Otsego Bill Analysis

On Wednesday February 20, the WMLDL will meet at Otsego High School. The bills under consideration are mostly bills from previous meets. So if they sound familiar, they should.

Resolution 1 -- Support Student Maternal Leave (Sen. Boehme, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. This was first put forward at State. As a Resolution, the measure can pick up what might first seem like a state issue. A Resolution involves no money and so has no real implementing power. As to the measure itself, the bill addresses the social status of teen-age, unwed mothers. By creating the option of maternal leave, the idea will be to help the woman continue in her education while also keeping the baby (and not aborting it). As a measure to address the abortion question, this is an especially nice back door approach.
  
  
• Instrumentality. See above, this is a Resolution, so normal issues aren't really germane. One might raise up the questions of whether or not there is an epidemic (ln 4), or whether current schools in fact are so uncaring. One question to explore will be the degree of healthcare that will be made available to the young mother -- if any. A good starting point for this discussion would be exploring the issue of unwanted pregnancy (see Guttmacher Institute).
  
  
• Clash. Remarkably, this bill can be attacked from the Right. Clash One: Are schools really the place for this kind of care? How accommodating should schools be to such conditions? Doesn't this make the school a kind of social work agency? Is that it's real purpose. So its Social Work v. Education grudge match. Clash Two: What message does this send? Doesn't this measure end up with the schools sanctioning immorality? How do we respect the choices students make? Shouldn't there be a penalty for a bad decision? See, there are all sorts of interesting issues on the Right just waiting to be explored. For those on the Left, Instrumentality will be your best bet.

Bill 1 -- Global Roaming (Senator Le, Grand Rapids City)

• Overview. The United States lets the individual cell phone providers use different spectrums and so different standards. Lack of standardization imposes a variety of economic costs on the United States economy, particularly compared to countries in Europe and Asia. This measure would produce a gradual roll out of the program. This gradual roll out does impose costs on smaller companies if they have to maintain two systems.
  
  
• Instrumentality. As noted, costs are the hidden problem here. Who picks up the extra service charge here for the two systems? A possible amendment will be to create a mandatory phase out date after passage, say 5 years from passage. This limits costs to the company
  
  
• Clash. Should the government really determine what system is best? Doesn't this sound like the government picking (economic) winners? Against this, there is a clear precedent for the federal government to promote commerce. A second issue is the status of the poor. Are they at risk with this kind of change? Could a sudden change end up with less cell-phone coverage? Is it just to require the poor to invest just to stay in touch? Or do we count on the telephone companies to extend options to them (you think?).

Bill NO. 2 -- Reduce the Age of Alcohol Consumption in Michigan (Senator Huang, Otsego)

• Overview. Section II says it all: old enough to join the Army, old enough to drink. Although this is considered as a state level bill, a national perspective will focus on a common standard for all states. At its heart, the bill is about one legal standard for adulthood. When are you an adult? Why should it be considered as a rolling event? Why not have a date fixed, and call it good?
  
  
• Instrumentality. Lowering the drinking age raises some interesting problems regarding abuse. The dangers of abuse are obvious one of the key issues. The extension of drinking to younger ages may also be another area to explore. As noted, this is framed as a Michigan-specific measure. This is an easy point of attack. Noting that, suggest that the bill really be understood as an establishment of a common age of majority for youth in the nation. You may want to pay attention to the final Section. Does this mean that 18-year olds can bring beer with them in their lunch to school? Clearly you don't want to be wiping out useful laws.
  
  
• Clash. The principal clash is that of who determines when adulthood is legally recognized. Isn't that really the property of the State? One area for consideration is that of who pays. While no direct funding is required, could there be indirect expenses? For instance, does such a measure increase insurance premiums for families with 17 and 18 year olds? There may be many other examples of hidden costs. Bring them up. Look again at Section V. What about schools? When do we say that youth are fully adults? Is it just an age function? When are you ready to be a citizen? is 18 right? or 21? Some interesting areas to think about.

Bill No. 3 -- Provide Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research (Senator Cramer, Otsego)

• Overview. Bill is seeking to expand funding for and access to stem cell research. This double focus, keeps the issue centered on that of stem cells generally. Again, we're in the area of what are termed pluripotent cells, i.e. those stem cells from which a variety of cells can be developed -- at least hypothetically. The problem in all stem cell research is the source of the cells. Where the embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos they can be seen as debasing or otherwise destroying a potential life. This is the source of most controversy regarding stem cells.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The weakness in the bill will be the lack of definition. E.g. $40 million, but for what year? That is presumably an increase. Likewise, there is a loose definition of "stem cells" when what is meant are "embryonic stem cells" or even "pluripotent stem cells". A second issue worthy of discussion is whether the bill is too broad: it has a budget function, then includes donation of umbilical cords, as well as excess embryos from fertility clinics. This last is the problem child. It may make it more palatable to delete ln 5 "and excess fertility clinic embryos."
  
  
• Clash. The moral question will occupy many. The principal clash will be that of pragmatism -- we do what works -- and that of ethical policy -- we do what's right (even if it seems to limit oru options0. So where do you fall on this? What works? What's right? Can there be a greater good which you could pursue? What kinds of decision making would you use? This is a philosophical approach. Remember that no matter what side you choose, you will still need to back up your point with some kind of reference.

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

• Overview. Is there a place for guns on campus? Perhaps after the shooting at Northern Illinois, there might be a place. This is a return of an earlier bill. Generally, states have determined that the classroom is among those places where firearms are not permitted. This bill would change that, and so allow your favorite teacher to also pack some heat.
  
  
• Instrumentality. The key clause in the bill is definition of "districts deemed at high risk of gun violence" --- no standards are specified. In the course of debate, this would be a good place to clarify. How do you know what districts this applies to? Likewise, you will want to raise the question of jurisdiction -- is this really a federal issue? On what basis? An interesting aspect is the number of barriers presented to the teacher: it's all at her expense, which presumably will decrease the applications for such a permit.
  
  
• Clash. At first blush this looks like a purely state issue. There is however a Second Amendment aspect: can the state restrict where guns are allowed anywhere? Another clash can take place on the role of education itself: What makes a safe school? Do we think of schools as a community? Or as a place of confrontation? Guns in the classroom suggests that the teacher does not trust the students in the desks. Is that the case?

Bill No. 5 -- Legalize the Sale and Purchase of Human Organs (Sen. Walley, Otsego)

• Overview. The bill sets up a government market for the sale of human organs for transplant purposes. At present organs are donated; the notion introduces a market mindset. One might get more organs if a price were paid. Essentially this incentives the donation of your own organs (or presumably granny's if you have power of attorney). Organ trafficking is found elsewhere in the world, chiefly in Eastern Europe (illegally) and in India (of dubious legality).
  
  
• Instrumentality. The bill covers most of the obvious bases fairly well. Two questions merit more exploration. First, what about power of attorney? Can a third party enter into a contract, provided they have legal rights (e.g. you have power of attorney over your great aunt Sue, can you therefore auction off her kidney?). Second, the bill is unclear about who purchases? The managed fee structure is not spelled out. Does the bill also allow for third party or middleman contracts? This latter has been the bane of India.
  
  
• Clash. The heart of the real debate will be about the nature of donation v. sale, paid or non-paid? While incentives do provide for more organs, it can also raise the question of self-interest. Money does strange things (think of reality TV), how do we keep self-interest properly focused? Second, since we are talking about money, does this measure place the poor at greater risk? A useful analog to research would be problems with blood donors.
  

Bill No. 6 -- Required Food Labeling (Sen. Smith, Kalamazoo Central)

• Overview. Bill focuses on labeling requirements for foods. There are three aspects: country of origin, status as an organic product, elimination of the word "natural" on food labels. The bill focuses on Title 21, the section of the US Code governing labeling.
  
  
• Instrumentality. Article II is already in Title 21, so it can be deleted -- certainly do not debate this one. Optional organic labeling is already provided by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). There already exist extensive labeling requirements, found in US Title 7. What is missing in the bill, are the various levels of organic labeling. The code is actually quite supple, here. The ban on "natural" is perhaps most controversial with respect to the labeling of meat. As with many bills, the penalty phase is too extreme. (e.g. Who exactly goes to jail?).
  
  
• Clash. This bill turns about how you understand its purpose. Is this for the consumer? If so, then how much is enough information? Does the required Organic tell the buyer anything? Here the clash is that between Market and Regulation. Is virtue (Organic = good) something best protected by the Organic industry? Or should these be a part of the required labels? There is no automatic position here -- sometimes the Market is best, sometimes Government (especially when companies are prone to cut corners.) A second possible clash arises if you think this is really an organic farm bill -- does it require non-organic products to label themselves as "non-organic"? If so, then we have a bill that actually markets a product, disguised as a regulation. So the clash: how do we make sure that we have needed regulation, and not simply rules that help this or that special interest? What makes a good regulation?

State Tournament -- Session I

Overview

There will be seven bills in the first two sessions and six in the Super Session. As you prepare be sure to prepare speeches for at least four in each session. The bills are not numbered, but merely collected into a docket for consideration. You will be able to debate them in any order your chamber wishes.

As you do, also remember that the more you can bring to the bill, the better your remarks will be received. On some of these bills you will be tempted to simply attack the weaknesses -- it is far better to launch a critique that makes the chamber seem smarter at the end. Educate them. Illumine them. And of course disagree (or back them up) as you need to.

Be bold and be prepared to speak.

Bill: Amend the Patriot Act (Sen. Kehoe, South Lyon)

• Overview. Formally known as Bill to Prevent Abuse of Power in Investigations Using the USA Patriot Act, this bill addresses two of the more notorious sections of the Patriot Act -- this wide focus makes this bill especially challenging to debate. Broadly the issues turn about the scope we should grant the federal government in its pursuit of potential terrorist threats. Section 215 was criticized vehemently in the original Patriot Act, but in the 2006 renewal, some of those criticisms have been addressed. The Constitutional and legal issues are rife; complicating the measure is that some measures are themselves deemed "secret" -- FISA courts govern Sec 206 and operate outside of the usual public channels. To understand issues, you may want to read this post by Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown. The complexity of the law under consideration reduces this bill to its more political aspects (are you for Bush or against him). Along with the subjects, you may want to look up something on the FISA courts, but this is a very complicated and not altogether clear area of government. Complexity means that Chambers will resist consideration.
  
  
• Instrumental. As noted, what exactly is under consideration? The bill wants to amend the Patriot Act but does not specifiy how or where. The battle will turn on what are the appropriate avenues for pursuing would-be terrorists in a digital era. Focus One: what does the author mean about "individual specification? " -- the exact cell phones? The exact accounts? (Note on bill writing: this is the sort of confusion that arises when a bill is written too loosely). Focus Two: who certifies? Again the bill wants a vague court -- but should terrorism be pursued in this manner? But a special court like the FISA, and how do you control? You can see the issue taking shape, can't you? Besides, an opponent of this Bill may reasonably ask whether the FISA courts already cover this. What's different? Focus Three: what other bills are being rendered void (Section IV). This needs real clarification. It is helpful to keep in mind that the Patriot Act is actually amending a number of existing laws, so how this change affects others will be unclear.
  
  
• Clash. So how do you debate a hopelessly complex bill? The pro-side will use some of the more notorious horror stories regarding the Patriot Act. They are out there. Three issues however deserve better consideration.
  First: Terrorism. how does one fight terrorism? What are the right tools? Who should delegate this battle -- that is, can we trust our government to protect
  Second: Freedom v. Risk. There is the tension between security and the freedom of citizens. Americans have often prized freedom, even if it has meant assuming more risk. Here, you may want to bring in considerations of the Fourth Amendment and the broad expectations of privacy.
  Third: Technology. How do we keep ourselves safe in a world information moves increasingly across mobile devices? What is the nature of modern information technology? Perhaps the Patriot Act is a symptom of a larger issue. Again, a good speeches are available on both sides.

Bill: Ban Political Advertisements (Sen. Macy, Novi)

• Overview. In a political year like ours, who doesn't finally want to turn off the political ads on television? The Bill provides a categorical ban on political ads in support of a candidate as well as prohibit attack ads. The focus on television alone will give rise to the legitimate questions about other modes of advertising (bill boards, mail, internet, etc.). This looks as if it is doing a lot, but perhaps it is doing too little. As with broadly written bills, there are some weaknesses that will need clarification. Other nations have very restrictive rules governing political advertising, these are worth looking into, as are various proposals on campaign finance reform.
  
  
• Instrumental. As written, the bill is ambiguous about how broadly it should be taken. First, what is meant by "television?" Should that include private broadcasts (cable, satellite)? Second, consider the significance of the word "for" in Line 1. The word would seem to cover ads by a third party on behalf of the candidate. Third, Article Two leaves unspecified who these candidates are: the same as in Line 2? Or should you consider this a banning on all attack ads? (And again, what constitutes an attack ad)? Use the cross-ex to clarify these issues. For those in favor the narrower the bill is construed the better chance it has for real debate.
  
  
• Clash. The obvious issue is that of the First Amendment. Who determines who speaks or who does not? Banning types of advertising is safer than the banning of a message (Article Two). You may also want to consider the nature of television. Is it intrinsically manipulative? Does it present a false image, or does it reveal character? (Is that Huckabee on the screen or who we are supposed to think Huckabee is?) Here, there is another interesting essay at Balkinization. Finally, you may want to pick up on the issue of wealth. To what extent should elections belong to the largest pocketbook? Does great wealth distort the choices the nation must make? If so, how can we isolate elections from this impact?
  

Bill: Last Chance Medical Experimentation (Sen. Wymer, Ionia)

• Overview. A somewhat ghoulish title, but the overall bill is fairly well focused. The bill would permit experimental treatment and surgeries on patients identified as living in "last chance situations." As a matter of form there is a confusion between permitting and legalizing. The bill allows for appropriate authorization by patient or a patient's representative. There is one element of conceptual confusion as to who would pay for such procedures: the bill's concern for insurance companies (sec 2d, 2e) suggest that the author envisions patients' paying for the procedures done to their body. Given the topic, this could spark a very interesting debate.
  
  
• Instrumental. Two issues should both be cleared up early on in the debate. First What is missing is any limiting on the power of these so-called experimental procedures. Must they be specific to the condition at hand? Or does the fact that you have fallen into a coma, mean that the doctor or research can experiment on any part of your body? Potentially, this could get pretty ghoulish. You go in for incurable liver cancer, and the next thing they're experimenting on your knee, etc. Second, there is the question of who pays (and who benefits). While it seems that the author is thinking patients pay, the real beneficiaries of this would be doctors and researchers -- so shouldn't they pay? And if they pay, how much more? This may be worth an amendment.
  
  
• Clash. The most obvious clash will come in the territory of experimental medicine. Do we approve this because it is presumed to work? Doesn't that push us into an idea of ends justify the means? Here, the bill looks remarkably like the same conflicts that center on stem cells. For those with strong sense of right to life and the integrity of the human body, they will want to protest this bill as a violation of the person, while those in support will emphasize the benefits. Another issue to consider is the role of money. When you pay, do you get better subjects? Does money distort research? Yet perhaps the most important issue to raise is that of free consent. What does it mean to give consent to radical procedures? When one is dying and dependent on the hospital, how much freedom does one have? What are the conditions for free consent? You may want to look up protocols for medical research.
  

Bill: DPRK Normalization (Sen. Gallicki, Dearborn)

• Overview. The bill instructs the State Department to take two qualified steps to address the isolation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, otherwise known as North Korea). The two steps are pre-emptive steps in the US-DRPK negotiations over nuclear weapons. It should also be noted that Article 2 represents a doubling of historic US positions. The US State Department position on N Korea is here. This is likely to face overwhelmingly negative response -- so extra work on a possible affirmative case may be an occasion to gain credibility. You will certainly get the chance to get heard.
  
  
• Instrumental. The key issue is the freedom the Senate/Congress has with respect to bi-lateral negotiations. It may be properly objected that the bill hand-cuffs the freedom of the State Department and the President to negotiate treaties and their conditions.
  
  
• Clash. The big clash is constitutional (President v. Senate). A second clash to work on is the role of how to bring in rogue nations. Finally, you may also want to consider the specifics of the US history with N Korea. What are the expected results of these efforts? Will it change the DRPK behavior? Read up on the history of their negotiating style (see Foreign Policy, as well as NYT). The affirmative will argue that we have simply not used the right carrots.
  

Bill: Anti-Depressants vs. Clinical Therapy (Sen. Smith and Sen. Clark, Grand Ledge)

• Overview. The bill bars the prescription of anti-depressants to minors until after other clinical therapy options have been found to be ineffective. The penalty phase addresses the prescribing doctor. Often the use of anti-depressants by teens is linked to suicide. Some studies have suggested that there is a link, more recent articles perhaps not. Adding to the confusion is this study suggesting that one needs both drugs and clinical ("talk") therapy.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a fairly tight bill in terms of construction, though the initial sentence has its difficulties. It bars the prescription except if prescribed -- a sort of circular argument. The real action is in Section two. The question of age may also be useful to bring up. At 18, some teens will be full adults (physiologically) and so presumably able to take the meds without harm. Some are not. Does an arbitrary date hinder the purpose of the bill? One may also want to raise the question of whether the schedule of penalty is really adequate. The key focus is that doctors lose their license on the third prescription. That is substantive.
  
  
• Clash. The first battle to consider is the dichotomy of the bill, especially in light of evidence. Is it talk or is it drugs? What if there is a middle way? The preference for talk first appears to be an interposing of a social policy into a medical decision. An analogy would be how the US government controls funding on sex education to abstinence programs. Should social policy come before the doctor's decision? What about emergencies? Finally, you may want to raise up the question of how we determine what is the proper course to pursue: what kind of data do we use? Simply medical data (whatever works is good?), or do we also go with social norms? Second clash is the role of pharmacology to control our moods. For affs, this will be a big clash point. Philosophically, are we turning to pills or other mood altering items to help us Manage? What does this say about us? There are some good philosophical points to be made., but remember, back points with quotes or other evidence.

Bill: Cloned Meat (Sen. Le, City)

• Overview. Increasingly issues of technology show up in the agricultural arena, whether it is the addition of hormones to milk, varieties of genetic splicing, or the cloning of livestock for human consumption, as here. The recently announced permission by the FDA for use of cloned meat, will raise issues for consumers about food being pure and safe. This bill draws the use of cloning to the public eye through use of labeling regulation. A Senate bill spells out much of the same aspects of this bill, in of course greater detail.
  
  
• Instrumental. This is a very clean bill. The most awkward moment is in line 1, where the bill addresses "companies that package meat" to meet the regulation. This has the impact of permitting retailers to buy unlabeled packaged meat and still maintain their freedom from this regulation. Suggested amendment: require all packaged meat bear the label, instead. This moves regulation from packer to the retailer (and so more easily corrected by shoppers -- it lowers cost of enforcement). Some may object that there is no penalty per se attached to this bill. Should this become an issue, one may amend the bill to refer to the Food and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.333) for penalties. Or an alternative Suggested Amendment: any person who violates this bill shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each such violation.
  
  
• Clash. Here's where things get interesting. Clash 1: is cloning safe. This is the basic argument. Clash 2: Reckless / Entrepreneurial US ag policy. Europe and US differ radically on the approach to Ag Tech. Clash 3: How do we incorporate technology into our food chain? This could be the key to feeding the world and reducing our energy footprint, etc. Others in negation will want to ask for more direct regulation. Another area perhaps worth thinking about is do we apply the regulation at the beginning of the process (a la Europe), or at the end, at the market level? Who then decides, the consumer or individual user, or the regulator? This is a case of two very conflicting philosophies.

Bill: Ban Abortion (Sen. Tiggs, Sen. Dunstan, Adams)

• Overview. Like many hot button bills, this one is at once full of passion and then left wide open as the authors substitute general or less-than-precise words. Funding and enforcement are especially in need of clearer thinking. That this is a hot button issue suggests that many arguments will be advanced that are premised either on emotional reasoning, or as a re-hashing of existing political stances (pro-Choice v. Right-to-Life, etc.). A lengthy cross-ex should be avoided. Vote against extension, force people to make their points in speeches. Otherwise, the cross-ex will consume speaking time for other bills and speakers. This is the real danger of this bill.
  
  
• Instrumental. There are so many problems with this bill it is hard to begin. Generally, the bill has inadequate definitions ("Illegal" -- felony? misdemeanor? civil? criminal? also "living being" -- what constitutes something as that?) You may find other issues to take up with this. A second area is that the bill does not adequately acknowledge current Constitutional standing, in particular one should note the absence of health and safety clauses for the woman. This opens a huge can of worms on its own. Finally, there is the question of implementation. The bill is directed to local and state government; the penalties include that of "manslaughter" (see 18 USC 1112) -- there is no such item as "first degree manslaughter" only voluntary and involuntary. With no additional funding, it is hard to see how the bill does not result in an unfunded mandate.
  
  
• Clash. The classic hot button issue. There are plenty of interesting issues to address here -- though the heat of the bill may not allow for them to heard well. Clash One: Who gets Government Protection? What is the criteria we use? What are the standards that we can all agree to? Clash Two: How do we safeguard health of the mother? Clash Three: the role of wealth. Those with means get the abortions, those without do not. How then do we make bills that are equitable in impact?
  

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)?
  

14 Bills at Ionia, pt. 1

With three sessions in front of us, be prepared on most of these. It will be very easy to be negative on any and all of these. Honestly, each bill has its holes. So when the bill in question goes off the track, it is more useful and ultimately more productive to consider the spirit or idea behind the legislation.

Now for the bills (we'll look at them in terms of Need, Instrumentality -- how they might actually be enacted, then suggestions for Aff and Neg)

Bill No. 1: Act to Improve Public Education

• Need. This bill arises from a flaw in No Child Left Behind: each state gets to define what success is, so naturally states want to set standards that put them in a good light. Fifty different standards for excellence would seem to be odd.
• Instrumentality. The bill leaves the funding for the test in the dark. You will be tempted to whack at this, but remember, this new test replaces others that states are using. The net cost is likely to be zero, or even less.
• Aff. Argue for the necessity for standards. This can be done with appeals to either commerce (business needs people who are skilled, a common test provides a common base), or it can be done as a matter of social justice: we do no favor to the poor or minority by pretending that there really is not a standard.
• Neg. Argue state's rights. Who knows the student better? Second, a test always implies a curriculum. Do we really want one curriculum for the whole country? There are lots of places here to mix it up.

Bill No. 2: Ban Animal Experimentation

• Need. Underlying this bill are two ideas: Animal rights, that is, we prove our humanity in how we treat those creatures who in some sense depend on us. Second, there is the idea of "shock the conscience" -- some experiments are truly horrific. This reliance on philosophy and aesthetics is a weakness in the bill.
• Instrumentality. There are some good points here, especially in the development of a new inspection service. However, the definition of experimentation is left under-developed. Does this include veterinary science? What is the meaning of "scientific" here? As a practical measure, the author has yet to understand how the use of grants can limit or focus research.
• Aff. Keep the focus on medicinal purposes. There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that we do not need to use animals in the way we have. There are alternatives.
• Neg. A focus on the outlier cases may be the most useful. The bill takes a categorical approach so focus on the exceptions. There are some circumstances where animal experimentation has helped. Be ready to bring up "touching stories".