elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#ixzz2pu9dkVPO)
Another midterm election beckons, and over the next 10 months well see headlines about a
thousand supposedly critical developmentsthe game changers and the tipping points. But
we all know there arent a thousand powerful drivers of the vote. Id argue that three factors
are paramount: the president, the economy and the election playing field. And, at least
preliminarily, those three factors seem to be pointing toward Republican gains in both houses
in the 2014 midterms.
Why?
1. The president. His job approval numbers are perhaps the best indicator of the publics
overall political orientation at any given time, a kind of summary statistic that takes everything
at the national level into account. In a large majority of cases, the presidents party does poorly
in midterms, especially the second midterm of a two-term administration. Its a rare president
who doesnt make enough mistakes by his sixth year to generate a disproportionate turnout
among his opponentsthus producing a political correction at the polls. Presidents Dwight
Eisenhower in 1958, Lyndon Johnson in 1966, Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford in 1974, Ronald
Reagan in 1986 and George W. Bush in 2006 all experienced significant corrections in their
sixth-year elections.
Still, this doesnt always happen. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt in 1934 and Bush in 2002
managed to gain a few House seats, but this was in their first midterm. The Democrats lost no
Senate seats and actually picked up a few in the House in 1998, President Bill Clintons second
midterm.
President Barack Obama might take some heart from the Clinton example, but only up to a
point. Like Clinton in 1994, Obama was unpopular enough by 2010 that Democrats lost the
House in a landslide. That and partisan redistrictinga tactic engaged in by both parties but
currently tilted to the GOPreduces Republican chances for a House seat sweep in 2014
because there simply arent many additional seats available for Republicans, barring a tidal
wave of voter anger even larger than 2010.
But Obamas popularity has sagged badly in his fifth year. While some unforeseen event in 2014
might add some points to his job approval average, the odds are against a full restoration; its
just as likely Obamas polling average, currently in the low 40s, will decline furtherthough
Obama may have a relatively high floor because of consistent backing from minority voters and
other elements of the Democratic base.
As 2014 begins, the environment for the Democrats in this election year is not good. The
botched, chaotic rollout of the Affordable Care Act is the obvious cause, but it is broader than
that: the typical sixth-year unease that produces a send-them-a-message election.
Fortunately for Democrats, the GOP-initiated shutdown of the federal government in October
has tempered the publics desire for a shift to the Republican side, too. None of the above
might win a few races in November if voters had the choice.
2. The economy, but mainly if its bad. Eisenhowers 57 percent approval rating couldnt
prevent Republicans from losing 47 House seats and 13 Senate seats in 1958 because of a shaky
economy. GDP growth had contracted by an astounding 10.4 percent in the first quarter of that
year, though it rebounded later in the year. More recently, there was the 2006 election; while
most analysts thought the Democratic takeover of Congress that year was mainly about Bushs
war in Iraq, the economy wasnt performing on all cylinders. GDP growth in the second and
third quarters of 2006 was an anemic 1.6 percent and 0.1 percent, respectively. The economy,
still reeling from the 2008 economic near-collapse, was also the root cause of the Democrats
2010 debacle.
Midterm Madness
As a general rule, the president's party does poorly in midterm elections. Especially the second
midterm of a two-term administration.
But in politics the converse does not always prove the rule; in fact, a good economy doesnt
seem to help the presidents party much in many midterm elections, with 1950, 1966 and 1986
being strong examples. So while economic hard times are likely to hit a presidents party
hardest, it may be that restless voters shift their concerns and unhappiness about a president
to other topics in the absence of economic woes. So even if the economy continues to improve,
Obama and the Democrats might not reap an electoral benefit.
3. The electoral playing field. How many vulnerable seats are there in the House for the
presidents party? This is mainly a result of prior elections. A presidential victory with coattails
(think 1936, 1948, 1964 and 2008) results in a party winning lots of vulnerable seats that can be
swept away when the tides change in subsequent midterms. The Democrats lost their weaker
members in 2010 and failed to add many seats in 2012; these disappointments protect them
from drastic House losses this coming November.
The Senate is a different story. There is no such thing as a typical Senate election. These high-
profile contests are idiosyncratic, driven by distinctive circumstances, sometimes quirky
candidates and massive spending. A hidden determinant is the division of the Senate into three
classesone-third is elected every two years, making the combination of competitive Senate
seats unpredictable and ever shifting, unlike in the heavily gerrymandered House. One party is
usually favored to gain seats from the outset, thanks to the pattern of retirements as well as
the structure of the Senate class on the ballot.
So: How many Democratic Blue or Republican Red seats are there in an election year? How
many incumbents are running, and did any senators holding seats in states favoring the
opposite party step aside? How strong has the candidate recruitment been in both parties?
Generally speaking, this years Senate slate strongly favors the Republicans.
***
At this early stage, the combination of these three factors suggests a good election year for the
GOP. The president is a Democrat and his approval is weak. The economy may be improving,
based on GDP growth (4.1 percent in the third quarter), but voters still dont
believe their personal economy, at least, has picked up much. Instead, the major national issue
of the moment is Obamacare, which at this point is a loser for Democrats. The structure of the
election in the House and Senate also bends in the GOP direction.

Yes Spending Bills

Spending bills will pass
The Hill, 1-8 (Appropriators fight to beat clock, Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-
money/appropriations/194849-spending-bill-scramble-intensifies#ixzz2pv4zgXkx)
Lawmakers scrambled Wednesday to maintain their momentum and complete writing an
omnibus spending bill by Friday.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), however, acknowledged that
some sort of short stopgap measure would now be likely to avoid a Jan. 16 shutdown.
Because of the Senate procedures, we are probably going to have to do a couple of days
*continuing resolution+, Rogers said. He added that such a measure could run through Jan. 17,
when Congress departs for another weeklong recess.
Yet Rogers said negotiators are clearly making progress, with eight of the 12 parts of the
omnibus done.
We probably have eight or so that are absolutely done, he said. Were reducing the number
of items that are in disagreement.
That represents progress from Tuesday when Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said six out of 12 were done.
Getting the bill written by Friday would allow Congress to vote next week on the $1 trillion
measure containing hundreds of pages of funding details.
Sources said the Labor, Health and Education measure which involves ObamaCare and union-
related provisions remained a problem on Wednesday. ObamaCare funding issues shut down
the government for 16 days in October.
In a positive sign for the omnibus, the controversial Interior and Environment portion appeared
to be close to final.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the subcommittee in charge of Environmental Protection
Agency funding said the level of EPA funding had been finalized.
Calvert also signaled that major policy riders were not going to be in the bill.
There is nothing in there thats a showstopper, he said. He added that he believes the bill will
be done by Friday.
Previous Thursday File

Immigration
1NC
4 reasons why immigration reform will pass
Lopez 1-1 [Oscar, Latino writer & scholar, Latin Times, "New Year 2014: 4 reasons Immigration
reform will pass in 2014" http://www.latintimes.com/new-year-2014-4-reasons-immigration-
reform-will-pass-2014-141778

Immigration reform is set to be the key issue of 2014. Following Mitt Romney's dismal
performance among Latino voters in the 2012 election, both sides of the Government woke up
to the necessity for comprehensive reform on immigration. Indeed, in his State of the Union
address in February, President Obama declared that the time has come to pass comprehensive
immigration reform. Yet with the House divided over Obamacare and the budget crisis, the
Government Shutdown let immigration reform die. 2014 will change that: and here are 4
Reasons Why.

1. Republican Support: A fundamental lack of support from the GOP has always been one of
the major obstacles for passing comprehensive reform legislation, and indeed this seemed to
be the case this year after the Bill passed by the Senate was struck down by Congress. However,
more and more GOP members are realizing the significance of the Latino vote and
understanding that passing comprehensive immigration reform is the most significant way of
securing support from Latino voters.

A July poll from Latino Decisions found that immigration reform was the most important issue
facing the Latino community for 60 percent of those surveyed. The poll also found that 70
percent of those questioned were dissatisfied with the job Republicans were doing on the issue.
The survey also found the 39 percent would be more likely to support a Republican
congressional candidate if immigration reform was passed with Republican leadership.

Republican candidates have become aware of the significance of immigration reform for the
party. Even in traditionally conservative Republican strongholds like Texas, candidates are
turning towards immigration reform. According to Republican strategist and CNN en Espaol
commentator Juan Hernandez, "it also wouldnt surprise me if after the primary, the candidates
move to the center and support reform. For Republicans to stay in leadership in Texas, we must
properly address immigration.

The March 2014 primaries will be a key moment in determining how reform progresses:
Republican Strategist John Feehery suggests, The timing on this is very important. What was
stupid to do becomes smart to do a little bit later in the year. Once the primaries are over,
GOP members will have the chance to implement reform legislation without fear of challenges
from the right.

2. Legalization Over Citizenship: While the Senates 2013 immigration reform bill was struck
down by Congress, GOP party members have indicated that they will support legislation
which favors legalization of undocumented immigrants over a path to citizenship.

Meanwhile, a recent survey from Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project demonstrated that 55
percent of Hispanic adults believe that legalizing immigrants and removing the fear of
deportation is more important than a pathway to citizenship (although citizenship is still
important to 89 percent of Latinos surveyed.)

As CBS suggests, Numbers like these could give leverage to lawmakers who are interested in
making some reforms to the legal immigration system, but not necessarily offering any kind
of citizenship.

If House Republicans offered legalization legislation for the undocumented community, this
could put pressure on the President to compromise. And while this kind of reform would not be
as comprehensive as the Senates bill, a bipartisan agreement would be a significant
achievement towards accomplishing reform.

3. Activism Steps Up: 2013 saw one of the biggest surges in grassroots activism from
immigration supporters, and political leaders started to listen. The hunger strike outside the
White House was a particularly significant demonstration and drew visits of solidarity from a
number of leaders from both sides of Congress, including the President and First Lady.

Immigration reform activists have promised "we will be back in 2014." Indeed, 2014 promises
to be a year of even greater activism. Activist Eliseo Medina has pledged that immigrant
advocacy groups would visit as many congressional districts as possible in 2014 to ensure
further support.

Protests, rallies and marchers are likely to increase in 2014, putting greater pressure on
Congress to pass legislation. Such visual, vocal protests will be key in ensuring comprehensive
reform.

4. Leadership: As immigration reform comes to the fore, party leaders will step up in 2014 to
ensure change is achieved. While President Obama has made clear his support for
comprehensive reform, House Speaker John Boehner previously stated that he had no
intention of negotiating with the Senate on their comprehensive immigration bill.

However, towards the end of 2013, it seemed that Representative Boehner was changing his
tune. In November, President Obama revealed that the good news is, just this past week
Speaker Boehner said that he is hopeful we can make progress on immigration reform. As if
to prove the point, Boehner has recently hired top aide Rebecca Tallent to work on immigration
reform.

With bipartisan leadership firmly focused on immigration reform and party members on both
sides realizing the political importance of the issue, comprehensive legislation is one thing we
can be sure of in 2014.

Major shifts in policy towards Latin America cause partisan battles
Whitehead & Nolte 12 (Laurence Whitehead, senior research fellow in politics at Nuffield
College, Oxford, and Detlef Nolte, acting president of the GIGA, director of the GIGA
Institute of Latin American Studies, professor of political science at the University of
Hamburg, Number 6, 2012, http://www.giga-
hamburg.de/dl/download.php?d=/content/publikationen/pdf/gf_international_1206.pdf,
CMR)

USLatin America relations are routinely managed by multiple bureaucratic agencies, which can act quite
autonomously and are often not coordinated via a common strategy. Obamas Latin America policy has frequently
been hampered by political polarization and partisan divisions in Congress. The intermestic
dimension of USLatin American relations has complicated foreign policy, because a more self-confident and autonomous majority in Latin
America has sometimes sought a policy shift with regard to highly sensitive topics, such as drugs, immigration and Cuba. One issue area
where some would criticize the Obama administration is its slowness in improving relations with Brazil or placing Brazil on par with, for
example, India. It is unlikely that Latin Americas modest ranking in US foreign policy will increase or that
Washingtons priorities will shift much after the November 2012 elections.

Political capital key to immigration
Chicago Tribune 10-17
Government shutdown: Crisis averted, Obama says Americans 'fed up',
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-government-shutdown-20131017,0,1184326.story

President Barack Obama scolded congressional Republicans today after a fiscal crisis was narrowly averted and called on his opponents to help
repair the economic damage caused by a 16-day U.S. government shutdown and a close brush with a debt default. Obama stressed
that he is willing to work with lawmakers wherever they can agree, but the tone he struck amounted to a
rebuke of Republicans, whom Americans largely blame for pushing the United States to the brink of an economic calamity. "The American
people are completely fed up with Washington," Obama said in a White House speech attended by many of the aides who worked day and
night through the various stages of the latest fiscal stalemate. Hours after he signed into law a bill hastily cobbled together to end the crisis,
Obama said events over the past two weeks had inflicted "completely unnecessary" damage on the U.S. economy. An increase in borrowing
costs caused by the near-debt default was harmful and consumers cut back on spending with hundreds of thousands of government workers
suddenly idled, he said. "There was no economic rationale for all of this," he said. Though bruised by the battle, Obama
emerged as the clear winner. He immediately sought to use the political capital gained to
advance a domestic policy agenda centered around a fresh round of budget talks and an effort to win approval of
two stalled items, immigration reform and a farm bill. He did not mention an urgent challenge facing him now: Repairing the flaws
in his signature healthcare law that have prevented many Americans from even signing up for it.

Immigration reform essential to prevent economic decline
Prunetti 12-4 [Robert, president & CEO of MidJersey Chamber of Commerce,
Princentoninfo.com "Immigration reform key to economic growth"
http://www.princetoninfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=12-4-
13reform

Contrary to what some would have us believe, immigration reform is a path to economic
growth, embraced by a significant group of influential conservatives who understand that
America risks losing its competitive edge to countries around the world that are growing and
are our competitors.

Leading conservatives such as Grover Norquist (founder and president of Americans for Tax
Reform) and Al Cardenas (chair of the American Conservative Union) and hundreds of other
similar opinion leaders throughout the country gathered recently in Washington, D.C., to send
their message of promoting economic growth, lowering deficits, supporting innovation, and
developing a more skilled workforce to Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office also found that immigration reform would spur economic
expansion. Simply put, enacting sensible immigration reform is the single greatest
opportunity we have to insure the future economic growth of our nation. The United States
must remain competitive in a global economy where so many emerging countries are now
competing for world economic pre-eminence.

Several recent studies, one by the Center for American Progress) and the most recent by the
Bipartisan Policy Center, among others, show that immigration reform will increase GDP by at
least $1.5 trillion over the next decade and would decrease the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the
next two decades. Higher personal incomes of newly legalized immigrant workers would
generate increased consumer spending enough to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the US.
New immigration of 100,000 per year would preserve 4,600 American manufacturing jobs and
grow U.S. housing wealth by $80 billion annually.

In New Jersey, minimally, the 10-year cumulative increase in gross state product would be $50
billion and increased earnings would be $30 billion. Reform would create 7,200 jobs annually in
our state. The H-1B visa program (visas for high skilled technical jobs) would add 4,000 STEM
(science, technology, engineering and math) type jobs in 2014 alone and 20,000 by 2020. In a
state that is becoming increasingly attractive to these kinds of industries (New Jersey led the
nation in high tech job creation in 2012), the need to attract and retain highly skilled workers is
critical to our competitiveness and our future economy.

The U.S. is falling behind much of the world in population growth. We are following the path of
many Asian and European nations with lower birth rates and family sizes.

For the past 40 years the number of seniors for every working age adult has been constant at
20 seniors for every 100 working age adults. Over the next 20 years, there will be 34 seniors for
every 100 working age adults. Countries with declining population growth rates, such as Japan,
have seen their economies shrink in correlation to their population decline. Countries
experiencing these declining trends and are in danger of the same economic deceleration.

Immigration will expand our economy in key economic sectors. In the STEM industries for
example, immigrants are essential to filling the massive shortfall of highly skilled workers our
economy needs. Right now, if every American graduate with an advanced high tech degree fills
an available job, we would still face a projected worker shortfall in STEM industries of more
than 200,000 by the year 2018. Jobs in these industries have grown three times as fast as jobs
in the rest of our economy over the past 10 years. Immigrants are also innovators. More than
76 percent of the patents at the top 10 patent-producing universities are held by immigrants.

In agriculture, 80 percent of all seasonal workers are foreign born. There is a severe shortage
of native manual farm laborers. Picture our country without the labor force necessary to
support agriculture. Will we become dependent on foreign countries for food as we had
become dependent for energy?

In manufacturing, the data shows that for every 1,000 immigrants living in a country, 46
manufacturing jobs are created or preserved. Immigration has accounted for a majority of job
growth in the four of five U.S. counties that have experienced the greatest increase in
manufacturing jobs since 1970. The more than 40 million immigrants in the United States have
created or preserved 1.8 million manufacturing jobs.

Extensive data demonstrates immigration reform is the path for growth. The numbers
reaffirm what we already know. That is that during each of our nations growth periods,
agriculture in colonial times, our industrial revolution in the late 19th and early 20th centuries
and the post World War II expansion, smart immigration policies enabled the United States to
lead the world in growth and economic prosperity. Now, in the technological and global
economy age, where competition is fierce and barriers to entry are less onerous, we must
once again open our country and our markets to the initiative, ingenuity, and expertise of
immigrants.

Economic decline causes protectionism:
AARON FRIEDBERG and GABRIEL SCHOENFELD, 10/21/2008 (professor of politics and
international relations @ Princeton & a visiting scholar @ Princeton, The Dangers of a
Diminished America, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html,
Accessed 11/7/2012, rwg)
Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming
slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun
to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession,
gale-force winds of protectionism will blow.
Protectionism Causes NUCLEAR WAR
Copley News Service, 12/1/99 (Lexis)
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by
nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very
real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have
forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to
further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our
planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative
global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War
protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about
global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon
or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together
rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO
nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been
settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies
are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why
bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese
prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in
Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just
plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies
provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies
for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without
world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing
global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are
learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who
care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

Uniqueness
Geneeral
Immigration reform will pass. Large corporations and small businesses
pushing reform
Las Cruces Sun-News 1/2 ["Still hope for immigration bill this year" http://www.lcsun-
news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_24825449/imm

"The chances of congressional passage of immigration reform are good because each party
has political reasons for wanting to deliver for Latinos and the business community," Darrel
West, an immigration policy expert at the Brookings Institution, told CBS News. "The biggest
challenge is the pathway to citizenship, where the parties remain far apart. A possible
compromise could involve creating a pathway that is longer and has more conditions that
were in the Senate bill. That will displease reformers but provide cover for (House Speaker
John) Boehner to move the legislation."

Tamar Jacoby, president of ImmigrationWorks USA, a national federation of small-business
owners in favor of immigration reform. said business support for immigration reform could
be key in 2014.

"Unlike in years past, when most employers hid from the debate, or at best worked the issue
quietly behind the scenes, many companies are now eager to link their names with
immigration reform: well-known national companies like Caterpillar, Marriott and State Farm
Insurance, but also local mom-and-pop businesses like the 100 small business owners from
Clark County Washington who organized this summer to post pro-reform flyers in their shop
windows," she said in an opinion piece for CNN.

Immigration reform will be passed by June
O'Shea 1-2 [James, staff writer, Irish Central, "House speaker Boehner now said to embrace
immigration reform" http://www.irishcentral.com/news/House-Speaker-Boehner-now-said-to-
embrace-immigration-reform-238430711.html

Legislation could pass the House in May or June after primary challenges to sitting
Republicans are over.

Thats our first window, Jim Wallis, the president of Sojourners, a Christian social justice
organization in Washington that is working to change the immigration laws, told The Times.

We are organizing, mobilizing, getting ready here. I do really think that we have a real
chance at this in the first half of the year.

I would bet money that it will be done before the presidential election of 2016, but I think
theres a very good chance it will get done considerably sooner than that in 2014, said
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the architects of the
immigration legislation in the Senate, told The Times.

Im going to be pushing hard to try to get it done early next year, said Representative Mario
Diaz-Balart, a Florida Republican who is a proponent of an immigration overhaul. The earlier
the better, I think.

Immigration Reform will pass. Boehner is on board
Shear & Parker 1-1 [Michael & Ashley, NY Times "Boehner is said to back change on
immigration" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/politics/boehner-is-said-to-
back-change-on-immigration.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0

WASHINGTON Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio has signaled he may embrace a series of
limited changes to the nations immigration laws in the coming months, giving advocates for
change new hope that 2014 might be the year that a bitterly divided Congress reaches a
political compromise to overhaul the sprawling system.

Mr. Boehner has in recent weeks hired Rebecca Tallent, a longtime immigration adviser to
Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has long backed broad immigration changes.
Advocates for an overhaul say the hiring, as well as angry comments by Mr. Boehner critical
of Tea Party opposition to the recent budget deal in Congress, indicates that he is serious
about revamping the immigration system despite deep reservations from conservative
Republicans.

Aides to Mr. Boehner said this week that he was committed to what he calls step by step
moves to revise immigration laws, which they have declined to specify.

But other House Republicans, who see an immigration overhaul as essential to wooing the
Hispanic voters crucial to the partys fortunes in the 2016 presidential election, said they
could move on separate bills that would fast-track legalization for agricultural laborers,
increase the number of visas for high-tech workers and provide an opportunity for young
immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to become American citizens.

Although the legislation would fall far short of the demands being made by immigration
activists, it could provide the beginnings of a deal.

For Mr. Boehner, hiring Ms. Tallent suggests a new commitment to confronting an issue that
has long divided the Republican Party. Ms. Tallent is a veteran of more than a decade of
congressional immigration battles and fought, ultimately unsuccessfully, for comprehensive
overhauls of the immigration system in 2003 and 2007.

Although Mr. Boehners aides say she was brought on to carry out his views and not her own,
advocates of immigration change say the only reason for Mr. Boehner to have hired Ms. Tallent
is his desire to make a deal this year.

In addition, immigration advocates say that Mr. Boehners end-of-year rant against Tea Party
groups in which he said they had lost all credibility is an indicator of what he will do this
year on immigration. The groups are the same ones that hope to rally the Republican base
against an immigration compromise, and while Mr. Boehner cannot say so publicly, he will have
more room to maneuver on the issue if he feels free to disregard the arguments from those
organizations.

Aides continue to say that Mr. Boehner remains opposed to a single, comprehensive bill like the
Senate-passed measure that would tighten border security, increase legal immigration and
offer an eventual path to American citizenship for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.
Conservatives are staunchly opposed to sweeping legislation that would offer a path to
citizenship.

The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be,
Mr. Boehner told reporters recently. The only way to make sure immigration reform works this
time is to address these complicated issues one step at a time. I think doing so will give the
American people confidence that were dealing with these issues in a thoughtful way and a
deliberative way.

Nonetheless, immigration activists say they are hopeful that politics may ultimately lead Mr.
Boehner to ignore conservative voices who oppose a path to citizenship. Mitt Romney, the
Republican nominee for president in 2012, who took a hard line on immigration, won only 27
percent of the Hispanic vote a key reason for his loss to President Obama.

Mr. Obama has in the meantime said he is open to the piecemeal approach on immigration
favored by House Republicans, but only if it does not abandon comprehensive goals in
legislation that passed the Senate last summer. Reconciling the House approach with the
broader ambitions of the Senate bill is the biggest hurdle, strategists in both camps say.
Momentum from republicans in support for immigration reform
Dearie & Geduldig 12-29 [ John, executive vice president at the Financial Services Forum,
Courtney vice president of global regulatory affairs at Standard & Poor's, Wall Street Journal,
"more immigration means more jobs for Americans"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303290904579278173121185300

Congress may be on recess, but top Republicans are signaling that 2014 could be crucial for
immigration reform. On Dec. 16, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said in a radio interview that the
U.S. immigration system is "broken" and "indefensible" and that he will support reform as
long as it "maintains Republican, conservative principles." Speaker of the House John
Boehner seems to agree: The Ohio Republican recently hired a longtime immigration
advocate as an adviser, after stating in November that reform is "absolutely not" dead
Immigration reform will pass in 2014
Kaplan 12-26 [Rebecca, political reporter, CBSnews.com "Can immigration reform pass in
2014?" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-immigration-reform-pass-in-2014/

Though the conventional wisdom holds that passing any major legislation in an election year
is a heavy lift, there are signs that may not hold true in 2014 because the growing population
of Latino voters will exert greater influence in the coming elections.

The chances of congressional passage of immigration reform are good because each party
has political reasons for wanting to deliver for Latinos and the business community, said
Darrel West, an immigration policy expert at the Brookings Institution. The biggest challenge is
the pathway to citizenship, where the parties remain far apart. A possible compromise could
involve creating a pathway that is longer and has more conditions that were in the Senate bill.
That will displease reformers but provide cover for Boehner to move the legislation.

John Feehery, a Republican strategist a-nd former congressional aide, said getting immigration
done will be important for the GOP in the long run if they can do it on their own terms in a
series of shorter bills. But he also predicted that legislation wont move for several months until
the primaries for the 2014 elections have concluded House members will less concerned about
challenges from the right.
Obama Pushing Immigration Reform

Obama is making immigration reform his top priority
Miller 12/25 [Emily, senior editor, Washington Times, "Miller: Obama's dangerous
immigration reform agenda and amnesty"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/25/obamas-immigration-reform-agenda-
may-lead-amnesty/?page=all

Before leaving on his 17-day vacation in Hawaii, President Obama declared that one of his top
priorities for 2014 will be immigration reform, with amnesty. He knows that congressional
Republicans feel pressure to do something to woo Hispanic voters.
Mr. Obama will leverage those political forces for the midterm elections, even though he
doesnt even enforce the existing immigration laws.

Mr. Obama held a rare press conference Friday before hopping on Air Force One for the direct
flight to Honolulu. It was in an attempt to buck up his plummeting poll numbers after a year of
failures.
Immigration reform, probably the biggest thing that I wanted to get done this year, we saw
progress. It passed the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote, he asserted.

Boehner on board

Boehner is on board for incremental immigration reform
Jager 1-2 [Elliott, Newsmas, "Boehner: Immigration reform will be4 tackled one step at a time"
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/immigration-reform-boehner-
tackled/2014/01/02/id/544722

House Speaker John Boehner is expected to back step-by-step measures to revamp the
country's immigration laws in a way that non-tea party conservatives can live with, The New
York Times reported.

He previously signaled that he would take positions on the budget and immigration
opposed by the tea party faction saying that it had "lost all credibility."

Boehner is still against the Senate's immigration bill as too sweeping a way to address the
presence of all 11 million illegal immigrants, according to the Times.

"The American people are skeptical of big, comprehensive bills, and frankly, they should be," he
said. "The only way to make sure immigration reform works this time is to address these
complicated issues one step at a time.

"I think doing so will give the American people confidence that we're dealing with these issues
in a thoughtful way and a deliberative way," Boehner said.

Boehner lately hired immigration specialist Rebecca Tallent who had worked for Sen. John
McCain, R-Ariz., an advocate of immigration reform.

Boehner wants to get an immigration bill done this year
O'Shea 1-2 [James, staff writer, Irish Central, "House speaker Boehner now said to embrace
immigration reform" http://www.irishcentral.com/news/House-Speaker-Boehner-now-said-to-
embrace-immigration-reform-238430711.html

House Speaker John Boehner is ready to embrace immigration reform in 2014 The New York
Times reports, though exactly how far he intends to go is unclear.

The Times point out that in recent weeks Boehner has hired Senator John McCains staffer
Rebecca Tallent who has extensive expertise on immigration reform.

There are an estimated 50,000 undocumented Irish in America who could be positively
impacted by immigration reform. A comprehensive reform bill that passed the senate also has a
provision for 10,000 Irish work visas a year.

Boehners move is seen as significant, In addition, before Christmas Boehner lashed out at
Tea Party critics, signaling a move to the center

The Times quotes aides to Boehner who say he is committed to step by step moves to
change immigration laws.

Other House Republican members seem willing to fast-track legalization for agricultural
laborers, increase the number of visas for high-tech workers and provide an opportunity for
young immigrants who came to the country illegally as children to become American
citizens.

Such a bill would then go to a senate/house conference where many of the comprehensive
reform proposals could be included.

Observers say the only reason for hiring Tallent is Boehners desire to make a deal this year.
A/T NO Political Capital
Obama still has political capital, but time is running out. He can use the State
of the Union as a jumpstart to pass immigration reform
Hohmann 1/1 [James, Politico, "As D.C. turns: 14 dates to watch in 2014"
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/2014-14-dates-to-watch-101627.html?hp=f3

Obama becomes more of a lame duck with each annual update to Congress, and, faced with
strong Republican opposition, its likely many of the priorities he outlines will go nowhere.
Still, the State of the Union is an important platform for any president, and this is a chance for
Obama to convey how much of his diminishing political capital he will invest in pursuing
immigration reform, making the health care law work and other priorities.

Budget deal gives Obama enough political capital to pass immigration reform
Political Wire 12-13 ["Budget vote gives immigration reform advocates hope"
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/12/13/budget_vote_gives_immigration_reform_advoca
tes_hope.html

The Hill: "Both sides in the immigration debate are watching Speaker John Boehner closely
after Thursday evening's emphatic House vote in favor of a bipartisan budget deal. The
calculus is clear in the minds of immigration-reform advocates. They believe that Boehner
wants to get some kind of deal done on immigration, and any development that replenishes
his political capital helps their cause."

Top Priority
Immigration reform is at top of docket
Dallas News 12-27 ["Immigration reform's pathway to defeat"
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20131227-editorial-immigration-reforms-
pathway-to-defeat.ece

Comprehensive immigration reform is heading back to center stage on Capitol Hill and dare
we say it? concerted action in 2014. Leaders on both sides of the aisle support it and are
keenly aware that the election-swaying Hispanic vote is on the line.

Immigration reform is top priority this year
Public News Service 12/30 ["Immigration Reform Supporters: 'positive signs" headed into
2014" http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2013-12-30/immigrant-issues/immigration-reform-
supporters-positive-signs-headed-into-2014/a36538-1

And, while Speaker Boehner has said immigration reform would have to wait until next year,
Wallis said there are signs Republicans are ready to act. "I hear Republican leaders - Goodlatte
from Judiciary - saying this will be a top priority in 2014," Wallis said. "John Boehner has hired
a really talented aide to help with immigration - she knows the topic well, and she's for
reform."

Immigration reform is high on the agenda
AP 12/27 ["Obama's 2014 agenda could be a race against the clock"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/12/obamas-2014-agenda-could-be-a-race-
against-the-clock.html

High on the agenda for the start of the year is a renewed push on immigration. Bipartisan
consensus about the need for action on immigration in the wake of the 2012 presidential
election gave way in 2013 to opposition from conservative House Republicans. House Speaker
John Boehner, R-Ohio, has started offering subtle signs he'll put more weight behind the issue
despite continued resistance from the tea party.
Impacts
Key to Economy
Immigration is crucial to job creation
Dearie & Geduldig 12-29 [ John, executive vice president at the Financial Services Forum,
Courtney vice president of global regulatory affairs at Standard & Poor's, Wall Street Journal,
"more immigration means more jobs for Americans"

We hope so. Of all the reasons to support immigration reform, none is more important than
the critical role it would play in helping end America's jobs crisis. Despite the encouraging
news that 203,000 jobs were created in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7%, 11
million Americans remain unemployed while another 7.6 million are working part time
involuntarily. November was the 43rd month in a row in which more unemployed Americans
left the workforce discouraged than found jobs.

Some oppose immigration reform out of fear that more immigrants will take American jobs and
make the jobs crisis worse. Such fears are unfounded. Research has repeatedly shown that
more open immigration policies would create more jobs for more Americans.

In part that is because immigrants are more entrepreneurial and innovative than native-born
Americansa fact that shouldn't shock or offend anyone. To immigrate requires being willing
to pick up one's life and move, often at great personal and financial risk, to a different country,
with a different culture and often a different languagea profoundly entrepreneurial act.
People willing to do so remain highly innovative once they get here.

Immigrants represent 13% of the U.S. population but account for nearly 20% of small
businesses owners. Immigrant-owned small businesses employed nearly five million Americans
in 2010 and generated an estimated $776 billion in revenue, according to a June 2012 study
from the Fiscal Policy Institute. The Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan
group of more than 500 business leaders and mayors, has found that more than 40% of
Fortune FT.T +8.00% 500 companies were founded by immigrants or a child of immigrants.

Immigrants also launch half of the nation's top startups, and research by the Kauffman
Foundation has established that startups account for virtually all net new job creation. A study
by the National Foundation for American Policy found that of the top 50 venture capital-
backed companies in the U.S. last year, 23 have at least one foreign-born founder, while 37
have at least one immigrant in a major management position. Intel, Google, GOOG +1.01%
Yahoo YHOO +0.60% and eBay EBAY +1.58% are a few of the American companies started by
the foreign-born.

Immigrants were involved in more than 75% of the nearly 1,500 patents awarded at the
nation's top 10 research universities in 2011and nearly all the patents were in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics, according to the Partnership for a New American
Economy. Foreign-born innovators contributed to 87% of the patents filed in semiconductor-
device manufacturing, 84% in information technology, 83% in pulse or digital communications,
and 79% in pharmaceutical drugs or drug compounds.

The net result of immigrants' innovation and entrepreneurship is job creation. This effect is
most pronounced for immigrants with advanced degrees from U.S. universities working in
science and technology fields. According to a study by the American Enterprise Institute,
between 2000 and 2007 each group of 100 foreign-born workers with such backgrounds was
associated with 262 additional American jobs.

Immigration reform is necessary to boost the economy
Hill 12-30 [Selena, Latino Post "Immigration reform 2013 news: Studies show immigrants help
boost the US economy, create more American Jobs"
http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2591/20131230/immigration-reform-2013-news-studies-
show-
immigrants-help-boost-the-us-economy-create-more-american-jobs.htm

Research proves that immigration and economic progress go hand in hand. Contrary to fears
that immigrants will take American jobs and make unemployment even worse, studies show
that mending our broken U.S. immigration system would actually help end America's job
crisis.

One reason why open immigration policies would create more jobs for more Americans is
because immigrants tend to be more entrepreneurial and innovative than native-born
Americans, and are twice as likely to start businesses.

While immigrants make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they account for nearly 20
percent of small businesses owners and are responsible for more than 25 percent of all new
business creation and related job growth, the National Journal reports.

According to a 2012 study from the Fiscal Policy Institute, immigrant-owned small businesses
employed nearly five million Americans in 2010 and generated an estimated $776 billion in
revenue. Plus, the Partnership for a New American states that more than 40 percent of
Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or first generation Americans.

In addition, immigrants are also responsible for launching half of the nation's top startups
which account for virtually all net new job creation, according to the Kauffman Foundation.
In 2011, immigrants received more than 75 percent of almost 1,500 patents awarded at the
nation's top 10 research universities, while most of the patents were in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics.

Tim Rowe, founder of the Cambridge Innovation Center in Cambridge, Mass., told the Wall
Street Journal that "our immigration policy is built around the notion that we have to protect
American jobs. But we've got it backward. We're threatening the creation of new jobs by
preventing these incredibly talented entrepreneurs from overseas from coming here and
building their businesses here."
Rob Lilleness, president and chief executive of software developer Medio Systems in Seattle,
Wash., added that immigration restrictions often force new companies to outsource jobs. "We
have to look at India, or Argentina, or Vietnam, or China because there's not enough H-1B
visas," he said.
One of the chief concerns of the Republican Party is to focus on boosting the economy and
creating American jobs. Yet, by failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform for yet
another year, House Republicans may not only be hurting immigrants, but they may also be
hurting the country's economy.

Passing immigration reform is critical to the economy
U.S. Law Center Attorneys 12-20 [CTpost.com "Immigration reform: A jobs plan & fair
reform" http://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Immigration-Reform-A-Jobs-Plan-Fair-Reform-
5082825.php

Imagine, in this moment of hesitant economic recovery, a federal jobs law that would put
120,000 people to work every year. Imagine it increasing the annual incomes of Connecticut
families by $160 million and breathing entrepreneurial energy into high-tech startups like
etouches in Norwalk and corporations like Deloitte and Starwood in Stamford. Imagine if that
legislation also dramatically cut our deficit.

Too good to be true? Far from it. It's there for the taking.

Even in a House of Representatives frozen in dysfunction, comprehensive immigration reform,
which passed the Senate in June by a 68-32 margin, would easily pass the House if it were
brought to a vote.

The economic benefits of well-regulated immigration are not controversial. They are the story
of America, and many of us have lived them. Foreign-born Americans are twice as likely to
start a small business as the native born. Think of your local restaurants, car washes, and delis.
Two in five companies on the Fortune 500 were started by immigrants or their children. Think
of Andy Grove of Intel and Sergey Brin of Google.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes that passage of immigration
reform would add $1.4 trillion to our GDP in the next ten years.

The long-term strength of Social Security and Medicare would be improved by the expanded
legal workforce and youth of our immigrant population. The CBO estimates that the Senate
immigration bill would cut deficits by $200 billion over 10 years.

Prevents Russia & China war
A strong economy is key to relations with both China and Russia
Bennett 01 (Richard Bennett is a strategist at Armed Forces Intelligence, the
international research organization, The Express, As America's Relations with Russia
and China Take a Nosedive...; is the World on the Brink of a New Cold War? April 12,
2001 Lexis)
With the evident cooling of relations between America and both Russia and China the hopes for
greater understanding and co-operation in the new post-cold war world have been buried. A mere
10 years after the collapse of much of the communist world, confrontation and distrust have
returned to haunt an international community already riven with economic collapse, conflict, famine
and the growing threat of severe climatic changes. The new US administration already finds itself confronted with a tit-for-tat spy expulsion feud with Vladimir
Putin's newly resurgent Russia, the US Navy's EP-3 "spy plane" stand-off with an increasingly aggressive China, the growing threat of war in the Middle East and the
re-establishment of anti-Western alliances. There are in addition a number of other potential crisis areas, including world environmental issues where President
Bush has already moved strongly out of step with much of the international community by refusing to ratify agreements on cutting the emissions of greenhouse
gases. He also faces a domestic economic slow-down that threatens the stability of US industry and
Wall Street. The old cold war certainties have been replaced by an uncertain and confused international situation. Regions once neatly divided into "them
and us" are now beset with ever-changing alliances and re-alignments. Both China and now, increasingly, Russia see their long-term interests being served more by
a confrontationalist attitude towards the US than by begging for crumbs from the tables of the rich and privileged. Both China and Russia wish to establish
themselves as countries whose views are listened to and whose influence is enhanced rather than simply ignored - or, worse still, actively undermined. They want
their position as regional, if not world, superpowers to be respected. The US, on the other hand, can see little value in allowing its
status as the world's single global superpower reduced in any meaningful way simply to satisfy the largely
internal needs of two nations that are quite unable to challenge the US economically or militarily. Russia has
failed to see the large-scale Western investment and international acceptance expected by Yeltsin and the economic reformers following the overthrow of the
communist system. The economic benefits promised by the West during the political turmoil of the
early Nineties have simply failed to materialise for the vast majority of Russian citizens. Instead, Russia has been stripped of
its superpower status and most of its influence; while the US has tended to ignore the feelings of this - temporarily at least - militarily impotent nation, particularly
over some of its traditional areas of interest such as Serbia and Iraq. The missile attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the bombing of Serbia in 1999 -
made in the sure knowledge of China's inability to retaliate - angered that nation's government far more than the West was prepared to accept or even, such is the
intolerance of the powerful, recognise as having any justification. China's eventual response was the hard line now being taken over the spy plane forced to land on
Hainan island. Though China has finally agreed to release the crew, the countries' mutual suspicion has helped turn an unfortunate incident into a potential
international crisis. The demands for an apology over a surveillance flight made in international airspace, the determination to hold the crew of 24 captive for as
long as possible and the virtual dismantling of this super-secret aircraft on the tarmac of Lingshui airbase in full view of US intelligence satellites has left little doubt
in the minds of US analysts that China has every intention of using this unexpected intelligence and diplomatic windfall to extract as much political advantage out of
the crisis as possible. The international humiliation of the US, and President Bush in particular, is a bonus that President Jiang Zemin will not easily forgo. There are
problems in other areas of the world. Cracks are developing in the united front shown by the international community since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the
resulting Gulf War in 1991. These are caused in part by US support for Israel, particularly in the light of an increasingly more aggressive military response to the
continuing violence of the Palestinian Intifida and in part by the reaffirmation of the determination to both maintain sanctions and military pressure on Iraq in a
final attempt to rid the area of Saddam Hussein. The new US administration will need to tread carefully and think long and hard over its response to these events.
Diplomatic policy may well have to be re-assessed and defence strengthened. The international "warming" that followed the end
of the cold war has been put in reverse, certainly in the short term, and the world is now witnessing the
dawn of a new age of uncertainty.
Growth solves their impactinterdependence checks conflict:
Griswold 2007 - director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies (4/20, Daniel, Trade,
Democracy and Peace, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more
economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those
nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means
human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that
impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the
economic cost of war.
Prevents War:General
Economic downturn causes conflicts to erupt across the globe
Auslin and Lachman, 2009 (Michael, AEI's [American Enterprise Institute] director of Japan Studies, was an associate professor of history and
senior research fellow at the MacMillan Center, and Desmond, AEI fellow, former deputy director in the International Monetary Fund's Policy Development and
Review Department, The Global Economy Unravels Forbes, 3-6, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravels-opinions-contributors-g20.html
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos
followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make
responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the
adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability
is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.
Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and
possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced
with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to
conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales,
has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been
predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside
Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even
apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures
have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is
expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country.
Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions
between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed
five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in
the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would
dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States,
unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result
may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang. One has to hope that ahead of the next G-20
summit in London this April, global policymakers will get real about the gravity of the present global economic and political situation. For only with a
coordinated and forceful economic policy response is there any hope of extricating ourselves
from what is turning out to be the most serious global economic slump since the Great
Depression.

Hegemony
Skilled workers key to US economic and military primacy:
JOHN RATZENBERGER, 7/31/2010 (Foundation for Fair Civil Justice board member,
Skilled workers key to state, national economies, http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-
key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
A cultural shift has taken place in America that's tragically made the skilled worker a thing of
the past. Our media has glorified celebrity at the expense of our nation's basic needs, and America will reap the whirlwind within the next
two decades. At stake is nothing less than our long-term economic vitality and national security .
Skilled workers key to US military hegemony:
JOHN RATZENBERGER, 7/31/2010 (Foundation for Fair Civil Justice board member,
Skilled workers key to state, national economies, http://newsok.com/skilled-workers-
key-to-state-national-economies/article/3480964, Accessed 1/23/2013, rwg)
In my interviews with employers across the nation, I hear the same story: Business owners are desperate for skilled
workers. Many are reaching out to local schools to attract young people into the trades. Despite the offer of good pay and benefits, the
noble skills that involve working with your hands and mind don't hold the same appeal as they did in decades past. Some businesses are
considering moving their operations (and jobs) overseas. We're experiencing the loss of the once-vaunted edge
that America enjoyed. From aviation to energy, our national security is at risk. In order to
maintain the world's most sophisticated military , we must produce systems, parts and
hardware in America. Without domestic manufacturing operations, critical component work has been moved offshore as a stop-gap
measure.

Collapse of hegemony and competitiveness causes nuclear war
Khalilzad 11 Zalmay, the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United
Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the
Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, February 8, The Economy and National Security; If we
dont get our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity, online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-and-national-security-zalmay-
khalilzad
We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound
political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends
could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new
international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could
intensify geopolitical competition among major powers , increase incentives for local
powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude
or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high.
In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S.
leadership . By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in
frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American
retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional
powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict . Alternatively, in
seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from
the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their
regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-
power competition. Beijings economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles,
long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. Chinas strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around
China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, Chinas expansive territorial claims and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea
and incidents at sea have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing
Chinese hegemony and aggression.

Econ Impact Warming
A) Economic crisis blocks solutions to global warming:
Michael Graham Richard, 2/6/2008 (Counter-Point: 4 Reasons Why Recession is BAD for
the Environment, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession
_bad_environment.php, Accessed 11/7/2012, rwg)
Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get, which
means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies
of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers
decide to make cuts. Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be
doing something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept
all kinds of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment . Massive
corn subsidies anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming ...
B) Warming leads to extinction
Tickell, 8-11-2008
(Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise
counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and
dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that
Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our
extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level
rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and
industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed
much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become
extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be
hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir
David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement.
The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice.
The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse
gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the
Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and
as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse
triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a
similar hothouse Earth.
Affirmative
No immigration reform in the quo. Recent discourse is empty rhetoric
Hardaldson 1-2 [Hrafnkell, PoliticsUSA.com, "Don't expect 2014 to bring any meanful change
in immigration reform" http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/02/expect-2014-bring-
meaningful-change-immigration-reform.html

News outlets are talking about John Boehner and immigration reform. Dont kid yourself. In
The New York Times we find that Boehners hints provide new hope that 2014 might be the
year that a bitterly divided Congress reaches a political compromise to overhaul the
sprawling system. You do remember what has happened each and every time Boehner has
tried to do anything, right? The extremists yank the carpet out from beneath him. Boehner
cries, blah, blah, blah.

Immigration reform will not pass. Midterms will undermine support
Walters 1-2 [Anne, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, "Choppy waters ahead for Obama, Congress in
2014" Lexis

The November 4 elections make major action on potentially
controversial legislation, such as immigration reform, more unlikely
as lawmakers focus on their campaigns and seek to avoid alienating
voters.
Immigration reform will not pass. Primaries and republican backlash will
prevent passage
Tomasky 1-2 [Michael, Dailybeast.com, "Immigration, round 2: Still a reach"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/02/immigration-round-2-still-a-reach.html

But more broadly, this is going to be a year, is it not, of continual struggle between the
conservatives and the radicals, culminating in the handful of primary elections in which
radical challengers are running against conservative incumbents. So I don't see much reason
to think that any immigration reform will be anything other than ferociously controversial
within the GOP. The only question now is whether Boehner has the onions to sidestep the
radicals.

Yes, he said last year that they'd "lost all credibility," a phrase on which many are placing a
great deal of optimism. But we've heard that Beltway optimism before. I'm still skeptical that
he'd want an immigration bill to pass with the backing of only a minority of his caucus,
because it would infuriate and energize the rabid wing of the base in advance of the by-
elections. So maybe the answer is a lame-duck session--he passes immigration with 180
Democratic votes and 40 Republican ones and then says "Thanks, I'm retiring." I suppose
there'd be more disgraceful ways for him to go.
Unemployment Benefits
Uniqueness

Unemployment Benefits will pass. Democrats are pressuring House
Republicans
Hoover 1-2 [Kent, Washington Bureau Chief, Bizjournals.com "4 things to watch in Washington
as new year begins" http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/news-wire/2014/01/02/4-
things-to-watch-in-washington-as-new.html?page=2

The Senate will vote next week on legislation to extend unemployment benefits for
Americans who have been without a job for longer than six months. This assistance for the
long-term unemployed expired Dec. 31, leaving 1.3 million Americans in the cold.
The House, however, has been reluctant to pass an extension unless it's paid for by cuts
elsewhere in the federal budget.

Democrats hammered Republicans as being heartless over the holidays -- you could practically
hear "Blue Christmas" playing in the background as Democrats spoke about this issue. Now
you'll hear lots of "unhappy new year" rhetoric.

Republicans will face lots of pressure to go along with this extension, and they'll face another
populist challenge as Democrats push for an increase in the minimum wage. President Barack
Obama and Democrats plan to push for legislation to phase up the federal minimum wage,
which now stands at $7.25 an hour, to $10.10 an hour by 2015. Plus, Democrats plan to make
the minimum wage a big issue on the state level as well, including putting the issue on the
November ballot in some states.
Unemployment benefits will pass on Monday
Fox News 1-1 ["Reid: Senate will vote on jobless benefits when members return Monday"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/01/reid-senate-will-vote-on-jobless-benefits-when-
members-return-monday/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says his chamber will vote Monday on extending long-term
jobless benefits and that he plans to outline his 2014 legislative agenda in the coming days.

The benefits were not included in a two-year budget deal Congress reached in December,
cutting off unemployment checks for 1.3 million Americans out of work longer than six months.

Reid, D-Nevada, is optimistic that the bipartisan legislation in the Senate will get enough
support from members of both parties to win passage in the Democrat-controlled chamber.

Unemployment benefits will pass in the quo. Just enough votes in the House
Baragona 1-2 [Justin, Politics USA, "Obama turns up heat and pressures Boehner to restore
unemployment benefits" http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/02/white-house-aggressively-
pushes-jobless-benefits-places-ball-boehners-court.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will bring this up for a vote as soon as Congress
comes back into session on January 6th. It is expected to pass the Democratic-controlled
Senate.There will be at least a handful of Republicans that vote for it as well. It all depends on
whether or not Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) will bring this up for a vote or not.
Obviously, all the Democrats in the House will vote for this. You also have to feel that there
are a number of non-Tea Party members of the Republican caucus that dont want to explain
to their constituents why they let some of them suffer needlessly.
Unemployment Extension will pass with Senate pressure
Klimas 12-27 [Jacquline, Washington Times, "Passing unemployment benefits extension in the
Senate will put pressure on the House" http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-
politics/2013/dec/27/menendez-unemployment-benefits-extension-senate/

Sen. Robert Menendez, New Jersey Democrat, said being able to pass a short-term
unemployment insurance extension in the Senate may put the pressure on Speaker John A.
Boehner to hold a vote in the House.

The pressure of the nations eyes will be on them, he said Friday on MSNBC.
Sen. Jack Reed, Rhode Island Democrat, announced Thursday that hell introduce a 3-month
extension to unemployment benefits that will expire Saturday when Congress returns to
Washington in January. While he is introducing the bill with a Republican co-sponsor, some
Republicans have said they would only consider an extension if its paid for in other parts of
the budget, which Mr. Reeds extension isnt.

Economy
Failing to extend unemployment rates will undermine economic growth
Trumbull 12-28 [mark, CS Monitor, "Unemployment benefits expiring: Should special help
continue beyond 26 weeks?" http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-
Decoder/2013/1228/Unemployment-benefits-expiring-Should-special-help-continue-beyond-
26-weeks-video

Economic growth could be slower without the extended benefits. In a recent report, White
House economists estimated that by removing income from the economy, failing to extend
the benefits would cost 240,000 jobs in 2014. The report also cited estimates by the
Congressional Budget Office and JP Morgan that gross domestic product (GDP) would be 0.2
to 0.4 percentage points lower.

Against this backdrop, Gene Sperling, director of the presidents National Economic Council,
issued a statement Friday supporting bipartisan legislation to continue the extended benefits.

Never before have we abruptly cut off emergency unemployment insurance when we faced
this level of long-term unemployment and it would be a blow to these families and our
economy, Mr. Sperling said.

Failure to extend unemployment rates will undermine economic growth
Robinson 12-30 [Eugene, opinion writer, Washington Post, "Unemployment benefits, the
cruelest cut of all" http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-
unemployment-benefits-the-cruelest-cut-of-all/2013/12/30/511c57e2-7198-11e3-8b3f-
b1666705ca3b_story.html

In terms of economic policy, this makes no sense. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
estimated that extending long-term unemployment for a full year would cost about $25
billion, which would add to the deficit. But the measure would boost economic growth by
two-tenths of 1percent and create 200,000 jobs. Given that interest rates are at historical
lows, and given that the imperative right now is to create growth and jobs, refusing to extend
the benefits is counterproductive as well as cruel.
Obama pushing UB
Obama pushing unemployment benefits as a top priority.
Rucker 12-27 [Philip, Washington Post "Obama urges Congress to pass emergency extension
of unemployment benefits" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
politics/wp/2013/12/27/obama-urges-congress-to-pass-emergency-extension-of-
unemployment-benefits/

President Obama briefly interrupted his holiday vacation here Friday to urge Congress to pass
an emergency extension of unemployment benefits.
With roughly 1.3 million out-of-work Americans set to lose their unemployment insurance
starting Saturday, the White House said that Obama placed separate telephone calls Friday to
Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.) to offer his support for their proposal to
extend benefits for three months.

"The President said he was pleased that they were working in a bipartisan fashion to address
a problem that will directly affect 1.3 million Americans during the holidays and have a
negative impact on the nation's economic growth and job creation," White House spokesman
Josh Earnest said in a statement. "The President said his administration would, as it has for
several weeks now, push Congress to act promptly and in bipartisan fashion to address this
urgent economic priority."

Obama will use political capital to pass Unemployment benefits
Xinhua News 1-1 ["White house urges extension of unemployment benefits"
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-01/02/c_125943806.htm

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 (Xinhua) -- The White House on Wednesday urged lawmakers to extend
unemployment benefits for millions of unemployed Americans, its latest pitch to ratchet up
pressure for Congress to pass legislation to renew the benefits.

"This New Year's Day, there is likely less joy and more fear and distress in the homes of 1.3
million Americans who this week have seen their unemployment insurance suddenly cut off -- a
vital lifeline that these Americans depend on as they fight to find a job," Gene Sperling, director
of the National Economic Council, said in a statement.

"There would be no better New Year's resolution for Congress to make today than to commit
to making the first new legislation for the new year the restoration of emergency
unemployment insurance for those who have this week just been cut off," said Sperling.

Top of docket

Extending unemployment benefits is primary concern for Congress
Green 1-2 [Joshua, Businessweek, "1.3 million people lost unemployment benefits. It could get
ugly" http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-02/emergency-unemployment-benefits-
ended-dec-dot-28

When Congress reconvenes on Jan. 6, one of the first issues it will take up is whether to
renew an emergency federal unemployment program that expired on Dec. 28, cutting off 1.3
million jobless workers. Enacted in 2008 at the start of the recession, it provided up to 47
weeks of benefits for those still looking for work when their state unemployment benefits ran
out. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says hell try to pass a temporary extension, but most
Republicans have balked at the $25 billion-a-year cost. If the program isnt revived, the impact
could be significantnot just for the 1.3 million people losing a vital lifeline but on the broader
economy.
Democrats pushing UB

Unemployment benefits are democrats top priority
Koenig 12-28 [Bryan, CNN, "Unemployment benefits exxpire, Dems vow tofight on"
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/28/unemployment-benefits-expire-dems-vow-to-
fight-on/

Long-term unemployment benefits for 1.3 million Americans expired Saturday after Congress
failed to pass an extension. Reinstating those benefits is expected to be one of the first
priorities for congressional Democrats in the new year.

Extending unemployment insurance is the right thing to do for millions of Americans who are
trying to support their families, Democratic National Committee chairwoman and Florida Rep.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement Saturday. What makes matters worse, the loss
of benefits comes just a few days after the holidays.
A/T Unemployment low

Unemployment rate doesnt represent what the job market
Green 1-2 [Joshua, Businessweek, "1.3 million people lost unemployment benefits. It could get
ugly" http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-02/emergency-unemployment-benefits-
ended-dec-dot-28

The decline in the unemployment rate gives you a very limited view of whats going on in
our labor market, says John Quinterno, founder of South by North Strategies, an economic
research firm in Chapel Hill, N.C. Year over year, the number of employed people in North
Carolina ticked up by 6,082, while the unemployed fell by 101,901. That means the labor force
contracted by 95,009. So the improvement has not necessarily been driven by more people
going to work and is actually being driven to a large degree by people leaving the labor
force. In October the states labor force participation rate hit a 37-year low. One benefit of
unemployment insurance is that it has an anchoring effect, says Quinterno, because you
have to be looking for work to qualify for benefits.

A/T Quo will increase jobs

Unemployment rate will not actually drop. The numbers get manipulated
Business week 1/2 ["Ahead of the Bell: US unemployment benefits"
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-01-02/ahead-of-the-bell-us-unemployment-benefits

Economists predict that the benefit cut-off will cause the unemployment rate to fall by as
much as a quarter of percentage point in early 2014. But they worry that the drop will likely
occur because many of the former recipients will give up on their job searches, which are
required in order to receive benefits. Those out of work are only counted as unemployed by
the government if they are actively searching for work.
Aff Answers
Extending unemployment benefits will not help the economy
Folks 1-1 [Jeffrey, American Thinker "Extending unemployment benefits: Obama's urgent
political priority"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/extending_unemployment_benefits_obamas_urge
nt_political_priority.html

The actual effect on the overall economy would be closer to a 0.1% reduction in GDP. And
how is it that paying 1.3 million Americans not to work creates jobs? That one has never
been explained. Every respectable economist I've consulted states that when unemployment
benefits run out, a greater number of workers return to the labor force.

Turn: unemployment benefits increase unemployment
Tanner 1-1 [Michael, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, National Review Online, "Obama's
2014 war on the poor" http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367333/obamas-2014-war-
poor-michael-tanner

Take the extension of unemployment insurance. Labor economists may disagree on the extent
to which unemployment benefits increase or extend spells of unemployment, but the fact that
they increase the duration of unemployment and/or unemployment levels is not especially
controversial. As Martin Feldstein and Daniel Altman have pointed out, the most obvious and
most thoroughly researched effect of the existing UI systems on unemployment is the increase
in the duration of the unemployment spells.

In fact, even Paul Krugman, in the days when he was an actual economist rather than a partisan
polemicist, wrote in his economics textbook:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural
unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe,
benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a
workers incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some
European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of Eurosclerosis, the
persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

President Obamas former Treasury secretary Larry Summers estimated in The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles
the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months.

Its not hard to understand why. Incentives matter. Workers are less likely to look for work or
accept less than ideal jobs as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being
unemployed. That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment or that
unemployed people are lazy. Its just simple human nature that people are a little less
motivated as long as there is a check coming in. Indeed, research shows that, in the weeks just
before benefits run out, workers spend more hours looking for a job and are as much as three
times more likely to find jobs.
Iran
1NC
Iran Sanctions will not pass in the quo
Rajabova 12-28 [Sara, Azernews "U.S. not likely to impose new sanctions on Iran"
http://www.azernews.az/analysis/62959.html

There is a struggle between the White House and Congress, for a while, on imposing new
sanctions on Iran if it fails to conclude a nuclear agreement with world powers.

The U.S. Congress introduced legislation on new sanctions on Iran last week, which was sharply
criticized by the Iranian officials.

However, the U.S. President Barack Obama urged the Congress to refrain from imposing new
sanctions against Iran, saying these sanctions could scuttle the negotiations.
Obama warned he would veto a bill imposing new sanctions on Iran, because it could sink a
final deal over Tehran's nuclear program. He said he would support tougher sanctions later if
Iran violates the agreement.

The author of book "The Evolution of Macroeconomic Theory and Policy", professor of
economics at U.S. Northeastern University, Kamran Dadkhah shared his views on this issue with
AzerNews.

Dadkhah said currently, there is little chance of imposing new significant sanctions on Iran.
Insert plan costs political capital
Obama will spend political capital on Iran.
Wsj 1-1 ["Time for a big-league president: The antidote to global chaos is American leadership"

Because polls say Americans are in an isolationist mood, Mr. Obama won't spend political
capital outside the countryUkraine, Syria, Asia. He wants to spend what capital he has left
consolidating internal federal authority. The Iran nuclear deal is an obsession, similar to
promoting windmills after the fracking revolution.

Labott and Carter 1-1 [Elise and Chelsea, Cnn.com "US: Deal to impolment Iran nuclear deal
near" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/31/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal/
Washington (CNN) -- The United States dismissed a report that an agreement had been reached
between Iran and world powers to begin implementing a deal that requires Tehran to limit its
nuclear program.

The announcement followed a report in state-run Iranian media that a deal had been reached
in negotiations between Tehran and the six world powers, including the United States, to begin
implementing the agreement in late January,

"We've made progress in our discussions, and the teams have taken a few outstanding points
back to capitals," State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf.

New Iran sanctions will put the US on a path towards war
Joffe & Richman 1-2 [Marc & Shelldon, The Guardian "Dear Congress: Don't sabotage our
chance to end the cold war with Iran"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/02/congress-iran-sanctions-sabotage-
agreement

In January, congressional Democrats and Republicans who are united in their skepticism of
if not outright opposition to the interim Iran nuclear deal will attempt to pass a new round
of economic sanctions against the Iranian people. This move would very likely scuttle the
current six-month agreement, end negotiations toward a comprehensive settlement, and put
us back on the path to war.

Nuclear Iran kills U.S. hegemony emboldens enemies and weakens alliances
Takeyh and Lindsay, 10
[James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair,
Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies After Iran Gets the Bomb Containment
and Its Complications, March/April 2010,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22182/after_iran_gets_the_bomb.html]

The dangers of Iran's entry into the nuclear club are well known: emboldened by this
development, Tehran might multiply its attempts at subverting its neighbors and encouraging
terrorism against the United States and Israel; the risk of both conventional and nuclear war
in the Middle East would escalate; more states in the region might also want to become
nuclear powers; the geopolitical balance in the Middle East would be reordered; and broader efforts to stop the spread of nuclear
weapons would be undermined. The advent of a nuclear Iraneven one that is satisfied with having only
the materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a
nuclear arsenalwould be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States. Friends
and foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in
the Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes
would challenge U.S. policies more aggressively.
Such a scenario can be avoided, however. Even if Washington fails to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it can contain and mitigate the
consequences of Iran's nuclear defiance. It should make clear to Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but
isolate and weaken the regime. Washington will need to lay down clear "redlines" defining what it considers to be unacceptable behaviorand
be willing to use military force if Tehran crosses them. It will also need to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly
committed to preserving the balance of power in the region.
Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part
of the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S.
resolve. Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran
could complicate Washington's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stoppedor were
stoppedbefore it became a nuclear power. Current efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor. Economic pressure on
Tehran must be maintained. Military options to prevent Iran from going nuclear must not be taken off the table.

No alternative to American hegemony collapse causes transition wars,
economic collapse, global instability and destroys all international
cooperation no other global power can fill the void
Brzezinski, Former National Security Advisor, 12
*Zbigniew, January/February 2012, Foreign Policy, After America: How does the world look in
an age of U.S. decline? Dangerously unstable.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america, accessed 7/5/13, WD]

Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's
decline and China's rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of candor to a senior U.S.
official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the inevitability of the
Chinese leader's expectation is still far from certain, he was right to be cautious when looking
forward to America's demise.
For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent
successor -- not even China . International uncertainty , increased tension among global
competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes.
While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis
-- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic
disorder , a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening
warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor.
No single power will be ready by then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally
cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive
realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more
losers, in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global
well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of
enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and
religion could ensue.
The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among them India, Japan, Russia, and some
European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their
respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian
mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be
considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China
rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's
uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former
Soviet Union. Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany
and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in
favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within
the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others may
move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old
Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries,
however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial, technological, and
military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role.
China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial
lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been
critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus
prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing
hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic
collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic
reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's
leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every important measure of
development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state
several decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe
and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly,
Chinese leaders have been restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership.
At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage
China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally
mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India,
Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the
global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly
assertive China. The resulting regional scramble could become intense, especially given the
similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international
tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of
the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty.
At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to
major regional powers also depends on the international status quo reinforced by America's
global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion to
America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South
Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's
geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the
nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and
restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist.
A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy.
America's economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the
challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence,
immigration, and the narcotics trade. A decline in American power, however, would likely
undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A
waning United States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national
identity, more paranoid about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for
the sake of others' development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and
an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the
emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims
justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents.
Another consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative
management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space, cyberspace,
and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global
economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability . In almost every case, the
potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the
essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of
American power creates order where there would normally be conflict.
None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's decline would
generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled
North American neighborhood an argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic
complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those
dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world
after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United
States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a
dangerous slide into global turmoil.

Sanctions Undermine Nuke Deal
New sanctions could undermine the peace deal and result in war
Kahl 1-31 [Colin, middle east policy expert, National Interest "The danger of New Iran
sanctions" http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-danger-new-iran-sanctions-9651

The legislation defies a request by the Obama administration and ten Senate committee chairs
to stand down on sanctions while negotiations continue. It also flies in the face of an
unclassified intelligence assessment that new sanctions would undermine the prospects for a
successful comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. Proponents of the bill note that the
proposed sanctions would only come into force if Iran violates the Geneva agreement or fails to
move toward a final deal, and would not kick in for months. But the White House warns that
enshrining new economic threats in law now runs counter to the spirit of the Geneva pledge
of no new sanctions during negotiations, and risks empowering Iranian forces hoping to
scuttle nuclear talks. The legislation also defines congressionally acceptable parameters for a
final deal that Iran experts almost universally believe are unachievable, namely the
requirement that Iran completely dismantle its uranium enrichment program. For these
reasons, the administration believes the bill represents a poison pill that could kill diplomacy,
making a nuclear-armed Iran or war more likely.

Sanctions hawks disagree, arguing that the legislation will enable, not thwart, diplomatic
progress. Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Senator Robert Menendez,
the bills leading champion, contends, and a credible threat of future sanctions will require
Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table.

But this logic badly misreads the historical effect of sanctions on Iranian behavior and under-
appreciates the role played by Irans fractious domestic politics. A careful look at Iranian
actions over the past decade suggests that economic pressure has sometimes been effective,
but only when it aligns with particular Iranian political dynamics and policy preferences. And
once domestic Iranian politics are factored in, the lesson for todays sanctions debate is clear:
the threat of additional sanctions, at this critical juncture, could derail negotiations toward a
peaceful solution.
Key to Middle East Peace
Iran nuke deal key to Obamas ability to negotiate Middle East peace
Solomon 1-1 [Jay, Wall Street Journal, "The test for diplomacy with Iran"
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-416755/

The success or failure of diplomacy with the Islamist government will help determine
whether the Obama administration can implement its broader goals in the Middle East, such
as ending the sectarian conflicts in Syria and Iraq and forging an Arab-Israeli peace accord.
American and European officials hope a comprehensive deal on Tehrans nuclear program will
contain nuclear proliferation and herald cooperation with Iran on these other areas.
Affirmative Answers
No impact: Even if sanctions pass, Obama will veto the legislation
Merry 12-31 [Robert, political editor for the National Interest, Washington Times, "Obama
may buck the Israel lobby on Iran"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/31/merry-obama-may-buck-the-israel-
lobby-on-iran/

Presidential press secretary Jay Carney uttered 10 words the other day that represent a major
presidential challenge to the American Israel lobby and its friends on Capitol Hill. Referring to
Senate legislation designed to force President Obama to expand economic sanctions on Iran
under conditions the president opposes, Mr. Carney said: If it were to pass, the president
would veto it.

Midterms
GOP will take the Senate

GOP will take control of the Senate after midterms
Judis 12-31 [John, The New Republic, "Only foreign policy can rescue Obama's second term"
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116079/obamas-second-term-foreign-policy-key

The Democrats could also lose the Senate in November. Republicans need to add six seats.
They are likely to win Democratic seats in West Virginia, South Dakota, and Montana. They
could win seats in North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska and maybe even Michigan.
No Republican seats appear endangered. In early September, North Carolina Democratic
Senator Kay Hagan led her possible Republican opponents Mark Harris and Greg Brannon by 14
and 16 percent respectively in the PPP poll. Now she is tied with Harris and two points behind
Brannon. Voter disappointment and disgust with Obamacare could eventually fade, but is not
likely do so before November.
GOP will keep the house
Republicans will keep the house in the Quo
AP 12-30 ["Dems, GOP seek to define issue for 2014 elections"
http://www.moultonadvertiser.com/news/national/article_718ecc40-b930-5370-be4b-
a44bd2f13e6d.htm

The GOP has held the House majority since January 2011 and is widely expected to maintain
that edge in next November's contests. Congressional officials and outside political experts
point to the drag of Obama's low approval ratings, the troubled health care law and the
traditional losses for the president's party in midterm elections.

Democrats will not take back the House
Judis 12-31 [John, The New Republic, "Only foreign policy can rescue Obama's second term"
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116079/obamas-second-term-foreign-policy-key

The Democrats are unlikely take back the House in 2014. The Democratic edge in the generic
House polls, which soared during the shutdown, has completely disappeared. Republicans
now have a five percent edge in the CNN poll. Republicans already enjoy an advantage from
incumbency and districting. In 2012, Democrats were very slightly ahead in the generic poll
before the election, but came 33 seats short of winning back the House. They probably need
about a five percent lead in these polls to have a chance of taking back the House.

Midterms Key to Obamas agenda

Democrats must maintain the Senate and have some gains in the House for
Obama to get anything done
Birnbaum 1-2 [Norman, Global Times, "Obama's decisions still hold potential to reshape US
ambitions" http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/835446.shtml#.UsWkkPRDsT8

Obama faces November Congressional elections. To have some freedom of action in the last
two years of his second term, he must retain the Democratic majority in the Senate, and at
least make large inroads on the Republican majority in the House. At present the Republicans
are leading in pre-election polls, and the president's own approval ratings are low. Nonetheless,
the chances of recovery are quite large.
Executive Orders

XO will cause significant political backlash
Dorning 12-19 [Mike, Bloomberg.com "Podesta's push for executive power raises stakes on
Obama agenda" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/podesta-s-push-for-executive-
power-raises-stakes-on-obama-agenda.html

Greater use of executive power would raise the stakes in Washington, provoking a clash with
Republicans that could lead to a wave of congressional hearings, lawsuits from aggrieved
parties and more tense negotiations over spending and taxes. It would also add to Republican
bitterness already fueled by Senate Democrats move to limit filibusters of Obama appointees.
Affirmative Answers: General
Thumpers

Multitude of thumpers: Nothing will get done
Coshocoton Tribune 1-1 ["Obama, Congress need to give Americans hope"
http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20140101/OPINION04/301010019/Obama-
Congress-need-give-Americans-hope

In Washington alone, consider the difficulties: Political gridlock is rampant. Midterm elections
are bound to ramp up the partisanship. Republican opposition to virtually anything Obama
touches is intense and shows no signs of stopping. And some of the nations top legislative
priorities the Affordable Care Act, stronger guidelines on background checks for gun
purchases, federal-level immigration reform, for instance are either wrapped in
controversy or going nowhere.

Thumper: Minimum wage
Daily Press 1-2 ["Maximum politics on minimum wage"
http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/party-44309-level-thirteen.html

Democratic Party leaders and their confederates including labor unions and liberal
advocacy groups decided against such issues as Obamacare, climate change and
immigration reform. Instead, they opted for the old standby a proposed increase in the
minimum wage.

It puts Republicans on the wrong side of an important values issue when it comes to
fairness, Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obamas senior adviser, told the Times. You can make a very strong
case that this will be a helpful issue for Democrats in 2014.
Debt ceiling
AP 12/27 ["Obama's 2014 agenda could be a race against the clock"
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/12/obamas-2014-agenda-could-be-a-race-
against-the-clock.html

Already, familiar fault lines are emerging as Republicans and Democrats retrench for the next
fiscal fight over raising the debt ceiling, which the Treasury says must be resolved by late
February or early March. Despite the White House's insistence that Obama won't negotiate
over that issue, Ryan has vowed the GOP will seek concessions before acquiescing.
Previous Thursday Files
Negative Cards
Iran Sanctions Obama Winning

Obama is getting Senate support to stop sanctions now
Associated Press, December 18, 2013
(Sen. McConnell: Sen. Reid protecting Obama from Iran sanctions vote
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/18/sen-mcconnell-sen-reid-protecting-
obama-iran-sanct/ sjg)

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that his Democratic counterpart is
barring any GOP changes to pending defense legislation because he cant stomach a vote on
Iran sanctions.
In a blistering speech on the Senate floor, McConnell railed against Democratic leader Harry
Reid for changing Senate rules to limit the GOPs ability to filibuster and complained that Reid
was jamming a comprehensive, $632.8 billion bill through the Senate without allowing any
amendments.
Reid insists that he has no other choice to counter GOP delaying tactics on nominations and
legislation, including the defense policy bill which attracted some 500 amendments before
Thanksgiving.
McConnell, who spoke favorably about the defense bill, said Reids motivation in preventing
any amendments was to avoid a vote on Iran sanctions. The Obama administration has pleaded
with Congress to hold off on a new round of tough penalties, fearing that it will undermine last
months nuclear deal with Tehran.
McConnell said the Nevada Democrat realizes the administration would lose that vote
decisively, and he knows that many members of his own caucus would vote alongside
Republicans to strengthen those sanctions.
McConnell, R-Ky., called Reids tactics a short-term power grab that could come back to haunt
the Democrats if they find themselves in the minority.

Obama using Senate to delay Iran vote
Neharnet December 18, 2013
(Top Republican: Senate Leader Coddling Iran for Obama
http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/110512-top-republican-senate-leader-coddling-iran-for-
obama sjg)

The Senate's Democratic leadership is shielding U.S. President Barack Obama from potentially
embarrassing fallout by refusing to vote on new sanctions against Iran, the chamber's top
Republican warned Wednesday.
Lawmakers from both parties are keen to expand economic penalties on Iran, which is in the
midst of negotiations with world powers over its nuclear program.
One bipartisan proposal that Obama opposes would trigger new sanctions if last month's
interim deal rolling back parts of Iran's nuclear program does not lead to a full-fledged
agreement in six months.
Top Republican Senator Mitch McConnell lambasted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for
ramming through a defense spending bill with no opportunity to add amendments, a move that
avoids debate on Iran sanctions while the sensitive nuclear negotiations are ongoing.
Reid "won't allow a robust amendment process because he can't stomach a vote on Iran
sanctions," McConnell said on the Senate floor.
"He knows the administration would lose that vote decisively, and he knows that many
members of his own caucus would vote alongside Republicans to strengthen those sanctions,"
McConnell added.
"So rather than allow a democratic vote that might embarrass the administration, the majority
leader simply won't permit that vote to happen."
McConnell essentially accused Obama and his top allies in the Senate of seeking to diminish
Congress's role in determining national security policy on critical issues like Iran and the
ongoing civil war in Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry has made numerous trips to Capitol Hill urging lawmakers to hold
fire on sanctions in order to give negotiations a chance.
The effort appears to have worked, with leaders of the Senate Banking Committee, tasked with
compiling new sanctions legislation, announcing last week they would not introduce such a bill
in the near future.
Asked if he would move to introduce sanctions in January, Reid said "no," but then qualified his
answer.
"Well, let's wait and see. We have a lot to do in January," Reid said Tuesday.
"We'll see what Secretary Kerry comes up with for progress on the deliberations during that
period of time."
In a bid to stand tough, the administration expanded its sanctions blacklist against Tehran last
week, triggering a walkout by Iranians in the midst of four days of talks in Vienna.
Negotiations were set to resume Thursday in Geneva.

No action on sanctions bill until after Geneva talks
NY Times December 19
th

(Bipartisan Assent to Hold Off New Iran Sanctions
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/20/world/middleeast/senators-press-obama-for-a-tougher-
iran-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0 sjg)
hghggh
WASHINGTON In a meeting with Senate leaders on Tuesday, President Obama failed to sway
critics of his effort to sign an interim nuclear deal with Iran. But in a modest concession, they
agreed to hold off on a vote to impose new sanctions on Iran until after talks in Geneva later
this week. fter a two-hour session that reflected deep divisions between the White House and
Congress, a bipartisan group of the Senates top foreign policy and national security
committees urged Mr. Obama to reject any nuclear deal with Iran that did not include a
tangible rollback of its nuclear weapons program.

But after the president pleaded with them to hold off on new measures against Iran, several
senators signaled that they would not seek to amend a military funding bill now under
consideration with any provision including the additional sanctions.
Congress United
Budget deal passage shows parties are united. And, immigration is top of the docket
USA Today December 18
th

(Senate sends two-year budget deal to Obama Susan Davis,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/18/senate-budget-deal-
passes/4113243/ sjg)

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Senate approved, 64-36, Wednesday a limited, two-year budget
framework to diffuse the threat of another government shutdown and alleviate harsh budget
cuts.

Nine Republicans sided with all 55 members of the Democratic Caucus, which includes two
independent senators.

The agreement was overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House last week, and it now heads to
President Obama for his signature.

The framework sets top-line spending levels for the next two fiscal years at $1.012 trillion and
$1.014 trillion, respectively. The GOP-led House and Democratic-led Senate had been unable to
agree on spending levels, which helped provoke the 16-day government shutdown in October.

Working off the same budget levels will allow the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees to move forward on the annual 12 spending bills that fund the government's
discretionary spending, which does not include spending on mandatory programs like Social
Security and Medicare.

"We have a heavy lift ahead of us--drafting, negotiating, and passing these bills in just over one
month--but I am certain my colleagues on both the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees are up to the task," House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said last
week. The current stopgap funding bill runs out on Jan. 15.

The budget deal also alleviates $63 billion in across-the-board spending cuts known as the
sequester by replacing them with other cuts and new government fees on airlines, new pension
requirements for future federal employees, and a 1% reduction in cost of living adjustments to
working-age military retirees. It also includes an additional $23 billion in modest deficit
reduction over the next decade achieved by extending certain healthcare cuts through 2023.

The budget deal is one of the final legislative acts in what has otherwise been the most
unproductive year on record for Congress.

The GOP-led House has already adjourned for the year, while the Democratic-led Senate is also
working to wrap up a defense bill and a number of executive branch nominations before they
adjourn for the holiday season.

The deal's negotiators, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., and Senate Budget
Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., said they are hopeful this final act of
bipartisanship will usher in a new era of cooperation in a divided Washington.

Murray said the deal could help "heal the wounds" of what has been a divisive and partisan
year that led to the first government shutdown in nearly two decades and included a bitter and
ongoing battle over the implementation of the president's health care law.

Congress will reconvene on Jan. 6 for the second session of the 113th Congress. An overhaul of
the nation's immigration laws is the dominant piece of domestic legislation facing this Congress,
while congressional Republicans are also angling for additional fiscal restraints in exchange for
their support to increase the nation's debt limit. A vote is expected in the spring.

Budget passage shows a congress united
Associated Press December 18
(Bipartisan Budget Agreement Clears Congress Bipartisan Budget Agreement Clears Congress
sjg)

Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation Wednesday scaling back across-the-board
cuts on programs ranging from the Pentagon to the national park system, adding a late dusting
of bipartisanship to a year more likely to be remembered for a partial government shutdown
and near-perpetual gridlock.

Obama's signature was assured on the measure, which lawmakers in both parties and at
opposite ends of the Capitol said they hoped would curb budget brinkmanship and prevent
more shutdowns in the near future.

"It's a good first step away from the shortsighted, crisis-driven decision-making that has only
served to act as a drag on our economy," he said of the measure in a statement issued after the
vote. And yet, he quickly added, "there is much more work to do to ensure our economy works
for every working American."

The legislation passed the Democratic-controlled Senate on a vote of 64-36, six days after
clearing the Republican-run House by a similarly bipartisan margin of 332-94.

The product of intensive year-end talks, the measure met the short-term political needs of
Republicans, Democrats and the White House. As a result, there was no suspense about the
outcome of the vote in the Senate only about fallout in the 2014 elections and, more
immediately, its impact on future congressional disputes over spending and the nation's debt
limit.

"I'm tired of the gridlock and the American people that I talk to, especially from Arkansas, are
tired of it as well," said Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat who supported the bill yet will have to
defend his vote in next year's campaign for a new term. His likely Republican rival, Rep. Tom
Cotton, voted against the measure last week when it cleared the House.
AT: Debt Ceiling Thumper
No more fiscal fights Congress will get other things done
Market Watch, 12/13/13
After the budget deal, a shiny, happy Congress? Dont count on it,
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/12/13/after-the-budget-deal-a-shiny-
happy-congress-dont-count-on-it/

Greg Valliere of Potomac Research Group says budget issues will be less contentious next year,
making way for immigration and tax reform. With [House Speaker] John Boehner no longer
tied to right-wing activists, some bills could move, he emails , referencing Boehners much-
documented chastising of conservative groups this week.

Budget deal will pave way to end future fights over spending
Cillizza, 12/18/13
Chris, Congress has found a kumbaya moment. Can it possibly last?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/18/congress-has-found-a-
kumbaya-moment-can-it-possibly-last/

When the Senate approves the budget compromise later today, it will seal the first bipartisan
piece of legislation to make it through both chambers of Congress in a very, very long time. The
question: Is the budget deal a sign that the partisan fever has broken on Capitol Hill or is it
simply an anomaly that predicts nothing as to what Congress will or wont do in 2014?
Maybe its the spirit of the season, but I suspect that it is the power of a positive example,
said Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Stivers. Now that members have seen respected leaders like
Paul Ryan and Patty Murray show that you can reach a compromise without compromising
your principles, more members are willing to try. In the past couple of years, members of
Congress would frequently say that they want to work together, but nobody has wanted to
compromise first.

AT: Nominations Thumper

Reid and Senate democrats are fighting on nominations not Obama
Catalini, National Journal, 12/17/13
Michael, Senate Republicans Give Reid Lumps of Coal for Christmas,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-republicans-give-reid-lumps-of-coal-for-
christmas-20131217

Senate Republicans this week unveiled a fresh tactic in their attempt to punish Majority Leader
Harry Reid for changing the rules of the Senate: forcing roll-call votes on procedural questions
on nominations. The only problem is, it's not clear if it's working.

By threatening to use all the post-cloture debate time, Republicans hoped to spur Democratic
senators to pressure Reid not to keep the Senate in session over the weekend and into
Christmas week. Democrats, the thinking goes, don't want to be in session so close to the
holidays.

But if there's one lesson Democrats learned throughout the shutdown, it's the value of
staying united.

"They know ultimately that we're gonna get it done," said Assistant Majority Leader Dick
Durbin, D-Ill. "We're gonna stick with it till it's done, we're committed to it. We've waited too
long to get this going."

Publicly, Reid's still threatening to work into the holiday week.

"We have a lot to do before Christmas, but we can get it done with a little bit of cooperation
from Republicans on other issues before us," he said. "If not, we will face another long series of
votes that will bring us to the weekend and at least the first part of next week."

Reid is negotiating directly with McConnell on nominees Obama is not involved
Barrett, Senior Congressional Producer, 12/18/13 8 PM
Ted, Nominations fight threatens start of Senate recess, Political Ticker,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/18/nominations-fight-threatens-start-of-senate-
recess/

It remained unclear if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would press ahead to clear the
nominees or pull back from the brink and let senators return home for the holidays.
Republicans vowed if Reid moved forward they would require the many hours allowed by
Senate rules to debate each nominee. That could stretch to Sunday or longer. Theyre going to
spend the time it takes, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, warned Democrats. Coburn has told
Senators that he would be willing to stay in town, forcing Democrats to keep the Senate in
session and be around for votes, so that other Republican Senators could return home. Reid
and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell met Wednesday, but there was no word if
they had made progress on the issue.

Political Capital High Now

Obama has capital for Iran
Terbush, November 26, 2013
(Political staff writer for The Week The Iran nuclear deal: Obama's big trust test
http://theweek.com/article/index/253376/the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-big-trust-test sjg)

Sens. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) are working on joint legislation that would
reinstate the full weight of sanctions on Iran, and impose harsher ones if that nation fails to
comply with the six-month agreement, even though the administration has warned that
legislative action could undermine negotiations toward a long-term deal.

Yet, as with ObamaCare, the president's fragile standing has afforded even critics from his own
party cover to oppose the administration. While that could be little more than political
posturing, Obama will nevertheless have to expend energy and political capital rallying support
behind the slog toward a long-term pact.

Obama has sought to tamp down the trust concerns by noting that the deal is specifically
intended "to chip away at the mistrust that's existed for many, many years" between Iran and
the U.S. First, though, the president will have to chip away at the mistrust a majority of
Americans now have for him.

Immigration Reform Will Pass

Will Passhouse leadership
The Hill, December 19
th

(Jeb Bush Jr Time is now for immigration reform http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-
blog/foreign-policy/193578-time-is-now-for-immigration-reform sjg)

Every member of the House leadership team has expressed commitment to move reform
forward in 2014, and each week the number of rank and file Republicans in favor of reform
grows.
In 2013 we made great strides toward a successful 2014 for immigration. Considering that just
over a year ago this issue was on the sidelines, the fact that the home stretch is in sight is no
small accomplishment.

2014 stands to be that blockbuster year that finally takes reform across the finish line.

Our members of Congress have the opportunity to work together on an issue with truly broad,
bipartisan support. And my congressman, Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), is set to play a crucial role
in those efforts.

Diaz-Balart has already shown his steadfast commitment to broad reform to our broken
immigration system. From his efforts in the House Gang of Eight and his work on legalization
legislation to his encouragement of Speaker Boehners (R-Ohio) hiring of immigration policy
assistant Rebecca Tallent, the congressman has shown his resolute dedication to getting reform
done this Congress.

Even with difficulties presented by the congressional calendar, there is more than enough time
and political will to get reform done in the 113th Congress. The question is not if, but when.

Immigration is no longer a partisan issue. Support for reform crosses the aisle and the country.
And the longer we delay on this critical issue, the higher the costs to our economy, our security
and our families.
Will PassGOP needs reform before midterms
Hill, December 18
th

(Selena, Immigration Reform 2013 News: Will Congress Pass a Reform Bill During the 2014
Election Year? http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2209/20131218/immigration-reform-2013-
news-will-congress-pass-reform-bill-2014-election-year.htm sjg)

"There is this will, there is a change of attitude in the Republican party," Jacoby said. "I think
there is a chance we really could get to this."
One of the major points of contention over reform lies within dealing with the 11 million
undocumented immigrants who currently reside in the country. While the bipartisan Senate bill
that passed over the summer includes a pathway of citizenship, Republican leadership in the
House has declared that they won't support it.
Jacoby says that more House Republicans are in favor of giving undocumented immigrants legal
status that would allow them to work and travel, without becoming a citizen.

Will PassBoehner proves
th

(Budget deal may clear decks for immigration in January
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4014669 sjg)

WASHINGTON - If the Senate manages to pass a long-term budget deal Tuesday, the next item
on the agenda for Congress could be even harder: immigration.

Republican leaders, led by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, have deemed immigration
legislation a priority in the new year. The Senate is expected to pass Tuesday a bipartisan
budget deal for the next two years that would clear the legislative calendar and eliminate the
threat of a government shutdown in January. And even Bob Dane, whose Federation for
American Immigration Reform strongly opposes a bill, concedes that at this point, "the ground
is very fertile" for an immigration bill.

"It's going to happen," Vice President Biden said during a webinar last week.

Affirmative Cards
Debt Ceiling Thumper
Fights over debt ceiling comingthump the DA
Frumin, MSNBC, 12/18/13
Aliyah, GOP tees off (another) debt ceiling showdown. http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/gop-
tees-debt-ceiling-showdown

Another year, another debt-ceiling fight. Clearly, America has a lot to look forward to in 2014.

Even though the Senate is slated to approve a bipartisan budget deal, another fiscal fight is on
the horizon. Several Republicans are already alluding to yet another showdown over the debt
ceiling, risking a self-inflicted blow to the partys already damaged brand.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell whos up for re-election next yeartold reporters
that hes already anticipating another game of chicken over the nations legal borrowing limit.

The Kentucky lawmaker said he isnt optimistic his fellow Republicans will allow a debt ceiling
hike in 2014 without getting something in exchange.

I doubt if the House or for that matter the Senate is willing to give the president a clean debt
ceiling increase, said McConnell on Tuesday, adding, Well have to see what the *GOP-
controlled] House insists on adding to it as a condition for passing it.

And Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, who spearheaded the bipartisan budget deal, has
said he too wants concessions for not allowing the U.S. to default on its debt.
Obama will get involved in big debt ceiling fight
Weil, Money News, 12/17/13
Dan, Politico's White: Don't Count Out Debt Ceiling Conflict,
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/White-debt-ceiling-
Ryan/2013/12/17/id/542293#ixzz2ntNEGmmA

While it appears that the bipartisan compromise budget will now squeak through the Senate,
that doesn't mean fiscal battles are over in Washington, says Ben White, chief economic
correspondent for Politico and a CNBC contributor. None other than House Budget Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., who forged the budget compromise for the GOP side, is making
noise about the debt ceiling, which will have to be raised again next year, White writes on
CNBC.com. Ryan let it be known over the weekend that the GOP will attempt to wring policy
concessions out of the Democrats in return for approval of a debt limit increase. "We as a
caucus . . . are going to meet and discuss what it is we're going to want out of the debt limit,"
Ryan told the "Fox News Sunday" program. "We don't want 'nothing' out of this debt limit.
We're going to decide what it is we're going to accomplish." So what will the GOP go for?
"There will likely be pressure from the right to again use the debt limit to take some kind of bite
out of Obamacare," White asserts. " Whatever they try to add will almost certainly be
rejected by the White House and congressional Democrats, setting the stage for a possibly
ugly debt limit fight," he adds.

Nomination Thumper
Obama spending capital fighting GOP on nominations
Dolan, Morning Sentinel, 12/18/13
Scott, Republicans use rule to block hearing for Maine judge,
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Maine_judge_s_appointment_to_federal_bench_could_
create_state_court_openings_.html

Republicans invoked the so-called two-hour rule, which prevents committees from holding
hearings more than two hours after the Senate has convened for the day without the consent
of all senators. The Senate convened at 10 a.m. Wednesday, and the hearing was scheduled for
2:30 p.m., after the two-hour limit, according to Leahys staff.

Levy, 59, needs a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee and approval from the full
Senate to replace U.S. District Court Judge George Z. Singal, who assumed semi-retired status
effective July 31.

Levy would be one of three full-time U.S. District Court judges in Maine. The others are John A.
Woodcock, appointed by President George W. Bush, and Nancy Torresen, an Obama appointee.
The District of Maine also has two federal magistrate judges.

Singal and Judge D. Brock Hornby have senior status and continue to hear cases on a semi-
retired basis.

Wednesdays delay was the latest Republican effort in the Senate to thwart Obamas judicial
nominees since Democrats changed the Senates filibuster procedures last month to prevent
Republicans from blocking nominees by themselves.
New Obama nominations causing fights with the GOP
Taylor, EE Daily, 12/18/13
Phil, Senators spar over Interior pick, EPW leadership,
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059992041

President Obama's pick to oversee wildlife and parks management at the Interior
Department received a fresh round of GOP criticism yesterday over her past statement
about the impacts of natural gas development in the West -- though she also received
bipartisan praise.

GOP still fighting over judicial nominations
Barrett, Senior Congressional Producer, 12/18/13 8 PM
Ted, Nominations fight threatens start of Senate recess, Political Ticker,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/18/nominations-fight-threatens-start-of-senate-
recess/

Fallout from the so-called nuclear option Senate Democrats triggered last month - when they
dramatically weakened the ability of minority Republicans to filibuster presidential nominees -
continued to reverberate through the Capitol on Wednesday as GOP Senators threatened to
keep the chamber working into the Christmas recess if Democrats insisted on approving a large
slate of presidential nominees.
Iran Sanctions Obama Losing
No unity Democrats pushing for sanctions against Obamas will
McMurry December 19
th
2013
(Mediaite Morning Reading List: Dems Defy Obama to Push Iran Sanctions
http://www.mediaite.com/online/mediaite-morning-reading-list-dems-defy-obama-to-push-
iran-sanctions/ sjg)

Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) defied President Barack Obama
on Wednesday and proposed a bill widening sanctions against Iran, a move the White House
warns could jeopardize a recent agreement to slow Irans enrichment of uranium in exchange
for a $7 billion reduction in sanctions.

The proposed bill would allow Obama to waive the harshened sanctions provided he
demonstrate on a monthly basis that Iran is fully complying with the terms of the deal Secretary
of State John Kerry brokered in Geneva three weeks ago, a provisional agreement meant as a
step toward a more comprehensive negotiation in six months. It would also forbid the United
States from waiving sanctions on Iran until the nation agreed to dismantle its nuclear
programan option some analysts, including those in the Obama administration, believe is
decreasingly viable.

Dems introduced the Bill, defying Obama. That triggers the impact
National Journal, December 18
(Senate Dems Defy Obama on Iran http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/senate-dems-defy-
obama-on-iran-20131218 sjg)

A bipartisan group of senators will soon introduce legislation that would level new sanctions
against Iran, defying pleas from President Obama for Congress to wait while the administration
works toward a comprehensive deal.

Lawmakers are circulating legislation to impose additional sanctions that would kick in after the
six-month negotiating window to reach a comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program runs
out, or if Iran fails to hold up its end of the bargain in the interim.

The exact timing of the legislation's introduction will be largely up to Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is leading the bipartisan sanctions effort
with Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.

Lawmakers and staff involved in the negotiations, however, say the bill could be ready as soon
as Thursday.

"I am working with a series of members, and I expect we'll have some type of an
announcement tomorrow," Menendez said Wednesday. "The dynamics are what I've always
said they would be, which is to give the president the space and time so that he can test the
Iranians' seriousness of purpose in terms of whether they are willing to strike an agreement,
but to be ready should they ultimately fail."

Introducing the bill before the breakand thus teeing it up for action when the Senate
reconvenes in Januarywould signal a bold act of defiance against the administration, which
was still begging lawmakers this week to sit back and wait to see whether a comprehensive
agreement can be reached.

The administration said that even the introduction of the bill threatened to undermine the
international negotiations, and last week it appeared that the White House's aggressive
lobbying campaign was making inroads in delaying legislation.

Parties are united for Sanctions passage
Hudson, December 12
(The Cable How Congress Could Steamroll Iran Sanctions Past Obama
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/02/how_congress_could_steamroll_iran_san
ctions_past_obama sjg)

Though some Democrats fear burning bridges with the White House, aides tell The Cable that
negotiations between senators in both parties are closing in on legislation that would impose
new sanctions on Tehran after six months -- the length of the preliminary nuclear deal recently
hammered out in Geneva. The bill would include an option to delay the punitive action if U.S.
talks on a final deal appear promising. Despite earlier reports that Republican hawks would
dismiss such legislation as overly lenient, a Senate aide says that's not the case.
Like perhaps no other foreign policy issue, Iran sanctions have pitted President Obama against a
sizeable portion of his own party. In the last week, powerful Democrats such as Sens. Robert
Menendez of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer of New York have openly defied the White House
and advocated for new sanctions legislation.

Political Capital Low Now

Obama still hasnt recovered from Affordable Care Act No Capital
Forbes 12/1
(Young, George W. Bush's Hurricane Katrina Has Nothing Politically On Obama's 'ACA'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/12/01/george-w-bushs-hurricane-katrina-has-
nothing-politically-on-obamas-aca/ sjg)

The Affordable Care Act isnt Obamas political version of Hurricane Katrina, its worse.
Although strikingly similar from a political standpoint, Obamas ownership and depleted
political capital make this threat far greater to his presidency. If realized, Obamas would
become the latest administration to discover that second terms have become amazingly fickle
things.

Upon winning a second term, a president appears to have both validation and a mandate.
However, even under the best of circumstances, lame duck status comes quickly in a nation
forever hurrying to move on. Recently, second-term administrations have had anything but the
best of circumstances.

Second term curse means Obama cant get things done
Pew Research Center 12/19/13
(Bruce Drake, Obama, Bush and the second-term curse http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/12/19/obama-bush-and-the-second-term-curse/ sjg)

Barack Obama and George Bush have at least one thing in common when it comes to the
second terms they won the first year of their encores have been downers when it came to
their public images. Both experienced falloffs in overall job approval and in Americans
perceptions of their leadership, ability to get things done and trustworthiness.

Bush had won re-election in 2004 by a razor-thin margin over Democrat John Kerry, and while
Obama beat Republican Mitt Romney more decisively, he was one of the few presidents to win
a second term by a margin lower than his first.

Common to both men was a belief that their victories opened a door to opportunity in that first
year after re-election. Bush declared, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and
now I intend to spend it. Obama, who had dueled Romney through the campaign over his plan
to extend tax cuts for the middle class but not the rich said the election had sent a very clear
message from Americans.

But then both of them encountered the rocky first year after re-election that has become
known as the second-term curse.

Thumpers

Controversial nominations battle thumps
ABC News December 16
th

(Will Congress Complete Its 2013 To-Do List? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-
complete-2013-list/story?id=21235936 sjg)

The Senate is poised to approve two major presidential nominees before heading into the
holiday recess.

The Senate is scheduled to vote Monday on the nomination of Jeh Johnson to be the next
Secretary of Homeland Security. Reid is also pushing the Senate to confirm Janet Yellen as the
next chair of the Federal Reserve by the end of the week.

The confirmation of these two key nominees will culminate a months-long battle in the Senate
over nominations, which pushed Senate Democrats to change filibuster rules using the so-called
"nuclear option" and further infuriated Republicans.
Farm Bill Thumps
th


The farm bill will be one of the Senate's undone items in 2013.

Conferees from the Senate and House were unable to work out an agreement on the farm bill
this month as they've battled over cuts to food stamp programs and how to deal with farm
subsidies.

The House last week passed a short-term extension of the bill until Jan. 31, but the Senate
might not vote for the short-term fix before it heads home, leaving the issue of the farm bill to
be dealt with in 2014.
Unemployment is top of the docket, not sanctions
th


Another item left unfinished on Congress' 2013 to-do list is unemployment insurance, which is
set to expire Dec. 28 when 1.3 million people will lose their benefits.

Reid last week vowed to make unemployment insurance the first item on the Senate's agenda
when it returns in January, arguing that the benefits could be extended retroactively. House
Speaker John Boehner has indicated a willingness to extend the benefits but is pushing for a
way to offset the costs with spending reductions.

Immigration Reform Wont Pass
No comprehensive will pass only small items
Hill, December 18
th

(Selena, Immigration Reform 2013 News: Will Congress Pass a Reform Bill During the 2014
Election Year? http://www.latinopost.com/articles/2209/20131218/immigration-reform-2013-
news-will-congress-pass-reform-bill-2014-election-year.htm sjg)

On the other hand, Derrick Morgan of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation said it
was unrealistic to expect House GOP to vote for any proposal that would grant unauthorized
immigrants legal status in an election year.
"A lot of people feel like in 1986 there was a legalization of about three million undocumented,
unlawful immigrants at that time, and now we have about 11 million," Morgan said. "To do that
all over again I think is too tall of an order for this Congress to do."
Rather, Morgan predicts that House members may resort to using a piecemeal approach to
pass common sense legislation including amending the high tech visa programs and a proposal
to track the exits of temporary visa holders.

Wont Pass
th

(Budget deal may clear decks for immigration in January
http://www.freep.com/usatoday/article/4014669 sjg)

However, whether that momentum leads to a sweeping rewrite of the nation's immigration
laws could have more to do with the 2014 elections than current conditions.

The biggest roadblock to legislation has been, and will continue to be, Republicans in the House
who oppose a deal similar to that passed by the Senate allowing the nation's 12 million
undocumented immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship. Dane says an already-fractured GOP
must stand firm in opposition if it wants to have any success come election day.

"Opposing amnesty next year is probably the last hope for the GOP to save itself from losing a
core group of its voters," Dane said.

PREVIOUS THURSDAY FILES

Iran Cards from 12/12
U 1NC

Obamas political capital is key to putting an end to another round of Iran sanctions- doing so
causes Iran proliferation
CNN, 12-12 (New sanctions could 'shatter Western unity' on Iran, senator says,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/iran-u-s-sanctions/index.html)
Hewing to administration desires, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson forcefully repeated
Thursday what he had already said in as many words -- his committee won't seek new sanctions on Iran for the
time being, and no one else should either. Administration officials have publicly tried to talk lawmakers
down from acting on legislation that would impose even delayed sanctions on Iran during the first
phase of a November agreement to curb the Middle Eastern nation's nuclear program in exchange for relaxed sanctions. Johnson, D-South
Dakota, said Thursday he supports strong sanctions against Iran and has legislation adding new sanctions ready to move should Iran fail to meet
its obligations under the deal, which is meant to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. "In the meantime, we should not do anything
counterproductive that might shatter Western unity on this issue -- we should make sure that if the talks fail, it was Iran that caused their
failure," Johnson said in remarks prepared for a Banking Committee hearing on the issue Thursday. Despite Johnson's
insistence, other lawmakers haven't given up on the idea of sanctions. A bipartisan group of
Senators is close to an agreement on tougher sanctions, CNN reported Tuesday, but it is not clear
whether the Democratic majority would bring such a deal up for a vote. That deal, if it comes together,
would include a new round of sanctions to begin in six months and would bar the enrichment of uranium. It would permit commercial nuclear
power as long as it was monitored by the international community. The bipartisan group includes Democrats Chuck
Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mark
Kirk of Illinois -- all strong supporters of Israel, whose government has panned the deal as a historic mistake. "I hope this week we will
introduce a bipartisan third round of sanctions," Graham told CNN in an interview on Monday. "We'll do sanctions tied to the end-game where
the relief will only come if they stop the enrichment program, dismantle the reactor and turn over the enriched uranium." 'Lack of faith'
Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers Tuesday that U.S. legislation imposing sanctions could give the
administration's international partners in the Iranian nuclear deal -- Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany -- the wrong
idea, even if the bill includes a six-month waiting period to see if the interim agreement succeeds. "Even if the sanctions are not imposed. It
implies a lack of faith in the process and an unwillingness to play by the rules that our partners are playing by," Kerry said. "You can design
them, we can sit here and be ready to go," Kerry said. " We're just saying to you please give us the opportunity to negotiate along the contours
of what we have agreed upon." In his statement Thursday, Johnson agreed to do just that, and suggested that other lawmaker should follow
suit. "Ultimately, while some of us might differ on tactics, it is clear we all share the same goal: to ensure that Iran
does not achieve a nuclear weapon, and to do that diplomatically if possible, while recognizing that other alternatives remain
on the table," he said. "Now that Iran has come to the table and entered into this first step agreement, I believe this may well be the
last best chance to resolve this crisis by diplomacy, and so the President is absolutely right to
fully test Iran's leaders," Johnson said. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday that if new sanctions are
imposed, the deal is off.

Iran proliferation ensnares Israel-Iran into nuclear war through proxies
Robb, 12 (Charles, B.A. from the University of WisconsinMadison, J.D. at the University of Virginia Law School, Charles Wald, Master of
Political Science degree in international relations, Troy State University, Bipartisan Policy Center Board Member The Price of Inaction: Analysis
of Energy and Economic Effects of a Nuclear Iran, October 10th, 2012, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/PriceofInaction.pdf)
A nuclear Iran would immediately encounter another nuclear stateeven if an undeclared onein the region: Israel.
Compared with the relative stability of the Cold War, an initial stalemate between Israel and Iran would be highly precarious at best and would
also threaten the entirety of Gulf exports, although for a more limited duration. Were Iran to become nuclear, the frequency of crises
and proxy conflicts between Iran and Israel would likely increase, as would the probability of such
confrontations spiraling into a nuclear exchange , with horrendous humanitarian consequences. There could be an
Israeli-Iranian nuclear exchange through miscalc ulation and/or miscommunication. There could also be a calculated nuclear
exchange, as the Israeli and Iranian sides would each have incentives to strike the other first. Tehran would likely have the ability to
produce only a small handful of weapons, whereas Israel is already estimated to possess more than 100 devices, including thermonuclear
warheads far beyond the destructive power of any Iranian fission weapon. Under such circumstances, Irans vulnerability to a
bolt-from-the-blue Israeli nuclear strike would actually increase its incentive to launch its own nuclear
attack, lest its arsenal be obliterated. Israels small territorial size reduces the survivability of its second-strike
capability and, more importantly, the survivability of the country itself, despite its vastly larger and more advanced arsenal. Thus, Israeli
leaders might feel the need to act preventatively to eliminate the Iranian arsenal before it can be used against them, just as
American military planners contemplated taking out the fledgling Soviet arsenal early in the Cold War, except that as a much smaller country
Israel has far less room for maneuver. Xxvi
U 2NC

Congressional pressure on Iran sanctions still continue- Obamas capital is key
The Guardian, 12-12 (US hits firms for Iran violations but urges Congress against more
sanctions, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/us-congress-iran-sanctions-
violations)
The Senate banking committee gave the administration a crucial break this week by announcing it will hold off on passing new sanctions
legislation this year. Sanctions supporters already began to look past the December legislative
calendar and predicted a drive to punish Iran in the new year, even as the US and its allies in Britain, France,
China, Russia and Germany seek a permanent deal to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Even if Congress doesnt pass
sanctions before the end of the year, one can be confident Congress will be back in January,
and this effort to pass new sanctions undoubtedly will continue to dominate the discussion, said
Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, one of the leading proponents of deepening the sanctions regime. Nor is
the battle likely to end if a deal is reached. Iran, whose economy has lost an estimated $120bn from international sanctions over the past few
years and faces an estimated 35% unemployment rate, will want permanent relief from a sanctions regime that has left it isolated on
everything from banking to oil sales to the automotive industry. Such a deal would require the administration to compel Congress to repeal
existing sanctions, beyond the presidents executive leeway not to enforce them. If so, that will test the administrations
ability to persuade a recalcitrant and often hostile Congress to do something historic not only open
the door to a potential rapproachement with a deeply disliked adversary, but provide Obama with an achievement for his presidential legacy.

Graham will link it to NDAA- force a vote on Iran sanctions
National Journal, 12-12 (Graham Threatens to Block Defense Bill Over Iran Sanctions Vote,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/global-security-newswire/graham-threatens-to-block-
defense-bill-over-iran-sanctions-vote-20131212)
Lindsey Graham is typically one of the Senate's strongest defense supporters, but he
threatened Wednesday to vote against an annual military-policy bill.
The South Carolina Republican wants to be assured of a vote on Iran sanctions.
"My decision about the defense bill will be linked to whether or not we get a guarantee to vote on the Iranian sanctions, if we can introduce
them," Graham told reporters. "If you can convince me that there will be another path forward other than the defense bill, that will go a long
way to shape my thinking." Under an agreement reached between Armed Services Committee leaders, Congress would fast-track
the annual defense authorization bill, having both chambers vote on identical bills and refusing amendments in both
chambers. That's a difficult proposition in the Senate, because many members would hope to use
the bill as a vehicle for their defense-related agendas.mGraham, who is a strong advocate for sanctions and for the
authorization bill, promised he'd vote against the latter unless guaranteed a vote on the former. "I need a guaranteed vehicle to get this done. I
think it's that important to our national security," he said on Wednesday. Graham's hesitation adds another
complication for the fast-track passage plan, an effort to get the legislation finished before the
House's scheduled departure on Friday. Other senators -- including Republicans Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Rand Paul (W. Va.)
-- are objecting to the barring of amendments, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has yet to say whether
he'll back the plan, in part over concerns about bringing forward Iran-sanctions legislation.

Both and Senate will hold votes on Iran Sanctions
National Journal, 12-12 (Cantor Could Introduce Iran Legislation Before Recess,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/cantor-could-introduce-iran-legislation-before-
recess-20131212)
Congress could hold off on passing additional sanctions against Iran until January, aides told the
Associated Press.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., might introduce a resolution on Thursday that
outlines what should be in a final agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program. The hope
is that House members would vote on the legislation in the short window they have left to
complete their work for the year.
The House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. It passed additional sanctions against Iran earlier this
year, and Cantor's legislation would be nonbinding. Before leaving town, House members still
have to tackle the budget deal unveiled on Tuesday and the National Defense Authorization
Act.
In the Senate, aides said that Majority Leader Harry Reid has mentioned holding votes on
additional sanctions in January. Republican senators and some Democrats have called for extra
sanctions against Iran, despite a public push by the Obama administration to get senators to
hold off out of a fear that congressional interference could unravel progress being made over
Iran's nuclear program.
Aides said Reid was hoping to hold off on voting before the Senate adjourns next week to avoid
interfering with the defense authorization bill. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell could
try to demand a vote on sanctions in exchange for supporting a push to pass the defense
authorization passed this year. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has also threatened to vote against
the bill unless he gets assurances that a vote on sanctions will take place.

Iran sanctions being stymied now due to Obamas lobbying
HotAir, 12-12 (Obama administration looking to crack down on Iranian-sanction evaders while
still lobbying lawmakers, http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/12/obama-administration-
looking-to-slap-more-penalties-on-iranian-sanction-evaders-while-still-lobbying-lawmakers/)
Its looking less and less certain by the day that the bipartisan group of senators pushing for a
fresh round of Iranian sanctions will be able to do so before the legislative year is up; the
Obama administrations foreign-policy team has once again spent their week aggressively
lobbying lawmakers to cool it, arguing that even the threat of new sanctions six months down
the road could upset the oh-so-delicate balance they believe they have achieved in negotiations
with the Iranian regime. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was mum on what he plans to do
about the issue after emerging from a closed briefing with Secretary of State John Kerry and
other lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon. Via Politico:
AT Democrats Back from Deal
Iran Sanctions wont be pursued for now- that proves Uniqueness- the plan changes that
calculation
The Hill, 12-12 (Sen. Menendez eases off Iran sanctions, http://thehill.com/blogs/global-
affairs/middle-east-north-africa/192960-menendez-eases-off-iran-sanctions)
A leading Senate Democrat indicated Thursday that he may be ready to abandon his push for
new sanctions on Iran in the face of intense White House opposition.
Instead, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) said he may pursue a
resolution that would define the Senate's expectations for any final nuclear deal with Iran.
The pro-Israel hawk made the remarks at a hearing where Senate Banking Committee Chairman
Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) made clear his intention to hold off indefinitely on new sanctions.
I have been a proponent of pursuing additional sanctions prospectively ... but I'm beginning to
think based upon on all of this that maybe what the Senate needs to do is to define the end
game, or at least what it finds as acceptable as the final status, Menendez declared at the
hearing with Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, who negotiated the interim deal with
Iran agreed to last month in Geneva. Because I'm getting nervous about what I perceive will be
acceptable to [the administration] as a final status ... versus what the Congress might view as
acceptable.
Maybe defining that through a resolution may be a course of action that would affect the
ultimate outcome, which is obviously the most important one.
Earlier in the hearing, the top Republican on Menendez's committee acknowledged that the
Senate is unlikely to pass a new sanctions bill.
I realize that we're sort of going through a rope-a-dope here in the Senate and that we're not
actually going to do anything, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said.
Yes House

It will pass the House
Fox News, 11-28 (Key Democratic senator says White House 'fear-mongering' on Iran,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/28/democratic-senator-says-white-house-fear-
mongering-on-iran/)
Having voted new sanctions against Iran four months ago, the House is waiting for the Senate
to act. The House would probably overwhelming support any new legislation against Iran, given
that it voted 400-20 in favor of new penalties in July.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to determine how he'll react to the
agreement, Democratic aides said.

Things can still change- situation is fluid
Jerusalem Post, 12-12 (Senate bill 'in the oven' as US tightens existing sanctions on Iran,
http://www.jpost.com/Iranian-Threat/News/As-Iran-P51-work-to-implement-Geneva-deal-US-
tightens-sanctions-on-Tehran-334839)
Key senators are still negotiating over the new bill, which aims to bring Iranian crude exports
down by at least half its current figure of roughly one million barrels per day. Senate leaders
vow to respect the six-month time-frame built into the Geneva deal.
Sanctions since 2011 have already cut Iranian oil exports by 60 percent.
A source close to the negotiations told the Post that, with forceful pushback from the White
House against any new legislation, the situation over a vote remains "fluid situation" as
Congress prepares to recess for the holidays.

Menendez IL
Menendez is key a democrat- Issues spillover in the context of the Cuban embargo
The Hill, 12 (Sen. Menendez likely to take Foreign Relations panel in wake of Kerry exit,
http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/congressional-delegations/273363-sen-menendez-likely-
to-take-foreign-relations-panel-in-wake-of-kerry-departure)
You can't work around the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he's
willing to dig in his heels on important issues, said Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary
of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs under President George W. Bush who's enthused by
Menendez's possible promotion. At the same time, he's going to be expected to be a team
player but that has its limits.
I think he'll give folks in the administration something to think about before they cross him,
frankly.
The son of Cuban immigrants who left the island before the communist revolution, Menendez
has joined other Cuban-American lawmakers in trying to block President Obama's overtures to
the Castro regime. Freshly minted as the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee in the spring of 2009, he blocked the president's nominees to head the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the White House Office of Science and
Technology and threatened to vote against a $410 billion spending bill to avoid a government
shutdown.
Provisions allowing Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and ending limits on the sale
of food and medicines to the island, he said on the Senate floor at the time, put the omnibus
appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding
that this bill would provide.
Menendez was able to extract a promise from the administration to narrowly interpret the
Cuba language. He's kept up his criticism since then, decrying an obvious double standard for
Cuba when compared to U.S. condemnation of the Soviet gulag during a recent Senate hearing
and accusing the State Department of giving a totalitarian regime a platform from which to
espouse its twisted rhetoric by providing a visa to Fidel Castro's niece, Mariela.
The fiery rhetoric is in sharp contrast to Kerry's steadfast support for Obama's foreign policy
agenda, notably in successfully pushing the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with
Russia through the Senate. Kerry, who is respected for working across the aisle despite his
unimpeachable Democratic credentials, won the support of Republican Sens. Dick Lugar (Ind.),
Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Johnny Isakson (Ga.) on his panel.
Menendez, for his part, has been a tough Republican critic on domestic issues, repeatedly
denouncing the partys plans to turn Medicare into a voucher, for example. While not a
traditional hawk he voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution he is close to Republicans
on several foreign-policy issues.
When we were moving important legislation on Cuba, I think Bob Menendez was one of two
or three people who actually understood the legislation, said Noriega, an American Enterprise
Institute fellow who helped draft the Helms-Burton law tightening the Cuba embargo in 1996,
when Menendez was still in the House. He's a very tough, serious, intelligent guy. I think he'll
bring all those strengths at an important time to that job.
Menendez has also consistently called for a tougher approach to Iran. He coauthored, with Sen.
Ron Kirk (R-Ill.), an amendment to the defense authorization bill targeting the Central Bank of
Iran, which cleared the Senate earlier this month despite the White House's concerns.

AT Obama Veto

Reuters, 11-15 (Bid for more sanctions on Iran could reach Senate next week,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-
idUSBRE9AE13320131115)
The issue of sanctions on Iran is a rare area where U.S. Republicans and Democrats work
together.
Supported by the influential pro-Israel lobby, measures condemning Iran pass both houses of
Congress by overwhelming margins. The House of Representatives approved its tighter
sanctions bill in July by a vote of 400 to 20.
It could be challenging politically for Democratic Senate leaders to refuse a vote on a sanctions
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The multi-billion-dollar bill, which sets
annual defense policy, also would be difficult for Obama to veto.

Panda, 11-16 (The Congressional Threat to an Iran Deal, http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/the-
congressional-threat-to-an-iran-deal/)
Another complicating factor is that Corker has considered including his proposal as an
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) a piece of legislation that is
critical to pass and sets military and defense policy for the entire fiscal year. The prospects of a
White House veto on an NDAA bill containing such an amendment would likely be slim.

Reuters, 11-14 (Obama Says Sanctions Easing Can Be Reversed If Iran Doesn't Deliver,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/14/obama-iran-sanctions_n_4277205.html)
Senators have been debating behind closed doors their version of the bill, which could slash
Iran's oil exports to no more than 500,000 barrels a day. However the banking committee acts,
some senators said they might sidestep the panel and insert tough new Iran sanctions into the
annual defense authorization bill, which Obama might find hard to veto. (Additional reporting
by Steve Holland, Jeff Mason, Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey, Patricia Zengerle and David
Alexander; Editing by Mohammad Zargham and Peter Cooney)

AT: Johnson Shelved Decision

Johnsons decision is irrelevant- Still pursuing a separate deal as an amendment
USA Today, 12-2 (Senate committee shelves new sanctions on Iran,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/senate-committee-shelves-new-
sanctions-on-iran/3999405/)
Johnson's decision may not be the end of the Senate fight, however. Some Republican senators,
including Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have pledged to push for
increased pressure on Iran by attaching an amendment to other bills before the full Senate.
Graham told Fox News on Thursdaythat he intends to attach such an amendment to the
Defense Authorization Bill.
"I want the Iranians to understand that Congress believes the only reason they're at the
negotiating table is because of sanctions," Graham said. "The interim deal is a terrible deal. It
doesn't dismantle any of their nuclear capabilities. There is bipartisan support for additional
sanctions and Congress wants a vote."
The agreement signed Nov. 24 obligates Iran to stop producing nuclear fuel that is near
weapons grade and to dilute or convert its stockpile of such fuel to a form that is harder to use
for weapons. Iran also agreed to allow increased monitoring of its nuclear facilities. In return,
world powers agreed to lift some sanctions on Iran, relief the White House has valued at $7
billion but that others say is worth much more.
The agreement, which the White House calls "a first step," is supposed to buy time for a final,
more comprehensive agreement six months from now.

AT: HC Thumper

Health care doesnt tank Obamas agenda reject their exaggerated news
reports
Paul Waldman, 11-15-2013, Memo to Democratic Chicken Littles: The Sky Is Not Falling,
American Prospect, http://prospect.org/article/memo-democratic-chicken-littles-sky-not-falling
Ah, now this is what politics is supposed to be like: Ruthless Republicans, gleeful at the prospect that they might increase the net total of
human suffering. Timorous Democrats, panicking at the first hint of political difficulty and rushing to assemble a circular firing squad. And the
news media bringing out the "Dems In Disarray!" headlines they keep in storage for just this purpose. The problems of the last couple
weeks "could threaten Democratic priorities for years," says Ron Brownstein. It's just like Hurricane Katrina, says The New York Times (minus
the 1,500 dead people, I guess they mean, though they don't say so). "On the broader question of whether Obama can rebuild an effective
presidency after this debacle," says Dana Milbank, "it's starting to look as if it may be game over." Ruth Marcus also declares this
presidency all but dead: "Can he recover? I'm sorry to say: I'm not at all confident." Oh please. Everyone just chill out. It's
incredible how often reporters and pundits proclaim that what's happening this week is the most important
political development in years, and the balance of political advantage today will remain just as it is indefinitely into the future. Then
a few weeks or months later things change, and they forget about what they said before, declaring once again that today's situation is how
things will be forevermore. Not long ago, people were saying that the fact that Obama couldn't get a congressional vote authorizing a bombing
campaign in Syria had crippled his presidency. Then the Republicans shut down the government, and people were saying they wouldn't win
another election in our lifetimes. That's just in the last few months. And now people are saying that Obama's second term, which has three
years left to go, is an unrecoverable disaster. So let's try to see things from a less panicky perspective. The rollout has been a
mess, but it's important to remember that this period is all a preparation for the actual implementation of
the law. Nothing that's happening now is permanent. People have gotten cancellation notices, but no one has lost
their coverage. The website sucked when it debuted, it sucks slightly less now, but there's still lots of time for people to sign up for plans that
take effect next year. And if things aren't working properly by December, they'll probably extend the open enrollment period to a point at
which everything's working. That's a hassle, sure. But you can't call the Affordable Care Act a failure until it takes effect and does or does not
achieve its goals. That would be like calling your team's season a failure because they lost a couple of pre-season games. A few Democrats will
probably vote today for the Republican bill that purports to address the problem of cancellations but it's an attempt to gut the entire ACA.
That's because they're cowards and fools, who think that they can protect themselves from a momentary political headwind by rushing into the
Republicans' arms. And you know what will happen? Nothing. You can just add this vote to the 47 prior ones repealing the law; it'll
have the same impact. It won't ever get to the Senate, and even if it did it wouldn't ever be signed by the President. It isn't even worth paying
attention to. Here's what's going to happen. The administrative fix Obama announced yesterday will temporarily staunch the
political bleeding. But it will have very little effect on the actual insurance market, which is a good thing. In some states, insurance
commissioners won't let the insurance companies continue to sell the junk plans we've been talking about. In others, insurers won't want to go
back and re-offer the plans they cancelled. Some of the people with the junk plans will end up keeping them, but most of them will end up
going to the exchanges. Many will find that they can get subsidies, or even without them find an affordable plan. Some may find that they're
paying more for a plan that offers real insurance. Those in the latter group will grumble, but it won't be front-page news
anymore, because the media are extraordinarily fickle, and they've already told that story. Over the next year, the rest of the
law will be implemented. There may be problems here and there, but overall it will probably go reasonably well. There will
be plenty of things Democrats can point to in order to convince people that it was a good idea,
like the fact that now nobody can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or the fact that millions of people who couldn't
afford coverage or were denied before now have it. There will also be things Republicans will say to try to convince people it was a terrible idea,
like the fact that premiums didn't plummet, and health care is still expensive, and Obamacare didn't give every little girl a pony. And what else
will happen in the next year? Other things. The economy may get worse, or it may get better. There may be a foreign crisis. Controversies we
can't yet anticipate will emerge, explode, then disappear. A young singer may move her posterior about in a suggestive manner, causing a
nation to drop everything and talk about nothing else for a week. We might start talking about immigration reform again. There's going to be
another budget battle. In other words, all sorts of things could affect the next election, and the election after that. So yes, this is a
difficult period for President Obama, and for the Affordable Care Act. But everyone needs to take a deep breath and
remember that things will change. They always do.

2NC Impact Overview

Iran prolif leads to Middle East arms race ensures nuclear war
Allison 6 Graham Tillett Allison Jr., Graham Allison is an American political scientist and
professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. (The Will to Prevent,
Harvard International Law Review, Fall 2006, page lexis)

Meanwhile, Iran is testing the line in the Middle East. On its current trajectory, the Islamic
Republic will become a nuclear weapons state before the end of the decade. According to the
leadership in Tehran, Iran is exercising its inalienable right to build Iranian enrichment plants
and make fuel for its peaceful civilian nuclear power generators. These same facilities, however,
can continue enriching uranium to 90 percent U-235, which is the ideal core of a nuclear bomb.
No one in the international community doubts that Irans hidden objective in building
enrichment facilities is to build nuclear bombs. If Iran crosses its nuclear finish line, a Middle
Eastern cascade of new nuclear weapons states could trigger the first multi-party nuclear arms
race, far more volatile than the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union. Given Egypts historic role as the leader of the Arab Middle East, the prospects of it living
unarmed alongside a nuclear Persia are very low. The IAEAs reports of clandestine nuclear
experiments hint that Cairo may have considered this possibility. Were Saudi Arabia to buy a
dozen nuclear warheads that could be mated to the Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles it
purchased secretly in the 1980s, few in the US intelligence community would be surprised.
Given Saudi Arabias role as the major financier of Pakistans clandestine nuclear program in the
1980s, it is not out of the question that Riyadh and Islamabad have made secret arrangements
for this contingency. Such a multi-party nuclear arms race in the Middle East would be like
playing Russian roulettedramatically increasing the likelihood of a regional nuclear war. Other
nightmare scenarios for the region include an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch from
Iran, theft of nuclear warheads from an unstable regime in Tehran, and possible Israeli
preemption against Irans nuclear facilities, which Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has
implied, threatening, Under no circumstances, and at no point, can Israel allow anyone with
these kinds of malicious designs against us to have control of weapons of destruction that can
threaten our existence.

Iran prolif causes escalation of middle east war
Gerald M. Steinberg (Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is Director of the Program on Conflict Management and
Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University) April 2005 Deterrence Instability: Hizballah's Fuse to Iran's Bomb Jerusalem Viewpoints
Historically, in response to other threats to national survival, Israel has placed primary emphasis on maintaining a credible
and robust deterrence capability. The deep structural asymmetries in the region in terms of territory and population make Israel appear to be vulnerable to a
crippling first strike. Thus, Israel's capability to inflict overwhelming and disproportionate costs regardless of the extent of the initial attack has been a central feature in deterring attack. This is
the case with respect to conventional warfare (based on overwhelming air superiority and highly mobile ground forces), as well as providing the foundation for the development of its policy of
"deliberate ambiguity" with respect to nuclear capabilities. This policy has served Israel well, to date. Egyptian military planners have acknowledged
their decision to opt for a limited strategy in the 1973 war in order to avoid triggering an Israeli strategic response. In 1991, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not use chemical or biological
warheads in the missile attacks on Israel is also attributed to fear of overwhelming Israeli retaliation. Furthermore, Israel's nuclear capability and the realization that Israel could not be "wiped
off the map" without massive retaliation were important factors in initiating peace processes with Egypt, Jordan, and beyond.12 However, the development of
an Iranian nuclear capability and a multipolar nuclear environment would end the stability
resulting from the ambiguous Israeli nuclear posture, and would fundamentally change the
calculus of strategic deterrence in all major dimensions. In the context of a multipolar nuclear Middle East and the need for a credible
second-strike capability, maintenance of Israel's policy of deliberate ambiguity ("don't ask, don't declare, and don't test") would become increasingly difficult. Credibility and communications
are central components of stable deterrence, and a more overt and visible nuclear weapons capability may be seen as necessary to avoid Iranian (and wider regional) misperceptions,
particularly given the isolation of decision-makers in Iran. However, the isolation of Iran's leaders, the fog that surrounds its
decision-making structures, the absence of direct channels of communication, and its radical,
religious-based, revisionist objectives will make the development of stable deterrence
extremely difficult. While the Iranian leadership is not seen as suicidal or particularly prone to
high-stakes risk-taking (in contrast to Saddam Hussein and other Arab leaders), there are likely to be many
misperceptions regarding Israeli intentions and red lines. With many potential triggers for crises and escalation between Teheran and
Jerusalem, including Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, and extremist elements within Iran, the difficulty in managing these crises in a nuclear environment will pose a formidable challenge.
In comparing a potential Israeli-Iranian deterrence relationship to the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the key event is the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The successful management
of this crisis, which brought the two nuclear superpowers "eyeball to eyeball" and to the brink of mutual destruction, depended on the existing diplomatic ties and channels of direct
communications. There were periodic summit meetings between U.S. and Soviet leaders, and at the
height of the confrontation, they could at least fall back on these shaky links. This is also true
with respect to India and Pakistan, which came close to mutual destruction during the Kargil crisis following their respective decisions to test nuclear
weapons. But no such links exist in the case of Iran, which maintains a policy of boycotting the "Zionist entity" and supporting terrorist groups, thus
maintaining a proxy war against Israel. This policy is particularly irresponsible and dangerous for a country armed with nuclear weapons and itself a target for massive retaliation. As a
result, while deterrence theory provides a basis for hope for survival in this dangerous
environment, in practice, in the Iranian case, this relationship will be highly dangerous and
unstable.

Iran Prolif causes war and does cause domino effect.
Cirincione 6
Joseph Cirincione is the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace The Continuing Problem of Nuclear Weapons Issues in Science &
Technology Spring http://www.issues.org/22.3/cirincione.html
The world would be a more dangerous place with nuclear weapons in Iran. A Persian power
with a keen sense of its 2,500-year history, Iran occupies a pivotal position straddling the
Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The country has the largest population in the Middle East, the
worlds third largest oil reserves, the second largest natural gas reserves, and aspirations to
again become the regions major power. Add nuclear weapons, and this mixture become highly
combustible. There is no evidence that Iran currently possesses any nuclear devices or even
enough fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) to produce such weapons. But
for the past two decades Iran has been engaged in a secret, multifaceted program to assemble
the equipment and facilities necessary to make these nuclear materials. Iranian officials have
justified this effort as part of an ambitious plan to build 20 nuclear reactors. Though
controversial enough in and of itself, Irans activities also include the pursuit of several nuclear
material production technologies that, if mastered, could provide Tehran with the ability to
enrich uranium for fuel rods and to process these fuel rods for disposal. If these facilities are
completed, Iran would become only the sixth nation in the world able to convert uranium into
gas commercially and only the ninth to be able to enrich that gas for fuel. These same facilities
could be used to enrich uranium and to extract plutonium for weapons use. That is the crux of
the issue: Do other nations trust that Irans program is, as they claim, entirely peaceful? In
2002, an Iranian opposition group revealed that the countrys nuclear program was much more
extensive than Tehran had previously declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA). The IAEA inspections have provided a clearif still incompletepicture of the program.
However, after three years of intensive investigations, the IAEA reported in September 2005
and reaffirmed in February 2006 that it is still not in a position to conclude that there are no
undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. Irans failure to cooperate fully with
inspections and to disclose all of its past activities caused the IAEA Board of Governors on
February 6 to vote overwhelmingly to report Iran to the UN Security Council. Iran maintains
that all its nuclear activities, even those previously hidden from the IAEA, are intended for
peaceful purposes, and it has agreed to place all its nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards.
Moreover, in 2003 Iran signed and pledged to implement the IAEAs Additional Protocol, which
includes expanded inspection rights and tools. Iran suspended these more intrusive inspections
in February 2006, after the IAEA vote. Within Iran, the program is now fused with passionate
nationalism. Irans program is a source of national pride across the political spectrum, with both
conservatives and reformers supporting development of full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities as an
inherent right accorded by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Irans radical new
president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now addresses rallies of tens of thousands of followers
chanting for nuclear power. This potentially explosive domestic political dynamic greatly
complicates efforts to convince Iranian officials to end the pursuit of these sensitive nuclear
programs. The danger is not that Iran would build and use a nuclear weapon against the United
States or its allies. Iranian leaders know that such an act would be regime suicide, as a powerful
counterattack would follow immediately. This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, but a nuclear regime
crisis. The danger is that a nuclear-armed Iran would lead other states in the Gulf and Middle
East, including possibly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Turkey, to reexamine their nuclear
options. This potential wave of proliferation would seriously challenge regional and global
security and undermine the worldwide effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. If the
international community is unable or unwilling to impose penalties on Iran, and if Tehran
continues its nuclear development unconstrained, the nuclear chain reaction from the region
could ripple around the globe.
Iran prolif causes instability and nuclear conflict.
Inbar 6
(Professor of Political Science at Bar-Ilan Un iversity and the Director of the Begin-Sadat
Center for Strategic Studies The Need To Block A Nuclear Iran, MERIA Journal, March,
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue1/jv10no1a7.html)
Iran's nuclear program coupled with long-range delivery systems, in particular, threatens
regional stability in the Middle East. Iran's possesses the Shehab-3 long-range missile (with a
range of 1,300 kilometers) that can probably be nuclear-tipped and is working on extending
the range of its ballistic ar senal. American allies, such as Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Gulf
States are within range, as well as several important U.S. bases. The Chief of the ID F
Intelligence Department , Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi (Farkash) reported that Iran has also
acquired 12 cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 kilometers and with an ability to carry
nuclear warheads. [14] Further improvements in Iranian missiles would initially put most
European capitals, and eventually, the North American continent, within range of a potential
Iranian attack. Iran has an ambitious satellite launching program based on the use of multi-
stage, solid prope llant launchers, with intercontinental ballis tic missile properties to enable
the l aunching of a 300-kilogram satellite within two years. If Iran achieves this goal, it will put
many more states at risk of a future nuclear attack .

Iranian prolif risks a prolif snowball and nuclear war:
Eric S. Edelman, 2011 (Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, The dangers of NATO a nuclear Iran: the limits of containment, Foreign
Affairs, Jan-Feb. 2011, Accessed via General Onefile, 10/16/2013, rwg)
The reports of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States and the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, as well as other analyses, have highlighted the risk that a nuclear-armed Iran
could trigger additional nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, even if Israel does not declare its own nuclear
arsenal. Notably, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates--all signatories to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)--have recently announced or initiated nuclear energy programs. Although some of these states have legitimate
economic rationales for pursuing nuclear power and although the low-enriched fuel used for power reactors cannot be used in nuclear
weapons, these moves have been widely interpreted as hedges against a nuclear-armed Iran. The NPT does not bar states from developing the
sensitive technology required to produce nuclear fuel on their own, that is, the capability to enrich natural uranium and separate plutonium
from spent nuclear fuel. Yet enrichment and reprocessing can also be used to accumulate weapons-grade enriched uranium and plutonium--
the very loophole that Iran has apparently exploited in pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Developing nuclear weapons remains a slow,
expensive, and difficult process, even for states with considerable economic resources, and especially if other nations try to constrain aspiring
nuclear states' access to critical materials and technology. Without external support, it is unlikely that any of these aspirants could develop a
nuclear weapons capability within a decade. There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant
outside support: Saudi Arabia. And if it did, proliferation could accelerate throughout the region. Iran and Saudi Arabia have long
been geopolitical and ideological rivals. Riyadh would face tremendous pressure to respond in some form to
a nuclear-armed Iran, not only to deter Iranian coercion and subversion but also to preserve its sense that Saudi
Arabia is the leading nation in the Muslim world. The Saudi government is already pursuing a
nuclear power capability, which could be the first step along a slow road to nuclear weapons
development. And concerns persist that it might be able to accelerate its progress by exploiting its close ties to Pakistan. During the 1980s, in
response to the use of missiles during the Iran-Iraq War and their growing proliferation throughout the region, Saudi Arabia acquired several
dozen CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles from China. The Pakistani government reportedly brokered the deal, and it may have also
offered to sell Saudi Arabia nuclear warheads for the CSS-2s, which are not accurate enough to deliver conventional warheads effectively.
There are still rumors that Riyadh and Islamabad have had discussions involving nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, or security guarantees.
This "Islamabad option" could develop in one of several different ways. Pakistan could sell operational nuclear weapons and delivery systems to
Saudi Arabia, or it could provide the Saudis with the infrastructure, material, and technical support they need to produce nuclear weapons
themselves within a matter of years, as opposed to a decade or longer. Not only has Pakistan provided such support in the past, but it is
currently building two more heavy-water reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract plutonium
from spent nuclear fuel. In other words, it might accumulate more fissile material than it needs to maintain even a substantially expanded
arsenal of its own. Alternatively, Pakistan might offer an extended deterrent guarantee to Saudi Arabia and deploy nuclear weapons, delivery
systems, and troops on Saudi territory, a practice that the United States has employed for decades with its allies. This arrangement could be
particularly appealing to both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It would allow the Saudis to argue that they are not violating the NPT since they would
not be acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And an extended deterrent from Pakistan might be preferable to one from the United States
because stationing foreign Muslim forces on Saudi territory would not trigger the kind of popular opposition that would accompany the
deployment of U.S. troops. Pakistan, for its part, would gain financial benefits and international clout by deploying nuclear weapons in Saudi
Arabia, as well as strategic depth against its chief rival, India. The Islamabad option raises a host of difficult issues, perhaps the most
worrisome being how India would respond. Would it target Pakistan's weapons in Saudi Arabia with its own conventional or nuclear weapons?
How would this expanded nuclear competition influence stability during a crisis in either the Middle East or South Asia? Regardless of India's
reaction, any decision by the Saudi government to seek out nuclear weapons, by whatever means, would be highly destabilizing. It would
increase the incentives of other nations in the Middle East to pursue nuclear weapons of their own. And it could increase their ability to do so
by eroding the remaining barriers to nuclear proliferation: each additional state that acquires nuclear weapons weakens the nonproliferation
regime, even if its particular method of acquisition only circumvents, rather than violates, the NPT. N-PLAYER COMPETITION Were Saudi
Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons, the Middle East would count three nuclear-armed states, and
perhaps more before long. It is unclear how such an n-player competition would unfold because most analyses of nuclear deterrence are based
on the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during the Cold War. It seems likely, however, that the interaction among three or
more nuclear-armed powers would be more prone to miscalculation and escalation than a bipolar
competition. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union only needed to concern themselves with an attack from the other.
Multipolar systems are generally considered to be less stable than bipolar systems because coalitions can shift quickly, upsetting the balance of
power and creating incentives for an attack. More important, emerging nuclear powers in the Middle East might
not take the costly steps necessary to preserve regional stability and avoid a nuclear exchange.
For nuclear-armed states, the bedrock of deterrence is the knowledge that each side has a secure second-strike capability, so that no state can
launch an attack with the expectation that it can wipe out its opponents' forces and avoid a devastating retaliation. However, emerging nuclear
powers might not invest in expensive but survivable capabilities such as hardened missile silos or submarine-based nuclear forces. Given this
likely vulnerability, the close proximity of states in the Middle East, and the very short flight times of ballistic missiles in the region, any new
nuclear powers might be compelled to "launch on warning" of an attack or even, during a crisis, to use their nuclear forces preemptively. Their
governments might also delegate launch authority to lower-level commanders, heightening the possibility of miscalculation and escalation.
Moreover, if early warning systems were not integrated into robust command-and-control systems, the risk of an unauthorized or accidental
launch would increase further still. And without sophisticated early warning systems, a nuclear attack might be unattributable or attributed
incorrectly. That is, assuming that the leadership of a targeted state survived a first strike, it might not be able to accurately determine which
nation was responsible. And this uncertainty, when combined with the pressure to respond quickly,
would create a significant risk that it would retaliate against the wrong party, potentially
triggering a regional nuclear war.

Most probable
James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, 9
(Spring) Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the
Middle East IFRI, Proliferation Papers, #26,
http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests
in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the
presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the
antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship
that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the
United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt
a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre-emptive attacks could involve
unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6)
the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework
participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that
escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or
the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine
scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists
would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to
believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in
the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact
suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which escalation could happen
quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop
a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international
community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent
such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region,
with substantial risk for the entire world.

Iran prolif is a crisis magnifier draws in great powers to small conflicts
Edelman, Fellow Center of Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 11
(Eric, Edelman, Krepinevich, and Montgomery Reply, Foreign Affairs Vol. 9 Iss. 2, March/April)

Ultimately, if Tehran does cross the nuclear threshold and Israel chooses to live with a nuclear-
armed Iran, one of the principal objectives of U.S. policy should be convincing Israel to maintain
its policy of nuclear opacity for as long as possible. The benefit of a slightly more credible Israeli
deterrent would not outweigh the added difficulties the United States would confront in
seeking to limit a nuclear Iran's influence, preserve regional stability, and prevent additional
proliferation.
A second important issue Adamsky raises is that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would
increase the threat that Israel faced from Iranian proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, either
because Tehran would provide increased assistance and encouragement to these groups or
because they would become more reckless once they had a nuclear-armed patron. A
premeditated attack by Iran against Israel is not the only scenario that could lead to a nuclear
exchange, or even the most plausible one. Instead, a limited conflict in southern Lebanon or
the Gaza Strip might spiral out of control. Iranian proxies could escalate their attacks against
Israel, assuming that it would be deterred by its fear of a nuclear Iran. Israel could then defy
their expectations and conduct major reprisals to demonstrate its resolve, prompting Iran to
make nuclear threats in defense of its clients. The results would be unpredictable and
potentially disastrous. Although debates over Iran's nuclear program often turn on the issue of
Iranian "rationality," it is important to remember that there are many different paths to
conflict, and the dynamics of Iranian-Israeli relations could be prone to miscalculation and
escalation.
Turns Hegemony
Nuclear Iran kills U.S. hegemony emboldens enemies and weakens alliances
Takeyh and Lindsay, 10
[James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair,
Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies After Iran Gets the Bomb Containment
and Its Complications, March/April 2010,
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22182/after_iran_gets_the_bomb.html]

The dangers of Iran's entry into the nuclear club are well known: emboldened by this
development, Tehran might multiply its attempts at subverting its neighbors and encouraging
terrorism against the United States and Israel; the risk of both conventional and nuclear war in
the Middle East would escalate; more states in the region might also want to become nuclear
powers; the geopolitical balance in the Middle East would be reordered; and broader efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons would
be undermined. The advent of a nuclear Iraneven one that is satisfied with having only the
materials and infrastructure necessary to assemble a bomb on short notice rather than a
nuclear arsenalwould be seen as a major diplomatic defeat for the United States. Friends and
foes would openly question the U.S. government's power and resolve to shape events in the
Middle East. Friends would respond by distancing themselves from Washington; foes would
challenge U.S. policies more aggressively.
Such a scenario can be avoided, however. Even if Washington fails to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it can contain and mitigate the
consequences of Iran's nuclear defiance. It should make clear to Tehran that acquiring the bomb will not produce the benefits it anticipates but
isolate and weaken the regime. Washington will need to lay down clear "redlines" defining what it considers to be unacceptable behaviorand
be willing to use military force if Tehran crosses them. It will also need to reassure its friends and allies in the Middle East that it remains firmly
committed to preserving the balance of power in the region.
Containing a nuclear Iran would not be easy. It would require considerable diplomatic skill and political will on the part of
the United States. And it could fail. A nuclear Iran may choose to flex its muscles and test U.S. resolve.
Even under the best circumstances, the opaque nature of decision-making in Tehran could
complicate Washington's efforts to deter it. Thus, it would be far preferable if Iran stoppedor were stoppedbefore it
became a nuclear power. Current efforts to limit Iran's nuclear program must be pursued with vigor. Economic pressure on Tehran must be
maintained. Military options to prevent Iran from going nuclear must not be taken off the table.

Iran nuclearization kills U.S. hegemony and credibility
Daremblum 2011
Jaime, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and directs the Center for Latin American Studies, Iran
Dangerous Now, Imagine It Nuclear,
http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=8439

What would it mean if such a regime went nuclear? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a nuclear-armed Iran would
never use its atomic weapons or give them to terrorists. Even under that optimistic scenario,
Tehran's acquisition of nukes would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place. For one thing,
it would surely spark a wave of proliferation throughout the Greater Middle East, with the likes
of Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - all Sunni-majority Muslim countries - going nuclear to counter the threat
posed by Shiite Persian Iran. For another, it would gravely weaken the credibility of U.S. security
guarantees. After all, Washington has repeatedly said that the Islamic Republic will not be permitted to get nukes. If Tehran
demonstrated that these warnings were utterly hollow, rival governments and rogue regimes
would conclude that America is a paper tiger. Once Tehran obtained nuclear weapons, it would have the ultimate
trump card, the ultimate protection against outside attack. Feeling secure behind their nuclear shield, the Iranians
would almost certainly increase their support for global terrorism and anti-American dictatorships. They
would no longer have to fear a U.S. or Israeli military strike. Much like nuclear-armed North Korea today, Iran would
be able to flout international law with virtual impunity. If America sought to curb Iranian misbehavior through
economic sanctions, Tehran might well respond by flexing its muscles in the Strait of Hormuz. As
political scientist Caitlin Talmadge explained in a 2008 analysis, "Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security
nightmares. Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this
narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes. Extended closure
of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world's oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days
of OPEC." Think about that: The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism has the ability to paralyze
the global economy, and, if not stopped, it may soon have nuclear weapons. As a nuclear-armed Iran
steadily expanded its international terror network, the Western Hemisphere would likely witness a significant jump in terrorist activity. Tehran
has established a strategic alliance with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chvez, and it has also developed warm relations with Chvez acolytes in
Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua while pursuing new arrangements with Argentina as an additional beachhead in Latin America Three years ago,
the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Venezuelan government of "employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and
fundraisers." More recently, in July 2011, Peru's former military chief of staff, Gen. Francisco Contreras, told the Jerusalem Post that "Iranian
organizations" are aiding and cooperating with other terrorist groups in South America. According to Israeli intelligence, the Islamic Republic
has been getting uranium from both Venezuela and Bolivia. Remember: Tehran has engaged in this provocative
behavior without nuclear weapons. Imagine how much more aggressive the Iranian dictatorship
might be after crossing the nuclear Rubicon. It is an ideologically driven theocracy intent on
spreading a radical Islamist revolution across the globe. As the Saudi plot demonstrates, no amount of conciliatory
Western diplomacy can change the fundamental nature of a regime that is defined by anti-Western hatred and religious fanaticism.

Turns US Credibility

Iran prolif jacks US cred
Bolton, senior fellow AEI, 4/15/11
(John, http://www.aei.org/article/103463)

Inside Iran, we now have confirmationthanks to disclosures this month by an Iranian
opposition group, which have been confirmed by Iranian officialsthat the regime has the
capability to mass-produce critical components for centrifuges used to enrich uranium to
weapons-grade levels. That news proves again the inefficacy of U.N. Security Council
resolutions and sanctions against a determined adversary.
Thus Iran's weapons program proceeds full steam ahead, which only emphasizes to would-be
proliferators that persistence pays. Moammar Gadhafi surrendered his nuclear weapons
program in 2003-04 because he feared becoming the next Saddam Hussein, but he is now
undoubtedly cursing his timidity. Had he made seven years of progress toward deliverable
nuclear weapons, there would surely be no NATO bombing of his military today.
An Iranian nuclear capability would undoubtedly cause Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and perhaps
others to seek their own deliverable nuclear weapons. We would therefore see a region
substantially more in Iran's thrall and far more unstable and dangerous for Washington and its
allies.
Moreover, America's failure to stop Iran's nuclear ambitionswhich is certainly how it would
be perceived worldwidewould be a substantial blow to U.S. influence in general. Terrorists
and their state sponsors would see Iran's unchallenged role as terrorism's leading state sponsor
and central banker, and would wonder what they have to lose.

Turns Economy

Destroys the world economy
Phillips 2K6
(Phillips Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for
Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for
International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation, 06 James, June 2, U.S. Policy and Irans
Nuclear Challenge http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iran/hl942.cfm)

There is no guaranteed policy that can halt the Iranian nuclear program short of war, and even
a military campaign may only delay Irans acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. But U.S.
policymaking regarding the Iranian nuclear issue inevitably boils down to a search for the least-
bad option. And as potentially costly and risky as a preventive war against Iran would be,
allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would result in far heavier potential costs and risks.
The U.S. probably would be able to deter Iran from a direct nuclear attack on American or
Israeli targets by threatening massive retaliation and the assured destruction of the Iranian
regime. But there is a lingering doubt that a leader such as President Ahmadinejad, who
reportedly harbors apocalyptic religious beliefs, would have the same cost-benefit calculus
about a nuclear war as other leaders. The bellicose leader, who boldly called for Israel to be
wiped off the map before he acquired a nuclear weapon, might be sorely tempted to follow
through on his threat after he acquired one. Moreover, his regime might risk passing nuclear
weapons off to terrorist surrogates in hopes of escaping retaliation for a nuclear surprise attack
launched by an unknown attacker. Even if Iran could be deterred from considering such attacks,
an Iranian nuclear breakout would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and trigger
a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and
Algeria to build or acquire their own nuclear weapons. Each new nuclear power would multiply
the risks and uncertainties in an already volatile region. Iran also may be emboldened to step
up its support of terrorism and subversion, calculating that its nuclear capability would deter a
military response. An Iranian miscalculation could easily lead to a future military clash with the
United States or an American ally that would impose exponentially higher costs than a war with
a non-nuclear Iran. Even if it could not threaten a nuclear missile attack on U.S. territory for
many years, Tehran could credibly threaten to target the Saudi oil fields with a nuclear weapon,
thereby gaining a potent blackmail threat over the world economy.

Nuclear Iran results in geopolitical shock that hurts the US economy
Warner, the daily telegraph assistant editor, 09
(Jeremy, Britains leading business and economic commentators, 9-25-09, Irans Nuclear
Ambitions Threaten Economic Meltdown, DOA: 8-9-13,
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100001095/irans-nuclear-ambitions-
threaten-economic-meltdown/

The biggest threat to recovery in the world economy has long seemed to me to be not that of a
further leg in the financial crisis or even the fiscal ruination of developed economies, but some
kind of geo-political shock, most likely eminating from Iran.
Revelations of a second, covert uranium enrichment facility on Iranian soil bring such a shock
that much closer. Let me map out the nightmare scenario. Continued Iranian defiance causes
the UN security council to back American led demands for sanctions. But they don't work,
possibly because Russia and or China continue to supply Iran with essential needs.
The failure of sanctions then prompts Israel to take unilateral military action against nuclear
facilities in Iran, which in turn causes Iran to go through with its threat to mine Persian waters
and attempt to halt the supply of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The price of oil sky rockets,
tipping the world economy precipitously back into recesssion. Financial markets again panic,
leading to a further crash on the stock market and another crisis of confidence in the banks. All
the action taken by governments in trying to halt the downward spiral in the economy goes up
the swannee. Impausible? Regrettably only too possible.
Iran's nuclear ambitions have once more made the Middle East into a tinder box. This matters
to us in the West not just because of the obvious threat to our own security from nuclear
proliferation but because of the region's vital role in supplying oil to the world.
The lurch into recession a year ago wasn't exclusively down to the collapse of Lehman Brothers
and the wider financial crisis. In my view, it was always as much about the spike in oil prices.
Shocked by prices at the pumps, American consumers en masse decided to stop spending.
The recovery would be shattered by a further oil price shock of this sort. The effect would be
similar to, if not worse than, the Arab oil embargo of 1973. Claims by G20 leaders that thanks to
decisive and unprecedented policy action the world has been saved from a second Great
Depression would go up in smoke. Worse, there's nothing left in the fiscal and monetary
cannon to deal with any further upsets. It's already been all used up.

Central Asia Impact

Nukes cause regional aggression and Central Asian instability
Blank, 03
Stephen Blank, analyst of international security affairs, Jun 24, 2003, Iran's nuclear allies play
with fire, Asia Times< http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF24Ak03.html>

All these forces that drive Iran's programs are well known. Many are long-standing and in some
cases they are comparable to the motives that drove other nuclear states to acquire nuclear
weapons. But one needs to think carefully about the threats that may emerge from Iran if it
does indeed become a nuclear player. As in all other cases of nuclearization,
possession of nuclear weapons will essentially codify Iran's immunity from
foreign pressure as related to its defense and foreign policies. The most dangerous
aspect of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons makes it much safer for Iran to
launch conventional wars or attacks against its enemies. Pakistan's sponsorship
of an unrelenting terrorist war against India dating back 15 years exemplifies the
danger. And Iran's terrorist war has as a clear objective, the derailment of any
peace process in Israel, the incitement of anti-Semitism in the Islamic world, if not
beyond, and the destabilization of the new American presence in Iraq and beyond
that in the Middle East and Central Asia.
But beyond that, in the past Iran has used its conventional weapons to threaten
Azerbaijan and Kazakstan with regard to energy holdings in the Caspian Sea and
has conducted terrorist operations against dissidents in Europe, often with the help
of similarly-minded regimes like Libya. It also, according to US intelligence assessments given to
Congress, has the capability to close down the Straits of Hormuz and to interdict shipping
there and into the Gulf for several days. If it achieves a nuclear deterrent to back up the
conventional capabilities it is also acquiring, Iran can pose a formidable regional threat to the
global economy, and not just its neighbors or Israel. This is magnified by the fact that it
apparently can produce usable anti-ship missiles on its own. Or at least, so it claims.
Apart from being a supporter of terrorism, Iran is also clearly a proliferator of
conventional weapons to terrorists, as the interception of the Karine-A ship in 2002 by
Israel showed. And the possibility of becoming a supplier to other states who wish to obtain
nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out. That ship, it should be remembered, was carrying US$10
million of weapons, many of which seemed to have originated in Russia or were made in Iran
using Russian know-how that had been exported to Iran. Those weapons would have
provided the Palestinian Authority with the means to dramatically upgrade its
capabilities for terrorist attacks against Israelis. Iran is also a customer for North
Korean, Chinese and Russian proliferation, and at the same time a very interested
player in the fate of Afghanistan. Thus, from the foregoing, we can see that it has an
ambitious and rather destabilizing foreign policy agenda.

General Nuclear War Impact
Iran prolif causes global nuclear war
Kroenig 12
Matthew Kroenig, Council on Foreign Relations Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow and
Georgetown University assistant professor of government, The History of Proliferation
Optimism: Does It Have A Future? Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, 5/26/2012,
http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=1182andtid=30 sjg

Currently, Iran restrains its foreign policy because it fears a major military retaliation
from the United States or Israel, but with nuclear weapons it could feel free to push harder. A
nuclear-armed Iran would likely step up support to terrorist and proxy groups and engage in
more aggressive coercive diplomacy. With a nuclear-armed Iran increasingly throwing its
weight around in the region, we could witness an even more crisis prone Middle East. And in a
poly-nuclear Middle East with Israel, Iran, and, in the future, possibly other states, armed with
nuclear weapons, any one of those crises could result in a catastrophic nuclear exchange.

Middle East War Module
A) Failed diplomacy in Iran causes a Middle East war:
Mark Leonard, 10/15/2013 (staff writer, On Iran, Obamas bigger challenge is with
his allies, http://blogs.reuters.com/mark-leonard/2013/10/15/on-iran-obamas-bigger-
challenge-is-with-his-allies/, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)
With the possibility of bilateral meetings between the U.S. and Iran in Geneva, and supported by the U.S.-Russian deal on chemical weapons in
Syria, there is a tantalizing prospect that the Iranian regime could become a partner to the U.S.,
rather than a rival. It is too early to know if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is able to deliver, but as diplomats gather in Geneva for
U.N. talks, it is not hard to see why President Obama would invest so much hope in a deal. A former
Democratic congressman who knows Obama well explained to me that, like healthcare on the domestic front, it would be a bold, game-
changing initiative. And, like healthcare, an alliance with Iran eluded President Bill Clinton. Obama recognizes that there is
the danger of a full-blown regional sectarian conflict in the Middle East. If diplomacy fails
with Iran , Obama could find himself remembered as the president who took the United States
into two new Middle East Wars in Iran and Syria rather than the one who ended two wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
B) Middle East war risks extinction
James Russell 2009 (James, Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs
Naval Postgraduate School, Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prosepects for Nuclear War
and Escalation in the Middle East, ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf)
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the
bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce
unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that
makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for
military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre-emptive attacks could involve
unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to
build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all
suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of
miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly
easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional
antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a
mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from
being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework . Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact
suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once
such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making
would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take
this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which
would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

(--) Irans nuclear ambitions risk a Middle East war:
Louis Charbonneau, 10/16/2013 (U.S. says talks intense, serious after Iran hints at
atomic concessions, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-iran-nuclear-
idUSBRE99F0G820131016, Accessed 10/16/2013, rwg)
The joint statement, read out by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, said
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif "presented an outline of a plan as a proposed
basis for negotiation" and the talks were "substantive and forward looking," without
elaborating. Zarif, who is also Iran's chief negotiator, said Tehran looked to a new era in
diplomatic relations after a decade of tension, in which concerns about the Islamic state's
nuclear ambitions fuelled fears of a new war in the Middle East.
(--) American-Iranian rivalry is fueling instability in the Middle East:
David Rohde, 9/19/2013 (staff writer, Iran's offer is genuine and fleeting,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-irans-offer-idUSBRE98I18B20130919,
Despite the risks, however, now is the time for Obama and Rouhani to launch the first direct
negotiations between Iran and the United States since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. From
Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons to the conflict in Syria, the American-Iranian rivalry is helping
fuel instability in the region.

Syria Module
A) Successful Iranian diplomacy solves the Syria crisis:
In talks this week, Zarif called for a road map for a nuclear deal within a year by tying
confidence measures on the nuclear program to a progressive lifting of sanctions and
diplomatic hostilities. He has hinted at a willingness to restrict the amount of highly-enriched
uranium in Iran and other measures to reassure the world that Iran will not be able to develop
nuclear weapons. If there is progress in the talks, it would open the possibility for a
normalization of the relationship between Iran and the U.S. and move toward a political
solution on Syria.

B) Conflict in Syria escalates to a major regional war draws in the US and Russia
Peter Goodspeed, 2011 National Post, 12/14/2011, Peter Goodspeed: Power shifts push
Mideast closer to war, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/14/peter-
goodspeed-middle-east-on-the-brink-of-war/
As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad clings to power with the quiet backing of regional powers
Iran and Russia, the Middle East may be sliding slowly into war. Squeezed between the
rebellions of a bloody Arab Spring and growing fears of a possible military response to Irans
growing nuclear threat, the region is becoming increasingly unstable. I would be very surprised
if it turned into a Russian-American war, but this could be a Mid-East war: Hezbollah, Hamas,
Iran, Syria, Israel all having at each other, said Jack Granatstein, military historian and senior research fellow at the
Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. Ramazan Gzen, an international relations expert at Abant zzet Baysal University wrote this
week in the Turkish newspaper Zaman, A process of steadily sharpening polarization is being experienced *and+ it does not bode well. In
short, the polarization over Syria and Iran can turn into an uncontrollable conflict between the polarized countries and their supporters.
Related Syrian government like dead men walking: U.S. State Department Thirteen killed as Syrian rebels clash with Assad forces Syrian death
toll climbs past 5,000 as protests give way to insurgency Iran ready to begin nuclear work deep inside underground mountain bunker: sources
Russia and the United States are bracing for a naval confrontation, unprecedented since the Cold War, in the eastern Mediterranean, just off
the coast of Syria. Iran, worried over a possible pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities, has threatened to attack NATOs new missile
defence shield in Turkey if it is attacked by either Israel or the United States. It has also said it will soon stage a navy drill to practise closing the
Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the worlds oil travels. . Turkeys Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has raised the possibility of a
Turkish military incursion into Syria to create safety zones for refugees, if Mr. Assad doesnt stop killing civilians. Syria responded last weekend
by staging a massive live-fire military exercise, near the north-central desert town of Palmyra, that, according to Syrian state TV, was designed
to test the capabilities and readiness of missile systems to respond to any possible aggression. On Tuesday, under the headline U.S. troops
surround Syria on the eve of invasion? the online Russian news channel RT.com reported U.S. troops withdrawn from Iraq are secretly being
transferred to northern Jordan and taking up positions opposite Syrian tank formations along the border. There have been reports NATO forces
in Turkey may be training Syrian dissidents, while also helping prepare Turkish troops for any possible military intervention. The headquarters
of NATOs air command for southern Europe has been located in Izmir Air Base, 320 kilometres southwest of Istanbul, since 2004. Turkey, the
only Muslim member of NATO, hosts up to 24 major NATO bases on its territory and went to the brink of war with Syria as recently as 1998 in a
dispute over Syrias support for Kurdish terrorist attacks inside Turkey. As tensions have increased between the two countries, with Turkey
cutting trade and imposing financial sanctions, Syria has infuriated Turkey by re-establishing relations with the separatist Kurdistan Workers
Party (PKK). But it is Russia, Syrias main arms supplier and old Cold War ally, that has raised the stakes of any possible military confrontation.
Along with China, the Russians have repeatedly blocked UN Security Council action against Syria and sought to protect Mr. Assads regime from
the type of UN resolution that allowed NATO troops to intervene in Libya and help depose dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Recently, Russian
diplomats met with Syrian opposition leaders in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade them to hold peace talks with the Syrian government.
Russia has also tried to convince Mr. Assad to accept an Arab League plan to allow international observers into Syria. On Tuesday, just as UN
officials accused Syria of killing more than 5,000 people in the last nine months, Russias Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, angrily accused the
West of taking an immoral stance on Syria by punishing Mr. Assad, while refusing to raise the pressure on the armed extremist flank of the
*Syrian+ opposition. Mr. Lavrov insisted Syrian dissidents are using a Libyan scenario as a template for regime change and are deliberately
trying to provoke a humanitarian crisis in the hopes of triggering foreign intervention. Russia has had strong ties with Syria since Soviet times,
and supplies Damascus with most of its weapons. Syria is also Russias sole conduit for influence in the Middle East and provides Moscow with
the only port its navy can use in the Mediterranean. The port Tartus is rapidly becoming a focal point for a potential conflict. Russia sent three
guided missile frigates, reportedly loaded with anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles for Syria, there in late November. In an echo of the Cold War,
the Russian ships were briefly shadowed by the U.S. Navys nuclear aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and its naval strike force. Now,
the U.S. Sixth Fleet is said to be cruising off the Syrian coast, awaiting the arrival of Russias only
aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is scheduled to arrive in Tartus with a strike force
of its own next week. The flagship of the Russian fleet, accompanied by several destroyers, will rendezvous with the three Russian
frigates and elements of Russias Black Sea fleet for exercises off the coast of Syria. This unexpected show of Russian naval
power, the most demonstrative since the fall of the Soviet Union, may be designed to reassure
Syria of Moscows continued support. But it could also complicate any possible foreign
intervention in Syria and serves as a warning to the United States and NATO that they wont be
able to duplicate the no-fly zone they established over Libya. The arrival of the Russian navy off the coast of Syria
may also be intended to reassure Iran of Moscows continued interest, just as it fears a possible attack by Israel or the United States. The
fight in Syria today is two contests in one, said Michael Doran of Washingtons Brookings Institute. It is a struggle
between Syrians over the nature of their government and society, but it is also a regional rivalry
between Iran and its adversaries.

C) US-Russia conflict in the Middle East goes nuclear
LaRouche 12-9-2011 (Lyndon LaRouche, political activist & economist, author of multiple
books on economics & politics, Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council,
described LaRouche's staff as one of the best private intelligence services in the world, 12-9-
11, Why Obama has to go: to risk thermonuclear war is clinically insane, Executive
Intelligence Review, http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2011/eirv38n48-
20111209/index.html)
"What's happened is, the U.S. forces in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in the Persian Gulf
region, especially naval forces, in particular, are positioned for launching a thermonuclear war.
The name of the game, of course, is what we're going to do to Syria, what we're going to Iran,
but if you look at the forces in the area, that makes no sense. Then you look at other aspects of
it, and you know that now the Russians are in on the thing, in defending Syria, in particular,
against this atrocity, and you realize that we're on the edge of actually going to thermonuclear
war. "What happened was, of course, and I don't know how much, or how well this is known,
but our leading general officers, advisors, and so forth, who advise us on our security, have
opposed any action by Obama of this type. So therefore, that is, in that degree, tied up. But,
what's hanging out there, is, at any moment, a war could start. "Now, this war will be a war
with thermonuclear weapons. That's the fact. The idea that this is only Syria and Iran is
nonsense. What we have positioned in the Gulf area, and in the Eastern Mediterranean, is the
capability for thermonuclear war, and nothing else. Our allies, including the British, do not have
the depth of weapons capability for doing something like this. Only the United States, and only
the thermonuclear warfare capability of the United States, could actually conduct such a war. It
would be a war against the entirety of Asia, and other places."

Impacts: AT: Iran will be deterred
A nuclear Iran cant be deterred:
If Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, would a containment strategy preserve stability in the
Middle East? Some analysts, including Lindsay and Takeyh, argue that although Iran can be aggressive at times, it also regulates its
behavior to avoid provoking retaliation. Since the regime is sensitive to costs, the logic goes, it recognizes the dangers of escalation; hence,
containment would work. Other analysts argue that Iran's antagonism toward the United States and Israel is so strong and so central to its
leaders' legitimacy that Tehran will become more hostile once it has a nuclear arsenal, regardless of the consequences. The truth probably lies
somewhere in between. Tehran may not be irrationally aggressive, but its leadership structure and decision-making are opaque. Its
rhetoric toward the United States, Israel, and the Arab nations is often inflammatory. And its
hostile behavior--including its support for proxies such as Hezbollah, its efforts to subvert its neighbors, and its
provocative naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf--could easily trigger a crisis. In short, it is
unclear how a nuclear-armed Iran would weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of brinkmanship
and escalation and therefore how easily it could be deterred from attacking the United States'
interests or partners in the Middle East.

Extended deterrence vs. Iran will fail:
In sum, any U.S. effort to implement an extended deterrence regime in the Middle East in order to
contain a nuclear Iran and stem proliferation in the region would face very serious challenges.
Given the magnitude of those challenges, the United States must redouble its efforts to prevent
Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while also taking steps that will bolster its credibility if containment becomes necessary
because Iran has acquired nuclear weapons.

AT: Cant Trust Rouhani
(--) Rouhani is trustworthy:
Rouhanis stated goals seem straightforward: reversing the crippling sanctions in Iran to
improve the economic situation and elevating his countrys international standing. Javier Solana
Europes former top diplomat who opened nuclear talks with Rouhani when Rouhani was Irans chief nuclear negotiator
told me that Rouhani is a rational person who you can do business with. Since coming to
power, Rouhani has taken steps to change the mood. He appointed the intelligent and western-
friendly Mohammad Javad Zarif to the foreign ministry, wresting control of the nuclear dossier from
the countrys Supreme National Security Council and handing it to Zarifs foreign ministry. Most
intriguingly, he appointed Ali Shamkhani, an Iranian war hero of Arab origin, to be head of the Security Council.
(--) The best gamble is to believe Rouhani:
David Rohde, 9/19/2013 (staff writer, Iran's offer is genuine and fleeting,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-irans-offer-idUSBRE98I18B20130919,
The best bet is to gamble that Rouhani is what he says a moderate trying to outflank his
country's conservatives. Not rewarding the bold public steps he has taken will undermine
Rouhani's fleeting authority in Iran. If there is a lesson from Afghanistan and Iraq, it is that U.S. military force allows
nationalists to blame foreigners for trying to change their nation. Conservatives in Iran will use an American military action to bolster their own
standing and discredit moderates. In the long-term, it is far more effective to have an Iranian moderate
battle an Iranian hardliner than an American soldier. In the end, it is Iranians who will discredit
their nation's theocracy, not foreigners.

AT: Deal Fails

Meeting Iran halfway is key and the deal does that
AFP, 12/4/13 (Agence France-Presse, White House warns Congress not to undermine Iran nuclear deal with more sanctions,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/04/white-house-warns-congress-not-to-undermine-iran-nuclear-deal-with-more-sanctions/, bgm)

While some reports billed the White House statement as a major concession on enrichment,
Obama has all along argued that his aim in the negotiations is to ensure that Iran does not
develop a nuclear weapon and that Tehran could retain some verifiably peaceful civilian nuclear
program. By implication, that means Iran could end up with some limited capacity to enrich,
albeit well below the purity levels needed to produce a weapon as long as its actions are
proven to be peaceful and subject to airtight monitoring. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who has vehemently criticized the Geneva deal, has however called for a complete
end to uranium enrichment in all its forms by Iran. Hawks on Capitol Hill in both political parties
back his stance. However, more pragmatic analysts in Washington argue that such a perfect
deal is out of reach and would not be politically viable in Iran. In the end, the key to a
permanent deal may be some kind of diplomatic formula that allows the West to argue that
Iran has made major concessions and rolled back its nuclear program to make the swift
production of a weapon impossible and for Iranian negotiators to be able to proclaim to their
domestic constituencies that they did not formally renounce the right to enrich uranium.

AT: Sanctions Wont Hurt Deal

Sanctions torpedo the deal
Farrell, 12/5/13 (Henry, associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, Would new
Iran sanctions help U.S. negotiators? Probably not. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/12/05/would-new-iran-
sanctions-help-u-s-negotiators-probably-not/, bgm)

Menendez seems to think that the US needs its own hardliners too, to narrow the U.S. win set,
so that it doesnt make concessions that it shouldnt be making. New sanctions legislation
would make it clear to Iran both that Senate ratification (i.e. passing legislation to roll back
sanctions) is going to be very hard and that failure to reach an acceptable deal will hurt Iran.
The problems with this line of reasoning are twofold. First, there isnt any very good evidence
that it works on its own terms. In the words of Peter Evans: The strategy of tying hands
deliberately shrinking the win-set in pursuit of an agreement closer to the [negotiator's]
preferred outcome is infrequently attempted and usually not effective. The tying hands
strategy, suggested by Thomas Schellings work, is logically plausible but lacks efficacy in
practice. Perhaps because they are aware of its limited efficacy, statesmen prefer not to have
their hands tied by constituents, even when they share the constituents preferences Second,
it can be very risky. It can easily go too far, by shrinking the perceived win set down so much
that there is no longer any possible agreement. Any final deal will have to get sign-off from the
House and Senate, which will both have to roll back the sanctions legislation that is already in
place. New sanctions may lead the Iranians to conclude that there isnt any possible deal that
would pass the House and Senate and also be acceptable to Iran. Plausibly, shrinking the win
set too much will be riskier when the actors doing the shrinking dont have a detailed grasp of
the nuances of the negotiations. The risk will obviously be even higher if these actors have to
compromise with others who sincerely want the negotiations to fail. Both conditions seem to
apply to the Senates threats.

New sanctions completely derail the deal undermine Rouhani
Beinart, 12/2/13 (Peter, No, More Sanctions Wont Help With Iran, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/02/no-more-
sanctions-won-t-help-with-iran.html, bgm)

The point is that sanctions did not force a monolithic Iranian regime to cut a deal it would never
have contemplated before the recent economic pain. Sanctions empowered people who had
favored such a deal even before the recent economic pain. Had those people not won last
Junes elections, the sanctions would not have worked. In the words of Payam Mohseni, an Iran
expert who teaches government at Harvard, The victory of another candidate, such as
[hardline] former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, would not have produced such a change in
foreign policy despite the presence of the same sanctions regime. Thats why the some
sanctions good, more sanctions better logic espoused by Menendez and Netanyahu is so
wrong. Sanctions worked because by imposing economic pain, they helped to discredit
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other nuclear hardliners. But if Rouhanis comparatively soft-line
approach results in even harsher sanctions, then those sanctions may begin to discredit him. As
the Council on Foreign Relationss Ray Takeyh has noted, thats what happened during the
Khatami years, when Rouhani was accused of appeasement for making nuclear overtures that
the Bush administration spurned. Today, according to reports from Iran hardliners are poised to
level the same charge. And discrediting Rouhani will be easier if they can point to tangible signs
of Western bad faith.

Sanctions kill the deal
Beinart, 12/2/13 (Peter, No, More Sanctions Wont Help With Iran, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/02/no-more-
sanctions-won-t-help-with-iran.html, bgm)

Today, America should make a similar investment in Hassan Rouhani, not because Rouhani will
give America everything it wants, but because if he fails, America will get far less. Legislating
new sanctions now, even if they dont immediately take effect, could destroy Rouhanis nuclear
diplomacy. If that happens, we may have to wait years more for leaders willing to cap Irans
nuclear program and end its cold war with the West. And by the time they come along, who
knows how many centrifuges Iran will have?

Sanctions destroy Iran negotiations kills US cred and alliances
Nader, The Hill, 13
(Alirez Pause on additional Iran sanctions crucial to negotiations 11-5-13
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/189371-pause-on-additional-iran-sanctions-crucial-to-
negotiations

Iran has demonstrated a different tone and approach to nuclear negotiations since the June 14
election of Hassan Rouhani as president. Nothing concrete has emerged yet, but the U.S.
negotiating team, headed by Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, has described the last
round of negotiations as positive and different from previous sessions with the Iranian team
under former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

ADVERTISEMENT
Rouhanis election and, more importantly, Irans dire economic condition are the reasons for
Tehrans new approach. Some have taken this to mean that more sanctions are needed.
However, just because Tehran is seeking to ease the pressure brought on by the sanctions that
exist today does not mean that it will yield to new sanctions tomorrow.
Rouhani has a limited mandate to solve the nuclear crisis and lift sanctions. However, more
radical elements of the Iranian political system, marginalized for now, are waiting for him to
fail. They believe that the American government is either duplicitous or will be unable to deliver
a deal. New sanctions would confirm their view and further their goals of ending negotiations
and sidelining Rouhani.

New sanctions passed before a true test of Irans intentions could result in a bleak future: a
risky and costly war with Iran with no guarantee of success, or the acceptance of an increasingly
embittered, isolated, repressive and nuclear capable Islamic Republic.

The Iranian people have borne the brunt of sanctions, but it would be hard to argue that the
Iranian regime has not felt the pressure as well.

Sanctions have led to a drastic cut in Iranian oil exports, a depreciation of the Iranian currency
and rising inflation. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranians have become
unemployed or lost their savings. And many of the elite have been affected as well. Some
Iranians might be getting rich off the sanctions, but the vast majority of Iranian economic actors
from bazaar merchants to the Revolutionary Guard to independent tycoons are closely
linked to the state, and depend on Irans oil income.

Moreover, Irans lack of access to the global financial system has meant a drastic reduction in
non-oil exports, decreased domestic manufacturing and a potentially dangerous real estate
bubble in Tehran.

It is not surprising that Rouhani, who once negotiated a suspension of the nuclear program with
the Europeans, has been given the mandate to solve Irans crisis with the world. And it appears
that thus far the new Iranian president is unwilling or incapable of addressing other major
issues such as political reforms. For now, Rouhani has his hands quite full with the nuclear
program.

And it is this crucial portfolio that could determine his fate.

He has the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard,
without which he would not be able to negotiate or even run his government. But Khamenei
and the Guard are under no illusion that negotiations are sure to succeed; nor are they willing
to continue negotiations under humiliating conditions. Sanctions are a danger to their rule, but
weakness in the face of pressure might be no less a threat. They must give Rouhani a chance
because the Iranian people and key political constituents support negotiations. The viability of
Rouhanis platform of moderation and engagement with the West hangs in balance. Khamenei
and hard-line Guard are willing to test America as much as the Obama administration is
willing to test Tehran.

New sanctions under consideration by Congress could lead to a weakening of the overall U.S.
position. First, Rouhani could lose his mandate to continue negotiations. Second, Iran could
begin to undermine the international coalition that has created the harshest peacetime
sanctions in history. Rouhani, weakened at home but still respected abroad, could persuade
major Iranian oil buyers such as China, India, Japan and even European that Iran attempted to
negotiate in good faith but was rebuffed by the United States. Third, Iran could successfully
cause a split between the group. China and Russia might believe that Congress wants regime
change in Iran instead of a diplomatic solution. Germany, which has close business ties with
Iran, could become unhappy about its economic sacrifices. And even the U.K. and France could
begin to doubt U.S. intentions.

Congress deserves credit for pressuring the Iranian regime, but it should pause the march
toward new sanctions to give the negotiations a chance. Current sanctions against Iran are
effective, and new sanctions can always be imposed if Iran does not budge. A smart approach
toward Iran does not only entail creating pressure but using it correctly, and for the right goals

Aff- Iran Sanctions

Democrats backed away from Iran sanctions- arent pushing for it
Lake, 12-12 (Eli, Editor for the Daily Beast, Senates Iran Sanctions Deal Falls Apart,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/12/senate-s-iran-sanctions-deal-falls-
apart.html)
Democrats bow to requests from President Obama to delay additional sanctions while the
White House negotiates a nuclear deal with Tehran. A deal in the Senate to impose additional
sanctions on Iran has fallen apart, as Senate Democrats accede to requests from President
Obama to delay new legislation while world powers negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Senate
staffers tell The Daily Beast that a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization
Act was ready to go last night, and aimed at closing loopholes in the current sanctions on Iran.
The new bill, however, would only kick in after the six-month negotiations periodspecified in
an interim deal reached last month with Iranexpired and only if Iran had been found in
violation of its obligations. We dont know why the Democrats walked away from this, one
senate staff member involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast on Thursday. There was
a deal last night, but something happened in the last 12 hours. The collapse of the Senates
efforts to reach a sanctions compromise between Senators Mark Kirk (R-Il.) and Robert
Menendez (D-NJ) is a victory for President Obama and President Rouhani of Iran. Earlier this
week, Irans foreign minister, Javad Zarif, told Time magazine that any new sanctions from
Congress would collapse the nuclear talks between his country and the United States, China,
France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. Secretary of State John Kerry also warned
Congress this week in open and closed testimony that any new sanctions would unravel the
international support that has made the pressure on Irans banking sector and oil industry so
effective. But Kerry also promised this week that the Obama administration would ask
Congress to impose additional sanctions if Iran was found to be in violation of its obligations or
if the nuclear negotiations collapsed. The collapse of the sanctions amendment was hinted at
on Thursday at a hearing before the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Robert Menendez, the
Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was leading the
sanctions negotiations in the Senate, said he was interested in pursuing new legislation that
would define an acceptable outcome of Iranian negotiations as opposed to a new round of
sanctions on Iran.
I know I have been a proponent of pursuing additional sanctions prospectively and in a
timeframe beyond the scope of the six-month period of negotiations, Menendez said. But I
am beginning to think based upon all of this maybe what the Senate needs to do is define the
end game, at least what it finds as acceptable.
Later Menendez declined to directly answer questions from reporters as to whether he still
intended to introduce new sanctions in the Senate. When asked, he said, Were looking at all
the options and what is the best effort that the Senate can lead to assure the eventual outcome
is one we can be supportive of and want to accomplish, and thats our focus.
Sen. Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was more
blunt on Thursday. At the hearing, he said of new sanctions: I understand we are going
through a rope-a-dope here in Congress and we are not going to do anything.

Treasurys announcement on Thursday placated key Senators
HotAir, 12-12 (Obama administration looking to crack down on Iranian-sanction evaders while
still lobbying lawmakers, http://hotair.com/archives/2013/12/12/obama-administration-
looking-to-slap-more-penalties-on-iranian-sanction-evaders-while-still-lobbying-lawmakers/)
Its looking less and less certain by the day that the bipartisan group of senators pushing for a
fresh round of Iranian sanctions will be able to do so before the legislative year is up; the
Obama administrations foreign-policy team has once again spent their week aggressively
lobbying lawmakers to cool it, arguing that even the threat of new sanctions six months down
the road could upset the oh-so-delicate balance they believe they have achieved in negotiations
with the Iranian regime. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was mum on what he plans to do
about the issue after emerging from a closed briefing with Secretary of State John Kerry and
other lawmakers on Wednesday afternoon. Via Politico:
I and many of my other colleagues on both sides of the aisle are still committed to passing
legislation that would call for at the expiration of six months if theres no final agreement
increased sanctions on Iran, McCain told reporters after the briefing. We think that thats
appropriate.
But other influential Republicans, including Bob Corker, the top GOP member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, appeared skeptical of the effort.
Two Democratic senators who had previously pledged for a sanctions bill to pass Congress
expeditiously were more cautious after listening to Kerry. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) said senators
have a lot to consider and said after a briefing, I dont want to just react. I want to consider
what Ive heard.
Other key Democrats such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez
of New Jersey and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada declined to comment after the
briefing.
Todays Banking Committee hearing on Iran was also inconclusive about what an immediate
course of action might look like; and if the pro-sanctions group of senators do end up getting
their planned legislation out this week, it looks like Reid will abide by the White Houses
requests and fall back on Congresss already crowded end-of-year agenda to slow-walk it until
at least January.
In the meantime, in an apparent effort to placate those senators and convince them that they
have no intention of rushing through any undue or premature sanctions relief, the Treasury
Department announced on Thursday that it plans to tighten the screws on a list of companies
and individuals for trying to pull a run-around on Irans economic restrictions, via the AP:

House will vote till next January
National Journal, 12-12 (Cantor Could Introduce Iran Legislation Before Recess,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/defense/cantor-could-introduce-iran-legislation-before-
recess-20131212)
Congress could hold off on passing additional sanctions against Iran until January, aides told the
Associated Press.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., might introduce a resolution on Thursday that
outlines what should be in a final agreement with Iran regarding its nuclear program. The hope
is that House members would vote on the legislation in the short window they have left to
complete their work for the year.
The House is scheduled to adjourn Friday. It passed additional sanctions against Iran earlier this
year, and Cantor's legislation would be nonbinding. Before leaving town, House members still
have to tackle the budget deal unveiled on Tuesday and the National Defense Authorization
Act.
In the Senate, aides said that Majority Leader Harry Reid has mentioned holding votes on
additional sanctions in January. Republican senators and and some Democrats have called for
extra sanctions against Iran, despite a public push by the Obama administration to get senators
to hold off out of a fear that congressional interference could unravel progress being made over
Iran's nuclear program.

Sen. Johnson has said no iran sanctions
USA Today, 12-2 (Senate committee shelves new sanctions on Iran,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/12/12/senate-committee-shelves-new-
sanctions-on-iran/3999405/)
The Senate Banking Committee shelved new Iran sanctions Thursday, giving the Obama
administration the time it's been asking for to seek a final deal on Iran's nuclear program.
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., the committee chairman, made the announcement during his
opening statement at a hearing Thursday.
"I agree that the administration's request for a diplomatic pause is reasonable," Johnson said.
"A new round of U.S. sanctions now could rupture the unity of the international coalition
against Iran's nuclear program."

Politics Updates

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Politics Updates

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Thursday File 1-9-2014

Immigration Reform .................................................................................................................................. 5

Você também pode gostar