Increase – Excludes Creation – 1NC

“Increase” means to make greater and requires pre-existence Buckley 6 (Jeremiah, Attorney, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06- 84.mer.ami.mica.pdf)

First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater ,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “ad- verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “exist-ing or applied for” in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).

“Transportation investment” means addition to existing networks Berechman 2 (Yossi, Professor of Public Policy – Tel Aviv University, Transport and Economic Development, p. 114)

4.1. Basic definitions In the present context, "transportation investment" is defined as a capacity improvement or addition to an existing network of roads, rail, waterways, huh terminals, tunnels, bridges, airports and harbors. The concept of "resultant economic growth" is further considered to mean the long-run increase in economic activity in a given geographical area, which can be ascribed to a specific transport investment and which confers welfare improvements to the area's residents. Additionally, as explained later, it is also required that the growth benefits will be in addition to the direct transportation benefits from the investment and not merely their capitalised value. Tin's latter condition is a fundamental one. fully discussed in section 5.2.

Plan creates new types of infrastructure --- voting issue:

1. Limits --- they can create any form, the entire range of possible forms of transport becomes topical --- overstretches Neg research burdens --- we allow a fair number of existing types like roads, bridges, airports, etc. 2. Ground --- best links assume existing infrastructure, they change the debate from improving current capabilities to creating new forms --- undermines core ground and fairness States CP 1NC Shell

CP Text: The 50 states and all relevant federal territories should substantially increase their investment in a national network of inter-city high-speed passenger rail.

States and Compacts solve best for HSR Utah Foundation ‘10 The Utah Foundation is a private, non-profit public service agency established to study state and local government –“High-Speed Rail Around the World: A Survey and Comparison of Existing Systems” – Report Number 694, August 2010 – http://utahfoundation.org/img/pdfs/rr694.pdf

Ad hoc arrangements of states working together to build, fund and govern inter-state HSR are a possibility, assuming the states have the collective capital necessary to secure financing and the collective will to create inter-state compacts that regulate HSR and create governance structures that serve the interests of all those involved. If state transit authorities were able to get the funding necessary, they could effectively act as the national railway companies do in the cases of Eurostar and Thalys, with stakes in the ownership and governance of the system. Arrangements like this would also not preclude the ability to receive any federal funds that are directed towards HSR. In deed, among those HSR projects that have secured funding in the U.S., a few are such inter-state arrangements. In this way, coalitions of states could overcome some of the limitations of having a less-centralized national government compared to other HSR countries. Jackson-Vanik 1NC Shell Jackson-Vanik will pass- momentum growing in Congress to pass within two months Financial Times 6/12 (James Politi, staffwriter for the Financial Times, 6/12/12, “Moscow trade move on US agenda”, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0386cc9c-b4b1-11e1-aa06-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1z7l9Dp7z”) Momentum is growing in Congress for legislation to normalize US trade relations with Russia in connection with its looming accession to the World Trade Organization . A bipartisan group of influential senators on Tuesday introduced a bill that would grant “permanent normal trade relations” status to Russia, calling for fellow lawmakers to approve the legislation over the next two months. The bill – sponsored by Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate finance committee – would also repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a provision of US law designed in the 1970s to restrict trade with countries that restrict emigration. “Jackson-Vanik served its purpose during the cold war, but it’s a relic of another era that now stands in the way of our farmers, ranchers and businesses pursuing opportunities to grow and create jobs,” said Mr Baucus. “We owe it to American workers and businesses to enable them to take advantage of the doors opening in Russia.” The move comes amid persistent concerns harboured by many US lawmakers about Russia’s foreign policy – particularly with regard to Syria – as well as the pace of political and economic reforms, and human rights in the country. In fact, Mr Baucus said he planned to introduce an amendment to the PNTR legislation called the “Magnitsky” bill – which is opposed by Russia – allowing the US to freeze assets and deny entry to Russian officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses. The Obama administration has said it would prefer a “clean” bill, not tying PNTR with the Magnitsky rule, but nonetheless “welcomed” the introduction of the legislation in the Senate. “We will continue to work with Congress so that Americans can reap the full benefits of Russia’s WTO membership,” said Ron Kirk, US trade representative. PC key to repeal votes on Jackson Vanik Moscow Times ‘12 “Margelov Hopes Jackson-Vanik Will Be Repealed in 2012”,4/5/12 http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/margelov- hopes-jackson-vanik-will-be-repealed-in-2012/456160.html, BJM The United States will raise the issue of discussing the Jackson-Vanik amendment before this summer, said Mikhail Margelov, head of the Federation Council's International Affairs Committee, Interfax reported. "The administration of President Barack Obama, which has been lobbying this issue in Congress, is synchronizing watches and taking stock of its forces," Margelov told reporters after a round table that focused on the reversal of the amendment in the context of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization. The event was held behind closed doors. Margelov said Ambassador Michael McFaul has been participating in the round-table process. It is important for the Obama administration to understand how many votes it can secure in Congress for the decision to repeal the amendment, which was passed during the Cold War era and which limits trading opportunities between Russia and the United States, the senator said. The issue is "a matter of the U.S. internal calendar," he said. "For us, it is interesting only from the standpoint that the reversal of this amendment will become a political signal that the relics of the Cold War will be removed from our political realities and the reset will be filled with substance," Margelov said. For the first time, the U.S. presidential administration "has been lobbying the reversal of this amendment genuinely and deeply, and has been doing so very seriously and professionally," he said. Anything above routine investment costs political capital Freemark ‘12 (Yonah – Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist – He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic – The Transport Politic – “On Infrastructure, Hopes for Progress This Year Look Glum” – January 25th, 2012 – http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/25/on-infrastructure- hopes-for-progress-this-year-look-glum/ President Obama barely mentions the need for improvements in the nation’s capital stock in his State of the Union. The contributions of the Obama Administration to the investment in improved transportation alternatives have been significant, but it was clear from the President’s State of the Union address last night that 2012 will be a year of diminished expectations in the face of a general election and a tough Congressional opposition. Mr. Obama’s address, whatever its merits from a populist perspective, nonetheless failed to propose dramatic reforms to encourage new spending on transportation projects, in contrast to previous years. While the Administration has in some ways radically reformed the way Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts — a sort of war dividend whose size is undefined — to “do some nation-building right here at home.” If these suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment audience, they were reflective of the reality of working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as increased roads funding have become practically impossible to pursue. Mr. Obama pushed hard, we shouldn’t forget, for a huge, transformational transportation bill in early 2011, only to be rebuffed by intransigence in the GOP-led House of Representatives and only wavering support in the Democratic Senate. For the first term at least, the Administration’s transportation initiatives appear to have been pushed aside. Even so, it remains to be seen how the Administration will approach the development of a transportation reauthorization program. Such legislation remains on the Congressional agenda after three years of delays (the law expires on March 31st). There is so far no long-term solution to the continued inability of fuel tax revenues to cover the growing national need for upgraded or expanded mobility infrastructure. But if it were to pass, a new multi-year transportation bill would be the most significant single piece of legislation passed by the Congress in 2012. The prospect of agreement between the two parties on this issue, however, seems far-fetched. That is, if we are to assume that the goal is to complete a new and improved spending bill, rather than simply further extensions of the existing legislation. The House could consider this month a bill that would fund new highways and transit for several more years by expanding domestic production of heavily carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a terrible plan that would produce few new revenues and encourage more ecological destruction. Members of the Senate, meanwhile, have for months been claiming they were “looking” for the missing $12 or 13 billion to complete its new transportation package but have so far come up with bupkis. The near-term thus likely consists of either continued extensions of the current law or a bipartisan bargain that fails to do much more than replicate the existing law, perhaps with a few bureaucratic reforms. The recent highways bill doesn’t take out the disad—they decreased baseline levels of spending The Hill 6/29 "Congress passes highway funds, extends lower student loan rate" By Pete Kasperowicz and Daniel Strauss - 06/29/12, thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/235621-house-passes-highway-student-loan-flood-insurance-bill AD 6/29/12 The vote also ends a long streak without a long-term highway bill. The last transportation bill that was approved by Congress was supposed to expire in September 2009, when former Democratic Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) ran the Transportation Committee in the House. Instead, the measure was temporarily extended nine times, including the latest three-month appropriation that was scheduled to expire on Saturday. The scope of the new transportation legislation has been reduced since the last time Congress approved a multiyear highway bill. The last bill , which was signed into law in 2005 by former President George W. Bush, lasted four years and spent $244 billion on road and transit projects. Jackson-Vanik repeal sets the tone for US-Russia relations Gvosdev 12 Nikolas, faculty of the U.S. Naval War College “The Realist Prism: Resetting the U.S.-Russia Reset,” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11441/the-realist-prism-resetting-the-u-s-russia-reset An upcoming decision -point could offer a good indication of what to expe c t . The World Trade Organization is expected to ratify Russia’s accession later this spring. However, American firms will not be able to take advantage of Russia's WTO membership as long as U.S. trade with Russia is still subject to the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik amendment. Congress would first have to agree to "graduate" Russia from the terms of the legislation, but many members remain hesitant. An unofficial swap would see Russia given permanent normal trading relations status, but with new legislation applying "smart sanctions" against specific Russian individuals and entities accused of condoning human rights abuses, most notably in the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky. Whether this Solomonic compromise could work, however, remains to be seen. The Russian government has already responded very negatively to sanctions unilaterally imposed by the State Department and may be quite unwilling to accept such a compromise, even if it means graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik. At the same time, there remains resistance within Congress to "giving up" one of its last remaining tools to pressure Russia on a whole range of issues, from chicken imports to religious freedom. The fate of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, therefore, is the canary in the coal mine for U.S.-Russia relations. If a successful repeal is negotiated, it bodes well for regenerating the relationship. However , if Obama, like George W. Bush before him, is unable to secure Russia’s graduation, this could end up being a fatal blow to the whole idea of the reset. Russian relations are key to solve every impact-alternative is crisis escalation and war Commission on US Policy Toward Russia 2009 (US Senate, “THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR U.S. POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA,” March) Securing America’s vital national interests in the complex, interconnected, and interdependent world of the twenty-first century requires deep and meaningful cooperation with other governments. The challenges—stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, defeating terrorist networks, rebuilding the global economy, and ensuring energy security for the United States and others— are enormous . And few nations could make more of a difference to our success than Russia, with its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, its strategic location spanning Europe and Asia, its considerable energy resources, and its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Rapid and effective action to strengthen U.S.-Russian relations is critically important to advancing U.S. national interests An American commitment to improving U.S.-Russian relations is neither a reward to be offered for good international behavior by Moscow nor an endorsement of the Russian government’s domestic conduct. Rather, it is an acknowledgement of the importance of Russian cooperation in achieving essential American goals, whether preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling al- Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan, or guaranteeing security and prosperity in Europe. Success in creating a new and cooperative relationship with Russia can contribute to each of these objectives and many others. Failure could impose significant costs. AT: Solvency 1. HSR fails—US too big and HSR cannot use traditional railways Barone, Political Analyst, 12 Michael Barone, a senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner, The Columbus Dispatch, October 14, 2011, http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/10/14/high- speed-rail-plan-doesnt-make-sense-for-u-s-.html, accessed 6-13-2012. Moreover, the idea that it would be great to put high-speed rail lines all over the country shows an underappreciation of American geography and of some of the nation’s genuine strengths . High-speed rail can compete with air travel only over limited distances, but the United States is a continental-sized country. Japan and France , as you may have noticed, are a lot smaller. China, which is continent-sized, too, has been building high-speed rail, but it is cutting back now and slowing down the trains after a bad accident. Brazil, also continent-sized, is dropping plans for a Rio de Janeiro-Sao Paulo line. Its airlines and buses already work fine. America’s alleged lag in high-speed rail is also a consequence of our excellence in freight rail. Over three decades after Jimmy Carter’s deregulation, freight rail has squeezed out costs and made shipped goods much cheaper for all of us. Europe and Japan have lousy freight rail and pay more for things. The reason that’s important is that truly high-speed trains cannot use freight-rail tracks. Freight trains travel slower and have a hard time getting out of the way of passenger trains traveling 200 miles per hour. Japan’s bullet train and France’s TGV operate on dedicated tracks specially built for them. That’s expensive. As a frequent traveler from Washington to New York, I’d love to see a real high-speed train in the Northeast Corridor, the only place in the country where it might make economic sense. But if not having one is the price to be paid for the demise of the Obama high-speed-rail boondoggle, I’m happy to pay it.

2. No Riders-so it won’t increase enough riders to solve the harms Dr. Samuel Staley, 9 Samuel Staley, Ph.D., senior research fellow at Reason Foundation, teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in urban planning, regulation, and urban economics, was director of urban growth and land-use policy for RF, “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail,” Reason Foundation, June 22, 2009, http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig, accessed 6-14-2012.

Reason Foundation has been spending a fair amount of time criticizing high-speed rail initiatives proposed by states such as California and the federal government. Much of the criticism by our analysts as well as others focuses on the fiscal impacts, the poor design of the proposed corridors, and the unwise tactics of proponents that gloss over the many, many problems these initiatives face if implemented in the U.S. Reason Foundation's contribution can be found in its "Due Diligence" report on the California initiative and in our commentaries. Randal O'Toole has made several contributions to the discussion, and his most recent report can be found here. While these criticisms all have merit, we can't lose sight of the fact the biggest reason high- speed rail won't work in the U.S. is that it doesn't make sense as a project funded from general tax revenues. High-speed rail is not a public good and it's not mass transit. It is corridor transit. At best, it's a niche market serving a highly specialized, relatively wealthy, and narrow customer base (high-income business travelers with expense accounts and tourists ). It won't relieve urban traffic congestion and its contribution to improving air quality (or reducing carbon dioxide emissions) will be negligible because it won't carry enough riders to make a big difference. These factors undermine high-speed rail justificatons based on public good arguments. AT: Warming

1. High speed rail is empirically proven to not reduce CO2 emissions and in fact emits more CO2 than other trains John Whitelegg, research leader at the Stockholm Environment Institute, York University, “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative,” The Guardian, April 28, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel-europe- uk, accessed 6-15-2012. The HSR plan is a large and expensive sledgehammer to crack a modestly sized nut . We could stimulate the economy by building 1,000 miles of HSR, but the sums would not stack up in terms of how many jobs this would create per £100,000 spent. If we really want to create jobs in all local economies, rather than drain them away along a very fast railway line, we could insulate 20m homes; make every house a mini-power station to generate and export its own electricity; sort out extremely poor quality commuter railway lines around all our cities; improve inter-regional rail links; and build 10,000 kms of segregated bike paths to connect every school, hospital, employment site and public building to every residential area. These projects would deliver real jobs on a large scale in every city region and local authority, but do not have the high-speed sexiness of new railway lines. HSR is promoted as something that can sort out nasty carbon-producing aircraft on domestic routes. It has done this on the Paris-Lyon and Madrid-Seville lines, but this ability to trash a single air route should not be interpreted as something than can dent the growth of air travel. Germany has one of the largest HSR systems in the world, yet has seen an explosion in internal air travel. HSR does not reduce the fuel consumption of domestic aviation or reduce annual carbon emissions from aircraft. And it produces twice as much CO2 per passenger kilometre as a non-high speed train . If we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, we should not move towards higher speed, more carbon intensive forms of transport and a policy of increasing the mass of travel.

2. There are a slew of causes to CO2 Thumma, 12 Dawn Walls-Thumma, “Leading Causes of Global Warming,” National Geographic, 2011, http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/leading-causes-global-warming-2177.html, accessed 6-16-2012. Scientists attribute most of this recent rise in global temperatures to increases in greenhouse gases, although they acknowledge the contributions of changes in land-use, as well as solar radiation and volcanic activity (see Resources 2). Fossil Fuel Combustion The widespread burning of fossil fuels began with the Industrial Revolution, when humankind discovered that the energy from burning fossil fuels like coal could power machinery that performed work faster and more efficiently than reliance on human labor. According to the IPCC, burning fossil fuels is the leading cause of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. (See References 2) Energy Generation According to the EPA, more than half of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States come from stationary sources, such as power plants (see References 1). In 2007, 48 percent of U.S. power plants burned coal, and 22 percent used natural gas (see References 3, page 5). Both coal and gas are fossil fuels, and burning them to generate electricity produces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change (see References 4 and 5). Transportation In 2008, an additional 27 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the United States came from burning gasoline to power cars, trucks and aircraft. Furthermore, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are increasing more rapidly than emissions from other sources, according to the EPA. To trim greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, you can carpool and take public transportation, reduce the amount you drive and purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. (See References 6) Agriculture While burning fossil fuels accounts for large emissions of carbon dioxide, agriculture produces the most methane and nitrous oxide worldwide, according to the IPCC (see References 2). In the United States, agriculture accounted for about 7 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. Agricultural sources of greenhouse gases are myriad. Livestock grazing, waste management and digestive gases contribute half of the emissions produced by agriculture. Nitrogen fertilizers release nitrous oxide and comprise 35 percent of agricultural emissions. Burning fossil fuels to power farm equipment also produces greenhouse gas emissions but constitute only about 13 percent of all emissions. (See Resources 1, pages 1-3) The agriculture sector can employ rotational grazing, manage livestock feed and waste, and judiciously apply nitrogen fertilizers in order to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from agricultural practices (see Resources 1, page 6). AT: Competitiveness

1. Implementation delays prove no short term effect Rugy and Mitchell, 11 Veronique de Rugy, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and Matthew Mitchell, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “WOULD MORE INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING STIMULATE THE ECONOMY?,” MERCATUS, September 2011, http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/infrastructure_deRugy_WP_9-12-11.pdf, accessed 6-16-2012. The problems with infrastructure stimulus: There are unique problems with infrastructure stimulus that tend to diminish its chances of success. Chief among these are long implementation delays. The Congressional Budget Office reports that: [F]or major infrastructure projects supported by the federal government, such as highway construction and activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, initial outlays usually total less than 25 percent of the funding provided in a given year. For large projects, the initial rate of spending can be significantly lower than 25 percent.17 Economists from the IMF studied the impact of implementation delays on the multiplier and found that, ―Implementation delays can postpone the intended economic stimulus and may even worsen the downturn in the short run .‖

2. Economic collapse doesn’t cause instability Fareed Zakaria was named editor of Newsweek International in October 2000, overseeing all Newsweek editions abroad, December 12, 2009, “The Secrets of Stability,” http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/11/the-secrets-of-stability.html Others predicted that these economic shocks would lead to political instability and violence in the worst-hit countries. At his confirmation hearing in February, the new U.S. director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, cautioned the Senate that "the financial crisis and global recession are likely to produce a wave of economic crises in emerging-market nations over the next year." Hillary Clinton endorsed this grim view. And she was hardly alone. Foreign Policy ran a cover story predicting serious unrest in several emerging markets. Of one thing everyone was sure: nothing would ever be the same again . Not the financial industry, not capitalism, not globalization. One year later, how much has the world really changed ? Well, Wall Street is home to two fewer investment banks (three, if you count Merrill Lynch). Some regional banks have gone bust. There was some turmoil in Moldova and (entirely unrelated to the financial crisis) in Iran. Severe problems remain, like high unemployment in the West, and we face new problems caused by responses to the crisis—soaring debt and fears of inflation. But overall, things look nothing like they did in the 1930s. The predictions of economic and political collapse have not materialized at all.