WMLDL in GR -- Notes and Bill Analysis

We have five bills to date, and one more coming from Otsego. They are all interesting, each showing an increasing sophistication in the bill writers.

Our meet Wednesday will have 40+ students, so obviously we will meet in two chambers.

The other aspect will be a new ballot for judging. We will give up some of the finer points for ease of scoring. More on this tomorrow.

And now for the Bills.

Bill No. 1 -- Taxing Bottled Water (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Bottled water is not only convenient, but also poses several problems: the bottles stack up as extra trash; the water that is extracted from aquifers and springs often leaves the watershed from where it was drawn; and that the water sometimes little more than simply repackaged city water. Obviously, by taxing water the intent is for there to be less use -- or is it to be simply an easy way to nick consumers for the Federal Budget? There is definitely an issue or issues here. The question most immediately would be whether this is to be considered a federal one. Control of bottled water flows from exercise of the commerce clause -- presumably with this bill no other state regulation could supercede it.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill enforces a sales tax to be paid by the manufacturer/importer, so presumably at the wholesale level. A fair question may be whether the money raised should go back to the general fund (and so reduce deficit spending), or should it go to some designated program (e.g. helping with water conservation). This is worth exploring.
  
  
• Clash. Much depends on where the money goes. If it is going to the general fund, then we are nicking some consumers for the benefit of all. Issue # 1: Is it better to have some pay a tax, or all? That is, what makes a tax just or fair? Issue # 2: When does something become a federal problem? What is the best level for addressing social problems? The general rule is to have the lowest level of government possible address the issue (i.e. local first, then state, finally fed). How does that rule play out here? Perhaps the nature of the problem is such that it requires a large, national focus. Or maybe not.

Bil No. 2 -- A Bill to Mandate Ethanol be Added to Gasoline (Sen. Cross, Jackson Western)

• Overview. Ethanol additive has been one of the keep measures for weaning the country away from its oil dependence. The program has certainly been embraced by farmers, however others note that the net energy savings may be close to nothing, given that we still have to expend energy in the harvesting of the corn and other plants. There are important articles today in the New York Times on the use of ethanol, and the unintended impact. The bill basically taps into the concern for energy independence and support for American agriculture. The downside of ethanol is well established, and offers plenty of opportunity to bring forward the science and implications of its use (e.g. higher prices on all other uses of corn, including meat, milk, beer and foreign aid). Is it worth it? That depends on what problem you see ethanol solving.
  
  
• Instrumental. As was pointed out in discussion, the first Article is very confused. Who exactly is being regulated? Is it the retail environment? Or is it the supplier/refiner? The altter would be eaiser to regulate. In any case, this needs clarification. Adding to the confusion is what the 30% in Article I refers to -- presumably, the bill seeks to mandate that 30 percent of available gasoline be e85. Suggested Amendment -- modify Article I to bring into line with intentions of Senator Cross.
  
  
• Clash. There are several large issues just under the surface here. Nominally, the bill is about energy independence. Issue #1 Behind lies the issue of how we reduce carbon footprints. Is this the best way? Rather than focus on independence think of this as a bill on how to be more economical with our use of carbon. Are there other ways that we can decrease our reliance on carbon-based fuels? Issue #2 Take the issue of independence. What does that mean in this globalized world? Can the United States be independent? Or, can we afford not to be independent? What is the best path for our country? Here, "ethanol" is a stand in for all those other issues.

Bill No. 3 -- Bill to Assure Birth Control Access (Helmer, Weitzel, Ionia)

• Overview. The heart of this bill touches on a fairly controversial topic: should insurance companies be required to provide birth control pills as part of their coverage? As the bill points out, hormone-based birth control can have other beneficial effects. It is important to keep in mind that drugs used for male conditions (see Viagra) are generally covered in these plans. Here is an account of a recent court case. The question of birth control also touches on abortion -- some opponents believe hormone-based birth control can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, and thus the drugs act as an abortifacent. The Catholic Church has also condemned the use of artificial birth control, and so some very observant Catholics hold that mandating birth control coverage is an impermissible infringement on religion. This debate may get very hot.
  
  
• Instrumental. Generally tight. Section 4 however allows Health Insurance companies to increase premiums by 10 percent to cover women. What if birth control pills are cheaper? Then the ten percent cap simply becomes added profit for the firm. A case of unintended consequence. Section 4 could be deleted with little harm.
  
  
• Clash. Section 4 is one of the areas to keep an eye on. If the federal government can mandate a profit margin for birth control, then why can't it simply set the price for health care generally? Should the federal government be intervening at all in the setting of prices? You may want to ask if we shouldn't just leave it to the market. So Issue #1 will be that of regulation vs. the market. Good arguments on both sides. Issue #2 is that of feminism: how are women to be treated equitably? This bill can be read as an assertion of human rights. For women, birth control is matter of freedom. So then you may argue for it as a matter of freedom. Issue # 3, as noted above will be about the regulation of morality. For a significant portion of the population, birth control involves some deeply held moral beliefs (not least, that the provision of birth control works against the family). This is very controversial -- it will challenge you to understand the other side while arguing for (or against) conviction).

Bill No. 4 -- Firearm Permits for Qualified Classroom Teachers (Miliman, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Guns in the classroom -- this will seem very odd to many. But the instance of the armed guard at the Colorado church stopping a would be shooter does seem to justify some right to carry arms. States across the country have different standards about carrying concealed weapons. Some allow it anywhere unless prohibited; others (like Michigan) prohibit it in certain places like schools, churches. In the past few years we have seen a definites loosening of standards. The bill at hand permits teachers to carry a weapon, but only if they are fully trained. Teachers have to absorb the cost of their own training. There is no unfunded mandate here.
  
  
• Instrumental. The teachers duties are clearly spelled out in Article 2. The one problem left unaddressed is how one specifies where this bill applies. Article 1 speaks of "districts deemed at high risk of gun violence." But just what or where are they? A second area to explore in the early part of the debate would be who exactly enforces this law? There is no superintending agency specified -- though presumably it would be through the Department of Justice, or through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in the Department of Treasury.
  
  
• Clash. While you may simply want to talk about teachers with guns (are the kids safe -- note that this is for secondary schools, only), larger questions loom. Issue #1: is this really a federal issue? Of course, you can focus on the requirements and who enforces, but behind this is a larger issue, namely that of the states to regulate their own conduct. This seems to intrude the federal government into local schools. Wouldn't this be better for the local government? Issue #2: where does the freedom to bear firearms (2nd Amendment) infringe on the general perception of safety? Don't we arm the police because we don't want citizens running around armed? And take it deeper. Issue # 3 What makes for safety? How do we make safe schools? Will this do it? Or are there other ways we should pursue?

Bill No. 5 -- The Cool Less-Global Warming Car Bill (Le, City)

• Overview. The bill raises the CAFE standards (overall mileage requirements) for cars, light trucks and trucks. It is similar to recent legislation which just passed in Congress, only with higher standards, and it includes trucks. Raising the mileage requirements will pit the cause of the environment (and global warming) against the jobs to be lost as we move away from producing oversize vehicles.
  
• Instrumental. The most controversial aspect will simply be the actual numbers themselves. Are these considered to be achievable? This is especially a concern for trucks. What is especially nice about the bill is its use of existing standards to define the problem. This is how it should be.
  
  
• Clash. As above, the issue is that of environmental concerns versus clear economic impacts. Some good philosophical thnking can take place here. A second related issue is the role of the federal government in deciding what a manufacturer shall make. In requiring more mileage, does the federal government end up intruding where the market is best left to operate? Why not let car companies simply sell what they can? Can the government require something for our own good? Or, why if it is good, don't we all do it? (In economics, this is a problem of what they term "externalities") As you go more philosophical, remember to keep backing up your arguments with data and citations.

Bill No. 6 -- A Bill to Provide Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research (Cramer, Otsego)

• Overview. Stem cells are becoming something of a regular item. Here the bill would provide money ($40 million) and permit use of excess fertilized embryos from from fertility clinics. Use of embryos would be at the discretion of the parent(s). The bill wants to go in two different ways; the money in Section 1 suggests a modest expansion of existing stem cell programs (see Instrumental, below), while Section 2 clearly expands the scope of current research. In opening the use of other embryo-generated stem cells, the bill obviously opens the door to a more direct confrontation between the possibilities of stem cells and the moral objections (see Clash).
  
  
• Instrumental. The mischief here takes place when you put the funding requirements in the context of current funding. Under present NIH grants, $20o+ million is budgeted for non-embryo research, $37 million for embryo. Total stem cell (human non-human) is in excess of $600 million. $40 million seems to be in line with current spending. Does Sen. Cramer mean to increase funding? or restrict it? This is unclear, and will need to be clarified in the authorship speech.
  
  
• Clash. The core battle will be between the promise of stem cells (no cures yet) and the violation of conscience. Going deeper, you may want to think about what and where do we lay aside our conscience. On a more political base, there is a sure argument to be had with the role of the government and minority moral positions. Present policy arises from concerns that are held by a minority. Does the majority get to over-ride the minority on anything? When and how do we determine that we cannot lay aside our moral scruples. The mischievous side of me starts thinking in terms of other areas where we may ask the public to lay aside its scruples -- war time issues come to mind. As a rule, try to look at the Constitutional or political here rather than getting stuck in the moral swamp. Seek clarity for policy purposes. What other issues might also involve a similar clash? Go ahead, bring them up.

NFL Standings

As we come to the end of the Policy season, and reach the middle of the Legislative Debate season, it's helpful to see where we stand with NFL rankings. To date, City has added 7 ranks (by year's end we will collect over 40). Here's where we are right now:

• Harriet E. Groenleer ( 2009) -- 284 Distinction
• Christina Le (2010) -- 276 Distinction
• Nathan Ritsema (2009) -- 150, Excellence
• Regina Pell (2009) -- 144, Honor
• Catherine Khuu (2010) -- 92 Honor
• Esther Creswell (2010) -- 70 Merit
• Evan VanderHoff (2010) -- 68 Merit
• Daniel Hast (2009) -- 66, Merit
• Oana Damacus (2010) -- 50 Merit
• Abe Rinck (2010) -- 39 Merit
• Sharon Hay (2010) -- 37 Merit
• Emily Riippa (2010) -- 35 Merit
• Tim Larson (2011 ) -- 24
• Walter Gilles ( 2011) -- 24
• Rain Johnson (2011 ) -- 21
• Hannah Linna (2011) -- 21
• Sarah Remink (2010) -- 18
• Michael Jackson (2010) -- 15
• Javier Orozco (2011) -- 15
• Margaret Root ( 2011) -- 12
• Tom Prangley (2011) -- 12
• Catherine Sternberg (2011) -- 12
• Greg Lowe (2010) -- 9
• David Caselleto (2010) -- 9
• Mattk Kweik (2010) -- 9
• Caleb Coulter (2010) -- 9
• Michael Myckowiak ( 2010) -- 9
• Savannah Hoffman (2010) -- 6
• Joel Rodriguez ( 2011) -- 6
• Joe Bentley (2011) -- 6

Novi Results

As predicted, Novi was the largest Legislative Debate to date: three preliminary chambers, and a Super Session with 24 members. Six of the nine City students made it to the Supersession:
Oana Damacus, Esther Creswell, Riet Groenleer, Christina Le, Nathan Ritsema, and Evan VanderHoff. Congratulations!

City stepped up to provide Presiding Officers:

• Evan Vanderhoff (Session One, his first time)
• Christina Le (Session Two)
• Nathan Ritsema (Session One, Super Session)

Of the City students, four received speaking points (i.e., they got a trophy):

• Christina Le -- 1st
• Evan VanderHof -- 5th
• Nathan Ritsema -- 6th
• Riet Groenleer -- 9th

Just as important, everyone spoke. The bills City wrote were smart and well-debated.
In short, a good day for the entire team. Congratulations!

Novi Bill Analysis -- Super Session

Bill No. 2 -- A Bill to Change the Voting Day (Ritsema, City)

• Overview. The Bill is straightforward, efficient. It would move the date of all federal elections to Saturday. It can be seen as a way of stepping away from Tradition in order to gain efficiency and greater participation in elections.
  
  
• Instrumental. The principal issue is that of accommodating those who worship on Saturday (e.g. Orthodox Jews). This bill would apparently bar them from voting. Suggested Amendment: "that States must provide absentee ballots to all who assert an objection to voting on Saturday for reason of religion or conscience." Second Issue: Does it work? The move to Saturday is asserted for pragmatic reasons, but will these take place? How do we know that Saturday's are that much better?
  
  
• Clash. Issue One. Improved Turnout. If the need is to have more people voting, is this the best way? What about education? more absentee voting? What is the value of turning out in one place to vote, if any? Issue Two: Tradition. It is said that tradition means giving a vote to our ancestors. What is the weight of force of habit? We are constantly in a struggle with doing new things and trying to preserve something of the old. What do we give up here? What do we gain?

Bill No 4 -- The What's Your Number? Bill (Le, City)

• Overview. Fat continues to cling to American bodies, in part because of our indulgence in fatty foods. The bill would mandate including a glycemic index (fat content) on all nutrition labels. As with calories, fat content, the information would result in more knowledgeable consumers, and so help combat the wave of obesity.
  
  
• Instrumental. A tight bill, well focused. There is some ambiguity, however, in the first lines regarding the applicctio of the glycemic index to "every food". Does this include the food at the Farmer's Market? Or the food found in a restaurant? Potentially one could go off track defining food. Suggested Amendment: require every nutrition label to include the specified glycemic information. This keeps the bill focused and lets the FDA do its job.
  
  
• Clash. Two possible issues suggest themselves for more in-depth debate. Issue One: Efficacy. Does listing the information do any good? Are these labels more for the conscience than for action? Do labels alter behavior? Or do they only protect the labeler? (Think of cigarettes). Issue Two: The Role of the Informed Consumer. Related to Issue One, is the question of how we safeguard our public health. Is it best done by empowering Consumers (and so warning labels), or is it better done by direct government action (prohibiting ingredients, say)? These are two strong perspectives.

Bill No. 5 -- A Bill to Fund Parthogenisis (Israel, Novi)
Overview. There is some clumsy wording here that interferes with the basic thrust of the bill. Both "Parthogenisis" and "Parthenogenisis" are not the proper term; "pluripotent" is. There was an interesting bill (HR 322) advanced in Congress earlier this year advocating some of the same themes. The underlying issue is well-known, the conflict between the promise of embryonic stem cells, and the source for the same. The recent announcement that scientists have successfully created these pluripotent cells from skin is the starting point.
Instrumental. Two related problems show up in Section 2. The first is the definition of Stem Cell Research. The field is obviously bigger than that of embryonic stem cells. In the published budgets most of the money goes to research into adult stem cells. However the title of the bill suggests that the focus should be on a subset of this, embryonic stem cells. These are two very different budgets (roughly $500 m and $25 m see this report.). As a general rule, the use of percentages should be shunned. Why ten percent and not fifteen? or seven? Random levels end up with either funding too much or too little. Consider -- what happens if you put too much money in the system? Can you have too much money?
Clash. Again, two issues vie for attention. Issue One: Benefits and Losses. The funding mechanism is only a way to get around the principal barrier of embryonic stem cell research. There is a deep moral divide here between the potential benefits and the manner of acquisition. This alternate holds out the possibility of a way out of this dilemma. Issue Two: Picking Winners. What the bill does is to pick one winner, one path. After all we know this works. But behind this is the larger issue of whether the government should pick scientific or industrial winners. How directly involved should the federal government get in science? This will be a continuing issue for all of us.

Bill No. 10 -- A Bill to Increase Funding to Anti-Terror Military Groups (Borgren, Portage Central)
Overview
Instrumental
Clash


Bill No. 12 -- Response to North Korean Atrocities Bill (Luo, Portage Central)
Overview
Instrumental
Clash

Novi Bill Analysis -- Session 2

Bill 1 -- A Bill to Create an Emergency Draft (Cross, Jackson Western)

• Overview. The heart of the bill is to create a pool of young adults able to respond to emergencies. The nature of these emergencies is defined by mass casualties (Katrina, 9/11). Though not stated explicitly, this draft would be of limited duration and require approval of Congress. Sadly, the author of the bill will not be with us.
  
  
• Instrumental. The chief difficulty of the bill is the failure to deal with existing Selective Service law and regulations. For that reason all the parts on the "how" (Articles I, II, VI) can safely be rejected. Suggested Amendment: Eliminate Article I, II; add clause in Article X that "this bill shall follow the procedures as indicated in existing Selective Service legislation," then "all other laws and bills in conflict with this bill..." A second difficulty lies in the male focus -- this bill only applies to men, but not women. Given the scope of proposed activity, the reason is not clear.
  
  
• Clash. With so many easy targets (money, Don't Ask Don't Tell, male-only) it is easy to miss the more substantive issues underneath. Issue One, Volunteerism. how do we respond to disasters? is the proposed remedy adequate to meet the challenges (the Aff can argue that the size of these events means we need more people. We're still working on Katrina. Issue Two. Competence. Will a draft provide the resources we need? Structurally, how efficient will it be at recovery?

Bill 6 -- Ban Radio Censorship (Srini, Novi)

• Overview. Sometimes too simple can be a problem. The bill is tightly focused on music. With this we need to remember that that airwaves belong to the public -- that's why the government licenses and regulates broadcast companies. So this is deeply a question of personal freedom to listen and the rights of the public not to hear.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill focuses on "songs," but what about other broadcast content? Could ir refer to words? And what about television? What is missing is why we limit it to songs -- that's worth exploring for the Aff.
  
  
• Clash. Oh this is fun. Issue One: Control. How do we control socially problematic material? Do we use government censorship? Create laws of what can't be said? Elsewhere we often let the market take care of these things -- what isn't popular doesn't show up. That's one reason the movie theatres ofer 20 screens, all the same. Sometimes we trust law suits to do the regulation (think of medical malpractice). So, should we go with the current system? or trust the market. There are two good speeches here. * Issue Two: the meaning of Public. If the airwaves are public, what does that mean? Is there a responsibility to use them? Or are they sort of like Michigan's forests of old: whoever gets there gets to use them as he wishes?

Bill No. 9 -- Encourage Use of Bio-Fuels (Lindsay, Rochester Adams)

• Overview. -- "Encourage" is a nice word for the financial carrots and stick. The stick is a 50% tax on gasoline, and the carrot a 30% reduction of certain taxes. Clearly part of the energy independence drive in our country. A very pertinent bill, in that regard. The bill also includes a section (IV) banning use of MTBE.
  
  
• Instrumental. The structure of the bill is fairly clear. The biggest question as to enactment is this matter of the 30% tax deduction in Section III. What tax is being affected? Section V makes this a Pay-Go, measure where the added tax subsidizes the tax cut (II). That's smart. But do these really balance? Watch for numbers in the sponsorship or 1st Affirmative speech.
  
  
• Clash. There will be several places to discuss. * Issue One: Technology. Are bio-fuels the best? There could be a very intereseting disussion here. * Issue Two: Energy Policy. Is the problem gasoline, or global warming? It is unclear whether Bio-fuels really result in a net carbon savings. * Issue Three: Special Interests. The bill favors farmers, but is that because of the technology, or the political clout? Another clash will be the role of the different players in determining energy (and other) policies.

Bill No. 13 -- A Bill to Surrogate a New Drinking Age and Implicate a New Driving Age (Potts, Portage Central)

• Overview. The title is a little confusing, a little too jargon-y. "Surrogate" can mean to substitute -- we just don't use it that way in normal speech, so it rings odd. The bill removes regulation of drinking and driving ages from State determination and assigns a national standard. The most directly controversial element will be that of lowering the drinking age to 16. The heart of the bill lies in Article III, where the State regulations are set aside.
  
  
• Instrumental. The bill is unclear about how it will be put into effect gradually. (Article IV). That's worth a discussion. Note there is no money clause -- you may want to think carefully about what the costs would be of a younger drinking age. Facts and statistics about teen drinking and what teen drinking to may be worth exploring. Since the states will be the ones enforcing the bill, how does the federal government get their participation?
  
  
• Clash. *Issue One: Constitutionality. There is a significant Constitutional issue here. Aren't these matters best left to the States (bone up on your 10th Amendment). *Issue Two: Governmental Philosophy. Related to the Constitutional issue will be the one of philosophy. As a general rule, laws are best the closer they are to the people. In the United States we have generally deferred to local or state government whenever possible. What do we gain by having a common standard on these areas? What do we gain if we have the States make the decision? Another way to put this point: why is the drinking age or driving a federal issue at all?
  

Bill No. 15 -- Stop Racism at Airports (Khare, Novi)

• Overview. If you're of European ancestry, you don't think much of the headaches that can come in the airport. It's mostly an inconvenience, for those who are Arab or S Asian -- going to the airport can be a case constantly being checked. This Amnesty International article gives the details. Although the issue seems to be related more to the war on Terrorism and so focused on any one who who looks Islamic, nonetheless the issue is framed as one of racial profiling. But if people are being profiled, perhaps in our day, there is also a reason. Conservative Daniel Pipes certainly thinks so. (Although this is a little old).
  
  
• Instrumental. Article 3 provides the teeth for the bill -- principally a database of bad actors n the TSA. What is missing in the bill -- what needs to be determined in the debate -- is how you would determine that a traveler is being pulled aside "solely on the basis of ethnicity." The issue of exclusivity is a difficult bar -- racial profiling is hard to prove in the best of circumstances.
  
  
• Clash. As the Overview makes clear, there is a division on whether such profiling is a necessity or not. Issue One: Prudence v. Rights. How do we protect ourselves? If our enemy is of a nationality, doesn't it make sense to be careful? But what about our insistence on innocence until proven guilty? How do we balance the need to protect and the need to safeguard rights? Issue Two: War on Terror. Surely some things need to be done in a war situation that are different from a time of peace. Is this one of them? Or to look at it another way, what if there War on Terror is only "so-called" as some would have it; a creature of the national leadership n the United States. This bill opens the door to discuss how we fight terrorism. Is searching young kids the way to go (see the Amnesty article, above)? Issue Three: It's my Privacy. What rights do I have when I go to the airport? Do I surrender them? What kind of privacy can I assume is mine? As you can see, some very good and important ideas come with this bill. Pay attention.

Novi Bill Analysis -- Session 1

Changing the categories slightly to examine the bills:

• Overview covers background issues, as well as some beginning points for research.
• Instrumental covers the practical aspects of the bill, particular is it actionable? Or do we then debate the philosophical or constitutional issues instead?
• Clash. This is the new category, rather than talk about Aff and Neg approaches, let's think about what where the sources of conflict take place. What can be discussed? How can we take the debate beyond a trading of Advantage and Disadvantage. Is there more we can say?

Bill 3 Ban the Sale of Dangerous Outdoor Chemicals (Rink, City)

• Overview. At first blush, the bill seems to be a familiar type: penalize some luxury item (in this case, green lawns) that exacts a larger social cost (poisoning the environment). There's not question about the danger of pesticides and herbicides -- read the label on any of these products to see just how dangerous these are. Behind the question of stopping individual use lies a larger set of questions, about the use of chemicals generally -- the United States tends to under-regulate, providing case law only when a problem emerges. By contrast European Union regulations tend to bar chemicals until proven safe. Increasingly, trace amounts of highly dangerous chemicals -- chemicals that can alter human hormone and reproductive systems -- are showing up in the environment. So the underlying question is not simply that of bad use by homeowners, but something like how we protect our environment generally. Here is a New York Times article for background.

• Instrumentality. The bill is very efficient about what it bans. The retail sector is a very easily addressed. Constitutionally, there is little question that the EPA can ban distribution of certain chemicals. A question might arise about what is meant by the words "retail sale" -- does this include lawn services? A second area to explore, one hinted at in the NYT article above, is that of exceptions -- are there cases when these chemicals might be justified (certain insect infestations, say). There is also the issue of efficacy -- what about all those other use of these same chemicals? Farming and golf courses also use these and similar chemicals with similar consequences (or to put it in terms of debate: is this a first step, or an only step?) Lastly, the use of class II toxicity may or may not be too broad -- potentially, there could be a problem here if an everyday product were included.

• Clash. This bill allows for clash at all sorts of levels. To start, the question of harm is fairly clear, and the bill has proven to be practical (see Canada). Challenges will begin with the question of private use versus public good: isn't this just a case of nanny government in operation? The case can also be argued along the lines of states v. federal levels. Can a state have a separate, more lenient standard? Do states face different environmental challenges (pests, etc.) which need to be addressed? But moving up the philosophical ladder, we have the question about the degree to which you can protect society: where is the acceptable cut off for our concern? Do we insist on zero hazardous chemicals, or do we put with them? How and why do we make the cut? These are some of the issues this bill begins to tap into.
  Let me be clear that of all the legislation, this is the one with the most important direct impact on how we live. It is worthy of your attention.

Bill 7: Mandatory Drug & Alcohol testing for Pilots and Aircraft Personnel (Ghandikota, Novi)

• Overview. The occasion for the bill seems to be the pilots who showed up for their shift with too much alcohol in their system (critical personnel need to have less than .04 -- this is half the blood level for what we define as "drunk" in Michigan). *Issue One: The key feature here is the word "mandatory." There already exists FAA regulations on the use of drugs and alcohol, as well as provision for random testing of employees . See this site from the FAA. *Issue two: A second aspect of the bill will be who does the enforcing -- if it is an officer of the state (TSA or FAA) then Constitutional questions might be raised (think of mandatory search procedures in schools).
  

• Instrumentality. There are plenty of holes here, one big task will be to help the writer get closer to the bill he intended. *Issue One: aircraft personnel is a rather loose definition. An easy amendment would be to define the the personnel under the FAA regulations (And if you go to 14 CFR part 121 you can see just how detailed they can be). *Issue Two: This apparently applies to international flights -- should it also apply to domestic flights, as well? *Issue Three the bill as written applies only to US airlines. An easy amendment would be to define this as all airlines operating in the US. *Issue Four: Mandatory testing may be too much -- how many flights are we talking about (this may be why he limits it to international flights)? It is less an issue of cost than of volume. This would appear to be the practical limitation here.

• Clash. As written, the bill is probably DOA. How do you establish that existing regulations do not cover the harm? *Clash One: That said, at a different level pick up the issue of "mandatory." Can we make drug tests mandatory for everyone? Doesn't that violate privacy? Or does public safety come first? How do we balance Safety and Privacy? *A Clash Two: If the government requires the testing, this would raise issues of self-incrimination. Is this a search? If it is, doesn't it need a warrant? Or does the issue of employment already preclude that (remember they are already subject to random tests, now).

Bill 8 -- Mass Transit Protection Bill (Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Much of the United States domestic infrastructure (industry, transportation) remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In one sense this is a result of our open society. The bill would mandate the creation of security plan to public land transportation (rail, subway, buses). The bill will likely be debated around the issue of the War on Terror. To the degree one believes in the War, the necessity of this bill will gain added weight.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The bill is well-written, and does not possess obvious difficulties. Nonetheless there are several questions that may warrant a question or two. *Issue One: What is the time line for the National Strategy (Article 1, a.)? This is unspecified and creates a tension with Article 4's "shall take place immediately." An easy amendment would be to mandate the completion of the security plan in Art 4 -- say a year from passage. *Issue Two: turns on money. Who pays for implementing these plans? This is the soft spot for practicality. The bill mandates companies pick up the tab for these new measures. *Issue Three: The bill mixes interstate commerce (railroad) with that of local (inter-city bus). For local transportation, the federal government has limited authority (see 10th Amendment, Commerce clause). *Issue Four: You may want to clarify what if any penalties are foreseen in this bill. That is, what happens if a bus line does not follow the plan? This goes back to Issue Three -- the federal government will have relatively little regulatory clout with the local bus system. A not so easy amendment would be to add "inter-state" between "protecting" and "railways"
  in Article 1.
  
  
• Clash. The weakness of domestic infrastructure is well-known; and terrorist attacks have demonstrated the sort of mass casualties that can result from such attacks (see Madrid, London). This is the compelling argument. The plan is graduated and so focused. These are the great strengths. Taking the bill further, try the following clashes. *Clash One: Unfunded Mandates. The bill imposes the cost of a government program on private business, often a tax-subsidized entity. Do the benefits (safety) outweigh the cost? Where do they find the money? There may be some hidden charges in all this. *Clash Two: War on Terror. The bill only makes sense if you believe the war on terror exists. Aff argues strongly for the war and threat of terrorism, Neg denies. *Clash Three: The Nature of American Society. Security and openness lie in tension. Can there be openness with out safety? Can security erode openness? What makes America America? You have plenty of room to explore and play here.

Bill 11 Deny FEMA Aid to Predicted Disaster Areas (Hong, Portage Central)

• Overview. Disasters happen, but why should we keep paying for them? The focus on the bill is in Section 2: disasters that are "predictable and avoidable." Fire zones in California, beach front housing in Alabama, and perhaps the entire state of Florida (just joking!) all seem to be included. Emergency Aid should be focused on the future, not merely helping with the present. Of course the devil is in how you define these "predicted disaster areas." Behind this, lies the larger issue of what the role of relief is.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The bill is less clear than it needs to be -- there are some awkward phrases that need to be cleared up. *Issue One: The first sentence repeats "funding" and so is unclear. An easy amendment is to delete "funding currently allocated to" and so make it read smoother. *Issue Two, substitute "population" for "populous" at end of Section 1. *Issue Three: timing. Although the bill takes place immediately, this seems to fly in the face of the time it would take to identify the areas the bill regulates. An amendment: "that this bill shall come to effect 90 days after completion of the site inventory.
  
  
• Clash. Most of the debate will turn on two issues: definition of the disaster areas and the nature of FEMA. *Clash One, Disaster: How do we define those areas? Are they as readily known as the bill makes out? If we know someplace is bad, then why not restrict aid? *Clash Two, FEMA. Is this an insurance agency, working to make whole a community? Or does it respond to need? You can extend this to the nature of government assistance generally: does the government pick you up like your mother did, no matter what? Or does it put you on your feet so you can get back in the game -- more like dad? *Clash Three. Class. The bill makes exception based on "national economic health" So Miami gets help but do the poor areas get help? Again, we are back to the nature of government assistance -- who is it intended for?

Bill 14 A Bill to be "One Less" (Bharadwaj, Novi)

• Overview. We've seen this before. The bill mandates the use of HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for 8th grade girls. HPV is a leading cause of cervical cancer. Objections to the program often have moral issue, inasmuch as HPV is spread through sexual contact. So by vaccination, we seem to imply that young girls can now become sexually active. This is the argument.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Two features stand out in this bill. *Issue One: Funding. Parents are required to pay for the vaccine. To date, insurance companies have been reluctant. A useful amendment would be to require insurance companies to include the vaccine as part of their standard childhood coverage. *Issue Two: Missing Conscience Clause. Can a parent opt out? They can opt out of sex ed, why not here? Most bills have a conscience clause. A useful amendment would be to add a conscience clause. *Issue Three: Missing Enforcement. This is an item for discussion. How does the federal government enforce this requirement?
  
  
• Clash. There are clear public health benefits. The intent is clear. Against this benefit come three questions. *Clash One: Funding. The vaccine comes with a pretty hefty price tag, $360. So if you have a million students who need it (and can't pay)... where does the $360 million come from? *Clash Two: Morality. Can a family reasonably object to this? After all, Muslim families forbid sex before marriage. So are their girls at risk? Who assigns this risk? Is it moral for the family to opt out? (It might reduce the efficacy of the program). *Clash Three: Mandated Education. By making this bill a requirement for high school, does this get the Federal government involved with local educational institutions? Here is where the absence of an enforcement mechanism comes to play. Instead of schools, should the federal government do something else to make the vaccine available?

Resolution 1 Salvage Meritocracy (Groenleer, City)

• Overview. The "legacy preference" gives preference to alumni of state schools. This will only be an issue at schools where admission is limited. In Michigan, these schools would include Michigan Tech, Michigan State, and of course, the University of Michigan. Giving preference to alumni seems to be giving preference to those who have lucky genes (i.e. good parents), and especially to those children whose parents are able to endow the University or college. The issue is made complicated by the changing nature of faculty recruitment: private universities are paying faculty more and so threaten to open up a gap with the public high-end universitities. State money is not sufficient to make up this gap -- so the schools rely increasingly on alumni endowments. In the race to be competitive schools need more money; is it then permissible to raise money by essentially offering scholarships or admissions to the children of donors? That's the question.
  
  
• Instrumental. Resolutions get debated more on principle than on instrumental features. If there is a weakness, it lies in the use of meritocracy -- has American education ever been such? This will be a good debating point. The Resolved is sharp, with its utilization of grants to promote reform instead of the more common set of punishments.
  
  
• Clash. So who will be against this? Well. let's see...
  *Clash One: Shouldn't a school determine its own requirements? Recent developments in admission and school funding suggest a change in how opportunity (and its cost) is handled. *Clash Two: What is the responsibility of alumni? Is it only to give money? For many, college will be a shaping experience, and the associations you make shape your life. The conservative argument will be that these relations ought to continue on to the next generation. *Clash Three: Call it diversity. Is there a problem with meritocracy? Doesn't that breed the very stratification the Resolution wants to undo (the bright kids go to the bright schools)? Isn't there something good to be said for schools that have a diverse body? And shouldn't a school encourage diversity in its admissions? Don't alumni children make the school diverse (especially on the 40,000 student campus)?
  

Novi Update -- The Largest Ever

The numbers really are astounding: by most counts we have 75 students registered for the Legislative Debate at Novi. The most immediate impact is that it will mean 3 or (if any last minute registrations show up) 4 chambers. Planning for the event will keep students in the same chamber for both preliminary sessions. This will be an advantage to the shy and to the newbie, since the loner the event goes, the more comfortable they get with the process, and the more likely they are to talk.

This dynamic will likely mean that the first session goes through the entire agenda, but the second session may talk longer.

The impact of large chambers.
In the present arrangement, we will have 25 students in each chamber.

The larger the chamber, the more challenging the event becomes. Your audience is bigger so right there, it gets scary. And the number who can get out of the chamber to the Super Session is also decreased. With 3 chambers, that would mean advancing the top 8; with 4 chambers, we advance the top 6 or 7. Speaking up will be a necessity.

And here's the other problem: the time is limited. Even with 2 hours, that gives students perhaps 25 speaking slots, if that. Cross-Ex will be restricted -- that simply takes time from other speakers.

More room for POs
The upside of multiple chambers (and slightly longer time), is more room for students to try out being a Presiding Officer (PO). There could be room for as many as 12 different POs -- given the experienced schools who will be coming, we should have not problem filling these slots.

Who's Coming
These are the schools to date:

• Grand Rapids City
• Ionia
• Jackson County Western
• Kalamazoo Central
• Kenowa Hills
• Novi
• Portage Central
  
• Rochester Adams
  
• Utica Stevenson

A Word about Food
Planning has food (sub sandwiches, some healthy snacks as well as the unhealthy) on site. With the big mall up the road and it being Holiday Shopping season, going out would be rather difficult. It may make sense to pack along some extra water, snacks etc.

Finally, the Bills and How to Prepare
Here is the list of the bills, by session:

Session One:
Bill # 3 Ban the Sale of Dangerous Outdoor Chemicals. Rinck, Grand Rapids City,
Bill # 7 Mandatory Drug & Alcohol Testing for Pilots & Aircraft Personnel. Ghandikota, Novi
Bill # 8 Mass Transit Protection. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central
Bill # 11 Deny FEMA Aid to Predicted Disaster Areas. Hong, Portage Central
Bill # 14 Be "One Less." Bharadwaj, Novi (mandatory Gardasil vacc.)
Res # 1 Salvage Meritocracy. Groenleer, City

Round 2
Bill # 1 Create Emergency Draft. Cross, Jackson Western
Bill # 6 Ban Radio Censorship. Srini, Novi
Bill # 9 Encourage Use of Bio-Fuels. Lindsay, Rochester Adams)
Bill # 13 Surrogate a New Drinking Age and Implicate a New Driving Age. Potts, Portage Central
Bill # 15 Stop Racism at Airports. Khare, Novi

Super Session
Bill # 2 Change the Voting Day. Ritsema, City
Bill # 4 What's Your Number? Le, City (Mandate Glycemic Index info on nutrition labels)
Bill # 5 Fund Parthogenesis Research. Israel, Novi
Bill # 10 Increase Funding to Anti Terror Military Groups. Bogren, Portage Central
Bill # 12 Response to North Korean Atrocities. Luo, Portage Central

Preparation Strategy
The first session will see the least discussion. Expect the session to go through the entire packet. Pick the top three bills to prepare for, and you should get your chance to speak.

The second session, more students will be speaking. Discussion will go loner. Consequently, you want to have data and ideas that let you speak to a majority of the bills; four minimum.

The Super Session is the money round. Your rank here will determine final ranking. Start your research here. Find articles, or positions on each of the bills. Often a Super Session will only get to half of its bills -- but which half? So be prepared.

Comments on the bills will follow in upcoming posts.