1NR Finals

DA
 1NR---OV
Semiconductor investment solves US-Iran war---outweighs---magnitude and time-
frame---escalates, draws in Russia and China, and destroys the biosphere via nuclear
use---that’s Avery.

Turns case---
1---Treaties---Iran conflict mushes any multilateral credibility, ruins international
perception of the US, and kills negotiations.
2---Terrorism---conflict causes widespread nuke use, and escalation---turns stability
and breeds grounds for radicalization.

Probably doesn’t turn “superbugs”---but also, like lol.

 2AC 1 and 2 – Semiconductor Defense
1. Semiconductors investment is key---necessary for cruise missiles, drones, ballisters,
etc. which allow us to proliferate defense. That’s Pappalardo.

2. Domestic industry key to defense REGARDLESS of shortage Ill read blue. Prefer ev
from national defense experts over “economics professors”.
Read PINK too if they say government involvement bad

Chesebrough 17 [Dave; National Defense Industrial Association Program Development Vice

President; 10-31-17; National Defense; "Trusted Microelectronics: A Critical Defense Need";
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/10/31/trusted-microelectronics-a-critical-defense-
need; accessed 1-27-19; PAC]

Over the course of the past 70 years, the U.S. government’s microelectronics needs for national security
applications and the semiconductor industry have been intimately entwined.

Beginning with radar and data processing, microelectronics has underpinned every military and national
security system, from strategic command to field communications, transportation, weapon systems and
platforms. It is not an exaggeration to say that national security depends on these tiny devices.

Since the invention in 1954 of the first commercial silicon transistor, industry efforts have been focused
on increasing transistor density and lowering cost, the essence of Moore’s Law. Commercial products
also have tended to have shorter and shorter lifecycles.

In contrast the Defense Department requires advanced, highly customized state-of-the-art digital
components for its systems, which are in use for many years more than commercial products. Warfare
has changed dramatically over the years because of the capabilities cutting-edge microelectronics
enable.

Indeed, the U.S. semiconductor industry in part grew out of government funded research and
development. In recent decades, however, commercial applications and high-volume production have
dwarfed government demand. In fact, government purchases — be it direct or through a third party —
now account for a very small part of total production. The result is that commercial market forces drive
the industry.

As noted by the most recent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report: “The
global semiconductor market has never been a completely free market: it is founded on science that
historically has been driven, in substantial part, by government and academia; segments of it are
restricted in various ways as a result of national-security and defense imperatives; and it is frequently
the focus of national industrial policies. Market forces play a central and critical role. But any
presumption by U.S. policymakers that existing market forces alone will yield optimal outcomes —
particularly when faced with substantial industrial policies from other countries — is unwarranted.”

National Defense Industrial Association members are dedicated to maintaining the technical superiority
of U.S. defense and national security systems. The ability of U.S. corporations and government agencies
to acquire advanced semiconductor devices is being severely undermined by the systemic changes in
the semiconductor industry, which is now driven by commercial demands for consumer products,
coupled with producer consolidation caused by profitability concerns.

Not only do potential adversaries now have access to the most modern technology, in some cases they
have become the major suppliers of the very technology we have come to rely on to establish
technological superiority. The question becomes, “Who can the military trust? ” And if it can’t trust the
international producers of microelectronics, how does it mitigate the risk of using their products in
highly sensitive national security systems?

The demand for consumer and business electronics skyrocketed with advances in consumer technology.
Global sales reached $339 billion in 2016, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association. Demand
for smaller and less expensive devices powers this growth, driven by consumer demand for smart-
phones, tablets and the like. Indeed, the volume of smartphone shipments has risen exponentially since
their initial introduction.

At the end of the 20th century the market for personal computers dominated demand for integrated
circuits. This has begun to flatten as demand migrates to other devices, including those that are part of
the internet of things. This drives the microelectronics industry to search for new markets, and to
restructure itself to serve those markets profitably.

New segments generating significant demand are cloud computing, big data and artificial intelligence,
which are increasing demand for servers and data centers and social media in which companies like
Facebook and YouTube want to store, manage and process massive volumes of data as quickly and cost-
efficiently as possible. Other emerging segments include medical, industrial, automotive and the
previously mentioned internet of things.

Once an early-days driver of semiconductor technology, the government and its suppliers are now small
players in the global market that drives the microelectronics industry. This has created a crisis in
assuring that current and future defense and security systems are free from hidden defects or malware
that might impact their operation at a critical time.

Microelectronics use tiny components, micro or nano-scale, to manufacture electronics and terminology
in this area can get confusing.

Microelectronics can be considered a broad category within which falls surface-mounted technologies
— think motherboards and printed circuit boards — and semiconductor integrated circuits, which, along
with other components, are assembled onto circuit boards to create complex assemblies that are then
integrated into products, in many cases with software that gives function to a computer.

Adding another level of complexity, an integrated circuit that integrates all components of a computer
or other electronic systems into a single integrated circuit is known as a system-on-chip. The advancing
technology is quite complex, with systems-on-chip and sophisticated components dominating the
semiconductor and microelectronics market.

Advanced semiconductor design uses electronic design automation that enables the modular design of
circuits that contain billions of transistors. The trend is toward the integration of complete electronic
systems onto a single chip, reducing cost, size and power consumption while increasing performance.
The problem for the Defense Department is that all of this is necessary to providing the warfighter with
state-of-the-art systems. Technological superiority depends on these complex technologies.

Some say Moore’s Law may be slowing down. Nevertheless, the microelectronics industry is rapidly
changing. Mergers and acquisitions, globalization, the search for revenue, the emergence of new
segments, and changes to the design and fabrication business models are contributing to market
changes that are having an impact on the defense industry.

Globalization of microelectronics design and production means that the department and its industrial
base now must increasingly depend on foreign companies for the components necessary for our most
advanced defense systems.

Moreover, the microelectronic industry business models, influenced by commoditization and

segmentation, are introducing new and even greater concerns regarding assurance and vulnerabilities of
defense systems. The result is that design content assembled into an integrated circuit for a defense
system may in fact come from an unknown third party.
 2AC 3 – Iran A/C
1. No alt-causes – Trethevic says semiconductor solves any chokepoints or escalation
because it effectively deters iranian escalation – this is our UQ
2. No ev for this---new 2NR cards.
 2AC 4 – No Iran War
this was a 2AC blip – our ev says Iranian blockade of Hormuz and Bab Al Mandeb is
distinct because they carry WMD’s, which forces escalation – they don’t assume
Biden’s who’s a war hawk.

Yes war and escalates – conditions are ripe for escalation

Beres 15 (Louis Rene Beres, Professor of Political Science @ Purdue University, “Israeli Deterrence in
the Eye of the Hurricane,” Breaking Israel News, July 15, 2015, http://tinyurl.com/pxxoyzd)

Sometimes, in strategic matters, seeing requires distance. A nuclear war in the Middle East is not beyond possibility .
This is a sensible assessment even if Israel were to remain the only nuclear weapons state in the region. How is this possible? A bellum
atomicum could come to Israel not only as a “bolt from the blue” enemy nuclear attack (either by a state or by a terrorist group), but also as the
result, intended or otherwise, of certain uncontrolled military escalations . Needed prudence in such narratives calls for additional specificity
and precision. If particular Arab/Islamic
enemy states were to launch conventional attacks upon Israel, Jerusalem
could then respond, sooner or later, with calculated and more-or-less calibrated nuclear reprisals. Alternatively, if some of
these enemy states were to launch large-scale conventional attacks, Jerusalem’s own still-conventional reprisals could then be met, perhaps
even in the not-too-distant future, with enemy nuclear counterstrikes. How should Israel prepare for such perilous contingencies? More than
likely, Israel has already rejected any doctrinal plans for fielding a tactical/theater nuclear force, and for assuming any corollary nuclear war
fighting postures. It would follow further from any such well-reasoned rejection that Israel should do whatever is needed to maintain a credible
conventional deterrent. By definition, such a measured threat option could then function reliably across the entire foreseeable spectrum of
non-nuclear threats. Still, any such strategy would need to include an appropriately complementary nuclear deterrent, a distinctly “last resort”
option that could display a “counter-value” (counter-city) mission function. Si vis pacem, para bellum atomicum: “If you want peace, prepare
for atomic war.” A persuasive Israeli conventional deterrent, at least to the extent that it might prevent a wide range of enemy conventional
attacks in the first place, could reduce Israel’s growing risk of escalatory exposure to nuclear war. In the always arcane lexicon of nuclear
strategy, a complex language that more-or-less intentionally mirrors the tangled coordinates of atomic war, Israel will need to maintain firm
control of “escalation dominance.” Otherwise, the Jewish state could find itself engaged in an elaborate but ultimately lethal pantomime of
international bluster and bravado. The reason for Israel’s obligation to control escalatory processes is conspicuous and unassailable. It is that
Jerusalem’s main enemies possess something that Israel can plainly never have: Mass. At some point, as nineteenth century Prussian military
thinker Carl von Clausewitz asserts in On War: “Mass counts.” Today, this is true even though Israel’s many enemies are in chaotic disarray.
Now, amid what Clausewitz had famously called “friction” and
the “fog of war,” it could become harder for Israel to
determine real and pertinent differences between its allies, and its adversaries. As an example, Jordan could soon
become vulnerable to advancing IS forces. Acknowledging this new vulnerability, an ironic question will come immediately to mind: Should
Israel support the Jordanian monarchy in such a fight? And if so, in what specific and safe operational forms? Similarly ironic questions may
need to be raised about Egypt, where the return to military dictatorship in the midst of surrounding Islamist chaos could eventually prove both
fragile and transient. Should President Abdel Fattah Sisi fail to hold things together, the ultimate victors could be not only the country’s own
Muslim Brotherhood, but also, in nearby Gaza, Palestinian Hamas. Seemingly, however, Hamas is already being targeted by Islamic State, a
potentially remorseless opposition suggesting, inter alia, that the principal impediment to Palestinian statehood is not really Israel, but another
Sunni Arab terrorist organization. Of course, it is not entirely out of the question that IS’s Egyptian offshoot, the so-called “Sinai Province of
Islamic State,” could sometime decide to cooperate with Hamas – the Islamic Resistance Movement – rather than plan to it. To
further
underscore the area’s multiple and cross-cutting axes of conflict, it is now altogether possible that if an IS
conquest of Sinai should spread to Gaza, President Sisi might then “invite” the IDF to strike on Egypt’s behalf. Among
other concerns, Egypt plainly fears that any prolonged inter-terrorist campaign inside Gaza could lead to a literal breaking down of border
fences, and an uncontrolled mass flight of Palestinians into neighboring Sinai. Credo quia absurdum. “I believe because it is absurd.” With such
peculiar facts in mind, why should Israel now sustain a conventional deterrent at all? Wouldn’t enemy states, at least those that were
consistently rational, steadfastly resist launching any conventional attacks upon Israel, for fear of inciting a nuclear reprisal? Here is a plausible
answer: suspecting that Israel would cross the nuclear threshold only in extraordinary circumstances, these national foes could be convinced,
rightly or wrongly, that as long as their initial attacks were to remain conventional, Israel’s response would remain reciprocally non-nuclear. By
simple extrapolation, this means that the only genuinely effective way for Israel to continually deter large-scale conventional war could be by
maintaining visibly capable and secure conventional options. As for Israel’s principal non-state adversaries, including Shi’ite Hezbollah and Sunni
IS, their own belligerent calculations would be detached from any assessments of Israeli nuclear capacity and intent. After all, whatever attacks
they might sometime decide to consider launching against the Jewish state, there could never be any decipherable nuclear response.
Nonetheless, these non-state jihadist foes are now arguably more threatening to Israel than most enemy national armies, including the regular
armed forces of Israel’s most traditional enemies – Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Some other noteworthy nuances now warrant mention. Any still-
rational Arab/ Islamic enemy states considering firststrike attacks against Israel using chemical and/or biological weapons would likely take
Israel’s nuclear deterrent more seriously. But a strong conventional capability would still be needed by Israel to deter or to preempt certain less
destructive conventional attacks, strikes that could escalate quickly and unpredictably to assorted forms of unconventional war. If Arab/Islamic
enemy states did not perceive any Israeli sense of expanding conventional force weakness, these belligerent countries, now animated by
credible expectations of an Israeli unwillingness to escalate to nonconventional weapons, could be more encouraged to attack. The net result
here could be: 1) defeat of Israel in a conventional war; 2) defeat of Israel in an unconventional (chemical/biological/ nuclear) war; 3) defeat of
Israel in a combined conventional/unconventional war; or 4) defeat of Arab/Islamic enemy states by Israel in an unconventional war. For Israel,
even the presumptively “successful” fourth possibility could prove too costly. Perceptions are vitally important in all calculations of nuclear
deterrence. By continuing to keep every element of its nuclear armaments and doctrine “opaque,” Israel could
unwittingly contribute to the injurious impression among its regional enemies that Jerusalem’s nuclear weapons
were unusable. Unconvinced of Israel’s willingness to actually employ its nuclear weapons, these
enemies could then decide to accept the cost-effectiveness of striking first. With any such acceptance,
Israeli nuclear deterrence will have failed. If enemy states should turn out to be correct in their
calculations, Israel could find itself overrun , and thereby rendered subject to potentially existential harms. If they had
been incorrect, many states in the region, including even Israel, could eventually suffer the assorted
consequences of multiple nuclear weapons detonations. Within the directly affected areas, thermal radiation,
nuclear radiation and blast damage would then spawn uniquely high levels of death and devastation .
 2AC 5 – Semiconductor Not Key
This is the same argument as 2AC 1 and 2. Refer above.
 2AC 6 – NUQ

1. No – their ev just says there’s conflicts, that’s consistent with our 1NC UQ card that
says Schumer’s figuring out the details and ceding to Republican concerns. That’s
Leonard.
2. It passes this month
Flatley 4/13 [Daniel; Bloomberg; 4-13-21; "Schumer Aims for Vote to Boost U.S. Chip Industry This
Month"; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-13/schumer-aims-for-vote-to-boost-u-s-
chip-industry-this-month; accessed 4-17-21; PAC]

The Senate will act this month on legislation to boost domestic semiconductor manufacturing and U.S.
competitiveness with China, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Schumer said that he intends to get a vote on a package of legislation, named the American
Competitiveness Act, in the coming weeks. It includes key components of President Joe Biden’s agenda
that have some bipartisan support.

Action to increase U.S. chip production has support among both Dem ocrats and Republicans in Congress
and from Biden amid a global shortage of semiconductors that are vital to products from telephones to
cars and trucks. The U.S. still leads the world in chip design, but manufacturing has largely been ceded to
foreign firms.

Biden, who met with more than a dozen chief executives from companies affected, included $50 billion
for semiconductor manufacturing and research in his $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan. Many lawmakers
want that funding as part of a standalone package aimed at countering China’s growing economic clout
that may have a quicker path through Congress.

The legislation will include Schumer’s bill with Indiana Republican Senator Todd Young that would
overhaul the National Science Foundation and allocate $100 billion over five years to strengthen
research and development in tech, computing, artificial intelligence, manufacturing and other areas. A
version of the legislation introduced last year would also allocate an additional $10 billion to establish
regional research hubs.

3. Broad bipartisan support now

Sarlin and Kapur 3/21 [Benjy, policy editor; Sahil, national political reporter; NBC News; "Why China
may be the last bipartisan issue left in Washington"; https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/why-
china-may-be-last-bipartisan-issue-left-washington-n1261407; accessed 4-14-21; PAC]

The politics, abetted by agreement on China's bad behavior, tilt toward bipartisan action.

"The prospects of getting a deal done are very high," said Zack Cooper, a research fellow and expert on
U.S.-China relations at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "China policy is the one last
bastion of bipartisan policy on the national security side."
Cooper said that Republicans agree with Schumer's three goals but that there may be some differences,
such as that some GOP lawmakers want to spend more on defense or that some Democrats want to give
the state a larger role in the domestic market.

Election-year politics have impeded cooperation in the past. Democrats declined to join a House GOP
committee on China last year, out of fear, reports said, that it would be a vehicle to excuse the
administration's coronavirus response.

Trump often played up his confrontation with China's leadership over trade and withdrew from the
World Health Organization over objections to China's influence, a decision Biden reversed. Democrats,
including Schumer, attacked Trump for not pushing China harder on certain trade issues and for
downplaying human rights concerns.

But Democrats and Republicans approved new support for semiconductor manufacturers in a defense
bill that passed last year, an issue Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Mark Warner, D-Va., have made a
focus.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has sponsored a variety of China-related bills, some with Democrats, including
one with Merkley aimed at blocking goods made by forced Uyghur labor, one to provide incentives for
mining for rare earth minerals and one to block certain Chinese companies from accessing U.S. capital.

"Addressing China's threat to our nation is certainly an area where we should be able to come to an
agreement," Rubio said in a statement. Referring to the Chinese Communist Party, he said, "A truly
bipartisan bill would push back against the CCP's misdeeds, protect against its exploitation of American
openness, and invest in the capacity we need to compete."

4. Bipartisan and White House support drives semiconductor fix

Leonard et al 4/13 [Jenny; Keith Laing; Josh Wingrove; Bloomberg; Fortune; "In call with CEOs, Biden
doubles down on a $50 billion plan to invest in chips"; https://fortune.com/2021/04/13/in-call-with-
ceos-biden-doubles-down-50-billion-plan-invest-chips/; accessed 4-16-21; PAC]

President Joe Biden told companies vying with each other for a sharply constrained global supply of
semiconductors that he has bipartisan support for government funding to address a shortage that has
idled automakers worldwide.

During a White House meeting with more than a dozen chief executive officers on Monday, Biden read
from a letter from 23 senators and 42 House members backing his proposal for $50 billion for
semiconductor manufacturing and research.

“Both sides of the aisle are strongly supportive of what we’re proposing and where I think we can really
get things done for the American people,” Biden said. “Now let me quote from the letter. It says, ‘The
Chinese Communist Party is aggressively -- plans to reorient and dominate the semiconductor supply
chain,’ and it goes into how much money will be they’re pouring into being able to do that.”

Chief executives including General Motors Co. CEO Mary Barra, Ford Motor Co. CEO James D. Farley, Jr.,
and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet and Google participated in the virtual summit.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the meeting showed the administration is serious about
addressing supply-chain constraints and softening the blow for affected companies and workers.
 2AC 7 – SAFE
1. about deregulation – not weed – that’s obviously popular – NOT weed, which
republican donors hate.

2. only says there’ll be debates in the house, senate vote is uncertain and unlikely any
time soon – doesn’t apply and reject it.
 2AC 8 – Biden PC Not Key
Who cares – our DA is about Schumer NOT biden’s PC.

The plan shatters bipartisan momentum for the China Bill – Republicans are
predisposed to want to
1) Focus – shoving CJR through committees actively crafting China bills means
McConnell calls it liberal wish fulfillment and goes back to full obstruction mode –
independently turns case because Senate shenanigans dilutes the signal – that’s
Leonard
2) Prison gerrymandering means that it gets tied to electoral reforms which they can’t
support
Pfaff 18 (John Pfaff, Professor of Law @ Fordham University, “Why today’s criminal justice reform
efforts won’t end mass incarceration,” 12/21/18, American Magazine,
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/12/21/why-todays-criminal-justice-reform-
efforts-wont-end-mass-incarceration, TM)

Or consider the impact of “prison gerrymandering.” When drawing legislative districts, 44 states count
prisoners as residing in their prison, not their prior home—but do not let them vote. All across the
country, state and local legislators know that a decline in prison population means a decline in their
district’s population for election purposes, putting their seats at risk of redistricting. Moreover, there is
a particularly stark partisan bent to this distortion. Prisoners are disproportionately people of color from
cities, which suggests they are disproportionately Democrats. Prisons are increasingly located in more
conservative rural areas. This “prison gerrymandering” thus inflates Republican statehouse
representation while simultaneously suppressing Democratic turnout, creating a powerful partisan
resistance to deep changes. All of these responses are perfectly rational. Yet so far, no effort has been
made to address these and other defects that politicians and various interest groups exploit. Reform
efforts have opted to capitalize on favorable conditions (low crime, high prison populations, soaring
costs) to push reform bills through the same broken system that gave us mass incarceration and mass
punishment in the first place. As long as these political incentives remain in place, it will not take much
of a rise in crime, whatever its causes, to see reforms start to crumble.

3) CEAs – require simple majority – links to politics

The Editors Of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Last Edited 06-05-2016, "Congressional-executive
agreement," Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/congressional-executive-
agreement, accessed 4/19/21, AW

Congressional-executive agreement, binding agreement between the United States and a foreign country that is easier to
enact than a formal treaty but is technically more limited in scope. Although both treaties and congressional-executive
agreements are international agreements, the two are legally distinct instruments. For instance, congressional-executive
agreements cannot address matters that are outside the scope of the enumerated powers of Congress
and the president (those powers expressly granted to Congress and the president in Article I, Section 8, and in Article II, Section 2,
respectively, of the U.S. Constitution), whereas treaties can. In addition, according to the Constitution, a treaty is ratified only if at least two-
thirds of the Senate votes in favour of it. By contrast, a
congressional-executive agreement becomes binding with
only a simple majority in both houses of Congress. Congressional-executive agreements should not be confused with
executive agreements, which are concluded by the president alone. In part because the enumerated powers of Congress and the president
have been interpreted broadly, most agreements that are proposed as treaties could also have been proposed as congressional-executive
agreements. For that reason, the
U.S. government has frequently chosen to use congressional-executive
agreements rather than treaties for controversial agreements that are unlikely to gain the required
supermajority in the Senate. Examples of contentious proposals addressed in the form of congressional-
executive agreements include the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the agreement whereby the United
States became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995.

4) Senate Republicans are unified in opposition to legalization

Jaeger 20 – Marijuana Moment's Los Angeles-based associate editor. His work has also appeared in
High Times, VICE and attn. (Kyle, 05/14/20, “Mitch McConnell And Other GOP Lawmakers Slam
Marijuana Banking Provisions In Coronavirus Bill,” https://www.marijuanamoment.net/mitch-
mcconnell-and-other-gop-lawmakers-slam-marijuana-banking-provisions-in-coronavirus-bill/) np

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) complained in a floor speech on Thursday that House Democrats
were pushing for “diversity detectives” to study equity in the marijuana industry as part of their latest
coronavirus relief package. Like several other GOP legislators in recent days, the majority leader said Democrats were
making partisan demands in the new legislation filed this week—and he zeroed in on a specific part of a section that
would protect banks that service cannabis businesses from being penalized by federal regulators. McConnell called language requiring research
on minority-owned and women-owned marijuana businesses “the cherry on top” and sarcastically referred to it as the “bold new policy from
Washington Democrats that will kick the coronavirus to the curb and save American families from this crisis.” “Here it is: new annual studies on
diversity and inclusion within the cannabis industry. Not one study but two of them,” he said. “Let me say that again, Democrats’ proposed
coronavirus bill includes taxpayer-funded studies to measure diversity and inclusion among the people who profit off of marijuana.” He added
that the word “cannabis” appears in the bill 68 times. That’s “more times than the word ‘job’ and four times as many as the word ‘hire,'” he
said. That
talking point has been echoed by a number of Republican lawmakers since House leadership
unveiled their bill, indicating some level of party coordination on the anti-marijuana messaging. Despite the
bluster, however, no GOP members filed amendments to strike the banking language prior to a Thursday House Rules Committee hearing to
prepare the bill for floor action. Notably, however, McConnell never criticized the main thrust of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE)
Banking Act, just the study provision. “Maybe it’s best if House Democrats focus on cannabis studies and leave economics to the rest of us,” he
said, adding that even if the legislation was designed to be a messaging bill, it fails at that. “That’s what’s so remarkable,” he said. “House
Democrats had a blank slate to write anything wanted to define the modern Democratic Party, any vision for the society they wanted, and
here’s what they chose: tax hikes on small businesses, giveaways to blue state millionaires, government checks for illegal immigrants and
sending diversity detectives to inspect the pot industry.” McConnell, who is a strong advocate for hemp and held closed-door meetings with
marijuana businesses in California last year, never said in his floor remarks that he’s against providing protections for banks that work with the
cannabis industry—the main point of the SAFE Banking Act that made it into the coronavirus bill. That could have something to do with the fact
that the standalone legislation—which includes the diversity study provisions—in his chamber currently has five Republican cosponsors,
including Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and fellow Kentuckian Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). Slamming a bill outright that Gardner, who is facing a serious
reelection threat this November, has championed might not be the most strategic political move to help maintain GOP control of the chamber
going into next year. Staff running the Senate Republican Conference’s Twitter account appeared to recognize that on Tuesday. After listing the
banking provision as an example of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) “political-pipe-dream” in the COVID-19 relief bill, Marijuana Moment’s
publisher replied that they must not care about Gardner’s reelection bid. The tweet was then promptly deleted. The House passed the SAFE
Banking Act along largely bipartisan lines last year, with 91 Republicans joining most Democrats in voting aye. That strong support could help
explain why no amendments were filed to remove the banking language in the Rules Committee, with members who might want to strike it
acknowledging that the effort would likely fail. Since the bill’s passage, Gardner has been involved in negotiations to reach a deal with Senate
Banking Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-ID) on advancing the legislation in his chamber. He said earlier this year that an agreement was
“close.” But based
on various social media posts and statements by House and Senate Republicans, the
prospects of enacting cannabis banking reform through the House’s latest iteration of COVID-19 relief legislation are
questionable, with numerous GOP lawmakers issuing seemingly coordinated criticism of those provisions
and questioning their germaneness. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said in a floor speech on Wednesday that the coronavirus bill
“actually sets up a series of changes in our federal cannabis laws, which immediately I thought of, okay, how much information is in this bill by
cannabis?” “Cannabis is actually mentioned in this bill 68 times. Now, i’m not sure why that’s in a bill dealing with COVID-19, but it does
dramatic changes in our federal cannabis laws,” he said. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) made similar points on the floor, stating that “Speaker
Pelosi’s bill is very pro-cannabis.” “I don’t know how the presiding officer feels about cannabis—that is your business—but it is controversial in
the U.S. Senate,” he said. “I think it mentions cannabis something like 28 times.” In a blog post on Thursday, GOP
Senate leadership
characterized the marijuana provision and other items of the House leadership’s bill as part of an
“expensive, unserious wish list” and said the legislation is a “spending spree stuffed with a wish list filled
up with all the party’s favored policies.” Here are some other GOP reactions to the marijuana banking proposal:

[tweets have been excluded]

If the House ultimately passes the legislation as is, which could happen as soon as Friday, it’s become increasingly evident
that the cannabis components will face challenges when it gets to the GOP-controlled Senate.

5) Congressional weed reform empirically requires nuanced debate and tons of

floortime to overcome long-standing partisan differences
Krane 19 - co-founder and president of 4Front, a leading investment and operations firm in the legal cannabis
industry. Kris has had the opportunity to work on regulatory and business strategy with cannabis business
operators across the United States and globally, and he is a frequent speaker at cannabis industry conferences and
events around the world. He has spent 20 years working in the cannabis industry. Prior to his work at 4Front, Chris
worked in Washington to reform our nation’s misguided drug and marijuana laws, first as Associate Director of the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and then as Executive Director of Students for
Sensible Drug Policy. (Kris, “Congressional Marijuana Hearing Highlights Fault Line In Legalization
Debate.” Forbes. June 22, 2019. DOA: July 19, 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kriskrane/2019/07/22/congressional-marijuana-hearing-highlights-fault-line-in-
legalization-debate/#19740e4e17ea)//MGalian

On July 10, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing entitled
“Marijuana Laws in America: Racial Justice and the Need for Reform.” While one subcommittee hearing hardly
guarantees imminent reform of cannabis laws at the federal level, the historic nature of this hearing
can’t be overstated. While Congress has held hearings over the years on marijuana-related issues, mostly on the issue of medical
marijuana or concerns over harms associated with the plant, this is the first hearing to focus exclusively on legalization. But perhaps the
most significant thing to come from this hearing is how it laid bare the new, more nuanced debate over
legalization. The question is no longer if the United States should legalize cannabis, but how to legalize. Given the title of the hearing, it is
no surprise that the majority party witnesses focused mostly on how communities of color have been disproportionately targeted for arrest
under cannabis prohibition, and how that has saddled a generation of young people of color with criminal records that impact their ability to
secure gainful employment, access public assistance benefits, and obtain financial aid to attend college. Much of the hearing was about how
cannabis legalization should take into account how to provide these residents of these communities with opportunities in the emerging legal
cannabis industry. “The data indicates that the disparate enforcement of marijuana laws and overall drug laws not only intensifies already
existing racial disparities in the criminal justice system, but exacerbates distrust among communities and law enforcement without increasing
overall public safety,” said Marilyn Mosby, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore, in her testimony. Malik Burnett, a physician at Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health and a former federal policy manager at the Drug Policy Alliance, argued: “In one America there are men and
women, most of them wealthy, white and well connected, who are starting cannabis companies, creating jobs and amassing significant
personal wealth, and generating billions in tax dollars for the states which sanction cannabis programs. In the other America, there are men and
women, most of them poor, people of color, who are arrested and suffer the collateral consequences associated with criminal conviction.” Dr.
David Nathan, who serves as 4Front's Chief Medical Advisor, also provided testimony on behalf of the group he helped found, Doctors for
Cannabis Regulation. Perhaps the most surprising part of the hearing was that the “opposition witness” selected by the Republican minority
was not a usual go to prohibitionist like Project SAM’s Kevin Sabet or drug testing profiteer Peter Benzinger, but Neal Levine, CEO of the
Cannabis Trade Federation (CTF), a cannabis industry trade association pushing for wide ranging cannabis policy reforms at the federal level.
Make no mistake, Neal Levine is no prohibitionist. Neal worked for more than a decade at the Marijuana Policy Project, played a key role in the
ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Nevada in 2016, and worked for Colorado cannabis giant LivWell before forming CTF. The
fact that
Neal Levine was chosen as the opposition witness highlights the true political divide today in the debate
over reforming cannabis laws at the federal level. While the majority witnesses spent their time arguing that cannabis
legalization needs to address issues like social equity and justice reinvestment, Levine focused on the need to pass the STATES Act, a bipartisan
bill that would exempt states that have chosen to legalize cannabis in some form from penalties under the Controlled Substances Act. To be
fair, Levine acknowledged the racial disparities in cannabis arrests and resulting harm to communities of color, while he attempted to make a
pragmatic argument that the STATES Act is the only bill with a realistic chance of passing both houses of Congress and being signed by the
president. This
debate was echoed among members of both parties, with many Democratic members of Congress
arguing that any meaningful federal reform must include provisions that address the disproportionate
impact of prohibition on communities of color. But some Republican members of the committee were
less enthusiastic about this line of argument. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), who has sponsored a budget rider that would
prevent the federal government from enforcing marijuana laws against state-licensed businesses, acknowledged that marijuana reform “may
be one of the very few issues upon which bipartisan agreement can still be reached in this session.” But he criticized
Democratic
leadership as having decided “to play the race card in this hearing” by putting racial and restorative
justice front and center, claiming “the left does enormous harm every time it tries to divide Americans
along racial lines.” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), agreed, stating that his “deep concern is that concerns over how far to
go on some of the restorative elements in our policy could divide our movement. ” Essentially, McClintock,
Gaetz and some of their colleagues are making the argument that focusing on helping those most impacted by prohibition
would divide Congress along racial lines and prevent progress on this issue, so it’s best to ignore the racial
injustices of prohibition and focus on something that can pass, even if that bill does little to help those who have paid the heaviest price in the
War on Drugs. Attorney Mosby countered, taking direct aim at the STATES Act by arguing that “we need to reinvest in those
individuals and those communities that have been disproportionately impacted. The STATES Act does
not do that, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m opposed to it.” Mosby’s comments reflect a growing
consensus among progressive legislators and members of the Black and Latino Caucuses that they will not support
legalization without restorative justice. Presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) typified this evolution earlier this year
when he refused to sign on as a cosponsor to the STATES Act, despite having sponsored previous versions, stating “ At this point it’s
too obvious and urgent and unfair that we’re moving something on marijuana on the federal level and it
doesn’t do something on restorative justice. I want that bill to have some acknowledgement of the
savage injustices that the marijuana prohibition has done to communities.” For those who have been following efforts at the state level
to legalize marijuana, this should all sound a bit familiar. Concerns around racial justice issues were major sticking
points in the recent legalization debates in New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In New Jersey, concerns over the
threshold for record expungements played a critical role in that bill failing to pass , with progressive
Democrats pushing for expansive expungement provisions while more moderate Democrats and
Republicans wanted this provision to apply only to low level possession conventions . In New York and New
Jersey in particular, legalization garnered very little Republican support, so Democrats could not afford to lose votes among moderate members
of their own caucus, making these debates largely the difference between a bill’s passage or failure. ; Thanks in large part to the efforts of
advocacy organizations like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the Marijuana Policy Project, Students for Sensible
Drug Policy, and the Drug Policy Alliance, and the lobbying efforts of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, there is a growing
understanding among Congressional Democrats about the argument for a racial-justice-focused approach to legalization. This calls into
question Neal Levine’s argument that the STATES Act is the only legislation that could pass both houses. Much like Sen. Booker, many
Democratic members of Congress have stated publicly that they will not support marijuana reform that doesn’t address social equity and
restorative justice. Progressive icon Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year tweeted, “ You can’t separate marijuana
legalization from the injustices of the War on Drugs. If you do, those who profit from private prisons can get another payday w/ marijuana. $ is
a justice issue. Communities decimated by mass incarceration need to see investments w/ legalization.” Many in the cannabis reform
community have told me they do not believe the STATES Act could pass the House of Representatives today, with some confiding that staffers
for Democratic leadership have acknowledged that the STATES Act might not get a single vote from the
progressive, black, or Latino caucuses in the House due to its lack of any provisions addressing social
equity. Legalizing cannabis at the federal level and dismantling nearly a century-long prohibition
establishment was never going to be easy. Before federal legalization became a politically viable issue, it was easy for
reformers to band together to argue in favor of regulation over prohibition. But now that we’re engaged in a genuine debate
over not only whether to legalize, but how, real decisions have to be made about what the parameters of
that legalization framework will look like. There will be more hotly debated issues to come, like excise
taxes, production and packaging standards, and questions over interstate and international commerce. For the
moment at least, it is clear that the issue legislators, activists, and industry leaders all need to find common ground on is how they are going to
work together to right some of the most egregious wrongs of prohibition as we finally put an end to this disastrous domestic policy and move
us forward into a post-prohibition world.

6) Partisanship guarantees fights- former house leader says there’s not enough unity
over weed reform
Jaeger 19 - Marijuana Moment's Los Angeles-based associate editor. His work has also appeared in High Times,
VICE and attn. (Kyle, “Former House GOP Leader Says Partisanship May Sink Marijuana Reform.” Marijuana
Moment. September 5, 2019. DOA: July 17, 2020. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/former-house-gop-leader-
says-partisanship-may-sink-marijuana-reform/)//MGalian

Former GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said on Thursday that partisanship in Congress makes it
unlikely that marijuana will be federally legalized, even as he acknowledged that more members of his party support a
states’ rights approach to the issue. During an appearance on CNBC, Cantor was asked whether he thinks federal
legalization is on the horizon, but the former second highest ranking Republican in the House expressed
doubts about the prospect. “I think right now the issue of lack of bipartisanship is going to flow over into this,”
he said. “I think the comment that there is some kind of agreement on states’ rights, I’m not so sure.” “ I know on my side of the aisle
there would be that sort of directional trend [in favor of letting states set their own cannabis policies],
but I’m not so sure there’s enough unity on even this issue,” he said. “Also, given the just opposition to
cannabis in general, I’m not so sure this is an easy lift for Congress at all ,” he added, referencing comments made by
former Food and Drug Administration Commission Scott Gottlieb expressing disapproval of CBD products. But while partisanship,
especially in a divided Congress, has arguably derailed plenty of recent legislation, marijuana reform stands out as
an issue that has garnered particular bipartisan support. That’s especially true of a bill from Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) and Elizabeth Warren (D-
MA) that would simply allow states to implement legal cannabis systems without federal intervention. President Donald Trump said earlier this
year that he “really” supports that legislation and he reiterated last week that his administration is permitting states to set their own cannabis
agendas. Another piece of bipartisan cannabis legislation that would shield banks from being punished by federal regulators for servicing
marijuana businesses has 206 cosponsors in the House—more than a third of the chamber’s members. Twenty-six Republicans are signed on.
“If Eric Cantor was in touch with political reality, he would still be an elected official,” Justin Strekal, political director of NORML, said of the
former congressman, who lost his reelection bid during a primary upset in 2014. “I suggest that anyone who wasted their time listening to
Cantor’s words dismiss them promptly.” “Blaming partisanship is a typical and tired trope from hack commentators on cable news when they
don’t know anything about a policy,” Strekal told Marijuana Moment. During his more than 10 years in Congress, Cantor
did not
sponsor or cosponsor any marijuana reform legislation. And in his final year, he voted against
amendments to legalize industrial hemp , protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized and
allowing doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs to recommend medical cannabis.

7) Dems guarantee the plan would take up tons of floor time- a stagnant congress and
McConnell’s hesitancy guarantee fights
Adams 19 – a journalism on the cannabis scene for the past six years. His work has appeared in Playboy’s
Smoking Jacket, Mashable, Salon, and the New York Daily News. (Mike, “Sorry, Congress Probably Isn’t Going To
Legalize Marijuana This Year.” Forbes. November 19, 2019. DOA: July 17, 2020.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeadams/2019/11/19/sorry-congress-probably-isnt-going-to-legalize-marijuana-
this-year/#52c04fc93ac1)//MGalian

If you stick your head out the window and listen carefully, you will hear the shrieks, screams and howls of the cannabis community. In
spite
of the go-nowhere year that the United States has suffered concerning marijuana reform, a lot of these
folks are still convinced that we have a fighting chance at legalizing the leaf before the end of the year. This optimism isn’t
entirely their fault, however, as some reports to surface over the past couple of days have sort of suggested that prohibition here in the Land of
the Free is as good as dead. They’re all riled up because the word on the street is that a key Congressional committee is set to make a historic
vote later this week on a measure aimed at removing cannabis from the confines of the Controlled Substances Act. And if that happens, well,
weed would finally be legal nationwide similar to alcohol. What’s
going on is that the House Judiciary Committee is set
to debate a cannabis-related bill called the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment, and Expungement (MORE) Act. This
proposal, which currently has an impressive 55 cosponsors, is designed “to decriminalize and deschedule cannabis, to
provide for reinvestment in certain persons adversely impacted by the War on Drugs, to provide for expungement of
certain cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.” The bill would basically allow states to set up their own marijuana laws
without catching any heat from the federal government. And, in a lot of ways, the bill shows promise in achieving the latest goals of the
cannabis trade. Small-time pot offenders, for example, could get their criminal records wiped clean under this legislation if it were to become
law. The bill would also establish funding through a 5 percent tax on cannabis sales to repair the countless communities ravaged by drug war
shenanigans. Taking it a step further, getting this sucker on the books would eventually make it impossible for law enforcement agencies to
continue busting hundreds of thousands of people each year for simple possession. By
all accounts, it’s a decent bill, and it may
even deserve a fair shot from the boys and girls of Congress. The
only problem is, while this proposal might be well-received when it
goes before the committee on Wednesday, the chances of it going the distance – that is to say, for it to become law before 2019
comes to a screeching halt – are slim to none. Maybe even less than that. Why is that, you ask? Well, it’s simple really.
Because we’re still dealing with the same Congress that has been failing at pot reform since the start of
2019. Sure, the Democratic-controlled House has done an admirable job getting the cannabis issue more
floor time than any other Congress in history. But the Senate is still so stagnant on weed that it would
take a Christmas miracle for the MORE Act (or any other cannabis-related measure) to so much as
receive a second of its consideration. It’s not that I’m trying to be a downer and spoil everyone’s high hopes. But it’s difficult
to avoid being pessimistic. Because how quickly we have forgotten about the great green hope known as the Secure and Fair
Enforcement (SAFE) Act. This piece of legislation, which was the pride and joy of the pot scene, was intended to give financial institutions
permission from Uncle Sam to do business with the cannabis industry. The SAFE Act is a modest proposal since it really does
nothing to further the agenda of the marijuana movement. It doesn’t make weed any more legal
anywhere in the country, nor does it make changes to the prohibition standard we’ve got going on in the U.S. of A. All this bill
would do is make banks prosecution proof for accepting money generated through the growing and
selling of marijuana. And because of that, more cannabis companies would be permitted to establish bank accounts. That’s it, nothing
more. And while this measure was pushed through earlier this year by the House, it remains in a dark
closet somewhere in the upper chamber waiting for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to shake the dust
off. Considering that McConnell is still on the fence about weed – even if it is just so the industry can move past their piggy bank ways — there
is a distinct possibility that it might not get put to a vote anytime in the near future. Therefore, as much as it is a positive that Congress is finally
talking about ending marijuana prohibition in the United States, there
still isn’t enough of a unified effort on Capitol Hill
to actually get it done. There just isn’t. I hate to be the bearer of bad news this close to the holidays, but Congress isn’t going
to legalize marijuana this week or even this year . The best shot this nation has at seeing a turning point will depend on the
outcome of the 2020 election. Until then, passing cannabis-related legislation through the House only to have it
ignored in the Senate is just a sad game of pitch and catch — one where some bratty kid runs off and
hides the ball so no one else can play.
 2AC 9 – Thumpers
1. Totally irrelevant---they’ve conceded uniqueness---priced in, their ev is about
house---ours says house already passed china bill, it’s about the senate---AND our ev
says it’s top of the docket, and they’ve overcome other substantive issues---framed by
link because the plan’s an unexpected sinker.
2. Plan’s distinct – it’s a random add on that sinks the bill
Herb et al 3/24 [Jeremy; Lauren Fox; Phil Mattingly; CNN; "Republicans and Democrats have found
one thing they can all rally around: Curbing China's influence";
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/24/politics/congress-china-economic-influence-
bipartisanship/index.html; accessed 4-14-21; PAC]

There's still a long way to go. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said China was ripe for a
bipartisan agreement in a Senate floor speech, but he also warned Democrats the bill should not
become a liberal wish list and argued that increased defense spending -- not likely to be part of this
package -- was a "crucial first step" to confronting China.

"The Democratic majority must resist the temptation to pile a long list of unrelated policy wishes into a
big package and try to label it 'China policy,'" McConnell said. "It would be quite a remarkable
coincidence if our Democratic colleagues' vision for a so-called China bill ends up indistinguishable from
a list of things that just happen to delight liberal interest groups."

3. Top of the docket---no link to thumpers---fiat means the plan supercedes, but other
issues are pushed back.
Leonard and Flatley 4/1 [Jenny; Daniel; Bloomberg; "Congress Weighs Countering China on Chips,
But GOP Wary of Cost"; originally written 3-31-21, updated 4-1-21;
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-01/congress-weighs-countering-china-on-chips-as-
cost-makes-gop-wary; accessed 4-14-21; PAC]

More than half a dozen committees are writing their portions of the legislation and the plan is to
introduce the package next month.

Biden is supportive of that spending, and his White House has been engaged with lawmakers and
foreign governments on the shortfall. The White House has also held discussions on the China-related
provisions with several members of the House and Senate, including Young, an administration official
pointed out.

The official said there may be some areas where Congress is able to move more quickly because
lawmakers have already teed up certain pieces of legislation and the White House would encourage
those efforts.

4. No ev for any of these---new 2NR cards

 AT: Immigration
Biden’s delaying immigration.
Rodriguez 2-1-2021 (Sabrina, "House leadership to keep path to citizenship out of Covid relief
package", POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/covid-package-citizenship-path-
immigration-464607)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not plan to include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
essential workers, Dreamers and Temporary Protected Status recipients as part of an upcoming
coronavirus relief package, despite calls from Democrats and immigrant advocates to do so.

“President Biden proposed comprehensive immigration reform, which includes protections for frontline
immigrant workers, separate from his Covid relief plan, and we expect that to therefore have separate
consideration,” a House Democratic leadership aide told POLITICO on Monday afternoon.

House leadership’s plan to keep a pathway to citizenship for undocumented essential workers on a
separate track from its massive coronavirus relief package is a blow for Democrats and immigrant
advocates looking for immediate opportunities to move reform forward quickly.
 AT: DOJ
1. not controversial – people get nominated all the time, there isn’t controversial
debates.
 AT: Gun Reform Thumper---2NC/1NR
Doesn’t thump—Biden’s not using any PC.
Reston, 4/8 – Political reporter at CNN ( Maeve, ‘Biden turns to limited executive actions on gun
control with Congress at a standstill’, April 8 2021, https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/08/politics/joe-
biden-guns-executive-actions/index.html )//hecht
Democratic members of Congress held strategy sessions late last month to explore the most viable steps they could take on gun control, hoping to use public
outrage about those recent shootings as a catalyst for legislative progress. Biden made his own plea to Congress not to wait "another" minute to take "common
sense steps that will save lives." But once again Democrats' chances for success will hinge on the cooperation of West Virginia
Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who appears to be relishing his role as the lynchpin of virtually every legislative endeavor in the 50-50 divided Senate. At this

juncture, it
remains unclear how much political capital either Biden or Manchin are willing to devote to
gun control at a time when the nation is distracted by the pandemic, vaccine distribution, the economic
recovery and Biden's massive infrastructure bill, which is the administration's primary focus at the
moment.