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)?