Student Congress States WV

-=+Beginning of Flowing+=-
-(The Flowing/Notes are from Student Congress States in Parkersburg, WV. I am spectating)-
---------------------------------------------
Time Began: 9:00 AM | Saturday 3/2/19
---------------------------------------------
PO: Presiding Officer Patton (Tristan Patton)
---------------------------------------------
Senator Tsai - Authorship - Department of Cyber-Security
-Biggest problem in the USA is Cyber Security.
-DOD, FBI, etc. Information leaked, hacked, etc.
-Pathetic due to the USA
-DOF away from Middle East and now toward Russia & China
-Surprise in the cyber realm will increase
-More and more people will have easier access information and personal info.
-Not all information is spread between all of these
-Must have a department to help this become easier.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Increasing budget wouldn't have to go through 3 different departments.
-Many federal departments were hacked and had personal info leaked.

Senator Man? - Negation - Department of Cyber-Security
-More issues of efficiency
-Several Institution already handling cybersecurity.
-Authority over separate departments
-More complicated things are
-Patton Office
-More Powerful each fighting for own interest
-Budgeting and ????? Nightmare
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-DOHS Sufficiency: Yes, but it is a growing threat and the 3 departments should be in charge of it.
-Must report back to them, keeping a paper-trail.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Pierson - Affirmation - Department of Cyber-Security
-Everything is digitalized
-Russia, China, Iran, etc. has hacked many different military, and private companies
-China stole military plans and now have their own copycat
-Russia has also been suspected to be hacking in the 2016 Election
-It is the future of the United States
-No departments and one department can protect all Americans.
-Much easier to go online with the security of this department
-"Almost like a cyber police force."
-All Protocols could help it focus strictly on cyber security
-Digital is the future and security of it is key
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-If we already have 3 departments, why have just 1.
--> Sole department is way easier because they'd be funtioning autonomously.
-Dedicated to homeland of cyber security.
-Fundamental to cyber security and we should innovate.
--> Much easier for the department to innovate and be way more efficient.
---------------------------------------------
Senator ???? - Negation - Cyber-Security
-Mind numbing bureacracy.
-DOJ wait time to improve initiative.
-How would this bill make cyber security way more secure?
-Would outsource the security to people who may not know muh about the specific security of this.
-Not be able to handle much of anything.
-1 place for everthing = everyone else makes it harder.
-Bill falls short of intended purpose.
-Increasing bureacracy to "nightmare" proportions.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-If CS the bias could exist in said department?
--> Yes.
-US economy lost $109 Billion dollars.
-->????? he got confused lol
-Does it make sense to propose these things because?
--> Doesn't make sense. Agrees
-Agree with cyber security is better in a all in one package?
--> No, the people of those departments, doesn't agree.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Gooding (yay) - Affirmation - Cyber Security
-Cyber warfare is a giant threat and we need our own department to handle that.
-China will continue to use cyber espionage.
-China and other countries are bolstering in their cyber security/cyber attacks.
-Decreases escalation and increase of defense.
-Russia is using several warfare more frequently and other things and Russia is repping up their attacks.
-Cyber security is the top 5 most important risk.
-Valued as 5 billion euroes.
-Senator Pierson reference about why 1 department is better.
-Russia played a huge role in the 2016 Election
-Russia had propaganda through Facebook & YouTube alone to divide the citizens.
-September of 2018 on many different structures of the USA can be devastating if hacked and could put many or even millions of people in America in danger.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Better cyber security w/o this department?
--> Yes, BUT, the department would be way more efficient.
-Would it slow down defense mechanism?
--> Deal with issues in transitional stage. Don't wanna escalate conflict.
-Wouldn't you agree these departments have different security needs and other stuff?
--> Not (something), so no lol.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bischof - Negation - Cyber Security
-Makes it more complex and makes it less efficient.
-Senator Pierson said it's easier, but not true. Simply further create a duplication of the division in which we had 3 different divisions to handle cyber security.
-A pattern of significant insufficiency.
-Inefficiencies make it harder in the government and navigate the "red tape".
-Senator Tsai is actually effective, and needs a complete overhaul.
-Wouldn't we rather utilize what we have in the status quo?
-Actually more effective during status quo.
-Fact is: this completely changes the method and is detrimental toward the future of cyber security
-Bureocracy.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-When this bill is breaking down everything else, how is it making more complex and fragmented.
--> Creating a 4th one, "red tape", and way harder to defense and it's strung across different departments.
-One program > 4 programs.
--> One separate inefficient program and it's wasteful by default.
-Allocating and now has 4 departments.
--> Doesn't, is inefficient.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Tsai - Affirmation - Cyber Security
-They claim current system is effective.
-If it is, we have seen (2016 alone) 20-50 cyber attacks on US Gov.
-Bureocracy, and would negate the position.
-Nullifying the system
-This departments would adopt and innovate on top of it.
-Forces USA to create innovation and makes Negation flows to Aff and we must be ahead of the game, instead of behind, China & Russia is ahead and we would be ahead with innovation of current program.
-They want to defense non-doh and non-doj and must go through and they must go through these processes, and it would flow well going through 1 department.
-Examples include: Bartlett, Not-Petchula Attack, and attacks on Georgia & Ukraine.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Why adopt something else?
--> Adopt to innovate something ON TOP OF THE CURRENT PROGRAM.
-Only 18% of cyber security is and attacks have had malicious code.
--> If they do a good job if what they take or know about, but the information had stolen is unknown or created a copycat. A direct act of war of Copycat China example.
-If this department is going to innovate, current the current systems budget on top of that?
--> All 3 go through their own defense and reallocate this stuff and merge it and protect it, instead of "red tape" it would go through one department and yada yada.
---------------------------------------------
Senator ???? - Negation - Cyber Security
-A Russian cyber security was arrested due to leaks of USA Citizens.
-2 weeks earlier, pew research looked at the fear of terrorism and climate change, is cyber security.
-Cyber-Security is always evolving and a simple 1 department wouldn't handle it.
-Would only get worse over the following next few years.
-An article by WSJ because CS if we had a single system it's not effects aren't tangible.
-Distribution of propaganda, citizens can produce reactions that can affect things that are not tangible.
-We need other departments to be in the cyber security must be in the way of handling these programs.
-Because of this we must negate the following bill.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-DOD for them to improve cyber defense due to high budget?
--> Yes?
-Blown up proportion?
--> Yes.
-Shouldn't place a single program have all the burden.
--> Yes it would.
-Programs are apart of much larger departments, how are all 3 going to innovate > 1 department.
--> Affects aren't rooted solely in cyber security, we must have that to handle these issues.
-All 3 > 1?
--> Yes.
-Why are we only taking something from DOD.
--> We shouldn't.
- ?
-->? Easier for those affects to be handled by DOD defense with their cyber security threats.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sundarem? - Affirmation - Cyber Security
-In a rapidly growing thing is we put so much information into these devices.
-We need a similar path to protect info of the american citizens.
-Status Quo affective, but has only done a "OK" job.
-Weaknesses in cyber security, and we need a new system to combate this problem.
-It would be more efficient to have 1 department of combatting and accounting cyber security and internet.
-Their sole purpose is to account for cyber security.
-Cyber Security & Space.
-WE must make sure all details are accounted for.
-BY investigating from theft to fraud to end exploitation of the internet.
-Other departments would work with other federal agencies.
-We are going to create a department way more efficient and effective rather than the bad status quo.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-RUssia 2016 hack > this bill. bureocracy
--> Agrees.
-Harder?
--> Nope, obviously strength in unity which is ever growing it's very efficient.
-Cyber warfare is decades behind cyber security?
--> WE must innovate in order to combat.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Hartland? Hartlett? - Negation - Cyber Security
-Duplication of governments.
-DOD, DOJ, will still maintain these programs.
-If we are seeing a efficient job and system that works, it's just a waste of money and just a duplication.
-Drugs over the border, and they're overstepping each other and ineffective etc.
-DOJ could save $500 Million on overlapping.
-Cut potential for overlapping, and save more money and place it somewhere more efficient,
-Putting it into a system of a department thats doing its own thing is inefficient.
-Money x Energy can be xcvbnjmklskdfjldjfkg idk.
-Hacking is a current problem, but takes away funding.
-DOD is the biggest departments with biggest funding.
-A more specialized effectiveness, not true.
-She had her phone go off :( I feel so bad.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Maintain offensive and no overlapping?
--> Recognize and maintaining, the department and these departments are maintaing offense and a entirely new department is ineffective.
-Attack at the source is redundant?
--> Yes it is, cut it at the head before it starts to grow.
-A Nation with our name do we create a entire department dedicated to it.
--> No, we do not.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Keefer - Negation - Cyber Security
-This a overdramatic threat.
-If we look at it a study shows that 20 out of 126 in gov targetting most are mild neucences.
-18% of cyber incidents resulted with Malicious Code.
-No threat of the proportion that the "aff shows to make you believe"
-Bischof reference.
-Current strategy.
-Do a lot of things offensively.
-DODS and we already have a department, we would be escalating the problem
-Inheritly, more offensive from USA POV and increase of cyber warfare.
-Vastly different security goals for different reasons.
-3 Departments of different reasons.
-Different from what other departments to protect.
-Sensitive data protection on different issues.
-Combining it into one department, only focusing on one issue.
-Only 18% are malicious code and mild problems.
-WE must negate.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Premise is Department is accounting and is already doing a good job, and shoudln't innovate.
--> All have different needs and is taking good care of this, no threat, and overdramatic.
-Cyber offensive problem, this would lead to burocracy, makes us safer?
--> No and using those offensive tactics more is way better and efficient.
-US Cyber Security not defensive strategy offensive not defensive.
--> Agreed and is contradictive in it's own bill.
-Why did these departments have absolute authority of FBI cyber crimes
--> Bringing up would duplicate and would have duplication, which is why we should not pass.

(- Bill fails and fails -)
---------------------------------------------
A Resolution to replace Coal w/ Clean Energy in Coal States (Replacement)
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bischof - Sponsorship - Clean Energy
-Current coal energy is now dying.
-329 Coal units aren't even competitive
-More option in the future.
-Coal industry going into bankruption
-Fossil fuels will run out
-Transition to cleaner energy
-Renewable technology and will be price competitive SOON with Fossil Fuels.
-Fallen by 22% 2010.
-Cost of solar fell by 70%
-Competitive by 2020!!
-Environmentally safe energy
-1 Trillion invested.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Coal people quitting jobs and leaving them homeless?
--> Once coal is gone, will need another place to turn to.
-Do clean energy resources be able to account for the mass amounts of energy?
--> Right now, not 100%, as we transition, and we aren't completely doing it, only in a few states.
-Study done where?
--> Nationwide, not WV in the interest at heart.
-States aren't compatible.
--> Not forced, trying to transitions.
-How would it hurt for steel?
--> It would, but it's not a complete turn around, only used to transition.
-China becoming more dependent on coal, rather than other things.
--> We aren't abandoning, we won't not utilize coal, we will have mixed energy sources.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Pierson - Negation - Cleaner Energy
-Agrees cleaner energy is good.
-Transitioning is effective is efficient.
-1 Million jobs will be created.
-Returns would not something climate change.
-Solar = Coal competitiveness.
-Why waste other funding to waste off coal.
-Bias against coal states and other issues.
-WV has a hard time of doing this.
-Solar, Geotermal, and other
-> Hydro & Geothermal, solar news projects make up less than 4% of USA by 2050.
-Companies are opting other things so in the country?
-WV would have no basis for renewable energy.
-Viewpoints of Americans, they would move across the nation.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Fossil Fuels running out give WV a opportunity
--> No, it is economically beneficial when doing such thing goes against economic whatever.
-Result in huge boom thats a bad thing they have a power and monopoly.
--> No, its unfair to give them a bonus.
-How is it unfair to see how would it be unfair when these states are in the need of the greatest funds and the states transitioning don't need the funding
-->If they would have waited, which WV doesn't need the funding I think?
(They talk really fast ugh idk I am soooo tired rn)
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sundarem - Affirmation - Cleaner Energy
-2016 40.8 Trillion hours 30% of energy was given way to this energy by coal.
-Concerns scientists coal power plants are closing
-Most retiring
-1 in 4 transitioning.
-Towards natural gas
-NATIONWIDE MOVEMENT FOR THE NEED OF CLEANER AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
-Absolutely no reason towards alternative energy sources.
-Accounted for 10% of all generated power.
-Employed over 770k employees.
-Reduce cost, more control where to get energy, and will produce a great public health benefit and can replace fossil fuels.
-Analyists low cost can be met by 2035.
-All investment should support to this because of a better economy and a better economy.
-Due to this urges a affirmation
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning
---------------------------------------------
-With innovation in energy technology can make USA more cost effective?
--> Yes.
-WHy spend money on it?
--> Money allocated toward it and would actually make it efficient.
-Compensation?
--> Yes.
-Defining Clean Energy?
--> Cannot give personal but one personal one is primary renewable energy.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Gooding - Negation - Clean Energy
-Climate change is real and bad
-USA only has 15% effects and china has 30%.
-If we want to combat and we need to focus on countries such as China and is becoming more and more dependent on coal.
-Transition less harsh.
-Clean coal doesn't release as much harsh things, less co2, more efficient, already is more efficient,
-Focus on the WORLD and making COAL more RENEWABLE.
-THese are the main drivers in the United States.
-Less pollution and co2, we cannot solve this by ourselves.
-States as WV isn't sufficient as other states.
-We would be worse at a disadvantage.
-Negation is way better over aff and can help the world have a better transition.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-BEtter source? clean coal or renewable?
--> Idk but need to stay in coal.
-How long transition period?
--> Idk but it should recognized as a global problem.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Keefer - Negation - Cleaner Energy
-Cheaper to use Solar Energy > Coal in 2021.
-More beneficial to use solar and even cheaper in 2021 than coal.
-Which is one of the biggest reason of affirmation.
-More economic future.
-Would help fight climate change which is a huge problems in today's world.
-Coal jobs are dying to automation.
-242k and plunged 60% and is less than 100k workers, even with the 8% increase.
-It is a job people are elected to do.
-We need to affirm the bill.
-Actual economic devastations due to Climate Change
-Clean Coal > Renewable Energy, 60% of jobs loss, why shouldn't we transition and for them to have a sustainable future??
-Why we should affirm this resolution.

(10 Minute Recess occurs
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-kokoks-dos-do???? idk
-->in 2 years, it would be more affordable for solar > coal
-World problem?
--> NO, other countries not doing it we shouldn't, we should all doing it and setting a good example.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Gooding - Negation - Cleaner Energy
-US changing behavior doesn't have impact of other countries
-Everyone has their own niche, and that niche needs to become clean coal.

(Taking a break from personal flowing, currently exactly 11. Will return at 11:10, any VERY important details will be added)
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning
----------------------------------------------
-Benefits going back to citizens is b/c of clean energy
---------------------------------------------
Senator Idk - Affirmation - Cleaner Energy
-Pierson hypocritical point
-Only wealthy states can afford it (like California)
-Nuclear energy efficiency and safest, less than 100 deaths from it.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions
---------------------------------------------
-WV cannot afford transitioning
--> More aid will help them
-French and USA have same and similar issues??
--> Yes, france is a good example.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Maness - Neg - Cleaner Energy
-Natural Gas
-Clean Energy
-Stickulation of all transition energy Natural Gas isn't clean
-Natural gas becoming the new coal
-More coal than energy
-Taking out more coal than taking in
-A failure to recognize certain issues
-Flaws in admittedly a dying issue into a reasonable form
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-??????
-->Wind Farms are in very far away positions
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bartlett - Affirmation - Cleaner Energy
-Coal is a dying industry, loss of money and jobs.
-US Coal industry and expected to decrease in 2018.
-Decline in amount of power
-Total amount of Coal Fired in 2017 will double
-15k to 7k a obvious decrease in energy and stop investing time into a more than dying industry.
-Shouldn't focus on this domestically than globally.
-How can we justify global if we cannot do it domestically?
-At risk of dirty air and people with Asthma, and other issues.
-Subsidies and $4 Billion dollars to this.
-This can be invested into cleaner and more efficient energy.
-Vote aff
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Is USA going to combat it alone?
--> Global standpoint, but we must do it domestically.
-Displace Americans
--> Prolonging will displace Americans due to a decrease in jobs.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sans - Negative - Cleaner Energy
-Replacing coal is detrimental to the economy
-Get up and tell you it is beneficial, for some yes, but for dependent states, no
-50k are still in coal employed in 2016
-Less money in domestic economy
-Detrimental to states that rely on coal
-WV cannot supply clean energy
-Promote economic inequality, some states will thrive, others can die
-Coal brings people to West Virginia
-WV is one of the most poor states in the nation.
-Cannot completely demolish something.
-Exportation and steel, we get money from other countries due to them buying our coal
-Not feasible, only a short term solution not a long one
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Decline in the amount of jobs
--> Actually to go along, it would displace other states
-Coal industry to be completely terminated?
--> In my own opinion interpretation, I say kinda.
-Better ways to go about this?
--> Yes, just like clean coal, and cannot completely terminate the other problems as it is 70% of US's
---------------------------------------------
Senator Tsai - Affirmation - Cleaner Energy
-Funds exportation
-Nuclear fusion energy
-We don't need new infrastucture
-This is good
-Not a bill, it is a resolution, if the negation had any problems, it can become a bi-partisan bill that both sides would enjoy
-Increase the productiveness of STEM, and we see a decline in
-3 to 4 years of transitioning
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-Transition meaning for WV
--> Help our state and create jobs for WV and need scientists and maintenence and can push us ahead
-Will the jobs available be proportionate to the coal power plants?
--> Renewable energy jobs > coal jobs, so it could. See these states dying off without it.
-Large scale environmental impact?
--> No, because it's all in one facility, can replace with things like a power plant.
---------------------------------------------
(Previous Questioning)
---------------------------------------------
Resolution Passes!
---------------------------------------------
(A Resolution to Increase Humanitarian Assistance to the Syrian Refugee Crisis)
Senator Bischoff - Authorship - Syrian Refugee
-Chemical weapons used
-250 lives lost
-To protect humanity and democracy
-Lacking in donations
-$9 Billions needed in 2019
-Only $4.4 Billion
-USA lessining its donations.
-UN official states can jeopardize the refugees.
-Currently horrible
-Poverty is growing steadily
-Conditions of quality is horrid
-Sexual Assault is rampant.
-Sanitary conditions raises suicide rate by 3 times the average GLOBALLY.
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
-How much to increase number?
--> No specific amount, the lack in funding was 2 billion when we promised 1.5. The amount is open for discussion.
-Effectiveness of humanitarian aid
--> Helps the crisis and sees the negotiation of peace and lower the poverty rate and may even apply to Syria.
-Does this put foreign lives or USA lives at risk?
--> Clearly this isn't in the support of the united states
-ISIS growth in this war?
--> Yes and Russia and Assad could boost it.
-How are we going to end the conflict, what is our end goal?
--> End the conflict to promote the democracy rather than the russian regime. We need to continue to become involved.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Pierson - Negation - Syrian Refugees
-No guarantee to see the absolute destination
-Debt to GDP ratio in 1946
-Climate Change
-A total of 150 total attacks across 22 countries had 313 deaths
-Uptake in the number of victims
-3 year high
-23% rise in fatalities
-139 were killed, 2nd highest recoreded death toll EVER
-Humanitarian Aid would be nice, but the ineffectiveness and the american lives lost doesn't make this a desireable resolution.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Maintain commitment for contain intervention
--> Increasing = Volunteer = More deaths
-American involvement that can lead to further choas and wars and deaths?
--> Agreed.
-Decrease the influence of adversaries?
--> No direct increase or aid that this benefits the aid.
-Pull out about ISIS could coming back
--> Don't agree, and focuses more onto the American Deaths.
-Plan of attack?
--> Not against, only against increasing aid.
-A question was asked but no correltion in statistic.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sundaram - Affirmation - Syrian Refugees
-First step in stablizing a country in the USA interest
-2 Potential interests: Iran and establishing tehran.
-USA hasn't imported oil from late 2011
-Large Oil
-Investing foreign aid that its citizens desperately need
-Keep them from joining extremeist groups.
-Can help stop terrorism in this terrorist groups and foreign aid.
-Lowers the chance of families being torn apart
---------------------------------------------
-Questioning-
---------------------------------------------
=-(Current state is bad) | unknown question-=
-Wouldn't restablize a very powerful ally
--> Yes, regardless of the size of the country
-Increase of lives lost due to higher funding?
--> No lives lost and it is just an increase of help not life, therefore, no loss.
-Good light with syria but we have factions fighting for control, which do we want?
--> Any form with any country is beneficial. therefore, within good light
-End goal of this crisis what faction do we want in power
--> Cannot speak on the behalf of the author, only way to effectively do that is giving humanitarian aid.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Maness - Negation - Syrian Refugee
-Amount of aid usa has givcen 7.7 Billion dollars.
-Isn't to send more money, it's to get other people who should be, have more money.
-Why aren't the local interests contributing
-And hasn't been addressed AT ALL
-Provided 200 Million dollars, and no stability aid and is misconstrueded.
-We chose to not be involved due to examples like Iraq
-Should seriously be addressed
-Not to end the civil war by the answer senator answers.
-We have no clue how to end it
-WE have to know who the Syrian People are.
-If its _________ Assad wants the civil war, and going against that makes Russia mad at us
-Other side doesn't really have an end goal.
-Looking at this the wrong money.
-Don't maintain a conflict we don't know how to end.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-=Ended war of Libya and we became the power vacuum-=
-Increasing can demolish the cultural war
--> It's complicated, and more comprehensive ways and more secure pathways to see if it is reaching the target areas. Doctors without borders situation
---------------------------------------------
Senator Keefer - Affirmation - Syrian Refugee
-Improve the situation TO NOT have a power-vacuum
-Russia can hurt USA interests
-Cannot leave area
-Leaving area = power-vacuum starting
-Russia backs regime that we are against
-Senator Maness reference
-> USA Firmly supports democracy, and support Syria form a new democratic nation. Which have USA interests at heart
-Pledged to support them and we should help them, and not pull out
-If we leave it can have people be radicalized to join terrorist groups that hates America and America's foundation
-Disease inside the area, 38% of hospitals are out of support
-People have left due to the crisis
-Tuberculosis and are spreading to areas
-Turkey measles vaccinating people and people not being vaccinated.
-Support democracy and stablize the region
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Radicalization if we pull out or stay in?
--> Give this aid and decrease and could cause radicalization.
-Is your point of contentions???
--> We could create a Democracy, unknowingly of which faction would do so.
-How does sending food and supplies allows for usa to win?
--> Help slow down forces trying to take over by having a stable region.
---------------------------------------------
(Session 1 Has ended, voting will begin after)
(Adjourned 12:00 PM, goes back in at 1:00 PM)
---------------------------------------------
(Session 2 Has begun)
---------------------------------------------
Presiding Officer: Caelan Keefer (HHS) (Twice?)
---------------------------------------------
Info: Precedence Will Be On The Opposite Side :)
---------------------------------------------
Last Bill ends without a vote, is killed.
---------------------------------------------
A Resolution to End Legacy Preference in the University Admissions Process Nationwide
---------------------------------------------
Sundaram - Authorship - End Legacy
-Catered to the set of Alumni
-Discrimination to poor people and other minorities
-3 quarters top 100 universities give boosts to Alumni
-Research on 30 lead schools children of Alumni 48% INCREASE of acceptance!!!
-They usually grow up with additional privilege
-Make it equal and higher for the education more obtainable as opposed who have this "Golden Ticket" of legacy.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
<45% increase who are legacies are above regulars>
-Percentage of schools
--> 3 quarters of the top 100 schools.
-No based on academic can just get into legacy
--> Not at all. But they do get more privilege
-A bill then a law, affective private institutions?
--> Maybe, but this is a resolution.
-Why?
--> Alumnis give more money due to previous generation at colleges.
-Are most are the top 100 private or public
--> It doesn't say, maybe hints at mostly public.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bischoff - Negation - End Legacy
-Last factors looked at
-Most legacy are qualified regardless of anything
-48% of legacy applications (50%) SAT scores.
-34% top 25 percent when looking at SAT scores.
-Bias doesn't exist in the Status Quo
-It is in line with non-legacy
-Legacy are more than likely to be qualified rather than non alumnis
-Harvard has non-whites > whites.
-Hurts minorities if passed.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-
--> Legacies aren't done by financial basis. That family who once attended, nothing to do with money. Now we see more black people going to colleges and this helps those minorities.
-Already have qualifications, does that mean they would get in anyways?
--> They don't need to abolish it, and they're already qualified.
-Does this target people or?
--> Legacy is a factor to who has a closer knit.
-First gen. has their own advantage?
--> They are but except they don't have the guidance for the legacy thing in preference.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bartlett - Affirmation - End Legacy
-This hurts people of low income status, and cannot provide for the school or the kids
-$546 given by people
-top 1% = 69% of gifts given.
-Wouldn't hurt people in the long run if they're already qualified.
-Statistical Modeling removal of legacy preferences for Asian American students.
-Programs helps bias
-Negation can see a decrease among minorities.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Familial TIes?
--> Yes, due to gifts.
-No contributing = wouldn't hurt anyone
--> Agree completely.
-Benefit from legacy ??????????????????
--> Increase of money due to status of income.
-Legacy admission in the long term due to more minorities attending now.
--> More minorities in Harvard, Alumni wouldn't
-If Alumni give money to University our goal is to discourage that? THe more money = the better for everyone
--> You see it as a business, but peoples' lives are at stake. If we couldn't give money, it's unfair.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Horden - Negation - End Legacy
-Colleges are so looking into detail and need a distinguishment.
-If applications are the same, then colleges need something to put one over the other.
-But, Legacy can help this and push one person onto another.
--> Really poor point in my own point.
-WSJ 1st gen students have higher scholarships and preferences are 39% higher, because these people are in need.
-Prof. Janitors and staff get their money from donations and tuition, that is for the betterment of the college
-Money improves the college, the education, therefore the community as a whole
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Legacy students are more likely to graduate college due to experience in their family?
--> Um? No.
-Do you believe this can help immigrants if they need a foothold?
--> Yes, of course.
-Athetic ability shouldn't be accounted for, isn't that _____?
--> People think Athletic ability shouldn't be considered.
-Legacy is out of control, why should we take that into the application.
--> Idk but something about being able for it to break the tie between applicants.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Patton - Affirmation - End Legacy
-Merits and needs based should be the only things to depend on.
-Merits THEN needs.
-Legacy are more wealthy due to college educated families
-Legacy students are already more well off
-Legacy began based on discrimination due to keep off minorities and others.
-Alumni money which can help them out.
-According to Forbes: gets more gov. support than universities.
-Where you come from not what you did in your life and it depends on the wealth.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Help to increase immigrants and minorities benefit minorities in the future
--> Cannot see the benefits of these.
-Biggest roadblock is the cost of ___?
--> Yes.
???? Idk they're all soooo quiet idk how the judges understand this.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Gooding - Negation - End Legacy
-No financial needs, then Alumni is how it would work due to donations/funding
-Much easier for students to pay without debt.
-Support for these Universities is essential.
-These colleges push for racial equality and other minorities
-The Private instituion has a right
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-How ethnic minorities thats not a thing because they don't right?
-So, legacy preference when you have identical candidates.
--> Its based off of legacy status.
-If we got rid of it wouldn't that also places certain qualifications
--> Supreme Court said affirmative action is fine as a tie breaker.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Tsai - Affirmation - End Legacy
-Harvard is 1/3rd legacy, 1/3rd are legacy students
-Cherrypick students based on more money, they would choose the person over the poor person
-Alumni have to stop giving colleges money, legacy applications were at a rate of 34% which is higher than non legacy students.
-If these immigrants are coming in and they're inheritly plucked out by the system
-1st Gen are inheritly being disadvatanged and goes against her own position on the resolution.
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-WOuldn't the 1/3rd be minorities therefore benefitting minorities?
--> Yes it is 1/3rd but it is discrimination and people who elected me don't stand against discrimination
-No direct something
-When do they consider it?
--> Used as a tie breaker to use against similar merit applicants.
-Why is the legacy student going to have a higher thing if its only tiebreaker
--> The author had stated that 1st gen were disadvantaged
-IT STARTED GETTING CONFUSING AND I THINK HE BECAME A HYPOCRITE?
---------------------------------------------
Senator Maness - Negation - End Legacy
-Yes higher rate of exceptions doesn't have anything due to race or 1st gen, more beneficial than the legacy status
-Harvard has the most legacy things
-Princeton - 5-14.5% per year of legacy and washington - 5%
-513 Million was sent by Alumni, and thats why it makes it better for first gen and minorities
-Influx of minorities at Harvard in the years it would be against them who were going to be affecting
-WE have to consider the statistics and we must negate the resolution
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-What percentage of Alumni money goto Children
--> Not directly going to children, or not sure. More money coming in to the University
-A policy allows for elite schools to discriminate against people who aren't Alumnis
--> They all have the same gpa, economic status, etc.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sundaram - Affirmation - End Legacy
-No priority therefore no ties to any of the universities
-Multiple extracurriculers is going to be pitted up by another student they get that preference does end up having a major impact, nobody can control that
-If they cannot control it, it shouldn't go against them
-Legacy = Large amounts of contribution
-Students whos parents went in and gave them money therefore the student has a higher preference.
-The children are the future to get a education and everything else
-Vote aff
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Persons economic status, so race is also?
-->Anything that provides uncontrollable statuses shouldn't be included
-No discrimination toward rich people
--> Yes.
-Should colleges remove test scores because lower income cannot afford it?
--> Not at all, since they can afford SAT Prep.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Pierson - Negation - End Legacy
-Up to Universities can change it themselves if it is such a problem
-Many factors include: GPAs, Tests, Extracurriculur, Etc. are factored and also mostly factored the highest
-Many extracurriculers are expensive and out of the control
-There are many additional factors and legacy is just one of those
-Vote neg
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Do the families of Alumni do they have a larger income rather than regulars?
--> Idk but it may very to case by case basis.
-Achieve more racial equality and Sundaram are legally rest on a similar princile?
--> Hinging on the idea of racism and not what we have been focusing on.
-Using the same logic, which actually has a lower regular than being 1st gen, shouldn't we attack that?
--> IDk thats out of the realm and thats why we should negate the resolution.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sans - Negation - End Legacy
-This does have to do with investment
-They become more and more important due to them being at the bottom of the line
-Alumni gave $11 Million, which is  26.1Z% came from Alumni
-Alumni increased by 1700%
-Investment allows to better the learning environment
-Competing the tuition
-Not a huge factor, and it is looked at as the bottom of the barrel, the tiebreaker.
-How would it be determined without legacy?
-That is the last thing they look at, which is why
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-are benefitted due to their wealth and they have relationships
--> Agreed they have actual relationships and that matters.
-Insignificant
--> Not completely,
-Despite it being the last factor, shouldn't there be a tie breaker?
--> Yes it is definitely argument nobody also said how they would be factored.
---------------------------------------------
(The Resolution fails 4-7-0)
---------------------------------------------
A Resolution to Require all Parents Vaccinate Their Children
---------------------------------------------
(Missed Pierson's Authorship Speech)
---------------------------------------------
Senator Godeem - Negation - Vaccination
-If the child goes to another parent
-Parental alienation
-Children who are in foster care 45% more likely to attract diseases, lower school grades, homelessness, drug use dependence
-A parent not vaccinating their child vs. not with their parent
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Kill them in similar to neglect?
--> Yes.
-Parents getting taken away from their children? (other way)
--> Comes from bill
-People separated can contract diseases
--> Not sure about specific types and/or they're prvented by vaccinations.
-Is it us best interest to protect public health
--> No in this interest.
-Burden on the parents vs the government, parents fault in general
--> Yes.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bischoff - Affirmation - Vaccination
-Life, Liberty & the persuit of happiness
-Public Health and the economic benefits
-Better to treat disease than to cure it
-For every 1 dollar spent on vaccination and 5 dollars in medical care and 11 dollars in indirect medical care
-Helps local diseases (Vaccines)
-More than 95% of the population has a immunity to the disease and can eradicate them
-Detrimental to a child's health, if they have the vaccinations 9x as not getting the disease
-CDC AND FDA closely monitor the vaccines
-If not, more extensive research must be valid through a certain and new process
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Agree due to the large scale problem?
--> Yes due to other things
-Wouldn't they have a medical exemption help them?
--> Yes, it would.
-Failure to provide adequate healthcare/no good health.
--> Yes, it neglects the childs health and it's bad.
-Religious exemption
--> Personally, no. But yes due to the constitution
---------------------------------------------
Senator Gooding - Negation - Vaccines
-Shouldn't be exempting from abusing their child due to religion
-Church and state should be separated
-Religious discrimination
-Religion shouldn't matter
-Current foster care system is terrible
-Not the proper response to it
-Many mental issues involved due to foster care system
->It is Underfunded and more and more kids will be going into it
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Religious exemption?
-->Omnish.
-Support amending the bill.
--> Yes.
-Rare to not give punishment if they loose their child
--> These people are radical and dangerous.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bartlett - Affirmation - Vaccines
-If you can vaccinate your cat, why not your child?
-Never hear of Polio, Measles is prevented with a needle.
-285/saved/1hr due to vaccines
-Benefits the economy and no medical bills
-Money used to better the society
-Failure to recognize modern times is completely selfish that can be dead or taken away from the person
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Exemptions impact?
--> Very minute and are philosophical, rather than religious.
-Auto-Immune/Allergic?
--> No, they wouldn't received it.
-Ceased to evolve.
--> Herd immunity and helps everyone else."
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sundaram - Negation - Vaccines
-Certain rights to each and every citizens
-Goes against religious parents
-We are overstepping boundaries
-Increase of education on Vaccines rather than forcing them
-Large subset of parents are confused
-SO they can educate the parents families
-Advocating for an action, each and every state has laws that certain vaccinations when entering schools.
-All 50 states allow people who are allergic/auto immune to avoid the vaccines
---------------------------------------------
-Questions-
---------------------------------------------
-Religious exemption
--> Yes, but we should focus on the education, we aren't forcing them and they would understand why.
-How affective?
--> Smoking went down on the education on it
-Should a parent failure to protect their child. They're hurting them.
--> Autonomy. Their best interest of their child.
---------------------------------------------
Senator Maneen - Amendment (Author/Aff) - Vaccines
-We cannot allow children to endure this type of neglect
-Will have fines > foster care/taken away
-9x more likely, we cannot allow that to slide
---------------------------------------------
Senator Patton - Amendment Aff - Vaccines
-More harsh = more pressure to get their kids vaccinated
-You harm other peoples children and why thats a public health matter
---------------------------------------------
Senator Pierson - Amendment NEG (Author of Resolution) - Vaccines
-Cannot afford these fines and contract harm from the communities around them
-Custody of their child.
-Only choice to ensure they will vaccinate their children
-Resolution so this can change so we can have a harsh consquence for a harsh disease.
-No net negative
-Solely based on the fact we must do this immediately
-Strong and strict consequences
---------------------------------------------
Senator Sans - Amendment Affirmation - Vaccines
-Won't be timely, this is a resolution, and not how long the fines will be.
-Open for discussion
-Low-income would be practically forced to vaccinate their child
-Small-Pox had 29k+ deaths, and there were absolutely no deaths, measles, mumps, etc.
-Everyone 100% vaccination
---------------------------------------------
Senator Bartlett - Amendment Negation - Vaccines
-18k vaccinates 300 was religious exemptions.
-Etc etc etc etc etc etc
---------------------------------------------
Amendment: Passes 8-3
---------------------------------------------
Voting: Bill passes 10-1
---------------------------------------------
(Session 2 ended 3:19 PM)
---------------------------------------------
Adjourned, SC States is over!
---------------------------------------------
-=+Ending of Flowing+=-