Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

Spending Adv. – Impact – Russia Module (1/3)

The stimulus package proves that social spending is key to higher education
Kever 9 (Jeannie, writer for Chron News, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6275906.html) GAT

Higher education executives still may be trying to determine what the federal stimulus package will mean for their schools. But students like Ulises Frias have a pretty good idea. “It helps me stay in school,” said Frias, a senior at the University of Houston-Downtown who pieced together a work-study job and a grant to help cover tuition. Details about how the $787 billion stimulus package will help colleges and universities — and even how much they might receive — haven’t been worked out. But a $30 billion increase in financial aid will begin with grants made this summer. Campus researchers also expect to receive a share of the $17 billion in federal research money included in the bill. The new financial aid money means more students will receive Pell Grants and jobs through campus work-study programs. The maximum Pell Grant, generally reserved for students from families earning less than $30,000 a year, will increase, too. The extra money will help pay for textbooks and other supplies, said Maria Hernandez, a UH-Downtown sophomore who says she couldn’t go to college without her Pell Grant and other financial aid. “The textbooks are going up now,” she said. “They’re so expensive.” The financial aid won’t go directly to college coffers, but should help more students attend college, said Ray Laughter, vice chancellor at Lone Star College. “When the economy is in a downturn, we have more interest and more demand, more people coming to get more skills.” The stimulus package also included $17 billion for research, including an additional $10.4 billion for biomedical research, available through the National Institutes of Health over the next two years, and an additional $2 billion at the National Science Foundation and $600 million for climate change research at NASA. The Department of Energy will get an additional $4 billion for research. University researchers will end up with most of that money, some of which is designated for renovating university research facilities, said Terry Hartle, senior vice president for the American Council on Education. Public colleges and universities also will be eligible for money meant to bolster state budgets during the recession.

Spending Adv. – Impact – Russia Module (2/3)

Higher education key to US-Russia relations
Dresen and Klump 8 (F. Joseph and Sarah D., Program Assoc. at Kennan Inst., Researcher for the Center for Eurasian, Russian, and East European Studies, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1424/&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=470500) GAT

On September 18, the Kennan Institute held a seminar to assess United States-Russian relations through the scope of cooperation in higher education and research. Seminar panelists discussed cooperation in the humanities and social sciences as well as in the natural and physical sciences. Blair A. Ruble, who co-chaired the seminar along with Harley Balzer, began by noting that during a time of escalating difficulty in U.S.-Russian relations, this seminar underscores an aspect of the relationship that is often overlooked. Education and science, he observed, has served as a basis for collaboration and contact between the U.S. and Russia since before the collapse of the Soviet Union. In discussing U.S.-Russian cooperation in the humanities and social sciences, panelists recounted the accomplishments of U.S.-Russian partnerships since 1991 and identified various challenges to and possibilities for such partnerships moving forward. Mark Johnson stated that U.S.-Russian cooperation in the humanities has been mutually beneficial and has continued to offset tension in other areas, as it did during the Cold War. Robert Huber explained how partnerships have worked to identify needs in the Russian system that had not been previously defined, such as sustaining social science knowledge and defining disciplines. Addressing these needs has engendered the growth of a social science community. Johnson also noted how programs like the Centers for Advanced Study and Education (CASE) have helped the Russian system recognize the benefits of linking research and teaching, resulting in more competitive, interdisciplinary research as well as higher quality education.  According to Huber, however, there are also weaknesses in U.S.-Russian partnerships. A desire on the part of Russian partners to please American donors, he stated, interferes with attempts at genuine participation in partnership programs. Panelists agreed that the current model of cooperation is no longer sustainable due to a decrease in funding from American assistance programs. 

US-Russia relations are key to containing the threats of terrorism and proliferation
Ellsworth 3 (Robert F., Fmr. US ambassador to NATO, http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Program%20Briefs/interim%20report%20final%20complete.pdf ) GAT

The public reconciliation of Presidents Bush and Putin in St. Petersburg and at the G-8 Summit in Evian has fostered the impression that all is well in the U.S.-Russian relationship.  This is a dangerous misimpression.  The U.S.-Russian dispute over Iraq exposed conflicts in the U.S.-Russian relationship and even cracks in its foundation that must be addressed to advance vital American interests. The tragic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon rapidly crystallized American thinking about the interrelated threats of terrorism and proliferation.  Containing these threats has become the principal aim of U.S. foreign policy.  Today’s Russia can play a major role in advancing this aim—or in undermining it.  The combination of Russia’s size and strategic location; its relationships with, intelligence about and access to key countries; its arsenal of nuclear and other weapons and technologies; its enormous energy resources; and its ability to facilitate or block action by the United Nations Security Council places Moscow among America’s most important potential partners.  Fortunately, the interests America and Russia share greatly outweigh the interests that divide us.  Nevertheless, even before the dispute over Iraq, lingering resentment on both sides was undermining the relationship.  Russian opposition to one of the most significant American foreign policy initiatives of the last decade raised further questions and must be correctly understood not simply to avoid further problems, but also to get the most out of the U.S.-Russian relationship. Many Russians now believe that Moscow’s opposition to U.S. policy toward Iraq was a strategic blunder.  It also reflects shortcomings in America’s approach, however, including the delay in deepening the U.S.-Russian relationship, the concomitant absence of equities that would have encouraged Moscow to accommodate U.S. preferences, and the undisciplined pursuit of contradictory policies. Moving forward requires that Russian officials understand that the United States has been making a special effort to develop bilateral relations and that obstructionist conduct on key U.S. priorities is not cost-free.  It also requires a review of the U.S.-Russian relationship and the development of more reliable means to advance American interests within it and through it