****USMCA DA: NCC’19****

Topshelf

USMCA DA: 1NCA—USMCA will pass- Trump’s PC is key and it’s working- impeachment doesn’t matter because it’s not a policy disputeWasson 9/26/19 (Erik, reporter for Bloomberg, Analysis: Impeachment focus risks crowding out agenda for Trump, Democrats, https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Analysis-Impeachment-focus-risks-crowding-out-14469822.php) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Amid the turmoil and rancor, Democrats still made statements giving cheery assessments of the prospects for making deals to pass legislation or continue negotiations with Republicans and the White House. Pelosi's approach since Trump took office has been to let House committees pursue investigations of the president while seeking legislative compromises with him on top Democratic priorities including drug pricing and gun control, as well as must-pass items like annual spending bills.

Approval of the U.S.-M exico- C anad a trade deal is a high priority for Trump . Whether his anger subsidies to allow the legislative work to continue remains an open question. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the president's closest confidantes in Congress, rejected the White House position that impeachment would grind the legislative agenda to a halt. "I told the president this morning, that is a cop-out, you still got to be president," Graham told reporters. Transportation Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, echoed Graham's optimism that deals can be struck even in the middle of an investigation of the president . "Richard Nixon signed a huge infrastructure package when he was under an impeachment inquiry," he said. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said presidential aides reached out to him Tuesday night to discuss gun legislation. "At the same time that Trump is trying to claim that we're walking away from the legislative process on guns, his team is pulling us back in ," Murphy said. The big test will be in the coming weeks as White House officials and House Dem ocrat s negotiate changes needed to get House approval of the trade accord known as USMCA , the replacement for the North American Free Trade Agreement. House Democrats privately discussed it on Wednesday, and their top negotiator Richard Neal of Massachusetts said progress was being made on revisions that will get it through the House . "We are down to a handful of differences," said Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "My position is the work of governance has to go on." His optimism was echoed by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who predicted while at an event in New York with Trump that it would come to a vote. "I don't know whether or not that they're going to have time to do any deals," the president remarked, referring to the Democrats. Pelosi said in an interview Wednesday that the chances of working with Trump on drug pricing and gun legislation are still alive despite the impeachment inquiry. "I don't think that erases his concerns for the welfare of America's working families and their need for lower drug prices," she said. Asked about White House statement that she had destroyed the chances of legislation, she laughed. "I hadn't seen that. That's not what he told me," she said, adding that she discussed gun violence with Trump on Tuesday before she announced plans for an official impeachment inquiry.

B—The plan drains PC Krepon 13 (Michael, co-founder of the Stimson Center, “Anti-satellite Weapons, Deterrence and Sino-American Space Relations,” September, http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/Anti-satellite_Weapons.pdf) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Settling on a single initiative for US-China cooperation limits possibilities, and is therefore not the best option. A better approach would be to develop a clear strategy for US-China engagement that mixes top-down and bottom-up joint initiatives. Bottom-up initiatives might include data sharing, policy dialogues on national security topics and joint space science projects . Given the difficulties associated with increasing coop eration on space-related issues, interventions and policy impulses from national leaders in Washington and Beijing would likely be required , even for modest initiatives . The more ambitious the initiative , the greater the effort that will be required by national leaders. Whether the U nited States and China have the political will to undertake such an effort to develop and undertake a broad strategy remains to be seen .

C—USMCA is key to agricultural exportsDuvall 19 (Duvall is American Farm Bureau president. “Congress should ratify USMCA trade deal now” February 22, 2019 https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/431237-congress-should-ratify-usmca-trade-deal-now) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

When it comes to trade, America’s farmers and ranchers know a good deal when they see one. After private and public analysis, it is clear that the recently negotiated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement [USMCA] is good news at a time when we need it most . Not only does USMCA help lock in the quadrupling of U.S. ag ricultural exports to our neighbors accomplished over the last 25 years, but it also includes reform of a number of trade rules and is projected to further increase our exports to two of our most important markets. In this time of economic challenge for ag riculture, it is vital that Congress ratify this trade deal now. The food and farm products grown by America’s farmers and ranchers are among the world’s highest quality and most competitive. Traditionally, about 25 percent of all our farm products , by value, are exported to other nations. While that key measurement speaks volumes about the demand for U.S. farm products in the international marketplace, nowhere is our advantage clearer than in our two markets closest to home. USMCA will not only help secure the gains U.S. agriculture made under the previous North American Free Trade Agreement, but according to a study last month by Purdue University, USMCA could also increase U.S. net exports to Canada and Mexico by another $454 million. Demand is more important than ever because on the supply side America’s farmers and ranchers are farming more efficiently across the board. For example, the Agriculture Department just reported that while farmers harvested fewer acres of soybeans this past year, they produced a record 4.54 billion bushels due to higher yields. In order to move that supply, USMCA builds demand through trade with our neighbors. Reaching that point was tough and there were, and continue to be, some bumps in the road, such as our tariffs on steel and aluminum imports that have led to retaliatory tariffs against our ag exports. But overall, U.S. trade negotiators – and likewise their counterparts

from Mexico and Canada -- should be commended for striking this deal that gets a whole lot right by looking at the bigger picture. When it comes to agriculture, our negotiators definitely put their best foot forward. USMCA builds new market access for dairy and poultry products and maintains the zero-tariff platform on all other ag products. For U.S. dairy farmers, USMCA eliminates aspects of Canada’s dairy program (Classes 6 and 7) that had been used to undercut U.S. sales of dried milk products. Under the agreement, U.S. dairy products gain access to an additional 3.6 percent of Canada’s dairy market. Access for U.S.-grown food also increases due to USMCA’s inclusion of important provisions surrounding geographic indication standards in Mexico. That will help ensure that U.S. products, such as mozzarella, cheddar and provolone cheese, among others, do not face restrictions due to the mere use of common names. In addition, both Canada and Mexico adopted guidelines that make it more difficult to register any new geographic indicators that generally would be considered common food names. For the first time, USMCA also includes measures that address coop eration, info rmation sharing and other trade rules among the three nations related to ag ricultural biotech nology

and gene editing . That should help prevent trade barriers based on how plants are bred, and that could help set a standard when the issue comes up with other nations , such as China . Also included are technical provisions to reduce other trade-distorting policies, increase transparency and help ensure non-discriminatory treatment of ag products among the three nations. For example, Canada has agresdfsdffsdasdfafdsasdfasdfasdfasdfaed to grade imports of U.S. wheat in a manner no less favorable than their own. And Mexico and the United States agreed that all grading standards for ag products will be non-discriminatory. For ag products, there are also provisions that enhance science-based standards for sanitary and phytosanitary measures, which in the past have been used as non-tariff trade barriers. Overall, this was a hard-fought win and we commend the administration for this effort to solidify the trading relationships we have with our North American neighbors. U.S. farmers and ranchers have worked hard to build markets and be reliable suppliers to both countries. Now it’s up to Congress to seal the deal by ratifying USMCA in a timely manner. America’s farmers and ranchers depend on good relationships with our two closest trading partners, and they are depending on Congress to ratify USMCA.

D—Ag exports prevent multiple warsCastellaw 17 (John – 36-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and the Founder and CEO of Farmspace Systems LLC, “Opinion: Food Security Strategy Is Essential to Our National Security,” 5/1/17, https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/9203-opinion-food-security-strategy-is-essential-to-our-national-security) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The U nited S tates faces many threats to our National Security. These threats include continuing wars with extremist elements such as ISIS and potential wars with rogue state North Korea or regional nuclear power Iran. The heated economic and diplomatic competition with Russia and a surging China could spiral out of control. Concurrently, we face threats to our future security posed by growing civil strife, famine, and refugee and migration challenges which create incubators for extremist and anti-American government factions. Our response cannot be one dimensional but instead must be a nuanced and comprehensive National Security Strategy combining all elements of National Power including a Food Security Strategy. An American Food Security Strategy is an imperative factor in reducing the multiple threats impacting our National wellbeing. Recent history has shown that reliable food supplies and stable prices produce more stable and secure countries. Conversely, food insecurity, particularly in poorer countries, can lead to instability, unrest, and violence. Food insecurity drives mass migration around the world from the Middle East, to Africa, to Southeast Asia, destabilizing neighboring populations, generating conflicts , and threatening our own security by disrupting our economic, military, and diplomatic relationships. Food system shocks from extreme food-price volatility can be correlated with protests and riots. Food price related protests toppled governments in Haiti and Madagascar in 2007 and 2008. In 2010 and in 2011, food prices and grievances related to food policy were one of the major drivers of the Arab Spring uprisings. Repeatedly, history has taught us that a strong agricultural sector is an unquestionable requirement for inclusive and sustainable growth, broad-based development progress, and long-term stability. The impact can be remarkable and far reaching. Rising income, in addition to reducing the opportunities for an upsurge in extremism, leads to changes in diet, producing demand for more diverse and nutritious foods provided, in many cases, from American farmers and ranchers. Emerging markets currently purchase 20 percent of U.S. ag riculture exports and that figure is expected to grow as populations boom. Moving early to ensure stability in strategically significant regions requires long term planning and a disciplined, thoughtful strategy. To combat current threats and work to prevent future ones, our national leadership must employ the entire spectrum of our power including diplomatic, economic, and cultural elements. The best means to prevent future chaos and the resulting instability is positive engagement addressing the causes of instability before it occurs. This is not rocket science. We know where the instability is most likely to occur. The world population will grow by 2.5 billion people by 2050. Unfortunately, this massive population boom is projected to occur primarily in the most fragile and food insecure countries. This alarming math is not just about total numbers. Projections show that the greatest increase is in the age groups most vulnerable to extremism. There are currently 200 million people in Africa between the ages of 15 and 24, with that number expected to double in the next 30 years. Already, 60% of the unemployed in Africa are young people. Too often these situations deteriorate into shooting wars requiring the deployment of our military forces. We should be continually mindful that the price we pay for committing military forces is measured in our most precious national resource, the blood of those who serve. For those who live in rural America, this has a disproportionate impact. Fully 40% of those who serve in our military come from the farms, ranches, and non-urban communities that make up only 16% of our population. Actions taken now to increase agricultural sector jobs can provide economic opportunity and stability for those unemployed youths while helping to feed people. A recent report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs identifies agriculture development as the core essential for providing greater food security, economic growth, and population well-being. Our active support for food security, including agriculture development, has helped stabilize key regions over the past 60 years. A robust food security strategy, as a part of our overall security strategy, can mitigate the growth of terrorism, build important relationships, and support continued American economic and agricultural prosperity while materially contributing to our Nation’s and the world’s security.

M: Turns Econ—2NCUSMCA failure collapses the economy – Trump will pull out of NAFTAWilhelm 12/28 (Colin, “Trump weighs canceling NAFTA to force hand of Democrats on trade”, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/trump-weighs-canceling-nafta-to-force-hand-of-democrats-on-trade) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

A NAFTA withdrawal could intensify already tricky politics for Democrats around the USMCA. A number of labor unions oppose free trade agreements, including NAFTA and the USMCA, for fear their members could be displaced by them. Though the USMCA closely follows much of NAFTA’s language, and includes language to increase pay for workers in Mexico, unions — and Democrats closely allied with organized labor — so far don’t see it as enough. “It doesn’t satisfy anybody in the labor movement, it doesn’t satisfy any Democrats,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told the Washington Examiner. “We have told them for months that they have to have strong labor chapter enforcement and they didn’t.” One risk for Trump, though, is that Democrats could call his bluff on NAFTA cancellation and refuse to back USMCA even in the absence of NAFTA on the grounds that Trump would own the political and economic fallout. “I’m not pulling out of NAFTA. I can’t make that judgment,” said Brown, a potential 2020 presidential contender. “If the president’s going to throw a temper tantrum and pull out that’s on him.” Reverting to the pre-NAFTA situation would damage the economy and the stock markets , imperiling Trump's goal of growth. A withdrawal from NAFTA

without a replacement would restore tariffs that were eliminated in the 1990s, requiring major supply chain reorganizations from companies that have grown accustomed to freer cross-border commerce. “Any attempt to revoke NAFTA without an operational USMCA would represent a whole new risk that would weigh on investor sentiment like concrete boots,” said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Compass Point Research and Trading, in an email. “Investors are so fixated on the Federal Reserve, China, and economic growth that any strategy predicated on revoking NAFTA without its replacement in place would alarm markets and catalyze a whole new leg downward .”

USMCA is key to the economy – trade boosts multiple critical sectorsCox 19 --- Phil Cox, cochair of the Trade Works for America Coalition and a former executive director of the Republican Governors Association, ("Opinion: Trump's trade deal with Canada and Mexico is a huge win for Americans, and it's time for Congress to pass it," 5-31-2019, Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/opinion-congress-trump-usmca-canada-mexico-trade-deal-2019-5, accessed 6-16-2019) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Free trade is at the heart of the US economy . Each year, our companies sell more than $2.5 trillion worth of goods and services to customers around the world. Of those exports, nearly $300 billion worth of exports go to Mexico and another $360 billion worth go to Canada, two key markets for US enterprise. The importance of these markets is the reason the US entered into a trade agreement with our North American neighbors 25 years ago and why President Donald Trump and his administration signed a new deal, a better deal — the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA. And now it's time for Congress to reaffirm how important trade with Mexico and Canada is for the US economy and pass the USMCA. Our country recognizes the importance of these markets. A quarter of a century ago, the US entered into a trade agreement with our North American neighbors that helped to level the playing field and reduce barriers to trade for American job creators. But 25 years later, that trade agreement is no longer the best agreement for US businesses. That's why Trump and his administration signed the USMCA. As it goes in Washington, there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are not 100% pleased with the agreement. To me, that means the Trump administration negotiated a balanced agreement that deserves support from all members of Congress. The USMCA updates the old agreement and ensures that American workers and families are put first. This is also a welcome agreement for industries that depend on free, fair, rules-based trade with Canada and Mexico. America's farmers , ranchers , auto manufacturers , and small businesses are set to gain once the USMCA is signed into law. According to the US I nternational

T rade C ommission, the USMCA will create 176,000 US jobs and add over $68 billion to the US economy — that is, in

addition to the 12 million jobs already in the US that are supported by trade with Canada and Mexico. This positive report suggests that pro-growth policies promoting free, fair, and enforceable trade are a win for American workers and job creators alike. Supporters of the USMCA recognize that this agreement contains provisions that will help make American job creators more competitive . For agriculture , those provisions provide increased access to Canadian dairy markets. For manufacturing , the USMCA establishes requirements that promote American-made cars and machinery as well as new worker protections to ensure American factory jobs do not get shipped overseas . The economic boost comes from a number of provisions in the USMCA that will help American businesses and consumers, including increased access to Canadian dairy markets for farmers and requirements that promote American-made cars and machinery for manufacturers. The USMCA also established new rules around e-commerce, making it easier for American small businesses to connect and sell to customers in Mexico and Canada. The USMCA is also a winning proposition for American innovators because it strengthens i ntellectual- p roperty protections , alleviating worries about a competitor gaining access to their trade secrets.

M: Turns Heg—2NCUSMCA key to economic and innovative leadership---otherwise China outcompetes.Gantz 18 (David A. Gantz, 11-15-2018 - Will Clayton fellow in international economics at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy and the Samuel M. Fegtly professor of law at the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law; "US needs USMCA if it's serious about competing with China," TheHill, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/416739-us-needs-usmca-if-its-serious-about-competing-with-china) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) negotiated by the Trump administration to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to be signed by the three countries' presidents Nov. 29. This complex agreement, which makes major changes in rules governing automotive trade, dispute settlements and agriculture, while adding or expanding coverage of such areas as labor rights, environmental protection, small and medium-sized enterprises, state-owned enterprises, corruption and e-commerce, cannot go into force until it is approved through the applicable constitutional procedures in each member state. Approval by the Canadian Parliament and Mexican Congress seems assured . Yet, questions arise as to when and if the U.S. Congress will approve. For many reasons, including the preservation of North America as a world leader in manufacturing efficiency ,

job growth and innovation as well as maintaining strong economic and political relations with Canada and Mexico, it is imperative for Congress to approve USMCA as soon as possibl e. However, because a Democratic majority will control the House of Representatives as of January, enactment of USMCA-approval legislation is less assured there than in the Senate, where Republicans will maintain their majority. Under Trade Promotion Authority legislation, the administration must submit a list of required changes to U.S. law, a Statement of Administrative Action setting out the nature of the legislative changes required and a U.S. International Trade Commission study of the economic effects, all before the agreement can be formally submitted to Congress, hopefully by mid-March 2019. TPA mandates action by Congress within 90 legislative days after submission. Congress can vote only for or against the agreement; no amendment is possible. The prospects for eventual congressional approval of TPA may not be dimmed by Democrats' control of the House, but House consideration of USMCA could be delayed because of more pressing items on the Democratic agenda: Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, immigration and health care, for example. Also, Democrats in the House may demand changes in the text, most likely to strengthen the labor and environmental provisions (which are already considerably more robust than those in the NAFTA “side” agreements), as a condition of supporting the agreement. Major support for USMCA in the House can be expected from the 200 Republican members, but even if most of them support the agreement, the administration will need 25 to 30 Democrat votes to reach the 218-vote majority required for passage. USMCA may attract more votes from Democrats than has historically been the case for trade agreements. New automotive rules are expected to create jobs in the U.S., while stronger labor provisions protecting independent unions in Mexico will likely be supported by some Democrats because they should result in wage increases in Mexico and reduce the wage disparity with the U.S. Also, Democrats who have opposed the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement in past trade agreements may welcome its elimination entirely with Canada and significant narrowing with Mexico. It is possible that Democrats will take a totally obstructionist position on all Trump administration initiatives. However, prior to November, current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the likely Speaker of the House come January, indicated that Democrats would be looking for areas where they could cooperate with the Republicans. USMCA approval could well be one of those areas, even if most Democratic House members decide to oppose it. While some Republicans might have opposed the president’s will if Canada had been excluded, given extensive U.S. bilateral trade with Canada and the critical importance of Canadian manufacturers in supply chains for U.S. manufactured goods, that problem has disappeared. Also, while business groups have expressed dissatisfaction with USMCA’s investment and government procurement provisions, it can be expected that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other organizations will pressure both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to support USMCA . Thus, there is

still a reasonable possibility that the USMCA could take effect as soon as Jan. 1, 2020. If the U nited S tates is seriously interested in

competing with China for world leadership in innovation , and in maintaining a robust North American manufacturing and export base , the administration and Congress must work together to enact USMCA as promptly as possible .

Uniqueness

U: Will Pass—2NCUSMCA is likely to pass despite impeachmentCarl Hulse & Emily Cochrane, journalists, “Impeachment Fight May Help a New NAFTA Deal,” NEW YORK TIMES, 10—7—19, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/us/politics/nafta-impeachment-uscma.html, accessed 10-8-19. **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

WASHINGTON — The escalating impeachment drama between Congress and the White House that has all but doomed hopes of most legislative progress this fall has instead enhanced the prospects for approval, within weeks, of one major initiative: a sweeping new trade agreement among the United States, Canada and Mexico. [Here is what happened in the Trump impeachment inquiry today.]Top lawmakers in both parties and others closely following the talks said that substantial progress had been made in resolving the sticking points, and that a decisive House vote on the accord to replace the N orth A merican F ree T rade A greement could occur before Congress departed for Thanksgiving. The deal may be a rare bright spot in an otherwise dysfunctional dynamic that has taken hold in the capital, and it owes its progress to a coincidence of timing, productive negotiations that have unfolded behind closed doors for months and political necessity for two parties that each has distinct reasons to hope it succeeds. “We are on a path to yes,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters last week in one of the strongest signals yet that she would put the full weight of her leadership behind passage of the agreement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Both parties have strong political incentives to approve the trade deal despite deep Democratic skepticism over such pacts after American jobs flowed into Mexico after the ratification of NAFTA in 1993. For President Trump a nd Republicans , the agreement is a major priority that could bolster American businesses and help struggling farmers, while showing voters that they have been good stewards of the economy. For Democrats, the accord is a way to give lawmakers from swing districts a broadly popular achievement to show constituents, and a way to counter criticism that they have accomplished little during their time in Washington, which has more often consisted of passing legislation that dies in the Republican-controlled Senate. That has become even more important now that House Democrats are engaged in an impeachment inquiry that could lead to the president’s ouster. Democrats who represent Republican-leaning districts are facing a potential backlash from Republican and independent voters angry over the Democrats’ emphasis on impeachment, and they are looking for ways to show that they can still produce policies that benefit Americans. “We are going to demonstrate that simultaneously you can govern,” said Representative Richard E. Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads the Ways and Means Committee. Mr. Neal is leading a delegation to Mexico for a meeting on Tuesday with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to seek final assurances over aspects of the trade agreement. Top Dem ocrat s also see the agreement as a vehicle to achieve some major progressive goals that would otherwise be impossible to extract from a Republican administration. Republicans are considering potential sweeteners for Democrats, including a plan to shore up pensions that has been sought by Mr. Neal and labor unions. House Democrats and Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, have been exchanging proposals and counterproposals for weeks, trying to satisfy demands for labor and environmental guarantees. Both sides say the confidential talks have produced results that are leading to increasing confidence that Ms. Pelosi will put the measure on the floor relatively soon. “It has been a patient give-and-go, and I think we have moved the ball toward the goal,” Mr. Neal said. Even Democrats skeptical of a trade deal based on their previous experience said the talks with Mr. Lighthizer, who has built credibility with the lawmakers, had been substantive and helpful. “We have been having conversations for I think over a year, and the Democrats made very serious, thoughtful proposals around issues that we have been consistent on over the years,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a member of a working group appointed by the speaker to work out Democratic concerns over the agreement. But Ms. DeLauro, who opposed NAFTA and was an early critic of the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, was not quite ready to sign off. “We are making headway,” she said. “Our view is that when it is right, we will go. We are not there yet.” There are substantial issues that could still hold up a final agreement. It is not clear, for instance, how negotiators plan to address Democrats’ objections to a provision that would extend protections to pharmaceutical companies for new products. Democrats argue that such measures could hamper future efforts to enact legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs. Democrats say that their main fear is that Mexico will not enforce the provisions of the trade deal in areas such as minimum wage requirements and environmental standards, and that the United States will not be allowed to make inspections to determine whether the agreement is being followed. They were alarmed by news reports of labor department budget cuts in Mexico, a fear the Mexican government has raced to alleviate. Republicans lobbying for the agreement argue that supporting it should be an easy choice for Dem ocrat s who have long criticized NAFTA , since the new version amounts to an update with several far more progressive elements than the existing agreement, such as new minimum pay levels. Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio and a chief trade negotiator for President George W. Bush, is a leading proponent of the agreement and has been trying to sell Democrats on its merits. “If you vote no on this, that means you are saying, ‘Let’s go with NAFTA,’ and politically for most Democrats, NAFTA is a four-letter word,” Mr. Portman said in an interview. “I just think logic prevails in the end.” More than that, some Democrats believe the trade agreement is their best prospect for achieving some bipartisan success in such a highly polarized environment. “People understand and appreciate that we’re trying to get to yes, and we’re trying to get it right,” Representative Lizzie Fletcher said. Ms. Fletcher, who represents the Houston area, noted in an interview the number of trade relationships between her district and both countries in the new trade agreement, and said sealing the deal would show that the gridlocked Congress could achieve some consensus. “People really want to know about how we’re working together and where there’s bipartisan agreement,” she added. “They want to know that we’re trying to solve real problems.” Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, said the trade deal was a rare consequential measure that could pass the House without falling victim to Republican resistance in the other chamber or in the White House. “The notable thing about U.S.M.C.A. is that it’s also a priority for the Senate and for the president ,” Ms. Spanberger said of the new trade deal. “That hasn’t been the case for some of our most impactful legislation.” To move the agreement forward, Democrats will need to conclude that it is beneficial enough to them that they are willing to share credit with Mr. Trump over an accomplishment that he will undoubtedly herald in his re-election campaign. Ms. Pelosi, who voted for NAFTA in the House, has told colleagues that she wants to get the new trade agreement approved, and has made clear that she hopes Democrats can separate the impeachment fight and the trade deal. “They have nothing to do with each other,” Ms. Pelosi said. She added that if the president did not work with Democrats because they questioned his conduct, “then the ball is in his court.” Despite the priority the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have put on the trade agreement, some concern has arisen in recent days that Mr. Trump, furious over the impeachment showdown, would pull back on the agreement and try to blame Democrats for its collapse, saying they could not get it done because of a single-minded focus on impeachment. “The Do Nothing Democrats don’t have time to get it done!” Mr. Trump tweeted Thursday about the trade deal. Ultimately, backers of the agreement believe , the White House will embrace congressional

approval of the long-sought agreement as a major victory for the president. “We are pretty bullish,” said Neil Bradley, executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The speaker is saying all the right things, and they are actually making progress in the negotiations.” “At the end of the day,” he said, “ you want to show that impeachment is not the only thing you are focused on.”

USMCA can pass now but it requires dedicated trump effortNiv Elis, 10-3-2019, "Pelosi, Trump may reach trade deal despite impeachment," TheHill, https://thehill.com/policy/finance/464121-pelosi-trump-may-reach-trade-deal-despite-impeachment**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

President Trump has said that an impeachment inquiry would block all prospects for cooperating with Democrats on legislation, but the furor seems to have had little effect so far on the prospects for his signature trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It’s not certain the deal meant to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will get through Congress, but both sides are sounding positive notes even as they trade barbs over impeachment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday said the trade deal’s path forward was independent of impeachment. “They have nothing to do with each other,” she said at her weekly press conference, adding that she hoped Trump would find a way to work with Democrats despite the impeachment fight. “The president has said he wants this U.S.-M exico- C anada trade a greement to go forward, and we are awaiting the language on enforceability . Does it mean he can't do that? That's really up to him,” she said. At first blush, Pelosi would seem to have no incentive to reach a deal that could help Trump cement a major campaign promise and take credit for overturning the much-maligned NAFTA. But Democratic strategists say Pelosi is being strategic, showing that Democrats can “walk and chew gum” at the same time on impeachment while also pushing a Democratic campaign message. “I think this is almost a way for Pelosi to say we’re doing the business of the people,” says Jonathan Tasini, a Democratic strategist and labor expert. Trump has sought to counter that message, portraying impeachment as a waste of time by Democrats consumed with forcing him from office. “Nancy Pelosi just said that she is interested in lowering prescription drug prices & working on the desperately needed USMCA,” he tweeted following Pelosi’s press conference on Wednesday. “She is incapable of working on either. It is just camouflage for trying to win an election through impeachment. The Do Nothing Democrats are stuck in mud!” Strategists say Pelosi wants to both show Democrats can govern and showcase Democratic priorities on trade with the USMCA. “There is an opportunity here to realize a number of long-term progressive priorities. Progressives have been saying since NAFTA passed in the 90s that it needs to be replaced,” said Neil Sroka, the communications director for Democracy for America, a progressive PAC. “I think there’s an opportunity for Democrats to make it clear that the only way it was able to pass was because Democrats made it better,” he added. Democrats have been steadfast in pushing for changes to the deal. On Friday, they sent their latest legislative offer to the White House, demanding stronger enforcement for labor and environmental standards, as well as changes to pharmaceutical policy. Sroka and other Democratic strategists are skeptical that the White House will accept the Democratic demands, despite the strong working relationship they’ve developed with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. “I’m skeptical that we will get to an agreement given the fact that there are still a great deal of concern over how the deal was rigged in favor of Big Pharma with high drug prices,” he said. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has been pushing for Pelosi to move ahead with the deal as-is, seemed to brush off the idea that Republicans would accept Democratic proposals. “They have been marching through their whole array of left-wing proposals. Obviously those are not going anywhere in this current divided government,” he said Monday on CNBC when asked about potential cooperation on legislation. Still, he said the trade deal should be a top priority . “I know the House has been on this impeachment addiction since the day the president was sworn in, but I hope they can turn their attention to something else. USMCA ought to be right at the top of the list, it is good for the American people,” he said. Pelosi faces risks with her strategy as well. If the White House were to accept a Democratic proposal and gain the support of skeptical labor groups such as the AFL-CIO, Pelosi could hand Trump a major win ahead of his 2020 reelection campaign. With USMCA in hand, he could tout his aggressive approach to trade deals as effective, and show he’d fulfilled a campaign promise. “To the extent that the administration accepts any of these, there’s a risk that the president can bask in the success of something they didn’t put forward, but ultimately accepted,” said Andy Green, managing director of economic policy at the Center For American Progress. “You have to win the messaging war that you demanded the changes that were made,” he added. Tasini believes that approach could boost Democrats in 2020. “If the AFL-CIO puts its stamp of approval on this renegotiated deal, that would be good for the Democratic Party, because they were the main force opposing the bad labor provisions,” he said. “If I was a Democratic leader or labor leader, I would go into Michigan or Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and say ‘We held the line, this deal is better because of us, not because of Donald Trump.’

USMCA passes now but it’s close — labor concerns means PC is keyAndrews 9/23 (Natalie, “Mexico-Canada Trade Pact’s Fate in House Hangs on Support of Labor,” 9/23/19, https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexico-canada-trade-pacts-fate-in-house-hangs-on-support-of-labor-11569244765, AS) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

WASHINGTON— Support from labor groups will be a deciding factor in whether the Trump administration’s renegotiated trade deal with Mexico and Canada sees a vote in the House, as Democrats debate whether to take up the pact.The deal, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, could be one of the few legislative accomplishments of this Congress, and many Democrats say they want to be able to support it. To secure enough votes to pass the House, it will require the backing of labor groups —which want to see the agreement changed so its standards are more enforceable.House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.)  said Friday he can’t see bring ing it to the floor for a vote without labor’s support . “It would probably be doubtful that we will be able to get there if we don’t come to an agreement with the workers of America who feel that they’ve been badly hurt by Nafta,” he said in an interview.

No significant trade unions have endorsed the deal. Most say they want to see what changes Democrats and U.S . T rade R epresentative Robert Lighthizer can agree to . USMCA raises labor standards in an effort to improve working conditions in Mexico and tightens rules for auto-industry trade in an effort to raise wages. While labor groups including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters said it is an improvement from the North American Free Trade Agreement, the new deal has been widely criticized for not having   stronger enforcement provisions   to prevent U.S. companies from moving across the border to cut costs.“It’s like trying to sell a car without an engine or wheels,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL–CIO, the largest labor organization in America. He recently returned from a visit to Mexico where he met with President Andrés Manuel López Obrador for two hours to express his concerns.In a closed-door meeting with House Democrats last Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Democrats were “ on the path to yes ” on the agreement and cited Mr. Trumka. “Every time I speak to Richard Trumka, he sings the praises of how we have kept our values, our priorities intact as we go forward,” she said, according to a Democratic aide, telling the caucus she would have an update on the agreement “certainly by next week.”Labor advocates opposed Nafta in 1993 because they feared that jobs would leave the U.S. for Mexico and elsewhere. Democrats who supported the agreement feel burned because that is what happened, and it has cost the party some critical support. Union workers in places such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan supported President Trump in 2016, partly because he promised to bring jobs back to the U.S. and to boost manufacturing.Democrats made some headway in winning those voters back in the 2018 midterms and now, with the majority in the House, hope to avoid upsetting them.“We’re not going to go against labor,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.) on Friday.

To that end, Mr. Lighthizer   has been meeting with Democrats regularly to iron out objections , though he has said that he doesn’t want to reopen the agreement to make significant changes since it has already been ratified by Mexico. Trump administration officials didn’t respond to a request for comment.Many lawmakers see the deal’s window for passage in Congress narrowing , given that the presidential race next year will likely diminish chances for compromise. Democrats will be less likely to buck their party’s nominee, and while that is yet to be decided, top-tier candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden have called for changes to USMCA.Mexico this year passed a bill aimed at ending the practice of “protection unions,” in which labor leaders close to management ratify contracts without consent from the workers. That was one key request from U.S. officials.But under USMCA, any party can block a panel that was formed to settle a trade dispute. Mr. Trumka opposes that. Because disputes often take years to resolve, he would also like to see a measure added that blocks products from crossing the border if they are from companies accused of violating the agreement.“In the past, these cases have taken eight to nine years, and the whole time they continue to violate the agreement,” Mr. Trumka said.House Republicans are expected to largely support the agreement—the GOP-controlled Senate is likely to pass it as well—and they have been attempting to pressure Mrs. Pelosi to bring it to the floor for a vote. But labor provisions are also important to them.GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said that before he would commit to supporting the deal, he plans to talk to building trades and labor groups and wants “to make sure that labor protections are there.”

USMCA will pass now – dems need legislative victory Megan Casella, 9/26/2019, trade reporter for politco pro, “The case for why impeachment helps USMCA”, politico, https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2019/09/26/the-case-for-why-impeachment-helps-usmca-481367**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

THE CASE FOR WHY IMPEACHMENT HELPS USMCA: There’s a new school of thought blooming that House Democrats’ freshly launched impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump might actually help , rather than dampen, the chances the USMCA gets approved this year. The optimistic and perhaps counterintuitive thinking stems from the idea that Democrats , particularly from moderate or Republican districts , will now be even more eager to notch a legislative achievement they can point to as evidence that they have done more during their time in Congress than investigate the president.“Democrats have to be able to say, ‘We did something. We did something with our majority, and we did it for workers,’” Canadian American Business Council CEO Maryscott Greenwood said.Added Ed Gerwin, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute: “My bet is that [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi doubles down on trying to show progress on issues like USMCA to help members show constituents that Dem ocrat s aren’t abandoning their legislative duties.” Taking the upper hand: Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), who’s a member of the USMCA working group, suggested it’s the Trump administration that might now be more willing agree to Democrats’ demands.“Sometimes when there’s a crisis there’s more opportunity,” he said. “Hopefully that gives us a little bit more, a little extra positioning power.”DEMS VOW TO STAY THE COURSE ON USMCA TALKS: House Democrats also sent a clear message on Wednesday that they remain undeterred in their efforts to work with the White House to get to yes on the deal.House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal told the caucus to “proceed with optimism ” surrounding the agreement,

while Reps. Mike Thompson (Calif.), Suzanne Bonamici (Ore.), Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and Gomez —

five members of the USMCA working group — all separately emphasized that trade talks and impeachment inquiries can move forward simultaneously on parallel tracks.Differing views in the White House: Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer on Wednesday appeared to disagree over whether the impeachment inquiry would hamper efforts to ratify the USMCA. Lighthizer, in a rare moment speaking to reporters at the U.S.-Japan deal signing ceremony, said he was confident the deal would come up for a vote. But the president interrupted him to note that it was possible the House wouldn’t put it up for a vote, saying, “I know these people much better than you do.”"I don't think Nancy Pelosi will have time," Trump said. "She's wasting her time on a — you know, let's use a word that they used to use a lot — a 'manufactured crisis.'"Mark your calendar: Lighthizer is expected to meet with the working group on Friday . The nine-member team will likely then offer their response to USTR’s counteroffer on how to address Democrats’ four prevailing concerns. And the hope is USTR will then respond within two weeks, Gomez said.If things go south: Trump was asked late Wednesday afternoon what might happen to NAFTA if USMCA does not get through Congress. Will he withdraw?“I don’t want to answer that question,” he told reporters. “But you know how I feel about NAFTA. I think NAFTA is the worst trade deal ever made.”No worries from Mexico: Luz Maria de la Mora, Mexico’s undersecretary for foreign trade, shrugged off any concerns Wednesday afternoon that impeachment might derail the USMCA — or lead Trump to pull out of NAFTA."We really think that the USMCA is following its own track and other issues are domestic politics, " she told reporters.

U: A2 “Impeachment”Despite impeachment USMCA pressure happening nowAlex Leary, 10-9-2019, "Backers Hope USMCA Is Not Sidetracked by Impeachment," WSJ, https://www.wsj.com/articles/backers-hope-usmca-is-not-sidetracked-by-impeachment-11569935955**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Now that he is facing a formal impeachment inquiry, President Trump has raised doubts on whether he will get a vote on his reworked trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. But advocates of the deal are trying to keep the pressure on lawmakers to act. This morning, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is sending a letter to all House members urging the prompt approval of the deal, known as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. “While many parts of the economy are strong, such as employment and wage growth, others are weakening, such as manufacturing and business investment,” the letter reads. “To keep our economy growing it is imperative that our nation’s elected leaders take steps to restore certainty and boost business confidence.” Lawmakers are in their districts for the next two weeks and the chamber has issued them a “USMCA Challenge” to meet with business leaders about the benefits of the deal. The chamber also reminds them of words from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week, who said during a news conference dominated by impeachment questions that “we’re moving ahead” on the trade deal. Others don’t seem optimistic. Writing in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the top House Republican, accused Mrs. Pelosi of bowing to liberal demands “to deny the country any successes during the Trump administration” and “run out the clock on the USMCA.” Mrs. Pelosi on Monday said Democrats are seeking improvements to the agreement in talks with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer , citing concerns over enforcement, labor, prescription drugs and environmental protections. “We hope to continue further down the path to yes , but insist that any trade agreement strengthen America’s working families,” she said in a letter to Democratic colleagues.

The impeachment inquiry won’t undermine USMCA – it will create better negotiations Cassella and Rodriguez 9-25 [Megan Cassella, Sabrina Rodriguez, writers for Politico, citing key Democratic leaders, September 25, 2019. “Democrats vow trade deal talks will continue despite impeachment push.” https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/democrats-usmca-impeachment-1511003] **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Democrats working with the Trump administration to try to pass a new North American trade agreement say they are unbowed in their efforts to try to get a deal done this year , even as the House dives into an impeachment inquiry . Just hours after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would launch a formal impeachment inquiry on President Donald Trump, the Democratic Caucus met Wednesday morning in part to get an update on the continuing U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement negotiations. House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.), who leads the nine-member working group negotiating changes to the deal with the Trump administration, said he had one message for the caucus at the meeting: “ Proceed with optimism .” “There is no reason, based on what happened yesterday, to think that there’s any deterrents that will hold us back,” Neal told reporters afterward. House Democrats have been working closely for months with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to negotiate changes to Trump’s signature deal to replace NAFTA. They have outlined four main areas where they are seeking stronger language: labor, environment, access to medicines and enforcement. Despite several weeks of near-constant engagement, a broad majority of the caucus remains unsatisfied with the current text of the deal in those and other areas. And Democratic congressional aides say Pelosi will not call the deal up for a vote unless or until a substantial portion of the caucus is on board. She has held firm even as some more moderate Democrats and those in more trade-dependent districts have begun to indicate their support for the agreement. Business groups, farmers and Republicans alike are also growing more restless to see it in place to help benefit the U.S. economy. The Trump administration, which is pushing to get the deal passed before the end of the year, sent counterproposals to Capitol Hill earlier this month in an attempt to meet Democrats’ top concerns. But the offer fell short and amounted to “an incomplete response,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who sits on the Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO on Wednesday. Still, the resounding outlook from Democrats on Wednesday was that the back-and-forth will continue as planned even as the impeachment inquiry continues. Although some members acknowledged the probe will affect everything that happens in the House, several others emphasized that the two issues can advance simultaneously .

“ We can do more than one thing at a time ,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), a member of the working group. Rep. Jimmy Gomez

(D-Calif.), another of the group’s members, went a step further, suggesting the inquiry could be beneficial for trade talks because it means the White House will be more willing to strike a compromise to get USMCA approved. “Sometimes when there’s

a crisis, there’s more opportunity ,” Gomez told POLITICO. For now, the plan remains for working group members to send another

counterproposal back to the Trump administration by the end of the week. Members said the U.S. trade office also appears committed to continuing negotiations as usual. “Not sure about the White House, but at least USTR’s office is interested in engaging still,” said Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.). But the administration is posturing that legislative business will be hampered by the impeachment inquiry. “I don’t know whether or not they’re going to have time to do any deals,” Trump said Wednesday afternoon when asked about the prospects for USMCA, after he signed a mini-agreement with Japan in New York City. “All they’re talking about is nonsense.“ He then turned to Lighthizer to ask for his perspective. “ I think it will come up to a vote ,” Lighthizer replied. “When it comes up for a vote, I’m confident it will pass .“ On Tuesday evening, White House press secretary said that by moving forward with impeachment, House Democrats have “destroyed any chances of legislative progress for the people of this country by continuing to focus all their energy on partisan political attacks.” The statement made no direct reference to USMCA , however, which has long been the Trump administration’s top legislative priority . Neal shrugged off the threat on Wednesday. “Any threat to shut down the work of the legislative branch would be a violation of the separation of powers,” the Massachusetts Democrat said. “I intend fully for Ways and Means responsibilities to proceed.” Other Democrats, too, appeared unfazed by the White House’s threat. “Figuring out what’s in [Trump’s] head and trying to act upon that is a futile exercise,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “We just have to keep our heads down and keep doing our work.”

Impeachment won’t derail USMCA – tops Dems and Pelosi – it increases the chance of passage Higgins 9-25 [Sean Higgins, writer for the Washington Examiner, citing Jimmy Gomez, one of the top Democrats negotiating USMCA, September 25, 2019. “'Chaos is a ladder': Democrat argues impeachment might help USMCA trade deal.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/chaos-is-a-ladder-democrat-argues-impeachment-might-help-usmca-trade-deal] **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Los Angeles Rep. Jimmy Gomez, one of the top Democrats negotiating for a U.S.-Mexico trade deal, argued Wednesday that

the impeachment inquiry may actually help the deal get through Congress . "Fielding questions from reporters on the potentially negative impact impeachment has on the #USMCA negotiations I’m involved in," tweeted Gomez, one of the House lawmakers that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tasked with meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in order to broker a deal. "I don’t necessarily see it that way. Impeachment might actually help ." Gomez further elaborated by citing a quote from the character of "Littlefinger" in the Game

of Thrones TV series: " Chaos is a ladder ." The quote is used by the character to argue that chaos creates opportunities for the bold. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement trade deal, which would replace the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement, has been the subject of negotiations between the White House and Democrats for months. Pelosi and other Democrats have demanded stronger enforcement measures in the

deal but said that they do want a version of it to pass . President Trump himself suggested to reporters Wednesday that the impeachment inquiry could derail the deal's chances but argued that it would be because the Democrats were too distracted. "I don’t know that they’re ever going to get to a vote," he said. "I don’t think they can do any deals.” But Democrats disputed that, arguing that the impeachment inquiry and the trade deal were separate matters . "There is no reason , based on what happened yesterday, to think that there’s any deterrents that will hold us back,” House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat told reporters Wednesday.

Thumper Ans: TopFull-court press, it’s top priority, and thumpers are priced-in Politi 9/11/19 (James, “Donald Trump races to seal Nafta revamp deal with Congress,” https://www.ft.com/content/6327327a-d48b-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Mr Lighthizer has been reluctant to talk about the state of the USMCA talks recently in public, but other members of Mr Trump’s team — from Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, to Peter Navarro, the White House manufacturing tsar, to Mike Pence, the vice-president — have, with increasing fervour, been beating the drum in favour of the deal, placing it at the top of their agenda this week as Congress returned from recess. “ Ambassador Lighthizer is working very closely with the House. I’ve spoken to the

Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] about this several times. And we look forward to working with her this month, hopefully to get to the point where they

are comfortable in bringing this to the floor because I think if they do bring it to the floor it has the votes to pass, ” Mr Mnuchin told Fox Business

Network television. Proponents of the deal argue that Ms Pelosi will ultimately assent because the Democratic majority in the House depends on more conservative members of her party, in swing districts, where USMCA is more popular. “The USMCA is both good policy and good politics. Speaker Pelosi is an adept political operator and understands that her most vulnerable members need a bipartisan vote that is good for the economy,” said Phil Cox, a Republican strategist and the co-chair of Trade Works for America, a business coalition pushing for passage of the deal. 

Links & Internals

L: China—1NCThe plan drains PC Krepon 13 (Michael, co-founder of the Stimson Center, “Anti-satellite Weapons, Deterrence and Sino-American Space Relations,” September, http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/Anti-satellite_Weapons.pdf) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Settling on a single initiative for US-China cooperation limits possibilities, and is therefore not the best option. A better approach would be to develop a clear strategy for US-China engagement that mixes top-down and bottom-up joint initiatives. Bottom-up initiatives might include data sharing, policy dialogues on national security topics and joint space science projects . Given the difficulties associated with increasing coop eration on space-related issues, interventions and policy impulses from national leaders in Washington and Beijing would likely be required , even for modest initiatives . The more ambitious the initiative , the greater the effort that will be required by national leaders. Whether the U nited States and China have the political will to undertake such an effort to develop and undertake a broad strategy remains to be seen .

L: China—Coop 2NCChina uber unpopular, so is coopStephen Wertheim, Visiting Assistant Professor, History, Columbia University, “Is It Too Late to Stop a New Cold War With China?” NEW YORK TIMES, 6—8—19, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/opinion/sunday/trump-china-cold-war.html, accessed 9-9-19. **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The Soviet Union did collapse, eventually. Orwell, however, had projected that a cold war might involve a third party: “East Asia, dominated by China.” Until very recently, he looked mistaken. Since the 1970s, the United States and a rising China pursued economic enmeshment and a measure of diplomatic collaboration. That was then. Now President Trump is escalating a trade war with China as politicians, policymakers and pundits from both parties urge him not to stop there. Senator Elizabeth Warren rejects America’s past “happy face” China policy, and Senator Marco Rubio tweets about China’s “comprehensive plan to achieve world domination. ” Washington is gearing up for full-spectrum competition with the world’s No. 2 power. We may be witnessing the start of a Sino-American cold war. If so, Mr. Trump may prove to be the next Harry Truman, who set the terms of the first Cold War in the late 1940s by pledging to “support free peoples” and creating institutions to integrate them. Mr. Trump is more severe: He vows vengeance upon those who “rape our country” and exacts it through sanctions and tariffs. That he is rallying the country bodes ill for the conflict to come, even compared with the nuclear standoffs, proxy wars and internal repression of the original Cold War. If responsible Americans would prefer a different future, now is the time to say so. By the end of the Obama administration, officials in Washington feared China was straying from the path of liberalization and cooperation . They condemned China’s legally dubious military buildup in neighboring seas. They criticized China’s economic practices, which restricted market access for American businesses and forced them to divulge know-how. And they lamented China’s authoritarian tightening under President Xi Jinping. To be sure, these concerns — add to them China’s human rights record, in particular its treatment of the Uighurs — are legitimate, just as were American objections to Soviet expansion and oppression in the 1940s. Still, as President Franklin Roosevelt had done toward the Soviets, President Barack Obama tried to challenge Chinese conduct more than Chinese power, and he emphasized the benefits of cooperation. Only since Mr. Trump took office, and especially in the past year, has a Cold War-like panic seized Washington, elevating individual complaints about Chinese actions into all-encompassing opposition to Chinese power . While the president fixates on tariffs, his administration is drawing an “economic iron curtain” across the world, as the former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson put it. America is crippling the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, whether to prevent espionage or deny China leadership of high-tech industries. Every issue — security, economics, technology, human rights — is fusing together . Beijing must wonder what can satisfy Washington’s demands, beyond changing its regime or retreating from the world. We might find out from Vice President Mike Pence, who blasted Chinese “aggression” in an influential speech last October and is planning a follow-up, or from Kiron Skinner, who holds Mr. Kennan’s old post as director of policy planning at the State Department and who says she is formulating a Kennan-esque theory of the long “fight” with China. If a cold war is breaking out, why now? Although the United States and Soviet Union had different political and economic systems, their antagonism centered on a specific dispute: the future of postwar Germany. No single sticking point cleaves America and China today. Nor are ideological differences as acute. China no longer seeks the universal triumph of communism, and the United States is moving away from exporting democracy. Perhaps this should reassure us that relations will not descend into open conflict. Or perhaps the extent to which they already have indicates that a darker logic is at work. The anti-China turn of the past year has been triggered more by American anxieties than by Chinese actions. The latter, by and large, are not new. What is new is President Trump, who has both introduced a distinctive animosity toward China and provoked the American political class to seek a new purpose for America’s global leadership. Mr. Trump, a xenophobe, has for decades placed the blame for America’s problems on non-Western powers, first Japan in the 1980s and then China. His administration reflects this worldview. Ms. Skinner calls China a “really different civilization.” “This is the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian,” she has said, disregarding imperial Japan and Orientalized portrayals of the Soviets. Her point is nonetheless significant: If the original Cold War pitted liberal capitalist democracy against state communism, its successor may promise brute power politics wrapped around a clash of civilizations. No wonder Steve Bannon, doyen of the alt-right and Mr. Trump’s former counselor, thunders that China poses “the greatest existential threat ever faced by the United States.” Mr. Trump has mattered in a second way. His election caused foreign-policy mandarins to panic over “ isolationism ” and scramble to save American power. After banding together to defend the “liberal world order,” they have arrived at a surer solution: contain China. Beijing presents an

ideal foil — a major adversary that justifies globe-spanning responses but doesn’t pose much immediate threat of war. On Capitol Hill, getting tough on China ranks among the few causes that unite Democrats and Republicans . Economic nationalists imagine jobs returning to America, free-traders think pressure will open up China, and everyone gets to sound tough on defense. Today’s climate reminds Senator Chris Coons of “the 1950s when there was no downside, politically, to being anti-Soviet.” That is not to say that China hawks are insincere or irrational. They are right that China’s rise inherently threatens American interests — so long as America defines its interests as maintaining global dominance everywhere and forever. For advocates of the “United States-led liberal order,” what really counts is American leadership, even when supplied by Mr. Trump. In this respect, too, his presidency is clarifying.

Deeply anti-ChinaAna Swanson, journalist, “A New Red Scare Is Reshaping Washington,” NEW YORK TIMES, 7—20—19, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/us/politics/china-red-scare-washington.html, accessed 9-9-19. **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Once dismissed as xenophobes and fringe elements, the group’s members are finding their views increasingly embraced in President Trump’s Washington, where skepticism and mistrust of China have taken hold. Fear of China has spread across the government, from the White House to Congress to federal agencies, where Beijing’s rise is unquestioningly viewed as a n economic and national security threat and the defining challenge of the 21st century . “These are two systems that are incompatible,” Mr. Bannon said of the United States and China. “One side is going to win, and one side is going to lose.” The United States and China have been locked in difficult trade negotiations for the past two years, with talks plagued by a series of missteps and misunderstandings. Mr. Trump has responded to the lack of progress by steadily ratcheting up American tariffs on Chinese goods and finding other ways to retaliate. China has responded in kind. The two sides now appear far from any agreement that would resolve the administration’s concerns about China, including forcing American companies operating there to hand over valuable technology. Even if a deal is reached, the two sides are busy constructing broader economic barriers. In addition to placing a 25 percent tariff on roughly half of the goods China exports, the United States has restricted the kinds of technologies that can be exported to China, tried to cut off some Chinese companies, like telecom giant Huawei, from purchasing

American products and rolled out hurdles for Chinese investment in the United States. American intelligence agencies have also ratcheted up efforts to combat Chinese espionage, particularly at universities and research institutions. Officials from the F.B.I. and the National Security Council have been dispatched to Ivy League universities to warn administrators to be vigilant against Chinese students who may be gathering technological secrets from their laboratories to pass to Beijing. The administration paints the crackdown as necessary to protect the United States. But there are growing concerns that it is stoking a new red scare, fueling discrimination against students, scientists and companies with ties to China and risking the collapse of a fraught but deeply enmeshed trade relationship between the world’s two largest economies. “I’m worried that some people are going to say, because of this fear, any policy is justifiable,” said Scott Kennedy, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The climate of fear that is being created needs to help generate the conversation, not end the conversation.” Anti-China sentiment has spread quickly, with Republicans and Democrat s, labor union leaders, Fox News hosts and others warning that China’s efforts to build up its military and advanced industries threaten America’s global leadership , and that the United States should respond aggressively . Skepticism has seeped into nearly every aspect of China’s interaction with the U nited S tates, with officials questioning China’s presence on American stock markets, its construction of American subway cars and its purchase of social media networks.

Consensus for tough on china nowKenneth Rapoza, staff, ‘Dear Chinese Government, the Democrats Won’t Save You,” FORBES, 11—5—18, https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2018/11/05/dear-chinese-government-the-democrats-wont-save-you/, accessed 9-9-19. **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Lastly, the trade dispute can be seen as only part of Washington’s new foreign policy on China. As China rises to prominence in Asia, once a dollar-a-day part of the world dominated by the Japanese economy, an economy with no military, the usual American foreign policy of hegemony and militarism has found a new target . The South China Sea will be a new wedge issue for

Washington and Beijing to rework alliances in Asia. To the American voter, China is more easily understood as an economic rival . They are easily demonized as job killers and intellectual property thieves . To the long-term thinkers in the American foreign policy establishment, China threatens U.S. military hegemony in the Pacific Ocean and South East Asia in particular. Beijing should expect more tension on this front, especially from the right flank of the Republican Party. A Democratic presidency might give up on this, but a permanent bureaucracy in the departments of State, Defense, the Pentagon and in the intelligence apparatus will not. China can take that to the bank. Writing in the South China Morning Post on Friday, David Shambaugh, director of the China Policy Program at George Washington University said, “Absent a substantial reversal of Chinese policies and actions in a far more liberal direction domestically and more restrained direction externally, the new American hard line on China can be expected to endure indefinitely.” The toughened policies of the Trump administration have congressional backing . They want to push back against China on a broad range of issues. The new 116th Congress that gets elected tomorrow could get even tougher on China . Xi Jinping should hope that all of the ingredients of a trade war stay in Trump's kitchen. Too many chefs will definitely spoil China’s soup.

L: China—Space 2NCChina space coop drains PC.Weeden & He 16 Brian Weeden, Director of Program Planning for Secure World Foundation, Ph.D. in Public Policy and Public Administration from George Washington University in Science and Technology Policy, M.Sc. in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota & Xiao He, Assistant Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. [U.S.-China Strategic Relations in Space, the National Bureau of Asian Research, Special Report #57, April 2016, http://www.nbr.org/publications/specialreport/pdf/Free/06192016/SR57_US-China_April2016.pdf] **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

However, there are significant challenges to work through in this area. On the U.S. side, Congress will continue to have significant concerns over tech nology transfer and the potential spillover benefits that civil coop eration could have for the PLA. Both countries also currently have different goals and objectives for their human spaceflight programs. The United States is focused on extending the ISS through 2024 and plans to send humans to an asteroid and Mars by the 2030s.62 Although China also has long-term interests in the moon and Mars, its primary focus for the next two decades is building and operating its own space station in earth orbit, Tiangong 3. Rather than proposing a specific destination or goal for civil space cooperation, the United States and China should instead focus on developing a clear strategy for engagement that mixes both top-down and bottom-up joint initiatives.63 The objectives and potential benefits and risks of the strategy should be well-defined and clearly explained to national interest groups. Top-down initiatives involving high-profile activities such as human spaceflight will require significant involvement and political capital from national leaders to overcome bureaucratic inertia and resistance to coop eration . Bottom-up approaches involving low-profile areas of cooperation such as collaborative scientific research and missions will require organizational champions on both sides.

Drains PC – opposition entrenched & ideological, even for unrelated policies Poulssen 16 (Jesper, MA thesis in International Studies, “Rivals and Cooperation in Outer Space,” Sept 6, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/43365/Rivals%20and%20Cooperation%20in%20Outer%20Space.pdf?sequence=1) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The ban on collaboration fits in a pattern of non-cooperation with China , a pattern that started with the events on Tiananmen Square. Before those events, the US was willing to cooperate with the Chinese space program by transferring space technologies. This was done to widen the Soviet-Chinese rivalry, which would strengthen the American position in the world. But the fall of the Soviet Union and the Tiananmen Square protests abruptly ended the cooperative atmosphere.67 In 2001 China showed interest in joining the ISS project and, as they called it, the "international family of space faring nations."68 At the time, the US vetoed the possible participation of China. Some Chinese scholars had hopes that the Obama administration would allow China to join, or would at least improve space relations, but the

2011 ban put a stop to that.69 There are three recurring reasons why the US does not want to cooperate with China: disapproval of Chinese human rights issues and political system, national security issues, and the possible transfer of dangerous technology to China. The first issue, that of domestic issues in China, may seem unrelated to space but is clearly a driving issue behind the ban on cooperation. As noted before, NASA has to prove it will not interact with Chinese "officials who (...) have direct involvement with violations of human rights" if it wants to cooperate with China.70 The author of the ban was Representative Frank Wolf, who was at the time the chairman of the subcommittee responsible of funding NASA.71 He has written several letters to NASA administrator Charles Bolden on cooperation with China. In one letter he starts with a long explanation of the human rights issues in China and on his work to improve the situation there, stating that he has: "... supported efforts to limit new collaboration with China until we see improvements in its human rights record." Interestingly, he also responds to criticism of the ban by Dr. Geoffrey Marcy with the question if Marcy has done anything to improve human rights in China.72 But why do human rights matter for space cooperation? An important reason is that the US, just like many other Western governments, often tries to spread its own principles to other states. The international outrage caused by Tiananmen Square led to major technological sanctions, despite the event having little to do with foreign technology. Another, related, reason has to do with how American democracy works. Representatives represent their district, and very few districts care about the space industry, space politics or space in general. This means that ideology becomes much more important. Since there are so few representatives who are willing to spend political capital on space issues, and so many who oppose China for a variety of reasons , American space politics tend to favour noncooperation with China even for unrelated reasons .73

NAFTA Withdrawal IL: 2NCUSMCA failure ensures Trump withdrawal from NAFTA – he has means and motive Kirby 18 (Jen, “Trump has threatened to withdraw from NAFTA. What’s next?”, 12-4, https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18123809/usmca-trump-nafta-withdrawal-congress) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

President Donald Trump says he’s finally going to do what he’s long threatened: tear up NAFTA. Trump’s warning came as he left the G20 meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, this weekend. There, Trump, along with former Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, signed the replacement for NAFTA — called the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement, or USMCA, as Trump has rebranded it stateside. “I’ll be terminating it within a relatively short period of time,” Trump said Saturday of the original NAFTA. “We get rid of NAFTA. It’s been a disaster for the United States.” Trump’s threat is intended for Congress — especially Democrats, who have objected to elements of the renegotiated trilateral trade pact with Mexico and Canada. The House of Representatives and the Senate must approve the USMCA, and both parties have voiced reservations. Democrats don’t think it does enough to protect American jobs and workers, and some Republicans see the new deal as too protectionist. The withdrawal threat is a Trumpian ultimatum: Take my trade deal, or there’s no deal at all . Trump loathes NAFTA. He has called it the “worst trade deal ever signed.” He has threatened to tear up the trade pact in the past, but was ultimately persuaded to renegotiate the agreement, leading to the USMCA. Trump has touted the USMCA as a historic trade deal, even though it’s really an updated and revised version of NAFTA — which itself is a nearly 25-year-old agreement negotiated by George H.W. Bush. So Trump got a new deal and declared victory. And now he’s wielding NAFTA as a political cudgel. The president’s threat is serious ,

but it faces a few potential pitfalls. Trump can likely unilaterally pull out of NAFTA , but Congress has a lot more power on trade than on other international agreements, and experts say lawmakers could find ways to protect NAFTA or limit Trump on trade in other ways. Even if Trump invokes Article 2205 of NAFTA — the mechanism a country can use to leave the pact — the process is not immediate: It requires a six-month of withdrawal, after which Trump can decide to leave. That six-month timeline matters. Congress could certainly take up and vote on USMCA before then, in 2019. US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the administration’s chief trade negotiator, told reporters last week he wants the USMCA to pass with strong bipartisan support, which might not happen if the administration tries to strong-arm Congress. The administration has threatened NAFTA withdrawal before to pressure Congress, most notably in the spring of this year. It never pulled the trigger, though, and there are good reasons why. Congress does have a degree of leverage, and even if Trump succeeds, ripping apart the original NAFTA would generate incredible economic uncertainty, potentially dealing a tremendous blow to business and manufacturing and putting jobs at risk. Trump could blame Congress all he wants, but the chaos would lead back to him. Trump might not risk it in the end. Then again, in trade as in everything else, Trump has embraced unorthodox — and rarely predicable — tactics. So can Trump really do this? Trump wants to withdraw from NAFTA. But it’s complicated. Trump can likely unilaterally pull out of NAFTA by invoking Article 2205, which gives Canada and Mexico a six-month notice of the president’s intent to terminate the agreement. This doesn’t end NAFTA outright (Mexico and Canada can still stay in), and, in theory, Trump could change his mind in the six-month time window. But after that it all becomes murky. Experts say that Congress likely has some ability to protect NAFTA, or can use its powers to curtail Trump on trade elsewhere. “The very simplest reason is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to set terms of trade, not the executive branch,” Todd Tucker, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank based in New York, told me. Congress — just as it needs to do for the USMCA — had to approve NAFTA. It did so through the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act, which is how Congress implements the provisions of NAFTA under US law. There’s nothing in that law that says a president needs permission from Congress to terminate NAFTA , Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a trade policy expert at the Peterson Institute of International

Economics, told me. Which means Trump is probably free to do what he wants . But the president can’t singlehandedly scrap that implementation law, which means some of the provisions would remain in force. The end result, Tucker said, could be a kind of “zombie NAFTA” where the US isn’t formally part of NAFTA, but still trades much like it is. This is by no means a promising scenario, and it wouldn’t cushion the US from the economic uncertainty that would come from terminating a trillion-dollar trade agreement.

Trump withdraws – causes Canada/Mexico trade war Kyle 19 (Robert, partner at Hogan Lovells, “The Future Of The USMCA: 3 Possible Scenarios,” 3/14, https://www.law360.com/automotive/articles/1138775/the-future-of-the-usmca-3-possible-scenarios) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

If Congress stalls action on the USMCA, t he president has made clear he may use what he views as his statutory authority to withdraw the U.S. from the current NAFTA agreement with at least six months’ notice. Legal scholars debate whether the president may do this alone, or whether congressional action is required. But withdrawal from NAFTA would present Congress with a different choice. Right now, Congress faces a choice between USMCA and NAFTA. A threatened withdrawal from NAFTA would present Congress with a new choice: USMCA or the trade terms existing before NAFTA came into force in 1994, if the president were successful in withdrawing from NAFTA. That would result in substantially higher tariffs between the U nited States and Mexico (on both sides of the

border) and could precipitate a trade war that might have highly adverse impacts on key U.S. constituencies, such as agriculture. The president might take this action to shake up the politics in favor of the USMCA. It would be a high-stakes threat, but the president could take this course if he felt Congress would not act otherwise.

Impacts

M: Ag—OV 2NCFood shortages are the largest proximate cause of conflict Koren 16—Koren PhD Candidate in Political Science at U Minnesota and Bagozzi Assistant Professor of Political Science & International Relations at U Delaware 9-15-16 (Ore and Benjamin, “From global to local, food insecurity is associated with contemporary armed conflicts,” Food Security, DOI 10.1007/s12571-016-0610-x, Available online at http://www.benjaminbagozzi.com/uploads/1/2/5/7/12579534/koren-bagozzi-fs.pdf) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

A growing number of studies of environmental stressors and social conflict posit that future wars will be fought over diminishing resources (Miguel et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2009;O ’ Loughlin et al. 2012; Scheffran et al. 2012 ). Building on insights from these studies, as well as other suggestive accounts (e.g. Brinkman and Hendrix 2011 ;Hendrix and Brinkman 2013 ; Messer and Cohen 2006 ;Prunier 2008 ), the present study demonstrates empirically , for the first time , the existence of a systemic relationship between conflict on the one hand, and food (in) security on the other, both globally and locally . Specifically, highly disaggregated cropland-

based measures of food insecurity are shown to produce a significant effect on the incidence of inter and intra-state armed conflict worldwide . Unlike the majority of previous studies , which rely primarily on country-level indicators (Miguel et al. 2004 ; Burke et al. 2009 ; Scheffran et al. 2012 ;Buhaug 2010 ) or focus specifically on sub-Saharan Africa (Miguel et al. 2004 ; Burke et al. 2009;O ’ Loughlin et al. 2012;Buhaug 2010; Fjelde and Hultman 2014 ), the present approach uses geographic factors to estimate the regional sub-state distribution of conflict globally. Two agricultural output measures, the percent of cropland in a given region and the amount of cropland per capita within agricultural regions, are used to proxy for the demand and supply aspects of food security, respectively (Barrett 2010 ). Using logistic regression (i.e., logit) models, these measures are then paired with a large number of political, economic, and climatic indicators in order to estimate the direct effects of food security on violent conflict . Evidence suggests that conflict occurs in areas with higher access to, but lower availability of, food resources. Together these findings imply that food insecurity produces an independent effect on contemporary social and political conflict . While relatively little research directly addresses the relationship

between food insecurity and conflict specifically, numerous studies have implied that such a relationship exists. For instance, in their analysis of the relationship between climate variability and conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa, Burke et al. found that B [t]emperature variables are strongly related to conflict incidence over our historical panel ^ (2009 , 20,670. See also Miguel et al. 2004 ; Koubi et al. 2012 ). They further hypothesize that, B [t]emperature can affect agricultural yields both through increases in crop evapotranspiration (and hence heightened water stress in the absence of irrigation) and through accelerated crop development...reducing African sta- ple crop yields by 10 % – 30 % per °C of warming ^ (ibid. 20,672). Somewhat more cautiously, O ’ Loughlin et al. conclude that, B [o]ur study and other studies question the evidence that climatic variability is uniformly driving up the risk of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, ^ while also noting that B the positive association between instability and temperature may result from the harmful effects of high temperatures on food products such as maize ^ (2012, 18,347). While these conclusions were supported by subsequent studies (Raleigh and Kniveton 2012; Hendrix and Salehyan 2012 ;Hsiangand Meng 2014 ), other scholars question the validity of these findings and show that the incidence of conflict is primarily related to political and economic conditions (e.g. Buhaug 2010 ). In common with all these studies, however, is the insight that a major mechanism by which climate change increases the likelihood of conflict is t hrough its effects on food supplies .

M: Ag—IL 2NCSolves uncertainty for ag---that’s uniquely key nowShruti Singh 18. "New Nafta Has American Corn Farmers Breathing Easier". Bloomberg. 10-1-2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/corn-pops-as-nafta-deal-can-keep-top-buyer-mexico-from-straying**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

U.S. corn farmers such as Aron Carlson in northern Illinois can breathe easier thanks to the renegotiated N orth American Free

Trade Agreement. “I am happy they are getting something done,” Carlson said from a semi-truck on Monday as he was delivering corn to a local buyer.

“ It does give me some reassurance . It’s been a struggle.” Growers have watched prices tumble this year , with

December futures dropping 13 percent since May 1, partly amid trade concerns . The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement secured

Sunday is expected to allow leaders from the three countries to sign an accord by late November. The accord alleviates the risk that Mexico, the biggest importer of U.S. corn, will turn to competing exporters such as Argentina . Trump Clinches New Nafta as Canada Joins Pact With Mexico For American producers, the trade deal comes at a crucial time as farmers including Carlson begin harvesting a massive crop. He’s gathered about 20 percent of this season’s output. Having an agreement to replace the 24-

year-old Nafta also helps ease concerns over the long-term relationships built with U.S. grain handlers . The original pact has been seen as a success for U.S. agriculture, and many farming groups had pushed the Trump administration to “do no harm” as it renegotiated the deal. Last year, the U.S. exported $3.2 billion of corn and corn products to Mexico and Canada, according to the National Corn Growers Association. “ The settlement of Nafta is beneficial to corn,” Greg Grow, the director of agribusiness at Archer Financial Services in Chicago, said

Monday in a telephone interview. “ It takes away some of the uncertainty .” Corn futures for December delivery rose as much as 2.9 percent to $3.665 a bushel, the biggest intraday gain since Sept. 20. Prices also climbed Monday as rain delayed harvesting in parts of the U.S. Midwest, while gains for crude oil signaled support for ethanol demand, Grow said. Soybean futures also advanced on optimism that the Nafta negotiation could herald more U.S. trade deals , especially with China, the world’s biggest buyer of the oilseed. China has shunned U.S. shipments amid the trade war and has increased purchases from Brazil and other countries.

The alternative is no deal and a reversion to MFN tariffs---those are catastrophicChepeliev 18 --- Maksym Chepeliev, Wallace E. Tyner and Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (“How U.S. Agriculture Will Fare Under the USMCA and Retaliatory Tariffs” Commissioned by Farm Foundation,1 October 2018, https://www.farmfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Trade-Analysis-10-31-18-Final.pdf accessed 6-16-2019) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

It could be worse . The USMCA may fail to be ratified . One plausible outcome of a failure to ratify the new agreement

would be for the United States to withdraw from the original agreement , in which case all three countries could revert tariff rates to the so-called most favored nation ( MFN ) status, granted to all countries that are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). MFN tariff levels would hit U.S. agricultural exports particularly hard . One study estimates that U.S. agricultural exports would decline by more than $9 billion, and lead to higher consumer prices for food.

Ag M: IL—A2 “U.S. Not Key”US production is key to global food securityRoss 15 (Sean Ross, “The 4 Countries That Produce the Most Food,” 10-6-15, http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100615/4-countries-produce-most-food.asp) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The United S tates has long been a superpower in food markets – and it is still the world's largest food exporter – but it falls to third place when measuring total output. China and India produce more food than the U.S., but they end up consuming much more of their own products. This makes sense, since China and India have the world's largest populations by a wide margin. These three countries (the U.S., China and India) each produce more food than the entire European Union put together. In fourth place is Brazil; its food industry tilts heavily towards sugarcane and soybeans. One country noticeably missing from the list is Russia, the largest country in the world and home to the ninth-largest population. Russia is partially a victim of its own harsh northern climate. A huge percentage of the Russian territory is neither arable nor pasturable. Russia also has a history of low-output farms. 1. China Easily topping the list is China, which is the world's biggest producer, importer and consumer of food. Much of China's land is too mountainous or too arid for farming, but the rich soils of the eastern and southern regions are extremely productive. China also has the world's largest food workforce, with some estimates as high as 315 million laborers. By comparison, the U.S. is the world's third most populous country, with 320 million people. China is the most prolific producer of an impressive list of foods: rice, wheat, potatoes, lettuce, onions, cabbage, green beans, broccoli, eggplant, spinach, carrots, cucumbers, tomatoes, pumpkins, pears, grapes, apples, peaches, plums, watermelons, sheep milk, chicken, pork, sheep, goat, peanuts, eggs, fish and honey. 2. India In terms of total calorie content, India is the second most productive food country in the world. When measured by the total value of agricultural production instead, India drops to fourth place and produces less than half of China's total output. India has another problem: Many of its citizens are too poor to purchase the food it produces. There have been major strides in the 21st century as the Indian economy emerges, but many experts worry that the Indian population is growing even faster. At 1.2 billion people with a very high birth rate, India is expected to eclipse China as the world's largest population. Farm productivity in India is also far lower than in China, the U.S. or Brazil. In 2010, analyst and author Somini Sengupta outlined three steps to boost Indian food efficiency: reduce food staple spoilage, improve infrastructure and reduce restrictions on producers. 3. The US No country produces as much as efficiently as the U.S. Despite having a smaller workforce than China, total U.S. agricultural product is almost as high. Food production is spread across much of the country, but the largest food-producing states include California, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska and Illinois. American companies dominate the food export market ; second-place Netherlands still exports 35% less than the U.S. and is closer to 10th-place China in terms of international product. The U.S. has been the world's largest exporter of food for a very long time thanks to an increasingly productive farming sector. In fact, the total food production in the U.S. has more than doubled in the post-war period (from 1948 to 2015).

Creates chaos in international food security – devastates developing countries’ supplyHoldren 15 (John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, “Climate Change Global Food Security and the U.S. Food System,” December 2015, https://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/FoodSecurity2015Assessment/FullAssessment.pdf) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

An estimated 20% of U.S. ag ricultural production (based on volume) is exported (USDA ERS 2012), making the United S tates the largest food exporter in the world , responsible for 16% of global agricultural exports (GTIS 2015). The United States is the largest producer of corn in the world, responsible for over one-third of the world’s corn crop, which is grown on over 400,000 U.S. farms (U.S. EPA 2013). More than 275,000 farms in the United States produce soybeans, making the United States the largest producer of that commodity as well (U.S. EPA 2013). The United States is also among the world’s top wheat and rice suppliers and is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s meat exports (USDA 2015). Top markets for U.S. agricultural products include China, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the European Union (USDA ERS 2014a). China is one of the fastest-growing agricultural markets, driven primarily by its burgeoning demand for soybeans and limited arable land base. Since international trade can contribute to global land savings if trade flows from a relatively efficient country to a less efficient country, it is estimated that China’s import of land-intensive crops led to a global land savings of 3.27 million ha annually, on average, during 1986–2009 (Qiang et al. 2013). The United States’ comparative advantage in land has enabled it to be the largest agricultural supplier to China, thus contributing to global land savings. In terms of global crop trade, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Argentina are net virtual land exporters, while some Asian and Mediterranean countries are net importers (Qiang et al. 2013, Fader et al. 2013). Mirroring China’s rise in market size, import demand for food and other agricultural products is generally expanding faster in developing countries than developed , reflecting more dynamic population and economic growth. Developing countries (defined by FAO to include all countries in Africa except South Africa, all countries in Asia except Israel and Japan, all countries in Oceania except Australia and New Zealand, and all countries in the Western Hemisphere except Canada and the United States) are expected to become more dependent on imports to meet their increasing demand, which is outstripping production (FAO 2002b). In 2014 about two-thirds of U.S . ag ricultural exports went to developing countries , compared with 48% in 1994 (USDA FAS 2015b). Demand growth in developing countries is expected to create additional

opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports, although the United States will continue to compete with other major exporting countries (USDA 2014). U.S. production affects global food security by influencing global commodity prices . In the summer of 2012, for example, a severe drought affected 80% of cropland in the U.S. Midwest (USDA ERS 2013b). Largely as a result of the diminished U.S. corn and soybean crop production, international prices for these commodities increased by 25% and 17%, respectively (World Bank 2012a). The influence of U.S. exports

makes world food commodity prices dependent on weather and other supply-and-demand effects within the United S tates (USDA ERS 2015a). Weather and climate events in the United States also affect planting decisions in other countries. Farmers in Brazil and Argentina—both large corn and soybean exporters— react to prevailing U.S. prices and plant their crops accordingly (USDA ERS 2015a).

Ag M: A2 “No Food Wars”Most likely cause of global conflict, but solving it is a dampenerLehane 17 (Sinéad Lehane is research manager for Future Directions International’s Global Food and Water Crises Research program. Her current research projects include Australia’s food system and water security in the Tibetan Plateau region. Shaping Conflict in the 21st Century—The Future of Food and Water Security. February 2, 2017. www.hidropolitikakademi.org/shaping-conflict-in-the-21st-century-the-future-of-food-and-water-security.html) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

In his book, The Coming Famine, Julian Cribb writes that the wars of the 21st century will involve failed states , rebellions , civil conflict , insurgencies and terror ism . All of these elements will be triggered by competition over dwindling resources , rather than global conflicts with clearly defined sides . More than 40 countries experienced civil unrest following the food price crisis in 2008. The rapid increase in grain prices and prevailing food insecurity in many states is linked to the outbreak of protests, food riots and the breakdown of governance . Widespread food insecurity is a driving factor in creating a disaffected population ripe for rebellion. Given the interconnectivity of food security and political stability , it is likely food will continue to act as a political stressor on regimes in the Mid dle East and elsewhere . Addressing Insecurity Improving food and water security and encouraging resource sharing is critical to creating a stable and secure global environment . While food and water shortages contribute to a rising cycle of violence , improving food and water security outcomes can trigger the opposite and reduce the potential for conflict . With the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2040, the likelihood of conflict exacerbated by scarcity over the next century is growing . Conflict is likely to be driven by a number of factors and difficult to address through diplomacy or military force . Population pressures, changing weather, urbanization, migration, a loss of arable land and freshwater resources are just some of the multi-layered stressors present in many states . Future inter-state conflict will move further away from the traditional, clear lines of military conflict and more towards economic control and influence.

Food wars go nuclear—multiple studies FDI 12 (Future Directions International - a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery - PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,” 5/25/12, http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/international-conflict-triggers-and-potential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity/)**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of resources. Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired , at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to take note. . He writes (p.36), “… if people are hungry , especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence , breakdown of law and order and migration result. ” “Hunger feeds anarchy.” This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food , land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering , self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.” As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources, either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because people are going hungry. A study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US C enter for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.

Affirmative Answers

Aff U: Impeachment ThumpsImpeachment thumpTess Bonn 10-2-2019, "House Democrat pushes back against concerns that impeachment inquiry could spark political backlash," https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/463998-house-democrat-pushes-back-against-partys-fears-that-impeachment-inquiry-could**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

“Mitch McConnell has described himself as the ‘grim reaper’ sending all those bills to the legislative graveyard — I think American people want the Senate to join with the members of the House and to work for our communities, for the American people to move legislation forward,” he told Hill.TV, referring to the Senate majority leader. Schneider’s comments come as a number of Senate Democrats representing red states have expressed concern that impeachment could drag on, and take the focus off of key issues such as the need to make a budget deal to keep the government open. Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who is running for reelection in a state that Trump won by a landslide in 2016, has warned , for example, that impeachment proceedings could potentially stymie negotiations on a new trade deal known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). However, the Alabama Democrat maintained that the potential implications of Trump’s communications with Ukraine outweigh politics . “Don’t ask me whether or not this is going to affect my election in 2020,” Jones said on the Senate floor last Thursday. "Don’t ask me if it’s going to affect Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Ask me what is going to happen to the Constitution.” House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry last week in light of a whistleblower’s complaint alleging that Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to dig up dirt on Democratic White House hopeful Joe Biden and the former vice president's son. Support for impeachment has hit an all-time high in light of the whistleblower's complaint. According to a Politico/Morning Consult survey released on Wednesday, 46 percent of voters back Congress starting impeachment proceedings, compared to 43 percent who say it should not.

Trump will stop pushing—takes out their linkSherman et al 9-24 [Jake Sherman, Anna Palmer, Garrett Ross, and Eli Okun, writers at Politico, September 24, 2019. “POLITICO Playbook PM: The latest on impeachment.” https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook-pm/2019/09/24/the-latest-on-impeachment-480462] **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

CAN TRUMP WORK WITH DEMOCRATS IF HE’S BEING IMPEACHED? The president has famously said on multiple occasions that he doesn’t want to work with Dem ocrat s if they’re investigating him . We can only imagine how he will feel if he’s being impeached . So, will the president give up on legislating ? … … OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, there’s lots to do .

The president’s White House has been pushing to wrap up the USMCA , with Democrats and the administration swapping proposals.

Government funding runs out Nov. 21, and aides on Capitol Hill are already spooked about a shutdown . Now imagine throwing impeachment proceedings into that maelstrom.

Impeachment thumps USMCA – Trump lash-out Parker 9/25 [Ashley Parker, a White House reporter for The Washington Post, September 25, 2019. "Seven days: Inside Trump’s frenetic response to the whistleblower complaint and the battle over impeachment", Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/seven-days-inside-trumps-frenetic-response-to-the-whistleblower-complaint-and-the-battle-over-impeachment/2019/09/25/14ba426a-dfaa-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html] **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Some White House aides and outside confidants, however, worried that impeachment will also consume the remainder of Trump’s term . His trade deal with Canada and Mexico, for instance, is likely to be among the casualties , they said. And as with the Mueller investigation, there is the risk that Trump’s frustration over impeachment — which he views as an

attack on the legitimacy of his presidency — will come to so enrage him that it prompts him to begin lashing out and behaving erratically . In the words of one former aide, “ It may lead to less structured output from the White House.”

Impeachment derails the agenda KHN 9/26/19 – Kaiser Health News“Impeachment Could Easily Derail Congressional Agenda — Including Gun Safety And Drug Pricing,” https://khn.org/morning-breakout/impeachment-could-easily-derail-congressional-agenda-including-gun-safety-and-drug-pricing/**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

A bitter impeachment debate in Washington may push legislative matters to the side . Other news on Capitol Hill includes complaints about ads against legislation seeking to end surprise medical bills, concerns about funding for community health centers and a bill to help marijuana businesses get banking services.The New York Times: Already Light, Legislative Menu Chopped Down By Impeachment FightWith government divided between the Republican-controlled Senate, the Democrat-led House and an administration led by a mercurial president, the legislative menu was already light and expectations exceedingly low . Still, murmurs persisted about deals on gun safety, prescription drug pricing, a highway bill and a new trade deal between the United States, Mexico and Canada, along with the annual package of spending measures or extended stopgap funding. Now, even those potential accomplishments are in jeopardy in the heat of the impeachment inquiry. (Hulse,

Aff U: Won’t Pass NowUSMCA is dead if it’s vote on now Megan Cassella 10/09/2019 "Top labor leader says USMCA will be defeated if quick vote is held," https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/09/top-labor-leader-says-usmca-will-be-defeated-if-quick-vote-is-held-043027**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

One of the most influential figures in the U.S. labor movement is telling House Democrats not to cave to Republican pressure to move quickly on the new North American trade deal, warning that doing so would lead to the pact's failure in Congress. “ If there was a vote before Thanksgiving, the agreement would be defeated ,” Richard Trumka , who leads the AFL-CIO, the country’s largest labor organization, told The Washington Post. Republicans and lobbying groups are pressing for House Democrats to hold a vote as soon as possible, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce saying last week they believe it can get done by Thanksgiving. White House officials have also been eyeing a similar timeframe, with trade adviser Peter Navarro saying last month that the goal was to see the deal passed by early November. But Trumka told the Post moving quickly would be a “colossal mistake” — a warning that could carry significant weight among congressional Democrats still considering how to vote on the deal. Labor standards and enforcement of those rules in the new agreement have proven to be among the thorniest issues that House Democrats are still working to address in negotiations with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Support from Trumka and other labor leaders will be crucial to getting enough Democrats on board to pass the deal. In an attempt to ensure labor is satisfied with any final agreement, House Democrats have been working closely with Trumka as they continue to engage with Lighthizer. After a closed-door meeting with the labor leader late last month, House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) told POLITICO that Trumka “believes that there’s a ways to go on enforcement , and he’s correct on that.” Neal and four other Ways and Means Democrats traveled to Mexico earlier this week to hear from government officials there about how they plan to carry out and pay for implementation of a landmark labor reform law, which the country passed earlier this year. Afterward, the U.S. lawmakers appeared to be not yet satisfied with Mexico's progress. “ If they can’t enforce their own laws, we have a real problem," Trumka told the Post. “ No agreement will be able to work.”

Won’t pass—Dems, plus PC fails, other issuesCarney 9/3/19 (Jordain, “Congress set for chaotic fall sprint,” https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/459463-congress-set-for-chaotic-fall-sprint) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Lawmakers are preparing to return to a chaotic fall in Washington, paving the way for an end-of-year legislative sprint. In addition to hot-button issues like

background checks, Congress has several must-pass bills on its agenda, including spending legislation to prevent a government shutdown on Oct. 1. The to-do list leaves lawmakers little time to spare as they map out the legislative schedule for the roughly 40 days in which both chambers will be in session between now and the end of the calendar year. Here are seven issues to watch as Congress returns for the final stretch of 2019. Guns When the House and Senate gavel in next week, it will be the first time Congress is in legislative session since a pair of mass shootings in Texas and one in Ohio. Shortly after the early August massacres in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, lawmakers floated myriad potential responses to gun violence — from expanded background checks to studying mental health and the impact of video games — but have yet to find a bill that could make it to President Trump’s desk and win his signature. The House passed universal background check legislation in February, but the measures prompted a veto threat from the White House and have not been taken up by the GOP-controlled Senate. The House Judiciary Committee is planning to vote next

week on a slate of bills meant to respond to the August shootings. One of the measures would ban high-capacity magazines. But most of the focus this fall will be on what bills , if any, can pass the Senate and get Trump’s support. Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) are leading talks with the White House to try to find a deal on expanding background checks. Murphy told The Hill he expects to know by the time the Senate returns on Sept. 9 if they’ll be able to get an agreement. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, has tapped three GOP chairmen — Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) — to brainstorm possible legislative responses. Several Republicans, including Graham, are talking up “red flag” laws, which allow law enforcement to temporarily block certain individuals from buying or owning a gun. Government funding Congress has until Oct. 1 to fund the government or punt the fight into fiscal 2020 with a short-term continuing resolution that would temporarily extend current spending levels. That gives lawmakers just 13 working days to avoid a second funding lapse for the year, after the record-long 35-day partial shutdown that ended on Jan. 25. The path to funding the government for the next fiscal year without needing a continuing resolution is nearly impossible. Though the House has passed 10 of its 12 annual funding bills, the Senate didn’t pass any as they waited for congressional leaders and Trump to strike a two-year budget deal. The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to start voting on legislation on Sept. 12, and Senate Republicans are hopeful they can clear a sizable portion of government funding measures this month by combining spending bills for the Pentagon and for the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, and potentially energy and water development funding as well. But even if the Senate is able to pass legislation before Oct. 1, they would still need to work out a broader agreement with the House. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that while a continuing resolution could be inevitable, it would be “short-term” and “no more than 60 days,” setting up another funding fight, possibly in early December. Impeachment Impeaching Trump isn’t on the House agenda for the fall, but the debate within the chamber’s Democratic caucus is likely to loom over the relationship between Capitol Hill and Trump. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has set the stage for a new round of fights this fall with Trump that includes issuing a wave of subpoenas for former administration and campaign officials to testify before Congress. Democrats hope the testimony could help build support for impeachment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has come under fire from progressives who view her incremental strategy as too cautious. In a conference call last month, Pelosi told House Democrats that “the public isn’t there on impeachment.” “Give me the leverage I need to make sure that we’re ready and it is as strong as it can be,” Pelosi told Democrats during the call. Democratic lawmakers have tried to walk a fine line on impeachment, despite pressure from outside groups. Though more than 130 House Democrats say they back impeachment in some form, only 20 are on the record saying outright that they believe Trump should be impeached. Trade Republicans are making “NAFTA 2.0” — Trump’s trade deal with Mexico and Canada — a top priority this fall. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote in an op-ed published Thursday that he is “engaged in ongoing discussions with my congressional colleagues, as well as President Trump and his administration regarding steps forward.” Congress previously agreed to fast-track any

trade deals. But Pelosi could easily try to change that — similar to her move against a George W. Bush trade deal with Colombia in 2008 — if the Trump administration tries to play hardball . Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters last month that there isn’t a “deadline” for a vote but acknowledged it could get wrapped up in 2020 politics if delayed for too long. “The closer we get to the next election, the harder it is. Speaker Pelosi and I are united ... and we believe that you need strong and enforceable labor protections in this bill, as well as environmental protections,” he said. “If that doesn't happen, there won't be a bill, plain and simple." Surveillance Congress will need to tackle an end-of-the-year surveillance fight , with three provisions in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act set to expire in mid-December. The sunset provisions include a controversial records program, known as Section 215, that gathered metadata on domestic text messages and phone calls. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that the National Security Agency is recommending an end to the program. But the administration is requesting Congress permanently reauthorize it as well as two other provisions — one authorizing “roving” wiretaps and the other on lone wolf surveillance authority. “These provisions provide the [intelligence community] with key national security authorities, and we look forward to working with the Congress on their permanent reauthorization,” then-Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats wrote in a letter to top members of the

Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees last month before he stepped down. Saudi relations Senators are expected to force a vote this month on a resolution related

to arms sales and U.S. security assistance to Saudi Arabia — a growing flashpoint on Capitol Hill in the wake of Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi’s death last year at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. The resolution, introduced earlier this year by Murphy and Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), would first let Congress vote to ask the State Department for human rights information on Saudi Arabia. Once the State Department turns over their report, senators could then vote to limit or nix security assistance, including arms sales. An aide confirmed last week that a vote on the Murphy-Young resolution is expected in September. The vote on the resolution would

follow Congress’s attempt to block Trump’s arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The Senate was unable to override the president’s veto. Defense Congress needs to finalize a mammoth defense policy bill, viewed as must-pass legislation that has successfully made it through Congress for almost 60 consecutive years. The House and Senate passed their separate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act before the August recess. Lawmakers are optimistic they can get the policy bill across the finish line, but with Democrats in control of the House and Republicans the Senate, there are significant policy differences between the two bills. The House measure would block emergency arms sales to Saudi Arabia, repeal the 2002 authorization for the use of military force and prevent Trump from using Pentagon funds for a border wall — three provisions that were not included in the Senate bill.

No USMCA – labor unions will launch fire and furyChuck Abbot 10-2-2019, "Prospects Dim for USMCA This Year, says CoBank," https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/prospects-dim-for-usmca-this-year-says-cobank**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

U.S. farmers are harvesting crops for the second year in a row under the shadow of hefty tariffs, says agricultural lender CoBank, pointing to uncertainty over trade policy, late-maturing crops and African swine fever. “It is also increasingly unlikely that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) will come up for a vote in Congress before the 2020 election,” said CoBank in a quarterly review of the rural economy. “ No major labor unions support USMCA in its current form and both Democrats and Republicans are keen to win labor support in 2020,” said the Quarterly Rural Economic Review. “Given that significant change to labor provisions would require new ratification by all three countries, it appears unlikely that the deal will be put to a vote before 2021.” CoBank vice president Dan Kowalski said global trade tensions “are ratcheting up as world economic growth slows .” The OECD projects world economic growth of 2.9 percent this year, down from 3.9 percent last year and the slowest growth since 2009. There has been little progress in negotiations to resolve the China-U.S. trade war or for a new U.S.-E.U. free trade agreement, said CoBank. The bright spot in trade during the summer was Japan’s agreement to reduce or eliminate tariffs on $7.2 billion of U.S. agricultural products, putting most U.S. farm exports to Japan on the same tariff levels as members of the so-called TPP-11 nations.

Won’t pass – Pelosi blocks. Andy Puzder 9/24/19 – JD, Washington University School of Law, former chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, nominated by President Trump to serve as U.S. labor secretary, "Andy Puzder: NAFTA desperately needs to be replaced. So why is Democratic leadership standing in the way?", Fox News, https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andy-puzder-nafta-replace-democratic-leadship**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada have already signed the most important trade deal in a generation. Mexico and Canada, not China, are currently our two largest trading partners. For the sake of America’s economy and workers, this deal needs to get done. The only obstacle is political obstruction by congressional Democrats more intent on depriving President Trump of a win than bestowing one on the American people. This is politics at its worst , and that’s saying something. The United States stands to make immense economic gains from this comprehensive renegotiation of the deeply flawed 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The importance of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) is widely recognized on both sides of the political aisle, yet more than nine months

after the signing ceremony, it lingers in Congress, unratified, undebated and uncertain. As a “non-self-executing treaty,” both Houses of Congress have to pass the USMCA before it can take effect. Like all treaties of this magnitude, the deal deserves careful debate. But, given its broad popularity, the process should be much further along by now. The question isn’t whether the deal is worth making, but rather why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preventing debate . Various Democratic lawmakers have suggested that they might wish to tweak certain aspects of the agreement, but so far they’ve largely avoided even learning about the details . The reasons for ratifying the USMCA as quickly as possible are readily apparent. NAFTA was poorly negotiated, typical of an era of very bad trade dealings by American leaders that hurt the people they should protect the most. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana — two Republicans from the heartland constituencies hit hardest by NAFTA’s shortcomings — both published very persuasive arguments this past week explaining why the USMCA is so beneficial for the United States. They point to the higher wages and labor protections that will be, for the first time, imposed on Mexican factories that produce goods for the U.S. market. Many Mexican auto workers, for example, will have to earn at least $16 per hour in order for the cars they make to qualify for tariff-free export to America. That will decrease incentives to offshore American manufacturing jobs and give workers in Detroit a fair chance to compete. American farmers, meanwhile, will gain easier access to Canadian and Mexican markets — something they’ve been seeking in vain for decades. But while Trump was the mastermind behind the USMCA, it’s not just Republicans who are convinced of the agreement’s merits, or at least eager to keep the ball moving forward. In July, 14 House Democrats signed a letter to Pelosi urging her to let the House vote on the USMCA before year-end. We need to replace NAFTA, and Democratic leadership is the only thing standing in the way. The principles behind this deal are neither partisan nor ideological — getting a better deal for American workers and requiring more robust labor and environmental protections from our trading partners are goals that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have explicitly endorsed, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, even as she rejects the USMCA. The Warren example sheds a revealing light on Pelosi’s obstructionism. It’s clear as day why Warren is opposing USMCA. She’s running for president against the man whose vision and determination made the deal a reality. Of course, she opposes it. Warren’s cover story is that she thinks the USMCA is too lenient on pharmaceutical companies, but there’s no evidence the deal would actually raise drug prices for Americans. In any event, the place to bring up such concerns would be during open debate in Congress, where they could be addressed in the final deal, assuming Warren could get enough of her colleagues to share her tongue-in-cheek skepticism. The same logic is at work with Pelosi . She is stalling, refusing to set a date, and dodging questions about whether it protects workers and the environment — despite the fact the USMCA has the most robust labor and

environmental protections of any major trade deal the United States has ever signed. Like Warren, Pelosi’s opposition is just politics at its worst — and that’s saying something. If Pelosi really believes the protections are insufficient, then she and her allies should suggest modifications, or even pass USMCA and request that the U.S. trade representative work with our partners to improve the deal going forward. The only reason Democrats are dragging their feet on the USMCA is because they wish to deny Trump a hard-fought win as we approach an election year. That Machiavellian approach is not what America’s economy and workers need right now. We need to replace

NAFTA, and the Democratic Party’s leadership is the only thing standing in the way.

Aff L: Space Policy IrrelevantSpace policy gets ignored in congress Johnson-Freese 07 (Joan, Professor and the Charles F. Bolden, Jr. Chair of Science, Space & Technology at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, US. She writes extensively on space security, military education, and gender and security, “Space as a Strategic Asset”, Columbia University Press. 2007, P-240-242, Accessed 7-8-2019) MJG**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The movement toward weaponization has been accomplished through a carefully choreographed plan intended to present information to the pub- lic and lawmakers while simultaneously encouraging them to pay no atten- tion-which has not been a difficult task. Decisions have been made, doctrine written, documents published, and technology developed in full view of Con- gress, the press, and the American public. Yet all seem uninterested . When the occasional media piece raising concerns does appear, few beyond those already interested read it, and weaponization advocates respond with charges of fear-mongering or "whipping up anxieties with little rational justification:'7 Perspectives clearly differ. Those against weaponization see media attention as lax, while advocates regard it as "near-hysterical ranting:'s The general polar- ization of views coincides with the post-September 11 political environment, charged with fear and dividing the world into simplistic, either-or choices: us and them, warriors and wimps, patriots and Democrats, a path of fear or a path of confidence. A more nuanced approach, though admittedly more dif- ficult, will ultimately better serve the United States. Regardless of media attention, however, analysis and debate within the government before making decisions about space policy appear painfully thin. Ideology and an assumption that weaponization is "inevitable" trump rigorous analytic considerations. RAND analyst Karl Mueller has stated that the inevitability premise is "based on a smattering of evidence and logic, ex- trapolated into facile overgeneralizations that are well suited for television talk-show punditry but which are a poor basis for national decision-making:'9 Facts should matter; unfortunately, they are not currently in vogue. Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, wrote that President George W Bush did not succeed in his campaign to convince the United States to priva- tize part of Social Security because he had focused too much on the "green- eyeshade issues such as solvency, transition costs, unfunded liabilities and rates of return:'10 He advised the White House to make Social Security privati- zation "an emotional issue;' steering the discussion away from the harsh glare of numbers and facts. The same tactic has prevailed in space policy as well. Just how much is the U.S. public willing to reject fact and science? Appar- ently, quite a 10tY But while emotion and passion are a part of the American A CLASH OF AMBITIONS I 3 4 I A CLASH OF AMBITIONS spirit, so too is a hard-nosed, sensible pragmatism that turns dreams into real- ity. Perhaps the weaponization advocates can present a compelling case. They should have been required to do so before the country embarked on space weaponization, and they must be compelled to do it now, before the United States proceeds any further. We have a choice in the matter, and we need to choose the option that is in the best long-term interests of the United States. It is almost as though Congress, the media, and the public simply do not want to know about the new direction the United States is taking in space policy, perhaps because they already have too much to deal with regarding the global war on terror-designated "the long war" by Defense Secretary Don- ald Rumsfeld in February 2 0 0 6 - Iraq, Social Security , health care, and a list of other consuming concerns . Alternatively, perhaps consumerism is taking its toll, with people just too fat and happy to care. Space weapons may seem too distant, too technical, or too unimaginable to deal with. Perhaps mov- ies have made the public think that space weapons are normal. Whatever the case, those who want to pursue weaponization have been more than happy to encourage the public to remain uninvolved, allowing weaponization advo- cates to avoid scrutiny and, in military jargon, to "fly below the radar:' A May 2 0 0 5 New York Times article12 on space weaponization created a short burst of media interest. Shortly thereafter, I was asked to debate the topic on two Na- tional Public Radio programs. According to the producers for both programs, neither could get a military representative to speak on their shows to state or support the Air Force position. Saying nothing proved wise, as public interest died quickly. However, the mere potential of engendering public notice may have sufficiently motivated the White House to tone down the content of its new U.S. space policy, away from overt support for weaponization and toward retaining the ambiguity has prevailed.

Aff M: Ag DUSMCA not key to ag---doesn’t come close to compensating from losses due to TPP pullout Maksym Chepeliev 19, Research Economist in Agricultural Economics at Purdue University, et al., February 2019, “How Differing Trade Policies May Impact U.S. Agriculture: The Potential Economic Impacts of TPP, USMCA, and NAFTA,” https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/9171.pdf**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

In the last two years, the United States has reversed the post-World War II trend toward the lowering of trade barriers and a commitment towards multilateral free trade. Citing a need to “level the playing field” and hold trading partners accountable to their commitments, the current Administration has moved towards a more protectionist and perhaps mercantilist position vis-à-vis trade policy. One of the Administration’s first actions in

this regard was the decision to leave the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) agreement, followed thereafter by raising tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The Administration’s actions on trade are likely to have significant implications for U.S. farmers as these actions target three of the largest markets for U.S. agricultural exports – Canada, China and Mexico – accounting for some 44%, and representing an average of $63 billion, of U.S. agricultural exports 2013 to 2015.Though the yet-to-be-ratified renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), known as the United States-Mexico-Canada

Agreement (USMCA or NAFTA 2.0), consolidates the gains from the original agreement and provides some additional modest market access for U.S. ag ricultural exports (an estimated $454 million), U.S. farmers still are facing strong headwinds and the possibility of a significant loss of export revenues . According to these estimates, the United States’

withdrawal from the TPP reduces agricultural and food exports by $1.8 billion a year ($ 1.4 billion, with the offsetting $454 million of USMCA export gains ). Following trade liberalization between the 11 remaining TPP members, there is an increase in trade within those countries, which substitutes away from U.S.-based imports and causes a corresponding loss in U.S. export markets. However, if the United States were to rejoin the TPP, the agreement would significantly benefit U.S. farmers—the loss of $1.4 billion would turn into a gain of $2.9 billion in additional agricultural exports.

Aff M: Econ DNo economy internalBuchwald 19 (Elisabeth Buchwald a reporting intern at MarketWatch. She is based in New York., 4-19-2019, "Key report on NAFTA successor finds deal would make only a slight boost to economy," MarketWatch, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/key-report-on-nafta-successor-finds-deal-would-make-only-a-slight-boost-to-economy-2019-04-18) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

A new report on the economic impact of the United-States-Mexico-Canada-Trade Agreement may not be sufficient enough to sway Democratic lawmaker reservations. The I nternational T rade C ommission report released Thursday found that the USMCA that President Trump reached with this Canadian and Mexican counterparts would increase U.S. GDP by a slim margin of $68.2 billion, or 0.35%. The ITC was required to prepare the report per the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 which mandates that the Commission provide lawmakers with a detailed report of a trade deal before they vote on it. “This report confirms what has been clear since this deal was announced - Donald Trump’s NAFTA represents at best a minor update to NAFTA, which will only offer limited benefits to U.S. workers,” said Sen. Ron Wyden in a statement. The Democratic senator from Oregon who serves on the Senate Finance Committee refrained from mentioning the President’s proposed USMCA deal.

No economy impact Christopher Clary 15, Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT, Postdoctoral Fellow, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation: Evidence from International Rivalries,” April 22, 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2597712**ADA Novice Packet 2019**

Do economic downturns generate pressure for diversionary conflict? Or might downturns encourage austerity and economizing behavior

in foreign policy? This paper provides new evidence that economic stress is associated with conciliatory policies between strategic rivals. For states that view each other as military threats, the biggest step possible toward bilateral cooperation is to terminate the rivalry by

taking political steps to manage the competition. Drawing on data from 109 distinct rival dyads since 1950, 67 of which terminated, the evidence suggests rivalries were approximately twice as likely to terminate during economic downturns than they were during periods of economic normalcy. This is true controlling for all of the main alternative explanations for peaceful relations between foes (democratic status, nuclear weapons possession, capability imbalance, common enemies, and international

systemic changes), as well as many other possible confounding variables . This research questions existing theories claiming that economic downturns are associated with diversionary war , and instead argues that in certain

circumstances peace may result from economic troubles .

Aff M: Food War DFood shortages won’t cause war.Allouche 11, research Fellow – water supply and sanitation @ Institute for Development Studies, frmr professor – MIT (Jeremy, “The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade,” Food Policy, Vol. 36 Supplement 1, p. S3-S8, January) **ADA Novice Packet 2019**

The question of resource scarcity has led to many debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to conflict and war. The underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural resources and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits are exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most empirical studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments . Technological change and greater inputs of

capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally, the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable. Lessons from history: alarmist scenarios, resource wars and international relations In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media (see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis, 2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level. In the Middle East , presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric.