301- An Amend. to give all the right to run for pres.-CON-Reynolds  
 
1.  People have emotional ties with the country they were born in, and this could develop into biases with regards to foreign nations. 
Cox News Service Oct. 10, 2003. 
“When you're an immigrant, you're always going to have an emotional tie to the country of your birth," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center For Immigration Studies in Washington. "This requirement has worked for over 200 years, and there's no good reason to change." 
2. The founding fathers had specific concerns about foreign-born individuals holding power. 
Free Republic.com July 31, 2003. 
"The reason the Founders included the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution was to help preserve the nation's powerful office against foreign interests," Clymer said. "They had seen various European powers trying to meddle in the affairs of other countries and understood the chaos that could result - from economic insecurity to civil war - and they did not want that to happen here." 
3. Such a proposal would be disastrous for American security. 
The Seattle Times, 2003
Historian Forrest McDonald, a professor at the University of Alabama, said the framers were very familiar with the example of 18th century Poland, where foreign powers had subverted the election of a monarch and installed their own puppet, allowing them to carve up the country. In America, rumors swirled that the Constitutional Convention intended to invite a relative of English King George III to reign over the just-liberated colonies. 
301-A bill to give the right of pres.-PRO-Reed  
Pro 
1. Many people that have run our country are not native born, but have proved themselves very capable and successful leaders
The Chicago Tribune Sept.18, 2001 
"Well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens, such as Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, the former secretaries of state; as well as Elaine Chao and Mel Martinez, the Bush cabinet members, could be a lawful candidate for president simply because they were not born in America." 
2. Such ethnic discrimination goes against the belief of the Founding Fathers as stated in the Declaration of Independence. 
 
Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
New York Times Oct. 12, 2003 
"It is time that this last remnant of ethnic bias be removed from our Constitution. It is unnecessary, unfair and hurtful to our children." 
3. Many children are adopted into the United States and cannot become presidents because of it. 
For example: Seattle Times Oct. 5, 2003 
"First-grader Jonah Yinger of Syracuse, N.Y., who was born in Vietnam and adopted by his parents when he was an infant, is among those children" "Jonah has lived in the United States nearly all his life," said Yinger, a Syracuse University economist. "But he is going to be treated differently than all other citizens. When he gets to a class on the Constitution, he is constantly going to have to hear that he can't run for president, while every other kid can." 
 
302 CON								Jentzen
Intro: Normally, mass extinction on our planet is the result of cataclysmic changes in climate brought about by upheavals of the earth’s crust or by collisions with asteroids, comets, or meteors.  But the current mass extinction we are experiencing isn’t being brought about by such natural atrocities; it is being caused by us.
1. Federal funding for aiding endangered species programs have been successful
06/29/98 U.S. Newswire 
"These changes amount to the Endangered Species Act keeping its promise," said Van Putten. "Federal management took the wolves from critical condition to recovery and now it's time to let the folks back home take over and keep them healthy. That's how the Act is supposed to work." 
2.  Biodiversity is essential for human life, and by allowing endangered species to become extinct, we are jeopardizing our own existence
Defenders of Wildlife status report on state laws, policies, and programs, 
“The tangible benefits to humanity of plants and wildlife are numerous. Humans rely on the natural world for food and new curative drugs. Wildlife and ecosystem-based tourism is a source of economic growth. Ecosystems sustain natural processes such as soil creation and the oxygenation of air and water. Continued rapid loss of biodiversity eventually would disrupt essential natural processes on which human survival depends. “
concerned with protecting human life, 
making a grave error in removing federal funding from endangered species programs because 
human existence depends on the preservation of endangered species
3.  Endangered species are already becoming extinct at a phenomenal rate, and without government intervention this rate will only increase
The Center for Biological Diversity
Although extinction is a natural process, in recent years the rate of extinction has reached epidemic proportions. We are losing 1 to 100 species each day. By comparison, the rate of extinction in nature is only one species every 100 years! 
4. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which will enforce this bill, has become a slave to the courts
Meanwhile, officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service struggle with programs that are hundreds of millions of dollars in the red. The agency routinely fails to make timely decisions, and nearly every decision it does make generates a lawsuit. As a result, court orders dictate many of the agency's actions.
Bill 302 Pro-A Bill to Put People First
	Explanation: The bill stops federal aid to endangered species recovery programs.  The money used to fund these programs will now go to programs designed to aid people.
1.  Endangered species recovery programs cost too much money
Last April, Gary Frazer, assistant director for endangered species at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, testified that the agency needed $153 million to address the backlog of obligations under two key programs: listing new species and designating the habitat they need to survive. The agency got only $12.3 million for those programs for 2004. That was double the 2002 budget and a third more than this year's.
2.  Endangered species programs don’t allow the federal government use land that hold many natural resources for humans
Robert J. Smith, the director of environmental studies at the Cato Institute 2003
In the Pacific Northwest millions of acres of federal, state, and private forestlands can no longer be used to produce lumber and pulp. Not only are timber companies and sawmills shutting their doors, but their closure is crippling entire communities as wages and taxes disappear. Studies by Oregon and Washington universities as well as by industry economists suggest a total loss of as many as 100,000 jobs. 
Over the past few years much of the Texas hill country west of Austin and San Antonio has been closed to virtually all development and much agriculture. Even clearing brush along fencerows carries the risk of criminal prosecution. Consequently, property values in Travis County have plummeted by more than $358 million. The source of all this land-use control is the Endangered Species Act, which has been called by many the single most powerful law ever passed.
Allowing the federal government to fund environmental programs is more harmful to the environment than letting private corporations fund programs that protect endangered species
Jerry Taylor, Cato Institute
The biggest and worst polluter in America is the federal government, which subsidizes a host of activities that arguably cause more environmental damage than all the actors in the "unfettered'' free market. 
It makes no sense for the federal government to subsidize environmental destruction on one hand while establishing laws, regulations, and vast bureaucracies to mitigate it on the other. Reconsidering those subsidies would help not only the environment but the economy as well. 
303-A Bill to Restore the Commons-Con-Michelotti  
 
Bill 303 Con 
Explanation: Copyright law states that any copywrighted work becomes public domain fifty years after the author's death for individual works and 75 years from the making for corporate authorship works. The Sonny Bono act extended the fifty to seventy and the 75 to 95. This bill repeals the Sonny Bono act, so speaking Con would be speaking for the Sonny Bono act. 
I. Many literary works, movies, and fictional characters, which were quite profitable to the copyright owners, were threatened with soon passing into the public domain. This is unfair to the copyright owners who are still making a living off of their works. 
-Mickey Mouse would have been public domain by now, since his Steamboat Willy was reaching the end of its 75-year copyright. (Disney, 2000) 
II. With all the illegal downloading, the industries need all the money they can get. Extending the copyright term would help out the music industry by lengthening the amount of time they get to make money on a song. 
-In March of this year, Kazaa had 17.4 million users. (Monterey Herald, Posted on Thu, Oct. 02, 2003) 
IV. People and families have longer life expectancies, so it's only fair that the copywright term be lengthened. 
-In 1950, the average life expectancy was 68 years. Now, in 2003, it is nearly 78 years. (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003) 
People and families are still alive when their copyright expires. This would create an adequate provision for the descendants of authors and artists as well. 
V. The twenty year extension that the Bono act provided for helps the US harmonize with the European Union, which has adopted that copyright term. If we repeal the Bono act, our copyright laws will not be protected in Europe past the expiration date of the former copyright term. 
This is important because America is the largest exporter of copyrighted intellectual property in the world.(Congressional Brief on behalf of 9 respected organizations including the National Music Publisher's Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the American Society of Composers on June 28, 1999)  
Bill 303- A Bill to Restore the Commons - PRO
Caitlin FitzHarris
The Main Idea of the Bill: Is to get rid of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension. The Sonny Bono Act is one that extends all copyrights by twenty years. Author works would not come into the public domain till seventy years after their death and 95 years till corporation’s publications would come into the public domain.
“Celebrity corrupts, and absolute celebrity corrupts absolutely.”
1)The public domain is an essential part of American heritage 
Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig,  September 12, 2003  
  Santa Claus himself, as we now know him, is a good example.  The great 19th-century American cartoonist Thomas Nast, starting from a skinny, austere, judgmental Father Christmas figure in the public domain, created the jovial, roly-poly figure that we all know today.  Had Thomas Nast been working under the kind of copyright law now in place after term extension, we may never have seen the development that we now take for granted-and Nast's descendants might be seeking royalties from everyone seeking to put out Christmas decorations.  
2) The Sonny Bono Act blocks authors from creating new works based on earlier one
Stephen R. Barnett and Dennis S. Karjala The Washington Post, July l4, l999)
To write anything about Sylvia Plath biographers must contend with censorship of their work by Plath's husband, Ted Hughes, if they want to quote substantially even from the published poems of Plath. This regime, too, would last an additional 20 years under the pending legislation. 
4) We need copyright laws, but not to the extent the Sonny Bono Act is allowing for
.(“Copyrights, Celebrity and Bad Laws” The Optimate Jay Bryant Feb. 5th 2003)
The concept of the copyright was that the artist, by being granted a monopoly over his works, had the opportunity to earn a living, insofar as there was any market for what he produced. Monopolies, however, are not without problems, the principal one being that they inflate the price of the product. And since, as Lord Macaulay noted in 1842, when Parliament was debating a bill which was almost a precise equivalent of the Sonny Bono Law, the only reason why the government should grant such a monopoly is to encourage the production of the art; the monopoly should, therefore, last no longer than necessary to accomplish that goal
5) The Sonny Bono Act decreases the need for Authors to create new works. Therefore new works of art are not entering society.
(Stephen R. Barnett and Dennis S. Karjala The Washington Post, July l4, l999)
This is a bad idea, one that would upset the copyright balance. Super-extended copyright terms add little incentive to create new works. What author is going to decide not to write another book because copyright royalties will flow only for 50 years, not for 70 years, after her death? 
Bill 304 - A Bill to End the Torture - Pro
The use of torture is outlawed by international treaties
(USA Today, March 5, 2003 John Diamond, Toni Locy and Richard Willing):  The United States is party to at least three international treaties that prohibit the use of torture in interrogating captives. One, the International Convention Against Torture, defines it as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted" to gain information or a confession.
Using force to obtain information is specifically prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states that: “No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.” 
President Bush is also in favor of banning torture as an interrogation device
(The Atlantic Monthly, Oct 2003): In June, at the urging of Amnesty and other groups, President Bush reaffirmed America's opposition to torture, saying, "I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture ... and we are leading this fight by example."
Various methods of torture are still being used to interrogate prisoners today, despite such calls for action
(The Washington Post, Marc Kaufman, March 5, 2003): “According to officials familiar with the situation at Bagram air base, [where two Afghan prisoners died as a result of blunt force injuries (as well as other causes) while under US control] some of those practices include intense psychological and physical pressures designed to break down resistance. Some have said the practices sometimes blur the line between humane and inhumane treatment of prisoners.”
(“Crimes of War,” Virginie Ladisch, April 24, 2003): “Those who refuse to cooperate inside this secret CIA interrogation center are sometimes kept standing or kneeling for hours, in black hoods or spray-painted goggles, according to intelligence specialists familiar with CIA interrogation methods. At times they are held in awkward, painful positions or deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of lights—subject to what are known as ‘stress and duress’ techniques.”
Torturing prisoners to gather information often causes them to become more adamant in their refusal to confess 
(The New York Times, Don Van Natta Jr.  March 8, 2003): “Pain alone will often make people numb and unresponsive,” said Magnus Ranstorp, deputy director of the Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St. Andrews University in Scotland. “You have to engage people to get into their minds and learn what is there.” 
Victims who are tortured often falsely incriminate themselves in order to put an end to pain
(USA Today, March 5, 2003 John Diamond, Toni Locy and Richard Willing):  A tortured captive is "not only going to tell you he's al-Qaeda, he's going to tell you he was the other guy on the grassy knoll" in Dallas when John F. Kennedy was killed, says one intelligence source. "When you start using torture, it redefines who you are."
(“Excerpts from a CIA Torture Manual,” Harper’s Magazine, April 1997): Intense pain is quite likely to produce false confessions, fabricated to avoid additional punishment. This results in a time-consuming delay while an investigation is conducted and the admissions are proven untrue. During this respite, the subject can pull himself together and may even use the time to devise a more complex confession that takes still longer to disprove.
There are other methods of interrogation that have proven more effective for gathering information than torture
(The Atlantic Monthly, Oct 2003): “Fear works. It is more effective than any drug, tactic, or torture device. According to unnamed scientific studies cited by the Kubark Manual, most people cope with pain better than they think they will. As people become more familiar with pain, they become conditioned to it. Those who have suffered more physical pain than others - from being beaten frequently as a child, for example, or suffering a painful illness - may adapt to it and come to fear it less. So once interrogators resort to actual torture, they are apt to lose ground.”
(The New York Times, Don Van Natta Jr.  March 8, 2003): “The important thing is to construct the suspect’s personal history and learn about the person before you interrogate them,” a European counterterrorism official said. “Shock is a great technique. When we can show someone that we already know a lot about them, including intimate personal details, they are shocked and more likely to start talking.” 
 Con
 1. The constitution should be changed to allow torture
---Mr. Babbin of The National Review---
The Constitution and federal law should be changed to allow torture of terror suspects when authorized by a court. With judicial supervision, police and others could use non-lethal means to torture information out of terrorists.  If torture is done in a manner which is approved by the US, there would be no problem with it.  Torture is not the same as the “old days.”  We have come along way in the field of interrogation and most methods are not as harmful to the subject as they sound. Unfortunately, there is no appetite for this in America because we are afraid of what other countries might think and that is the wrong attitude to have.
2. Sending prisoners to other countries would be very costly
---Robert Baer of the BBC---
Psychological abuse. Sleep deprivation, lights on 24 hours a day, controlling all news, the good guy bad guy technique. You read about this stuff in fiction. It works with some people, and others it doesn’t. For the hard core, you would send them to Syria or some place like that. These countries on the front of terrorism aren’t playing around. You still have a lot of problems with the information from these interrogations. Sending prisoners to other counties would be very costly and we simply cannot afford it. 
3. Other counties use torture as a form of interrogation and it works
---National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)---
Since the lapse of TADA successive governments have tried to introduce new legislation, derogating from international law, to deal with alleged terrorist activities and now they have been successful. In 1999 the Indian government asked the Indian Law Commission to "undertake a fresh examination of the issue of a suitable legislation for torture and other national activities." As the Law Commission produced, they  supported torture in April of 2000.  If torture has worked in other less structured countries, it will most certainly work in the US.  We would be able to have stricter controls over methods of torture due to our more free society.
4.Interogation is a means of science
---CNN---
I agree with the fact that coercive interrogation should be regulated, not   ended altogether. Interrogators are superior because we can derive security benefits from what they learn from interrogation. It seems quite fair to expect them to do this. Interrogation is a science, scientists shouldn't be discouraged from practicing their craft because the public at large is whimsical and could decide to punish them. In the future the information gathered will be used to help the public safety and national security.  
5. There are already groups out there that prevent torture
---Amnesty international, December 18 2002---
Amnesty International together with many other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have long campaigned for a strong and effective Protocol, and welcomed its adoption by the UN. By focusing on preventive rather than retroactive measures, and by establishing a complementary relationship between international and national mechanisms of monitoring, the Protocol offers a new and important tool to eradicate torture. Now governments must sign and ratify the Protocol, and by doing so ensuring its prompt entry into force.
--The Protocol allows independent international experts to conduct regular visits to places of detention within states parties (i.e. states that have accepted this Protocol by ratifying or acceding to it). The aim of these visits is to assess the condition of detention and the treatment of those detained and to make recommendations to states parties for improvements. The Protocol also requires states parties to set up national mechanism to conduct visits to places of detention and to cooperate with the international experts.
Mark Gumapas
Bill 306- CON
A Bill to Give Father’s Rights
This bill is pretty much saying that all companies that have a plan for maternity leave shall also have a plan for paternity leave.
Vocabulary just in case…
Maternity leave is when a woman is pregnant; she gets a break from her job and maybe gets paid to support the baby.
Paternity leave is when a husband’s wife is pregnant; he gets a break from his job and maybe gets paid to support the baby
There would be no health need for paternity leave.  If a mother is pregnant, maternity leave is mainly to regain strength and nurture the baby.
-	Maternity leave is really used so that the mother of the baby can regain strength from being in labor, but the husband really has no health needs for taking leave.  So really he’d be getting a free vacation. 
From the intelligent mind of Mr. Deignan
If a father wants to help the babies, he can take off work, but it’s not necessary so we should not mandate paternity leave.
-	It is not necessary for a father to take leave for the baby.  Yes, it is a great time for the father to bond with the baby but, it is not the last time to do it.  Therefore, making it not necessary.
Knight Ridder, Tribune News Service, Nov 18, 2003
This bill will not help those that don’t offer maternity leave.
-  Seeing in the evidence for my first contention that only 12% of companies offer paternity and maternity leave, then what about the rest of the women that need support.  Will this bill be able to suffice and support all needy mother’s.  The bill is not helping everyone, but only a certain few.  
support the baby.
It would cost too much money if the maternity leave benefits include paid leave.
-	12% of companies offer paid paternity leave.
Society for Human Resource Management.
-	That also means that they also offer that to their maternity leave program too.  So if all companies with maternity paid maternity leave must also have paid paternity leave then lots of money would be used in the passing of this bill.
If benefits include paid leave then the family would be getting income from both sides of the family without having to work.
-	In research it states that a parent on leave shall receive 90% of their paycheck every week.
Department of Trade and Industry
-	As said in the bill paternity leave will get the same benefits and provisions that maternity leave gets. Linking to my first contention that it would use a lot of money, the family would get income from both parents without any parent having to lift a finger.  
Some dads don’t even take paternity leave.
-	Experts warn against using paternity leave to judge fathers' devotion to their families. "For most dads who don't take leave, it's not because they don't want to, but because of negative ramifications."
Judi Casey, director of the New England Work and Family Association at the Boston College Center for Work & Family
306-A Bill To Give Fathers Rights-Pro-Bock  
 
Pro Bill 306 A Bill To Give Fathers Rights Abigail Bock 
This bill basicially wants to allows fathers to have a materinity leave. OR have time off to spend with the family and new addition to the household. 
1. Paternity leave rewards the parents 
**"Following a child's birth a parent will most likely be very preoccupied with family matters. Your career, which was probably once very important to a parent, may seem far less significant. A parent may be unwilling or unable to take on additional projects or work overtime. If that isn't bad enough, for the six months or so after your child is born, a parent will be sleep deprived and have drastically lower energy levels at work than a parent normally have. All of these things affect fathers as well as mothers.
Source: Dr. Greene MD FAAP March 18, 1999. Reviewed by Khanh-Van Le-Bucklin MD September 2001. 
2. Fathers are using vacation and sick days to spend time with their child unlike the mothers. 
**A 2000 survey by the U.S. Department of Labor found about a third of new fathers took some leave to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. Other dads elect for "underground leave," as James Levine, co-author of "Working Dads," dubs the time fathers scrape together with vacation or sick days. 
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Nov 18, 2003 pK3932 Attitudes about paternity leave are changing. (The Seattle Times) Dunnewind, Stephanie. 
3. Fathers cannot scrap enough days together to even get a weeks worth of time. 
**An Oxygen/Markle "Pulse Poll" in 2000 found two-thirds of men (and nearly three-quarters of women) said new dads should take more than two weeks off after the birth or adoption of a child. However, the average amount of leave dads reported taking was less than a week, and most people surveyed said they didn't know anyone who had taken more. 
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Nov 18, 2003 pK3932 Attitudes about paternity leave are changing. (The Seattle Times) Dunnewind, Stephanie. 
4. Such a small enough of companies even offer paying paternity leave. 
**Nationally, only 12 percent of companies report offering paid paternity leave, according to a 2003 benefits survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. 
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Nov 18, 2003 pK3932 Attitudes about paternity leave are changing. (The Seattle Times) Dunnewind, Stephanie. 
5. Paternity leave gives a man a better sense of partnership with his wife. 
**"It was a wonderful time to get to know my daughter," said Cory, who lives in the Green Lake, Wash., neighborhood with his wife, Julia Bacharach. "It takes two weeks just to get out of the work mindset. It let me really think about what it's like to be a dad and learn to partner with my wife. It's not enough to just get a report at the end of the day. That time off was well worth the financial loss because the gains were incredible with this little girl." 
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Nov 18, 2003 pK3932 Attitudes about paternity leave are changing. (The Seattle Times) Dunnewind, Stephanie. 
6. Our society needs stronger bonds. 
**Anderton realized how much he missed out with his son, when he only took a week off after his birth. "We work for so much in our society, but we strive for all the wrong things. It's really about relationships with those we love." 
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service Nov 18, 2003 pK3932 Attitudes about paternity leave are changing. (The Seattle Times) Dunnewind, Stephanie. 
Who are some of these people? 
**From contention #1 :Dr. Greene is the Chief Medical Officer of A.D.A.M., the Founder & CEO of DrGreene.com, and the Pediatric Expert for AmericanBaby.com. He is on the Clinical Faculty at Stanford University School of Medicine where he sees patients and teaches Residents. He the President of Hi-Ethics (Health Internet Ethics) and helped URAC develop its standards for eHealth accreditation. Dr. Greene has been recognized by Advance for Health Information Executives as one of the top 25 most influential forces in healthcare IT.Dr. Greene was also named Intel's Internet Health Hero for children's health. He is an author, medical expert, and a media personality. 
 
 
 Bill 307 - A Bill To Speed Up Life
Long distance drives will take less time
Simple math: If a person is driving 20 mph, it will take them longer to go a mile than a person driving 80 mph.
(The Oregonian, Sept. 30, 2003): Umatilla County Commissioner Dennis Doherty said, "Our drivers over here are traveling pretty long distances, and they like to get up to, let's just put it this way, they push that 65 quite a bit."
This will result in significant economic benefits from time savings
(Transport Economics Note. Values of time and vehicle operating costs. March 2001): Abolishing the speed limit altogether could save approximately 40 million and 5.4 million vehicle-hours per year respectively for cars and light goods vehicles. These would represent a saving of over $714 million annually at 1998 prices, which would greatly outweigh the additional costs of resources consumed. 
Imposing speed limits upon drivers is detrimental to the environment
(PACTS Conference — Speed: Whose Business Is It? February 1999): Carbon monoxide emissions are highest at low speeds, falling to their lowest point at around 50 mph, after which they rise slowly again. Even at 85 mph however, carbon monoxide emissions are only a quarter of the level produced at city center speeds.
(PACTS Conference — Speed: Whose Business Is It? February 1999): The rate at which carbon dioxide is emitted is proportional to fuel consumption. This is highest at very low speeds and falls to a minimum at around 45 mph. 
Contrary to popular opinion, when the speed limit was increased, the number of fatalities actually decreased
(Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, June 25, 2003): Since 1995 when the speed limits were raised to 75 and 80 mph in some states, the death rate on the highways has fallen dramatically. It has not risen. The injury rate has fallen too. The nation's roads and highways are "safer than ever" proclaims the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
A comparison of international motorway speed limits and fatality rates by The Association of British Drivers found that there is no correlation between the two. The United States, with one of the lowest motorway speed limits, has an almost identical fatality rate to Germany, with no limit. 
According to the US Federal Highway Administration, a study of the unrestricted German autobahn indicated that from the year 1978 to 1997, the number of fatalities resulting from excessive speed actually declined.
Many people ignore speed limits anyway
(Argus Leader (SD), Aug 31, 2003): In a nationwide survey in 1996, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that more than one in five reported that they have driven 10 mph over the speed limit on an interstate in the past week or have driven 10 mph more than most other vehicles were going in the past week.
(The Dallas Morning News, July 11, 2003):  Texas Department of Public Safety citations over the last six years for speeding at more than 100 mph have increased nearly 54 percent, hitting 4,798 last year. This year, state troopers are on pace to write more than 5,000 such tickets.
(Chattanooga Times, Sept. 23, 2003): Gene Livers, a truck driver traveling Monday from Kentucky to Atlanta, said people disregard speed limits because they don't think they will be ticketed unless they are driving more than 80 mph. "If the speed limit is 70, it's going to be 77 to 80 mph (before) patrolmen bother you, and everyone knows that," he said. "If you at least go 5 miles over, you should get a warning." 
Not all speeding is intentional, and it is unfair to ticket those who speed unintentionally
(Argus Leader (SD), Aug 31, 2003): Drivers can find themselves inadvertently exceeding posted limits , Carpenter, of the Highway Patrol, says. He points to the plethora of accessories in contemporary vehicles. "It makes travel a lot more luxurious, but there are a lot more distractions inside the car, and it does take your attention from the road. There used to be just a radio," he says.
Contentions without evidence
Because there will be no need for as many officers on major roads, police forces can focus their attention on more dangerous offenses
Passing this bill will help the natural selection process by eliminating reckless drivers from the gene pool 
Mark Gumapas
Bill 307-PRO
A bill to Speed up Life
This bill abolishes all speed limits on roads with current speed limits over 30mph
This bill would cause more accidents.
-	Between 1969 and 1993, road fatalities fell from 53,000 to 40,000, due to such factors as seat belts, air bags, minimum drinking ages and lower speed limits.
CQ Researcher, Richard L. Worsnop, July 14, 1995
-	It’s plain logic, that if people are driving faster than they should be, then it’s highly probable that more accidents will occur.
There will be a high increase in the amount of incompetent drivers on the road.
-	Two-thirds of last year's, more than 41,000 auto deaths are blamed on aggressive driving - such as speeding, cutting off other motorists and tailgating. (This is also good for my first contention)
CQ Researcher, Sarah Glazer, July 25, 1997
-	If you take away the speed limits, then you’re bound to have more aggressive drivers on the road, therefore causing problems on our highways.
Accidents will be more fatal if you take away speed limits.
-	Crashes that occur at high speeds are more severe.  There really is a downside to faster travel - more deaths.  Also in rural interstates, speed limits were raised 55 to 65 mph.  Ever since the raise, more deaths have been seen on these roads.
Insurance Institute From The Year's Work, April 26, 1995
-	Think about this, 65 mph: increased deaths.  No speed limit: chaos on highways
By abolishing speed limits, barely any income would come from police, since many police rely on tickets for income.
-	In one week in 1988, Waldo, Florida was able to come up with 5,000 dollars of speeding ticket income. 
Statistic in the AAA, American Automobile Association
-	In other words, this bill would be bad for the economy.  If police forces were not making an income from speeding tickets then no money would go towards the community or nation.
The amount of police units needed would decrease.
-	There are approximately 69,000 state and local police units in the US.
People's Weekly World, Julia Lutskey, July 5, 1997
-	It’s easily seen that if we take away speed limits on highways, then there will be less need for police on the highway. So by logic, less units would be needed, causing more unemployment.
SPEED LIMITS ARE NEEDED
-	Speed limits are needed because just by raising speed limits, numerous fatalities have been recorded.  In 40 states, in 1988-1993, deaths were 24% higher than they were in the average taken in 82-86.  These may be old results, but with the higher increase in speed limits and aggressive driving, more deaths will probably be recorded now.  
Insurance Institute From The Year's Work, April 26, 1995
-	Speed limits really are needed to save hundreds or even thousands of lives.  If we pass this bill then anyone will just be able to drive as fast as they would want to.  But as seen in the evidence it’s proven that just raising the speed limit a little bit deaths have increased dramatically. 




Bill Two Hundred And One: “A Resolution to Crush the Colombian Cocaine Terrorists”
Pro Contentions:
One: The passage of this bill will result in lower drugs flowing into our country. Therefore, it will be beneficial to America.
Clearly, less drugs means less addiction. Vice in America is too high, this is a step in the right direction.
Less drugs means less drug dealers and therefore a movement towards a more independent, happy, and clean America.
Two: The passage of this bill will result in lower crime and death in America.
Less drugs means less crime, and less drugs to fight and kill over. 
The quicker we deal with vices in America the more free and able society we can be.
“Over 10,000 people die each year in heroin and cocaine induced and related accidents” According to a study released by the National Narcatics  Intelligence Consumers Commission in 1986.
Three: These countries need our help, as their more fortunate neighbor and in accordance with Monroe Doctrine we must do this. 
These countries are being overrun by drug terrorists, they are not able to stop them so we must step in and help
o	In Columbia, Pablo Escobar was the cocaine kingpin. He was so powerful not even the government could control him. The US stepped in and assisted in the removal and disposal of Escobar and the restoration of the Columbian government
The Monroe Doctrine tells of how we must help out countries in our hemisphere. 
o	To not follow this doctrine would be throwing away years of US foreign policy president. 
Four: The passage of this bill will result in lower terrorism.
Terrorist groups are sponsored by drug money, pulling the plug on drug money then the groups go away.
o	Hundered of faction terrorists groups like the ELN and FARC rely upon drug money to finance their operations. Without this money they can no longer operate. 
Five: Drug ruin lives, as the Congress that represents the interests of the people we must do our best to stop this plague upon our society.
Drug use causes people to steal, murder, and rape to obtain drugs, thus ruining their lives and others while at the same time decreasing the safety of American citizens.
To not pass this bill would be to misrepresent the people of America.
Con Contentions
One: The United States has attempted programs like this in the past and none has even come close to defeating the drug problem
In addition to its domestic campaigns, Washington has sought to curtail the supply of drugs at the source. Most of that effort throughout the 1980s was directed at the Andean countries of South America, where the bulk of the cocaine and marijuana that comes into the United States originates. Washington has pursued its supply-side strategy in diverse ways. It has trained and equipped indigenous anti-drug police and paramilitary forces, assigned agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration to assist the governments of drug-producing countries, and funded crop substitution programs in an attempt to persuade Andean peasants to switch from drug crops to legal alternatives.[3]
Those multifaceted initiatives have had one thing in common: they have had no discernible beneficial effect on the "drug problem" in the United States. Despite an increase of nearly 400 percent in federal spending on anti-drug efforts during the 1980s--from $1.2 billion in 1981 to more than $5.7 billion in 1989--usage is actually higher now than it was at the beginning of the decade. Most troubling of all, the violence associated with the black market in drugs has continued to escalate.
From The Cato Institute, 15 Feb. 1990
Two: This war on drugs is an attack on freedom and must be stopped at all costs, perpetuating it by passing this bill will only hurt America.
Every friend of freedom . . . must be as revolted
as I am by the prospect of turning the U.S. into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. 
--Milton Friedman 
On December 15, 1991, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. On October 2, 1992, we mark the 10th anniversary of an antithetical undertaking--the War on Drugs, declared by President Reagan in 1982 and aggressively escalated by President Bush in 1989. This country's Founders would be disappointed with what we have done to their legacy of liberty: The War on Drugs, by its very nature, is a war on the Bill of Rights. 
Despite such warnings, most Americans have yet to appreciate that the War on Drugs is necessarily a war on the rights of all of us. It could not be otherwise, for it is directed not against inanimate drugs but against people--those who are suspected of using, dealing in, or otherwise being involved with illegal drugs. Because the drug industry arises from the voluntary transactions of tens of millions of people--all of whom try to keep their actions secret--the aggressive law enforcement schemes that constitute the war must aim at penetrating the private lives of those millions. And because nearly anyone may be a drug user or seller of drugs or an aider and abettor of the drug industry, virtually everyone has become a suspect. All must be observed, checked, screened, tested, and admonished--the guilty and innocent alike. 
The tragic irony is that while the War on Drugs has failed completely to halt the influx of cocaine and heroin, both of which are cheaper, purer, and more abundant than ever, the one success it can claim is in curtailing the liberty and privacy of the American people. In just 10 years, Americans have suffered a marked reduction in their freedoms in ways both obvious and subtle. 
Among the grossest of indicators is that the war leads to the arrest of an estimated 1.2 million suspected drug offenders each year, most for simple possession or petty sale. Because both arrest rates and incarceration rates rose for drug offenders throughout the 1980s, the war has succeeded dramatically in increasing(13) our full-time prison population. That has doubled since 1982 to more than 800,000,(14) giving the United States the highest rate of incarceration in the industrialized world. 
From the Cato Institute, 2 Oct. 1992
Three: Prohibition failed, so to has the war on drugs. The passage this bill will only lead to more crime and bloodshed.
By now, there can be little doubt that most, if not all, "drug-related murders" are the result of drug prohibition. The same type of violence came with the Eighteenth Amendment's ban of alcohol in 1920. The murder rate rose with the start of Prohibition, remained high during Prohibition, and then declined for 11 consecutive years when Prohibition ended.[2] The rate of assaults with a firearm rose with Prohibition and declined for 10 consecutive years after Prohibition. In the last year of Prohibition--1933--there were 12,124 homicides and 7,863 assaults with firearms; by 1941 these figures had declined to 8,048 and 4,525, respectively.[3] (See Figure 1.)
Source: U S Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970, part 1, Washington, D C. (1975. o 441)
Some supporters of drug prohibition claim that its benefits are undeniable and self-evident. Their main assumption is that without prohibition drug use would skyrocket, with disastrous results. But there is little evidence for this commonly held belief. In fact, in the few cases where empirical evidence does exist it lends little support to the prediction of soaring drug use. For example, in two places in the Western world where use of small amounts of marijuana is legal--the Netherlands and Alaska--the rate of marijuana consumption is arguably lower than in the continental United States, where marijuana is banned. In 1982, 6.3 percent of American high school seniors smoked marijuana daily, but only 4 percent did so in Alaska. In 1985, 5.5 percent of American high school seniors used marijuana daily, but in the Netherlands the rate was only 0.5 percent.[6] These are hardly controlled comparisons--no such comparisons exist--but the numbers that are available do not bear out the drastic scenario portrayed by supporters of continued prohibition.
From the Cato Institute 25 May, 1989
Four: This doesn’t help the other countries, it merely infringes upon their rights and makes them dependent upon us for their future needs.
If we dole out aid and send our troops into a country to help it out whenever that country needs it. That country will become dependant upon America for everything. This cannot be allowed because these contries will simply fall apart when we don’t give them the assistance they need.
o	Somalia is a perfect example of this: The U.S. sent 2000 marines in 1993 to Somalia to protect their interests and to make sure food was being distributed. As soon as those 2000 marines were sent home. Somalia fell into total anarchy and what followed can been seen in the Black Hawk Down incident
We need to help countries to help themselves. We cannot simply hand out military services, if we are to take any action we must have the local governments do this themselves, or else we are not helping to promote democracy.
Five: This bill is un-American and hypocritical as it supports our country going and removing a rebel group from another nation in order to establish a friendly government.
America was founded in revolution. Even in our greatest documents it tells us that, if we need drastic change, we are given the right to rebel. By putting down these insurrections we are denying the peoples of South America the same chances at freedom and liberty that we were so graciously given. Let’s return the favor and begin to allow a little healthy revolution.
America by nature is a rebellious nation. To pass a bill forcing other nations to be passive and un-aggressive is not only wrong and un-American, it is hypocritical. We must allow all peoples to be free and to fight against their government for change if they so choose.
Bill 201
Pro Contentions
1: We have to continue our fight on terrorism
United States foreign assistance programs should play an increased role in the global fight against terrorism to complement the national security objectives of the United States
State Department/ Feb 2002
3: The Darien area of Panama would be able to further develop without the need of income coming from the drug industry
With a meaningful government presence, capable law enforcement, and the political will to confront entrenched corruption and powerful political groups, the cocaine industry can be disrupted. Historically, international supply reduction efforts have reduced the levels of Cocaine production in countries such as Bolivia, Guatemala, and Panama. In each of these cases, some combination of alternative development, eradication, enforcement, and interdiction programs was successfully adapted to local conditions.
National Drug Control Strategy/ 2002
4: We’re already gathering enough funding to pass this resolution and take immediate action on the area of Central America all together
The Administration requested $731 million in dedicated funds in the fiscal year 2003 budget for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative to be applied in Bolivia, Colombia, Panama, and Venezuela.
National Drug Control Strategy/2002
5: We must keep terrorist factions from funding through the drug market
U.S. objectives include ensuring that illegal drug income will never again finance regional instability or the threat of international terrorism.
National Drug Control Strategy/2002
Con Contentions
1: We’re already putting money into the area and shouldn’t spend any more when we have a massive national debt
The United States provides major financial assistance to countries like Columbia with impoverished and disadvantaged populations that are the breeding grounds for terrorism.
The State Department/ Feb. 2002
4: Our previous attempts at helping Columbia were not successful and we should better the current situation before doing anything else
Civilians are being systematically slaughtered, while random terror is being used to drive peasants and shopkeepers from their land. Major human rights organizations agree that the United States should forthwith cease arming and training those who are conducting this organized counterinsurgency program of political terror and murder. 
Columbia: Washington’s Dirtiest “War on Drugs”: Peter Dale Scott
BILL 202 PRO- BILL TO GIVE BACK WHAT WE KHAN
Frey-Lake Forest
1.  We are wasting to much money in a futile attempt to support a small fraction of the world’s population
In 1982 the annual aid to Israel officially came in at $2.2 billion. It was argued that this cost was more accurately in excess of $10 billion with tax exemptions, subsidies and a number of government-supported projects making up the difference. In 1987, 37 percent of the total worldwide American assistance went to Israel and its four million people. Those four million people account for approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of the world's population. Of all the money spent by the United States to improve the world, more than a third of it goes to Israel. That is outrageous. There are billions of people in the world, many of which are starving to death, and 37 percent of our money is sent to Israel.
CITE: Daily Illini Newspaper (Uni. Of Ill) Jan, 2002
2: We should be establishing stronger support with other Middle-Eastern countries, such as IRAN.       (Please to God don’t say IRAQ… J )
Iran has a number of advantages over many countries in the region. Like Israel, Iran is also well located, and perhaps better located, to aid us in stabilizing the Middle East. Iran borders both Afghanistan and Iraq (a possible future target in Operation Enduring Freedom). It should be noted that Israel borders neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. In addition to geographic advantages, Tehran, the capital of Iran, also has experience and willingness to stabilize the region. Tehran is currently a world leader in illegal drug confiscations (from Afghanistan and other parts) and Iranian Foreign Minister Kharazzi said, not long ago, "Iran is ready to act as an anchor of stability for resolving regional problems and crises." …Iran is also beginning to democratize.
CITE: Daily Illini Newspaper (Uni. Of Ill) Jan, 2002
3: Israel uses terrorism to advance it’s own territorial expansion with the help of the US
Under the guise of anti- terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle. With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards, and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration camps. None of this could have occurred without US support.
CITE: AL-AHRAM Newspaper, October 2002
BILL 202 CON- BILL TO GIVE BACK WHAT WE KHAN
Frey-Lake Forest
1: The United States has historically had a policy of supporting Israel, and this resolution takes away what Israel is fighting for.
Israeli-U. S. relations are an important factor in U. S. policy in the Middle East, and Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship. The main vehicle for expressing support for Israel has been foreign aid; Israel currently receives about $3 billion per year in economic and military grants, refugee settlement assistance, and other aid. 
CITE: Almanac of Policy Issues, 2000
 
4: This resolution will not solve the religious conflicts that are one of the basic problems between Israel and Palestine, and will therefore not do as intended because it will not bring peace.
Ceding control even over the Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, or the Old City, is a red line for many Israelis, who consider Jerusalem to be the heart of Zionism and an important part of Jewish identity. They want to ensure that they maintain access to sites they consider sacred, and they are not willing to negotiate on this point. 
CITE: CNN 2003
Besides Palestinians' historic territorial claims on Jerusalem's Old City, the presence there of the Islamic holy sites makes the issue a red line not only for Palestinians but for the entire Arab and Muslim world. Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat was unable to compromise at Camp David on his demand for sovereignty over the sites and the eastern portion of the city. 
CITE: CNN 2003
Bill 203- A Bill to Follow the Words of Baha’hulla		Sarah Heitman
Pro
1. Israeli and Palestinian people are currently in a war based on ideology that is 2000 years old. They must adjust their way of thinking based on current times. (This bill would allow this to happen.)
Abraham’s biblical trek (over 4000 years ago) through the Middle East kindled three major religions, whose past and present conflicts would surely sadden this patriarch of peace. 
             -Abraham-Journey of Faith, National Geographic Dec. 2001  
2. This bill provides the Israeli and Palestinian people with separation of Church and State.
The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of our historical, legal and political/ social heritage and preserves and protects our religious liberty. 
   -The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State written by Jim Allison, who is a certified paralegal and historical-legal researcher, and also, Supreme Court member, Susan Battle. 
3. Israel is a great vacation spot for European and American tourists.
Religious shrines, beaches, historical sites, archaeological digs, Dead Sea spas, souks (markets), nature reserves, fascinating cultures, and great food are among the main attractions of Israel.
- Israel travel guide (Yahoo.travel)
4. Israel’s economy is about to collapse
Because of the Palestinian resistance to persecution and occupation, the traditional means of Israel’s survival (continuous infusion of political, economic, financial, and military aid by the US) can no longer be relied upon to stave off the impending collapse. For the first time the very existence of Israel is seriously threatened. The Israeli government seems to have run out of options, despite using the full fury of state terrorism against the Palestinians. Most seriously, Israel’s economy is approaching the edge of collapse.
- Media Monitors Network. Posted March 5, 2003
Con
The Palestine’s hate the Israelis so much that a forceful unification will lead to rebellion and terrorist acts. Even the kindergarteners are trained to hate them.
a.	"Who is trying to take away your land?" the teacher asks a class of four-year-olds crowded around low round tables. "The Jews," they shout. "Will you let them?" she asks. "No," they respond. - Kindergarteners in Hamas sponsored preschool.
i.	From bbc.co.uk “Hamas Rises from PA’s Ashes”
The US would become targets of terrorist organizations for the forceful “takeover” of the territories, whether or not it is for the better as the countries would be resentful of the US. And the whole point of the terrorist attacks would be to make the US citizens want the US to withdraw from the territories.
b.	Terrorists select civilian and military targets with the intention of creating the greatest publicity, terror and casualties possible.
i.	Global Terrorism 101 www.globalterrorism101.com/reasonsbehindterrorism
Why would we do this when it would only cause the US to lose money and personnel as there would be terrorist attacks even if hostilities where stopped. In Iraq even though “operations” are over there are still attacks against personnel.
c.	"It was a co-ordinated attack... on a convoy... delivering a significant amount of Iraqi currency," US Colonel Fredrick Rudesheim told reporters.
d.	In more violence on Monday, an American soldier was killed after his patrol came under attack west of Baghdad, the US military said.
i.	Both from www.bbc.co.uk“Big Iraq ambush 'was bank heist’”
The EU and the UN would not allow this to happen as the US is having difficulty just getting them to help in Iraq, a dictatorially held regime, let alone a regular nation.
e.	Logic.
If the EU and the UN would help and the scenario didn’t happen in 5 years, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot by annexing the two countries.
f.	The UN will not take well to the annexation of the countries as in the past 25 years it has only allowed the African country of Morocco to annex a empty strip of desert to further its economy, and clearly the US economy does not need extras and it is already on its feet.
Amanda Rizzo
Bill 204: A Resolution to Ensure Justice
"He who does not punish evil, commands it to be done." Leonardo da Vinci
Background: The Twentieth Century was the bloodiest in recorded history. 174 million people were killed in genocides and mass murders. Too often the victims' cries for justice went unanswered by an indifferent
world.
In 1998, the nations of the world agreed to create the International 
Criminal Court (ICC) to hold accountable and bring to justice individuals 
responsible for mass murder, genocide, and war crimes.
Pro
Makeshift tribunals are costly, and action is delayed.
a.	The ICC has been created in part because the ad-hoc tribunals, like those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are extremely expensive and have experienced numerous logistical problems. It takes enormous amounts of time and money to establish ad-hoc tribunals, and the delay in their creation means that evidence gets destroyed and those responsible remain at large. Moreover, the creation of a permanent court will have a deterrent effect on future war criminals. With the ICC in existence it is extremely unlikely that the Security Council will authorize the creation of any more ad-hoc tribunals.
i.	USA for the International Crime Court
Domestic courts are not always sufficient.
b.	National courts in some countries are unable to properly investigate a case or provide a fair trial because of conflict and/or social and political collapse. Since perpetrators can easily cross national boundaries, nations need to cooperate to capture and punish criminals. Furthermore, some countries capable of trying war criminals and perpetrators of mass crimes encounter political problems in doing so or in handing the criminals over to another nation. The ICC will give these nations a better option.
i.	USA for the International Crime Court 
It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law. 
e.	It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for genuine reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means. Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the servicemember of a State seeking to protect the population. Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms.
i.	Rob Weekes (UK) Graduate of Cambridge and a master's degree in International Law at New York University
Individuals will be held responsible, not the population of a country.
c.	The ICC will bring individuals to justice, whereas the International Court of Justice (the ICJ or "World Court," which is part of the UN) is used only when countries take one another to court. When a country is brought to the ICJ, it could have sanctions or other actions brought against it, which affects the entire population. Those persons tried at the ICC, however, would be individually held accountable for the planning and execution of genocide and other horrific crimes. Therefore, innocent individuals in the population would not be liable through international sanctions for crimes committed by others.
i.	USA for the International Crime Court
A need for human rights justice.
d.	Justice is essential to human rights. It provides a measure of respect for the victims of serious abuse and punishes those who commit atrocities. Justice helps societies come to terms with the past and move forward. Justice for yesterday's crimes supplies the legal foundation needed to deter tomorrow's atrocities. Without justice, there is no peace.
i.	USA for the International Crime Court
Con
U.S. constitutional specialists and others caution that such a body could jeopardize the rights of Americans and even change the character of U.S. government.
ii.	Brian Mitchell, Investor's Business Daily, July 16, 1998.
e.	The treaty would give such a court jurisdiction over American citizens that would supersede the U.S. legal system. 
i.	Nancy deWolf Smith Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2000.
f.	Jeremy Rabin, professor of government at Cornell University, says the U.S. could not maintain forces around the world with the court's threat hanging over them. 
i.	Brian Mitchell, Investor's Business Daily, July 16, 1998.
g.	It could punish individual Americans for actions it considers violations of international law. 
h.	They warn that American political leaders might be prosecuted if the court disagreed with the decisions they make. 
i.	Unlike the United Nations, the U.S. would have no veto power over its actions. 
j.	Its judges or prosecutors could extradite any American -- including the president -- for anything from "genocide" to "outrages against personal dignity" and "serious injury to mental health." 
k.	The ICC would determine how these terms were interpreted -- and its personnel, critics add, are not likely to be sympathetic to the U.S.
i.	Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin, Jr., National Review, March 25, 2002
The International Criminal Court is contradictory to American principals.
l.	The ICC has been embraced by Algeria, Cambodia, Haiti, Iraq, Nigeria, Sudan and Syria -- all of whom have practiced torture, extrajudicial murder or both -- and all of whom would have full and equal voice over the selection of judges and prosecutors.
m.	Joining the court would be inconsistent with American principles of republicanism, that those with prosecutorial powers be elected by the people or their representatives and accountable to them. Under the Constitution, any American accused of a crime in the U.S. must be tried in a U.S. court with full application of the Bill of Rights -- including a public trial where the crime was committed and full access to the prosecution's witnesses. 
n.	ICC would allow none of this, but would permit secret hearings, secret witnesses, and conviction on a simple majority vote of a judicial panel and the opportunity for the prosecution to appeal any acquittal.
i.	Lee A. Casey and David B. Rivkin, Jr., National Review, March 25, 2002
Bill #206 A Bill to Neutralize the Swiss		
Intro: Weisshaus was 14 when Germans invaded her small town in Rumania in 1944. Nazi soldiers arrested Weisshaus' father, who had been a wealthy merchant. She'll never forget his parting words: The family's money, he whispered, was safely hidden in a bank in Switzerland.  Weisshaus never saw her father again. She, her mother and six brothers and sisters were sent to concentration camps. She was the only one to survive. For Weisshaus, the terrible loss has been made more painful by frustration: she has not been able to get hold of the money her father carefully hid away.
		
This bill is to help the ancestors of the Holocaust victims receive assets (in money $$$) that were seized by Swiss banks during WWII
-	PRO:
This bill would settle many of the ongoing struggles between the Jews and the Swiss in retrieving their well deserved money.
“The Swiss banks have long paid the 1.25 billion dollars settlement sum into a blocked account, but procedural issues in the US and disagreements between beneficiaries had so far blocked the distribution of the money.”
Time Magazine, Bruno Gussiani, July 2001
“The sum far exceeds what's likely to be found in those dormant accounts in a special audit by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, to be completed at the end of the year. To date, the banks have identified 5,500 accounts belonging to non-Swiss customers with a value of $45 million.”
CNN Article,”Why our world matters”, Phil Herkinoson, Aug. 21st, 1999
Switzerland could use its rich Gold Reserves to endorse Jewish assets.  (They have the money and resources to do this!!!)
“Switzerland's president proposed Wednesday using the country's gold reserves to endow a $4.7 billion fund that would aid Holocaust victims, a major concession to international groups that claim Swiss banks still hold the fortunes of Jews murdered during World War II.... The fund, based on proceeds from Switzerland's 26,000-ton gold reserves, eventually could produce several hundred million dollars a year.” 
CNN, March 5th, 1998
The Swiss persecuted the Jews during WWII and furthermore, by not allowing their assets to their original owners, they are committing another great moral injustice. 
“Newly declassified documents showed Germany funneled $450 million in gold (worth an estimated $4.5 billion today) through Switzerland, mainly the Swiss National Bank.... Evidence indicated the stolen gold, when converted to hard currency such as Swiss francs, enabled Germany to purchase war supplies and armaments, fueling the Nazi war machine and prolonging the war and the genocide.”
CNN Article,”Why our world matters”, Phil Herkinoson, Aug. 21st, 1999
The Swiss did not do the just thing by giving their remaining assets to the Jews, they kept it to themselves!
After the war, in which so many Jewish depositors died, the banks treated their accounts as dormant and retained the money instead of repaying it. 
CNN Article,”Why our world matters”, Phil Herkinoson, Aug. 21st, 1999
How will we know who’s ancestors to give this money too?  Its been so long, the age group is so elderly, and most of the people who experienced the holocaust have not survived.  (duh!) 
“Materially we are talking about a group of people whose average age is 80," said Elan Steinberg of the World Jewish Congress.”
Between the British government, Jewish Special Interest Groups and the Swiss themselves, there is a great disparity in the amount believe to be in unclaimed accounts.
“Borer was referring to the claim that Swiss banks were only able to locate $35.2 million in unclaimed accounts although Jewish groups and the British government believe that it is closer to $7 billion. Borer attacked D'Amato about his releasing documents from the National Archives in a fashion to create "sensationalism." However, D'Amato still claims that "what we seek is the truth."
Essay on the End of Intolerance; Volume 5, June 1997, Mariam England
CON:
Swiss Banks are distributing this money
“A first sum of 43 million dollars will be distributed in the very next days. The Swiss banks have long paid the 1.25 billion dollars settlement sum into a blocked account, STOP!  but procedural issues in the US and disagreements between beneficiaries had so far blocked the distribution of the money.” (that would be pro, don’t want to say that sentence)
Time Magazine, Bruno Gussiani, July 2001
There are already private agencies prepared to distribute Swiss money
“The four agencies that will manage and distribute the $1.25 billion paid by the Swiss banks have been presented today in New York and Tel Aviv. The Claim Resolution Tribunal will handle $800 million to compensate the Holocaust victims (or their heirs) that had Swiss bank accounts (21,000 such accounts have been identified). The rest of the money will be distributed by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the Claims Conference in New York, and the International Migration Organization in Geneva. These funds will benefit both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as forced laborer during WW2 or refugees who were denied entry into Switzerland.”
Time Magazine, Bruno Gussiani, July 2001
“The light on the horizon appeared last week when UBS AG (United Bank of Switzerland) and Credit Suisse promised to pay $1.25 billion over several years to compensate Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of Holocaust victims. It is also to cover all such claims against the Swiss government and industries.”
CNN Article,”Why our world matters”, Phil Herkinoson, Aug. 21st, 1999
It is impossible for us to know how much money is owed
“Swiss banks accepted money from everyone, including Nazis and Jews. It is believed that from 1938 to 1945, the Nazis transferred $6 billion worth of gold and belongings into Swiss banks. Some of that belonged to their victims and may still be in the banks...  So far, the banks have refused to make public their secret records.  They say most of the money in question cannot be traced. They have made it nearly impossible for victims to reclaim it.”
The Toronto Sun Foreign Analysis, Eric Margoils, June 1997
“...Swiss banks were only able to locate $35.2 million in unclaimed accounts”
Essay on the End of Intolerance; Volume 5, June 1997, Mariam England
The United States should respect Switzerland’s Sovereignty 
L*O*G*I*C (gotta love it!)))
207-A BIll to Leave the U.N.-Pro/Con-Warren  
 
 
 
A BIll to Leave the U.N.  
 
 
 
Matt Warren 
Bill 207, A Bill to Leave the UN 
Note: 
*The United States - which pays one-quarter of the organization's annual operating budget 
*The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. 
Pro: 
1) The United Nations is spending American money in wasteful ways. 
· Despite doing no work, 39 U.N. officials are kept on the payroll at salaries of up to $150,000 a year. (John A. Barnes, Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
· The U.N. continues to employ hundreds of typists whose functions are obsolete in the age of the personal computer. (John A. Barnes, "U.N.: A Runaway Gravy Train?," Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
2) UN officials are also abusing the money. 
· The Secretariat in New York spent over $40 million for travel in 1992-93 - not including millions for travel spent by dozens of other U.N. agencies around the world. (John A. Barnes, Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
· Numerous "retired" U.N. officials - drawing full pensions in the high five figures - also have lucrative consulting contracts drawing six-figure fees. (John A. Barnes, Investor’s Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
· Some reports from the Office of Conference Services are five to seven years behind schedule - while printers take twice as many sick and vacation days as other workers and are paid 40% more. (John A. Barnes, "U.N.: A Runaway Gravy Train?," Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
3) UN divisions and programs that are no longer in use are still being funded. 
· The U.N. Trusteeship Council continues to function and spend millions - despite the fact that there are no longer any trust territories. (John A. Barnes, "U.N.: A Runaway Gravy Train?," Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
4)Some UN officials could be corrupt 
· Some officials are suspected of or charged with diverting millions in funds, arranging illegal loans, diverting donated food, and running call-girl operations out of offices. (John A. Barnes, "U.N.: A Runaway Gravy Train?," Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
· More than $1 million worth of goods and $670 million worth of vehicles have disappeared and remain unaccounted for. (John A. Barnes, "U.N.: A Runaway Gravy Train?," Investor's Business Daily, November 3, 1995.) 
5)The U.S. already pays for 25 percent of the U.N. budget -- more by far than any other nation. This is not fair 
· A United Nation's official claims the U.S. owes that body $1.7 billion -- $1 billion for peacekeeping and the rest for general operations. Moreover, the U.N. has threatened to take away the U.S. vote in the General Assembly if we don't pay at least $250 million by the end of this year. (Editorial, "More Whining from the U.N.," Investor's Business Daily, March 25, 1999.) 
· A 1996 General Accounting Office report found that peacekeeping in Rwanda, Somalia, Haiti and the former Yugoslavia cost U.S. taxpayers $6.6 billion -- six times what the U.N. says the U.S. owes for peacekeeping. (Editorial, "More Whining from the U.N.," Investor's Business Daily, March 25, 1999.) 
6)Many of the voting countries don’t even appreciate what the United States does for them, so why continue? 
· The vast majority of General Assembly members routinely vote against the U.S. position -- even as the U.S. pours millions of dollars into aid for those same countries. (Editorial, "More Whining from the U.N.," Investor's Business Daily, March 25, 1999.) 
7)The United States has tried to reform the UN, but it did nothing, what’s the point in partaking in an organization that isn’t in our best interest. 
· Despite Congress's repeated calls for U.N. reform, it still remains bureaucratic and inefficient, critics charge. (Editorial, "More Whining from the U.N.," Investor's Business Daily, March 25, 1999.) 
8)Not enough Americans are even employed by the UN. 
· The U.S. has no representative on the important U.N. Board of Auditors, which tracks mismanagement and fraud in the U.N.'s $3 billion annual operations. (George Archibald, "Americans Shut Out of Crucial U.N. Posts," Washington Times, January 5, 1999.) 
· Two-thirds of the 1,652 Americans employed by the Secretariat hold lower-paying clerical and service jobs -- with only 523 holding professional jobs on the 13,000 member Secretariat staff. Even though the Philippines pays only 0.077 percent of U.N. costs, it has 627 employees in the Secretariat. Kenya is assessed the same small percentage as the Philippines, and has 613 Secretariat employees. (George Archibald, "Americans Shut Out of Crucial U.N. Posts," Washington Times, January 5, 1999.) 
9)The  President can make key decisions for the UN without the consent of congress, which is unconstitutional and unfair to the American people. 
· Bypassing Congress and allowing the U.N. to conduct important elements of U.S. foreign and military policy raises grave constitutional questions, legal experts point out. (Cliff Kincaid, "The United Nations Debt: Who Owes Whom?" Policy Analysis 304, April 23, 1998, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001,) 
Con: 
1)The United Nations is in charge of international human rights, and America should want to partake in such a serious responsibility. 
· As the extensive standard-setting activity of particularly the UN has made clear, at least in legal theory, human rights have been internationalized. An answer is emerging to the ancient question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who shall guard the guardians?) In the field of human rights, the United Nations will supervise governmental policy against the background of global norms. (Tom J. Farer, "The UN and Human Rights: More than a Whimper, Less than a Roar," in Adam Roberts and Benedict Kingsbury, eds., United Nations, Divided World ( New York: Oxford Univ. Press, Clarendon Paperback, 1993), 
2)The UN is used as a neutral arena for all countries to speak their minds and hear differing opinions in a peaceful environment. 
3)The UN is a peace keeping organization, but with the withdraw of the sole superpower, countries may get insulted and or react poorly against the United States. 
4)Ideas like the UN have worked in the past, and still will today. 
· The first variations on the theme of collective security appeared in the late middle ages, and are instructive for their differences from the twentieth-century concept as well as their similarities to it. 1 These early schemes grew out of the belief that the wars that ravaged Europe during this period could be curbed if all nations agreed to oppose aggression jointly and with overwhelming force. A common thread was the commitment of each state to join in collective action even if not directly threatened. (Peace, Power, and the United Nations: A Security System for the Twenty-First Century. Contributors: Joseph P. Lorenz - author. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 9.) 
5)The UN has kept the peace and been an effective organization, why not strive for that in the future 
· In the thirty-five years that followed the UN enforcement action in Korea, the Security Council explored the peaceful end of the conciliationcoercion spectrum and found a number of ways to combine peacekeeping with peaceful-settlement activity. Almost all of these Cold War peacekeeping missions were consensual. Dispatched normally after a cease-fire with the agreement of the parties that had been at war, they were governed by rules of engagement that restricted the use of force to self-defense. (Book Title: Peace, Power, and the United Nations: A Security System for the Twenty-First Century. Contributors: Joseph P. Lorenz - author. Publisher: Westview Press. Place of Publication: Boulder, CO. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 79.) 
6) The United Nations heavily relies on American funding, so without America, The UN could fall apart, and future peace could be in jeopardy. 
Bill 208
PRO:
Democracy is new to the Iraqi People
o	Every major Iraqi group - Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and former exiles - is plagued by internal divisions. And with politics in Iraq monopolized for the past 35 years by Saddam's Baath Party, concepts like democracy, pluralism and civil society are new.  
§	Steven Gutkin - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Iraqi Constitution calls for a system parallel to that of Britain’s.
o	Articles 27-63 of the Iraqi Constitution call for a balance between a Representative council and the Monarch.
The Constitution of Iraq is also similar to American politics.
o	Throughout the Iraqi Constitution, there is always a call for a consent measure by the council with accord to the King’s actions, therefore enacting a check and balance system. It also creates a bicameral system between the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies.
The Iraqis are in desperate need of civil rights reforms.
o	It is impossible for anyone who has not lived in Iraq to comprehend the continuous psychological oppression of the people by the regime. Saddam Hussein has such a complex intelligence apparatus that people are afraid of expressing any opinion, anywhere, to anyone that may be deemed negative of the government. Families are afraid of each other; friends do not dare to test the genuineness of their friendship; people are even cautious of their eyes in case a certain way of looking at a picture of Saddam or a government building is deemed ‘disapproving’. 
§	Yasser Alaskary, Open Democracy
Iraqis are showing a general progression towards Democracy.
o	Shortly after US and British forces pushed through this dusty port town in southern Iraq at the start of the coalition invasion, a school administrator got a crazy idea. It was the kind of inspired thought that might have gotten him jailed, beaten, even killed a few days earlier. But now, Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party operatives were on the run, and in Umm Qasr, Najim Abed Mahdi could suddenly think the unthinkable. He and a handful of other Iraqis banded together to form their own town council. They did it because their community needed fresh water, electricity, ice, garbage collection, security from looters, and other essentials. But by taking up the mantle of leadership in a fashion banned by Hussein, the Umm Qasr council may have made history - creating what US officials see as the first Iraqi model of a grass-roots democracy in a once-barren political landscape
§	The Christian Science Monitor, April 21, 2003 Edition
CON:
This Bill disagrees with American Plans for Iraq
o	The U.S.-led provisional authority instead plans to hand-pick a political council, with 20 to 30 members representing different Iraqi factions, by July 15. The council will appoint the heads of ministries and be consulted on decisions taken by the U.S.-led provisional authority.  
§	Steven Gutkin - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This could simply relapse back into another Saddam ‘incident’.
o	It is impossible for anyone who has not lived in Iraq to comprehend the continuous psychological oppression of the people by the regime. Saddam Hussein has such a complex intelligence apparatus that people are afraid of expressing any opinion, anywhere, to anyone that may be deemed negative of the government. Families are afraid of each other; friends do not dare to test the genuineness of their friendship; people are even cautious of their eyes in case a certain way of looking at a picture of Saddam or a government building is deemed ‘disapproving’. 
§	Yasser Alaskary, Open Democracy
This Resolution goes against the Iraqi Constitution.
o	Article 20 of the Iraqi Constitution of 1925 calls for the oldest son of the last heir to take the throne, but there is no direct heir to the Iraqi throne, because the sons of Saddam are dead.
The Constitution of 1925 does not provide religious freedom to the people.
o	Article 13 of the Iraqi Constitution of 1925 states that the official religion of Iraq is Islam, therefore denying any other religious practices.
The King would be free to do, as he wants.
o	Article 25 states that the King is not responsible for his actions, and is safeguarded from law. THIS PRACTICALLY ALLOWS HIM TO BE A DICTATOR AGAINST THE IRAQI PEOPLE.