h-1b cap aff - frappier russell

ADI 2010 1Frap/Russell H-1B Aff

H-1B Af f

***1AC*** .............................................................. 3

1AC – Plan...........................................................................41AC – Economy (1/)............................................................51AC – Economy (2/)............................................................61AC – Economy (3/)............................................................71AC – Science Diplomacy (1/).............................................81AC – Science Diplomacy (2/).............................................91AC – Science Diplomacy (3/)...........................................101AC – Science Diplomacy (4/)...........................................111AC – Heg (1/)...................................................................121AC – Heg (2/)...................................................................131AC – Heg (3/)...................................................................141AC – Heg (4/)...................................................................151AC – Heg (5/)...................................................................16

***ECONOMY*** .............................................. 17

Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (1/)..............................18Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (2/)..............................19Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (1/)................................20Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (2/)................................21Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (3/)................................22Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (4/)................................23Economy Adv – Growth – Link.........................................24Economy Adv – Growth – Key to International Business. 25Economy Adv – Small Business – Key to Economy.........26Economy Adv – Wages – Link (1/)....................................27Economy Adv – Wages – Link (2/)....................................28Economy Adv – AT: Depress Wages.................................29Economy Adv – Competitiveness – Link...........................30Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (1/)....................31Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (2/)....................32Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Key to Economy.......33Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (1/)......34Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (2/)......35Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Temporary Job Loss 36Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (1/)...........................38Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (2/)...........................39Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (1/)....................40Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (2/)....................41Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (1/).42Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (2/).43Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Kills Economy.................45Economy Adv – Market Investment – Link.......................47Economy Adv – Market Investment – Key to Economy. . .48Economy Adv – IT Sector – Shortages Now.....................49Economy Adv – IT Sector – Link......................................50Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (1/).............................51Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (2/).............................52Economy Adv – Innovation – Key to Economy................53Economy Adv – Small Business – Link.............................55Economy Adv – Tax Revenue – Link................................56


Economy Adv – AT: No Demand......................................57Economy Adv – AT: No Short Term Gains.......................58Economy Adv – AT: Security Breaches DA......................59Economy Adv – AT: Body Shopping................................60Economy Adv – AT: Fraud................................................61Economy Adv – AT: Brain Drain......................................62Economy Adv – AT: BRIC (1/).........................................63Economy Adv – AT: BRIC (2/).........................................64Economy Adv – AT: BRIC (3/).........................................65Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (1/).......66Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (2/).......67

***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY*** ....................... 68

Science Diplomacy Adv – Uniqueness – Sci Dip Low Now69Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (1/)..............70Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (2/)..............71Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – AT: Alt Causes.............72Science Diplomacy Adv – Prolif........................................73Science Diplomacy Adv – Russia......................................74Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (1/)..............76Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (2/)..............77Science Diplomacy Adv – Disease – Link.........................78Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change Scenario........79Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change – Data Sharing80Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (1/).............81Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (2/).............82Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (3/).............83Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (4/).............84Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (5/).............85Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Impact................86Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East Scenario...............87Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (1/) 89Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (2/) 90Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Link..................91Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Hormuz (1/)......92Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Hormuz (2/)......93Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Hormuz (3/)......94Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – AT: Prolif Bad..95Science Diplomacy Adv – Iran – Link...............................96Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (1/)........97Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (2/)........98Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Link..................99Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Escalation.......100Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – NW Impacts. . .101Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism Scenario................102Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism – Link...................103Science Diplomacy Adv – China Scenario......................104Science Diplomacy Adv – EU – Link..............................105

***HEGEMONY*** ......................................... 106

Heg Adv – U – Foreign Scientists Low Now...................107Heg Adv – U – On the Brink............................................109Heg Adv – Science Dominance – Link............................110Heg Adv – IT Sector – Link.............................................111Heg Adv – Tech Innovation – Link..................................112Heg Adv – Cyber Security – Link....................................113Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)...........................114


Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)...........................115Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (1/)........................116Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (2/)........................117Heg Adv – China – UQ – Outsourcing............................118Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing Bad...................119Heg Adv – China – Link – Tech Solves Balancing..........120Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing => China Hegemony 121Heg Adv – China – Impact – Taiwan Conflict.................122Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low............................123Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low............................124Heg Adv – NASA – Link – H1B......................................125Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Climate Change................126Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Climate Change................127Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Climate Change................128Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Dominance.......................129Heg Adv – NASA – AT: Domestic Workers Solve.........130Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low................131Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low................132Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony..................133Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony..................134Heg Adv – Aerospace – Solvency - Aerospace................135Heg Adv – AT: Spies (1/).................................................136Heg Adv – AT: Spies (2/).................................................137Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (1/)...................................138Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (2/)...................................139


***1AC***


1AC – Plan

The United States Federal Government should raise the cap on H-1B visa allocations to 195,000.


1AC – Economy (1/)

The current cap on H-1B visas is too low, causing outsourcing and long term damage to the US economy. Raising to 195,000 solves.Sherk and Nell, 08 (James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There are not enough American workers with advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical occupations to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor has forced

many companies to outsource operations abroad. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers. Heritage Foundation calculations show that raising the cap to 195,000 visas would increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion over eight years. Unlike tax increases, this would be an economically beneficial source of revenue for PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.) Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers.

Increasing skilled workers is key to economic successCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 457-458) JJN

Meanwhile, supporters of the H-1B program and a cap increase argue that the program enables the United States to remain competitive in the global economy, and prevents the off-shoring of U.S. jobs to other countries. These advocates argue three main points on the state of the labor market. First, that there is truly a shortage of highly skilled workers as evidenced by the annual demand for H-1B visas. Second, that there is no fixed number of jobs available in the U.S. labor market, and both compensation and the availability of jobs are based on other factors within the labor market, thus making the shortage debate moot. Finally, that preventing foreigners, especially foreign students enrolled in colleges and universities in the United States, from entering the U.S. workforce, is “detrimental to our economic success in the future because we will lose valuable intellectual capital.”

The H-1B visa is key to increasing skilled labor at no expense to US jobsSherk and Nguyen, 08 (James and Diem, Heritage Foundation, March 31, “Increasing the Cap for H-1B Visas Would Help the Economy,” http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13613.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Insourcing Jobs. Increasing the cap on H-1B visas creates new jobs for American workers, not just H-1B immigrants. Employees do not compete for a fixed number of jobs so that when more H-1B workers come to the United States, an equal number of Americans lose their jobs. Instead, businesses create jobs when they grow and shed jobs. Currently, the economy has a severe shortage of workers for many high-skilled positions. The unemployment rate in computer and mathematical occupations, like computer programming, was 2.1 percent

in 2007—essentially full employment after accounting for workers between jobs.2 There are not enough high-tech workers in America to fill the jobs that employers want them to do . By increasing the H-1B cap, Congress would allow companies to fill vital positions and enable them to expand within the United States, which avoids the problem of companies outsourcing work or moving overseas. Take the example of an engineering software company that hires an engineer and a software developer on H-1B visas. Without those key workers, the company could not expand. Because it hired those key workers, however, the company grows and creates many new domestic jobs: software programmers, software salesmen, and technical support staff. A study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that the average S&P 500 company creates five new domestic jobs for each highly skilled H-1B visa employee it hires.3 By raising the H-1B cap, Congress “insources” jobs, allowing companies to fill vital positions and expand their operations in America instead of moving overseas.

This benefits both American workers and the U.S. economy.



Absent a strong H-1B program the US economy will collapseImmigration Policy Center 9 (2/19/09, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers , accessed 7/27/10) GEC

The U.S. economy needs high-skilled workers in a wide range of occupations. According to the National Science Board (NSB), the science and engineering (S&E) “labor force does not include just those in S&E occupations.” In Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the NSB reports that “about 12.9 million workers said in 2003 that they needed at least a bachelor’s degree level of knowledge” in a science and engineering field to do their jobs. However, only 4.9 million of these workers were in occupations formally defined as belonging to a “science and engineering” (S&E) field. Moreover, 66 percent of “S&E degree holders in non-S&E occupations say their job is related to their degree, including many in management and marketing occupations.” The economic value of high-skilled workers cannot be easily quantified. The NSB emphasizes that the value of highly skilled S&E workers from different parts of the world cannot be measured in simple, numerical terms given that science is, by its very nature, “a global enterprise” dependent upon the exchange of ideas from a diverse range of perspectives. According to the NSB, “new ways of doing business and performing R&D [research and development] take advantage of gains from new knowledge discovered anywhere, from increases in foreign economic development, and from expanding international migration of highly trained scientists and engineers.” Even today, the demand for high-skilled workers remains high. In another study released in March 2008, Talent Search: Job Openings

and the Need for Skilled Labor in the U.S. Economy, the NFAP found that technology companies in the S&P 500 each posted an average of 470 skilled, U.S.-based job openings in January 2008, while defense companies each posted an average of 1,265 such openings. The average number of skilled, U.S.-based job openings posted for all S&P companies was 288 each. This represents only a fraction of the demand for skilled workers in the United States since only about 14 percent of workers are employed by S&P 500 companies. Moreover, many large companies recruit on college campuses and thereby fill jobs that are not publicly posted. Among the companies with the greatest number of skilled job openings were Microsoft, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Countrywide Financial, JPMorganChase, Tenet Healthcare, United Health Group, Raytheon, IBM, Computer Sciences Corp., Cintas, L-3 Communications, Bank of America, U.S. Bancorp, and Cisco Systems. 3 The continued high level of demand for skilled workers at many companies is “a reminder that even when one sector of the diverse U.S. economy suffers a downturn other sectors may perform well or at least not experience declines.”

Moreover, “even a company experiencing economic difficulty may be filling jobs in one section even as it sheds positions in another, since problems may be due to isolated underperformance in a division, particularly due to competition or a general slowdown in one segment in the economy.” The high demand for skilled labor is evident in the persistent shortage of H-1B temporary visas for highly skilled foreign professionals. H-1Bs are capped at only 65,000 per year—the same number as in 1990, when the U.S. economy has about 40 percent smaller than it is today, and before the internet revolution and many other high-tech advances. An additional 20,000 H-1Bs are reserved for foreign graduates of advanced-degree programs at U.S. universities. The supply of H-1B visas has been exhausted by the first day of each fiscal year since 2004. In FY 2007, visas were awarded by lottery because twice as many eligible applications were received than there were visa slots available. As our population ages and shrinks, highly skilled foreign professionals will become increasingly important to the U.S. economy. According to a 2007 study by Jacob Funk Kirkegaard of the Peterson Institute of International Economics, the skill levels of U.S. workers are stagnating relative to the rest of the world. As a result, “when American baby boomers retire, they will take as many skills with them as their children will bring into the U.S. workforce.” According to Kirkegaard, these demographic trends—combined with the growing international competition for skilled workers—suggest that “in the coming decade, America could face broad and substantial skill shortages.” Kirkegaard says that to overcome these challenges, the United States will not only have to implement new educational policies to produce more high-skilled Americans, but also “reform its high-skilled immigration policies and procedures not only to welcome the best and the brightest but also to make it easier for them to stay.” He finds that the need for reform is particularly urgent in “the H-1B temporary work visa and legal permanent resident (green card) programs.” Similarly, the National Science Board concludes that, “barring large reductions in retirement rates, the total number of retirements among workers with S&E degrees will dramatically increase over the next 20 years.” This suggests “a slower-growing and older S&E labor force”—a situation that would worsen “if either new degree production were to drop or immigration to slow.” American companies support American students and workers through fees, taxes, and charitable contributions. As the NFAP points out in a May 2007 study, the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 created a training-and-scholarship fee of $500 that U.S. companies hiring H-1B workers must pay for every new H-1B application and every first-time renewal of a worker’s H-1B status. This fee was raised by Congress to $1,000 in 2000. The fee was raised again, to $1,500, by the L-1 Visa and H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, which also mandated that 4 5 50 percent of the revenue from the fee go to National Science Foundation scholarships for U.S. undergraduate and graduate students in science and math, 30 percent to Department of Labor training programs for U.S. workers, and 10 percent to the National Science Foundation for K-12 math and science programs (plus 5 percent each to the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security for processing costs).



US technology gains from H-1B visa holders are key to long term growthMasters and Ruthizer, 00 (Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)\

Information technology companies depend on H-1B professionals to compete in a rapidly changing marketplace. In 1995 about one-quarter of H-1B professionals were in IT-related fields. Not surprisingly, by 1997 approximately half of the H-1Bs were in IT related fields.16 Several aspects of the way the IT industry functions account for its particular need for H-1B professionals. First, quick turnaround time inevitably drives employers to hire professionals who already possess the needed technical skills and experience and can work productively at once. Second, product proliferation creates demand, which changes suddenly and often, for specialized knowledge and skills. Combined, those pressures produce the need for “the right worker, with the right skills, at the right

time.”17 Because of those constraints, if there is no readily available U.S. worker, the H-1B professional becomes critical to continued economic growth. Yet, despite the demonstrated contributions of those workers to America’s welfare, the Clinton administration and some members of Congress have gone out of their way to make it difficult, and sometimes impossible, to hire H-1B professionals.

Economic collapse causes nuclear warMead 9 (Walter Russell, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy – Council on Foreign Relations, “Only Makes You Stronger”, The New Republic, 2-4, http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)

If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the

United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to

their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven

Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public

opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may

not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.


1AC – Science Diplomacy (1/)

Expanding the cap on H-1B visas is the vital factor for maintaining science diplomacy - solves disease and global conflictPickering et al, 10 (THOMAS R. -ov president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, undersecretary of state from 1997-2000 and chairs the advisory council of the Civilian Research and Development Foundation. Agre, a Nobel laureate, is a physician and director of the Malaria Research Institute at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, PETER AGRE, “Science diplomacy aids conflict reduction” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/, 7/27/10, atl)

Over two foggy days in April, a group of high-ranking Chinese science and education leaders and some American counterparts met at a University of California San Diego faculty club to discuss an issue crucial to both nations: educating future generations in the ethical standards surrounding the conduct of research. The meeting was low-key – no TV cameras, no headlines – but from the start, its potential

for high impact was clear. Not so many years ago, during the Cold War, the two nations were locked in conflict. Now they were collaborating to strengthen science for the 21st century. The talks were emblematic of a promising global trend that

features researchers, diplomats and others collaborating on science and, in the process, building closer ties between nations. Even countries with tense government-to-government relations share common challenges in infectious diseases, earthquake engineering, energy production and environmental protection . The White House and Congress have made welcome moves to embrace the potential of science diplomacy, but in the months and years ahead,

they will need to exert still more leadership and make sure the effort has the resources needed to succeed . Science diplomacy is hardly a new idea. A 1979 agreement between the United States and China paved the way for bilateral scientific cooperation

that has generated vast benefits for both nations, including reduced tensions and billions of dollars in economic activity . U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a Cold War thaw through scientific exchanges, with little government

support other than travel visas. Now, science diplomacy may help America open a door toward improved relations with Pyongyang, too . Last December, six Americans representing leading scientific organizations sat down with their North Korean counterparts. High-level science delegations from the United States in recent months also have visited Syria, Cuba and

Rwanda, not to mention Asian and European nations. America’s scientific and technological accomplishments are admired worldwide, suggesting a valuable way to promote dialogue. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that a deeply unfavorable view of the U.S. in many Muslim nations, but a profoundly favorable view of U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries shows that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points. Within the scientific community, journals routinely publish articles cowritten by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common language for the professional exchange of ideas. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all essential. The North Korea visit, organized by the U.S.-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Science Engagement Consortium, exemplifies the vast potential of science for diplomacy. The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo, he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges,

especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and engineers . Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to

our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America overseas . Science is a wide-ranging effort that naturally crosses borders, and so scientist-to-scientist collaboration can promote goodwill at the grass roots. San Diego boasts a remarkable initiative at High Tech High charter school. Twice in recent years, biology teacher

Jay Vavra has led student teams to Africa to study the illegal trade in meat from wild and endangered animals . Working with game wardens and tribal leaders, they use sophisticated DNA bar coding techniques to analyze the meat and track down poachers . Such efforts advance science while supporting peace and the health of the planet. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy can be crucial to finding solutions both to global problems and to global conflict.



Unchecked disease spread will cause extinctionYu 09 [Victoria, “Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate,” Dartmouth Journal of Undergraduate Science, May 22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate]

In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).



Increasing science diplomacy is key to international non-proliferation efforts – solves escalating nuclear warsDickson, 10 (David, Director, SciDev.Net, 7 May 2010, “Nuclear disarmament is top priority for science diplomacy”, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/nuclear-disarmament-is-top-priority-for-science-diplomacy.html, 7/28/10, atl)

The political climate is ripe for a new push to eliminate nuclear weapons; scientists can boost its chance of success. Earlier this year, US satellites detected the first plume of steam from a nuclear reactor in Pakistan that has been built to produce fuel for nuclear bombs, confirming the country's desire to strengthen its status as a nuclear power. The observation — coming shortly before this month's review conference in New York of the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — is further evidence that the unregulated spread of nuclear technology remains closely linked to the dangers of nuclear conflict. The good news is that US President Barack Obama seems determined to make eliminating nuclear weapons a top priority. Indeed, last month he invited 47 heads of state to an unprecedented summit in Washington to promote disarmament and agree strategies to prevent nuclear terrorism and safeguard nuclear material. But the news from Pakistan, together with continued disagreement on how best to tackle other emerging nuclear states such as Iran and North Korea, illustrates how far there is to go — and the political hurdles that must still be scaled — before this goal is achieved. New hope Still, there is a sense of optimism for this year's review conference that was missing from the last meeting in 2005. Then, the aggressive stance taken by the Bush administration — describing North Korea as part of an "axis of evil", for example — doomed the discussions to stalemate. This time round, the prospects for agreement are significantly higher. Not only has Obama adopted a more moderate attitude towards international affairs in general, but he has already made significant achievements on the nuclear front. Last month, for example, Russia and the United States announced an arms control agreement under which both will significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals. And since then, Obama has revised his nuclear policy to state, for the first time, that non-nuclear states that have signed the NPT will never be targets of US nuclear weapons. Both agreements could have gone further. Some in Obama's administration wanted him to take the further step of banning the use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear threat or attack. And despite the new cuts, both Russia and the United States will still own enough nuclear weapons to destroy human life many times over. But the recent moves have nonetheless created a political climate in which significant agreement, at least between nuclear weapons states, looks more realistic than it did five years ago. There are even signs that the United States could eventually ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the next major step towards global nuclear disarmament. Need for vigilance The reasons for optimism are not restricted to the shift in the US position. Equally influential has been a growing awareness within the developed and developing worlds of the threats of nuclear terrorism and the need to improve protection of nuclear materials. Eighteen months ago, for example, an armed group was caught breaking into a nuclear facility in South Africa in an apparent attempt to steal weapons-grade uranium that has been stored at the site since the early 1990s, under international supervision. The incident provides a stark reminder of the need for continued and effective vigilance. This need will increase as more developing countries turn towards nuclear power as a source of affordable energy — a trend that will be reinforced by international efforts to promote renewable energy as a strategy for tackling climate change. But the danger is that US-led initiatives will, with some justification, be seen as little more than attempts to defend American interests, influenced as much by political relationships as by a genuine desire for nuclear disarmament. For example, the nuclear cooperation deal between the United States and India that entered force in 2008 has been cited by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as an example of putting diplomatic and commercial interests ahead of non-proliferation responsibilities and was criticised for exacerbating nuclear tensions in South Asia. Scientists, diplomats or both? The only solution is for the developing world to accept that international nuclear non-proliferation is in its own interests — the only way to prevent regional conflicts escalating into nuclear exchanges . The scientific community has an important role to play in this process by explaining the threat posed by even relatively small nuclear weapons, and advising on how to develop safeguards without overly restricting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Scientists have already shown their worth when they kept communication channels open between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs were instrumental to such 'science diplomacy' and it can be no coincidence that the approach is rapidly gaining favour in Washington, where John Holdren, who once headed Pugwash, is Obama's science and technology advisor. If such diplomacy, on the control of nuclear weapons or other scientific issues, is driven by the political and commercial interests of the developed world, it will remain suspect and doomed to fail. But if it can be truly international, the chances of success are much higher. Reaching a global agreement on the steps needed to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world would be a good place to start.



Ignore their alt cause arguments – cap on H-1B visas triggers negative perceptions of US science credibility – all of their alt causes are based on others still wanting to work with us AAAS 4 (American Association for the Advancement of Science. Physics Today, 00319228, Feb2005, Vol. 58, Issue 2. EBSCO) JM

In particular, there is increasing evidence that visa-related problems are discouraging and preventing the best and brightest international students, scholars, and scientists from studying and working in the United States, as well as attending academic and scientific conferences here and abroad. If action is not taken

soon to improve the visa system, the misperception that the United States does not welcome international students, scholars, and scientists will grow, and they may not make our nation their destination of choice now and in the future. The damage to our nation's higher-education and scientific enterprises, economy, and national security would be irreparable. The United States cannot hope to maintain its present scientific and economic leadership position if it becomes isolated from the rest of the world.


1AC – Heg (1/)

H-1B visas fill the critical gap left by a weak educational system needed to maintain US hegemonyPaarlberg 4(Robert, Prof. Poli Sci Wellesley College; International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 122-151; pp. 25) BHB

U.S. science has found a way to overcome this domestic educational handi-cap by importing trained science talent from abroad. In this sense, globaliza-tion can be counted as a support for U.S. science hegemony, not a threat to that hegemony. U.S. universities make up for K-12 educational deficits in science and math by attracting well-trained STEM students from abroad, and then by persuading the best of these foreign students to stay. In all the natural sciences and engineering, 35 percent of U.S. Ph.D.'s are now awarded to foreign stu-dents. In the physical sciences and engineering specifically, roughly 50 percent of U.S. Ph.D.'s now go to foreign students.68 In addition to universities, high-technology U.S. manufacturing firms have also come to rely heavily on foreign-born graduates for a substantial portion of their growing workforce.69 Between 1990 and 2000, the foreign-born share of science and engineering doc-torates in the U.S.

workforce increased from 24 percent to 28 percent. When it comes to science, the United States remains the preeminent land of immi-grants. In 1999 all four of the U.S. Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry,

physiology/medicine, and economics were born outside of the United States. Roughly one-third of the foreign scientists now working in the United States arrived already fully trained.70 When the United States allows graduates from India's elite institutes of technology to enter with temporary visas, the nation gains access at no charge to a human capital resource that costs the govern-ment of India roughly $15,000-$20,000 per student to train. By implication, when Congress in 1998 eased the annual quota on H-1B visas, thus facilitating movement into the country for roughly 100,000 of these well-trained Indian professionals, the training cost savings for the United States equaled $2 billion per year.7" As long as the United States can continue to attract this trained foreign talent, the weakness of its own K-12 science preparation system will not have to undermine U.S. science hegemony overall.

Specialized workers are key to dominant military innovations Paarlberg 4 (“Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and U. S. Security” Robert L., International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004 Pg 142)

Dominant military innovations will also be more difficult for rival states to copy because they are no longer stand-alone pieces of hardware. The RMA de-pends on entire systems of both hardware and software-sensors, satellites, program codes, and command systems, not just weapons platforms. Moreover, only teams of technically skilled, highly trained, and continuously practiced personnel can operate these networked RMA weapons systems. The superb U.S. all-volunteer military force, built specifically to provide such operating personnel, is a unique human and institutional asset that less capable foreign rivals can neither copy nor steal. Potential rivals such as China cannot hope to develop an RMA capability through simple transfer, whether by purchase or theft. Through espionage China may have been able to gain information on the W-88 warhead used on U.S. Trident missiles, and China was nearly successful in purchasing from Is-rael the Phalcon system (which contained modern phased-array technology) before the U.S. government halted this sale in 2000.64Y et even with access to such imported or stolen technology, the Chinese military system will not be able to advance to an RMA capability, given the notorious weakness of the PLA in areas such as command, control, communications, and intelligence


1AC – Heg (2/)

Heg solves every scenario for nuclear warKagan 7 (Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History” Policy Review http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)

Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in


shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The

1AC – Heg (3/)

current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.


1AC – Heg (4/)

China’s is using is consolidating economic strength through outsourcingLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 27-8) BHB

Taking a calculative approach to analyzing the role of outsourcing in Chinese strategy formulation rests on a key assumption: that many long-time Chinese strategic axioms, some dating back to ancient times, still shape or influence the thinking of Chinese policymakers. One of the most important tenets of Chinese strategic thought is the idea of managing one’s own strengths and weaknesses according to those of an opponent. If the opponent is stronger, then it is preferable to accommodate rather than to directly confront it. Weakness requires the state to adopt a more flexible posture in which it avoids conflict and slowly builds up strength. On the other hand, when the opponent is weaker, it is preferable to establish dominance over it, usually in the form of a hierarchical, tributary relationship. For nearly two millennia— throughout the Han, Tang, Song, Ming and Qing dynasties—Chinese military expeditions sought to establish tributary relationships around China’s periphery, including Central Asia, Korea, Vietnam, Southeast Asia along the South China Sea coast, and the northern desert steppe. This preferred foreign policy imperative of establishing and maintaining a tributary relationship with peripheral countries has remained a central part of Chinese strategic thinking.3 For example, during the Ming dynasty (1368–1644), vast fleets under the naval leadership of ChengHo ruled theWestern Pacific and Indian Oceans for well over a century. By eliminating naval pirates and supporting local kingdoms that offered tribute and gifts to the emperor, Cheng Ho’s fleet initiated and cultivated a complex web of political relationships with foreign states that amounted to a benevolent hegemony which projected Chinese influence over a vast region. This same fleet provided vital security to shipping and commerce that passed through the Straits of Malacca linking Southeast Asia with the Indian Ocean. Later, the Qing dynasty (1644–1911) combined military force with the establishment of tributary relationships to solidify its position in once hard-to-control regions such as Outer Mongolia, Tibet, Korea, and current day Xinjiang Province. Although the Qing created strong cavalry forces to protect these same regions, a reliance on diplomatic initiatives to disrupt the nomadic peoples from forming a single state predominated, a strategic policy practiced as early as the Han dynasty. From an economic policy perspective, one can imagine that the contemporary Chinese government likely views its economic relationships with foreign firms from a tributary perspective. In order for foreign firms to gain the privilege of selling in the Chinese market, theymust pay a ‘‘tribute’’ in the form of technology transfer.

Chinese economic growth leads to war over TaiwanLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38) BHB

Chinese economic growth will complicate the strategic balance in East Asia. The ongoing war of words with

Taiwan represents an enduring dilemma for U.S. policymakers, especially as Chinese missile strength expands each year on its side of the Taiwan strait. From the prism of U.S. containment, Chinese military planners tend to view U.S.-based Pacific forces as a threat.13 Conversely, Pentagon war-fighting scenarios acknowledge mounting Chinese force-projection capabilities beyond the Taiwan strait into the western Pacific. Some military planners feel that U.S. carrier battle groups face a rising danger of saturated Chinese missile and air attacks from newly developed air-to-ship missiles.14


1AC – Heg (5/)

Taiwan war causes extinctionStrait Times 2k (The Straits Times (Singapore), “No one gains in war over Taiwan”, June 25, 2000, L/N)

The doomsday scenario THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -- horror of horrors -- raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -- truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.


***ECONOMY***


Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (1/)

Economy is on BrinkFritze 10 (John, 6/30/10 http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/06/national-debt-soars-to-highest-level-since-wwii/1?POE=click-refer, USA Today, accessed 7/27/10) GEC

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans, who have been talking a lot about the debt in recent months, pounced on the report. "The driver of this debt is spending," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. "Our existing debt will be worsened by the president's new health care entitlement programs…as well as an explosion in existing health care and retirement entitlement spending as the Baby Boomers retire." At the end of 2008, the debt equaled about 40 % of the nation's annual economic output, according to the CBO. The report comes as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform meets today. The group, created by President Obama, is expected to issue recommendations in December to curb the debt – a point Democrats raised today. The CBO report "reinforces the importance of the work being done right now by the president's fiscal commission," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee. "We simply cannot allow the federal debt to explode as envisioned under CBO's projections. The economic security of the country and the quality of life for our children and grandchildren are at stake ."

Risks to global economy have 'risen significantly'The Telegraph 10(6/9/2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7812903/Risks-to-global-economy-have-risen-significantly-top-IMF-official-warns.html, accessed 7/27/10) GEC

The risks to a robust global recovery have 'risen significantly' as many governments struggle with debt, a leading official from the International Monetary Fund has warned. The G20 summit in April. 2009, was the high watermark for international co-operation in tackling the financial and economic crisis.“After nearly two years of global economic and financial upheaval, shockwaves are still being felt, as we have seen with recent developments in Europe and the resulting financial market volatility,” Naoyuki Shinohara, the IMF's deputy managing director, said in Singapore on Wednesday. “The global outlook remains unusually uncertain and downside risks have risen significantly.” Countries across Europe are under pressure to tackle their deficits that were deepened by the financial crisis and governments own response to it. Some economists fear that moves by countries ranging from Britain to Spain to rein in public spending at the same time will set back a global recovery. Stock markets have declined in the past couple of months as Europe's debt crisis and the prospect of higher interest rates in the faster-growing Asian economies cast a shadow over the recovery. “Adverse developments in Europe could disrupt global trade, with implications for Asia given the still important role of external demand,” Mr Shinohara said. “In the event of spillovers from Europe, there is ample room in most Asian economies to pause the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus.” Mr Shinohara, the former top currency official in Japan, added that "a key concern is that the room for continued policy support has become much more limited and has, in some cases, been exhausted.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/


Economy Adv – U – On the Brink (2/)

The U.S. economy is grinding to a halt – Fed Beige BookBeatty 10 (Andrew, U.S. economics correspondent, AFP, 7/28, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hHNXCe_0-U64q1EmOMy0N7Z69xLA) JASThe "modest" US economic recovery is slowing in some parts of the country, the Federal Reserve warned in its latest Beige Book report published Wednesday. "Economic activity has continued to increase, on balance, since the previous survey" in early June, the Fed said, while noting significant headwinds. "Among those districts reporting improvements in economic activity, a number of them noted that the increases were modest, and two districts, Atlanta and Chicago, said that the pace of economic activity had slowed recently." The Fed's survey is likely to fuel concerns -- already fanned by high unemployment and weak business confidence -- that the world's biggest economy is slipping toward the second part of a double-dip recession. "The picture is more pessimistic than in the last survey, when all 12 Fed

districts reported growth," said Nigel Gault chief US economist with IHS Global Insight. "The report underlines that the economy has lost momentum at the mid-point of the year, but doesn't yet suggest a tip back into recession." The Fed also reported bad news from sectors that have been key pillars of the US economy, including the all-important jobs market. Noting the "labor market conditions improved gradually in several districts," the Fed said five regions saw an increase in demand for temporary labor. In five other regions "labor markets improved, albeit modestly in some cases." The report "falls in line with other economic data on the labor market, manufacturing and housing, which indicates some softening in recent months," said economists at Moody's Economist.com. There was also little sign of respite in the struggling housing market as

government stimulus measures evaporated. "Activity in residential real estate markets was sluggish in most districts after the expiration of the April 30 deadline for the homebuyer tax credit," the Beige Book said "Some sectors like the real estate activity are still subject to serious concerns," said Thomas Julien, an economist with the investment firm

Natixis. And Americans do not appear to be flooding back to the shops or buying online. "Reports on retail sales during the early summer months were generally positive, although in most districts the increases were modest," the Fed report said.


Economy Adv – U – Double Dip (1/)

U.S. economy down, with risk of a double-dip recessionAquila 10 (Frank, Businessweek.com columnist, Bloomberg Businessweek, 7/28, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38448157/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/0) JAS

Whether or not the second leg of a so-called double-dip recession is imminent, it is clear that the U.S. economy will struggle for some time to come. A recession is a period of negative growth, or contraction, of the economy. Although there is no official definition for a double-dip recession, the term is used to describe two recessions with a short recovery in between. Double-dip recessions are rare, and the U.S. has not experienced one since 1981. Given the weak economy and lack of meaningful job creation -- the private sector added only 83,000 jobs in June, below economists' estimates -- it is not surprising that many wonder whether we have ever actually come out of the recession in the first place. True, we have had modest economic growth so far this year, but much of that has been fueled by historically low interest rates , the massive U.S. stimulus program, and the hiring of temporary Census workers. Despite a long and deep recession, the worst since the Great Depression, the recovery has been rather tepid. The sputtering economy and talk of a possible second recession have certainly rattled an already fragile American consumer. Consumer confidence is now at its lowest level in a year, and consumer spending tumbled in May and June. Since consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic growth, a nervous consumer is not a good omen for a robust recovery. Job creation is a key factor in increasing consumer confidence. While economists estimate that we need economic growth of 4 percent or more to stimulate significant job creation, the economy has grown at only about 2 percent to 3 percent, with a slowdown expected in the second half. Whether or not another recession is likely, a difficult economic environment will essentially be our "new normal" for some time. [The phrase "new normal" was coined by Pimco in May 2009 to describe a world characterized by high unemployment rates, more regulation, and a shrinking role for the U.S. in the global economy.) Despite a rather steep drop in home prices since the bursting of the housing bubble in 2007, and a temporary uptick in home sales induced

by the first-time home buyer's tax credit, the residential real estate market now appears to be headed for a further downturn. Home sales plunged to a record low in May, the month following the expiration of the home buyers' tax credit, despite record low mortgage rates. The foreclosure rate has continued to rise, and the mortgage delinquency rate has risen from 9.5 percent to 10.1 percent. It is estimated that up to 7.8 million homes have either been foreclosed or have delinquent mortgages, in addition to the 3.9 million homes already on the market. Given these levels, home prices are unlikely to increase for some time in most parts of the country. Anemic home values could be a marker for a broader economic malady: deflation. Not since the Great Depression has the U.S. experienced deflation, a sustained dropping of prices and asset values. Since the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to near zero and the government has boosted spending significantly to address the current weakness, one would expect a resultant resurgence in inflation. Instead, inflation has remained extremely low, with the headline consumer price index up 1.1 percent from a year earlier [a 0.9 percent rise if you exclude food and energy prices]. Economists and central bankers are now worried about deflation. The notes from the June meeting of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee indicate that policymakers are clearly concerned about deflation. Boston Federal Reserve Bank President Eric Rosengren, an FOMC member, has acknowledged that deflation is "more of a risk than I would like to see at this point." Former Federal Reserve Board member Larry Lindsey went even further, proclaiming that the U.S. has entered a "deflationary trap." While falling prices might seem to be a good thing for consumers, the reality is much more complex and in fact rather painful. Deflation makes money more valuable and everything else less valuable. Why buy a car or a new home or

a flat-panel television today if they are going to be cheaper next month and possibly even cheaper next year. If consumers are not buying and the value of inventory is dropping, where is the incentive for business investment? There is none, which is why deflation leads to economic contraction rather than expansion. While U.S. public companies have accumulated nearly $2 trillion in cash reserves, state and local governments have not been as lucky in the wake of the economic downturn. Tax revenues have been down while spending continues to grow. Almost all U.S. states are struggling to close massive budget deficits. Most local governments are in similar dire straits. Unlike the federal government, state and local governments have few options when faced with significant budget shortfalls. Whether they cut services, raise taxes, or both, the effect on the broader economy will surely be negative. New and smaller businesses, the primary engine of job creation in the U.S., are not likely to lead the way this time around. Small business owners, already struggling after the past two years, are finding it difficult to access the credit needed to grow and expand. Even if entrepreneurs can obtain credit, most are not in the mood to expand at the moment. Uncertainty dampens business confidence, and business is facing plenty of uncertainty at the moment. With health-care reform, financial regulatory reform, and the scheduled expiration of the tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush all about to take effect, business owners are more inclined to take a "wait and see" attitude when it comes to expansion. With governments struggling under the weight of ballooning budget deficits and businesses waiting for the return of sustained growth, it is the American consumer who will have to lift the global economy out of the mire. Given the recent news and current consumer sentiment, that appears to be an unlikely prospect in the near term.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38448157/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38448157/ns/business-bloomberg_businessweek/



Every sector of the economy is in terrible shape – we’re headed toward a double-dip recessionAdler 10 (Lynn, journalist, Reuters, 7/28, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2726037520100727) JAS

Job worries drove July U.S. consumer confidence to its lowest since February, with one in six people expecting

lower income in the next six months, underscoring the precarious state of economic recovery. Home prices rose in

May but display no signs of a sustained rebound as long as unemployment flirts with 10 percent and a record stockpile of foreclosed houses looms over the market, a separate report showed on Tuesday. Single-family house prices remain 29.1 percent below peaks four years ago, according to a Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller index. The deepest housing crash since the Great Depression dragged the U.S. economy into recession, and is doing little to stimulate broader growth as many economists fret about a possible double-dip recession. The

Conference Board, a New York-based business and economics research group, reported that consumer attitudes worsened this month as did expectations about jobs being hard to get. For more see [ID:nN27219358] [ID:nNLLRIE6A9]. "Concerns about business conditions and the labor market are casting a dark cloud over consumers that is not likely to lift until the job market improves," said Lynn Franco, Director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center. The group's index of consumer attitudes fell to 50.4 in July from an upwardly revised 54.3 in June, below the median forecast of 51 in a Reuters poll. The "jobs hard to get" reading, meanwhile, rose to 45.8 percent from 43.5 percent. The tepid consumer data tempered stock market gains. U.S. Treasuries fell in the face of new supply. "There have been quite a few headwinds -- the fiscal stimulus is fading, the European situation certainly did have an impact on consumer confidence and inventories are being brought more into line," said David Sloan, economist at 4Cast Ltd in New York. "But clearly the big problem for consumers is jobs." U.S. unemployment stood at 9.5 percent in June, the lowest in nearly a year, but reflected people leaving the workforce rather than a trend toward greater hiring. New jobless benefits claims, to be reported by the Labor Department on Thursday, are seen are seen dipping to 459,000 in the week ended July 24 from a surprisingly high 464,000 the prior week "Without consumers on board, the economic recovery is looking dangerously vulnerable," Paul Dales, U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, wrote in a report. "Falling consumer confidence and the growing likelihood of a double-dip in house prices have put a further dent in the already deteriorating outlook for consumption growth." Consumer sentiment fell to a nearly one-year low in July on renewed fears about economic stability, according to the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers earlier this month. The final data will be reported on Friday.[nN16126985] U.S. single-family home prices rose more than expected in May, but still reflected robust spring sales spurred by now-expired homebuyer tax credits, the S&P/Case-Shiller home price indexes showed. [ID:nNLLRIE6A8] May is a strong seasonal period for home sales, and buyers who rushed to sign contracts by the April 30 deadline for up to $8,000 in tax credits have until Sept. 30 to close loans. Seven of the 20 largest metro areas still reported lower prices than a year ago and most economists predict further single-digit declines before any sustained upturn. A record inventory of foreclosed properties further threatens prices. "For me, a double-dip is another recession before we've healed from this recession ... The probability of that kind of double-dip is more than 50 percent," Robert Shiller, professor of economics at Yale University and co-developer of the price index told Reuters Insider. [ID:nN27264398] The 20-city composite price index in May rose 0.5 percent, seasonally adjusted, after an upwardly revised 0.6 percent April gain, topping the 0.2 percent rise seen in a Reuters poll. The index was 4.6 percent above last May, S&P said. Prices jumped 1.3 percent on an unadjusted basis after a 0.9 percent April gain and falls in the six prior months. "While May's report on its own looks somewhat positive, a broader look at home price levels over the past year still does not indicate that the housing market is in any form of sustained recovery," David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at Standard & Poor's, said in a statement. Sales of new homes in June, reported on Monday, surged 23.6 percent but remained at the second-lowest level since the Commerce Department started keeping records in 1963. [ID:nN26129525] The government is expected to report on Friday that gross domestic product growth slowed to a 2.5 percent annual rate in the second quarter from a 2.7 percent pace in the first.



Double-dip recession coming now – 8 reasonsMontgomery 10 (Daryl, New York investing meetup organizer, ETFGuide, 7/28, http://www.etfguide.com/research/396/23/8-More-Reasons-for-a-Double-Dip-Recession/) JAS

As earnings season continues and one company after another beats expectations, the economic numbers are continuing to come in below estimates. The data and indicators are increasingly painting a picture of an economy that is falling apart. Here are a few of the reasons why another recession is imminent: 1. U.S. orders for durable goods fell 1.0% in June. Economists expected them to rise 1.0%. Excluding the volatile transportation sector, orders fell 0.6% and shipments were down 1.3%. Inventories rose for the sixth month in a row, indicating goods are being produced, but they're not moving out the door. 2. Industrial output in China fell 2.8% in June. A "potential weakening of the global economy" was cited as the cause. 3. The ECRI (Economic Cycle Research Institute) weekly leading indicators have fallen as low as minus 10.5. There has never been a case when they have gotten this low and there hasn't been a recession. 4. The Consumer Metrics Institute's Growth Index has been negative since January and is now around minus 3.0 (it fell to around minus 6.0 in August 2008). It leads U.S. GDP by approximately two quarters. 5. The U.S. trade deficit widened in May and was the largest in 18 months. This happened even though oil imports fell over 9%. Rising oil imports are usually the factor that makes the trade deficit go up. The trade deficit subtracts from GDP. 6. After a sharp drop in June, U.S. consumer confidence fell even more in July. The Conference Board's latest reading was 50.4. As usual, economist's estimates were on the high side. A reading of 90 or above indicates a robust economy. Before the most recent recession, consumer spending was 72% of GDP. 7. U.S. weekly unemployment claims refuse to drop below 400,000, the approximate dividing line between recession and non-recession. At no point during the current 'recovery' have they gotten that low. The unadjusted number of claims for the week of July 17th was 498,000. Even though companies are reporting huge earnings increases and raising estimates for next quarter, more and more workers continue to lose their jobs. 8. The economic cheerleader-in-chief, Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, gave a gloomy report on the U.S. economy last week in his bi-annual testimony before congress. Bernanke didn't see the subprime crisis coming, nor did he realize the U.S. was in a recession in the spring of 2008, months after the recession had begun. So if even he admits the economy is weak, it must really be in bad shape. Bank of England Governor Mervyn King, has also recently stated, "Britain can't be confident that a sustained recovery is under way".



The economy’s at a crucial crossroads, at which consumers must ensure the recovery continues – low consumer confidence (that’s Montgomery 10) ensures a double-dip recessionIrwin 10 (Neil, Washington Post financial staff writer, 7/29, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/28/AR2010072806049.html?hpid=topnews) JAS

The recovery faces a crucial test over the next couple of months: Either it will pick up vital momentum from increased consumer spending and investment or stall out, dipping into a period of anemic growth -- or perhaps

even another recession.Forecasters knew this inflection point would arrive, a moment when consumers and businesses must take over for government stimulus spending and the rebuilding of inventories.On Friday, the government will offer crucial evidence when it reports on second-quarter economic growth. This will be the first in a series of indicators in the coming weeks that could help answer whether the economy has achieved cruising speed, in particular whether the private sector is growing fast enough to put unemployed Americans back to work. Forecasters are expecting that gross domestic product rose at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent rate in the April-through-June quarter, which would be too slow to drive down the jobless rate.Just Wednesday, the government announced a surprising 1 percent drop in June orders for durable goods and a compilation of

anecdotal reports from around the country by the Federal Reserve showed a recovery that is increasingly uneven. This fit into the pattern of recent economic indicators showing that the transition to a self-sustaining recovery has been rocky.Fits and starts are common during early stages of economic expansion. Before long, it should be clear whether the summer of 2010 has indeed been a mere soft patch as recovery took hold."We're right on the cusp between simply decelerating and actually falling into a double dip," said Robert A.

Johnson, executive director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. "We have households still trying to be cautious and

improve their savings, and if they cut back further, it will create a feedback loop that drives us back

down."It was barely a year ago that the economy made the transition from steep contraction toward expansion. Simultaneously, a gush of federal stimulus money started spreading through the economy. Government backstops for the financial system helped instill confidence that the system wouldn't collapse. An aggressive series of interest rate cuts and other actions by the Federal Reserve took effect. All those factors helped ease the fear of economic collapse that earlier weighed on businesses considering investment decisions and consumers thinking of purchases.Now, though the impact of the fiscal stimulus continues to be felt, it is tapering off, no longer adding to growth.At the same time, a one-time boost to growth from business inventories is also ending. During the depths of the recession, companies reduced their production even more than consumers pulled back, depleting their inventories. The need to replenish those inventories contributed to growth in late 2009 and early 2010.Economists and policymakers have been counting on the inventory bounce and stimulus priming the pump, helping create a self-sustaining momentum. Those temporary factors, goes the logic, should make consumers more confident about making major purchases, which in turn increases demand for products, leading businesses to ramp up production and hire more employees. That should result in higher incomes and even more consumer confidence, fueling a virtuous cycle.

But that cycle could sputter if Americans, groaning under the weight of household debt run up during the

past decade, decide they would rather pay it down instead of increasing their spending.Americans remain deeply uncertain about the economic future. A Conference Board survey showed they are

actually less confident about the economy now than they were last August, when the expansion had just begun.True double-dip recessions -- a second extended contraction in economic activity -- are rare, historically. But economic activity wouldn't need to contract for joblessness to remain high.The economy's natural growth rate, due to population growth and technological improvements, is 2.5 to 3 percent a year. So any extended period of growth much below that, say 1 to 2 percent, would drive unemployment up.


Economy Adv – Growth – Link

Raising the H-1B cap increases employment - spurs growthKumar, 09 (Arun, Editor of The Indian Times, “US think tank wants H1B cap raised to 195,000”, http://www.theindianstar.com/index.php?udn=2010-06-04&uan=11197, 7/27/10, atl)

Debunking the myth that H-1B visas steal American jobs, a US think tank has asked the Congress to instead raise the cap on them to promote economic growth and generate much needed tax revenue . Congress must raise the cap on H-1B visas coveted by Indian techies back to 195,000 visas per yea r - the maximum allowed as recently as 2001 - from the

current 65,000, The Heritage Foundation analysts Jena Baker McNeill and Diem Nguyen said Tuesday. "Raising the cap for H-1B visas will not steal American jobs but will help promote economic growth and generate much needed tax revenue," they said, calling the notion a "popular myth " . "There is a popular myth that H-1B workers displace Americans because foreigners will work for less than Americans even if they have greater qualifications." This notion is so widespread that Congress recently passed an amendment barring companies receiving bailout money from hiring H-1B employees "but this notion is entirely false", McNeill and Diem said. The researchers cited a survey by the National Foundation for American Policy to show that 65 percent of high-tech companies employed people outside the US due to their inability to obtain H-

1B visas . In reality, H-1B visas spur economic growth, they said. As shown by the survey on average, for every H-1B employee hired, an additional five American employees were also hired. If Congress were to increase the H-1B cap to 195,000 visas, the US government would receive an additional $2 billion of tax revenue each year, the two researchers said. Noting that as the US economy fluctuates through its business cycles, the demand for H-1B visas will rise and fall, McNeill and Diem suggested making the cap flexible. Congress should establish a quota that, if met, automatically increases for the next year. In addition, unused visas should be recaptured for the next fiscal year. "Allowing the appropriate levels of high skilled workers into the United States helps the American worker, the economy, and America's federal budget," they said. "There is no good reason not to act." Congress has failed to raise H-1B caps for several years despite the wide range of support to do so, they said. "Raising H-1B caps will provide businesses the professionals and skills they need to develop their business when ready."


Economy Adv – Growth – Key to International Business

H-1B provides the foundation for companies to go global.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

With unemployment at a peacetime, postwar low of 4.1 percent, the resulting tight labor market has made the H-1B status even more important to U.S. companies of all stripes and sizes. In recent years, H-1B usage by financial and professional service firms has risen sharply, reflecting the increased globalization of those industries. Multinational companies often must draw on the skills and talents of professionals from their operations abroad. In information technology, management consulting, law, accounting, engineering, and telecommunications, companies are increasingly using international teams to work on transnational projects to meet the needs of their global clients.9 Across the board, in virtually all the professions, skilled and talented foreign nationals bring fresh perspectives and special expertise to American companies. For example, in the important field of advertising, British nationals have led the way in introducing the important new discipline of account planning. In the 15 years since British account planners “exported” that new way of looking at advertising from the consumers’ point of view, virtually all major U.S. advertising agencies have established account planning departments, which follow the precepts taught by the British account planners who first came here with the H-1B status. When French or German H-1B corporate lawyers use their knowledge of European civil law or EU law to analyze complex legal issues, they not only benefit their U.S. law firm employers but also enrich our economy in ways beyond simply filling a job for which competent professionals are in short supply. Similar examples abound in countless other fields, in which H-1Bs bring to their U.S. employers new ways of thinking about technology, processes, and problem solving.


Economy Adv – Small Business – Key to Economy

Small business are going to lead American into economic recovery.PACE, 10(Julie, AP Press, July 28, “Obama pushes business bill as an all-American goal,” http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9H8BO280, CW, 7/28/10)

"Surely, Democrats and Republicans ought to be able to agree on this bill," Obama said despite the consistent lack of any such consensus on Capitol Hill. Obama said he told Republican leaders at the White House a day earlier that key elements of the bill are ones that the GOP has supported for years. "Helping small businesses, cutting taxes, making credit available," Obama said from a presidential lectern that had been brought into the restaurant. "This is as American as apple pie. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are central to our identity as a nation. They are going to lead this recovery." The bill in question is designed to help small businesses get the capital they need to buy equipment, hire workers and expand their operations. Obama took the opportunity to recite the stories of local business owners and tout his efforts to help them before acknowledging that more government help is needed.

Small businesses are key to the economy and barriers keeping out entrepreneurs must be removed. UPI.com, 10(July 28, “Obama, small-business owners meet,” http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/28/Obama-small-business-owners-meet/UPI-62661280316553/, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

WASHINGTON, July 28 (UPI) -- President Obama met with small-business owners in New Jersey Wednesday and then called for tax cuts and loans legislation he called "as American as apple pie." After meeting with the business owners at the Tastee Sub Shop in Edison, Obama said the U.S. economic recovery depends on small businesses, and that means the federal government needs to help them. "Government can't guarantee success, but it can knock down barriers that keep entrepreneurs from opening or expanding," Obama said. "For example, the lack of affordable credit -- that's something the government can do something about.

In order for the economy to recover we need stronger small businesses.PR Newswire, 10(July 22, “LeMieux, Landrieu, Senate Democrats Fight to Include Credit Relief for Small Businesses,” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lemieux-landrieu-senate-democrats-fight-to-include-credit-relief-for-small-businesses-99064599.html, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)

"Small businesses are the heart and soul of so many of our communities, and our economy is strongest when they have the capital they need to keep their doors open and add jobs," said Senator Patty Murray. "This economic downturn has hit small businesses hard, and we owe it to Main Streets across America to make sure they have access to the capital they need to not only survive, but thrive.""In an increasingly competitive global economy, it is important to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses have access to information and tools to capitalize on potential opportunities in foreign markets," Klobuchar said. "Small businesses are the engine of job creation in this country and by increasing exports, they can lead the way to economic recovery."


Economy Adv – Wages – Link (1/)

Raising the cap is key to stabilizing wagesWilkinson, 10 (Will, research fellow at the CATO institute, “U.S. Should Import More Skilled Workers” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9547 7/27/10, atl)

If you're a highly-skilled worker, America needs you. But if you've got a foreign passport, we probably won't let you in. The U.S. issues only 65,000 H-1B visas for skilled workers each year and that's not very many. Senators McCain and Obama have both said they would support raising the cap. They acknowledge we need more skilled workers, and they're right. Yes, it would be good for innovation and growth and it would bring down the prices of goods created by skilled workers, but here's another reason you might not have thought of: Wage inequality . Increases in wage inequality over the past few decades is primarily a story of the supply and demand of skilled labor together with the effects

of technological innovation. Wage increases tend to track improvements in the productivity of labo r and gains in productivity tend to be driven by innovations that help workers do more in less time. But in recent decades,

technical innovation has increased the productivity of more highly-educated workers faster than it has for less-educated workers . These growing inequalities in productivity have helped create growing inequalities in

wages . But that's not the whole story. The American system of higher education produces skilled workers too slowly to keep up with the

demand. This scarcity in the supply bids up the wages of the well-educated even more, further widening the wage gap. If we raised visa quotas on skilled labor, that would help bring supply in line with demand and reduce the wage gap between more and less skilled workers. These days, almost everybody but their beneficiaries think agricultural subsidies are a lousy idea. They benefit a few already relatively wealthy American farmers and agribusiness firms to the detriment of poor farmers around the world. But H-1B visa restrictions are subsidies that benefit relatively rich domestic workers over their poorer foreign peers, and so it

turns out many of us liberal-minded college grads are enjoying our own protectionist boost. In this case, it seems the moral outrage is... well, we seem to be keeping it to ourselves.

Immigrants increase American workers wages.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

One of the most widely respected of those studies, a 1997 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of

Sciences, found that immigrants raise the incomes of U.S.-born workers by at least $10 billion per year.5

And some people believe that those estimates are understated because they do not account for the domestic economic impact of immigrant-owned businesses or of highly skilled foreign national workers on overall U.S. productivity.6 Over time, the benefits of immigration are even greater. James P. Smith,

chairman of the National Research Council’s Panel on Immigration and an economist at the RAND Corporation, testified

in 1997 before the Immigration Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee that if the $10 billion annual gain from immigrants were discounted by a real interest rate of 3 percent, the net present value of the gains from immigrants who have arrived in the United States since 1980 would be $333 billion.7


Economy Adv – Wages – Link (2/)

H-1B increases wages of Americans and provides better wage equality. Sherk and Nell, 08(James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Many American high-tech workers oppose raising the H-1B cap, fearing that increasing the supply of skilled workers could reduce their wages. When companies cannot hire as many highly skilled workers as they need, competition drives wages up, so raising the visa cap may indeed cause the wages of some Americans to fall or stagnate. Why , then, should Americans favor higher numbers of H-1B employees?

Because raising the visa cap would increase wages for many more Americans than would see their wages fall. Since each H-1B worker creates four new American jobs, the demand for such somewhat less-skilled but necessary workers would raise their wages. The number of workers in the economy whose skills complement the advanced skills of H-1B workers is far greater than the number of those who compete with them for jobs. Raising the H-1B cap would increase the demand for the labor of, and thus

raise wages for, hundreds of thousands of Americans who are less readily identifiable but no less real than the software engineers who compete with H-1B workers. Some policymakers are concerned about income inequality.

The major cause of growing inequality over the past generation has been the market response to the shortage of skilled workers.[8] Skill levels have not increased as quickly as new technologies have increased the demand for workers with advanced skills. Businesses competing for the limited supply of these skilled workers have driven their wages up sharply. Consequently, the wages of highly skilled workers have

risen much faster than wages overall, resulting in greater inequality. Policymakers should be aware that increasing the H-1B cap would increase the supply of highly skilled workers as well as the demand for less-skilled workers--thereby reducing the wage differential. The greater supply of highly skilled workers would mean that fewer business resources would go toward bidding up wages, slowing wage growth at the top. The

greater demand for workers with complementary skills would raise wages for employees whose skills are less advanced than those of H-1B workers.


Economy Adv – AT: Depress Wages

H-1B is paid the same amount of their native counter part.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Despite the absence of evidence that H-1B workers are paid less than the market wage, critics persist in arguing that H-1B workers are paid less than their U.S. counterparts, which exerts downward pressure on wages. Yet the facts are that wage growth is strong in the United States and that H-1B professionals’ pay is on a par with that of their domestic counterparts. We know that H-1B workers are paid well because the law mandates that they be paid at least the prevailing wage or the

actual wage paid to those who are similarly situated. And we also know from reviewing the enforcement evidence that an overwhelming majority of employers of H-1B workers are complying with the law.

Those few cases in which the law is violated are relatively easy detect and report to the relevant authorities. Given the desperate need employers have for skilled workers to meet their skills gaps, the high costs associated with H-1B hiring, and the extremely low incidence of violations detected by DOL, there is no basis for speculating that H-1B workers are being paid less than the going rate.

Not enough H-1B visa recipients to decrease national wages. Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Compound that with the fact that H-1B professionals are only a tiny fraction of the U.S. labor force, and claims of wage erosion become increasingly fanciful. The stock of H-1B professionals in the United States

(six years’ worth of annual flows) accounts for only about onethird of 1 percent of the domestic workforce. To illustrate the point, assume conservatively that 15 percent of the U.S. labor force, or 21 million people based on a civilian labor force of 140 million,41 turns over every year. If we assume also that there are 240 working days per year, that means 88,000 workers are leaving their jobs every day. The influx of an entire year’s worth of H-1B professionals would be equivalent to less than two days’ worth of labor turnover, or 1 new H-1B worker for every 184 native workers leaving their jobs. With this much labor market activity, the effect of the annual influx of H-1B professionals on the overall labor market is insignificant.


Economy Adv – Competitiveness – Link

H1B cap hurts US competitivenessAnderson & Platzer 6 (National Foundation for American Policy, Content First LLC, http://www.nvca.org/index.php?Itemid=93&gid=331&option=com_docman&task=doc_download) SEW

More than two-thirds of immigrant entrepreneurs agreed that U.S. immigration policy has made it more difficult than in the past to start a business in America. • One-third of the privately held venture-backed companies responding to the NVCA survey said the lack of H-1B visas had influenced their firm’s decision to place more personnel in facilities abroad. This may understate the phenomenon, since smaller companies with no overseas operations may not possess the option of placing personnel abroad. • Nearly two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) who use H-1B visas said,

“current U.S. Immigration laws affecting skilled professionals harm American competitiveness.” • Among companies who use H-1B visas, nearly 40 percent said the lack of H-1B visas – caused by Congress’ not raising the H-1B cap – has “negatively impacted [their] company when competing against other firms globally.” • The type of H-1B personnel hired by survey respondents is primarily technology related, with 76 percent hiring in engineering, 35 percent in IT development and programming, 17 percent for executive positions, and 13 percent in marketing and sales. Others cited scientific positions. This differs from the use of H-1B visas by all U.S. employers.

H-1B cap keeps excludes skilled foreign workers which destroys the US’s competiveness.Barrett, 06(Craig, Chairman of Intel, January 30, “America should open its doors wide to foreign talent,” https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.businessfordiplomaticaction.org/news/articles/america_should_open_its_doors_wide_to_foreign_talent_barrettft_jan06.doc, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

The current situation can only be described as a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. We need experienced and talented workers if our economy is to thrive. We have an immigration problem that remains intractable and, in an attempt to appear tough on illegal immigration, we over-control the employment-based legal immigration system. As a consequence, we keep many of the potentially most productive immigrants out of the country. If we had purposefully set out to design a system that would hobble our ability to be competitive, we could hardly do better than what we have today. Certainly in the post 9/11 world, security must always be a foremost concern. But that concern should not prevent us from having access to the highly skilled workers we need.


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (1/)

The H-1B cap is forcing businesses into labor shortagesCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 455-456) JJN

Because the number of applications exceeded the congressionally mandated cap of 65,000, the USCIS was forced to create a lottery, 6 leading to the rejection of thousands of timely submitted applications. As a result of the immediate fulfillment of the cap, many U.S. employers were unable to hire employees with sufficient training and experience to meet their needs. Furthermore, many aliens, residing in the United States and attending U.S. educational institutions in anticipation of being placed in U.S. jobs, have been and will be forced to leave the country when their F and J educational visas expire. Finally, companies that experience labor shortages later in the year will not be able to obtain sufficiently skilled workers until the next fiscal year, even if they are diligent enough to submit their applications on time.

The H-1B visa is key to U.S. labor marketsCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 459) JJN

The H-1B visa category is important to the U.S. labor market because of the long regulatory delays for green cards. Such delays “make it virtually impossible to hire an individual directly on a green card,” and without availability of the H-1B visa, “skilled foreign nationals, particularly graduates of U.S. universities, could not work or remain in the United States.” The H-1B category also permits dual intent, meaning that, contrary to various other nonimmigrant visa categories, H-1B workers coming to work in the United States are not required to avow their intent to leave the United States once their visa has expired. Rather, dual intent permits H-1B workers to pursue avenues for permanent residence.

H-1B visa fills US employment gap by providing skilled immigrant workers that would benefit the US economy.The Financial Express, 07(November 2, “H1B Visa: 'Allow world's best and brightest to US,” http://www.financialexpress.com/news/h1b-visa-allow-worlds-best-and-brightest-to-us/235181/, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Washington, November 2:: A leading Republican Presidential hopeful has thrown his weight behind the H1B visa programme stressing that bringing high skilled workers on a permanent basis to the US will be beneficial to the economy. Former Massachusetts Gover Mitt Romney has said that while he is for increasing the quota for H1B visa, a majority of whose aspirants are Indians, the exact figures would depend on a number of things including the strength of the US economy and the implications for the local workforce. "I like H1B visas. I like the idea of the best and brightest in the world coming here. I'd rather have them come here permanently rather than come and go, but I believe our visa programme is designed to help us solve gaps in our employment pool," he said in an

interview to TechCrunch,a weblog dedicated to profiling and reviewing new internet products and companies. "Where there are individuals who have skills that we do not have in abundance here, I'd like to bring them here and contribute to our economy," he added.

Companies that hire H-1B visas layoff less people and do not revert to “cheap” immigrant labor in rough economic times.National Foundation for American Policy, 2008(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Employers that reduced employment reduced it less if they had filed for H-1Bs visas, according to the

analysis. Examining companies in the sample that had layoffs, the regression results found a positive association between H-1B positions requested and employment. For every H-1B position requested on a labor condition application, total employment is estimated to be 2 workers more than it otherwise would have been. - If the proposition was true that companies hire H-1B professionals because they’re cheaper, then when businesses hit hard times they should hire more H-1Bs to save money. However, the analysis shows that, overall, H-1B filings at U.S. technologies declined when companies hit hard times,

undermining the perennial assertion that H-1Bs are hired as “cheap labor.”


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Link (2/)

H-1B visa increase is key to increasing employment and inaction harms American jobs.Sherk and Nell, 08(James and Guinevere, Heritage Foundation, April 30, “More H-1B Visas, More American Jobs, A Better Economy,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)Welcoming more foreigners with advanced skills into the U.S. would create more jobs for Americans. H-1B visa holders are often key employees whose skills are necessary for companies to grow.

Consider a software firm that needs an additional software engineer in order to expand its product line. If the company cannot hire a software engineer, not only will it be unable to use that person's highly specialized skills to expand its product line, but the shortage of skilled workers will prevent the company from hiring the computer programmers, sales associates, and technical support staff that also would have been needed in that division.

This is not just a theoretical problem. Research shows that technology companies hire five new workers for each H-1B visa for which they apply.[7] On average, the skills of each highly skilled H-1B worker support the jobs four Americans. Keeping the H-1B cap at 65,000 comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

Each visa creates 5 jobsBarrios 8 (Maria, journalist. New Orleans City Business, May 23 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20080523/ai_n25463113/) JM

One misconception is the idea that hiring a foreign employee takes a job away from an American, experts say. On March 12, Microsoft founder Bill Gates told the House of Representatives' Committee on Science and Technology that more jobs for Americans are created with the employment of highly skilled professionals from other nations. "If we increase the number of H-1B visas that are available to U.S. companies, employment of U.S. nationals would likely grow as well," Gates said. "A recent study of technology companies in the S&P 500 found that, for every H-1B visa requested, these leading U.S. technology companies increased their overall employment by five workers."


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – Key to Economy

Economy is slowly improving, but long term stability is depend on job creation.Newkirk, 10(Margaret, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 28, “Southern Company reports higher Q2 earnings,” http://www.ajc.com/business/southern-company-reports-higher-580131.html , CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Commercial power sales rose only slightly -- and dropped, if the weather's impact is removed. The company said retail businesses typically recover last. Both Bowers and David Ratcliffe, the company's president, chief executive and chairman, said the company is still eying the economy with caution. "The thing we're going to need to get a better handle on, even with the good news, is how much is being driven by domestic demand, as versus exports," Ratcliffe said. "The economy is still fragile. The key will be long-term job creation."

Slow job creation is preventing consumer recovery.ConsumerReports.org, 2010(March 9, “CR Index: Slow job creation stalls economic recovery,” http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2010/03/march-consumer-reports-index-cr-index-slow-job-creation-stalls-economic-recovery-employment-unchange.html, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

The findings in this month’s Consumer Reports Index show that although the tide of job losses has been stemmed, the level of job creation needed to fuel a consumer recovery has not developed. Consumer Reports Employment Index stands at 48.7 for March, unchanged from February. Over the past several months the proportion of Americans who reported losing their job in the past 30-days has been on a decline, and is now stabilized at 6.0 percent, versus 5.7 percent in February.

Consumer spending key to economy recoveryDykewicz, 10(Paul, Human Events, July 17, “Federal Policies Thwart Economic Recovery,” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38119, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Fessler pointed out that profligate government spending has been taking place well beyond the U.S. borders and is reflected by the debt crises in Greece and other free-spending countries. “Governments have been spending like drunken sailors with the false expectation that it will stimulate the economy,” Fessler said. Without increased consumer spending, economic recovery will “flat-line” for some time, he added.


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (1/)

H-1B visa positions are tailored positions not ones already in place.National Foundation for American Policy, 2008(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

The research found that even if increased hiring of both H-1Bs and other workers are both influenced primarily by business opportunities specific to the firm it would still mean new H-1B professionals are complementing other U.S. hires, rather than displacing them, as critics allege. - There are empirical reasons to believe these findings demonstrate new opportunities being created for U.S. workers by the availability of foreign high-skilled labor, rather than a substitution. After falling in 2002, technology company

employment increased at a faster rate in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Thus it is not surprising that statistical controls for the year of the data had a large effect upon our estimates of the percentage change in employment at individual companies. But these same statistical controls had little effect on the relationship we found between H-1Bs and total employment, which stayed steady at a ratio of approximately 5 new workers for every H-1B position requested (and 7 to 1 for employers with 5,000 or fewer employees). The average percentage change

in employment varies a great deal over the years examined (from -1.7% in 2002 to 9.3% in 2005), which suggests that changes in overall business conditions for technology companies has little effect on the relationship between H-1B applications and total hiring.

H-1B visa does not cause American layoffs instead it allows flexibility for productivity, and limiting H-1B causes offshoring.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

In an intensely competitive global environment, with constant pressure placed on employers to cut expenses and increase productivity, the H-1B visa category has become a convenient target for critics who try to draw a connection between immigration and domestic layoffs. Although it is true that large U.S. corporations have been laying off workers in record numbers,26 many employers are firing one type of worker and hiring other workers with different skills. H-1B professionals are not the cause of those layoffs and hiring practices but an important source of flexibility in the labor market. The need for H-1B professionals is another manifestation of the inexorable pressure on companies to adapt quickly to changing market conditions.

Constraining H-1B hiring won’t end corporate downsizing. It will simply force employers to shift more and more of their operations abroad, where they can get the resources they need, including all-important human capital, to maintain production.27

Easily enforce regulations prevent H-1B visa from displacing American workers.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

The most common argument against H-1Bs is that they allegedly displace U.S. workers and depress wages.

In response, Congress has spun an elaborate web of laws resulting in complex regulations supposedly to protect native workers from any such impact. But nothing in theory, wage and job trends, or law enforcement data indicates that the H-1B status has a negative impact on the U.S. labor market. The U.S. Department of Labor, one of the major critics of the H-1B status, has carefully tracked the program’s so-called abuses. We obtained and reviewed H-1B enforcement data from the Wage and Hour Division of DOL and were surprised by what we found.33 From 1991, at the inception of the H-1B caps and labor condition attestations, through September 30, 1999, DOL received a total of 448 complaints alleging underpayment of H-1B professionals, and other employer violations (an average of fewer than 60 complaints nationwide each year). Of

those 448 complaints, only 304 resulted in a DOL investigation. During that period, nearly 525,000 H-1B nonimmigrant petitions were granted .34 As can be seen clearly from Figure 1, the complaint rate for a program supposedly rife with abuse is minuscule.


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Job Loss (2/)

Laws are in place to prevent native job displacement, immigrant dependence, and loopholesMurthy Law Firm, 98 (Immigration Law, Dec 14, 1998, “Highlights : H1B Increase in Quota”, http://www.murthy.com/arc_news/a_h1inc.html, 7/28/10, atl)

The American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA) provides for 115,000 H1B numbers for fiscal year (FY) 1999 and similarly for FY 2000 and an additional 107,500 H1B visas in FY 2001. The H1B cap returns to 65,000 in FY 2002 which starts on October 1, 2001. INS believes that in November 1998, approximately 40,000 H1B petitions have already been approved

against the current fiscal year's cap. An employer must attest that it did not displace and will not displace any U.S. worker employed by it within the 90 day period before or after the filing of an H1B petition based on the LCA and that it will not place the H1B worker with another employer who has displaced or intends to displace an U.S. worker. The new attestation provisions do not go into effect until after the Department of Labor, and the INS, have issued final regulations. There are additional obligations on an H1B dependent

employer. Employers must calculate whether they are "H1B dependent" each time they file an LCA. The calculation is based on the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees of the employer, and the number of H1B non-immigrants employed by the employer at that time. A company will be considered to be dependent if it falls into one of these categories: Companies with 1-25 FTE employees and more than 7 H1B non immigrants. Companies with 26-50 FTE employees and more than 15 H1B non immigrants. Companies with more than 50 FTE employees where the number of H1B non immigrants is equal to 15% or more of the total number of employees. "Displace" means laying off a U.S. worker from a job that is "essentially the equivalent" of the job for which the H1B worker is being hired. To be considered "essentially equivalent," the job must have had essentially the same job responsibilities, and the U.S. worker holding it must have had substantially equivalent qualifications and experience to the H1B worker. Also, the job must be within the same area of employment. An H1B dependent employer who places an H1B worker at a third-party work site "where there are indicia of an employment relationship" (which includes employment contractors) must inquire of the owner of the work site whether it has displaced (as that term is defined above) a U.S. worker during the 90 days before the date the H1B is placed there and whether it

intends to displace a U.S. worker within 90 days after the date of placement. The law provides for strict liability on the part of the petitioning employer if the operator of the work site proceeds to displace a U.S. worker or has actually displaced a worker. In such a circumstance, the petitioning employer could still be fined for a violation, even though it has made the required inquiries. However, the INS cannot assess a debarment penalty unless the petitioning employer had actual knowledge of or had reason to know of the displacement. The petitioning employer also could be subject to debarment if it had been previously sanctioned for a violation of this provision by placing H1B workers at the same work site. If the H1B non immigrant would otherwise qualify for EB1 preference either as a multinational manager or executive, outstanding professor or researcher, or as a person of extraordinary ability, the employer is not required to make the recruitment attestation. Also, as stated above, individuals with at least a masters degrees or who earn $60,000 are exempt from all of the new attestations. The $500 filing fee was effective from December 1, 1998 and sunsets on October 1, 2001. The majority of the funds will be used by the Department of Labor for training programs for U.S. workers and the National Science Foundation for scholarships for low-income students in math, engineering and computer science. The fee must accompany H1B petitions for "new employment", and the first extension petition filed by an employer for a particular H1B employee. Under the law, the employer is required to pay this fee. The employer cannot require or accept reimbursement for the fee from the employee, because it risks a $1000 fine. Institutions of higher education and their related or affiliated nonprofit entities, other nonprofit research institutions and government research institutions are not required to pay the fee. This law also prohibits the practice of benching by requiring an employer who designates an H1B worker as "full-time" in the H1B petition to pay that worker full-time wages, regardless of any nonproductive time and for part time workers, the employer must pay the H1B employee for the number of hours designated on the H1B petition. The employer is required to begin paying the H1B non immigrant the required wage no later than 30 days after the worker enters the United States pursuant to an approved petition filed by that employer, or no later than 60 days after the date the employee becomes eligible to work for that employer, if the worker is already in the United States. The Department of Labor will investigate complaints regarding failure to meet this requirement, in the same manner it investigates other violations of the H1B requirements. The statute prohibits an employer from requiring an H1B worker to pay a "penalty" for resigning before a date agreed upon between the H1B worker and the employer. The determination of whether a particular type of payment constitutes a "penalty" is made in accordance with relevant state employment and contract law. The statute specifically provides that liquidated damages are not to be considered a "penalty." The Law Office of Sheela Murthy has previously summarized the major provisions of the law for the benefit of its subscribers and clients. Once the final regulations are promulgated by the Department of Labor, the attestations on employers will come into effect. However, the new fee, "no benching" rule and "no departure penalty" provisions are in effect now.

http://www.murthy.com/arc_news/a_h1inc.html


Economy Adv – Labor Shortages – AT: Temporary Job Loss

Benefits don’t outweigh, jobs lost foreverOlian 4 (Judy, Columnist for Seattle PI Business, http://www.seattlepi.com/business/205207_outsourcedebate27.html)

Data from Forrester Research, a leading IT consulting organization, lends support to Bhagwati's findings with estimates that 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad by 2003 and that the total would hit 3.3 million by 2015. That's just over 200,000 jobs lost each year to global outsourcing, a trivial problem in the context of the normal churn of the U.S. economy, where about 7 million jobs were gained and lost in each of the last four quarters. So who benefits from outsourcing? Certainly U.S. shareholders, investors and American consumers derive benefits, although sometimes at the expense of American wage earners. A report from the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that global outsourcing returns 45 to 55 percent in net savings to corporations, with added profits from the sale of American products (especially IT) to run the offshore operations. Outsourcing also results in cheaper imports. Catherine Mann of the Institute of International Economics concludes that the price of personal computers dropped in the early '90s because U.S. chip manufacturers moved offshore and reduced chip prices by about 10 to 30 percent. However, these data are incomplete and provide too narrow a view of outsourcing. There is other evidence in line with Samuelson's findings to suggest that jobs are lost, and lost forever, especially at the low end of the food chain. Lori Kletzer of the University of California-Santa Cruz examined manufacturing job losses between 1979 and 1999 in labor-intensive industries such as clothing, footwear, leather and textiles. About one-third of displaced workers failed to find reemployment within a three-year period, and among those who did, about half experienced a substantial wage cut of at least 15 percent. A recent BusinessWeek report adds that it's not just manufacturing workers who are at risk, but a substantial portion of the 57 million U.S. white-collar and professional employees who face real global competition as a portion of these jobs can be readily outsourced.


Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (1/)

H-1B cap causes companies to export jobs, while an increase in H1-B visas would create more jobs.National Foundation for American Policy, 2008(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Preventing companies from hiring foreign nationals by maintaining an artificially low limit on H-1B visas is likely to produce the unintended consequence of pushing more work to other countries. Sixty-five percent of technology companies responding to an NFAP survey said in response to the lack of H-1B visas they had "hired more people (or outsourced work) outside the United

States." This is significant in that even if those companies responding to the survey are heavier users of H-1B visas it means that these are the companies most likely to hire outside the United States in response to an insufficient supply of skilled visas for foreign nationals. “As a global company, Google is fortunate to be able to have employees work for us in other countries if they are not allowed to stay in the U.S.,” noted a Google executive in Congressional testimony. Fifty-two percent of companies responding to the survey believed that for every H-1B professional they hired it created one or more complementary jobs at their firms or in the U.S. economy.

Twenty-two percent thought the hiring of an H-1B visa holder created 10 or more jobs. Seventy-four percent of company respondents said an inability to fill positions because of the lack of H-1B visas has potentially affected their “company’s competitiveness against foreign competitors or in international markets.”

H-1B limits causes companies to offshore which damages the economy.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

When the demand for workers cannot be met domestically, which is the case today, U.S. companies must look elsewhere. Ideally, they would hire foreign workers and integrate them into their existing U.S. operations. But if U.S. companies are unable to gain access to the workers they need because of limits on H-1B hiring, then some are left with only one choice: hire the workers they need abroad with a corresponding offshore shift in domestic operations. Asked how Motorola Inc. would respond to the hiring crisis caused by inadequate numbers of H-1B visas, Motorola’s head of global immigration services recently stated: “If we have to do that [shift work overseas], we will, but that’s not a very practical business approach to the problem. . . . And it’s not very good for American workers.”28 This phenomenon, known as offshore outsourcing, can be harmful to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, especially in the more knowledge-intensive industries. The hiring of foreignborn highly skilled workers can have a positive ripple effect not only on the companies that hire the workers but on the economy as a whole. Highly skilled workers are able to create new products and, in some cases, whole new sectors of an industry, creating opportunities for other workers. T. J. Rodgers, president and CEO of Cypress Semiconductors, testified before Congress that for every foreign-born engineer he is allowed to hire, he can hire five other workers in marketing, manufacturing, and other related areas.29 At Sun Microsystems, both the Java computer language and the innovative SPARC microprocessor were created by engineers first hired through the H-1B program; their work then opened opportunities for thousands of other workers.30


Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Link (2/)

Caps Cause Outsourcing Sherk and Nell 8 (4/30/08, James and Guinevere, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #08-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More- H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, accessed 7/27/10) GEC Skill Shortage Causes Companies to Expand Overseas Without enough skilled workers at home, many American companies must either expand outside the U.S. or not expand at all. Microsoft, for example, recently opened an office in Vancouver, British Columbia, so that it could employ 150 foreign engineers that the United States would not admit. [5] The shortage of skilled workers here at home prevented those jobs from even being created in the U.S.-- along with the additional jobs that accompany those of the skilled workers. A recent survey of high-tech companies found that 65 percent had expanded their hiring outside the United States because of the shortage of H-1B workers. [6] Restricting H-1B visas reduces economic growth. Lifting the Cap Creates American Jobs Welcoming more foreigners with advanced skills into the U.S. would create more jobs for Americans. H-1B visa holders are often key employees whose skills are necessary for companies to grow. Consider a software firm that needs an additional software engineer in order to expand its product line. If the company cannot hire a software engineer, not only will it be unable to use that person's highly specialized skills to expand its product line, but the shortage of skilled workers will prevent the company from hiring the computer programmers, sales associates, and technical support staff that also would have been needed in that division. This is not just a theoretical problem. Research shows that technology companies hire five new workers for each H-1B visa for which they apply. [7] On average, the skills of each highly skilled H-1B worker support the jobs four Americans. Keeping the H-1B cap at 65,000 comes at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Higher Wages and

H-1B limits specifically causes the IT industry to offshore.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

In the critical IT sector, companies that can’t hire the professionals they need are going abroad in increasing numbers. In recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration investigating this problem, witness after witness spoke to this

growing phenomenon. Susan Williams DeFife, CEO of womenCONNECT.com, a leading Internet site for women in business,

asked: “What happens when companies like mine can’t hire the workers we need? We have to delay projects and in the Internet industry where change occurs daily and competitors are springing up all around you, waiting to execute on a project can be lethal.”31 DeFife told the subcommittee that denying companies the ability to hire H- 1B professionals would leave companies with three less-than-satisfactory options: limit the company’s growth, “steal” employees from competitors, or move operations offshore. In a similar vein, Sen. Spencer Abraham (RMich.), chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee and main sponsor of the 1998 bill raising the H-1B cap,

echoed the concern about forcing American industry to export jobs abroad: [F]oreign countries are stepping up their own recruitment efforts, including a pitch by the Canadian government for U.S. high-tech companies to move to Canada so as

to avoid the problem of hitting the H-1B cap year after year here in America. The CEO of Lucent Technologies stated this summer

at a Capitol Hill technology forum that it has placed hundreds of engineers and other technical people in the United

Kingdom in response to an insufficient supply of U.S.-based workers—keeping many related jobs from being created in America.32 Shall we close our eyes to globalization and take the myopic view that a job that cannot be filled with an American

is not a job worth saving? Such a policy would be harmful not only to the individual businesses affected but to America’s general economic well-being.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More-H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy#_ftn7




Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (1/)

Current H-1B policies undermine the financial sectorSidel 9 (Robin – WSJ journalist, April 15, “Wall Street Still Finds Ways to Hire Foreigners” http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/wall-street-still-finds-ways-hire-foreigners) JJN

Some big U.S. banks that have received billions of dollars from the government are shipping some of their newest recruits overseas in order to comply with a federal law that restricts their ability to hire foreign workers for U.S. jobs. Although some financial firms have rescinded job offers entirely to such prospective employees, JPMorgan Inc.GS-N and Morgan Stanley MS-N are quietly offering international jobs to foreign students whom they have recruited from U.S. colleges and graduate schools. The overall numbers affected by the restrictions are small, but the moves represent the banking industry's latest effort to deal with what they consider to be untenable consequences of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. "There are no U.S. immigration restrictions on people working outside the U.S., so anyone who wants to can have folks work in London versus New York," says Allen Erenbaum, a lawyer who specializes in immigration issues at Mayer Brown LLP Under the federal economic-stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama in February, companies that receive TARP funds face additional hurdles before they can hire skilled foreign workers who need temporary work permits known as H-1B visas. Firms that have received government money must prove they have tried to recruit American workers for those jobs and that the foreigners aren't replacing U.S. citizens. Bank executives have privately lambasted some of TARP's restrictions, particularly those that seek to limit compensation. Some firms already are exploring loopholes that would allow them to raise base salaries in order to offset potential restrictions in bonus packages. The restrictions on foreign workers have frustrated bank executives who compete to recruit students fresh out of college or graduate school. They say it is in the nation's interest for them to hire highly skilled foreigners who are educated in the U.S. rather than have non-U.S. companies benefit from their American training. Such recruitment efforts are a Wall Street tradition, with most firms establishing formal relationships with the U.S.'s top universities. Wall Street firms also use these programs to hire minority students from the U.S. and abroad. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman chief executive officer, described the visa restrictions as "protectionist and self-defeating" in a speech this month to the Council of Institutional Investors. "Especially at this time in our economy, do we really want to tell individuals who will help companies to grow and innovate - ultimately creating more jobs - that they should go work elsewhere?" Mr. Blankfein said. About 50 of JPMorgan's 225,000 employees, or 3 per cent of its graduating hires, are affected by the new restrictions, according to a person familiar with the matter. Most of them work in the firm's investment bank. Rather than rescind offers, JPMorgan is sending those new hires to London, Sao Paulo and Hong Kong, say people familiar with the bank's strategy. JPMorgan CEO James Dimon has said the firm, which received $25-billion (U.S.) under TARP, took the money after the government requested it to do so and would like to pay it back. Less than 1 per cent of Citigroup's roughly 300,000 U.S. employees hold H-1B visas, according to a person familiar with the situation. The firm, which has received $50-billion in TARP funds, is sending affected employees to assorted foreign locations based on factors such as the worker's specific skills and native language. The firm "is exploring potential opportunities in our non-U.S. global operations for those who may be affected by the law," a Citigroup spokesman said. A Goldman spokesman said the firm will ask recruits to work in other offices if they can't get a U.S. visa. "We will honour the offers we have made," he said. Other companies are leaving it up to the prospective employee to pursue overseas jobs. A spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp. says the firm rescinded a small number of job offers to prospective employees who need H-1B visas, but "like anyone, these individuals are welcome to pursue opportunities with the company based outside of the U.S." The visa restrictions are also proving to be nettlesome to hedge funds and other investors who may seek to participate in a government-backed program designed to stimulate credit markets. Those firms, too, may be subject to the limitations on H-1B visas under certain circumstances.


Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Link (2/)

H-1B workers provide key new perspectives and skills to the financial sectorMasters and Ruthizer 2k (Suzette Brooks-NIF board member and Ted –head of the Immigration Law Group , March 3, Trade Briefing Paper No. 3, p 3) JJN

With unemployment at a peacetime, postwar low of 4.1 percent, the resulting tight labor market has made the H-1B status even more important to U.S. companies of all stripes and sizes. In recent years, H-1B usage by financial and professional service firms has risen sharply, reflecting the increased globalization of those industries. Multinational companies often must draw on the skills and talents of professionals from their operations abroad. In information technology, management consulting, law, accounting, engineering, and telecommunications, companies are increasingly using international teams to work on transnational projects to meet the needs of their global clients. Across the board, in virtually all the professions, skilled and talented foreign nationals bring fresh perspectives and special expertise to American companies. For example, in the important field of advertising, British nationals have led the way in introducing the important new discipline of account planning. In the 15 years since British account planners “exported” that new way of looking at advertising from the consumers’ point of view, virtually all major U.S. advertising agencies have established account planning departments, which follow the precepts taught by the British account planners who first came here with the H-1B status. When French or German H-1B corporate lawyers use their knowledge of European civil law or EU law to analyze complex legal issues, they not only benefit their U.S. law firm employers but also enrich our economy in ways beyond simply filling a job for which competent professionals are in short supply. Similar examples abound in countless other fields, in which H-1Bs bring to their U.S. employers new ways of thinking about technology, processes, and problem solving.


Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (1/)

The financial sector is key to economic growthDe Rato 6 (Rodrigo – Managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Nov. 23, “The Growing Integration of the Financial Sector and the Broader Economy: Challenges for Policy Makers,” http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/112306.htm) JJN

The subject of my talk today is the growing integration of the financial and real sectors of the economy. While perhaps not as popular a subject for public discussion as globalization, integration between the financial sector and the broader macroeconomy is no less important. Financial and macroeconomic developments are closely intertwined at both the national and international levels, although the degree of integration varies across countries and regions according to the levels of financial and economic development. Understanding the complex relationship between the financial and real sectors of the economy is essential for the design and implementation of policies to promote macroeconomic stability and growth. It is also important for the financial sector to assess appropriately, and incorporate into its analyses and decision-making processes, the profound changes and transformations under way in the global economy, with their paradoxes, which are sometimes difficult to explain. Examples of such transformations are the rapid increase in productivity worldwide over the past few years; the shock in the real terms of trade implied by the increases seen in raw material prices, partly related to the integration and growth of emerging countries in the global economy; and the rapid institutionalization and innovation taking place on financial markets, with the proliferation of derivatives markets and their spectacular ability to transfer risks. However, the financial markets appear to be demonstrating the difficulty of assessing these developments and are sending seemingly mixed messages: trends in interest rates on bonds, compared with developments on the equity markets and changes in monetary policy; the low volatility of the markets in the context of such significant changes; and the structure of the capital flows in which the emerging countries receive investments, with record low risk premiums, together with income generated by their current account surpluses, which they then recycle to the developed markets through investment of their accumulated reserves. These are three thought-provoking examples, to which I shall return. But first, a few figures help to highlight the magnitude of these developments. Globally, financial development has taken place much more rapidly than the development of the real economy. Between 1990 and 2005, the estimated sum of equity market capitalization, outstanding total bond issues (sovereign plus corporate), and bank assets in the world economy rose from 81 percent of GDP to 137 percent of GDP. The growth of the derivatives markets has been much more rapid. The notional amount of derivatives outstanding in over-the-counter markets tripled over the past five years to $285 trillion, that is, more than six times global output and almost 50 times the size of the U.S. public debt market. Although these notional figures grossly overstate the underlying risk, they are indicative of the accelerated process of innovation currently occurring in the financial sector. Financial crises, such as the Asian crisis, have been wake-up calls on the need to understand better the two-way relationships between the financial sector and the wider economy. These crises brought home the idea that failure to develop and strengthen the financial sector can put an enormous brake on macroeconomic stability and economic growth. They demonstrated that in a world where capital markets are growing quickly, financial system weaknesses may trigger not only a run on deposits in the banking system but also a flight from the currency, sudden changes in private capital flows, and a situation in which financial, currency, and fiscal crises may reinforce each other. These crises spurred interest among researchers and policymakers alike in financial stability and its relationship to overall macroeconomic stability. However, while much progress has been made in recent years in understanding the links between the financial and the macroeconomic, there is still much work to be done in this regard. Today I would like to explore the subject further, and also encourage you to do more research on it.


Economy Adv – Financial Sector – Key to Economy (2/)

A functional financial sector is a prerequisite for economic recoveryYellen 8 (Janet L. – President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Oct. 14, “The Financial System and the Economy,” http://www.frbsf.org/news/speeches/2008/1014.html) JJN

So far, my comments should have made it clear that domestic spending has weakened substantially. Until recently, we have received a major boost from exporting goods and services to our trading partners. Unfortunately, the news on foreign demand has also turned weaker. Economic growth in the rest of the world, particularly in Europe and Japan, has slowed for a number of reasons, including spillovers from the U.S. slowdown, and most importantly, the financial meltdown that now has intensified substantially in Europe and elsewhere. In addition, the dollar has recently appreciated against the euro and British pound, offsetting a portion of the depreciation that was boosting U.S. exports. As a result, exports will not provide as much of an impetus to growth as they did earlier in the year. As I noted at the outset, inflation has been a source of significant concern over the past year or so. However, economic developments in this country and abroad can be expected to ease inflationary pressures. In the first place, prospects for weaker economic activity around the world have led to a drop in food, energy, and other commodity prices, and this has relieved a good deal of the pressure on inflation from the earlier run-up in their prices. Secondly, slow growth here seems likely to boost both unemployment and unused industrial capacity. This additional slack in labor and product markets will put downward pressure on inflation, moving it toward rates that I consider consistent with price stability. In fact, some prominent forecasters at this stage are concerned that inflation in future years could decline to levels below what is consistent with price stability. I have highlighted a number of ways in which stresses in the financial sector are impinging on economic activity through their effects on the spending decisions of consumers, businesses, and governments. A precondition, in my view, for the economy to recover is that the financial system must get back on its feet. Last week, plunging stock markets in the U.S. and around the world received front page attention. But stocks were not the only market that had a bad week. Indeed, the declines in stock prices were symptomatic of deeper, fundamental problems. Term funding in the money markets became virtually unavailable to financial institutions: spreads on interbank term loans spiked. Financial firms found it necessary to fund themselves disproportionately overnight. In addition, both financial and nonfinancial corporations had difficulty issuing commercial paper as purchases by money market mutual funds declined. Borrowing rates have also risen dramatically for lower-grade bond issuers. This freezing up of credit flows reflects a breakdown of the trust and confidence needed for potential lenders to extend credit beyond overnight to counterparties and widespread flight to the very safest assets, to the point where Treasury bill yields have fallen to close to zero at various times in recent weeks. With near or outright failure afflicting firms like Lehman, Washington Mutual, AIG, and Wachovia, investors have become exceptionally wary of a host of financial institutions, and aversion to counterparty risk is extremely high.

The financial sector and competent workers are key to the U.S. economyDawson 4 (Michael A.-Deputy assistant secretary for Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy, Jan 8, “Protecting the Financial Sector from Terrorism and other Threats,” http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1091.htm) JJN

The resiliency of the financial infrastructure is an issue that is very important to the Department of the Treasury. At the Treasury, we are responsible for developing and promoting policies that create jobs and improve the economy. We are also concerned with developing and promoting policies that enhance the resilience of the economy, policies that minimize the economic damage and speed economic recovery from a terrorist attack. Indeed, the President named Treasury as the lead agency to enhance the resilience of the critical financial infrastructure. These two responsibilities are closely related. As Secretary Snow has said, the financial system is the engine of our economy. In a very real sense, therefore, the resilience of the American economy depends on the resilience of the American financial system. Fortunately, we are starting from a very strong base. The American economy is resilient. Over the past few years, we have seen that resilience first hand, as the American economy withstood a significant fall in equity prices, an economic recession, the terrorist attacks of September 11, corporate governance scandals, and the power outage of August 14-15. There are many reasons for the resilience of the American economy. Good policies - like the President’s Jobs and Growth Initiative - played an important part. So has the resilience of the American people. One of the reasons are economy is so resilient is that our people are so tough, so determined to protect our way of life. Like the economy as a whole, the American financial system is resilient. For example, the financial system performed extraordinarily well during the power outage last August. With one exception, the bond and major equities and futures markets were open the next day at their regular trading hours. Major market participants were also well prepared, having invested in contingency plans, procedures, and equipment such as backup power generators. The U.S. financial sector withstood this historic power outage without any reported loss or corruption of any customer data. This resilience mitigates the economic risks of terrorist attacks and other disruptions, both to the financial system itself and to the American economy as a whole. Although we are starting from a strong base, the fact remains that terrorists continue to target the U.S. economy and U.S. financial institutions. Therefore, we must continue our vigilant efforts to protect our critical financial infrastructure. Four principles guide our efforts to enhance the resilience of our financial infrastructure. These principles guided our actions as the financial system recovered from the attacks of September 11th. They guided our actions during the power outage of August 14-15. They guide our day to day actions as we prepare for the next disruption. The first principle is to remember that the financial system is really about people. People, not buildings or computers, produce financial services. And it is people who benefit from financial services. We depend on people to run the financial system. We need these people - tellers, technicians, loan officers, technologists - to see the system through times of stress. Indeed, it was the commitment of these professionals to their institutions, customers, and colleagues that helped the financial system recover from the attacks of September 11th and weather the power outage of August 14-15.


Economy Adv – Outsourcing – Kills Economy

Outsourcing will collapse the economy Partridge 95 (Ernest, P.h.D in Environmental Ethics and Public Policy, The Gadfly Bytes, http://gadfly.igc.org/eds/econ/outsourcing.htm)

But outsourcing, and the consequent loss of millions of American manufacturing and service jobs, is not the plain and simple result of corporate greed. It is, instead, an inevitable result of a combination of factors, including:

the successful enactment of the right-wing dogmas of “the invisible hand” and “trickle down,” namely the conviction that individual entrepreneurs and corporations will, by seeking only their own economic gain, obtain the best results for society at large. These are "dogmas" because they are "proven," not by historical evidence or practical experience, but rather through repetition. The corollary libertarian dogma that government has no justification whatever in interfering with the economic activities of private individuals and corporations. In the words of Milton Friedman, “There is nothing wrong with the United States that a dose of smaller and less intrusive government would not cure.” fiduciary responsibility: the legal requirement that the primary responsibility of the corporation is to its stockholders, not the public. Thus the necessity of outsourcing is beyond the control of any single corporation’s executives or board of directors. It is a thus a tragedy, in the sense defined by the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead: a consequence of “the remorseless working of things.” (See Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons.”).

As long as these conditions obtain, jobs will gravitate toward the individuals accepting the lowest wages, i.e., those abroad, and the middle class will wither as wealth flows from those who create the nation’s wealth to those who own and control the wealth. These are conditions that are destined to ruin the economy of the United States.


Economy Adv – Market Investment – Link

Raising the cap on H1-B visas would increase capital investmentShapiro 9 (President & CEO of Consumer Electronics Association, The Huffington Post, 5-4-2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-shapiro/american-brain-drain-why_b_195627.html)

The H1B visa debate should not be guided by the number of applications received in any one year. Given to the changes in the economy, some years will see huge spikes and other years will see valleys. We instead need to be focused on long-range policy decisions to attract the best and the brightest to work and

create wealth in America over a period of their entire careers. President Obama has signaled he wants America to be a destination for businesses, capital investment and workers, and updating the H1B visa plan is an important step in fulfilling that vision. I am hopeful that his administration, and Congress, reverses course with the current H1B visa laws to allow more talented immigrants, and their families, into the United States to work for American companies rather than forcing them to locate their businesses elsewhere in the world.

Skilled immigrants create new businesses and encourage capital business investmentNwokocha 8 (Paschal O., Chair of Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, William Mitchell Law Review, p 63-64) JJN

Many indicators suggest that receiving countries, and in this case the United States, benefit currently from employment-based immigration and will continue to do so in the future.199 In 2006, immigrants made up 12.5 percent of the population, or 37.4 million people in the United States.200 In economic terms alone, the United States has measurably profited from employment-based immigration; a recent report produced by Goldman Sachs states that overall economic output slows as the American labor force grows more slowly, and that new migrants have added approximately 0.5 percent to American gross domestic product every year in the past decade. Skilled immigrants supplement an aging and shrinking American workforce; they are entrepreneurs who create jobs and wealth, consumers of goods and services, and skilled workers whose large numbers encourage capital business investment. Employment-based immigrants also pay taxes in the United States.203 A study by the National Research Council points out that migrants with more than a high school education generate a net fiscal benefit of $198,000 over their lifetime.204 Immigrant labor also helps keep the American economy stable because, during strong growth periods, immigrants lower “the risk of wage pressures and rising inflation.”205 If growth slows, migrants often choose to move home, to migrate to another country, or not to migrate initially.

Skilled immigrants are key to progressive U.S. business labor forcesNwokocha 8 (Paschal O., Chair of Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of American Immigration Lawyers Association, William Mitchell Law Review, p 64-65) JJN

Immigrants to the United States have assisted the drive for innovation and entrepreneurship and have helped keep the United States at the forefront of industry.212 Greater numbers of skilled workers provide greater intellectual wealth, an immeasurably valuable resource for companies, universities, and research institutions to incite future developments in their fields.213 As a recent article in The Economist points out: America has always thrived by attracting talent from the world. Some 70 or so of the 300 Americans who have won Nobel prizes since 1901 were immigrants. Great American companies such as Sun Microsystems, Intel and Google had immigrants among their founders. Immigrants continue to make an outsized contribution to the American economy. About a quarter of information technology (IT) firms in Silicon Valley were founded by Chinese and Indian immigrants. Some 40 % of American PhDs in science and engineering go to immigrants. A similar proportion of all the patents filed in America are filed by foreigners.214 Employment-based immigrants to the United States can also alleviate specific labor shortages.215 The U.S. Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than two million job openings in science, technology, and engineering, while the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those areas are plummeting.216 Supplementing this deficiency with skilled, educated, foreign-born employees will maintain American industry leadership in these fields.


Economy Adv – Market Investment – Key to Economy

Immigrants create wealth via entrepreneurship Anderson & Platzer 6 (National Foundation for American Policy, Content First LLC) SEW

Over the past 15 years, immigrants have started 25 percent of U.S. public companies that were venture-backed, a high percentage of the

most innovative companies in America. • The current market capitalization of publicly traded immigrant-founded venture-backed companies in the United States exceeds $500 billion, adding significant value to the American economy. This is an example of the enormous wealth-creating abilities of immigrant entrepreneurs. • Immigrant-founded venture-backed companies are concentrated in cutting edge sectors: high-technology manufacturing; information technology (IT); and life sciences. • As evidence of how important immigrant entrepreneurs are the study found 40 percent of U.S. Publicly traded venture-backed companies operating in high-technology manufacturing today were started by immigrants. Moreover, more than half of the employment

generated by U.S. public venture-backed high-tech manufacturers has come from immigrant-founded companies. • The largest

U.S. venture-backed public companies started by immigrants include Intel, Solectron,

Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo!, and Google. • The data show immigrants possess great entrepreneurial capacity, particularly in technical fields. The proportion of immigrant entrepreneurs among publicly traded venturebacked companies is particularly impressive when compared to the relatively small share of legal immigrants in the U.S. population. Today, legal immigrants encompass approximately 8.7 percent of the U.S. population and represented only 6.7 percent of the population in 1990.


Economy Adv – IT Sector – Shortages Now

The flux of the labor market requires more skilled workers in the IT sectorCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 466) JJN

In order to refute the IT industry’s “labor shortage” claims as unreliable, critics refer to various other studies conducted around the time the ITAA reports were released. However, the studies cited by critics point mainly to methodological problems in the data and analysis of the ITAA reports, rather than actually providing data counter-indicative of the ITAA conclusions. Critics also claim that the apparent labor shortage is actually a result of U.S. employers’ “pickiness.”In addition, proponents of the H-1B visa contend that the

debate regarding the labor shortage is irrelevant because “the number of jobs available in America is not a

static number . . . .” Rather, the labor market grows “based on several factors, including labor force growth, technology, education, entrepreneurship, and research and development.” Thus, prohibiting an increase in the entrance of highly skilled workers in the IT sector stifles the growth of that industry for both foreign and native workers.

A shortage of skilled workers is causing the labor shortage in the IT sector, not employer selectivityCromwell 9 (Courtney L.JD candidate at Brooklyn Law School, The Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law, 3(2) p. 466) JJN

Critics also claim that the apparent labor shortage is actually a result of U.S. employers’ “pickiness.” They assert that IT employers “have no shortage of incoming resumes,” that only approximately 2% of applicants actually are hired, and that most employers reject a majority “of the applicants they invite for in-house interviews.” While IT companies admittedly are selective, certain IT positions require particular skill sets. Without certain training or skills required by the position, an applicant will not be considered for it. Critics argue that, “good generic programming ability, not skills in particular programming languages, is what counts,” and that “workers are available, but not always at a price employers are willing to pay.” On the other hand, it seems unfair to place the burden and expense on employers to train under-qualified employees in the specific skill sets required for the position when there are workers available who are already trained. The issue is an ongoing circular debate.


Economy Adv – IT Sector – Link

Increasing H1-B applications causes an overall increase in IT sector job creationNational Foundation for American Policy, 2008(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Examining H-1B filings and year-by-year job totals for the technology companies in the S&P 500, theNational Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) used a regression model that controls for both generalmarket conditions and firm size and found that there is a positive and statistically significant association between the number of positions requested in H-1B labor condition applications and the percentagechange in total employment. The data show that for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technologycompanies increase their employment by 5 workers.

- For technology firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor conditionapplications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers. This is particularlyremarkable since the actual number of individuals hired on H-1B visas is likely to be much lower than thetotal number of applications filed with the Department of Labor.

H-1B workers are crucial to overcome job instability and to bolster the IT industryLuthra 9 (R. Reichl, Professor of Sociology, UCLA, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(2), pg. 227-228) JDL

High-skilled occupations are generally considered part of the core positions in the labour market,

affording high wages and stability (Tilly 1996). Yet many H-1B occupations, particularly within the IT industries, are becoming less stable. The demand for highly flexible and contract-driven software and service-related work is growing at a much faster rate than the more ‘fixed’ jobs of hardware and manufacturing sectors; hence the unstable jobs in the IT industries are becoming a larger proportion of total workers employed

(Labour Market Information Division 2000). The problem of ‘job churning’ in IT professions, where jobs are created and destroyed according to short-term projects, has been cited as the source of demand for temporary contractual work that is highly volatile (Aneesh 2001; Watts 2001).

Furthermore, increasing standardization of the IT sector makes H-1B workers uniquely keyLuthra 9 (R. Reichl, Professor of Sociology, UCLA, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(2), pg. 227-228) JDL

In addition to the increasing flexibility of the IT labour market, software and service-sector work has also grown more standardised in recent years. The ‘invisible deskilling’ of IT labour, including the mandatory standardisation of software programming and the introduction of quality control in the IT workplace, has resulted in the greater interchangeability and expendability of lower-level IT workers (Iredale 2001).

Scholars note that these changes create a growing need for workers to fill lower-status, less-desirable work, increasing the possibility of outsourcing (Aneesh 2001; Prasad 1998). Firms no longer need long-term employees with developed, firm- specific knowledge; increased standardisation drives training costs down and renders workers largely indistinguishable.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g907497655

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713433350


http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g907497655




Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (1/)

H1-B key to innovationImmigration Policy Center 9 (2/19/09, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/us-economy-still-needs-highly-skilled-foreign-workers , accessed 7/27/10) GEC

It might seem that the recent souring of the U.S. economy and rise in unemployment has rendered moot the debate over whether or not the United States really “needs” the highly skilled foreign workers who come here on H-1B temporary visas. But the demand for H-1B workers still far outstrips the current cap of only 65,000 new H-1B visas that can be issued each year. In fact, this quota has been filled within one day in each of the last five fiscal years. As studies from the Harvard Business School, National Foundation for American Policy, Peterson Institute of International Economics, and National Science Board make clear, the presence in a company of highly skilled foreign workers whose abilities and talents complement those of native-born workers actually creates new employment opportunities for American workers. Moreover, the arbitrary numerical limits currently placed on H-1Bs are not only incapable of responding to the changing demand for H-1B workers, but the international competitiveness of the U.S. economy will continue to depend heavily on the contributions of H-1B professionals and other of high-skilled workers from abroad for many decades to come. Foreign-born scientists and engineers fuel U.S. innovation and job creation. A December 2008 study released by the Harvard Business School

found that immigrants comprise nearly half of all scientists and engineers in the United States who have a doctorate, and accounted for 67 percent of the increase in the U.S. science and engineering workforce between 1995 and 2006. According to the study, the H-1B visa program for highly skilled foreign professionals “has played an important role in U.S. innovation patterns” over the past 15 years. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of inventions, as measured by patents, has increased when H-1B caps are higher due to “the direct contributions of immigrant inventors.” As New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman asked in

a column on February 10, 2009, “in an age when attracting the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world is the most important competitive advantage a knowledge economy can have, why would we add barriers against such brainpower—anywhere?” H-1B workers are associated with job creation. In a study released in March 2008, H-1B Visas and Job Creation, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) found that, among technology companies in the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500, there is “a positive and statistically significant association” between the number of H-1B positions requested by employers between 2001 and 2005, and the percentage change in total employment of those employers one year later. According to the NFAP, “for every H-1B position requested, U.S. technology companies increase their employment by 5 workers,” on average, the following year. For technology companies with fewer than 5,000 employees, “each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers.” This suggests that: The U.S. labor market’s demand for H-1B workers expands and contracts with the demand for highly skilled workers in general, and The presence in a company of highly skilled foreign workers—whose abilities and talents complement, rather than substitute for, those of native-born workers—creates new employment opportunities American workers. In a survey of 120 technology companies, the NFAP also found that 65 percent had reacted to the arbitrarily low limits on the hiring of foreign nationals through the H-1B program by moving more of their work out of the United States—to countries where the workers they need are available.

Lifting the H-1B cap is key to tech innovation in the US Cromwell 9 (Courtney L., J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School. 3 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 455. Ln) JM

The impact of the low visa cap has been felt by large and small companies alike. Companies argue that the current cap "considerably hampers . . . hiring practices." n205 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin came from the Soviet Union as

a young boy, n206 reported that in 2007 the low H-1B cap "prevented more than 70 candidates from receiving H-1B visas. n207 Further, Google's Executive Vice President of People Operations, Lazlo Bock, testified before the House Judiciary

Subcommittee on Immigration in June 2007 that failing to increase the visa cap could be disastrous for the U.S. economy because, "unfortunately, many . . . valued employees become frustrated with the inefficiencies in the immigration system, give up because of the up to five-year waits, and either move home or seek employment in more welcoming countries, countries that are direct economic competitors to the United States." n208 Even Bill Gates reported that "the visa pinch is hurting [Microsoft's] ability to complete new projects." n209

Smaller institutions are also affected by the cap. For example, Oklahoma State University reported in 2007 that 223 of its faculty and staff (more than 10% of the school's total) were in the United States on H-1B visas and that "if [they] are going to do the best research and development, [they] need to have the best and brightest minds." n210 Thus, if Congress refuses to increase or eliminate the cap, the frustration of U.S. IT companies will continue, leading to higher American job losses due to off-shoring, and the IT sector of the economy will continue to be stifled. Therefore, Congress should take action towards rectifying these issues.


Economy Adv – Innovation – Link (2/)

H-1B visa increases the rate of invention across the globe and doesn’t “crowd out” natives.Kerr and Lincoln, 08(William and William, “The Supply Side of Innovation: H-1B Visa Reforms and US Ethnic Invention,” http://www.people.hbs.edu/wkerr/HBSWP09-005_Appendix.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

The city-level analysis divides 281 US cities into five quintiles based upon their dependency on the H-1B program. Our empirical specifications then compare how patenting growth in the top three quintiles of the distribution responded to shifts in H-1B admissions relative to patenting growth in the bottom two quintiles. This framework allows for non-linear effects across dependency levels due to policy reforms. In addition to providing a richer account of treatment effects, this flexibility is important given that political economy forces may increase the cap on admissions set by the federal government. We argue below that admission levels are plausibly exogenous for the second and third quintiles of the dependency distribution, even if the results from the upper quintile of 57 cities may contain some bias. Our first understanding is that increases in H-1B admissions substantially increased rates of Indian and Chinese invention in dependent cities relative to their peers. In the base specifications, a 10% growth in the H-1B population increased Indian and Chinese invention by 6%-12% in the most dependent quintile of cities relative to the bottom two quintiles. Just as importantly, the relative rates of Indian and Chinese invention grew by 2%-7% in the second and

third quintiles. These differences are economically important and statistically different from responses in the reference category. Responses are also weaker for other non-English inventor groups, which is to be expected given the H-1B programs primary pull from India and China for SE workers. Turning to crowding-in versus crowding-out effects, positive elasticities typically exist for inventors with English names in these estimations as well. This suggests positive effects for natives, as English inventors account for 72% of all inventors in our sample. These elasticities, however, are much smaller

than those for other ethnicities and are often not statistically different from zero. In the baseline specification, a 10% growth in the H-1B population increases English invention by 0%-1% in the most dependent quintile relative to the least. This suggests that natives are not likely being crowded-out in large numbers by higher H-1B admissions. The elasticities also indicate that crowding-in effects are small to the extent that they exist. Com- bining elasticities with inventor group sizes, crowding-in contributions would be about half of immigrants direct contributions in the 1% scenario, whereas all technology growth would come from ethnic inventors themselves in the 0% scenario. Total invention is estimated to increase by 0%-2% in the short-run.

The status quo cap on H-1B visas is destroying US innovation and tech leadership – our link is reverse causal Cromwell 9 (Courtney L., J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School. 3 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 455. Ln) JM

Proponents of raising the cap argue that preventing foreign students who attend U.S. universities from accepting positions in the United States "will be detrimental to our economic success because the United States will [*474]

lose valuable intellectual capital." n176 Some allege that U.S. visa policies, specifically Congress's refusal to raise the H-1B cap, "are primarily to blame for the decline in international student enrollment in U.S. academic institutions." n177 Thousands of foreign students enter the United States each year on F, M and J visas to attend U.S. universities. n178 Not only is their attendance at these universities beneficial to the economy by injecting capital through tuition and living expenses, n179 but their creative ideas are also crucial to our modern economy, which focuses on innovation. n180 The cap prevents many of these graduating students from being placed in jobs in the United States, forcing them to return to their home countries. n181 Thus, "instead of maximally retaining foreign talent. . . U.S. immigration policies have expelled such individuals back to their home countries, where they have contributed to local workforces' ability to compete on a national basis with the [United States]." n182 In addition to the loss of a well-educated workforce, the H-1B cap prevents the United States from being credited for the innovation of valuable intellectual property. In 2006, foreign nationals residing in the United States filed 25.6% of the international patent applications. n183 "Foreign nationals and foreign residents contributed to more than half of the international patents" filed by multi-national companies such as Qualcomm, Merck & Co., General Electric, Siemens and Cisco in 2006. n184 Furthermore, "41% of the patents filed by the U.S. government had foreign nationals or foreign residents as inventors or co-inventors." n185 In addition, 16.8% and 13.7% of international patent applications from the United States had an inventor or co-inventor with a Chinese or Indian-heritage name, respectively. n186 Finally, one study shows that "for every 100 international students who receive science or engineering Ph.D.'s from American universities, the nation gains 62 future patent applications." n187 It is clear [*475] from these statistics that the U.S. economy is dependent on the innovative ideas of foreigners. '"Economists worry about another place owning the very next big thing' -- the next ground breaking technology . . . . 'If the heart and mind of the next great thing emerges somewhere else because the talent is there, then we will be hurt.'" n188 If the H-1B cap remains at this current unsatisfactory level, it will prevent the admission of foreign workers with new ideas. n189


Economy Adv – Innovation – Key to Economy

Innovation is a key ingredient to economic recovery.Business Wire, 2010(July 26, “CEOs of Small and Medium Enterprises Are More Optimistic about Growth Prospects Than Heads of Larger Companies, According to the Annual NYSE Euronext CEO Report,” http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-of-small-and-medium-enterprises-are-more-optimistic-about-growth-prospects-than-heads-of-larger-companies-according-to-the-annual-nyse-euronext-ceo-report-2010-07-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)

"Innovation and entrepreneurship have always been the key ingredients for the success of emerging business," added Jeff Resnick, Global Managing Director, Opinion Research Corporation, which conducted the study on behalf of NYSE Euronext. "The optimism expressed by these CEOs continues this tradition. The confidence of these business leaders is a key ingredient to the economic recovery we are beginning to see."

Innovation is the best way to cause economic growth.Business Report, 2010(July 20, “Innovation is Key to Growth,” http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=552&fArticleId=5562927, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)

Innovation is one of the most efficient ways to stimulate growth after the recent global economic meltdown, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) secretary general Angel Gurría said on Tuesday. "Innovation can be a strong economic energiser... a remarkable social equaliser," he said at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. While recovery was underway after the global economic crisis, new problems were emerging. "We are not looking at the scars, we are still looking at the open wounds caused by the crisis."

Innovation causes economic recovery and can solve major global challenges.ICTSD, 2010(International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development, July 14, “Innovation is Critical to Economic Recovery: OECD,” http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/80623/, CW, accessed on 7/29/10)

Innovation and coherence in policy interventions can spur economic recovery and address global challenges such as climate change, according to the recently released “OECD Innovation Strategy” report. The main findings of the report were presented in Geneva on Tuesday by Andrew Wyckoff, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Director of Science, in a panel discussion.


Economy Adv – Small Business – Link

H1B Visas boost small business sectorBhattacharyya 10(Anirudh, Writer for Hindustan Times, Hindustan Times, 7-3-2010, http://www.hindustantimes.com/US-needs-best-and-brightest-migrants/Article1-566689.aspx)

While the focus of the US president’s speech was on illegal immigrants, he also dwelled on legal immigrants, especially those with higher education, who had contributed to American growth. Obama said, “We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to come to start businesses and develop products and create jobs.” He spoke of the need to make it easier for students to become citizens. “While we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States.” Indians constitute the largest foreign student population in the US. But while Obama may laud highly-skilled immigrants, a populist backlash against H1B workers led by US Congressmen and the continuing troubled state of the US economy, have led to a sharp drop in applications for that work visa. While the H1B has a cap of 65,000 internationally in the general category and 20,000 in the Master’s exemption category, with half the year over, only 23,500 and 10,000 petitions have been received by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services till June 25 this year. H1Bs is main pipeline by which technology workers get green cards, many of whom in turn become entrepreneurs. According to research by Vivek Wadhwa, a former tech entrepreneur himself, and AnnaLee Saxenian, a Professor at the University of California — Berkeley, in 2005 start-ups founded by immigrants produced $52 billion in sales and employed nearly 450,000 workers. Of these, 26 per cent of the key founders of engineering and technology startups were born in India. That translates to Indian

immigrants creating more than 100,000 jobs within one decade.

H-1B visas uniquely increases the employment growth of small companies.National Foundation for American Policy, 2008(March, “H - 1 B V I S A S A N D J O B C R E A T I O N,” http://www.nfap.com/pdf/080311H1b.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Smaller companies: While no technology company in the 2005 S&P 500 can properly be called small, not all were large in 2001, and even in 2005 total employment ranged from less than 1,000 to 366,000 workers. Over this sample, H-1B certifications are most strongly associated with employment increases for smaller companies(see figure on next page). For firms with fewer than 5,000 employees, each H-1B position requested in labor condition applications was associated with an increase of employment of 7.5 workers compared to 4.7 additional workers at firms employing between 5,000 and 10,000 workers.5 Looking just at the most recent year in the data, 2005, an H-1B certification was associated with 10.7 more workers for firms with less than 10,000 employees, with 5.4 additional workers for firms with between 5,000 and 10,000 workers, and 4.0 additional workers for firms with greater than 10,000 workers. If smaller firms are more likely to be involved in job-creating innovation, then that may explain why H-1Bs are more important to employment growth in such firms. This study looked only at S&P 500 companies, so it is not possible to say whether H-1Bs have an even stronger association with growth at startups and smaller technology companies.


Economy Adv – Tax Revenue – Link

H1-B visas prevent outsourcing and increases tax revenueSherk and Nell 8 (4/30/08, James and Guinevere, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #08-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More- H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, accessed 7/27/10) GEC

American employers cannot find enough highly skilled workers to fill essential positions. There are not enough American workers with advanced skills in computer, engineering, and mathematical occupations to perform the work that many high-tech companies need. This shortage of skilled labor has forced many companies to outsource operations abroad. Raising the cap on H-1B visas for skilled workers would allow American businesses to expand operations here in the United States, creating more jobs and higher wages for American workers. Increasing the H-1B cap would also raise significant tax revenue from highly skilled and highly paid workers. Heritage Foundation calculations show that raising the cap to 195,000 visas would increase revenues by a total of nearly $69 billion over eight years. Unlike tax increases, this would be an economically beneficial source of revenue for PAYGO offsets. (The pay-as-you-go rule mandates that any new congressional spending or tax changes must not add to the federal deficit; any new costs must be offset with money from existing funds.) Congress should therefore act now to raise the cap on visas for highly skilled workers. H-1B Visas for Skilled Workers Congress created temporary H-1B visas for non-immigrant workers to prevent a shortage of skilled workers from hurting the economy. This visa allows foreigners with advanced skills to work in the United States for three years, and it can be renewed for another three years. After that, these workers must leave the country. Congress permits U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to issue 65,000 H-1B visas a year to workers with at least a bachelor's degree and an additional 20,000 to workers with at least a master's degree.[1] This represents far fewer people than American high-tech employers need. USCIS received 163,000 applications for these limited visas within a week of accepting applications for FY 2009[2] and reached the cap withinhours of accepting applications for FY 2008.[3] Skilled-Worker Shortage The job market remains tight in highly skilled occupations despite the weakening economy. There are simply not enough Americans with the advanced mathematical, computer, and engineering skills that employers in these fields need. Table 1 shows the occupations of employees sponsored for H-1B visas and the national unemployment rate for those occupations. Over half of all companies seeking H-1B workers need them for computer and mathematical occupations, a job sector with unemployment just above 2 percent--less than half the national average. The next-largest occupations for which employers need skilled H-1B workers are architecture and engineering, which have an unemployment rate of 1.8 percent.Economists estimate that the structural rate of unemployment in the United States is between 4 percent and 6 percent.[4] The unemployment that exists at this rate is the natural unemployment that occurs as workers move between jobs and industries. In occupations with only 2 percent unemployment, there is virtually no one who is unemployed involuntarily-- which means that raising the H-1B cap will not cost Americans any jobs. Virtually every American who wants a job in the high-tech sector has one.

H1-B Key to PAYGO and economySherk and Nell 8 (4/30/08, James and Guinevere, CENTER FOR DATA ANALYSIS REPORT #08-01, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/04/More- H-1B-Visas-More-American-Jobs-A-Better-Economy, accessed 7/27/10) GEC

Congress must now comply with PAYGO rules, so finding sources of revenue to cover any program expansion is critical. New taxes from H-1B workers provide a better source of revenue for PAYGO purposes or for reducing the deficit than is provided by tax hikes. Raising taxes in a time of economic weakness would be counterproductive because higher taxes harm the economy. All taxes, by definition, cause economic inefficiencies, but bringing in taxpayers from other countries avoids the economic costs of raising tax rates. The $69 billion in additional revenue essentially comes from the home countries of these workers, as they now pay American taxes instead of paying taxes to their own governments. New workers are a boon to the economy, not a cost. Their skills are desired by American companies, and these companies cannot grow without workers to fill these positions. These workers increase the productivity of the company, allowing it to expand, and they pay taxes on the income they earn. Unlike revenues from tax hikes, this additional tax revenue comes at no cost to American workers. Rather than depress productivity and economic growth by keeping the H-1B cap low, Congress should accept these willing workers and the taxes they pay.


Economy Adv – AT: No Demand

There is a high demand for skilled foreign workers that is not able to be met because of Visa capsNational Foundation for American Policy 10’(non-partisan public policy research organization, March 2010, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf) AJR

The demand for skilled foreign nationals has generally been so high and the quota so low that it has created problems for employers. During a one-week filing window in April 2008, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) received 163,000 H-1B applications, nearly twice as many petitions as slots available under the FY 2009 quota of 65,000, plus 20,000 for advanced degree holders from U.S. universities. The petitions were awarded to employers by lottery and no new H-1B petitions could be issued the remainder of the fiscal year. Even when the economy is uncertain, employers still seek talented people on an ongoing basis. Moreover, even firms that downsize in one part of a company may be hiring in another part.

Despite the slump companies are still pushing for reformSewell 10(Abby; Staff Writer WaPo; 5/11/10; Immigration policy critical for tech firms; Coalition supports provision to ease hiring of skilled foreigners; Lexis) BHB

Peter Muller is the director of government relations for Intel, one of the largest sponsors of H-1B temporary visas for skilled workers. The company was approved for 723 new H-1B visas in 2009. Muller said Intel had been hindered in hiring and keeping the most qualified people by the annual caps on H-1B visas and the sometimes decade-long delay in processing applications for green card. "To not be able to hire the people who really drive innovation in our company is a frustration," he said. In past years, the allotment of H-1B visas often was gone within days after the application period opened in April. Last year, it took until December to hit the cap. Even with a slower economy reducing demand for workers, however, tech companies say they want the system overhauled. "Companies are still hiring, so fixing the problems and fixing the system is important," said Jessica Herrera-Flanigan, the co-executive director of Compete America, a coalition of companies that is lobbying for more high-skilled immigration. "It's an issue today for some companies, and it's going to continue to be an issue that needs to be addressed."

H-1B visa demand will return with the economyHerbst 9(Moira; Staff Writer Business Week; http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2009/db2009112_270880.htm) BHB

Outsourcing companies that have been among the top users of the H-1B visa program for highly skilled workers say a dip in demand for the program won't last. As of Oct. 25, employers had filed about 72,800 H-1B visa petitions for 2009, leaving more than 12,000 still available some six months after the U.S. government started accepting applications. That's a marked contrast from recent years, when companies snapped up the 85,000 available visas within days of their Apr. 1 offer date. But the rush for H-1B visas will return as the economy recovers, especially among outsourcing firms that are now the program's heaviest users, say tech industry experts. "Unless we are heading into a Great Depression, pressure on the H-1B visa program will increase as the economy rebounds," says Peter Bendor-Samuel, founder of the Everest Group, an outsourcing consulting firm in Dallas. "It's almost impossible for me to believe demand [for H-1Bs] will lessen long term. I find it mildly surprising there are some extras left now."


Economy Adv – AT: No Short Term Gains

H-1B visas provide an immediate benefit to the economy.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Of all the foreign workers coming to the United States, no category provides such an instant boost to the economy as do H-1B professionals. Although they are here no longer than six years, H-1B professionals, like their

permanent counterparts, satisfy unmet labor needs and provide a diverse, skilled, and motivated labor supply to complement our domestic workforce and spur job creation. But unlike their permanent counterparts, H-1B professionals offer the very important advantage of enabling employers to meet immediate labor needs. Employers can hire H-1Bs in months or even weeks. In contrast, it can take four years or more to qualify a worker for permanent “green card” status.8


Economy Adv – AT: Security Breaches DA

Security breaches are inevitableCavusoglu, Mishra, and Raghunathan 4 (Huseyin, Birendra, and Srinivasan, “The Effect of Internet Security Breach Announcements on Market Value: Capital Market Reactions for Breached Firms and Internet Security Developers,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce / Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69–104.)

The transitory costs of security breaches include lost business and decreased productivity resulting from the unavailability of the breached resources; labor and material costs required to detect, contain, repair, and reconstitute breached resources; costs associated with evidence collection and prosecution of the attacker; costs related to providing information to customers and the public; and other media-related costs [26]. Permanent, or long-term, costs have more far-reaching effects on the breached firm’s future cash flow. These costs are related to the loss of customers who switch to competitors, inability to attract new customers due to perceived poor security, loss of trust of customers and business partners, legal liabilities arising from the breach, and the cost of attackers’ access to confidential or proprietary information. Perceptions of increased business risk may also translate into increased insurance costs for the firm and higher capital costs in debt and equity markets. The costs incurred as a result of breaches can be further classified as tangible or intangible. It is possible to estimate the cost of lost sales, material and labor, and insurance, but costs related to trust are difficult to calculate. Nonetheless, these intangibles are extremely important in the measurement of the overall cost of security for business. Table 1 blocks out the four types of costs and the degree of uncertainty associated with dollar estimates of each type


Economy Adv – AT: Body Shopping

Raising or eliminating the H-1B cap will solve body shoppingCromwell 9 (Courtney L., J.D. candidate, Brooklyn Law School. 3 Brook. J. Corp. Fin. & Com. L. 455. Ln) JM

Instead, however, the H-1B cap may be the cause of body shopping in the United States, and if the cap is abolished, the practice of body shopping will likely decline or disappear altogether. In 2003, once the cap reverted to 65,000 from 195,000, n145 employment placement agencies and consulting firms such as MindTree and Wipro, two of the largest body shoppers, began "scrambling to build teams of visa-ready people." n146 They were forced to anticipate what skills their clients would need in the next few years and thus make efforts to mobilize enough H-1B visas to "manage a supply imbalance that was expected to emerge . . . ." n147 Thus, the 65,000 cap created a high demand for H-1B visas, which led employment and recruiting agencies to obtain as many H-1B workers as possible for themselves and their clients. n148 In turn, as a result of these agencies hoarding H-1B visas, it is likely that the abusive body shopping practices developed because the [*471] agencies could not afford to pay H-1B workers who were not assigned to jobs. Therefore, raising or abolishing the cap will reduce the pressure to mobilize a supply of H-1B visas, thus eliminating the practice of body shopping altogether.


Economy Adv – AT: Fraud

H-1B does not offset American jobs and those that claim H-1B leads to fraud are empirically wrong.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

Fears that H-1B workers cause unemployment and depress wages are unfounded. H-1B workers create jobs for Americans by enabling the creation of new products and spurring innovation. High-tech industry executives estimate that a new H-1B engineer will typically create demand for an additional 3–5 American workers. Reports of systematic underpayment and fraud in the program are false. From 1991 through September 1999, only 134 violations were found by the U.S. Department of Labor, and only 7, or fewer than 1 per year, were found to be intentional. The lack of widespread violations confirms that the vast majority of H-1B workers is being paid the legally required

prevailing wage or more, undercutting charges that they are driving down wages for native workers. Wages are rising fastest and unemployment rates are lowest in industries in which H-1B workers are most prevalent.

Fraud claims have little evidence to back them up-prefer empirical evidence and no impact to fraud either.Masters and Ruthizer, 00(Suzette and Ted, CATO Institute, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/28/10)

The tame enforcement picture contrasts sharply with the widespread but unproven accusations of pervasive fraud in the H–1B visa process. According to some opponents of the H-1B status, the alleged fraud is occasioned by employers who knowingly file visa petitions for persons who fail to meet the statutory criteria, prospective H-1B applicants who falsify their academic credentials, and government employees on the take who further those criminal acts. But the evidence of H-1B visa fraud is exclusively anecdotal. Given the small number of those visas available every year and

the overwhelming need for such visas by legitimate employers complying with the law, vague, largely

unsubstantiated allegations of abuse should not be accepted without hard evidence, and they must not obscure the very real benefits provided by this important category of visa holders. In House Immigration Subcommittee hearings held on the topic of nonimmigrant visa fraud in May of 1999, senior Immigration and Naturalization Service official William Yates testified that “anecdotal reports by INS Service Centers indicate that INS has seen an increase in fraudulent attempts to obtain benefits in this category [H-1B]. These fraud schemes appear to be the result of those wishing to take advantage of the economic opportunities in the U.S.”39 Given the small base number of proven frauds, the alleged increase hardly seems a vigorous call to action. In a similar vein, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Justice, Michael R. Bromwich, testified that “there is very little hard data available to gauge the magnitude of visa fraud, a point noted by [the General Accounting O f fice] in its reports on this subject. . . . This lack of comprehensive statistics hinders the ability of the State Department and

the INS to appropriately respond to visa fraud.”40 Moreover, the three cases cited in the inspector general’s testimony as ongoing fraud investigations all involved criminal activity by INS employees. No reasonable person

condones immigration fraud of any type, but the allegation of significant H1B fraud is simply unsupported by the facts.


Economy Adv – AT: Brain Drain

US Experience motivates H1B workers return to and prosper in home countriesAll 9 (Ann All, Reporter for IT Business Edge, http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/all/layoffs-send-h-1b-holders-back-to-india/?

cs=37515) SEWThe article mentions several of the same factors I cited in my post, including restrictions that make it tough for financial companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to hire H-1B workers, the cost and hassle of filing H-1B applications and growing unease over hiring H-1B workers when domestic unemployment rates are so high. Yet the economy seems to be the biggest issue. Les French, president of WashTech, a Seattle-based union for tech professionals that is critical of the visa program, tells the Mercury News that application levels will rise as the economy returns to health. He said: Once the economy picks up, you'll see a pickup in the applications. I think it will be lock-step with the economy. The article also quotes Samta Kapoor, who is finishing up a master's degree in engineering management at Duke University and has been told by prospective employers that they are not hiring international students this year. The economy is also affecting H-1B holders who had already found employment in the United States. According to The Wall Street Journal, some 16,000 to 20,000 Indian H-1B holders have returned home after losing their jobs. H-1B holders who lose their jobs must quickly find another job, leave the country or convert to a B1/B2 tourist visa, which doesn't allow them to work, but gives them some time to get their affairs in order before moving back to their home country. For many H-1B holders, it can be tough readjusting to their native culture, and is even tougher if they have children who have never lived in India. Some Indians are bitter about losing their jobs, while others are more pragmatic. Niraj Sharma, a New York City consultant who had a month to prepare for a return to India, told the Journal that H-1B holders "knew [their] its limitations." He said: But the work experience in the U.S. was tremendously valuable and it provides us with leverage in Asia to prosper. ... If the next opportunity is in the UK or Africa, we will go there. …People have always moved to places of opportunity. While the U.S. will always be a beacon of opportunity, other countries have also started competing with it.

H1B’s are a win-win for economiesSaxenien 2.( “Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off” Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx) SEWThe Silicon Valley experience underscores far-reaching transformations of the relationship between immigration, trade, and economic development in the 21st century. Where once the main economic ties between immigrants and their home countries were remittances sent to families left behind, today more and more skilled U.S. immigrants eventually return home. Those who remain in America often become part of transnational communities that link the United States to the economies of distant regions . These new immigrant entrepreneurs thus foster economic development directly, by creating new jobs and wealth, as well as indirectly, by coordinating the information flows and providing the linguistic and cultural know-how that promote trade and investment with their home countries. Analysts and policymakers must recognize this new reality . In the recent U.S. debate over making more H1-B visas available for highly skilled immigrants, discussion began—and ended—with the extent to which immigrants displace native workers. But these high-tech immigrants affect more than labor supply and wages. They also create new jobs here and new ties abroad. Some of their economic contributions, such as enhanced trade and investment flows, are difficult to quantify , but they must figure into our debates. Economic openness has its costs, to be sure, but the strength of the U.S. economy has historically derived from its openness and diversity—and this will be increasingly true as the economy becomes more global. As Silicon Valley's new immigrant entrepreneurs suggest, Americans should resist viewing immigration and trade as zero-sum processes . We need to encourage the immigration of skilled workers—while simultaneously improving the education of workers here at home .

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/all/layoffs-send-h-1b-holders-back-to-india/?cs=37515

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/blogs/all/layoffs-send-h-1b-holders-back-to-india/?cs=37515


Economy Adv – AT: BRIC (1/)

Increasing HB1 visas key to both US and Indian economyPradhan 7 (“The H1-b visa program needs a revamp”, Pradhan, Basab, CEO Gridstone Research, http://6ampacific.com/2007/04/21/the-

h1-b-visa-program-needs-a-revamp/) SEWFor the Indian companies, H1-B visas are their lifeblood. 60 to 70% of their revenues are out of the US. H1-B visas are like “raw material” for them. If they don’t have them they can’t start projects and this impacts revenue immediately. For the US tech companies, the same visas affect R&D, which eventually affects new product innovation and

so affects the company, but the effect is felt in the long-term, not next quarter. Understandably then, the Indian companies are more organized in their efforts to secure the maximum number of visas possible. But the US tech companies also have one major disadvantage. They can’t plan for the visa applications as far in advance as an IT Services company can. The US tech company needs the visa to hire someone who is not yet in the company. The Indian services company already has thousands of employees who need the visas in order for them to go to the US to start projects. Planning for their visas can be done well in advance. In my opinion, the US tech companies can never win this battle for visas. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind (and

theirs) that the H1-B employees are essential for their own competitiveness. In the words of Bill Gates, America

should “welcome as many of those people as we can get.” So, what can they do to not get “crowded out”? One way, is of course to just take the cap on visas off or at least take it up substantially. This seems to be the general thrust of the lobbying by the tech companies. This is a temporary solution. Plus, I doubt that Congress will ever let the cap get too high. A better solution would be to realize that the offshore IT services industry and the domestic tech industries use the same visas very differently and therefore to create different visas for them. Making the two industries compete for scarce visas

is unfair to the domestic tech industry. And in the long-term, a cap on visas will hurt both industries. The only problem with this solution is a practical, political reality – the visa for the services industry can become the lighting rod for the anti-outsourcing zealots.

Visas key to Indian economy and US Aiyar 9 (“Hidden Benefits of Brain Drain” Times of India research fellow, CATO Institute) SEW

Indian migration to the US was once castigated as a brain drain. More recently, it has been rechristened brain circulation, with many migrants returning to India. Economist Deena Khatkhate (see his book Money, Finance, Political Economy) was among the earliest to contest the brain drain thesis. He saw the exodus as a safety valve for educated Indians unable to find enough jobs in India's licence-permit raj. He also highlighted the way the Indian Diaspora catalysed changes in social, political and economic attitudes in India, paving the way for economic reform. It now seems that the Diaspora played an even bigger role: It changed US attitudes. The brain drain steadily increased the number of influential Indians in the US. Indo-US economic relations and the size and clout of the Diaspora grew fast together, most prominently in Silicon Valley. The trend now encompasses all walks of US life, including the media. It is not quite true that the brain drain is becoming the gradual takeover of the US by Indians. But it has helped transform US attitudes.

http://6ampacific.com/2007/04/21/the-h1-b-visa-program-needs-a-revamp/

http://6ampacific.com/2007/04/21/the-h1-b-visa-program-needs-a-revamp/



The Indian and U.S. economies are dependent on each other for growth, and this mutual expansion is key to the global economy Iwata 6 (Edward, business and technology writer, USA Today, 6/20/2006) JAS If India's economy grows 10% a year for several years, Chugh says, it will strengthen trade and investments between India and the USA while lifting millions of Indians out of poverty. Chugh also is a trustee of the American India

Foundation, which donates millions of dollars a year to charities in India. "India is booming with cross-cultural development,"

says Chugh, who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos with his wife and two kids. "Indians and white business people are bringing their cultures and creativity together." The stronger U.S.-India business connection is also evident in venture capital. When high-tech banker Ash Lilani took U.S. investors on their first trip to Bangalore in 2003, barely a handful of U.S. venture firms were funding Indian start-ups. Many investors held stereotypes of India as a home for cheap labor, outsourcing and call centers. Once on the ground, though, the U.S. investors realized that India was a business gold mine. The country boasted top engineering and managerial talent, an English-speaking workforce and a British-style legal and regulatory system. Few differences The investors found that doing business in a Bangalore office was no different than in the USA, says Lilani, the head of SVB Global, the international consulting arm of SVB Financial Group in Santa Clara, Calif. Today, nearly every venture firm in Silicon Valley is funding young companies in India. "The floodgates have opened," Lilani says. Corporate India has been a sleeping economic giant for decades, but the pace of U.S.-India business has especially quickened the past two or three years. Trade, hotels, construction, transportation and financial and business services saw 10% to 13% growth in the year ended March 31, India's Finance Ministry reports. Trailing only China, India is the No. 2 most preferred country for foreign investment, according to consulting firm A.T. Kearney,which surveys executives. Last year, companies worldwide invested $5 billioninto the former British colony. India's economic climate is heating up in: •High-tech investments. Venture capital firms and private investors last year poured $2.2 billion into 146 start-ups in India — compared with $1.7 billion invested in 71 deals in 2004, reports TSJ Media's Venture Intelligence India Roundup. Not to be outdone, U.S. tech giants — Texas Instruments, IBM, Intel, Dell, Cisco Systems and

others — are investing billions of dollars in start-ups, research and development centers and manufacturing sites across India. The most ambitious project may be "Nano City," a $10 billion, environmentally sustainable development unveiled in April by entrepreneur Bhatia and the Haryana state government in northern India. Modeled after Silicon Valley, Nano City will feature R&D and educational centers and corporate offices for technology, biosciences and other "knowledge industries." "My goal is to build a model city of the future for the whole world," says Bhatia, who hopes Nano City will be completed in 10 years. •Mergers and acquisitions. India-based companies signed off on $15 billionin mergers in 2005, according to consulting firm Grant Thornton, which predicts an M&A boom in the next three years. More midsize and small deals are being struck between U.S. and Indian firms. At least a dozen mergers, mostly private, were signed the past year, says Chugh, whose law firm worked on several of the deals. In a public deal last April, Helios & Matheson Information Technology, a health care software firm in India, bought a $9 million controlling stake in TACT, a business outsourcing firm in New York that's traded on Nasdaq. "Thousands of Indians have gone back to India armed with the ways of capitalism and the stock market," Chugh says, "and they're finding fertile ground to make deals." •Manufacturing. As labor costs rise in China,

more global corporations based in the USA, Asia and Europe — General Motors, Dell, Nokia, Hyundai, Limited Brands and

others — are also turning to India as a manufacturing base. India's manufacturing sector is growing at a 9% annual clip, says India's Finance Ministry. Industry in India is getting government help from 70 "special economic zones" that give tax breaks to manufacturers. The economic zones are similar to some used successfully in China to boost business and trade two decades ago. "Over the long term, India has a strong opportunity to overtake China on many economic fronts," says Ng Buck-Seng, an analyst at IDC's Manufacturing Insights. What's feeding the business and investment boom in India? Since the early 1990s, economic reform and the lowering of trade barriers has gradually led to more foreign investment and trade. India also is becoming a society of middle-class consumers with more spending power than ever before. Each year, the country's engineering and business schools — including the elite Indian Institute of Technology, known as the "MIT of India" — churn out several hundred thousand graduates who help lift India's economy. Plus, the global network of Indian engineers and entrepreneurs here and in India keeps getting stronger. A business group called The Indus Entrepreneurs

(TIE) claims some 8,000 members, among them people who have launched 300 U.S. and India-based firms that do business in both countries. "India's economy is a launching pad for the U.S. and global markets," says

Ganesh, former CEO of BhartiBritish Telecom, a joint venture between British Telecom and computer maker HCL."It is possible now for many success stories to be spawned in India. Business entrepreneurship is here to stay."



Restricting H1B permits is effectively “brain blocking” which damages US, Indian and Chinese economies.Gower 10. (“As Dumb As We Wanna Be: U.S. H1-B Visa Policy and the “Brain Blocking” of Asian High-Tech Professionals ” University

at Buffalo – SUNY http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_gower/2/) SEWThe reverse of brain gain, then, is brain drain, and can be considered to be an unintended effect from brain blocking . Many foreign countries that were developing a software industry, especially India, lost many of its best and brightest engineers and software developers to the U.S. in the 1990s.72 The Chinese software industry, however, exhibited fewer losses of human capital to the U.S., as the country developed its own indigenous Internet industry. Chinese workers that had entered the U.S. on the H-1B visa program often preferred to return to China, citing their preference for lower cost-of-living areas and a return to the traditional extended family.73 The brain circulation of workers that move back and forth between countries in a free flow of information only adds to the knowledge base of the country that person is at work .74 The U.S., under this theory, loses a substantial amount of knowledge capital through the loss of workers and U.S.-educated foreign students by refusing to address the brain blocking collateral damage from fewer H-1B visas as fewer Chinese technology professionals will have the opportunity to engage in brain circulation . Brain blocking may also have unintended consequences for potential “brain donor” countries , as U.S. immigration policy restrictions will reduce potential knowledge gains that can be returned to a home country after the H1-B visa expires, or the technology worker chooses to return. Work experience under the H-1B visa program benefits the home country of a skilled technology worker once they return from the U.S . A survey by Commander, Chanda, and Winters found that between 30 and 40% of higher-level employees in Indian software companies had once worked in a developed country, and returned with greater skills than they had left. H-1B visa workers that eventually become U.S. citizens often found technology companies on their own, and further contribute to the U.S. economy with additional gains in innovation and job creation. Saxenian found that 30% of Silicon Valley companies in the 1990s were headed by ethnic Indian or Chinese engineers . Her research also estimated that these companies added an estimated $20 billion yearly to the U.S. economy and accounted for 70,000 jobs .

Indian and Chinese H1B workers contribute to brain circulation, creating linkages that boost every economy involved. Saxenien 2. (“Brain Circulation: How High-Skill Immigration Makes Everyone Better Off” Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx) SEWUnderstandably, the rapid growth of the foreign-born workforce has evoked intense debates over U.S. immigration policy, both here and in the developing world. In the United States, discussions of the immigration of scientists and engineers have focused primarily on the extent to which foreign-born professionals displace native workers. The view from sending countries, by contrast, has been that the emigration of highly skilled personnel to the United States represents a big economic loss, a "brain drain." Neither view is adequate in today's global economy . Far from simply replacing native workers, foreign-born engineers are starting new businesses and generating jobs and wealth at least as fast as their U.S. counterparts. And the dynamism of emerging regions in Asia and elsewhere now draws skilled immigrants homeward. Even when they choose not to return home, they are serving as middlemen linking businesses in the United States with those in distant regions. In some parts of the world, t he old dynamic of "brain drain" is giving way to one I call "brain circulation. " Most people instinctively assume that the movement of skill and talent must benefit one country at the expense of another. But thanks to brain circulation , high-skilled immigration increasingly benefits both sides. Economically speaking, it is blessed to give and to receive. "New" Immigrant Entrepreneurs Unlike traditional ethnic entrepreneurs who remain isolated in marginal, low-wage industries, Silicon Valley's new foreign-born entrepreneurs are highly educated professionals in dynamic and technologically sophisticated industries. And they have been extremely successful. By the end of the 1990s, Chinese and Indian engineers were running 29 percent of Silicon Valley's technology businesses. By 2000, these companies collectively accounted for more than $19.5 billion in sales and 72,839 jobs. And the pace of immigrant entrepreneurship has accelerated dramatically in the past decade.

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/winter_immigration_saxenian.aspx

http://works.bepress.com/jeffrey_gower/2/


Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (1/)

Absent a reformed and recovered U.S. economy, the global economy will plunge into instabilityStiglitz 6 (Joseph E., 2001 recipient of Nobel Prize in economic science, the New York Times, 10/3, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/opinion/03stiglitz.html) JAS

THE International Monetary Fund meeting in Singapore last month came at a time of increasing worry about the sustainability of global financial imbalances: For how long can the global economy endure America’s enormous trade deficits — the United States borrows close to $3 billion a day — or China’s growing trade surplus of almost $500 million a day? These imbalances simply can’t go on forever. The good news is that there is a growing consensus to this effect. The bad news is that no country believes its policies are to blame. The United States points its finger at China’s undervalued currency, while the rest of the world singles out the huge American fiscal and trade deficits. To its credit, the International Monetary Fund has started to focus on this issue after 15 years of preoccupation with development and transition. Regrettably, however, the fund’s approach has been to monitor every country’s economic policies, a strategy that risks addressing symptoms without confronting the larger systemic problem. Treating the symptoms could actually make matters worse, at least in the short run. Take, for instance, the question of China’s undervalued exchange rate and the country’s resulting surplus, which the United States Treasury suggests is at the core of the problem. Even if China strengthened its yuan relative to the dollar and eliminated its $114 billion a year trade surplus with the United States, and even if that immediately translated into a reduction in the American multilateral trade deficit, the United States would still be borrowing more than $2 billion a day: an improvement, but hardly a solution. Of course, it is even more likely that there would be no significant change in America’s multilateral trade deficit at all. The United States would simply buy fewer textiles from China and more from Bangladesh, Cambodia and other developing countries. Meanwhile, because a stronger yuan would make imported American food cheaper in China, the poorest Chinese — the farmers — would see their incomes fall as domestic prices for agriculture dipped. China might choose to counter the depressing effect of America’s huge agricultural subsidies by diverting money badly needed for industrial development into subsidies for its

farmers. China’s growth might accordingly be slowed, which would slow growth globally. As it is, however, China knows well the terms of its hidden “deal” with the United States: China helps finance the American deficits by buying treasury bonds with the money it gets from its exports. If it doesn’t, the dollar will weaken further, which will lower the value of China’s dollar reserves (by the end of the year, these will exceed $1 trillion). Any country that might benefit from China’s loss of export market share would put its money into a strong currency, like the euro, rather than the unstable and weakening dollar — or it might choose to invest the money at home, rather than holding more reserves. In short, the United States would find it increasingly difficult to finance its deficits, and the world as a whole might face greater, not less, instability. Nothing significant can be done about these global imbalances unless the United States attacks its own problems. No one seriously proposes that businesses save money instead of investing in expanding production simply to correct the problem of the trade deficit; and while there may be sermons aplenty about why Americans should save more — certainly more than the negative amount households saved last year — no one in either political party has devised a fail-proof way of ensuring that they do so. The Bush tax cuts didn’t do it. Expanded incentives for saving didn’t do it. Indeed, most calculations show that these actually reduce national savings, since the cost to the government in lost revenue is greater than the increased household savings. The common wisdom is that there is but one alternative: reducing the government’s deficit. Imagine that the Bush administration suddenly got religion (at least, the religion of fiscal responsibility) and cut expenditures. Assume that raising taxes is unlikely for an administration that has been arguing for further tax cuts. The expenditure cuts by themselves would lead to a weakening of the American and global economy. The Federal Reserve might try to offset this by lowering interest rates, and this might protect the American economy — by encouraging debt-ridden American households to try to take even more money out of their home-equity loans to pay for spending. But that would make America’s future even more precarious. There is one way out of this seeming impasse: expenditure cuts combined with an increase in taxes on upper-income Americans and a reduction in taxes on lower-income Americans. The expenditure cuts would, of course, by themselves reduce spending, but because poor individuals consume a larger fraction of their income than the rich, the “switch” in taxes would, by itself, increase spending. If appropriately designed, such a combination could simultaneously sustain the American economy and reduce the deficit. Not surprisingly, these recommendations did not emerge from the International Monetary Fund meetings in Singapore. The United States retains a veto there, making it unlikely that the fund will recommend policies that aren’t to the liking of the American administration. Underlying the current imbalances are fundamental structural problems with the global reserve system. John Maynard Keynes called attention to these problems three-quarters of a century ago. His ideas on how to reform the global monetary system, including creating a new reserve system based on a new international currency, can, with a little work, be adapted to

today’s economy. Until we attack the structural problems, the world is likely to continue to be plagued by imbalances that threaten the financial stability and economic well-being of us all.


Economy Adv – US Key to the Global Economy (2/)

The successes of the U.S. and global economies are inextricably linkedFleckenstein 8 (Bill, president of Fleckenstein Capital, MSN, 7/7, http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/GlobalEconomyWontBailOutTheUS.aspx) JAS

Global economic and financial problems have been the subject of many newspaper articles lately, and rightly so. Take "Falling prices grip major stock markets around the world," which appeared in a recent edition of The New York Times. That synchrony to the downside shouldn't seem shocking, given how intertwined world markets (and economies) were on the way up. But the folks here who believe in Goldilocks have tried to convince themselves that while the U.S. may suffer some sort of drive-by recession , the rest of the world will somehow be immune, helping offset the effects of our downturn. I think that's quite unlikely, as we are the consumer for the world, and the whole world is in the late stages of an economic up-cycle. Thus, it should come as no shock that the United States economy is hardly alone in experiencing a slowdown.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/WhyWeCantCruisePastARecession.aspx

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/ContrarianChronicles/AGuideToFleckisms.aspx#Goldilocksters


***SCIENCE DIPLOMACY***


Science Diplomacy Adv – Uniqueness – Sci Dip Low Now

Scientific Diplomacy needs a wider scope Choudhury 10, Naiyyum. "Science diplomacy must be more ambitious." (): n. pag. Web. 30 Jul 2010. <http://www.scidev.net/en/opinions/science-diplomacy-must-be-more-ambitious.html>.

But if science diplomacy is to make an impact where it matters most — in the poorest countries — then current efforts, led by the United States, will have to broaden their scope beyond a select group of predominantly Islamic countries that are either rich in oil or pose a potential nuclear threat. There are many countries that are in neither camp and lack resources and infrastructure to tackle their own development problems. As a tool for development, science diplomacy should not make distinctions between Islamic and non-Islamic nations — rather, it should address the gap between all developed and developing countries. Of course, diplomacy is ultimately driven by national interests, and rightly so. But it is ethically unacceptable to ignore the millions of people who badly need to improve their living conditions. If the United States and others do not take this view for the new science diplomacy, high hopes will end in frustration and mistrust. The United States should see that taking a broader perspective to championing scientific efforts for the developing world is in its own interests. Poor countries merit equal attention and support whatever their religion, culture and natural resources.

Despite Necessity The United States Falls Short in Scientific DiplomacySteir 8 , Ken. "Using Scientists as Diplomats." TIME 07 March: n. pag. Web. 31 Jul 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720538,00

Scientific cooperation has long had a critical, if unsung, supporting role in international diplomacy, helping to rebuild economies from the ashes of World War II and eventually winding down the Cold War. But despite these successes, critics say Washington's record of integrating science and technology into foreign policy in recent years has been decidedly mixed. That was one of the themes raised at the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), where scientists lamented that Washington continues to short-shrift international scientific cooperation, which is increasingly regarded as a crucial tool of soft power for spreading prosperity and enhancing American competitiveness. Critics say this is particularly unfortunate at a time when science is more than ever a truly global enterprise, especially for solving challenges such as energy and climate change. The latest example of this, they claim, is Congress' recent failure to appropriate any funds this year to the $20 billion multi-national fusion power project (ITER) being constructed in southern France . The landmark R&D project is aimed at demonstrating the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power, and the U.S. has pledged to cover 10% of the cost over 10 years.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (1/)

Visas currently restrict scientific Diplomacy and development Redden 8 [Elizabeth, Columbia University in the City of New York for editing “Science Knows No Borders. But Funders Do”. July 16, 2008 http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/16/science]

What scientists have, Calvin explained, are “the international conferences to make the introductions. What they don’t have is the mechanism to take the next step.” When pressed by the committee chairman, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), to offer an example of what such a mechanism would look like, Calvin suggested that, in this context, a granting entity jointly funded by the Chinese and U.S. governments could promote scholarly collaboration (he cautioned, however, that he wouldn’t want to dilute existing research funds available through the National Science Foundation). Calvin's suggestion got to the heart of two of the challenges to international scholarly cooperation highlighted during Tuesday’s hearing: the difficulty of coordinating research when partners have different governmental agencies to ask of and answer to, and, at least in the U.S. government’s case, the legal limitations on funding foreign collaborators. (“Although we do agree with the view that U.S. taxpayer funds should be used primarily to support American science, there are instances, such as in international science development activities, where we believe this limitation can impede the ability of the programs to achieve their goals,” said Alan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science.) Among the other barriers brought up were continuing challenges with visas, although, as Representative Baird pointed out, witnesses at a February subcommittee hearing reported progress on that front.

Visa restrictions are a constraint on current scientific diplomacy Hinz 10[Franziska Hinz, Royal Society, London January 2010 http://diplomacy.aaas.org/files/New_Frontiers.pdf]

Regulatory barriers, such as visa restrictions and security controls, can also be a practical constraint to science diplomacy. Immediately after September 11 2001, the imposition of stringent travel and visa regimes in countries like the US and the UK severely limited opportunities for visiting scientists and scholars, particularly from Islamic countries. Whilst the strictest controls have since been lifted, the value of scientific I January 2010 I New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. The Royal Society partnerships means that further Reforms may be needed.

H-1B visa is key to solving science competitiveness – we’re falling behind the rest of the world Schwartz 8 (Peter, Chairman of the Global Business Network. GBN, “Daring to Dream” www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/GBN.SFC_VFT_Dare2dream.pdf) JM

Around the world, we are seeing a boom in scientific interest and investment—from established and growing centers

in East Asia to emerging research clusters in Africa. Yet in the U.S., only 15 percent of all American undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering, compared to 47 percent in France, 50

percent in China, and 67 percent in Singapore (National Science Board). Michio Kaku observes that “America’s students are comparable to a third-world country in many of our [pre-university] science exams.” Dean Kamen reminds us that “society as a whole is always in a race between catastrophe and education, and I hate to see this be the first generation where catastrophe wins that race. If we don’t get a substantially higher number of kids, particularly women and minorities, interested in mathematics and science as the world gets much more complex, it’s a double-whammy: then not only are we going to see more difficult technology problems than we have ever seen, coming faster, but this will be the first generation that will grow up less capable of dealing with them.” Yet these are surmountable problems that the U.S. is capable of addressing, through enlightened educational policies. Michio also proposes

increasing the opportunity for foreign-trained scientists to study in the U.S. through the H1B visa program, to enable cross-cultural exchange of knowledge. Numerous board members also commented on the ability for science fiction to capture the imagination and inspire a new generation of scientists. Indeed, many mentioned how influential Star Trek had been in their own lives. So interestingly, the creative arts and media can act as critical communication vehicles to engage more of America’s youth to participate in the global Renaissance taking place in science and engineering.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – H-1B Key (2/)

Employment visa restrictions are preventing the US from engaging in effective science cooperationFroelich 4 (Adrienne, director of public affairs, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Bioscience; Apr2004, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p296-296,) JM

Regardless of their cause, visa delays are affecting science on many levels. While much of the discussion has focused on

scientists from abroad being unable to attend scientific conferences, US government initiatives are also being impaired. US embassy officials in Moscow told GAO that the visa process is hindering congressionally mandated nonproliferation goals, primarily because of the difficulty in getting former Soviet Union scientists to critical US government-

sponsored exchanges. The enhanced security is also frustrating those in the United States who are responsible for facilitating international cooperation. NASA officials at foreign posts told GAO that up to 20 percent of their time is spent dealing with visa issues when they should be focusing on program issues. In response to the GAO report, State acknowledged its problems: "We were slow. We have taken strong measures to improve--and we will continue to do so." Congress would prefer to see those changes implemented sooner rather than later. Rep. Boehlert warned State, DHS, and the FBI to be prepared to report back to the House Science Committee in six months, saying, "We can't have a visa system that needlessly discourages and alienates scientists from around the world who could be a boon to this country."


Science Diplomacy Adv – Link – AT: Alt Causes

Lifting the cap on H-1B visas is key to attracting foreign workers – this is the vital internal to science diplomacy because of tech leadership and perception of foreign nationals AFP 6 (Agence France Presse, “US tech industry urges Congress to boost special visas” 13 June. Ln) JM

A group representing US high-tech industries urged Congress Tuesday to raise the limit on visas for skilled foreign workers, calling it critical to maintaining US leadership in science and technology.AeA, formerly known as the American Electronics Association, said its study found an urgent need to reform the system for the H-1B visa system that allows highly skilled immigrants to work in the US for up to seven years. The AeA noted that the current limit of 65,000 visas has already been reached for the 2007 fiscal year beginning October 1. The group urged Congress to raise the limit to a minimum of 115,000 with annual adjustments upward depending on market conditions. The proposal is in line with those from President George W. Bush and others who say the US needs more highly educated foreigners. But the issue remains contentious and is being debated in Congress in the context of broader immigration reform. Some argue the H-1B visa has depressed wages for US technology workers. The AeA report said a number of "myths" have been used to dissuade lawmakers from raising the limit, while arguing that expanding the program is needed to attract the "best and brightest" to the United States. "For the past 60 years America has benefitted from attracting many of the most talented minds on the planet," said

William Archey, president and chief executive of AeA. "That period could grind to a halt given restrictive visa policy, tremendous opportunities abroad, and the perception by many foreign nationals that they are not wanted here. This is tragic because these talented people make the United States a more competitive nation. They do not steal American jobs, they create them." The report noted that one of every four scientists and engineers in the US is foreign born, and that half of doctoral computer science and math degrees and 60 percent of doctoral engineering degrees awarded go to foreign nationals.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Prolif

Science diplomacy is key to non-prolifRoyal Society 10, The "New frontiers in science diplomacy." (: n. pag. Web. 30 Jul 2010. <http://royalsociety.org/New-frontiers-in-science-diplomacy/>.

The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of common interest, so is well placed to support emerging forms of diplomacy that require non-traditional alliances of nations, sectors and non-governmental organizations. If aligned with wider foreign policy goals, these channels of scientific exchange can contribute to coalition building and conflict resolution. Cooperation on the scientific aspects of sensitive issues—such as nuclear nonproliferation—can sometimes provide an effective route to other forms of political dialogue. Similarly the potential of science as an arena for building trust and understanding between countries is gaining traction , particularly in the Middle East and wider

Islamic world.

Science diplomacy key to non-prolif – cooperation catalyzes the necessary political conditions Davison et al. 10 (Niel, PhD, Senior Policy Adviser in the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society; Koppelman Ben, Senior Policy Adviser in the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society; Tannenbaum, Benn, PhD, Program Director, Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy. Royal Society, March 2010. royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4294970228) JM

Despite political challenges, progress can still be made through international cooperation on the scientific aspects of disarmament. Investing in such research has diplomatic benefits by providing concrete evidence of Nuclear Weapon States taking seriously their obligations to pursue disarmament under the NPT. This cooperation could catalyse the political conditions necessary for multilateral disarmament by helping to build much needed trust between states. Since all states will be stakeholders in any future disarmament process, international cooperation must also include Non-Nuclear Weapon States from the outset to ensure the transparency of this process. The scientific community often works beyond national boundaries on problems of

common interest and so is well-placed to help prepare the foundations for future multilateral negotiations.1 The timescale for complete nuclear disarmament will be long, and so focusing now on the detailed challenges of the final stages of the process may be premature. A more practical approach might be to establish the scientific requirements of a monitoring and verification system to support future negotiations, especially when this can produce tangible and immediate improvements to international security. Scientific cooperation is also essential in related nonproliferation and arms control areas to ensure that new instabilities are not introduced that could undermine nuclear disarmament. This includes research into: managing the civilian nuclear fuel cycle; improving the physical security of nuclear material and facilities; verifying a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and strengthening the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Given the growing political momentum for nuclear arms control and disarmament, the scientific community has an opportunity to advise the international community about

this research and the cooperation needed to carry it out. Disarmament laboratories have the potential to develop a

truly international approach. They could help facilitate exchange not just between states; but also between government, industry and academia so that the latest scientific advances can be integrated into the development of solutions to the challenges that lie ahead.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Russia

Science diplomacy is key to relations with Russia – solves conflict escalationTurekian and Wang 9 [Vaughan, Chief International Officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Director of the Center for Science Diplomacy, Tom, Director of International Cooperation at the AAAS and Deputy Director at the CSD, “Building an International Network of Knowledge,” International Science and Technology Center, http://www.istc.ru/ISTC/ISTC.nsf/va_webpages/ScienceDiplomacyEng]

In the decades since the depths of the Cold War, scientists and engineers in the United States and Russia have built a special bond. As relations between their governments have shifted from acute tension to the thaw of détente to friendship and back to mutual wariness, our researchers have worked side-by-side on a range of successful projects. This cooperation has been critical in building and enhancing relationships that, while outside of the political realm, have helped to promote understanding and trust among the our people. And the relationships produced important science in fields ranging from physics, health, and space exploration to the development of Internet-based information-sharing networks and the control of nuclear proliferation. Today, the world is a vastly different place than it was 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Though tensions remain among countries, we no longer struggle with the strong polarization of national philosophies that characterized the Cold War. At the same time, common issues confront us on a

global scale. The current financial crisis, international terrorism, the changing climate, and competition over energy supplies all show how interrelated we are. National leaders are ever more aware of the reality that solving these and other challenges will require the innovative power of science, engineering and technology. Russia’s leaders understand that, and U.S. President Barack Obama does, too. These developments suggest that science diplomacy is entering an important new era, and that, if it is employed to help nations share knowledge and seek common solutions, it can be a powerful force of prosperity and peace.

Science diplomacy is key to successful relations with Russia - only way to solve global economic crisisTurekian et al 08 (Vaughan -, chief international officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and director of its new Center for Science Diplomacy, Tom Wang is AAAS’s director for international cooperation and deputy director of the Center, “Building an International Network of Knowledge”, http://www.istc.ru/istc/istc.nsf/va_WebPages/ScienceDiplomacyEng, 7/28/10, atl)In the decades since the depths of the Cold War, scientists and engineers in the United States and Russia have built a special bond. As relations between their governments have shifted from acute tension to the thaw of détente to friendship and back to mutual wariness, our researchers have worked side-by-side on a range of successful projects. This cooperation has been critical in building and enhancing relationships that, while outside of the political realm, have helped to promote understanding and trust among the our people. And the relationships produced important science in fields ranging from physics, health, and space exploration to the development of Internet-based information-sharing networks and the control of nuclear proliferation. Today, the world is a vastly different place than it was 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Though tensions remain among countries, we no longer struggle with the strong polarization of national philosophies that characterized the Cold War. At the same time, common issues confront us on a global scale. The current financial crisis, international terrorism, the changing climate, and competition over energy supplies all show how interrelated we are. National leaders are ever more aware of the reality that solving these and other challenges will require the innovative power of science, engineering and technology. Russia’s leaders understand that, and U.S. President Barack Obama does, too. These developments suggest that science diplomacy is entering an important new era, and that, if it is employed to help nations share knowledge and seek common solutions, it can be a powerful force of prosperity and peace. Science diplomacy is not a new concept between Russia and the United States. During the Cold War, despite the geopolitical deadlock between the Soviet Union and the United States, the two powers used scientific exchanges to initiate a thaw. The relationships that grew from those first tentative agreements have since produced vast knowledge, billions of dollars in economic activity and real improvement in human well-being. At a time of financial crisis and renewed geopolitical tension, there is an inclination to pull back from such cooperation. Indeed, there is an unspoken sense among some U.S. policymakers that science cooperation is a one-way street, a form of aid dispensed or withheld to achieve our own national ends. But this view is short-sighted. Two years ago, the United States and Russia renewed an ambitious science-cooperation agreement; the U.S. Department of State cited a range of valuable accomplishments by the nations’ researchers. A 2002 RAND report prepared for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy concluded that the joint efforts provided great benefits to the United States. U.S. scientists cite many cases in which Russian colleagues have shared valuable knowledge: Treating radioactive coolants; Using soil and climate data to understand climate change; Developing new treatments for bone cancer. These past examples show the potential of continuing cooperation. We have broad areas of common interest: Fundamental research in nuclear physics; fusion energy research; counter-terrorism; nanotechnology; the control of infectious disease; arctic science; and development of clean energy sources. The Russia-U.S. relationship has tended to be bilateral, but as the world grows more interconnected, this will have to evolve. Nations on every continent are investing in science and research capacity: South Korea and China have been transformed, seemingly overnight, by investing in innovation. Cuba has become a world leader in biomedical research. Rwanda is wiring itself for the Internet, and has begun to distribute thousands of computers to its young students. Argentina, as it develops its capacity in biotechnology and nanotechnology, is building cooperative science relationships not just in Latin America, but with Europe, Africa and the Arab world. However


different these nations are, each recognizes that science and technology will be the currency of the future; investments today will pay off in economic growth and societal development tomorrow. It is in this context that international science cooperation provides the opportunity to build bridges between countries, both through governments and through civil society relationships. To be most effective, such an approach needs commitment from all interested parties—not just scientists and engineers, but policy-makers, the foreign policy community, educators and the public. This emerging reality inspired the American Association for the Advancement of Science to establish a Center for Science Diplomacy earlier this year. In October, the Center convened intensive meetings with top U.S. leaders from foreign policy, business, education and science to discuss the best ways to pursue international partnerships, even with nations such as North Korea and Cuba, where governmental relationships have been profoundly strained. Still, an overarching challenge confronts us now: At a time of financial crisis, we must work together to address world problems in a way that contributes to sustainable, long-term economic growth. Governments play an important role in such partnerships, but they cannot succeed without the commitment of individual researchers in Russia, the United States, and many other countries. If scientists and engineers take leadership, we can pursue new discoveries and solutions to shared problems even as we build understanding and trust between our nations.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (1/)

Relations with Pakistan are maintained through scientific diplomacyWilliams 08 [James G., Director of International Networking Indiana University, “Extending Research and Education Connectivity to Pakistan”, US-Pakistan International Research and Education Network, http://pakistan.indiana.edu/documents/Pakistan%20Article.pdf]

Science diplomacy is a key strategy in bridging deep political and religious divides and in aiding oft-troubled US-Pakistan diplomatic relations. The activities involved in the planning and implementation of high-performance network infrastructure between the Pakistan Education and Research Network (PERN) and the US research and education networks (e.g. Internet2, NLR, ESnet and others) and in using this network to enhance research and education collaborations between the US and Pakistan support new science diplomacy activities between the US, the European Commission (EC), and Pakistan. Background: Science Diplomacy Science diplomacy can loosely be defined as cross-border cooperation and exchange of information to encourage and enhance scientific interaction and collaboration. In this case, the initial cooperation and exchange of information was infrastructure—a high-performance network connection between the US and Pakistan. The scientific interaction and collaboration are enhanced by the network infrastructure. On April 2, 2008, the House Science Subcommittee of Research and Science Education held hearings on Science Diplomacy. Nina V. Fedoroff, Science and Technology advisor to the Secretary of State and

the Administrator of USAID said “Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural

understanding.” In additional testimony, Arden L. Bement, Director of the National Science Foundation said, “Scientists have played an important role on the front-lines of US diplomacy since the end of World War II. They have been the enablers of larger international diplomacy efforts, from the robust scientific exchange with China to renewed and strengthened relations with Egypt, India, and Pakistan—all started with the peaceful beachhead of scientific diplomacy.”

Relations are key to preventing Indo-Pak warNature 98 [Nature Publishing Group, “A time for scientific diplomacy”, 393 (499), http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6685/full/393499a0.html]

The decisions by India and Pakistan to detonate nuclear devices will have few — if any — direct consequences for the relations between ordinary citizens of both countries. They won't, for example, diminish the passion Pakistanis have for Indian cinema, nor the fondness that Indians hold for Pakistani television soap operas. India won't stop Muslims from Pakistan flocking to the shrines of revered Sufi saints. And Pakistan won't stop Sikhs from India

crossing the border to visit their second-holiest temple. But the tests will almost certainly hamper communication between one group of Indians and Pakistanis who would like the chance to talk more: the scientists of both countries. The irony for those who gave their countries nuclear weapons status is that they face increased isolation, not only from the West, but also from each other. Science is perhaps one of the few vehicles that could help raise both the quality of life and levels of trust between these two quarrelsome neighbours. But at present, official, bilateral scientific cooperation does not exist. Scientists from both countries are not totally isolated from one another. They meet at international venues, such as the Abdus Salam Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, and at United Nations environment conventions, where both countries form part of the Group of 77 developing states. Pakistan's scientists can, in theory, travel to New Delhi to visit the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. Indian scientists, similarly, can travel to Islamabad to visit the headquarters of the intergovernmental Commission on Science for Sustainable Development for the South. Some maintain good personal relations with

cross-border colleagues. But in practice, contact is rare. Scientific collaboration may have helped thaw the Cold War in the West, but it has become one of the casualties of the continued tense relations between India and Pakistan. Politicians from both sides view science as a key element of each country's defense and security, and consider scientific cooperation — no matter how innocuous — as close to giving away state secrets. If pressed, they tend to take the view

that enhanced scientific collaboration will follow progress on outstanding political issues, not vice versa. This is unfortunate, as scientific collaboration can — as the West has shown — help to ease political tensions. It is also wrong, as such collaboration could bring urgent, practical benefits to both countries. Indeed, science could be harnessed to help India and Pakistan tackle a range of common problems. These include diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis; agricultural issues such as developing salt tolerance in crops; and environmental issues such as air pollution, as India and Pakistan have similar types of road transport.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6685/full/393499a0.html


Science Diplomacy Adv – Pakistan Scenario (2/)

Indo-Pak nuclear war will cause extinction Robock and Toon 09 [Alan and Owen Brian, “Local Nuclear War, Global Suffering”, Scientific American, http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf]

Twenty five years ago international teams of scientists showed that a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union could produce a “nuclear winter.” The smoke from vast fires started by bombs dropped on cit ies and industrial areas would envelop the planet and absorb so much sunlight that the earth’s sur face would get cold, dark and dry, killing plants worldwide and eliminating our food supply. Sur face temperatures would reach winter values in the summer. International discussion about this prediction, fueled largely by astronomer Carl Sagan, forced the leaders of the two superpowers to confront the possibility that their arms race endangered not just themselves but the entire human race. Countries large and small demanded disarmament. Nuclear winter became an important factor in ending the nuclear arms race. Looking back later, in 2000, former Soviet Union leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev observed, “Models made by Russian and American scientists showed that a nuclear war would result in a nuclear winter that would be extremely destructive to all life on earth; the knowledge of that was a great stimulus to us, to people of honor and mo-rality, to act.” Why discuss this topic now that the cold war has ended? Because as other nations continue to acquire nuclear weapons, smaller, regional nu clear wars could create a similar global catastro phe. New analyses reveal that a conflict be tween India and Pakistan, for example, in which 100 nuclear bombs were dropped on cities and industrial areas—only 0.4 percent of the world’s more than 25,000 warheads—would produce enough smoke to cripple global agriculture. A regional war could cause widespread loss of life even in countries far away from the conflict.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf


Science Diplomacy Adv – Disease – Link

Scientific diplomacy is key to controlling infectious diseasesStine 09 [Deborah, Director of the National Academies Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program, PhD in Public Administration from the American University, “Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, February 3, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34503.pdf]

For the United States to be competitive, according to Bush Administration witnesses, it needs to know where the frontier of science is occurring. As other countries increase their investment in higher education

and R&D, the top science and engineering research and facilities may not be in the United States, but in other countries. This increases the importance of U.S. investment in international S&T diplomatic activities, said Bush Administration witnesses, including federal programs that support U.S. scientists’ collaborations with foreign scientists, and access to the best research facilities in the world, as well as enhancing the international connections of U.S. science and engineering students and

leaders. In addition, U.S. science and engineering higher education and research helps developing countries by enhancing their human resource capacity, and as a result, their ability to achieve long-term development. These international connections can be important, said Bush Administration witnesses, not just for those countries, but in helping the U.S. respond to global challenges such as infectious diseases such as avian flu. Further, according to a Bush Administration witness, international cooperative activities at their agency in almost all instances are conducted on a “no exchange of funds” basis with U.S. funding supporting U.S. scientists and engineers, not those in the cooperating country.28 The degree to which the Obama Administration agrees with this position is not known at this time.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34503.pdf


Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change Scenario

Solving climate change depends on increasing scientific diplomacyHulme and Mahony 10 [Mike and Martin, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, “Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC?”, http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf]

The consequences of this ‘geography of IPCC expertise’ are significant, affecting the construction of IPCC

emissions scenarios (Parikh, 1992), the framing and shaping of climate change knowledge (Shackley, 1997; Lahsen,

2007; O’Neill et al., 2010) and the legitimacy of the knowledge assessments themselves (Elzinga, 1996; Weingart,

1999; Lahsen, 2004; Grundmann, 2007; Mayer & Arndt, 2009; Beck, 2010). As Bert Bolin, the then chairmen of the IPCC remarked back in 1991: “ Right now, many countries, especially developing countries, simply do not trust assessments in which their scientists and policymakers have not participated. Don’t you think credibility demands global representation?” (cited in Schneider, 1991). Subsequent evidence for such suspicions has

come from many quarters (e.g. Karlsson et al., 2007) and Kandlikar and Sagar concluded their 1999 study of the North-South knowledge divide by arguing, “... it must be recognised that a fair and effective climate protection regime that requires cooperation with developing countries, will also require their participation in the underlying research, analysis and assessment” (p.137). This critique is also voiced more recently by Myanna Lahsen (2004) in her study of Brazil and the climate change regime: “Brazilian climate scientists reflect some distrust of ... the IPCC, which they describe as dominated by Northern framings of the problems and therefore biased against interpretations and interest of the South” (p.161).

Climate change will cause mass extinctionBrook 08 [Barry, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide, “Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html ]

However, although the geological record is essential for understanding how species respond to natural climate change, there are a number of reasons why future impacts on biodiversity will be particularly severe: A) Human-induced warming is already rapid and is expected to further accelerate. The IPCC storyline

scenarios such as A1FI and A2 imply a rate of warming of 0.2 to 0.6°C per decade. By comparison, the average change from 15 to 7 thousand years ago was ~0.005°C per decade, although this was occasionally punctuated by short-lived (and possibly regional-scale) abrupt climatic jolts, such as the Younger Dryas,

Dansgaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events. B) A low-range optimistic estimate of 2°C of 21st century warming will shift the Earth’s global mean surface temperature into conditions which have not existed since the middle Pliocene, 3 million years ago. More than 4°C of atmospheric heating will take the planet’s climate back, within a century, to the largely ice-free world that existed prior to about 35 million years ago . The average ‘species’ lifetime’ is only 1 to 3 million years. So it is quite possible that in the comparative geological instant of a century, planetary conditions will be transformed to a state unlike anything that most of the world’s modern species have encountered. C) As noted above, it is critical to understand that ecosystems in the 21st century start from an already massively ‘shifted baseline’ and so have lost resilience . Most habitats are already degraded and their populations depleted, to a lesser or greater extent, by past human activities. For millennia our impacts have been localised although often severe, but during the last few centuries we have unleashed physical and biological transformations on a global scale. In this context, synergies (positive or self-reinforcing feedbacks) from global warming, ocean acidification, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, chemical pollution (Figure 2) are likely lead to cascading extinctions. For instance, over-harvest, habitat loss and changed fire regimes will likely enhance the direct impacts of climate change and make it difficult for species to move to undamaged areas or to maintain a ‘buffer’ population size. One threat reinforces the other, or multiple impacts play off on each other, which makes the overall impact far greater than if each individual threats occurred in isolation (Brook et al 2008).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html#brook

http://www.maweb.org/en/index.aspx

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/jouzel2007.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.html

http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf


Science Diplomacy Adv – Climate Change – Data Sharing

Tech sharing with China is key to solving global warmingLu, 09 (An writer for China View, Xinhua news, “China calls for technology sharing mechanism for anti-global warming efforts”, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/15/content_7795062.htm, 7/27/10, atl)

CHIBA, Japan, March 15 (Xinhua) -- The world does not lack innovative environmental technologies which help cut

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but is short of an effective mechanism supporting distribution and

common sharing of such beneficial technologies , Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of China National Development and Reform Commission, reiterated here on Saturday at an international meeting. Developing countries are in need of and want to use new technologies in their GHG reduction efforts, but do not have enough capital to purchase latest technologies for their contribution to the anti-global warming campaign, Xie said in his speech at the fourth ministerial meeting of the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development which is being held in Chiba city, east of Tokyo. China supports the proposal of establishing the Multilateral Technology Access Fund which could bring more climate-friendly technologies into the box of "public goods," he said. "Only by doing so, could the cost of technology transfer be cut down so that developing countries could afford and apply advanced technologies," Xie said. "Large-scale infrastructure construction is underway in developing countries during their industrialization process. Heavy GHG emissions due to backward technology may persist for quite a long time if they were not within access to advanced

environmental technology , " Xie underlined the necessity of building a related mechanism as early as possible. Xie welcomed developed nations' willingness to provide capital to facilitate developing nations' participation in environment-related global cooperation, and called on developed nations to allocate at least 0.5 percent of their respective annual GDP to help distributing key technologies beyond commercial interests. The meeting, which is a forum to talk about a post-Kyoto framework for better tackling with global climate change, is the first in a series of ministerial meetings in the run-up to the Group of Eight summit slated for July in northern Japan's Hokkaido Prefecture.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Link (1/)

Science Diplomacy is critical for the execution of US interests around the globeAgre, 10 (Peter, Nobel Prize, Chemistry, 2003; AAAS President 2009-10 “Science Diplomacy is Crucial to U.S. Foreign Policy”, http://psaonline.org/article.php?id=620, 7/28/10, atl)

The United States is and must remain the global leader in science, technology, higher education and innovation. Respect for American science and technology is evident even in regions where there are strong negative views of U.S. foreign policies - students from around the world

still flock to attend our colleges and universities. As we seek to promote our national security interests overseas, we should turn this strength into an effective tool for U.S. diplomacy. Many of our most pressing foreign policy challenges – energy, climate change, disease, desperate poverty and underdevelopment, and WMD proliferation – demand both technological and policy solutions . In these and other areas, U.S. national security depends on our willingness to share the costs and benefits of scientific progress with other nations. Enhanced international scientific cooperation can also lead to greater economic prosperity at home. The U.S. needs new technologies and markets to create jobs, grow new industries and rebuild consumer and investor confidence. Sustainable international partnerships allow us to leverage limited resources and give American companies access to cutting edge research and expertise around the world. We, the undersigned Democrats and Republicans, believe President Obama, the

Administration, and Congress should elevate the role of Science Diplomacy in U.S. national security and foreign policy, and should work to: Strengthen links between U.S. and foreign scientific communities as a key part of U.S. diplomacy; Offer scientific cooperation and technological assistance as a bridge to opening broader dialogue with former adversaries and as an incentive to prevent conflict; Bring the world’s top scientists and engineers together to tackle pressing global challenges like energy security, climate change, poverty, disease, and WMD proliferation; and Provide funding for exchange programs, collaborative research, technical assistance and capacity building to fully qualified U.S. governmental and non-governmental organizations. Now is the time to draw upon every tool of U.S. power to promote our interests in the

world. We should make maximum use of a core strength of this country - Science Diplomacy.

Science diplomacy is key to positive perceptions of the US Lord & Turekian 7 (Kristin M., Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, & Vaughan C., Chief international officer, AAAS, Washington, DC. Science, Vol 315, “Time for a New Era of Science Diplomacy” 9 Feb 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/315/5813/769.pdf) JM

It is time to adopt science diplomacy for a new era. Old-fashioned diplomacy between governments, while necessary, is no longer sufficient. In this age of the Internet, rapid and relatively low-cost travel, and 24-hour global news, the power of nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs), private companies, and social networks is rising. To protect and advance U.S. interests, the U.S. government needs to accelerate its engagement with these new actors and to build positive relationships with

foreign publics, as well as their diplomats. Science and technology (S&T) offer a promising entry point for engaging citizens and civil society organizations worldwide. An opinion piece on the op-ed page of the Washington Times called on the U.S. government to recognize the opportunities afforded by widespread respect for American S&T (4). We concur. But without the engagement and commitment of the U.S. scientific community, the government cannot succeed. Why Diplomacy Through Science? Nearly 4 years ago, the United States entered a complex and difficult war with Iraq. Since then, global public opinion regarding the United States has reached all-time lows. Polls in 33 countries indicate that only 40% of those surveyed view America’s influence in the world as mainly

positive. In contrast, 45% view China positively and 58% hold favorable views of Europe. Dislike of America extends to long-time friends and allies. Only 30% of Canadians, 21% of Germans, and 15% of Turks hold favorable opinions of the United States (5). Readers may ask why this matters if the U.S.

government is charged with protecting U.S. interests, not winning popularity contests overseas. The answer is that, increasingly, our interests depend on the support (or at least acquiescence) of foreign populations. Negative images of the United States translate

directly into constraints on American influence and ability to implement policy. Engaging foreign citizens is the goal of public diplomacy. As the 9/11 Commission report (6) underscored, engaging foreign public opinion is vital to winning the global struggle of ideas. President Bush clearly agrees, having appointed one of his closest advisers, Karen Hughes, to the position of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 2005. Despite this high-level attention, however, promoting America’s

image overseas continues to be a daunting task, particularly in predominantly Muslim countries. In our view, public diplomacy is most effective when exercised through deeds rather than words. The U.S. government should focus on doing things that positively affect foreign societies and speak to what we stand for as a nation. We should foster tangible initiatives that promote education, economic growth, human wellbeing, and hope. If we

understand public diplomacy in these terms, the role of S&T is pivotal. Scientific education creates citizens with the critical thinking skills necessary for successful participatory governance and competition in the global economy. S&T are linked strongly with economic development (7). Zogby public opinion polls in several Middle

Eastern nations, where the United States is particularly unpopular, indicate that S&T are the single most respected elements of American society (8). Social science research indicates that collaboration to solve common problems is one of the best ways to foster positive relations between groups (9).



Science diplomacy is key to effective hegemony – solves counterbalancingLijesevic, 10Jasmina, PhD Candidate in Politics at Swansea University conducting her doctoral research on the political rationale for US-Russian cooperation on the Shuttle-Mir programme, April 1, 2010, “Science Diplomacy at the heart of international relations”, http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3704, 7/28/10, atl

Science diplomacy is a move away from the development of hard power capabilities of technological development in the military, and on to soft power[1], using science as an asset to further mediation and cooperation between nations. According to US

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “Science diplomacy and science and technology cooperation between the United States and other countries is one of our most effective ways of influencing and assisting other nations and creating real bridges between the United States and counterparts.”[2] In a recent report, The Royal Society concluded that the still fluid concept of science diplomacy could be applied in three ways: Informing foreign policy objectives with scientific advice (science in diplomacy), Facilitating international science cooperation (diplomacy for science), Using science cooperation to improve international relations between countries (science for diplomacy.) [3] There has been a surge in recent years of an interest in science and its potential uses in foreign policy. There are two primary groups that currently have a stake in the development of science as a tool in international relations: foreign policy advocates and the scientific community itself. For the foreign policy advocates, science policy is used to further wider goals, whilst for scientists the primary aims are the desire to collaborate with the best people in their field, to work in the best research facilities, and to secure further sources of funding. Scientific organisations are currently pushing science cooperation and diplomacy higher up the political agenda. With the aim of making science policy a key element of foreign policy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) now has a dedicated Centre for Science Diplomacy[4], and the organisation already cooperates closely with its EU counterparts on issues such as nuclear arms monitoring. [5] Possibly the most high profile example of scientific cooperation across Europe is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), which was one of Europe’s first joint ventures and it now includes 20 Member States. Key to the discovery and development of the internet, CERN’s business is fundamental physics, finding out what the universe is made of and how it works.[6] A major, international flagship project, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, is funded by various organisations from a number of different countries. In terms of diplomacy, the organisation can list some of the first post-Second World War contracts between German and Israeli scientists, and cooperation between the USSR and other Iron Curtain countries in among its historical achievements. While still in the discussion stage, the EU intends to create the position of Chief Scientific Advisor, although it is presently unclear whether the structure of the body will be similar to that of the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).[7] However, it does point to the fact that EU leaders firmly acknowledge the important of science at the heart of their organisation, although there is no escaping the fact that great difficulty still arises as a result of 90% of R&D funding coming from national budgets. With many issues, including environment policy and security, being transnational in nature, surely it is imperative to effectively tackle these issues on a transnational basis? [8] In a recent Huffington Post article, Jared Cohen discusses the U.S. government led delegation of high-technology CEOs to Russia to engage with Russian government stakeholders, civil society, students, academic leaders, and private sector entities from a cross-section of Russian society with the aims of forging partnerships on education, health, anti-trafficking, anti-corruption, and e-governance. He argues that during the Cold War, such dialogue would not have been possible as both the Russians and the US viewed innovation as a zero-sum game, and that whereas now innovation is perhaps the most important shared resource between the two nations. “Much more than government-to-government meetings on START and Iran; it also entails government officials engaging non-governmental actors, including NGOs, entrepreneurs, students, and professors. At the core of this policy is the creation of linkages between non-governmental Americans and their Russian counterparts, and with Russian government interlocutors to find areas of mutual interest and seek out new opportunities for collaboration”.[9] Via “U.S. Innovation Dialogue” Cohen identifies six major areas where the actors seek to deliver: Education, Entrepreneurship Training, and Mentorship Anti-trafficking and child protection Combating Cyber-crime Health E-governance and Collaboration Promoting Cultural Collaboration Although certainly involving another dimension –

collaboration on international issues and involving new technologies and communication tools not previously available – and a transparency that did not exist during the Cold War years, Cohen nevertheless does touch on an area in diplomacy that is worth exploring within the context of science. In addition to philanthropic assistance, the West responded to the crisis in Russian science at the end of the Cold War not only by trying to prevent nuclear proliferation but also by pursuing profitable ventures. The US and Germany, afraid that top Soviet nuclear scientists would be courted by nations trying to

develop their ow n nuclear arsenal, developed the Baker-Genscher initiative. Part of this initiative was agreed in 1992, whereby the US would provide $35m and Europe $25m to create “clearing houses” for the top 2000 nuclear scientists from the former-USSR to focus on research fields unrelated to weapons development. [10] By the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy had entered into a dozen agreements involving nuclear science and technology. [11] Often maligned as being merely an expensive exercise in national prestige, space policy – and the competitive/cooperative relationship between the US and USSR/Russia – has also often proved to be a good case study for science diplomacy. NASA, an organisation originally set up during the Cold War, which competed with the USSR in the Space Race to the moon and for dominance in orbit, had its roots directly linked to enhancing national security. Since the early 1990s, the agency was placed at the forefront of cooperation with Russia on space programmes with the continual aim of aiding US national security interests. Via cooperation with the Russian space agency, and in a similar vein to the Baker-Genscher initiative, the US helped provide continued employment to former Soviet scientists who might otherwise have plied their trade in Iran or North Korea, and aided the ailing Russian economy. When Russia sought to sell cryogenic rocket engines to

http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3704#_ftn11











http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3704

http://www.e-ir.info/?p=3704


India, the US was concerned the dual-use technology could be applied to ballistic missile development despite the two parties insistence that technology transfers were purely intended to aid India’s indigenous satellite launching program; investment by the US and cooperation with Russia eventually ended


the sale. However, this was another stepping stone to what had come before: cooperation between the two nations during the height of the Cold War under the auspices of scientific bodies and national academies when formal political relations were strained, or even directly between the two governments on the high profile Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) during the 1970s when the political climate of détente allowed for increased collaboration. It can certainly be argued that by examining the pattern of previous scientific cooperation between the two nations, there is evidence to suggest that what Cohen describes is a logical and expedient continuation and expansion in policy and development between the US and Russia, and that this will no doubt continue while it still serves both their mutual interests. Although referring specifically to space policy, the broader aspects of the geopolitics of science that Nicholas Peter discusses in his 2006 paper certainly apply. [12] During the Cold War “intrabloc” cooperation was the norm; however, “interbloc” cooperation also took place on a more limited set of occasions. This pattern has evolved since the end of the Cold War, leading to science and technology increasingly shaping foreign policy and diplomacy. Therefore, it can be expected that activities will also influence the future geopolitical context as governments initiate or participate in collaborative projects for a number of scientific reasons, but also for broader domestic and foreign policy reasons. Science should ideally provide the basis of non-ideological environments for the participation and free exchange of ideas. However, science has been, and will no doubt at times continue to be, used for political gain with the express aim of furthering a particular ideology and proving its superiority. Despite the negatives surrounding it as a policy tool, science diplomacy has been effective for many years and led to coalition building and conflict resolution, and as the expansion of new technology continues it seems that politicians are seeing even further value to exploring science as a method of foreign policy.




Science diplomacy is the only way to retain global influence in the modern world Federoff 8 (Nina, prof @ Penn State, Science and Tech adviser to sec of state in the Obama Admin. “TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION” April 2. http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf) JM

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of “soft power” – part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal – and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by

their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement. Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly transnational and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries,

where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become

familiar with American technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50% of physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the National Science Board’s 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47% of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S. research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States – representing 70% of the world’s current population.. The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world, relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more paramount.



Restoring relations is key to US heg, stopping nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and foreign dominance of resourcesLeverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The International Spectator, Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2010, 75–87, 7/27/10, atl)

From an interest-based perspective, the imperatives for comprehensive realignment of US–Iranian relations are as

compelling for Washington as they are for Tehran . Certainly, the costs accrued from the dysfunctional Iran policy are substantial. As we have noted, nearly three decades of US policy toward Iran emphasizing diplomatic isolation, escalating economic pressure, and thinly veiled support for regime change have damaged the interests of the United States and its

allies in the Middle East . US – Iranian tensions have been a constant source of regional instability and are an increasingly dangerous risk factor for global energy security . As a result of a dysfunctional Iran policy, among other

foreign policy blunders, the American position in the region is currently under greater strain than at any point since the end

of the Cold War.19 Looking ahead, how Washington deals with the Islamic Republic has become , in the context of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the primary litmus test for the future of America’s regional position. At this point in the evolution of the Middle East’s balance of power and geopolitical influence, the United States cannot achieve any of its high-priority objectives in the region – reaching negotiated settlements to the unresolved tracks of the Arab–Israeli conflict, stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan, containing terrorist threats from violent jihadi extremists, curbing nuclear proliferation, putting Lebanon on a more stable trajectory and ensuring an adequate long-term flow of oil and natural gas to international energy markets – absent a productive strategic

relationship with Iran . There is a powerful analogy here to the reorientation of American policy toward the People’s Republic of China undertaken by President Nixon during the early 1970s. Recognising that a quarter century of efforts to isolate, weaken and press China had not served US interests, in Asia or globally, Nixon recast America’s China policy so that it would serve those interests. Some observers question the parallel between the policy challenges confronting Nixon regarding China and those confronting decision-makers today regarding Iran, arguing that there was an immediate Cold War rationale for US–China rapprochement (to ‘‘triangulate’’ against the Soviet Union) that is absent in the Iranian case. From this perspective, the best that America can do vis-a` -vis the Islamic Republic is incremental de´tente. But, as discussed above, this is not a workable approach from an Iranian perspective.20 Moreover, such a recommendation defines both Nixon’s accomplishment vis-a` -vis China and the contemporary challenge of Iran too narrowly. The primary impetus for US–China rapprochement was not a common enemy, but the need to align US and Chinese interests to deal with an array of strategic challenges; that is why the relationship established by Nixon and his Chinese counterparts has become even more important in the post-

Cold War era. And, as with China in the 1970s, the United States today cannot address some of its most important foreign policy problems without a strategic opening to Iran .


Science Diplomacy Adv – Soft Power – Impact

Science diplomacy solves the internal link to every major impact – resolves issues related to warming, resource shortages, economic opportunity and public health, ensuring global stability Federoff 8 (Nina, prof @ Penn State, Science and Tech adviser to sec of state in the Obama Admin. “TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION” April 2. http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf) JM

The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well,

the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats

can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political

boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common

challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad

among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to solve relations with the Middle EastDickson, 10 (David, Director of SciDev.Net, “Can science diplomacy help strengthen the Muslim world?”, http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2010/06/26/can-science-diplomacy-unite-the-muslim-world/, 7/27/10, atl)

A key element of the new interest in science diplomacy has been the effort, particularly by the US administration, to improve relations with the countries of the Middle East and the Muslim world. These efforts to use scientific agreements as a central strategy in so-called “soft diplomacy” were highlighted in a speech delivered in Cairo last year by newly elected President Barack

Obama who promised a new era of cooperation with the region. The optimism of that speech has since faded, partly because follow-up is still awaited . But many remain sympathetic to the idea that building a strong scientific and technological base in the region would not only increase the economic strength of Muslim countries, but also have broader

cultural and political implications . One of the strongest protagonists of this view is Pakistani-born Princess Sumaya of Jordan, who plays an highly active role as president of the country’s Royal Scientific Society based in Amman. In an address to the Wilton Park meeting on science diplomacy that was both thoughtful and passionate, she presented a vision of how promoting science and technology — a task that she admitted benefitted from external support — could bring both peace and prosperity to the region . Princess Sumaya used her speech to make vigorous criticism of the way, too often in the Muslim world, scientific leaders had a tendency to focus their efforts on building and controlling their own power bases, rather than seeing their role as part of a global scientific community. “We Arabs have a demon within us who calls for the biggest and the brightest, a demon that

appeals to us to build an edifice that will put the neighbours in the shade,” she said. “Unfortunately, we do little to work together . ” Multilateralism was not a great strength in the Arab world; indeed it was hardly a reality. But it was important for countries in the region to learn to collaborate on science and technology, just as European countries had done to boost their

technological innovation. “Our resource-rich countries must work with talent-rich, but resource-poor, economies for the benefit of all,” Princess Sumaya said. “Spreading opportunities across the Arab world will stem our debilitating brain-drain and help to create a sustainable and productive environment for all our populations.” A similar plea had come on the previous day from Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who described how the members of his organisation were committed to promoting science and technology to enhance the well-being of the Muslim world. Keen to challenge the idea that the transfer of scientific knowledge was primarily a West-to-East affair, he pointed out that, in the seventeenth century, the English scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon had acknowledged that many key inventions – such as printing, gunpowder and the compass – had come from the Muslim world.

Increase in Middle East relations are crucial for to stop Iran StrikesLeverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a pol itical risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The International Spectator, Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2010, 75–87, 7/27/10, atl)

Thus, American political realities strongly suggest the need for a comprehensive approach to US–Iranian diplomacy, just as Iranian strategic concerns do. So why has the United States – even under the Obama administration – not moved more purposefully to embrace comprehensive engagement with Tehran, aimed at a fundamental realignment of relations? Part of the answer lies in domestic

politics. While US domestic political dynamics necessitate a comprehensive approach to rapprochement with Iran, they also make this difficult to do. Certainly, American foreign policy since the end of the US–Soviet Cold War remains heavily influenced by domestic constituencies mobilised in ways that raise the political risks to an

American administration of pursuing strategic realignment with Iran . 29 But a larger part of the explanation, in our view, lies in ongoing confusion among American foreign policy elites about two critical questions: The first of these questions is the relative stability/fragility of the Islamic Republic’s political order. This question has become even more controversial following Iran’s June 2009 presidential election. We have argued elsewhere that the Islamic Republic is not imploding – the Islamic Republic has withstood numerous internal and external political challenges during its 30-year history, and there is no evidence that the ‘‘Green’’ movement which emerged out of the 2009 election could displace the current political order.30 On this basis, we argue that Washington should engage the Islamic Republic as it is presently constituted, not as some in the United States and elsewhere might wish it to be. Of course, other analysts take a different view; within this camp, even some who oppose the imposition of sanctions or US military action against Iran argue that the United States should pull back from diplomatic engagement with

Tehran until the political situation becomes clearer. The second of these questions is whether Tehran’s national security and foreign policy strategies are designed to resist aspects of US hegemony that threaten Iranian interests and regional prerogatives or to replace American hegemony in the Middle East with Iranian

hegemony. We have argued elsewhere that, since the death of Ayatollah Khomeni in 1989, the Islamic Republic’s national security and foreign policy strategies have been primarily defensive in nature, designed to resist and undermine various aspects of American hegemony.31 On the basis of that analysis we argue for strategically grounded rapprochement with Tehran as the optimal policy choice for the United States. For those who believe that the Islamic Republic aspires to replace the United States as the Middle East’s regional hegemon, real rapprochement seems

impossible; from this perspective, Washington’s strategic options toward Iran boil down to some mix of


containment and deterrence, on the one hand, or the explicit embrace of regime change in Tehran as the ultimate objective of America’s Iran policy.

Strikes would cause Iran to develop the bomb and draw Russia and China into the fight ending in inevitable extinctionJan 06 (Abid Ullah, “Why American will Reap in Iran What it Doesn’t expect”, posted February 20th http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=528456)

If Iran has no nuclear weapons, as concludes Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA, the war on Iran, in itself, will not lead to the speculated World War 3. It will only worsen the situation worldwide. Instead of directly ending up in a World War, the war on Iran will only become a next phase in spreading the World War that is already on without our realizing that we are passing through its initial phases. [1] On the other hand, a false assumption that Iran has no nuclear weapons will, in fact, quickly engulf many more countries and take the World War that is already on to a quick climax.[2] Under-estimating Iran’s nuclear capacity is pushing the extremists in Washington into launching a war that the US administration has been planning since a long time. The IAEA’s inspections and confirmation that Iran has no nuclear weapons and there is no nuclear program in operation are no different than the confirmation by the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Confirmation of the absence of weapons actually led to the United States' final decision to launch a war of aggression on Iraq. This time around, the United States is in for a big trouble. It is attacking Iran, not for the reason that it has, or it is planning to have nuclear weapons, but only because it has assumed that Iran is years away from producing nuclear weapons. Many analysts believe that an attack on Iran will turn into a World War because the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. However, the main reason for escalation of the conflict will be exactly the assumption on the part of the United States, Israel and Britain that Iran cannot respond with nuclear weapons. At a time when nuclear material—including red mercury and different forms of Uranium—were flowing in the streets of Pakistan, a high ranking Pakistani official, working in the Iranian consulate, told this writer that Iran is obtaining smuggled nuclear material from its field commanders in Afghanistan. It was well before the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan took place. Keeping this fact in mind, it is simply naïve to assume that the United States or Israel will launch an un-provoked war of aggression on Iran, and Iran will remain a sitting duck and not retaliate with what it must have refined and retooled since mid-nineties.[3] Even if we assume that the Iranian government purchased nuclear material without any intention of putting it to use, it is highly unlikely that it will still let this material gather dust while it is being openly and seriously threatened by the United States and Israel. If scientists in Germany and the United States could work to develop nuclear weapons from scratch during the World War II, how long will it take a nation pushed against the wall and with all the ingredients available to put something workable together and retaliate with a bang? So, the practical chances of Iran’s retaliation with a nuclear weapon in the face of a war of aggression imposed on it are far more than the theoretical assumptions that Iranian Intelligence will plan covert operations which will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. It is true that a nuclear response from Iran would mean a definite suicide when looked in perspective of the nuclear power of the United States and Iran. But it also doesn’t make any sense that the United States would keep bombing Iran, the way it has planned, into the Stone Age, yet despite being able to respond, Iran will simply turn the other cheek. This chain of inevitable reactions will in fact lead a wider conflagration that the warlords in Washington and Tel Aviv have not even imagined. Emboldened by their adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and deluded by the IAEA conclusion that Iraq has no nuclear weapons, the warlords are set to go into a war that will definitely lead to massive bloodshed in the Middle East and the downfall of the United States as we see it. Despite Bush and company’s claims that the world is not the same after 9/11, the world remained more or less the same after 9/11. However, their world will surely turn upside down with their miscalculation of going into a third war of aggression in five years. The Russian and Chinese stakes in this issue cannot be ignored altogether. Attacking Iran would prove too much for Russia and China. Russia has snubbed Washington by announcing it would go ahead and honor a $700 million contract to arm Iran with surface-to-air missiles, slated to guard Iran's nuclear facilities. And after being burned when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority invalidated Hussein-era oil deals, China has snapped up strategic energy contracts across the world, including in Latin America, Canada and Iran. It can be assumed that both China and Russia will not sit idly by and watch Iran being annihilated by the United States. If Iran is attacked with lethal force, it will retaliate with the utmost force available at its disposal; that much is certain. Remembering my discussion 9 year ago with a well informed source who was working for the Iranian government, I am pretty sure that the utmost force in the hands of Iran definitely includes nuclear weapons. One of the signs for that is the confidence with which the Iranian government responds to US threats. Iranian leaders have acted responsibly and reasonably so far. It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men. The Iranians tried to avoid purchasing nuclear material from the Pakistani black market to avoid arousing unnecessary suspicion. They kept their nuclear program limited to energy production. It is the United States and its allies which are provoking it into reaction. As a result, it has been a mistake of reasonable men in Iran to mistake the behavior of extremists in Washington and not getting out of NPT or testing a few nuclear devices to balance its power against its enemies. Many analysts are predicting that attack on Iran will be provoked because a majority of Americans are not in favor of a new war. Although setting up a pre-text for domestic support cannot be ruled out, one can say with certainty from the track record of Bush and company that they will hardly bother to engineer another terrorist attack.[4] In the fits of madness, they have already made themselves believe that they have enough justification to wage a war or aggression on Iran. The Washington Times has already started beating war drums and promoting "policy experts" who believe the US must go alone if needed (Feb 6, 2006).[5] Irrespective of any pretext and going alone or in a coalition of barbarians, the signs tell us that the warlords are not going to relinquish their totalitarian dreams. It is very unfortunate on their part that they are putting their hands in hornet nest where they may get stung with nuclear weapons. Their retaliation, for sure, will lead to total disaster. A disaster, far worse than what the title "World War 3" can convey.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (1/)

US relations with the Middle East is close to collapse - Gaza raidKaron, 10 (Tony, Editor for TIME Magazine, June 2, 2010, “The Gaza Raid: No Help to U.S. Mideast Diplomacy”, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1993403,00.html, 7/27/10, atl)

Suggesting that "Israel is gradually turning from an asset to ... a burden" for the U.S. would bring swift and ferocious denunciation on Capitol Hill . But that statement passed with barely a shrug in Jerusalem on Tuesday when it was made before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee by Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. And his point may well be illustrated in the weeks ahead, amid the diplomatic fallout from Israel's deadly Monday raid on an aid convoy sailing to Gaza. With a new aid vessel already en route to challenge the four-year economic siege of the Hamas-

controlled territory — and activists promising a new flotilla — the U.S. faces a growing challenge in balancing its support for Israel with other important diplomatic relationships in the region . The Obama Administration has absented itself from the near universal condemnation of Israel's handling of the Gaza flotilla, confining itself to statements of regret for the loss of life and calling for an Israeli-led investigation into the events that left at least nine pro-Palestinian activists dead. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did allow on Tuesday that "the situation in Gaza is unsustainable and unacceptable," although she stopped short of demanding an end to the four-year siege. "Israel's legitimate security needs must be met, just as the Palestinians' legitimate needs for sustained humanitarian assistance and regular access to reconstruction materials must also be assured," Clinton said. Behind the scenes, however, U.S. officials were reportedly urging Israel to avoid repeating Monday's debacle with future ships and ensure that humanitarian aid is able to reach the territory. Although President Obama made a similar call in his Cairo speech to the Muslim world last year, that had little practical effect on the status quo. This time, however, a wider set of U.S. interests may hinge in part on defusing tensions over Gaza. The U.S. certainly pays a political price in the Middle East for the perception that it is avoiding criticizing or pressuring the Israelis. From its failure to get the Netanyahu government to impose a settlement freeze to the likelihood that Israel will ignore Washington's call for the Jewish state to sign on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Obama Administration has seen the Arab world rapidly lose hope in the U.S. after the optimism prompted by the new President's early statements. The most glaring diplomatic damage to the U.S. and Israel caused by Monday's raid, however, was the widening of the breach with Turkey, the most

important ally in the Muslim world to both . Ankara branded the raid, in which at least four of its nationals were killed, an act of

"state terrorism" and warned that it had irreparably damaged relations between Turkey and Israel . It also demanded support from its fellow NATO members. Even before the raid, Turkey had been irked by the Obama Administration's dismissal of its efforts to broker a nuclear compromise with Iran. Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, on Tuesday bluntly expressed his government's disappointment at the Obama Administration's response to the flotilla shootings. Davutoglu did, however, salute the Europeans for their more forthright response, and promised to restore normal ties with Israel if the Gaza blockade were lifted. Britain's new Conservative Foreign Secretary, William Hague, condemned Israel's action, calling for a lifting of the siege and a "durable resolution to the Gaza crisis" — a goal that could only be realized through engagement with Hamas, in contrast to the current U.S.-led boycott of the organization. Public outrage across the Arab world prompted two silent partners in the Gaza siege — Egypt and the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas — to distance themselves from the Hamas boycott and the Gaza blockade. Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak, ordered the opening of the Rafah border crossing into Gaza, while the Fatah leadership spoke

of isolating Israel in international forums and sending a delegation to Gaza. The status quo deemed "unsustainable" by Clinton is rooted in a failed policy on Hamas shared by the U.S. and Israel. When the Islamists were elected to govern the Palestinian Authority in January 2006, Israel, encouraged by the Bush Administration, imposed an economic siege whose goal, according to a key Israeli government official at the time, was to "put the Palestinians on a diet" but avoid starving them to death, hoping that imposing misery would spur a revolt against Hamas. The policy of keeping Palestinians there on life support in a kind of twilight existence while the West Bank would be allowed to flourish under Fatah was endorsed by the U.S. through a peace

process that simply ignored Gaza. But four years later, Hamas remains very much in charge of Gaza, even though the quality of life

has deteriorated precipitously. "The incident [at sea] is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel does not bear sole responsibility," the International Crisis Group (ICG), a respected mediation organization of former diplomats, wrote in a statement on Tuesday. "For years, many in the international community have been complicit in a policy that aimed at isolating Gaza in the hope of weakening Hamas. The policy is morally appalling and politically self-defeating. It has harmed the people of Gaza without loosening Hamas' control. Yet it has persisted regardless of evident failure." The ICG's comment is a none-too-subtle indictment of the Obama Administration's failure to offer a viable strategy for dealing with

Gaza's "unacceptable" reality . Washington's partners in the "Quartet" responsible for the Mideast peace process — including the European Union, Russia and the U.N. — had somewhat skeptically followed the Bush Administration's boycott of Hamas, but the flotilla bloodshed will likely accelerate the unraveling of that policy as Western and Arab public opinion presses governments to do more. Israel, however, has made clear that, while it may be persuaded to be more flexible on what it allows into Gaza, it has no intention of ending the blockade. And to the extent that the Obama Administration is perceived to accept the continuation of the siege , it could find its influence in the Middle East begin to wane, scuppering the President's hopes of resetting U.S. relations with the Muslim world .


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Relats Low (2/)

The US is currently in a “New Cold War” with the Middle EastLeverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a pol itical risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The International Spectator, Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2010, 75–87, 7/27/10, atl)

Relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran need to be analysed and understood not only in terms of their bilateral dynamics, but also in their strategic context . Broadly speaking, the Middle East today is deeply divided between two camps – a reality that some commentators describe as a new regional ‘‘Cold War’’.1 On one side of this divide are those states willing to work in various forms of strategic partnership with the United States, with an implied acceptance of American hegemony over the region. This camp includes Israel, those Arab states that have made peace with Israel (Egypt and Jordan), and other so-called moderate Arab states (for example, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council). On the other side of this divide are those Middle Eastern states and non- state actors that are unwilling to legitimise American (and, some in this camp would say, Israeli) hegemony over the region. The Islamic Republic of Iran has emerged in recent years as the de facto leader of this camp, which also includes Syria and prominent non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah . Notwithstanding its close security ties to the United States, Qatar has also aligned itself with the ‘‘resistance’’ camp on some issues in recent years. And, the rise of the Justice and Development Party and declining military involvement in Turkish politics have prompted an intensification of Turkey’s diplomatic engagement in the Middle East, in ways that give additional strategic options to various actors in the ‘‘resistance’’ camp. Thus, the relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic both shapes and is shaped by the new Middle Eastern Cold War. As the new regional Cold War plays out, analysts suggest different scenarios for how the ongoing strategic competition between the United States and Iran will evolve. Some, like former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, see this competition as a struggle for regional hegemony in the Middle East comparable to that in late nineteenth century Europe following German unification; from this perspective, Fischer warns that, without careful handling, tensions between the United States and the Islamic Republic could ultimately erupt in a large-scale military confrontation.2 Others, like Fareed Zakaria, believe that the United States and its regional and international partners will move inexorably toward a posture of containing and deterring the Islamic Republic and its allies, in a manner reminiscent of the West’s Cold War posture toward the Soviet Union.3 Against the backdrop of these scenarios, we argue that the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran should transcend the prospects for hegemonial war or strategic standoff and seek a fundamental realignment of their relations, in a manner similar to the realignment in relations between the

United States and the People’s Republic of China during Richard Nixon’s tenure in the White House. We further argue that such a fundamental realignment of US–Iranian relations can only be achieved through a comprehensive rapprochement between Washington and Tehran .

This is causing a perceptive decrease in US leadershipLeverett et al, 10 (Flynt, director of the New America Foundation’s Iran Initiative, Hillary Mann Leverett, CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a pol itical risk consultancy.“The United States, Iran and the Middle East’s New ‘‘Cold War’’”, The International Spectator, Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2010, 75–87, 7/27/10, atl)

Like the emergence of the Middle East’s new Cold War, the Islamic Republic’s rise has occurred during a still ongoing period of tectonic shifts in the region’s strategic environment. These shifts include the effective collapse of the traditional Arab- Israeli peace process, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas as political actors in their national and regional contexts, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and subsequent Israeli military campaigns in Lebanon and Gaza, structural changes in global energy markets and a tremendous transfer of wealth to major Middle Eastern energy producers . All of these shifts are playing out against what is increasingly perceived, in the Middle East and elsewhere, as a decline in America’s relative power and influence . After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s initial election in 2005, the Islamic Republic was able to take advantage of these developments to effect a significant boost in its own regional standing.4 But notwithstanding these strategic gains, Iran continues to face serious national security and foreign policy challenges, both regionally and internationally.5


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Link

Science diplomacy is the key internal link to soft power and Middle East relations Zewail 10 (Ahmed, Obama’s science envoy to the Middle East and prof of physics @ Cal Institute of Technology. Christian Science Monitor, “Science, not Hollywood or Starbucks, is America's best soft power” Jun 28 2010. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2010/0628/Science-not-Hollywood-or-Starbucks-is-America-s-best-soft-power) JM

In a recent poll involving 43 countries, 79 percent of those surveyed said that what they most admire about the United States is its leadership in science and technology. The artifacts of the American entertainment industry came in a distant second. What I, as a young foreign student in the 1970s, found most dynamic, exciting, and impressive about the US is what much of the world continues to value most about America today: its open intellectual culture, its great universities, its capacity for discovery and innovation. By harnessing the soft power of science in the service of diplomacy, America can demonstrate its desire to bring the best of its culture and heritage to bear on building better and broader relations with the Muslim world and beyond. I felt the full force of this soft power when I came to the US in 1969 to begin graduate studies at the University of Pennsylvania. I discovered how science is truly a universal language, one that forges new connections among individuals and opens the mind to ideas that go far beyond the classroom. My education in America instilled in me greater appreciation for the value of scholarly discourse and the use of the scientific method in dealing with complex issues. It sowed, then nurtured, new seeds of political and cultural tolerance. But perhaps most significant was that I came to appreciate the extent to which science embodies the core values of what the American Founders called “the rights of man” as set forth in the US Constitution: freedom of thought and speech, which are essential to creative advancement in the sciences; and the commitment to equality of opportunity, because scientific achievement is blind to ethnicity, race, or cultural background. In January, appointed by President Obama as America’s first science envoy to the Middle East, I embarked on a diplomatic tour that took me to Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar. I met with officials from all levels of government and the educational system in these countries, as well as with economists, industrialists, writers, publishers, and media representatives. What I learned during these visits was cause for some alarm, but also for considerable optimism. The alarming aspect comes from the fact that education in many Muslim-majority countries now seriously lags behind international standards. Deficiencies in education, together with widespread economic hardship and the lack of job opportunities for young people, are sources of frustration and despair in many Muslim societies. They are rooted largely in poor governance and growing corruption, compounded by overpopulation and by movement away from the enlightened education I was fortunate enough to enjoy in Egypt in the 1960s. Yet there are many positive signs as well. Muslim-majority countries such as Malaysia, Turkey, and Qatar are making significant strides in education and in technical and economic development. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, and Indonesia are examples of countries still rich with youthful talents. Nor is this transfer of wealth and learning flowing exclusively from the West to the East. Today there are many Muslims in the West who have excelled in all fields of endeavor, from science, technology, and business to arts and the media. These accomplishments and the values they represent can help the Muslim world recover its venerable heritage as a leader in science by complementing local efforts and aspirations. It is certainly in the best interests of the US to foster relations with moderate majorities who today often find themselves locked in struggle with minorities of fanatics. Most people I met in the Middle East believe in Mr. Obama’s intentions, as laid out in his Cairo speech last year, and welcome the prospect of enhanced scientific and educational partnerships with the US. Yet some expressed skepticism. “Mr. Obama made a fine speech in Cairo,” one high-ranking official said to me. “But will the political climate in the United States, and particularly the US Congress, allow him to follow through on his promises?”


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – Hormuz (1/)

US strikes leads to an Iranian assault against the Strait of HormuzTimmerman 06 (Kennith R., March 1, 2006, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee for his writing on Iran, 2006 Kenneth, “Iran Readies Plan to

Close Strait of Hormuz” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml)Iran's Revolutionary Guards are making preparations for a massive assault on U.S. naval forces and international shipping in the Persian Gulf, according to a former Iranian intelligence officer who defected to the West in

2001. The plans, which include the use of bottom-tethered mines potentially capable of destroying U.S. aircraft carriers, were designed to counter a U.S. land invasion and to close the Strait of Hormuz, the defector said in a phone interview from his home in Europe. They would also be triggered if the United States or Israel launched a pre-emptive strike on Iran to knock out nuclear and missile facilities. "The plan is to stop trade," the source said. Between 15 and 16.5 million barrels of oil transit the Strait of Hormuz each day, roughly 20 percent of the world's daily oil production, according to the U.S. government's Energy Information

Administration. The source provided NewsMax parts of a more than 30-page contingency plan, which bears the stamp of the Strategic Studies Center of the Iranian Navy, NDAJA. The document appears to have

been drafted in September or October of 2005. The NDAJA document was just one part of a larger strike plan to be coordinated by a single operational headquarters that would integrate Revolutionary Guards missile units, strike aircraft, surface and underwater naval vessels, Chinese-supplied C-801 and C-802 anti-shipping missiles, mines, coastal artillery, as well as chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The overall plans are being coordinated by the intelligence office of the Ministry of Defense, known as HFADA. Revolutionary Guards missile units have identified "more than 100 targets, including Saudi oil production and oil export centers," the defector said. "They have more than 45 to 50 Shahab-3 and Shahab-4 missiles ready for shooting" against those targets and against Israel, he added. US strikes leads to an Iranian assault against the Strait of HormuzTimmerman 06 (Kennith R., March 1, 2006, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee for his writing on Iran, 2006 Kenneth, “Iran Readies Plan to Close Strait of Hormuz” http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/28/181730.shtml)



And after strikes Iran inevitably will cause oil shocks all over the worldKRAUTHAMER 06 (CHARLES, PULITZER PRIZE RECIPIENT AND WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST, JANUARY 18, THE IRAN CHARADE PART II, WASHINGTON POST, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/17/AR2006011700893.html)

Makes you want to weep. One day earlier, Britain, France and Germany admitted that their two years of talks to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program had collapsed. The Iranians had broken the seals on their nuclear facilities and were resuming activity in defiance of their pledges to the "E.U. Three." This negotiating exercise, designed as an alternative to the U.S. approach of imposing sanctions on Iran for its violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, had proved entirely futile. If anything, the two-year hiatus gave Iran time to harden its nuclear facilities against bombardment, acquire new antiaircraft capacities and clandestinely advance its program. With all this, the chancellor of Germany declared the exercise a success because the allies stuck together! The last such success was Dunkirk. Lots of solidarity there, too. Most dismaying was that this assessment came from a genuinely good friend, the new German chancellor, who, unlike her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder (now a wholly owned Putin flunky working for Russia's state-run oil monopoly), actually wants to do something about terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Ah, success. Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb, as we were before we allowed Europe to divert anti-proliferation efforts into transparently useless talks, Iran is probably just months away. And now, of course, Iran is run by an even more radical government, led by a president who fervently believes in the imminence of the apocalypse. Ah, success. Having delayed two years, we now have to deal with a set of fanatical Islamists who we know will not be deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons by any sanctions. Even if we could get real sanctions. Which we will not. The remaining months before Iran goes nuclear are about to be frittered away in pursuit of this newest placebo. First, because Russia and China will threaten to veto any serious sanctions. The Chinese in particular have secured in Iran a source of oil and gas outside the American sphere to feed their growing economy and are quite happy geopolitically to support a rogue power that -- like North Korea -- threatens, distracts and diminishes the power of China's chief global rival, the United States. Second, because the Europeans have no appetite for real sanctions either. A travel ban on Iranian leaders would be a joke; they don't travel anyway. A cutoff of investment and high-tech trade from Europe would be a minor irritant to a country of 70 million people with the second-largest oil reserves in the world and with oil at $60 a barrel. North Korea tolerated 2 million dead from starvation to get its nuclear weapons. Iran will tolerate a shortage of flat-screen TVs. The only sanctions that might conceivably have any effect would be a boycott of Iranian oil. No one is even talking about that, because no one can bear the thought of the oil shock that would follow, taking 4.2 million barrels a day off the market, from a total output of about 84 million barrels. The threat works in reverse. It is the Iranians who have the world over a barrel. On Jan. 15, Iran's economy minister warned that Iran would retaliate for any sanctions by cutting its exports to "raise oil prices beyond levels the West expects." A full cutoff could bring $100 oil and plunge the world into economic crisis. Which is one of the reasons the Europeans are so mortified by the very thought of a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is not just that they are spread out and hardened, making them difficult to find and to damage sufficiently to seriously set back Iran's program. The problem that mortifies the Europeans is what Iran might do after such an attack -- not just cut off its oil exports but shut down the Strait of Hormuz by firing missiles at tankers or scuttling its vessels to make the strait impassable. It would require an international armada led by the United States to break such a blockade. Such consequences -- serious economic disruption and possible naval action -- are something a cocooned, aging, post-historic Europe cannot even contemplate. Which is why the Europeans have had their heads in the sand for two years. And why they will spend the little time remaining -- before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear -- putting their heads back in the sand. And congratulating themselves on allied solidarity as they do so in unison.



And, these oil shocks would throw the world into a global recessionDouthwaite 03 (Richard, “Oil and the Irish Economy”, http://www.constructireland.ie/articles/0210douthwaite.php)

The bank referred to a ‘spike’ because prices could not stay at the $100 level for more than a few months without causing the collapse of the world economy. This would happen because we would all be spending so much more to buy our oil that we would be unable to carry on buying other things at the rate we do at present, particularly as the prices of other fuels would rise in step with that of oil. As a result of the diversion of our spending, factories around the world would find they had spare capacity. They would lay off staff and cancel expansion projects and, as construction work is so energy intensive, its cessation would cause oil demand to fall rapidly. This is exactly what happened the last time its price went significantly above the $20 level in 1972 money. Millions of people would become unemployed and cut their spending to the bare minimum, causing other people to lose their jobs too. A global depression could develop in which the lack of activity in the world economy could cause the price of oil in today’s money to plummet from $100 back to around $15 a barrel again. The cheap oil price would suit no-one because oil would be more expensive than ever for someone who had lost his or her job. Those people who still had the money to build or improve their houses or to run cars would see no reason to make them energy efficient and there would be no commercial incentive to explore for more oil or to develop renewable energy sources. The oil producers would, of course, find the low prices ruinous. In the past the Saudis used to pump more oil whenever it was necessary to do so to keep prices from becoming excessive. This was to avoid a price spike developing and causing a global collapse. Unfortunately for the stability of the global economy, however, they don’t have the production capacity to do that any longer. They are already pumping as much oil as they can and their output is falling month by month because their oil fields are becoming exhausted. No other country has enough unused capacity to pump much more oil than it is doing at present either so, if global demand continues to increase, prices can be expected to rise very sharply. A crisis could develop at the end of this year when world oil production of between 86 and 87 million barrels a day is expected to be some 2-4 million barrels less than the expected demand .How quickly a world recession will set in after prices rise to the projected $100 is impossible to say. One unknown factor is how the world’s central banks would react to the widespread inflation that costly oil would undoubtedly bring. If central bankers try to cure the rising prices by pushing up interest rates to deter people from borrowing to spend, they would be removing money from the economies for which they were responsible at exactly the same time as those economies were hemorrhaging money to pay for their costly oil imports. In other words, if the central banks adopted their standard anti-inflationary strategy, they would give their economies a hefty shove into a global recession. The consequences for the construction sector would be dire.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Middle East – AT: Prolif Bad

Finally, Iran has no intentions of making nuclear weapons now. Only strikes would cause them to produce the bombSalama et al 06 (Sammy, and Elizabeth Salch, Middle East Research Associate for the WMDTRP at CNS and adjunct faculty at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, “Iran’s Nuclear Impasse: Give Negotiations A Chance”, CNS Research Story, 6-2-06 http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060602.htm )

Europe, Russia, and China still support a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Despite recent reports concerning American planning for a preemptive strike against Iran, the U.S. administration maintains it is still committed to diplomacy. [20] Then British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has emphatically and repeatedly stated Britain is opposed to military action against Iran. Russia has maintained its offer to continue negotiations on uranium enrichment. Furthermore Russian officials publicly are committed to a path of diplomacy rather than military action, [21] while China has taken a similar stance. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao has stated that "China expresses its concern over the current development of the Iran nuclear issues" and urges Iran to continue uranium enrichment talks with Russia as scheduled in hope of achieving "positive results." [22] The IAEA finding that Iran is in noncompliance with the NPT and its subsequent referral of Iran to the UN Security Council are in line with the U.S. desire for Iran's nuclear program to be halted. While the effort to discourage Iran from enriching uranium on Iranian soil faces many impediments, the fact that Iran's file is at the Security Council gives the United States and its allies the opportunity to persuade the council to impose meaningful diplomatic and economic penalties if Iran continues to insist on flouting international will.

Any US strike will lead to Iranian retaliationRTEnews 07 (14 May 2007, “Iran will retaliate against any US attack”, Monday, 14 May 2007, http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0514/iran.html)

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned that Iran would retaliate strongly to any possible attack by the United States over his country's controversial nuclear program. Speaking at a news conference in the United Arab Emirates, President Ahmadinejad said any action by the US would be a mistake and that they would be made to repent. 'They realise that if they make such a mistake the retaliation of Iran would be severe and they will repent,' Mr Ahmadinejad told reporters. President Ahmadinejad said Gulf countries should 'get rid of' foreign forces, which he blamed for regional insecurit y. He was speaking during a visit to the US-allied United Arab Emirates. The United States, which has a strong military presence in the Gulf, accuses Iran of seeking to make nuclear weapons and has sought tougher sanctions against Iran. Iran says it only wants to generate power to allow more oil exports.

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/060602.htm#fn22




Science Diplomacy Adv – Iran – Link

Science diplomacy is key to solve US - Iran relationsBadger, 09 (Emily, contributor to The New York Times, International Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor.“Science Diplomacy: Trading Frock Coats for Lab Coats”, http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/science-diplomacy-trading-frock-coats-for-lab-coats-3953/, 7/27/10, atl)

Vaughan Turekian is pushing an unusual suggestion for how to engage Iran, a country America has had no formal relations with since 1980 . His idea is suddenly one of many on the topic, as foreign policy wonks, historians and

politicians debate the merits of starting a new dialogue with some of America’s longest-running antagonists. Should we send a low-level diplomat, the new secretary of state or the president himself? Turekian’s suggestion — one that applies equally to isolated locations throughout the world — is this: Send a scientist. Deep-rooted suspicion (and a slew of fictional spy thrillers) says our scientists are the last people we want wandering into a country with nuclear ambitions and “non-friendly” status. But this idea doesn’t call for sending nuclear physicists; rather, cancer researchers, climate change experts, water, agriculture and earthquake specialists. Even social scientists. The American Association for the Advancement of Science is trying to revive an old — but, Turekian says, dormant — idea that “science diplomacy” could make major inroads in countries where traditional American diplomacy is nonexistent, or where existing relationships could be strengthened outside the embassy . The AAAS last summer launched a new Center for Science Diplomacy, which Turekian

directs, and it’s hoping to take advantage of a new attitude in Washington and a brow-raising trend abroad. While foreign views of America have tumbled since Sept. 11, opinions about American science and technology have consistently been the exception. That pattern, particularly strong in the Middle East, could help the AAAS build on a model that has worked before. “From a scientific standpoint,” Turekian jokes of the whole enterprise, “there is some proof of principal . ” John F. Kennedy established a science and technology cooperation agreement with Japan in 1961 following appeals to repair the “broken dialogue” between the two countries’ intellectual communities after World War II. That agreement helped round out a tenuous relationship at the time rooted only in security concerns — and it led two generations later, Turekian

would argue, to a Nobel Prize in physics last fall shared by two Japanese scientists and a Japanese American. In December, the United States and China marked the 30th anniversary of normalized relations, which in the very early stages, at the prodding of then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, led to a similar science and technology cooperation agreement. And in the most well-known example, civilian scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War (blessed, indirectly, by both governments with visa approval) linked the two countries when official diplomatic connections were stalled. Today, the U.S. and Russia share a space station. Since the end of the Cold War, though, scientific exchanges like the kind that jump-started deeper relationships with Japan, China and Russia have been less prevalent, replaced in some cases even by a fear of technology transfer. “People continued to talk about science and technology cooperation,” Turekian said, “but

oftentimes, honestly, the heart hasn’t been in it.” Neither has the immigration policy, which, for the last eight years, has dramatically complicated one crucial half of any science exchange program — the import of foreign students to America. Now, at the beginning of a new administration, and with several unresolved international conflicts mired in military threats, politicians of all stripes have begun to talk about the limits of “hard power.” “


Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (1/)

Water insecurity along the Tigris-Euphrates will lead to widespread instability in the region Whitaker 10 (Joel, senior adviser to the Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the United States Institute of Peace Brief, “The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: A Science Diplomacy Opportunity” April 22 2010. http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%2020%20Tigris-Euphrates_River_Basin.pdf) JM

Iraq faces one of the world’s most challenging water management situations, and its effects are far reaching.

These challenges are numerous and interlinked, having significant impact on: • Regional politics: Iraq’s vulnerability as the downstream nation has complicated relations with its neighbors, as Turkey and Syria balance their national interests with the need for sustainable stewardship of the two rivers. The lack of regional agreements and

institutions for transboundary water management makes it even more difficult to pursue long-term solutions to these challenges. The

second year of drought in the summer of 2009 caused severe hardships, raising tensions between Iraq and its neighbors over the declining Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Iraqi ministers and legislators criticized Turkey and Syria for using hydroelectric dams to limit flows from the rivers’ headwaters, while Iraq was faulted by its neighbors for inefficient water management. • The economy: Left without sufficient water for irrigation, southern Iraq’s fragile agricultural sector has produced a record low wheat crop, and thousands of Marsh Arabs have abandoned their farms. Water quality is so poor that Basra and other southern cities import desalinated water from the United Arab Emirates. Three thousand people were evacuated from two villages due to water scarcity and sanitation problems. Nasiriyah lost 50 percent of its hydroelectric power during the summer of 2009 due to low water levels. • The ecology: The ecosystems that rely on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers are quite fragile, especially the marshes of southern Iraq. Two years of drought have caused severe salination, displacing many farmers and villagers, and have caused serious water quality challenges in Iraqi cities.

And, science diplomacy is key to solve – moves regional politics from zero-sum to interdependency Whitaker 10 (Joel, senior adviser to the Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the United States Institute of Peace, “The Tigris-Euphrates River Basin: A Science Diplomacy Opportunity” April 22 2010. http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PB%2020%20Tigris-Euphrates_River_Basin.pdf) JM

Invest in Scientific Cooperation for Regional Water Management and Conflict Resolution To deal with the interrelated political, economic, and ecological issues that arise for Iraq from poor water management in the Tigris-Euphrates

basin across various time horizons, we recommend an approach that has regional scientific cooperation as its foundation. Scientific cooperation initiatives in river basins ranging from the Nile to the Mekong have demonstrated that enhanced management of transboundary water resources provides a strong basis for economic growth and political stability. Our fundamental assumption is that the scientific elements of such a

strategy make trust and cooperation possible since stakeholders have a common understanding of the problem based on accepted scientific standards, thus bringing political rhetoric more in line with reality. International scientific collaboration can break a diplomatic logjam. Furthermore, President Barack Obama’s recent pledge to invest in scientific collaboration during his Cairo address to the Arab world has triggered the U.S. government’s renewed interest in building domestic technical capacity in Iraq and in supporting regional scientific collaboration initiatives. The time is ripe for such an approach. Specifically, we argue for a two-pronged programmatic approach to water management in post-conflict Iraq: • Support for regional technical cooperation • Support for regional policymaking and diplomatic initiatives 2. Support Regional Technical Cooperation Regional cooperation between scientists, academics and technical experts on water management can help tackle various parts of the political challenges

outlined in earlier parts of this Peace Brief. Firstly, they serve to create more open forums for information and technical data sharing. Most data about water usage, flow and quality have been guarded as a national security secret to conceal violations of

pledged water management practices, making it difficult to depoliticize the issue with trusted information. Regional cooperation breaks collective action problems underlying the resistance to sharing sensitive data. It also enhances the development

of technical expertise, leveling the playing field between counterparts over time. Secondly, scientific cooperation serves to realign states’ interests from a zero-sum perspective to a more comprehensive approach based on interdependence. Turkey has resisted the establishment of a joint regulatory body, but the door is opening to technical

collaboration, which had been dormant since the 1991 Gulf War. A multidisciplinary, cooperative approach is appropriate, given that the interconnected scientific and engineering problems of the basin go well beyond legal wrangling over water rights. For example, outdated technology for agriculture (90 percent of Iraq’s water usage) exacerbates water shortages in the entire region and has caused severe downstream salination. But the 2007-2010 Iraqi National Security Strategy states that decreasing water flow “directly threatens environmental and nutritional security [and] stems from…large dams in Turkey and Syria…that do not take into consideration the rights of Iraq.” Thus, the improvement of water management capacity in Iraq is in the interest of both Turkey and Syria, promoting efficient water usage throughout the region and warding against possible conflicts.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars Scenario (2/)

Water wars on the Tigris leads to global nuclear war – Syria would seek alliances with Iran against Israel Langer 9 (Andrew, BA in IR from College of William and Mary, President of the Institute for Liberty. Journal of Politics and Society, p A16. http://www.helvidius.org/files/2009/2009_Langer.pdf) JM

Though the tension stemming from Syria’s indirect support of the PKK has cooled since 1998, war between Syria and Turkey still looms, as the region’s population grows and water resources dwindle. Should diplomatic proceedings between both

nations fail, Syria might consider war with Turkey as a means of securing water for its citizens. Turkey would defend both its people and its resources from a potential Syrian offensive. As mentioned earlier, Turkey improved its military drastically throughout the 1990s, more than doubling its expenditure on military equipment between 1985 and 1996. It acquired about 200 fighter jets and nearly 1,000 M-60 tanks through US support. Furthermore, the Turkish economy grew in the 1990s with Turkey’s GDP tripled from 1980 to 1999 (Makovsky 4). Syria, on the other hand, has weakened since the end of the Cold War. The West and Israel believe Syria has plans for the production of nuclear weapons, and Israel destroyed a building in Syria in September 2007 believed to be a nuclear weapons facility. The slightest conflict between Turkey and Syria could potentially lead to massive destruction, especially if Syria were to seek a nuclear Iran as an ally. Furthermore, other nations may be dragged into war in order to defend their allies. Though Turkey has delivered its promise to provide 500 cubic meters/s of water annually to Syria, there is still a demand for more water. According to an article in the Turkish Daily News on January 3, 2008, Syria asked Turkey for more water to help it “combat the country’s drought problem” (Turkish Daily News, “Syria Asks for More Euphrates Water”).


Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Link

Conflict over water along the Tigris-Euphrates escalates to full-scale regional war – science diplomacy key to solve Alagraa 9 (Bedour, BA in IR and political science. Toronto Globalist, 15 sep. http://www.torontoglobalist.org/2009/09/15/nothing-lasts-forever-a-look-at-the-water-crisis-in-the-middle-east/) JM

At the moment, the Israeli government is mostly concerned with the political implications of this crisis. Since a water agreement has already been signed with Jordan, Israel’s main problem is the sensitive political and geographic situation that it shares with Palestine. Israel is concerned that the water crisis will spill over in to the existing conflict over the West Bank region, and that this conflict could be a serious blow to the already delicate ceasefire agreement signed in 2005. Having signed the Indus Water treaty, Israel believes that it is legally within its bounds to extract water from the Jordan River and Mountain Aquifers, in direct proportions with what it sees as increasing demand in its cities. Palestinian officials believe that its

long-standing conflict with Israel will indefinitely intensify; Israel uses approximately 80 percent of water contained in

shared aquifers, in addition to water obtained from the illegally occupied West Bank region. Palestinian officials accuse the Israeli government of a gross misdistribution of water. They argue that water is being taken from villages and refugee camps in order to further satiate the greed and hegemony of Israel, which is effectively perpetuating the relationship of super and subordination between the two sparring states. Palestine believes that consuming water from illegally obtained territories (i.e. the West Bank region) is contrary to established international law and, thus, should be barred from treaties that allow Israel a disproportionate access to water. The implications of this multilateral dispute are huge. Many see this conflict escalating into a full regional or even multiregional war. Israel’s Water Commissioner, As Meir Ben Meir, stated in a BBC interview that “At the moment, I project the scarcity of water within 5 years…I can promise that if there is not sufficient water in our region, if there is scarcity of water, if people remain thirsty for water, then we shall doubtless face war.” If not war, then this conflict will undoubtedly delay already postponed peace talks in the region. In addition, this conflict will see the rise of new superpowers such as Canada, Sudan, Turkey, Russia, and India; all of which are rich in fresh water supplies. Several solutions have been presented in response to this grim geopolitical situation. The first step in any solution would be the ratification of a multilateral deal that would directly address the rights and/or constitutionality disputes when determining access to water in the region. Clear boundaries should be drawn as to how much water can be used and when it can be extracted according to each country’s population stresses and agricultural dependencies. These boundaries should be ratified and regulated by a neutral third party such as Oman, a fresh-water rich country with a Middle Eastern perspective on the issue. This would rid the world of at least one tension-causing problem, which in turn would free up valuable time to deal with other issues such as the occupation of West Bank, the conflict in Gaza, and the Hezbollah agenda in Lebanon. The Gulf and interior states of the Middle East are surrounded by salt water. Desalination (the use of purified sea water as a last resort when the supply of natural fresh water runs out) is another solution to this problem. Unfortunately, desalination is costly – it requires the building and upkeep of desalination plants, hiring employees, engineers, and regulating waste minerals produced by desalination. Despite these challenges, there is a way for the Middle East to have its water and drink it too. The price of desalination is steadily decreasing, and by the time local aquifers dry up (15 years), the price of desalination will be much more affordable. The Gulf States have more than enough money and clout to fund the building of desalination plants; poorer countries like Jordan can take loans from Gulf States and, seeing as many of these countries are made up of Muslim majorities, these loans will come at little or no interest as it would be contrary to Islamic doctrine to charge interest on loans. These countries would be able to pay these Gulf States back with the revenue created from the operation of the plants. As for disposing of waste minerals, this would put thousands of engineers and “green collar” workers to good use – the green movement is rapidly growing in the Middle East. With a combination of science, common sense and, most importantly, humanity, the Middle East, will be able to avoid conflicts over water if action is taken immediately. Only then can we achieve the peace and prosperity that the Middle East so desperately craves.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – Escalation

Water wars in the region are inevitable absent a solution to water shortages Hamad 9 (Qassim, journalist, BA from Salahadin U. Niqash, 5 May. http://www.niqash.org/content.php?contentTypeID=28&id=2439&lang=0) JM

Dr. Azad Aslan, a lecturer at Salahadin University in Erbil warns that a solution to the issue is required to prevent tensions escalating to the point of war. “Water shortages, as the World Bank forecasts, indicate the inevitability of future water conflicts and possible water wars in the region,” he told Niqash. According to

Aslan, Iraq urgently needs to devise a long-term plan for the more efficient use of its water resources. In particular he said that the population must be better educated to prevent unnecessary water wastage. As an example of the country’s misuse of water, Iraq’s Kurdish Region, which is the gateway for many of the rivers coming from Turkey and Iran and therefore a rich source of water for the country as a whole, has itself witnessed water shortages in recent years. According to Fars the region accesses 45.8 billion cubic meters of water every year and only required 8.8 billion cubic meters for its own needs. But because of the lack of modern water management systems and poor public awareness, “we sometimes face a water crisis.”

NATO war games prove – Iraq, Syria and Turkey will all go to war over water shortages on the Tigris-EuphratesJongerden 10 (Joost, assistant prof of social sciences @ Wageningen University in the Netherlands. middle east Policy, Vol. XVii, no. 1, Spring 2010. http://www.joostjongerden.info/dams%20and%20conflict.pdf) JM

According to a NATO conflict scenario, Syria and Iraq execute a joint invasion of Turkey in 2010. This invasion occurs against the background of a severe three- year drought in Iraq and Syria, ascribed to Turkey’s water policies, and an unstable political situation in the region.1 According to an Uppsala Model UN scenario, meanwhile, Turkey and Iraq come to the brink of war after a failed attempt by an illegal organization from Iraq to explode one of Turkey’s dams. Iraq condemns the assault but accuses Turkey of denying the country access to the water. Turkey blames the Iraqi government for the attack, demands the arrest of those responsible and threatens to cut water supplies completely if Iraq does not comply with its demands. Forces are mobilized and war looms.2 These scenarios are based on the potential for armed conflict over water in this part of the Middle East, born of past experience. Clearly, there is an inherent risk of hostilities, with the Tigris and Euphrates rising in Turkish territory (in the Anti- Taurus mountain region) before descending southwards through Syria and Iraq (to the Persian Gulf).3 This gives Turkey effective control over the water resources of its southern neighbors, with whom political relations have long been problematic in an area of varied and ongoing tensions. A conflict did suddenly become a very real possibility in 1990, when Iraq and Syria thought Turkey had deliberately cut off their water supplies, as they simultaneously faced a serious decrease in water flow (the brewing conflict, however, was offset by another: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait). Today, the situation is heating up again. Iraq is suffering from serious water-supply shortages and locked in the deadly embrace of several armed organizations vying for power. If this were not enough, Turkey commenced another round of dam construction in the area this year. Primarily conceived as part of its counter insurgency strategy against the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (to which the project contributes in various ways, outlined below), this involves turning dams into military means, and thus into potential objects of conten- tion. The politicization of dam construction is well-known. The World Bank and IMF have supported such large-budget projects, which are criticized as relatively low-return and environmentally destructive. However, the targeted usage of such schemes for overtly political purposes, resulting in their objectification as instruments in a political struggle, represents a rather different and less common spatial intervention. This article will discuss dams as contentious constructions with the potential to catalyze violent conflict in the region.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Water Wars – NW Impacts

Mideast war escalates and goes nuclearSteinbach 2 (John, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee, March 2002, http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm)

Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."(41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's

current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration." (44).

Even without escalation, Middle East nuclear war guarantees extinctionHoffman 6 (Ian, Staff Writer, December 12, 2006, “Nuclear Winter Looms, experts say”, MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers)

SAN FRANCISCO -- With superpower nuclear arsenals plummeting to a third of 1980s levels and slated to drop by another third, the nightmarish visions of nuclear winter offered by scientists during the Cold War have receded. But they haven't gone away. Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small regional nuclear war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade

equivalent of the Little Ice Age. "Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so than global warming," said Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock. By dropping imaginary

Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities, now swelled to tens of millions in population, University of

Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the fatalities and 100 times the

climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet Union. For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke from incinerated cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear autumn, but rather an instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by massive ozone loss and warming at the poles. That's what scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States and Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites, young nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and might go for maximum effect by using them on cities,

as the United States did in 1945. "We're at a perilous crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide

combined with global migration into dense megacities form what he called "perhaps the greatest danger to the

stability of society since the dawn of humanity." More than 20 years ago, researchers imagined a U.S.-Soviet nuclear holocaust would wreak havoc on the planet's climate. They showed the problem was potentially worse than feared: Massive urban fires would flush hundreds of millions of tons of black soot skyward, where -- heated by sunlight -- it would soar higher into the stratosphere and begin cooking off the protective ozone layer around the Earth. Huge losses of ozone would open the planet and its inhabitants to damaging radiation, while the warm soot would spread a pall sufficient to plunge the Earth into freezing year-round. The hundreds of millions who would starve exceeded those who would die in the initial blasts and radiation. Popularized by astronomer Carl Sagan and Nobel prize winners, the idea of nuclear winter captured the public imagination, though nuclear-weapons scientists found nuclear winter was virtually impossible to achieve in their own computer models without dropping H-bombs on nearly every major city. Scientists on Monday say nuclear winter still is possible, by detonating every nation's entire nuclear arsenals. The effects are striking and last five times or longer than the cooling effects of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recent history, according to Rutgers' Robock.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to the war on terror – fosters understanding and leads to crackdowns on WMD’s and other dangerous technologies Federoff 8 (Nina, prof @ Penn State, Science and Tech adviser to sec of state in the Obama Admin. “TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION” April 2. http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf) JM

An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more

to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons’ of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In

addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.

Terrorism risks extinctionKirkus Reviews, 99 (Book Review on “The New Terrorism: Fanatiscism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, http://www.amazon.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/product-description/0195118162)

Today two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind.'' First terroristsbe they Islamic extremists in the Middle East, ultranationalists in the US, or any number of other possible permutationsseem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do, who and how many they are willing to kill. Second, these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons where and when they wish. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless, rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. In addition to the destruction of countless lives, panic can grip any targeted society, unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. To combat such terrorist activities, states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. In short, terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations.


Science Diplomacy Adv – Terrorism – Link

Science diplomacy is key to fight terrorism Lin 2 (Herbert S., chief scientist at the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council of the National Academies. National Academies Press, “Making the Nation Safer : The Role of Science and Technology in Countering Terrorism” pg 19) JM

While the advance of science and technology is one reason why terrorism has the potential to be catastrophic in the 21st century, science and technology are also critical tools for guarding the United States against that threat. Beyond its inherent strengths of immense size and wealth, high level of education, and political cohesion and values, another great comparative advantage of this nation is its scientific and technological prowess. The highly developed, diverse, and productive U.S. science-and-technology enterprise has proved its ability to serve the needs of the nation in a variety of ways: It supplied key military technology for conventional wars and the long Cold War, produced enormous improvements in the health

and prosperity of its people, and addressed pressing societal needs such as protection of the environment. Historically, the science and engineering communities have enthusiastically contributed to these national goals, and the same level of energy and commitment will surely be devoted to meeting the vast array of challenges raised by terrorism. Experts from many fields, including physical, biological, and mathematical sciences, engineering, and the social and

behavioral sciences, stand ready to create new knowledge that, in turn, creates new capabilities. Scientists and engineers can put a powerful set of counterterrorism tools at our disposal. But whether, when, where, and how we use these tools will be far from obvious and will require careful thought and analysis. Technologies that protect us may well impose economic, social, and cultural costs that we might not be willing to bear. Sensors, monitors, and intelligence gathering may be intrusive in ways that clash with our values of individual rights and privacy. Protective technologies may be incompatible with the freedom of movement and open access to information that we cherish. In addition, the protection afforded by technology can be overestimated. For these reasons, a careful and realistic evaluation of the performance characteristics of any technology, coupled with systems and risk analyses to determine our level of need for it, is recommended throughout this report.


Science Diplomacy Adv – China Scenario

Science diplomacy is key to US-Sino relations – disputes are inevitable and only scientific collaboration can stabilize relations Rock 5 (Anthony, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE. U.S. - CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION, April 2005. http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/written_testimonies/05_21_22wrts/rock_anthony_wrts.htm) JM

The Administration also believes that U.S.-China S&T cooperation has played a consistent stabilizing role in U.S.-China relations. While the overall U.S.-China relationship may swing up or down as a result of political and economic developments, changes in leadership and other factors, the U.S.-China S&T relationship has remained a largely stable pillar of the bilateral relationship, allowing a continuance of cooperative activities in science and technology at levels determined more by scientific accomplishment, interest and available budget than by geopolitical interest.

US-Sino cooperation in science is key to sustained relations and solves all impacts Suttmeier 10 (Richard P., IR prof @ U of O. Journal of Science and Technology Policy in China. Vol 1 No. 1 2010. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1758-552X&volume=1&issue=1&articleid=1846301&show=html&PHPSESSID=6rl7emml1gklt5katfmnmsehf4) JM

Few would have imagined what the Agreement would have wrought 30 years later. The web of relationships that has been created in S&T is now characterized by multiple institutional strands, with multiple stakeholders having multiple objectives. Although the

reforms and investments China has made in research institutes and universities over the past-30 years have not entirely erased the asymmetries of the past, they have certainly made China an especially important partner in research and innovation for many constituencies in the USA. In a number of fields of research and on

a number of pressing global problems, the S&T partnership between the USA and China will play a critical role in determining the twenty-first century future. Revolutions in science-based technologies hold the potential for significant enhancements in national wealth and power in both countries, while shared interests in the management of such collective good and bad as climate change, pollution, water and energy availability, food supplies, and a broad range of issues involving risk and safety, are forcing increased attention to knowledge-based approaches to these challenges. The scope of the relationship can be seen in three realms – government programs, industrial cooperation, and academic science[1]. The existence of these different channels represents significant institutional resources for the kinds of strategic partnering on twenty-first century scientific and technological development and global problems alluded to above. Since these challenges have basic research, commercial, and public goods components they require a repertoire of organizational approaches, many of which now exist.


Science Diplomacy Adv – EU – Link

Science diplomacy solves EU relations – its’ the vital internal link to durability Potocnik 6 (Jamez, European Commissioner for Science and Research. “Between cooperation and Competition - Science and Research as a Transatlantic Bridge Builder” 7 March. http://www.iterfan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=139&Itemid=2) JM

The specific weight of Science and Research within the Transatlantic Agenda has been growing steadily and has acquired greater visibility lately, notably with the latest EU-US summit in December last year. Basic research, nano, space, information technology, innovation and other areas now figure prominently on that agenda. This is certainly the fruit of a converging political determination on both sides of the Atlantic. But it is also the consequence of the fact that both sides increasingly perceive science and research as a critical component of the respective policies for economic competitiveness, growth and jobs. The new American Competitiveness Initiative announced by President Bush in his recent State-of-the-Union address – and substantiated in the budget proposal that the US government just put forward – clearly points in this direction. And it is interesting to read how, in its goals as well as in some of its ingredients, it clearly echoes our own Lisbon objectives and measures! Science and research are perceived both here and in the US as more “useful” than before. And indeed, research is taken more seriously politically than ever before. Think about the scientific dimension of issues like environmental protection or climate change, that have seen Europe and the US on opposite sides in economic progress and consumer protection. Think about access to space and the development of global positioning systems. These are cases where science and politics go hand in hand. But they are also examples of the fact that sometimes when the politics brings us apart, then science can help us find the necessary common ground. We have seen this clearly happen during the last few years. Now the relations between Europe and the US are again marked by positive cooperative tones and promising perspectives. But we have gone through a period, up to recently, during which the list of differences looked longer than the list of agreements. From steel to

agricultural subsidies, from GMOs to Kyoto, from the International Criminal Court to the war in Iraq, some people on both sides almost lost sight of the solidity and durability of the transatlantic partnership. But, interestingly, even during those more difficult times, science and research have always stood out as areas where cooperation could continue to grow, unaffected by political tensions elsewhere. Or better: science and research benefited from a sort of "compensatory" status. They came to be perceived as fields where - precisely while we were "quarreling" on several other matters - we could still prove to ourselves, to one another and to the world, that we remained each other's best partners and allies. Now that we have moved on to a smoother phase in our transatlantic dialogue, science and research must continue to exert their bridging function. The commitments made by our top political leaders in June last year must be taken seriously and delivered upon. I intend to start from there, build on past achievements, to make further substantial progress in transatlantic cooperation in S&T.


***HEGEMONY***


Heg Adv – U – Foreign Scientists Low Now

Status Quo immigration policies scare off would be foreign scientistsPaarlberg 4(Robert, Prof. Poli Sci Wellesley College; International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 122-151; pp. 29) BHB

Having previously erred on the side of being too lax, U.S. visa authorities are now erring on the side of being too strict. Traditionally, foreign nationals ac-cepted to study science at American universities could expect to receive visas at U.S. embassies by providing only a passport, a university letter of endorse- ment, and records showing they could afford to live in the United States. Fol-lowing the September 11 attacks, U.S. consular officers have become subject to criminal penalties if they grant a visa to someone who subsequently commits a terrorist act in the United States, so as a consequence larger numbers of visa re-quests are either denied or delayed. Foreign scientists were among the first to be squeezed out by such new policies.79I n 2002 comparedw ith the year before, the United States gave 8,000 fewer visas to visiting scholars,r esearchers,t each-ers, and speakers. Some individuals caught in this squeeze were prominent foreign scholars invited to speak at scientific meetings or teach at American universities. In December 2002 the three presidents of the U.S. National Acad-emies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a statement warning that ongoing research collaborations had already been hampered, outstanding for-eign scientists had already been prevented from entering the country, and im-portant international conferences were already being canceled or disrupted because of visa delays.so In 2003 a new rule required most visa applicants to undergo in-person interviews with U.S. consular officials overseas, causing still more delays.81 Valuable science students are being kept out of the United States by these new procedures. According to a spring 2003 report by the American Institute of Physics, numbers of international students entering graduate physics pro-grams dropped by roughly 15 percent after September 11, and a survey of physics department chairs revealed that at the beginning of the 2002 academic year, about 20 percent of international students admitted into graduate physics programs had been unable to start specifically because of visa problems.82A ll three of the top students (from an applicant pool of 224) accepted by the Biostatistics Department at Johns Hopkins University in 2003 could not start because of visa problems.83I n one case, several hundred outstanding young Pakistani students who had been carefully selected by their government as po-tential future university leaders, and who had been accepted for graduate training in the United States, experienced a 90 percent visa denial rate in the United States post-September 11. These denials are now discouraging new ap-plicants. At 90 percent of American colleges and universities in 2004, applica-tions from international students had fallen, with applications from Chinese and Indian students dropping by 76 percent and 58 percent respectively. Mean-while in Australia, France, and the United Kingdom enrollments are rising rapidly.84


Heg Adv – U – On the Brink

Heg loss coming fast from loss of tech supremacyWoods 2010(David, Politics Daily, http://theredhunter.com/2010/03/the_decline_of_american_military_hegemony.php)

The United States, Pentagon strategists say, is quickly losing its ability to barge in without permission. Potential target countries and even some lukewarm allies are figuring out ingenious ways to blunt American power without trying to meet it head-on, usinga combination

of high-techand low-tech jujitsu....At the same time, U.S. naval and air forces have been shrinking under the weight of ever more expensive hardware. It's no longer the case that the United States can overwhelm clever defenses with sheer numbers.As Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed up the problem this month, countries in places where the United States has strategic interests -- including the Persian Gulf and the Pacific -- are building "sophisticated, new technologies to deny our forces access to the global commons of sea, air, space and cyberspace.''Those

innocuous words spell trouble. While the U.S. military and strategy community is focused on Afghanistan and the fight in Marja, others - Iran and China, to name two - are chipping away at America's access to the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the Persian Gulf and the increasingly critical extraterrestrial realms."This era of U.S. military dominance is waning at an increasing and alarming rate,'' Andrew Krepinevich, a West Point-educated officer and former senior Pentagon strategist,

writes in a new report. "With the spread of advanced military technologies and their exploitation by other militaries,especially China's People's Liberation Army and to a far lesser extent Iran's military and Islamic Revolutionary

Guards Corps, the U.S. military's ability to preserve military access to two key areas of vital interest, the western Pacific and the Persian Gulf, is being increasingly challenged.''

Tech Heg. On the brinkIEEE-USA, 2007.(IEEE-USA, http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/innovation/index.html)At the dawn of the 21st Century, America desperately needs a new national competitiveness strategy that reflects the realities of the post-Cold War world. Today we face a new, more rough and tumble form of global economic competition, especially in the science, engineering and technology based sectors that have fueled U.S. prosperity since World War II. Competing successfully in this new global environment is essential for our national and economic security and to ensure that the U.S. is able to create high-value jobs and maintain a vital national engineering capability.


Heg Adv – Science Dominance – Link

Foreign workers make up for failures in the U.S. education system – ensures continued dominancePaarlberg 4(Robert, Prof. Poli Sci Wellesley College; International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 2004), pp. 122-151; pp. 2) BHB

The key to this revolution in military affairs (RMA) has been the application of modern science and engineering-particularly in fields such as physics, chemistry, and information technology (IT)-to weapons design and use. It is the international dominance of the United States in these fields of science and technology that has made possible U.S. military dominance on the conven-tional battlefield."1It thus becomes importantt o judge the magnitude and du-rability of U.S. scientific hegemony. In the sections that follow, I first measure the U.S. lead in S&T relative to the capabilities of potential rival states by using a variety of science output and resource input indicators. By every indicator, the current lead of the United States is formidable. Then I judge the durability of the U.S. lead by examining two possible weaknesses within its foundation. The first is the greater speed with which scientific knowledge can diffuse (per-haps away from the United States) in the modern age of globalization. The sec-ond is the poor science preparation still provided by so many U.S. public schools in grades K-12. Upon examination, these two factors need not present a significant threat to the U.S. global lead in science and technology, assuming the United States can remain a large net importer of scientific talent and knowledge from abroad. Preserving this vital net inflow of scientific assets has been made more difficult, however, by the homeland security imperatives arising from the ter-rorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It should be the policy of the United States to devise a homeland security strategy that does not impair the nation's access to foreign science talent. One part of this strategy should be to contain the further growth of terrorist threats by avoiding conventional military campaigns that create determined new political adversaries abroad. Victories that bring resentment will breed resistance, most easily expressed in the form of asym-metric threats against soft targets, including homeland targets. Another part of this strategy should be a more effective mobilization of the nation's massive S&T capacity when responding to the asymmetric threats that do arise. The United States is uniquely capable of innovating new "smart" technologies to protect soft homeland targets against unconventional threats. The current For-tress America approach risks undercutting the nation's lead in science by keep-ing too many talented foreigners out.

The excessive tightening of US visa policies post September 11th are making more difficult for foreign scientists to enter the countryPaarlberg 4 (“Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and U. S. Security” Robert L., International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004 Pg 150)

More science will be good for security, but an overzealous pursuit of homeland security now risks a weakening of U.S. science. An excessive tightening of U.S. visa policies post-September 11 is reducing the vital flow of foreign scientists into the United States. Between FY 2001 and FY 2003, successful U.S. visa ap-plications in all categories fell from 10 million down to 6.5 million. The number of temporary worker visas issued specifically for jobs in science and technol ogy in the United States dropped more sharply, falling by 55 percent in 2002 alone.75T he weaker post-September 11 U.S. economy can be blamed for some of this decline, but not all. Tightened visa procedures are making entry into the United States by foreign scientists significantly more difficult.

Scientists say that the biggest hurdle to great scientific achievement is the lack of funding and difficulties with H-1B visasKolakowski 9 (Nicholas, “US Scientists See H1B Visas as Major Issue Against Progress, Says Survey” 7-12-09 www.ewee.com)

A new survey by the Pew Research Center has found that, while the American public holds a high opinion of scientists, a minority feel that U.S. scientific achievements are best in the world. At the same time, scientists felt the biggest impediments to their research were lack of funding and difficulties in the H1-B visa process for foreign scientists and students. The nation's scientists see H1-B visa issues as a major barrier to scientific achievement, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center. Some 56 percent surveyed felt that issues with the visa process for foreign students and scientists represented a massive impediment, second only to the 87 percent who saw lack of funding as a “very serious” or “serious” problem.

http://www.eweek.com/#%23


Heg Adv – IT Sector – Link

Declining US tech sector threatens military security- only domestic tech can be trusted Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

Given the recent trend of migration of many phases of the semiconductor value chain (most notably foundry production) to Asia, there is concern about continued access to trusted ICs. Trustworthiness is the confidence that classified or key mission information, ”…contained in chip designs is not compromised, reliability is not degraded, or unintended design elements inserted in chips as a result of design or fabrication in conditions open to adversary agents.”39 Acutely linked with IC trustworthiness is the ability to provide assured sources of microelectronic components as necessary. Where and when foreign sources of supply are used, greater risks arise from counterfeit ICs, geo-political forces, and natural disasters.40 Numerous military systems and programs ultimately require military-specific ICs that cannot be obtained from the commercial market. Given the environment of a declining US microelectronics manufacturing base and a severely diminished capability to persuade IC suppliers to manufacture chips for the U.S. government, there is a valid concern within the US defense community regarding the issue of access and trust with respect to semiconductors and the impact on national security.

Lack of domestic high skilled workers ensures we have to offshore for advanced tech- this hurts military readinessIndustrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADSThere are several strategic security considerations associated with the offshore manufacturing of semiconductors. Businesses will naturally seek to maximize profits and take advantage of overseas environments with lower production costs, more lax environmental regulations, fewer employee benefits and lower salaries for skilled foreign workers.59 On the national level, outsourcing can create fewer U.S. professional and technical opportunities and fewer tax revenues to support essential government services. In the long term, the U.S. risks losing high-end research and design talent and semiconductor specialty design jobs, because higher-skilled workers tend to locate with the semiconductor industry value chain as it moves to Asia.60 As fabs move to advanced levels of technology, the ability of the U.S. to recreate its semiconductor manufacturing capability becomes exponentially more costly. Strategically for policy makers, this means an increased dependence on other nations to supply critical manufactured defense parts and equipment. U.S. national leadership of semiconductor technology appears to be threatened by offshore fabrication trends that can pose long-term national security vulnerabilities. This dramatic change is not in the best interests of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Homeland Security. Semiconductors are the standard building blocks for the global information grid to support computers, communications and military information and data exchange. The semiconductor industry provides much of the technology for U.S. military communications that are critical for command and control and effective leadership. Research notes that military and intelligence reliance on semiconductor ICs built offshore are not an acceptable national security option.61 The massive shift from U.S. to foreign IC manufacturers endangers the security of sensitive and classified IP information embedded in chip design. It greatly expands the possibility that harmful software code, embedded Trojan horse attacks, or other unauthorized design inclusions could appear in unclassified integrated circuits used in military and security applications. If offshore IC fabrication migration continues , the DoD and U.S. Intelligence Community potentially could be denied access to ICs and the security-assured functionality of advanced semiconductors, via foreign export restrictions, when these components are essential for U.S. national defense advantage.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf





Heg Adv – Tech Innovation – Link

Lifting the restrictions of H1B visa’s are key to getting and retaining skilled workers needed for technological innovation National Foundation for American Policy 10’(non-partisan public policy research organization, March 2010, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf) AJR

Examining the 2009 H-1B numbers and recent research on high skill immigration shows many of the arguments made to restrict H-1B visas are weak. H-1Bs are used by a large variety of businesses and organizations in the United States. Given the long waits for green cards, H-1B visas remain often the only way an employer can hire an outstanding international student or bring a talented foreign national to America to work. Research shows H-1B visa holders are important to innovation, entrepreneurship and job creation in America. With the annual flow of H-1Bs representing only 0.06 percent of the U.S. labor force in 2009, arguments that H-1B professionals overwhelm the American workforce are not supported by logic or the facts. Surveys of Indian and Chinese professionals who have left America show that visa constraints play a role in their leaving the country, an exodus that will continue absent reform of our immigration laws. Liberalizing H-1B and green card quotas would help American companies innovate and create more jobs in the United States. While critics of H-1B visas often frame their arguments as helping Americans, the current restrictions inflict real harm on the country – and new restrictions will only increase the damage.

When job creators hire talented individuals it increases growth and innovation National Foundation for American Policy 10’(non-partisan public policy research organization, March 2010, http://www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf) AJR

The findings were consistent with information from tech companies on the dynamic process of job creation and the results held up in estimates with different controls and subsets of firms. One reason the study has been widely cited is it reflects the real world experiences of tech companies in hiring highly skilled foreign-born professionals and international graduate students from U.S. universities. In addition to citing the research, Bill Gates noted Microsoft’s own internal findings that H-1Bs lead to increased complementary employment: “Microsoft has found that for every H-1B hire we make, we add on average four additional employees to support them in various capacities.”14 That is similar to the finding in the National Foundation for American Policy research. Discussions with executives at eBay and other tech companies revealed the same experiences. It’s common sense to job creators that hiring talented individuals leads to growth and innovation.


Heg Adv – Cyber Security – Link

H-1B key to solve cyber security threats- they’re the most innovative entrepreneurs Piper 9 [Greg, Washington Internet Daily Staff Writer, October 21, “Ex-Officials Tell Entrepreneurs How to Pitch Cybersecurity to Feds,” WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY Vol. 10 No. 202] ADS

China's suspected role in much industrial espionage shouldn't drive U.S. decision making on cybersecurity, Wade said. "I wouldn't get too hung up on where the threat comes from," he told a questioner. Much of the same technology to guard against cyberattacks is useful to prevent "self- inflicted wounds" by employees and software bugs. Minihan told another questioner that foreign adversaries already have a "persistent presence" in government systems, but that adversaries are limited by their ability to process all the information held by the government in exposed systems. The "'gotcha' tip of the iceberg" -- embarrassing breaches -- must not be the focus of agencies and cybersecurity providers, because the rest of the iceberg can be addressed with "building codes and standards," Minihan said. Asked about an open letter to the White House from several security CEOs that called for more federal cybersecurity R&D, Security Innovation Network founder Robert Rodriguez blamed the R&D shortage partly on immigration rules. Some of the most innovative entrepreneurs in security have left the U.S. because of an H-1B visa shortage , he said. Wade said the National Science Foundation is promoting "leap- ahead technology" through sponsored conferences on both coasts to bring together academic researchers, and Defense is sponsoring similar gatherings. "There's a substantial amount of money that's going to be thrown at this problem," but entrepreneurs must be ready to pitch a "quantum leap" in cybersecurity, not a marginally better product, Russell said. Any system can be hacked, so the U.S. needs a competitive advantage in advanced technology to stay ahead of threats, he said. -- Greg Piper


Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)

H-1B visas key to semiconductor industry- empirics proveIndustrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

Inter-year comparisons. If we compare the H-1B visas granted by year, we see that H-1B visas granted to the top-20 companies, especially to Intel and Motorola/Freescale, jumped in 2004 and remained high in 2005,even as the national H-1B limitation and fee dropped dramatically. The semiconductor companies seemed to be benefiting from the additional 20,000 H-1Bs available for workers with a graduate degree from U.S. universities. Over the five year period, 61% of the H-1B visas were awarded to the top-20 companies during the last two years, and 53% of the H-1B visas awarded to the top-20 companies were granted to Intel and Motorola/Freescale during that time.

H-1B visa holders key to bolster semiconductor industry- major companies have used them in the pastIndustrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

Let us look at how these H-1B visa applications compare to company employment. In 2005, Intel employed approximately 99,900 people worldwide, with more than 50% locate in the U.S., and Motorola employed 69,000 employees (number of domestic employees not given)22. This indicates that approximately 2.6% of Intel’s workers were newly-hired H-1B visa holders. If H-1B visa holders work for Intel for at least five years, then approximately 5.4% of their domestic workers were H-1B visa holders, which translate to a larger percentage of their engineers. H-1B visa holders were probably an even larger proportion of the workforce at Motorola, since they accounted for 3.7% of all employees worldwide. The percentage of domestic engineers that are H-1B visa holders could easily be twice that. These data indicate that semiconductor companies use H-1B visas strategically in hiring and managing their engineering talent. Below we see that part of the reason for the importance of H-1B visas is that major U.S. universities are providing graduate training to many foreign students, and upon graduation these students are in great demand by U.S. companies.






Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Link (1/)

Plan is key to semiconductor industry- there aren’t enough domestic engineersThe Industrial College of the Armed Forces 6 [“The Final Report Electronics Industry,” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475296&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf]ADS

One of five scientists and engineers in the United States was born in another country (AEA, 2005). Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. put significantly tighter controls on immigration policies, and as a result, fewer foreign students were able to attend U.S. universities, and fewer foreign graduates with advanced technical degrees were able to immigrate here. It thus became even more difficult for U.S. firms to hire the needed technical talent to sustain growth and innovation. One analyst stated, “Our immigration policy took a giant step backward because of fears associated with September 11. Making it hard for graduate students to come here does not make America safer. It makes us weaker…” (Business Week, 2004, ¶4). Industry representatives interviewed by the group consistently advocated loosening 12 restrictions on H-1B visas and Employment-Based (EB) Green Cards for technically trained foreigners in order to help alleviate the shortage of domestic high tech graduates by widening the pool of foreign-born talent available to U.S. firms (Anonymous Interviews, April 2006). The H-1B visa provides temporary entry under a nonimmigrant classification for a foreign citizen sponsored by an employer in a specialty occupation such as the semiconductor industry (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2006). The H-1B visa ceiling is currently set at 65,000 visas per year, with an additional 20,000 exemptions for foreign workers with U.S.- earned advanced degrees. Congress temporarily increased the limitation to 195,000 between 2001 and 2003 and a similar, permanent expansion would greatly assist the semiconductor industry to hire the best technically trained talent in adequate numbers. Further, such an expansion could also help to boost domestic job creation. For example, one semiconductor firm the group interviewed stated that one person working for the company under the H-1B visa program developed a new process that is now responsible for the creation of 400 new jobs (Anonymous industry interviews, May 2006).

H-1B visa holders key to bolster semiconductor industry- major companies have used them in the pastIndustrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

Let us look at how these H-1B visa applications compare to company employment. In 2005, Intel employed approximately 99,900 people worldwide, with more than 50% locate in the U.S., and Motorola employed 69,000 employees (number of domestic employees not given)22. This indicates that approximately 2.6% of Intel’s workers were newly-hired H-1B visa holders. If H-1B visa holders work for Intel for at least five years, then approximately 5.4% of their domestic workers were H-1B visa holders, which translate to a larger percentage of their engineers. H-1B visa holders were probably an even larger proportion of the workforce at Motorola, since they accounted for 3.7% of all employees worldwide. The percentage of domestic engineers that are H-1B visa holders could easily be twice that. These data indicate that semiconductor companies use H-1B visas strategically in hiring and managing their engineering talent. Below we see that part of the reason for the importance of H-1B visas is that major U.S. universities are providing graduate training to many foreign students, and upon graduation these students are in great demand by U.S. companies.




Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (1/)

Semiconductors solve national security, economic disruption and military instability Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

Beyond economics, semiconductors are vital to America’s national defense. The U.S. has long relied on technology to maintain a military advantage over its enemies and has generally adopted forces founded on technological vice numerical superiority. The importance of cuttingedge electronics cannot be overstated given America’s Warfighting doctrine that relies heavily on high-quality, high-technology weapon systems such as AEGIS cruisers, F-22 Fighters, and the “digitized” M1E3 tank. The critical role of microchips in U.S. weapons, communications, and intelligence platforms make maintaining a strong domestic semiconductor industry of strategic value. Given the reliance of the U.S. military on semiconductors, the U.S. must maintain control over development along with life-cycle maintenance and repair of its high technology systems. A robust domestic semiconductor industry insulates the U.S. from the effects of economic shock and disruption, while at the same time enhancing the ability to respond to surge and mobilization requirements. Laser guided weapons and stealth technology reduce a typical first strike package from 132 crewmembers onboard 91 aircraft including tankers, air defense, suppression, escort, and strike aircraft down to two aircraft, a tanker and stealth bomber, with six crewmen.68 This type of dramatic reduction in aircraft and personnel translated into huge cost savings with fewer lives placed at risk. Collateral damage is also greatly reduced or eliminated, which translates into increased political capital. U.S. military dominance is only possible through the technological superiority driven by semiconductors.




Heg Adv – Semiconductors – Impact (2/)

Semiconducter industry key to military techIndustrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADSThe semiconductor industry has driven United States growth and productivity since its birth in Silicon Valley, California fifty years ago. It is currently the second largest U.S. export industry, with 2007 total exports of over $52 billion.1 It employs over 232,000 Americans, providing wellpaying jobs that generate over $118 billion in annual revenue.2 The industry is a key enabler for other industries, providing breathtaking and monumental advances across the global economy. Today, knowledge workers in industries as diverse as finance, biotechnology, and agriculture are vastly more productive and effective due to ever more powerful semiconductors. Electronics have historically provided the U nited States’ military with a decisive technological edge, and they continue to play a critical part in facilitating the U.S. military’s mission to safeguard America.

Semiconductors key to military tech productivity Industrial College of Armed Forces 8 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

The semiconductor industry is the driving force behind the overall electronics industry. It began with the invention of the integrated circuit (IC) or “chip” by Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments (TI) in 19583. Originally fostered by the demand from government and military applications, today the electronics industry is driven by the worldwide consumer electronics market, especially the games industry. Growth in today’s nearly $280B annual industry is mostly attributable to the explosive growth in demand for personal computers, communications devices, MP3 players and digital televisions. Additionally, the global production of semiconductors continues to be a critical driving force of innovation in world economies, integral to quantum advances in productivity in nearly every business sector, from computing to healthcare, through the ubiquitous employment of electronic devices. Semiconductors are used in many industries to enhance productivity and they remain important in the functioning of most modern military systems used in a network-centric environment.

Semiconductors key to DOD vitality The Industrial College of the Armed Forces 6 [“Final Report Electronics Industry” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA487610&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf ]ADS

DoD must maintain its strategic capability through access to trusted semiconductor design and fabrication processes. Due to its miniscule market share, DoD can no longer influence manufacturers and either must purchase commercial products or must maintain a dedicated capability for building custom-made devices. Government intervention to preserve strategic access to semiconductor components is clearly needed to ensure DoD unique devices can be built without compromising their technology, though every effort should be made to minimize the cost by using COTS devices whenever possible. Collaborating with industry is the best way to address any immediate concerns. The Trusted Foundry Program will help address the short-term needs; however, DoD should consider expanding its relations with industry over the long term. Defense electronics acquisition will be discussed in more detail later in the paper.







Heg Adv – China – UQ – Outsourcing

The lack of skilled, cheap workers in the US forces outsourcing and risks gutting technological competitivenessBrown 9. (Alan S., associate editor of Mechanical Engineering and former co-chair of the Science Writers in New York. http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/Su09Brown.pdf)

America often worries about technology worker shortages, especially during crises. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States responded with a greater investment in science education and an ambitious space program of its own. In the mid-1980s when the Japanese threatened to overwhelm American producers, the National Science Foundation began warning of a shortage of scientists and engineers. Starting in 1997, the information technology (IT) industry claimed that it could not find enough workers to meet demand and successfully lobbied for more temporary H-1B visas for temporary technology workers. Today, the technology threat comes from China, India, and other emerging nations. While these countries rely on cheap labor, China and India also have large, sophisticated engineering work forces. They may have started by doing low-level computer programming and 3D CAD conversions, but many now do systems integration and engineering design. Their success has put pressure on the U.S. economy. During the past decade, the nation has offshored an increasing percentage of production, shed 3 million manufacturing jobs, and opened a $60 billion trade gap in advanced technology products. It is now watching IT and engineering positions move offshore as well. In 2006, the National Academy of Engineering released the report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, which crystallized national fears. It stated that America’s standard of living is based on science and technology innovations and that the nation is in peril of losing its lead in these key areas.


Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing Bad

Outsourcing has killed the ability for US companies to gain tech leadsLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 21) BHB

Thus, outsourcing can lead to compounded dependence. Once a firm’s personnel fall behind in learning new technologies, the firm finds it harder to stay abreast of technological developments. Competitive advantage declines as investment in new core skills and knowledge dissipates. The key ingredient of sustaining industry initiative is continually learning and developing new sources of knowledge and skills needed to develop next-generation products and technologies. Cooperation with an alliance partner or outsourcing supplier involves a simultaneous competition to learn new skills from one another. In many cases, U.S. firms have essentially ceded their leadership positions across dozens of industries to eager suppliers that have used the outsourcing arrangement as a vehicle for their own long-term learning and technology accumulation.

Outsourcing has increased China’s power now they have infrastructure to accept the outsourcing of high skill jobsGarrett 6(Banning; Dir. of the Asia Program at the Atlantic Council; Journal of Contemporary China, Volume 15, Issue 48 August 2006 , pages 389 – 415) BHB

'Rising China'—which has been the result of and contributed to globalization—has become perhaps the single most important factor shaping the rapidly-changing geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century.22 China has become the largest 'delta' or change factor in the world economy. Higher world energy and commodity prices are attributed largely to China's rapidly increasing demand, spurred in turn by China's seemingly perpetual economic growth of around 8-9% per year. China's emergence as the world's manufacturing platform is compelling a restructuring of global manufacturing networks and even national economies. China is now a magnet for low-skill jobs 'outsourced' by the US and other advanced countries; it is also increasingly 'moving up the food chain', producing highly-educated workers to entice multinational companies to set up research and development centers in China, thus raising a new round of fears about outsourcing innovation and high-paying jobs from the United States. China is also the largest recipient of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the world, with more than $60 billion received in 2004 and nearly $570 billion received since 1982. China has become the world's third largest trading country behind the US and Germany and ahead of Japan, with $1.15 trillion in trade in 2004. Inexpensive goods from China have maintained downward pressure on prices of manufactured consumer goods in the United States and throughout the world, helping to stave off inflation and benefiting consumers but also extracting a 'China price' for other manufacturers globally to compete with China's low-cost goods. Critically, China holds $200 billion in US treasury bonds and over $600 billion in foreign exchange, helping to finance the US trade and budget deficits as well as US imports of Chinese goods. In short, China has a huge impact on the world economy, on the US economy, and on US global, regional and bilateral economic interests.


Heg Adv – China – Link – Tech Solves Balancing

Specialized workers are key to hard power over ChinaPaarlberg 4 (“Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and U. S. Security” Robert L., International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004 Pg 142)

Dominant military innovations will also be more difficult for rival states to copy because they are no longer stand-alone pieces of hardware. The RMA de-pends on entire systems of both hardware and software-sensors, satellites, program codes, and command systems, not just weapons platforms. Moreover, only teams of technically skilled, highly trained, and continuously practiced personnel can operate these networked RMA weapons systems. The superb U.S. all-volunteer military force, built specifically to provide such operating personnel, is a unique human and institutional asset that less capable foreign rivals can neither copy nor steal. Potential rivals such as China cannot hope to develop an RMA capability through simple transfer, whether by purchase or theft. Through espionage China may have been able to gain information on the W-88 warhead used on U.S. Trident missiles, and China was nearly successful in purchasing from Is-rael the Phalcon system (which contained modern phased-array technology) before the U.S. government halted this sale in 2000.64Y et even with access to such imported or stolen technology, the Chinese military system will not be able to advance to an RMA capability, given the notorious weakness of the PLA in areas such as command, control, communications, and intelligence.


Heg Adv – China – Link – Outsourcing => China Hegemony

Chinese economic growth means that they can project power beyond their borders using foreign technologyLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38) BHB

Froma security perspective, amore sophisticated Chinese economywill inevitably translate into a more modernized military. Already, the Chinese military-industrial complex (composed entirely of SOEs) is becoming a potent

competitor in the arms export business for certain weapon categories (largely in second- and third-generation technology),while China’s armedforces gradually acquire the capability for force projection beyond the defensive needs of its immediate borders. Much of the new technology behind upgraded Chinese arms comes from the transfer of dual-use technologies (e.g., aerospace, semiconductors, radars, metallurgy, fiber optics). Chinese military R&D, however, is gaining intensified skill in such cutting-edge areas as information warfare and laser technologies—again a significant effort that probably entails fusing internal development efforts with technology learned from foreign firms.12


Heg Adv – China – Impact – Taiwan Conflict

Taiwan conflicts causes a US blockade of China killing key US industries this collapses the economyLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38-39) BHB

Perhaps the most important quandary regarding any potential China-Taiwan conflict is the extreme overextension of many U.S. industries’ supply chains from factories located in China. The number of U.S. industrial sectors that rely on China as a low-cost manufacturing platform has mushroomed over the last decade, with many high-technology products now coming from Chinese factories. Ironically, a China-Taiwan conflict may force the U.S. to deploy the Seventh Fleet to blockade the Chinese coast—a strategic move that would sever the lifeline for many U.S. industries that now depend on lean production and just-in-time inventory management systems. A supply breach of such magnitude would disrupt the entire U.S. economy, with inflationary pressures and resource scarcity across many sectors.

Taiwan conflicts causes a US blockade of China killing key US industries this collapses the economyLei 7(David; Assoc Prof SMU; Winter 07 Orbis; Outsourcing and China’s Rising Economic Power; p. 38-39) BHB

Perhaps the most important quandary regarding any potential China-Taiwan conflict is the extreme overextension of many U.S. industries’ supply chains from factories located in China. The number of U.S. industrial sectors that rely on China as a low-cost manufacturing platform has mushroomed over the last decade, with many high-technology products now coming from Chinese factories. Ironically, a China-Taiwan conflict may force the U.S. to deploy the Seventh Fleet to blockade the Chinese coast—a strategic move that would sever the lifeline for many U.S. industries that now depend on lean production and just-in-time inventory management systems. A supply breach of such magnitude would disrupt the entire U.S. economy, with inflationary pressures and resource scarcity across many sectors.


Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low

The Space Sector is on the brink of a mass worker shortage- Holmes AND Bates 10 [Mark, Associate Editor of Via Satellite magazine Jason, editor of Via Satellite magazineJuly 1, “Space Workforce: Attracting the Next Generation,” Vol. 25 No. 7]ADS

One of the main issues facing the space sector is an aging workforce , and attracting the young people that will build, launch and operate the rockets, satellites and communications networks of the future has proven difficult. The sector has lost the appeal it once had and now faces increased competition in convincing future engineers that space is more relevant than ever. Concerns over the aging workforce is the number two issue for members of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), whose members includes U.S. manufacturers and suppliers of aircraft, space systems, equipment, services and information technology, says Daphne Dador, AIA's manager, workforce. "A lot of our leaders and companies are really focused on developing a qualified workforce for the future. As it stands now, there are certainly challenges for our workforce." Among them is that 38 percent of the U.S. aerospace workforce is 50 or older, with 20 percent of the workforce forecasted to reach retirement age in the next three to five years. "When it comes to pending retirements and the supply side, getting young people to work in this industry is a concern," she says. Before the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education in February, Rick Stephens, senior vice president of human resources and administration at Boeing and chair of the AIA Workforce Steering Committee, said the United States is "falling further behind" in science and engineering education. "These are becoming difficult jobs to fill, not because there is a labor shortage but because there is a skills shortage. Our industry needs more innovative young scientists, technologists, engineers and mathematicians to replace baby boomers as they retire.

US space power is low due to a lack of domestic workers- intelligence programs prove Launchspace Staff 9 [January 20, “The Ongoing Erosion Of The US Space Industrial Base,” http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Ongoing_Erosion_Of_The_US_Space_Industrial_Base_999.html]ADS

The preeminent space power has severely declined. Performance has eroded, support is lacking and expectations have diminished. Why? The success of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and other U.S. technological innovations highlighted the strategic importance of Space as an enabler for communications, navigation and remote sensing, thus attracting the attention of the international defense and intelligence communities. Twenty years ago only the U.S., the former Soviet Union and Europe were aware of the importance of Space applications. Today, every developing nation is a customer for Space applications. The world now recognizes that the marketplace for Space-related goods and services has greatly expanded. More providers have entered the competition and are winning customers away from the U.S. Furthermore, the licensing processes under U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have restricted the ability of U.S. Space contractors to compete in foreign markets. Some European manufacturers even advertise "ITAR-free" spacecraft products. The actual impact of ITAR is exactly the opposite of its original intent, i.e., to slow the development of certain technologies outside the U.S. In today's environment, it is simply arrogant and immature to think other countries lack the intellectual capital and will to create technologies for strategic applications. International competition, disarray in U.S. leadership and a shortage of native Space technologists have crippled the country's capability to compete. Economics' driven industry consolidations and an aging workforce of older space professionals further weaken the Space industry's capacity to deliver cutting-edge systems. Evidence supporting this analysis is clearly on display with the most recent military and intelligence spacecraft programs . U.S. Space leaders have been fully informed of this dire situation, but little has been done. Strong leadership across the government, in industry and in academia is mandatory to reverse this trend in U.S. Space decline. ITAR restrictions and licensing processes need urgent reform to allow Space contractors to market and compete more effectively. Presidential leadership is mandatory to reorganize the government Space enterprise and to create a centralized Space Architecture. Universities need improved incentives to produce more qualified scientists and engineers who can contribute to U.S. Space capabilities. If action isn't taken immediately, the U.S. will become a follower, instead of a leader. And National Security will be almost irreparably damaged-in Space and therefore on the ground.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Ongoing_Erosion_Of_The_US_Space_Industrial_Base_999.html


Heg Adv – NASA – UQ – NASA Low

US is losing its competitive edge- We can’t replace the aging workforce Blakey 9 [Marion, December 10, “House Science and Technology Committee Hearing; Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?” http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2696]ADS

Another crucial relationship NASA has with the aerospace workforce is its ability to attract and educate future workers. In fact, the demographics of our industry reflect an influx of young workers who entered our industry during exciting times in our space program. Developing the aerospace workforce of the future is a top issue for our industry. As the leader of the largest U.S. aerospace trade association, the most significant concerns and trends facing the U.S. aerospace workforce and industrial base at the present time include the impending retirements within the next decade. Today, 13 percent of our workforce is eligible to retire. By 2013, retirement eligibility for some job functions like RandD and program managers will be around 20 percent. n6 The state of education for our young people is also in peril, including poor preparation for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, also known as STEM fields; low graduation rates of students in those fields, especially when compared to other nations, and a lack of interest in STEM fields overall. Currently, the U.S. annually graduates just 74,000 engineers - covering all fields in the discipline. Further, many of these students are foreign nationals who return home shortly after graduating - which lowers the number of new domestically employable engineers under 60,000. n7 By comparison, India and China respectively graduate six and ten times more engineering students each year. n8 If this continues, the U.S. runs a real risk of losing its skilled engineering edge over other nations. The latest national test scores show that, in math, fourth graders are 62 percent below proficient and eighth graders are 69 percent below proficient. In science, fourth graders are 68 percent below proficient, while eighth graders are 73 percent below proficient. n9 In a study done by Raytheon, most middle school students said they would rather do one of the following instead of their math homework: clean their room, eat their vegetables, go to the dentist or take out the garbage. This lack of interest seeps into interest in aerospace. For example, in a recent survey 60 percent of students majoring in STEM found the aerospace and defense industry an unattractive place to work. n10

NASA is on the verge of a mass high skilled worker shortage- it will gut key operationAxtman 3 [Kris, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor February 18, “NASA faces looming engineer shortage,” http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0218/p17s02-lehl.html]ADS

Theis is now a software engineer in the private sector, and his departure from NASA represents a looming crisis for the space agency. A General Accounting Office report last year found that NASA has three times as many engineers aged 60 and over as it has 30 and under - and a quarter of its nearly 19,000 employees will be eligible for retirement in five years. Last month, the GAO again reported the agency is having difficulty hiring people with the science, engineering, and information-technology skills that are critical to its operations. Experts warn that when retirees walk out the door, decades of knowledge and experience will walk out with them - slowing NASA's progress and raising additional safety concerns. "It's one of the most serious problems at NASA right now," says Wei Shyy, chairman of the mechanical and aerospace engineering department at the University of Florida. "They need to beef up their efforts to recruit young people and increase their pay. Then they need to find a way to retain the experience of those who are leaving," he says.

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2696

http://www.csmonitor.com/About/Contact-Us-Feedback


Heg Adv – NASA – Link – H1B

H-1B solve high skilled worker crisis Sherk and Nguyen, 08 (James and Diem, Heritage Foundation, March 31, “Increasing the Cap for H-1B Visas Would Help the Economy,” http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/13613.pdf, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Insourcing Jobs. Increasing the cap on H-1B visas creates new jobs for American workers, not just H-1B immigrants. Employees do not compete for a fixed number of jobs so that when more H-1B workers come to the United States, an equal number of Americans lose their jobs. Instead, businesses create jobs when they grow and shed jobs. Currently, the economy has a severe shortage of workers for many high-skilled positions. The unemployment rate in computer and mathematical occupations, like computer programming, was 2.1 percent in 2007—essentially full employment after accounting for workers between jobs.2 There are not enough high-tech workers in America to fill the jobs that employers want them to do . By increasing the H-1B cap, Congress would allow companies to fill vital positions and enable them to expand within the United States, which avoids the problem of companies outsourcing work or moving overseas. Take the example of an engineering software company that hires an engineer and a software developer on H-1B visas. Without those key workers, the company could not expand. Because it hired those key workers, however, the company grows and creates many new domestic jobs: software programmers, software salesmen, and technical support staff. A study by the National Foundation for American Policy found that the average S&P 500 company creates five new domestic jobs for each highly skilled H-1B visa employee it hires.3 By raising the H-1B cap, Congress “insources” jobs, allowing companies to fill vital positions and expand their operations in America instead of moving overseas. This benefits both American workers and the U.S. economy.

H-1B cap is preventing high skilled worker influx The Financial Express, 07(November 2, “H1B Visa: 'Allow world's best and brightest to US,” http://www.financialexpress.com/news/h1b-visa-allow-worlds-best-and-brightest-to-us/235181/, CW, accessed on 7/27/10)

Washington, November 2:: A leading Republican Presidential hopeful has thrown his weight behind the H1B visa programme stressing that bringing high skilled workers on a permanent basis to the US will be beneficial to the economy. Former Massachusetts Gover Mitt Romney has said that while he is for increasing the quota for H1B visa, a majority of whose aspirants are Indians, the exact figures would depend on a number of things including the strength of the US economy and the implications for the local workforce. "I like H1B visas. I like the idea of the best and brightest in the world coming here. I'd rather have them come here permanently rather than come and go, but I believe our visa programme is designed to help us solve gaps in our employment pool," he said in an interview to TechCrunch,a weblog dedicated to profiling and reviewing new internet products and companies. "Where there are individuals who have skills that we do not have in abundance here, I'd like to bring them here and contribute to our economy," he added.


Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Climate Change

NASA tech is key to climate observation- Menemenlis 5 [Dimitris, Research Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, March, “NASA Supercomputer Improves Prospects for Ocean Climate Research,” Eos,Vol. 86, No. 9, 1]ADSEstimates of ocean circulation constrained by in situ and remotely sensed observations have become routinely available during the past five years, and they are being applied to myriad scientific and operational problems [Stammer et al.,2002].Under the Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment (GODAE),several regional and global estimates have evolved for applications in climate research, seasonal forecasting,naval operations,marine safety, fisheries,the offshore oil industry, coastal management, and other areas. This article reports on recent progress by one effort, the consortium for Estimating the Circulation and Climate of the Ocean (ECCO), toward a next-generation synthesis of ocean and sea-ice data that is global, that covers the full ocean depth, and that permits eddies. ECCO is funded by the U.S.National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) and is a collaboration between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).A distinguishing feature of ECCO estimates is their physical consistency. Estimates are obtained by least squares fit (or regression) of the MIT general circulation model (MITgcm [Marshall et al., 1997]) to the available observations; they satisfy the model’s time-evolution equations; property budgets are closed and there are no discontinuities when new data are inserted; and the error covariance is propagated through the same physical model as the state vector (the model’s prognostic variables: salinity, temperature, velocity, and sea-surface height on a predefined grid), hence more fully utilizing the available data.

NASA tech is key to climate observation- they contribute more data than anyone elseDale No date given [Shana, NASA Deputy Administrator, “NASA Technology Contributes to Sustainability of the Earth,” http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/products/product_innovation_15_1_text.html]ADS

Perhaps NASA's biggest contribution to sustainability is the development and operation of Earth-observing satellites. With today's constellation of NASA satellites covering the spectrum of Earth science measurements of our land, sea, air, and space, NASA supplies more global climate-change data than any other organization in the world, and it is the largest contributor to the federal government's interagency Climate Change Science Program, providing the most research grant funding of any organization. A new satellite was added recently to this constellation with the launch of the Ocean Surface Topography Mission, or Jason-2, on June 20 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Like most NASA missions, Jason-2 is a partnership with other countries of the world, because NASA recognizes that the forces at work affecting global climate change know no boundaries. Built by the engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., Jason-2 will join a comprehensive suite of missions and instruments such as ICES at and GRACE in orbit today to monitor how sea level is rising around the world, mostly due to expansion from ocean heat absorbed from the atmosphere and melting mountain glaciers and ice sheets (e.g., Greenland, Antarctica). In September 2007, NASA scientists observed the smallest Arctic sea ice coverage ever recorded. The sea ice coverage in September 2007 was smaller than in September 2006 by an area that exceeded the combined geographical areas of California and Texas. After decades of monitoring our Earth from NASA satellites, this was the largest ice-free area of the Arctic that our NASA researchers have witnessed since monitoring started.



NASA tech key to obtain general consensus on climate change issuesDale 8 [Shana, NASA Deputy Administrator, May 14, “Remarks as delivered by The Honorable Shana Dale,” http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/227280main_San_Jose_Future_Forum_5-14.pdf]ADS

NASA satellites supply more global climate change data than those of any other organization in the world . It is only through NASA’s investments in measuring the forces and effects of climate change that we have such insights and understand its implications to our home planet. Based on NASA satellite data, we have not only seen the receding ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but have quantitatively measured how fast these ice sheets are melting. NASA scientists have observed the smallest Arctic sea ice coverage ever recorded in 2007, and when comparing that ice coverage for the months of September over the past two years, the loss of sea ice exceeds the combined geographical areas of California and Texas. In regards to nitrogen oxide emissions, one of the greenhouse gases that form smog, NASA sensors helped researchers document their doubling in Asia from 2000 to 2006. NASA has fourteen Earth-observing satellites in orbit today. Another seven Earth science missions are under development, three of which will launch over the next 13 months; and earlier this year, we initiated formulation activities for five Decadal Survey missions, expected to lead to five new launches before 2020. All in all, NASA invests approximately $1.3 billion every year in Earth science. As we continue to explore, we’re making new discoveries along the way that are helping our planet.

NASA tech will inform climate related decisions- key to global change Thompson 10 [Andrea, Livescience staff writer, 2/2, “The ‘new’ NASA will look back at Earth Plans allow agency to re-fly carbon observatory that crashed last year,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35206524

NASA's new proposed budget will in part shift the space agency's focus from landing people on the moon back to Earth, with more money slated to go to projects that will help us understand our planet's climate and even plans to re-launch the carbon observatory that failed to launch last year. The 2011 proposed budget for NASA, announced on Monday, cancels the Constellation program to build new rockets and spacecraft optimized for the moon, but increases NASA's overall budget by $6 billion over the next five years. Of that $6 billion, about $2 billion will be funneled into new and existing science missions, particularly those aimed at investigating the Earth sciences, particularly climate . "That's about 27 percent of the overall budget over the next five years of the agency [that] will be dedicated to science," said Edward Weiler, head of NASA's Science Mission Directorate at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Earth and climate science division will get the bulk of the money allocated to science, and that money will bolster Earth science missions that are either already in the works or proposed, " NASA will be able to turn its considerable expertise to advancing climate-change research and observations," Weiler said today in a press briefing. In particular, NASA's budget will allow the agency to re-fly the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO), which crashed into the ocean near Antarctica just after launch almost a year ago. NASA has decided to give the mission a second chance, because it "is critical to our understanding of the Earth's carbon cycle and its effect on climate change," Weiler said. OCO was the first satellite built exclusively to map carbon dioxidelevels on Earth and help scientists understand how humanity's contribution of the greenhouse gas is affecting global climate change. Climate scientist Ken Caldeira of Stanford University welcomed the news. " The Orbiting Carbon Observatory is a key piece [of] the monitoring system that we need to keep track of our changing Earth, so that we might better understand the complex interplay of Earth's climate system and carbon cycle, and therefore help to better inform the difficult climate-related decisions that we will need to make over the coming years and decades," he said.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090224-oco-launch-failure.html

http://www.space.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=SP_090211_OCC

http://www.livescience.com/topic/climate



NASA conclusions on climate change are the most credibleHansen 10 [James, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, February19, “HEMENWAY: Turning NASA into a Global Alarmism and Scares Administration,” http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/19/turning-nasa-into-a-global-alarmism-and-scares-adm/]ADS

They have long been ascendant inside the agency. When the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in Oslo to Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NASA's hand in the IPCC's work was revealed. Hundreds of NASA scientists contributed to the U.N. effort, the culmination of two decades of work. NASA satellite measurements enabled the IPCC's "strongest conclusions thus far," according to the chief scientist at the Joint Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who was further quoted: "NASA's role extends far beyond space-based measurements into the research to build our understanding of climate change, enabling the critical work of the IPCC. ... By collecting together the current scientific thinking on climate change, the IPCC showed the world the value of the type of science we are doing at NASA." NASA scientist James E. Hansen, one of Mr. Gore's closest allies in promoting fears of man-made global warming, was deemed by the London Telegraph as "more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming" - setting "the whole scare in train back in 1988 with testimony to a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Al Gore."


Heg Adv – NASA – Impact – Dominance

Space dominance is key to military security- navigation and targeting are bolstered Malenic 10 [Marina, July 6, “New Space Policy Promotes International Cooperation, Private Industry,” Space & Missile Defense Report Vol. 33 No. 14]ADS

Defense Secretary Robert Gates welcomed the release of the policy. "Space-based capabilities are critical to our military's ability to navigate accurately, strike precisely, and gather battle space awareness efficiently," he said in a press statement. "However, changes in the space environment over the last decade challenge our operations. Today, space is increasingly contested as our systems face threats of disruption and attack, increasingly competitive as more states, private firms, and others develop space-based capabilities, and increasingly congested with orbital debris." Gates pledged to work closely with his counterparts in other U.S. government agencies to mitigate such risks. The policy also calls for a "robust and competitive" industrial base. "In support of its critical domestic aerospace industry, the U.S. government will use commercial space products and services in fulfilling governmental needs, invest in new and advanced technologies and concepts, and use a broad array of partnerships with industry to promote innovation," it states. "The U.S. government will actively promote the purchase and use of U.S. commercial space goods and services within international cooperative agreements."

Space power projection is awesome- multiple reasonsMalenic 10 [Marina, July 6, “New Space Policy Promotes International Cooperation, Private Industry,” Space & Missile Defense Report Vol. 33 No. 14]ADS

The Obama administration emphasizes international cooperation and support for a robust space industrial base. In a written statement issued June 28 by the White House, President Barrack Obama said the new plan would "rapidly increase our capabilities in space while bolstering America's competitive edge in the global economy." "The United States will engage in expanded international cooperation in space activities," the policy document states. "The United States will pursue cooperative activities to the greatest extent practicable in areas including: space science and exploration; earth observations, climate change research and the sharing of environmental data; disaster mitigation and relief; and space surveillance for debris monitoring and awareness. " However, Washington remains committed to the use of space systems "in support of its national and homeland security," according to the document. "The United States will invest in space situational awareness capabilities and launch vehicle technologies; develop the means to assure mission essential functions enabled by space; enhance our ability to identify and characterize threats; and deter, defend, and if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with or attack U.S. or allied space systems," it states. The document also addresses arms control in space. The policy expresses the administration's willingness to "consider" arms control agreements for the space domain.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/us/lnacademic/search/XMLCrossLinkSearch.do?bct=A&risb=21_T9834000331&returnToId=20_T9834003847&csi=156289&A=0.09128796244116&sourceCSI=9369&indexTerm=%23PE000A0BO%23&searchTerm=Obama%20administration%20&indexType=P


Heg Adv – NASA – AT: Domestic Workers Solve

Domestic engineers are insufficient- they can’t replace retired NASA talent Blakey 9 [Marion, December 10, “House Science and Technology Committee Hearing; Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?” http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2696]ADS What can drive more engineering-minded students into the discipline of aerospace and aeronautics? I believe the opportunity to expand human spaceflight is the ideal type of project. An industry that can inspire them must remain vibrant and active. Over decades, our space programs and workforce have helped fuel our economy and advance our technologies. The U nited States has enjoyed preeminence in aerospace in great part due to our space program. That leadership is now in danger. The primary threat comes not from competitors' actions but from our own aging demographics and potential failure to act, both of which could be detrimental to our future aerospace and space programs. The generation of aerospace talent that won the Moon Race and the Cold War is reaching retirement age, while our Shuttle workforce is also aging . Unfortunately, America is not producing the volume and quality of engineers, designers and technicians needed to even begin replacing those who have served so well for so long. While Congress considers the future of NASA's funding and direction we must also continue as the world leader in space exploration by investing in our young people and providing cutting-edge programs for them work on. The vitality of our nation depends on a vital workforce.

Capable workers would take years to train Blakey 9 [Marion, December 10, “House Science and Technology Committee Hearing; Decisions on the Future Direction and Funding for NASA: What Will They Mean for the U.S. Aerospace Workforce and Industrial Base?” http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2696]ADSSome regions will be hit hard by the transition. In Brevard County alone, Shuttle-related activity in Florida supports a workforce level of approximately 9,235 contract employees, (not including Federal workers). The total estimated shuttle-related annual payroll for this workforce is estimated at $600 million. Additionally, the shuttle program provides an estimated secondary economic contribution to the state, above salaries, of approximately $2 billion. n5 I bring these points up to highlight the impact NASA's human space flight program has on the lives of so many Americans. Brevard County is but one example. As Congress and policymakers deliberate over the future of NASA, we should reflect on the unique skills of these men and women and the regions that benefit directly from these programs. NASA is linked to the health of our industrial base. While the loss of a person's job is no small matter, especially in light of today's economic environment, we must also view these jobs as a national resource critical to our nation's technological capability and our national security. Aerospace talent lost to other industries may be unrecoverable ; new workers may take years to train . Additionally, if we lose certain facilities that manufacture high-tech technologies, it may take years and additional resources to bring them back. Among the issues affecting the health of our industrial base that need to be considered by the White House and Congress are: How to maintain required skills for the duration of the shuttle's operation, how to maintain the workforce skills required for utilization of the ISS and how to transition the workforce to other current and new NASA programs.




Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low

Aging workforce and lack of student interest doom US aerospace Muellner 9[George, AIAA President, April, “TOMORROW'S AEROSPACE WORKFORCE,” AIAA BULLETIN; AIAA News; Pg. B5]ADS

"Crisis in Aerospace"--that was how Aviation Week and Space Technology first described the impending shortfall of scientists and engineers. This description recognized that the tremendous strides made in the aerospace profession were the result of having an innovative and highly professional workforce of scientists and engineers. You, the members of AIAA, connected the world and enhanced our national security with advances in aviation and allowed us to walk on the moon, explore the universe with our deep-space probes, and commercialize space. The shortfall in future scientists and engineers is caused by several factors: an aging workforce comprised heavily of "Baby Boomers" (those born between 1946 and 1964), a decline in both government and industry research and development investments, and an inadequate number of students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and retention challenges with our young professionals in the aerospace industry. Over the past several years, the U.S. National Science Foundation and U.S. National Academy of Engineering and Science chartered studies to identify the causes and recommend mitigating actions for the shortfall. These studies have prompted the U.S. Congress to create the Interagency Aerospace Revitalization Task Force. Despite all of these actions, metrics to date indicate little progress. While the current downturn in the economy has delayed retirements, the workforce crisis, or "silver tsunami," is still approaching!

US aerospace industry will face high skilled worker shortages- Flightglobal.com 8 [14/04, “Aerospace faces a looming shortage of engineers,” http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/14/222942/aerospace-faces-a-looming-shortage-of-engineers.html]ADS

The assembly lines may not be on the verge of grinding to a halt, or the launch pads about to be put into mothballs. But major problems in the supply of engineers in the aerospace industry are undoubtedly looming on the horizon. For an industry whose self-image is one of thrusting achievement and pushing the technological envelope, the realities of company demographics make sobering reading. The workforce is ageing and the point is approaching at which the number of retirees will no longer be matched by the arrival of new entrants from universities and colleges. Industry bodies and individual companies, particularly in the USA, are having to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that future generations of engineers will emerge from the educational system. Despite these efforts, however, the next few years are likely to see the industry facing real problems in finding sufficient high-quality personnel to fill the gaps in its ranks. This skills shortage will be one of the topics explored at the Aerospace Testing, Design & Manufacturing exhibition at Germany's New Munich Trade Fair Centre this week. Organised by Flight's sister company Reed Exhibitions, the seventh iteration of the annual event will see students being bussed in from nearby universities to talk to companies such as EADS, Ruag Aerospace and MTU, which will have human resources personnel on hand to scan the CVs of potential recruits.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/14/222942/aerospace-faces-a-looming-shortage-of-engineers.html%5DADS

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/14/222942/aerospace-faces-a-looming-shortage-of-engineers.html%5DADS


Heg Adv – Aerospace – UQ – Aerospace Low

Demand for engineers coming soon- Experts say the need will be exponential VITTACHI 8 [IMRAN, The Press-Enterprise Staff Writer, May 9, “Lockheed Martin, fears shortage, seeks future scientists in Riverside schools,” http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_space10.42349ca.html]ADS

Experts say that the demand for aerospace, electrical, mechanical and computer engineers is growing exponentially but those specializing in those disciplines in college and graduate schools isn't keeping pace. "We really do believe that science literacy is the key to the 21st century," Rita Karl, director of education at the Challenger Center for Space Science Education in Alexandria, Va., said in a phone interview. Heib, an engineer who now works for defense and aerospace contractor Lockheed Martin Corp., said two of the nation's growing foreign rivals, China and India, have 10 times as many people studying to become engineers. The students he spoke to were taking part in the Riverside Unified School District's 10th annual Space Day, organized by Lockheed Martin. Among other activities, students rode a space shuttle simulator, a "UFO" capsule, and a lunar terrain vehicle. They also got to see their own faces lit up in a rainbow of colors, as a thermal-imaging camera took pictures of them. The camera was on exhibit from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona Division in Norco. The camera showed the variations of temperatures on each child's face, with the nose being the coldest spot. With ice cubes they drew mustaches and smiley faces on their thermal reflections, as the cubes sent cold streaks across their faces. "It's fun because we get to see all the cool stuff," said Itzel Crusoe, 9, a fourth-grade student at Longfellow. But Space Day wasn't all about fun and games, as far as the event's main organizer was concerned. The idea behind it is to encourage children to learn math and science so that they can start thinking about future careers in the sciences, math, engineering and technology, said Gail Rymer, a spokeswoman for Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin. In a 2006 ranking of science literacy among 15-year-olds by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development , the United States placed 21st out of the organization's 30 countries. Space Day is part of a long-term strategy by Lockheed Martin's to recruit technically or scientifically skilled workers in the future. The company has won a contract to build the Orion rockets and vehicles, which will return humans to the moon and possibly take them to Mars. However, Lockheed Martin faces a new challenge through the imminent retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers on its payroll. The bulk of the 90,000 employees who will retire soon are engineers, scientists and other highly skilled workers, Rymer noted. "There are not enough students today preparing for those kinds of jobs," Rymer said. "We've got to do something to inspire kids to excel at math and science."

http://topics.pe.com/topic/Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation_and_Development


Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony

Aerospace industry key to military tech advancements LOCKHEED MARTIN 8 [July 16th, “LOCKHEED MARTIN PARTNERSHIPS ARE KEY TO ENHANCING MILITARY READINESS,” http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/071608ae_gs_farnborough.html]ADS

A senior Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] official told reporters attending the Farnborough Air Show today that Lockheed Martin partnerships around the world are providing military customers with enterprise support solutions to challenges brought on by increasing operational deployments, tightening budgets and aging weapons systems. “As a global enterprise with alliances in more than 75 countries, Lockheed Martin supports its customers with technically advanced sustainment concepts leveraged by its engineering know-how and expertise,” said Marillyn Hewson, executive vice president, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Global Sustainment. “Our customers can depend on us to provide the kind of tailored sustainment and logistics solutions they need to keep their airplanes flying.” With more than 39,000 military aviation assets deployed worldwide and an increasing desire for contractor support to enhance platform readiness, Lockheed Martin’s global support enterprise provides best value and reliable total system capability for the wide range of products manufactured by the corporation. Lockheed Martin embraces the performance-based logistics (PBL) concept and has a number of award winning examples of successful partnerships. The corporation also develops training programs integrated with its support packages for its customers to improve operational availability and ensure that mission-critical equipment and programs remain relevant for future requirements. Some of the corporation’s successful PBL partnerships are: C-130 – Lockheed Martin, Marshall Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are working as a successful team to support the multiyear sustainment contract for the United Kingdom’s C-130 aircraft. This partnership with the Royal Air Force, called Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS), will ensure the Royal Air Force C-130s remain at a high level of readiness, and is expected to save the British taxpayers millions of pounds over the next 20 years. F-117 - Lockheed Martin’s Total System Sustainment Partnership (TSSP) with the U.S. Air Force for the F-117 Night Hawk provided complete sustaining engineering and total logistics support including delivery of technical publications and incorporation of lean manufacturing and repair processes. This successful program saved the U.S. Air Force millions of dollars over an eight-year period, reduced manpower as well as the logistics footprint, and slashed impaired capability response time by more than 40 percent. H-60 - The H-60 Tip-to-Tail support arrangement, a long-term fixed price per flight hour agreement, has provided the U.S. Air Force with an 88 percent reduction in logistics response time and more than 71 percent reduction in backorders. This partnering concept integrates the supply support of 16 OEMs and 2 depots that keep this vital asset of the U.S. Air Force mission ready for years to come. F-35 - The experiences and innovations in support of programs like F-117 (TSSP) are being integrated into new air platforms and combat systems such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 sustainment model begins with an aircraft built to new standards of reliability, with state-of-the-art prognostics/diagnostic systems that will reduce support costs by over 20 percent. “What our customers demand is increased system performance and availability, and decreased cost for the life of their platforms. They want to spend the limited funds they have on new equipment with increased capability, and they want a lower cost to maintain these new combat systems over their life-cycle. We find ways to help them do both,” Hewson said . Lockheed Martin is a major supplier of logistics systems and services to military and civil government customers. The corporation provides solutions for platform maintenance, modifications and repair, material readiness and distribution, and global supply chain command and control. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2007 sales of $42.billion.


Heg Adv – Aerospace – Impact – Hegemony

Aerospace advancements key to heg- empirics proveBlakey 8 [Marion, AIA President and CEO, October 01, “Investing in Readiness,” http://www.aia-aerospace.org/newsroom/opinion_articles/investing_in_readiness/]ADS

At the same time, there is a need to reset equipment now in use and recapitalize for future needs. The increasing age and overuse of equipment affects all of our military services and represents a real threat to future U.S. military readiness. Aerospace weapons have been particularly affected. The need to modernize our defense assets is most obvious to anyone who has scanned the list of aircraft lately. We have been flying some version of the B-52 since 1952 and KC-135 since 1956. They are wearing out and costing more and more to fix - when they are fixable at all. These are two well-known examples, but there are others up and down the inventory. This isn't a question of future conflicts vs. the present war. No matter what one believes the next war will look like, capabilities such as air mobility, space-based communications systems and rotorcraft will be relevant and needed. Modernizing these systems isn't a "nice-to-have" - not when missions are already being affected by forced system retirements and some platforms are being run to exhaustion. For many years, the ability to demonstrate military superiority has been a cornerstone of America's global strategy. Through the Cold War and the fall of communism; conflicts in Panama, the Middle East and the Balkans; and the current struggle against terrorists all over the world, our strength has been largely a product of our sustained military and technological advantage. That has come not only from the superiority of our people in uniform but because we have had the world's most advanced aerospace systems.


Heg Adv – Aerospace – Solvency - Aerospace

Plan solves-restrictive immigration policies are at fault for high skilled worker shortage Hamm 9 [Steve, senior writer in BusinessWeek's information technology section, November, “US software talent shortage looming?,” http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/globespotting/archives/2006/11/us_software_tal.html ]ADS

So says Wipro Chairman Azim Premji, who repeated the warning during press interviews on a recent swing through the United States. He says restrictive immigration policies and failings in the US higher education system are at fault. My sense from talking to US tech companies and corporate IT masters is that he’s right. In high skill areas, there are talent shortages. And it could get worse. There’s an irony here. Back in 2003, pundits warned that the global offshoring trend would suck millions of software and back office jobs out of the US. One effect of those warnings was that many of the best and brightest US students promptly decided to seek alternative career tracks to software. The number of computer science degree students dropped off precipitously. US software employment declined sharply in 2001, in the wake of the dot-com bust, and was still depressed in 2003. But by late in that year it had begun a strong month over month climb that has continued until today. In fact, software employment is back up near peak levels. So demand is fairly strong, and supply is weak. No sooner does one bogeyman go away when another one shows up.


Heg Adv – AT: Spies (1/)

Even if there is a slight risk of espionage and leaks the countries who receive the sensitive material wont have the ability to bring the weapons systems about, because they don’t have the key specialized workers necessary to produce these systemsPaarlberg 4 (“Knowledge as Power: Science, Military Dominance, and U. S. Security” Robert L., International Security, Vol. 29, No. 1, Summer 2004 Pg 141)

In the modern age of more collaborative science, even U.S. weapons laboratories have to some extent become globally networked. Roughly 70-75 percent of the research needed to make progress in weapons-related work is still unclassified, and it is often best developed in part through international collaboration. In 1998 America's Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia Lab-oratories received 6,398 foreign visitors, including 1,824 visitors from sensitive countries, and the U.S. employees of these labs traveled frequently to scientific conferences and laboratories abroad.61Is there a danger in such collaborations that U.S. military R&D discoveries will diffuse internationally? Security pre-cautions notwithstanding, knowledge of U.S. advancements in military R&D will almost surely spread internationally through such linkages, but copying and imitation through espionage will not be enough to bring laggard states all the way up to a full RMA capability.Copying was at one time a viable option for those trying to catch up with technology leaders. When Britain developed its new super battleship HMS Dreadnoughtin 1906, it took only three years for Germany to build its own Nassau-class copy. A scientifically lagging Soviet Union was able (together with the United States) to borrow and build on German rocketry innovations after World War II, and the initial U.S. lead in atomic weapons that emerged from that same war proved fleeting as well. The first U.S. fission weapon deto-nation in 1945 was followed by a Soviet detonation only four years later, and the first U.S. fusion weapon detonation in 1952 was followed by a Soviet deto-nation just ten months later. Currently, the risk that U.S. rivals will be able to copy and match leading-edge military technology innovations is greatly reduced. First, the very few states that might be able to copy and match U.S. IT-based military innova-tions are not rivals. In the IT sector, one indicator of absorption capacity is den-sity of internet use, and among the twenty-nine states in the world in 2000 with more than twenty internet hosts per 1,000 people (the United States had nine times that number), all but four were democracies within the OECD, for-mally or informally aligned with the United States.62 The only four states above this threshold level of IT density outside the OECD were Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. Or consider those states that have demonstrated some scientific prowess by patenting inventions in the United States. About 70 percent of these foreign origin patents were granted to inventors from just four countries-France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, all formal U.S. allies. The two most rapidly growing foreign patent applicant countries are Taiwan and South Korea, two more allied states. Tai-wan and South Korea surpassed Canada in 1998 to become the fifth and sixth most-active sources of foreign inventors patenting in the United States.63

The Cap is increasing fraud in the H-1B system-Nguyen AND Carafano 8 [Diem, Research Assistant, James, Deputy Director, October 30, “Tackling Fraud in H-1B: Work Visas Need Sensible Oversight,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/10/Tackling-Fraud-in-H-1B-Work-Visas-Need-Sensible-Oversight]ADSThe H-1B visa for highly skilled temporary workers is a very popular program for non-immigrant workers. Workers participating in the program can work only for a specific sponsoring employer. Terms of employment are limited to six years. For the past several years, the cap for H-1B visas has been 65,000 a year, and each year USCIS reaches the cap within days. This low cap is the biggest concern for the H-1B program. Businesses are finding it difficult to find enough Americans to fill certain jobs and have been leaning on H-1B visas for help. However, with the low number of available visas, some companies have decided to open their doors in other countries. Microsoft, for example, has established facilities in Canada and Mexico, finding it easier to bring skilled workers there than to the United States. Additionally, the low caps may actually be driving an increase in fraud as more employers and workers compete for the limited number of legitimate visas available. Though necessary, simply raising the cap will not eliminate fraud.


Heg Adv – AT: Spies (2/)

H-1B visa holders don’t pose a security threat- Lane 2 [Terry, Staff Writer, FEBRUARY 15, “No Antitrust Exemption Needed for Information Sharing, Clarke Says,” WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY Vol.3, No.32]ADSThere are some concerns in industry that participation in information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs) or other similar programs would be viewed as anticompetitive behavior. However, Clarke said the "narrowly crafted" FOIA exemptions were the most important policy change that Congress could make to aid cybersecurity. He also said Microsoft was working on a "highly secure product" as part of its recent focus on software security while the National Security Agency had developed a secure Linux operating system. He sounded many of the same themes he did a day earlier in Capitol Hill testimony (WID Feb 14 p1). Clarke said industry would realize it needed to develop secure systems or people wouldn't adopt new technologies, such as wireless applications. There also is a "major labor force problem" for cybersecurity, Clarke said. Bruce Schneier, Counterpane Internet Security chief technology officer, said many cybersecurity issues could be addressed with outsourced personnel. Such outsourced aid often comes from H-1B visas, which caused one audience member to question possible security risks associated with foreign citizens' handling U.S. cybersecurity needs. But Clarke said H-1B visa holders didn't represent a higher security concern than anyone else and cited the recent Robert Hanssen spy case as an example of the security risks that could be posed by U.S. citizens. A federal govt. scholarship program that encourages students to study cybersecurity in exchange for govt. service is growing, he said. The program is being expanded to 16 colleges from the 8 that now participate. Better pay is needed for cybersecurity personnel, Clarke said, and the govt. needs to have a pay scale that's different from the standard civil service scale. He argued against the term "cyberterrorism" and said major terrorist organizations hadn't been developing cyberattack capabilities. "It's not important what the threat is," Clarke said, emphasizing the importance of eliminating vulnerabilities. Schneier said liability standards for software security should be created and enforced and the involvement of the insurance industry would help spur software manufacturers to create better software. WorldCom Senior Vp Vint Cerf said the recently announced vulnerability in Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) wasn't a problem with the protocol, but with the way it was implemented (WID Feb 13 p7). -- Terry Lane

Fraud claims are false- violations are far and few between AND almost none are intentionalMasters AND Ruthizer [Suzette Brooks, oversees immigration grantmaking at the J. M. Kaplan Fund, Ted, past president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf]ADSReports of systematic underpayment and fraud in the program are false. From 1991 through September 1999, only 134 violations were found by the U.S. Department of Labor, and only 7, or fewer than 1 per year, were found to be intentional. The lack of widespread violations confirms that the vast majority of H-1B workers is being paid the legally required prevailing wage or more , undercutting charges that they are driving down wages for native workers. Wages are rising fastest and unemployment rates are lowest in industries in which H-1B workers are most prevalent.

H-1B key to high skilled labor marketMasters AND Ruthizer [Suzette Brooks, oversees immigration grantmaking at the J. M. Kaplan Fund, Ted, past president and general counsel of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, March 3, “The H-1B Straitjacket Why Congress Should Repeal the Cap on Foreign-Born Highly Skilled Workers,” http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-007.pdf]ADS For almost 50 years the U.S. economy has benefited from the contributions of people admitted with the H-1B status, which permits qualified foreign national professionals to work for U.S. employers on a temporary basis.1 By using the H-1B visa, employers have been able to quickly plug holes in their domestic workforce with capable and often exceptional professionals from abroad in a wide range of fields, including information technology, finance, medicine, science, education, law, and accounting. Yet, as U.S. employers, large and small alike, struggle to find enough skilled professionals, particularly in the high-tech sector,2 the H-1B status is being strangled. Unnecessary and inadequate H-1B quotas have put this vital immigration status in jeopardy and threaten to undermine the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the global marketplace.


Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (1/)

A world without United States unipolairty would create a power vacuum, this is the biggest impact Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004. professor of history at Harvard University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “A World Without Power” Foreign Policy http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac.htm

So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populous—roughly 20 times more—so friction between the world's disparate “tribes” is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization—the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization—which a new Dark Age would produce—would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy—from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai—would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony—its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity—a global vacuum of power. And far more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.


Heg Adv – AT: Unsustainable (2/)

US heg sustainable – multiple reasonsSlaughter 9 (Anne-Marie, of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton, Foreign Affairs, January- February 2009, “America's Edge Subtitle: Power in the Networked Century,” p. 94)

Almost 30 years ago, the psychologist Carol Gilligan wrote about differences between the genders in their modes of thinking. She observed that men tend to see the world as made up of hierarchies of power and seek to get to the top, whereas women tend to see the world as containing webs of relationships and seek to move to the center. Gilligan's observations may be a function of nurture rather than nature; regardless, the two lenses she identified capture the differences between the twentieth-century and the twenty-first-century worlds. The twentieth-century world was, at least in terms of geopolitics, a billiard-ball world, described by the political scientist Arnold Wolfers as a system of self-contained states colliding with one another. The results of these collisions were determined by military and economic power. This world still exists today: Russia invades Georgia, Iran seeks nuclear weapons, the United States strengthens its ties with India as a hedge against a rising China. This is what Fareed Zakaria, the editor of Newsweek International, has dubbed "the post-American world," in which the rise of new global powers inevitably means the relative decline of U.S. influence. The emerging networked world of the twenty-first century, however, exists above the state, below the state, and through the state. In this world, the state with the most connections will be the central player, able to set the global agenda and unlock innovation and sustainable growth. Here, the United States has a clear and sustainable edge. THE HORIZON OF HOPE The United States' advantage is rooted in demography, geography, and culture. The United States has a relatively small population, only 20-30 percent of the size of China's or India's. Having fewer people will make it much easier for the United States to develop and profit from new energy technologies. At the same time, the heterogeneity of the U.S. population will allow Washington to extend its global reach. To this end, the United States should see its immigrants as living links back to their home countries and encourage a two-way flow of people, products, and ideas. The United States is the anchor of the Atlantic hemisphere, a broadly defined area that includes Africa, the Americas, and Europe. The leading countries in the Atlantic hemisphere are more peaceful, stable, and economically diversified than those in the Asian hemisphere. At the same time, however, the United States is a pivotal power, able to profit simultaneously from its position in the Atlantic hemisphere and from its deep ties to the Asian hemisphere. The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have long protected the United States from invasion and political interference. Soon, they will shield it from conflicts brought about by climate change, just as they are already reducing the amount of pollutants that head its way. The United States has a relatively horizontal social structure -- albeit one that has become more hierarchical with the growth of income inequality -- as well as a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. These traits are great advantages in a global economy increasingly driven by networked clusters of the world's most creative people. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will set about restoring the moral authority of the United States. The networked world provides a hopeful horizon. In this world, with the right policies, immigrants can be a source of jobs rather than a drain on resources, able to link their new home with markets and suppliers in their old homes. Businesses in the United States can orchestrate global networks of producers and suppliers. Consumers can buy locally, from revived local agricultural and customized small-business economies, and at the same time globally, from anywhere that can advertise online. The United States has the potential to be the most innovative and dynamic society anywhere in the world.

h-1b cap aff - frappier russell

Documents