Topicality Starter - GMDI 2019

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales

of arms from the United States.

***General

USFG

Means Any Territory We ControlUnited States includes all land, waters, seas, airspace, territories, etc.DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 5 [US Department of Defense 2005, "United States," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/United+States, ]

United States Includes the land area, internal waters , territorial sea , and airspace of the U nited States,

including the following: a. US territories, possessions, and commonwealths; and b. Other areas over which the US Government has complete jurisdiction and control or has exclusive authority or defense responsibility .

3 BranchesUnited States federal government refers to the three branches of the federal government.US Legal No Date (“United States Federal Government Law and Legal Definition,” http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-states-federal-government/)

The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty

over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches : i) the legislature , which is the US Congress, ii) Executive , comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people.

United States Government means all 3 branchesWordnet 6 [Wordnet 3.0 by Princeton University, "United States government," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/united+states+government, ]

united states government- noun the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States

USFG means all three branchesColumbia Encyclopedia No Date["United States," http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states, ]

The government of the United States is that of a federal republic set up by the Constitution of the United States, adopted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There is a division of powers between the federal government and the state

governments. The federal government consists of three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive power is vested in the President and, in the event of the President's incapacity, the Vice President. (For a chronological list of all the presidents and vice presidents of the United States, including their terms in office and political parties, see the table entitled Presidents of the United States.) The executive conducts the administrative business of the nation with the aid of a cabinet composed of the Attorney General and the Secretaries of the Departments of State; Treasury; Defense; Interior; Agriculture; Commerce; Labor; Health and Human Services; Education; Housing and Urban Development; Transportation; Energy; and Veterans' Affairs. The Congress of the United States, the legislative branch, is bicameral and consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The judicial branch is formed by the federal courts and headed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The members of the Congress are elected by universal suffrage (see election) as are the members of the electoral college, which formally chooses the President and the Vice President.

Government in DCThe USFG is the government in D.C.Encarta 00 (Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia, http://encarta.msn.com)

“ The federal government of the U nited S tates is centered in Washington DC .”

USFG means the government in DCBaker 9 [Jean H., B.A., M.A., Ph.D, Goucher College history professor "United States Government," http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=1741500781, ]

United States Government, the combination of federal, state, and local laws, bodies, and agencies that is responsible for carrying out the operations of the United States. The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington, D.C.

Not all 3 BranchesNo such thing as the USFGChicago Manual of Style 3(http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles32.html, accessed 10/16/07)

The government of the U nited S tates is not a single official entity. Nor is it when it is referred to as the federal

government or the U.S. government or the U.S. federal government . It’s just a government, which , like those in all countries,

has some official bodies that act and operate in the name of government : the Congress , the Senate, the Department of State, etc .

Should

Means ImmediateShould requires immediate actionSummer 94 Justice, Oklahoma Supreme Court, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14

4 The legal question to be resolved by the court is whether the word "should "13

in the May 18 order

connotes futurity or may be deemed a ruling in praesenti . 14 The answer to this query is not to be divined

from rules of grammar;15

it must be governed by the age-old practice culture of legal professionals and its immemorial language usage. To determine if the omission (from the critical May 18 entry) of the turgid phrase, "and the same hereby is", (1) makes it an in futuro ruling - i.e., an expression of what the judge will or would do at a later stage - or (2) constitutes an in in praesenti resolution of

a disputed law issue, the trial judge's intent must be garnered from the four corners of the entire record.16

¶5 Nisi prius orders should be so construed

as to give effect to every words and every part of the text, with a view to carrying out the evident intent of the judge's direction.17

The order's language ought not to be considered abstractly. The actual meaning intended by the document's signatory should be derived from the context in which the

phrase to be interpreted is used.18

When applied to the May 18 memorial, these told canons impel my conclusion that the judge doubtless intended his ruling as an in praesenti resolution of Dollarsaver's quest for judgment n.o.v. Approval of all counsel plainly appears on

the face of the critical May 18 entry which is [885 P.2d 1358] signed by the judge.19 True minutes20 of a court neither call for nor bear the approval of the parties' counsel nor the judge's signature. To reject out of hand the view that in this context "should" is impliedly followed by the customary, "and the same hereby is", makes the court once again revert to medieval notions of ritualistic formalism now so thoroughly condemned in national

jurisprudence and long abandoned by the statutory policy of this State. [Continues – To Footnote] 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is

presently or immediately effective , as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).

Means Duty or ObligationShould implies duty and obligation.Words and Phrases 86

The word “should,” as used in instructions, may convey to the jury the sense of duty and obligation . State v. Connor, 87 P. 703, 74 Kan. 898.

Should expresses duty- all other meanings are ambiguous and uncommon in American EnglishRandom House 9 [Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, "Should," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should, ]

Usage note: Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the

directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity , etc. (You should get your flu shot before winter comes), its use for other purposes, as to form a

subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I should (American would) have called immediately. I should (American would) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also shall.

MandatoryShould implies mandatory actionWords and Phrases, 1953, Vol. 39, p. 312.

Command implied. The word “should,” as used in Laws 1901, p. 387, c 106, 3, providing that, on proof of certain facts to the county court, it shall be determined whether territory should be disconnected from a city, does not authorize the court to do

as it pleases; the statute is mandatory.

Should is unconditional- it requires an obligation of actionCollins Essential English Dictionary 2K6 [Second edition, "should," http://www.thefreedictionary.com/should]

the past tense of shall: used to indicate that an action is considered by the speaker to be obligatory (you should go) or to form the subjunctive mood (I should like to see you; if I should die; should I be late, start without me) [Old English sceolde]

Should expresses explicit obligationAmerican Heritage 9 [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, "Should," http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should, ]

In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation , as in Applicants shall provide a proof of

residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should.

Should is mandatoryNieto 9 Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311, Colo. Ct. App. 2009

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation , propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary

2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative , obligatory sense . HN7A number of courts,

confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections

governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not

guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891

P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986).

Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion . In Little v. State, 261 Ark. 859, 554

S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word " should" in an instruction on

circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have

been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's argument that the court erred by not using the word " should" in an instruction on

witness credibility which used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning . State v.

Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation . McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

Not MandatoryShould is conditionalBusiness Dictionary No Date["Should," http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/should.html, ]

Definition In general, recommended but not mandatory.

Should means desirableWords and Phrases 2 Vol. 39, p. 372-373

Or. 1952. Where safety regulation for sawmill industry providing that a two by two inch guard rail should be installed at extreme outer edge of walkways adjacent to sorting tables was immediately preceded by other regulations in which word “shall” instead of “should” was used, and word

“should” did not appear to be result of inadvertent use in particular regulation, use of word “should” was intended to convey idea that particular precaution involved was desirable and recommended, but not mandatory . ORS 654.005 et

seq.----Baldassarre v. West Oregon Lumber Co., 239 P.2d 839, 193 Or. 556.---Labor & Emp. 2857

Should doesn’t require certaintyBlack’s Law 79 Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237

Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often interchangeable with the word

“would,” it does not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does .

Should and must are distinctDilip 11 Aron Dilip (Contributing Editor – India) – Professor in Social Science Difference Between Should and Must Mar 17th, 2011 http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-should-and-vs-must/#ixzz1yLDjLmkx

Should and Must are two modal auxiliary verbs in English language that should be used correctly and with difference . Both the verbs differ in their forms and their meanings as well. The verb ‘ must’ is generally used expressive of certainty as in the sentence ‘I must get up at five tomorrow.’ In this sentence the modal auxiliary verb ‘must’ is used expressive of certainty regarding getting up at five in the morning. ‘Must’ is used to indicative of strong advice to oneself or to others as in the sentences: 1. I really must stop drinking alcohol. 2. You must be here by 9 o’clock at the latest. In both the sentences given above

you will find that ‘must’ is used supportive of an advice or order. Sometimes ‘must’ is used in questions too. In such cases it seems to ask about the intentions of the person who is spoken to as in the sentences: 1. Must I write down everything? 2. Why must you read till late in the night this week? You seem to ask about the intentions of the person who is spoken to in both the sentences by the usage of the verb ‘must’. The

modal auxiliary verb ‘should’ can be used as the past form of ‘shall’ as in the sentence ‘I said I should be in the temple before eleven.’ The verb ‘should’ sometimes is used after ‘if’ to suggest some sort of possibility or chance as in the sentence ‘If you

should see Julie, give her my wishes.’ The meaning that you get from the sentence is that in case you meet her you convey my wishes to her. The verb ‘should’ is very frequently used to express obligation and duty as in the sentence ‘You should meet him today.’ Thus the two verbs are to be used with precision .

Should isn’t mandatoryTaylor and Howard 5

(Michael and Julie, Resources for the Future, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa”, 9/12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)

Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development ($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the

others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The difference between shall and should may have legal significance — one is clearly mandatory while the other is a strong admonition —but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the congressional directive to the best of its ability.

Should only means desirability—not binding obligation Dvorsky 15(George, Gizmodo, A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord, , gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-1747908970)

Hours before the historic Paris climate accord was to be ratified in a final vote, someone noticed that a word had been changed in the final draft of the text—a single word that threatened to derail the entire deal. As reported in the Washington Post, someone changed the word “should” to “shall.” Now, it seems like a little thing, but given that the words were in reference to sweeping new legal and financial obligations, it mattered. A lot. When it comes to legally binding terminology , there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “ should” is a kind of wishy-washy call to action , the word “ shall” implies an obligation , and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide the unexpected

change. The New York Times reports: Throughout the process, the longer and less binding “should” was a deliberate part of the international agreement , put there to establish that the richest countries,

including the United States, felt obligated to pony up money to help poor countries adapt to climate change and make

the transition to sustainable energy systems. “ Shall” meant something altogether different , American officials said.

When “shall” was spotted in the document on Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry called his French counterpart and made it clear that unless a switch was made, France could not count on American support for the agreement. “I said: ‘We cannot do this and we will not do this. And either it changes, or President Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement,’ ” Mr. Kerry told reporters after delegates had accepted the deal by consensus Saturday night, amid cheering and the celebratory stamping of feet. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and within hours the wording within the 31-page text was reverted back to the original “should.” A subsequent vote affirmed the Paris Accord, and all was saved.

Substantially

Must be 50%Substantial is at least 50%Camdessus ‘96 (Michel Camdessus, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Member of APP, Press Conference, September 26, 1996, <http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/1996/tr960926.htm>)

If one wanted only to maintain the size of the Fund relative to the world economy since quotas were last adjusted, now one should increase quotas by at least two thirds. The Executive Board is discussing this issue, and I see a very broad majority of the Board considering a substantial quota increase. " Substantial" means for me at least something between 50 and 100   percent

Must be 85% Substantial means 85%Cudahy 95

Justice Cudahy, 5-30-95, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 55 F.3d 1318; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 13268

An exemption from partial withdrawal liability exists, however, for those employers for whom "substantially all the employees with respect to whom the employer has an obligation to contribute under the plan perform work in the building and construction

industry." 29 U.S.C. § 1383(b)(1)(A). The statute does not define " substantially all," but this court has defined it as 85 percent or more. Continental Can Co. v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 916 F.2d 1154, 1160 (7th Cir. 1990). The statute also does not define the time period during which the "substantially all" restriction applies. We are therefore given no guidance as to whether this restriction applies during only the last year of the three year testing period, during all three years, or during the entire eight years involved in the calculation of the partial withdrawal. Nor, to our knowledge, has any other court of appeals addressed this issue.

Must be 90%Substantial means 90%Pieras 95 [Jaime, US District Judge, TABER PARTNERS I, Plaintiff vs. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO875 F. Supp. 81; 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1809, l/n]

The arguments presented by Merit in both motions for summary judgment are straightforward. Merit believes that Constructora Bauza established three main precepts. First, a contractor is not liable for apparent defects once an owner has approved and paid for the work performed. Second, if a novation of the original contract occurs, a contractor cannot be found liable for any defects or

delays in the work completed prior to the novation. And finally, once an owner has paid over ninety percent (90%)

of the contract price, a project must be considered substantial ly completed. A brief examination of Merit's theories is in order.

Must be DoubleSubstantial increase means at least a doublingMormann 11 Fellow, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Stanford Law School, ¶ Felix 38 Ecology L.Q. 903

Innovation of the scale necessary for a timely transition to renewable sources of energy is not just risky, it is costly, too. If the U nited S tates wants to be a leader in renewables innovation and develop a strong domestic renewables industry, government funding for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) must be increase d substantially . Since 1997, numerous entities , including the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and the National Commission on Energy Policy have called for substantial increases in federal spending on energy innovation. The spectrum of suggested increases ranges from a mere doubling to a tenfold raise . n186 In 2009, more than thirty Nobel Laureates called on President Obama to support stable energy innovation support at $ 15 billion per year. n187 In 2010, a group of industry leaders, including Bill Gates, Chad Holliday, and Ursula Burns, urged the U.S. government to raise its investment in clean energy innovation to $ 16 billion annually. n188 For comparison, in 2008, total U.S. spending on R&D for low-carbon energy technologies amounted to less than $ 2.5 billion. n189 This disconcertingly low figure includes funding not only for renewable and other sources of clean energy but also investment in energy efficiency as well as the building and transport sector. In fact, renewables accounted for fewer than 20 percent of the 2008 budget for energy RD&D funding, which amounts to less than $ 500 million. n190 Compared to its primary trading partners and [*944] competitors, such as Japan, Korea, France, and China, the United States spends the smallest fraction of its gross domestic product on energy RD&D. n191

Voting neg is key to establish a predictable standard allowing for fair debate, instead of letting the topic devolve into arbitrary case-by-case determinations of meaningGandhi 9 Shalesh Gandhi 9, Information Comissioner, Indian Central Information Comissioner, Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001193/5009, http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/ 32307-ic-sg-lays-down-exact-figures-guidelines-define-substantial-etc.html

Any organisation, not covered by Sections 2 (h) (a), (b), (c) or (d), will still fall under the ambit of public authority if it meets the requirements given

under Section 2(h)(i) or (ii). In both these clauses a determination has to be made as to whether a body or organisation is substantially funded or not. As the Act does not define ‘substantial’, it is necessary to first define this word. As the concept of public authority is relatively new in the Indian legal scenario, the Commission is not able to find a useful precedent in law to define substantial funding. Cases decided by Courts with regard to Article 12 of the Constitution of India are not applicable in the present case as the Parliament has deliberately used the words ‘public authority’ and not ‘state’ in the Right to Information Act. I am of the view that substantial funding can be decided through two methods- first to identify what percentage of the organisation’s income is given by the government which is ‘of considerable importance’ to its revenue; and second, to identify an amount of money which in the Indian scenario

would, in itself, be ‘of considerable importance’. Both methods if applied on a case-to-case basis are vulnerable to a charge of arbitrariness . Therefore, I take this opportunity to lay a specific guideline to decide whether a body is substantially financed by the government or not. I am aware that such a guideline is also open to a charge of arbitrariness but it is better to have a pre-decided transparent standard which everyone can follow rather than a post-facto case-to-case determination . I recognize that for this particular matter the guideline that I lay down would be a post-facto determination but the precedential value of this decision could help remove the arbitrariness to a large extent.

Must be quantitative, not qualitative Brennan 81 Justice BRENNAN 81 delivered the opinion of the Court, 451 U.S. 933, 101 S.Ct. 2008. , Charles W. STEADMAN, Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/450/450.US.91.79-1266.html#fn16

The search for congressional intent begins with the language of the statute . Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 56, 100 S.Ct. 318, 322, 62 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979); Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 2330, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979); 62 Cases of Jam v.

United States, 340 U.S. 593, 596, 71 S.Ct. 515, 518, 95 L.Ed. 566 (1951). Section 7(c), 5 U.S.C. § 556(d), states in pertinent part: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the

agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported

by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence ." (Emphasis added.) The language of the statute itself implies

the enactment of a standard of proof. By allowing sanctions to be imposed only when they are "in accordance with . . . substantial evidence," Congress implied that a sanction must rest on a minimum quantity of evidence. The word "substantial" denotes quantity .16 The phrase "in accordance with . . .

substantial evidence" thus requires that a decision be based on a certain quantity of evidence. Petitioner's contention that the phrase "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" sets merely a standard of quality of evidence is, therefore, unpersuasive.17

Must be Immediate“Substantial” excludes potential future increasesWords and Phrases 64

The words" outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive," in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the same thing. They mean not concealed ; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential , apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine; certain: absolute: real at present time , as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to fonn; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.

Substantial' must be at the present timeWords and Phrases 64 (40W&P 759)

The word s " outward, open, actual, visible, substantial, and exclusive," in connection with a change of possession, mean substantially the

same thing. They mean not concealed; not hidden; exposed to view; free from concealment, dissimulation, reserve, or disguise; in full existence; denoting that which not merely can be, but is opposed to potential, apparent, constructive, and imaginary; veritable; genuine;

certain: absolute: real at present time, as a matter of fact, not merely nominal; opposed to fonn; actually existing; true; not including, admitting, or pertaining to any others; undivided; sole; opposed to inclusive.

Must be LargeSubstantially means to a large degreeWords and Phrases ‘2 (Words and Phrases Permanent Edition, “Substantially,” Volume 40B, p. 324-330 October 2002, Thomson West)

N.D.Ill. 2002. Under ADA, “ substantially ” in phrase substantially limits, means considerable, or to a large degree.

Must be MaterialSubstantially means essential and materialWords and Phrases, 1964, p. 818

“Substantially” means meeting requirements in essential and material parts.

Substantial means materiallyWords & Phrases, Vol. 40A, 2002, p. 469.

IILApI,. 2 Dist. 1923. “Substantial” means in substance, in the main, essential, including material or essential parts. -White v. City Of' Otlawa. 230 IILApIt. 491, affirmcd 149 N.G. 021. 318 Ill. 463.

Substantial means materiallyWords & Phrases, Vol. 40A, 2002, p. 458.

M.D. Tenn. 1941. Word "substantial" means in substance or in a substantial manner, materially or essentially.-Newark Stove Co. v. Gray & Dudley Co., 39 F.Supp. 992.

Not EssentialSubstantially doesn’t mean essentially or importantWords and Phrases, 1964, p. 819

The word “ substantially ” is not necessarily synonymous with “essentially ”. Robbins v. Wettlaufer, S1 f.2d. 882, 893, 23 C.C. P.A., Patents, 952.

Not MaterialSubstantial is without material qualificationsBlacks Law Dictionary 90[6th Edition]

Essentially ; without material qualifications ; in the main ; in substance; materially, in a substantial manner. About, actually, competently, and essentially.

Not NumericalSubstantially should be defined in context- NOT by numerical boundariesDevinsky 2[Paul, McDermott Will & Emery Partner "Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art," P Update, Volume 5, No. 11, http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm, ]

The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term " substantially " in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence : "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that "resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention." The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whether the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents." The Federal Circuit cited its recent decision in Ecolab Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc. for the proposition that "the term 'substantially' is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to 'avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.'"

Substantially =/= strict numerical boundaryGettleman, US District Judge, 7-30-2007

[Robert W., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 504 F. Supp. 2d 360; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56606, l/n, accessed 8-1-10, ]

Expressions such as "substantially" are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention. Like the term "about," the term "substantially" is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. The term, however, is capable of dual meaning. Because the term "substantially" is capable of multiple interpretations, courts turn to the intrinsic evidence to determine which interpretation should be adopted.

A2: Arbitrary

‘Substantially’ isn’t precise --- but still must be given meaning. The most objective way to define it contextuallyDevinsky 2 (Paul, “Is Claim "Substantially" Definite? Ask Person of Skill in the Art”, IP Update, 5(11), November, http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/publications.nldetail/object_id/c2c73bdb-9b1a-42bf-a2b7-075812dc0e2d.cfm)

In reversing a summary judgment of invalidity, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court, by failing to look beyond the intrinsic claim construction evidence to consider what a person of skill in the art would understand in a

"technologic context," erroneously concluded the term "substantially" made a claim fatally indefinite . Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., Case No. 01-1417 (Fed. Cir. November 14, 2002). The patent in suit related to an improved push rod for an internal combustion engine. The patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and has "substantially constant wall thickness" throughout the rod and rounded seats at the tips. The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" was not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially" and was, therefore, indefinite. The district court recognized that the use of the term "substantially" may be definite in some cases but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in requiring that the meaning of the term "substantially" in a particular "technologic context" be found solely in intrinsic evidence: "While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in

interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention." Thus, the Federal Circuit instructed that " resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention ." The Federal Circuit

remanded the case to the district court with instruction that "[t]he question is not whethe r the word 'substantially' has a fixed meaning as applied to 'constant wall thickness,' but how the phrase would be understood by persons experienced in this field of mechanics, upon reading the patent documents."

“Substantially” needs to be given a quantitative meaning --- any other interpretation is more arbitraryWebster’s 3 (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary, www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: sub.stan.tial¶ b : considerable in quantity : significantly great <earned a substantial wage>

Context is key for defining substantial increaseTarlow 00 Nationally prominent criminal defense lawyer practicing in Los Angeles, CA. He is a frequent author and lecturer on criminal law. He was formerly a prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office and is a member of The Champion Advisory Board (Barry, The Champion January/February, lexis)

In Victor, the trial court instructed that: "A reasonable doubt is an actual and substantial doubt . . . as distinguished from a doubt arising from mere [*64] possibility, from bare imagination, or from fanciful conjecture." Victor argued on appeal after receiving the death penalty that

equating a reasonable doubt with a "substantial doubt" overstated the degree of doubt necessary for acquittal. Although the court agreed that the instruction was problematic given that "substantial," could be defined as "that specified to a large degree," it also ruled that any ambiguity was removed by reading the phrase

in the context of the sentence in which it appeared . Finding such an explicit distinction between a substantial doubt and a fanciful conjecture was not present in the Cage instruction, it held that the context makes clear that "substantial" was used in the sense of existence rather than in magnitude of the doubt and, therefore, it was not unconstitutional as applied. Id. at 1250.

Even if a substantial increase isn’t precise --- you should still exclude their Aff for being tiny. Even judges can make a gut check.Hartmann 7 Judge, Hong Kong (IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, 8/20, http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=58463&currpage=T

The word ‘substantial’ is not a technical term nor is it a word that lends itself to a precise measurement. In an earlier judgment on this issue, that of S. v. S. [2006] 3 HKLRD 251, I said that it is not a word —¶ “… that

lends itself to precise definition or from which precise deductions can be drawn. To say, for example, that ‘there has been a substantial increase in expenditure’ does not of itself allow for a calculation in numerative terms of the exact increase. It is a statement to the effect that it is certainly more than a little but less than great . It defines, however, a significant increase, one that is weighty or sizeable .”

Substantial requires contextWords and Phrases, Vol. 40A, 2002, p. 464.

Cal. 1956. "Substantial" is it relative term, its measure to be gauged by all the circumstances surrounding the matter in reference to which the expression has been used. -Atchison, 'I'. & S. F. IZy. Co. v. Kings County Water Dist., 3(12 P.2d 1, 41 Ca1.2J 140.

Substantial requires contextWords and Phrases, 1960, p. no page.

"Substantial" is a relative term , Its measure to be gauged by all the circumstances surrounding the matter In reference to which the expression is used. Robinson v. North Am. Life & Cas. Co., App., 30 Cal. Rptr. 57, 60. The term "substantial" is relative and its meaning is to be gauged by the circumstances. State by Lord v. Pahl, 95 N.W.2d 85, 89, 254 Minn. 349. "Substantial" is a relative term, the meaning of which is to be gauged by all the circumstances surrounding the transaction in reference to which the expression has been used, and it imports a considerable amount of value in opposition to that which is inconsequential or small. Application of Scroggin, Cal.App., 229 P.2d 489, 491. "Substantial" is a relative word, which, while it must be used with care and discrimination, must nevertheless be given effect, and in a claim of patent allowed considerable latitude of meaning where it is applied to such subject as thickness, -,is by requiring two parts of a device to be of substantially the same thickness, and cannot be held to require them to be of exactly the same thickness. Todd v. Sears Roebucl, & Co., D.C. N.C., 119 F.Supp. 38, 41. "Substantial" is a relative term, its measure to be gauged by all the circumstances

surrounding the matter in reference to which the expression has been used. Atchison, T. & S. P. Ry. Co. v. Kings County Water Dist., Cal., 302 P.2d 1, 3.1.

Substantially has many meanings- defer to contextGettleman, US District Judge, 7-30-2007

[Robert W., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 504 F. Supp. 2d 360; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56606, l/n, accessed 8-1-10, ]

Expressions such as "substantially" are used in patent documents when warranted by the nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention. Like the term "about," the term " substantially" is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. The term, however, i s capable of dual meaning. Because the term " substantially" is capable of multiple interpretations, courts turn to the intrinsic evidence to determine which interpretation should be adopted .

Substantially has many meanings- defer to contextGajarsa, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge, 10-17-2003

[Arthur, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 347 F.3d 1314; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21066; 68 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1716, l/n, accessed 8-1-10, ]

In the present appeal, Deering contests the district court's construction of the Zero Position Limitation: "said sliding weight when in its zero position having a portion thereof disposed substantially in an imaginary plane containing the fulcrum of the beam." The Zero Position Limitation is present in

every claim at issue in this action. In particular, Deering objects to the construction of the terms "substantially in an imaginary plane ." It specifically contends that the term "substantially" means "at or near." This court is asked, once again, to construe the meaning of the term "substantially" in a patent claim. See, e.g., Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (construing the terms "substantially constant" and "substantially below"); Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 2000) [**15] (construing the term "substantially inward"); York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing the term "substantially the entire height thereof"); Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing the term "substantially in the common plane"). HN6In conducting this analysis, we begin with the ordinary meaning of the claim terms to one of ordinary skill in

the art. Prima Tek, 318 F.3d at 1148. Reference to dictionaries and our cases indicates that the term " substantially" has numerous ordinary meanings . As the district [*1323] court stated, "substantially" can mean "significantly" or "considerably." The term "substantially" can also mean "largely" or "essentially." Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary 1817 (1983). HN7Indeed, our cases recognize the dual ordinary meaning of this term as connoting a term of approximation or a term of magnitude. See Epcon, 279 F.3d at 1031 HN8("The phrase 'substantially constant' denotes language of approximation, while the phrase

'substantially below' signifies language of magnitude, i.e., not insubstantial. [**16] "). Since the term "substantially" is capable of multiple interpretations, we turn to the intrinsic evidence to determine which interpretation should be adopted. Ecolab, 264 F.3d at 1366; Gart, 254 F.3d at 1339-40. As is often the case, the written description does not explicitly identify the meaning of the term "substantially." The specification does, however, provide the public with a significant explanation of the criticality of the location of the sliding weight in conjunction with the plane created by the fulcrum so as to support a finding that the term "substantially" is a term of magnitude as opposed to approximation. First, the stated object of the '428 patent is to provide a lightweight, portable scale. The written description plainly states: To hold down on the mass of the substance holder portion of the mechanism required to achieve equilibrium of the mechanism the sliding weight is constructed in such a manner that the metallic insert therein rests essentially in the plane of the fulcrum for the balance beam when the sliding weight is in its zero position. '428 patent, col. 1, ll. 48-54 (emphasis added). Figure 5, [**17] supra, shows an example of the position of the sliding weight that meets the limitation. In Figure 5, the metal insert of the sliding weight is precisely in the plane, as the written description states: With the center of insert 44 aligned precisely in the plane of fulcrum 19 the insert becomes essentially neutral so far as balance of the balance beam 18

and the holder 28 are concerned when the weight 35 is in its zero position and the holder 28 is empty. This greatly minimizes the amount of mass that must be incorporated into the holder 28 portion of the weighing mechanism 17. Id. at col. 5, ll. 12-29 (emphasis added). The placement of a portion of the weight in the plane of the fulcrum is the stated structural orientation that provides the benefits of minimization of weight and portability. The preferred embodiment places the center of the insert--clearly the major contributor to the total mass of the weight--precisely in the plane. HN9We, however, do not generally limit claims to the preferred embodiment. Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). This is particularly significant because the claim [**18] language does not contain the explicit requirement that the metal insert of the weight be

"essentially in the plane" containing the fulcrum. It is proper, however, to construe the term "substantially in the plane" in light of the specification.

Reduce

Not EliminateReduce means diminish- not eliminate Words and Phrases 2 (Volume 36B, p. 80)

The word “reduce” is its ordinary signification does not mean to cancel , destroy, or bring to naught, ¶ but to diminish , lower, or bring to an inferior state . Green v. Sklar, 74 N.E. 595, 188 Mass. 363

Make SmallerReduce means to make smaller in sizeMerriam Webster No Date, “reduce”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reduce

a : to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate ·reduce all the questions to one b (1) : to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number ·reduce taxes ·reduce the likelihood of war (2) : to decrease the volume and concentrate the flavor of by boiling ·add the wine and reduce the sauce for two minutes c : to narrow down : restrict ·the Indians were reduced to small reservations d : to make shorter : abridge

Not Replace

Reduce excludes replace

Decker, 84 -- US District Court senior judge [Bernard Martin, Dean A. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff v. ALLIS-CHALMERS, Defendant, No. 83 C 7843, US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 9-5-1984, l/n, accessed 8-1-15]

In age discrimination discharge cases, courts have required a plaintiff to show that he is in the protected age group, that

he was satisfying the legitimate business expectations of the employer, that he was nevertheless fired, and that he was [they were] replaced by a younger person. The last element has no role in a reduction-in-force case .

By definition, when an employer reduces [their ] his work force, he hires [they hire] no one to replace the ones [they let go] he lets go. The question is whether to require plaintiffs to show more than their age, qualifications, and termination.

QuantifiableReduce must be quantifiableWisconsin Department of Natural Resources 8 http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/earth/recycle/rgloss.htm

reduce: to lessen in amount, number or other quantity. Reduce must be quantifiable

***T-Subsets

1NC – “From the U.S.”

Arms sale is not destination dependent because the resolution specified "from the United States"Daniel Gouré 16 is Senior Vice President with the Lexington Institute, a nonprofit public-policy research organization headquartered, holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees in international relations and Russian Studies from Johns Hopkins University, https://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/foreign-military-sales-remain-an-important-tool-of-u-s-national-security/, GMDIOne of the most important of these tools is foreign military sales (FMS). The complex role of FMS is reflected, in part, in the fact that the program is run by the Department of State and not the Department of Defense . One reason for this unusual management approach is that the FMS program involves sales by the U.S. government of U.S. arm s, defense equipment, defense services, and military training to foreign governments . As a result, such sales reflect the views of the U.S. government with respect to the recipient country, its relationships with others in the region and the overall approach this country takes to mitigating the threat of regional or global conflict.

Same for DCS—Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) 18 is a program of the Center for International Policy, in collaboration with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, “Direct Commercial Sales”, https://securityassistance.org/content/direct%20commercial%20sales?year=2018, GMDI

The State Department's Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) program regulates U.S. companies' sales of U.S. defense articles and defense services on the U.S. Munitions List abroad. Authorized under Sec. 2778 of U.S. Code, DCS is distinguished from the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, which manages government-to-government sales or transfers. Unlike FMS , d irect c ommercial s ales are negotiated directly between the foreign government and a U.S. compan y . In the overwhelming majority of cases, a U.S. company wanting to export U.S. defense articles or defense services to a foreign country will require an export license or approval from the State Department. Importantly, Security Assistance Monitor data shows approved license agreements instead of actual deliveries of defense articles or services to a foreign country each year. The license agreements often last a few years. Direct commercial sales are subject to the same notification requirements as FMS. Foreign governments that have more experience in military procurement, and do not feel a need to have the U.S. government negotiate sales on their behalf, tend to choose DCS. DCS is usually a quicker way to transfer arms abroad and has less government oversight than FMS. Each year, the State Department's Directorate for Defense Trade Controls releases a report detailing approved licenses and deliveries of defense articles and defense services under DCS for the previous year.

That means affs must substantially reduce total arms sales from the United States before a destination is determined – total arms exports is the core of the topicShimon Arad 18 was the Head of the Strategic Planning Unit in the Political-Military and Policy Bureau of the Israeli Ministry of Defense. “TRUMP’S ARMS EXPORTS POLICY: DEBUNKING KEY ASSUMPTIONS”, https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/trumps-arms-exports-policy-debunking-key-assumptions/, GMDI

The U nited S tates dominates the growing global arms market and according to data gathered by the

authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) , its lead is expanding. The U nited S tates accounted for 34 percent of total arms export s between 2013 and 2017 , ranking it significantly higher than its main competitors Russia (22 percent), France (6.7 percent), Germany (5.8

percent), China (5.7 percent), and Britain (4.8 percent). In FY 2018, the value of signed arms deals continued to increase, reaching over $ 46 billion , exceeding the $41 billion figure of FY 2017.

Substantial is without material qualificationsBlacks Law Dictionary 90[6th Edition]

Essentially ; without material qualifications ; in the main ; in substance; materially, in a substantial manner. About, actually, competently, and essentially.

Vote neg: reduction to specific countries is a voter for limits and ground- that explodes neg research burden with literally hundreds of affs that don’t link to generics and don’t impact the global arms market.

2NC OVTopical affirmatives should reduce total arms sales that is not destination dependent. Two voting issues –

First is Limits—allowing reductions after a destination has been determined explodes the topic to at least 100 affs—this is multiplied by the permutation of subset country affs which magnifies our offense---

Here’s a list of 65 countries affs can arbitrability choose from- we will insert this char into the debateStatista 18 is an online portal for statistics, which makes data collected by market and opinion research institutes and data derived from the economic sector and official statistics, “U.S. arms exports in 2018, by country (in TIV expressed in million constant 1990 U.S. dollars)”, https://www.statista.com/statistics/248552/us-arms-exports-by-country/?fbclid=IwAR3K2Y0chhnVFvY4tN85_R7C0KLGVG1__R0x3BLwL2hfwU7RJ5tg6pcA8Jk, GMDI

Limits outweigh---key to effective neg preparation which is a key facet of debate---they get infinite prep which means allowing predictable limit is key to ensure neg can catch-up---topic is already huge with abundant mechanisms and advantage grounds for reducing arms sales with substantial as its only limiter which why over-limiting is better in this context than under-limiting—

Second is Ground---subsets don’t link to generics because it does not substantially influence the global arms market or the United States’ position in it—means it is not a substantial reduction which is without material qualifications.

Core of the topic is about total arm sales to foreign governments—looser restrictions on total sales in the status quo by Trump’s “Buy American” is the core controversy Mike Stone 18 is a Reuters report, “U.S. foreign military sales total $55.6 billion, up 33 percent: U.S. official”, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-sales/u-s-foreign-military-sales-total-55-6-billion-up-33-percent-u-s-official-idUSKCN1MJ2ES, GMDI

Sales of U.S. military equipment to foreign governments rose 33 percent to $55.6 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, a U.S. official told Reuters on Tuesday, as looser restrictions on sales have begun to increase arms deals . The increase in foreign military sales came in part because the

Trump administration rolled out a new “Buy American” plan in April that relaxed restrictions on sales while encouraging U.S. officials to take a bigger role in increasing business overseas for the U.S. weapons industry. President Donald Trump wants to make the United States, already dominant in the global

weapons trade, an even bigger arms merchant to the world , U.S. officials have said, despite concerns among human rights and arms control advocates.

Neg Ground outweighs- infinite prep means they are structurally ahead on a huge topic - the literature over arms sales is focused on its impact on global arms sales--core Das like

Carving-out a well-balanced interpretation of resolution is an impact that outweighs regardless of limits---debate’s fundamentally an activity that requires negative contradiction---their interp erases controversy from the topic, which destroys clash and switch-side debate---kills every benefit of the activity because we lose abilities to weigh and research different arguments.

**Definitions

FMS

FMS is administered by the DSCA and authorized by the state department and congressNDIA No Date, “The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) is an association for the United States government and the defense industry” http://www.ndia.org/policy/international/fms-vs-dcs, GMDI

U.S. aerospace and defense exports (1) sustain a domestic workforce in the manufacturing sector, (2) support national security programs through the foreign military sales (FMS) and direct commercial sales (DCS) processes, and (3) narrow the U.S. trade deficit gap. In 2016 alone, aerospace and defense exports reduced the overall deficit by

$80-90 billion dollars. FMS Process FMS – an acquisition program administered through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), with final approval by the State Department – supports security cooperation between the U.S. and its allies. While the U.S. government contracts out to the defense industry on a competitive or sole-source basis, it may also sell directly from its own stockpiles. When buying directly from the government’s stockpiles, foreign customers will have more leverage in the unit price of a defense

system – as these same systems are also acquired by the U.S. military and defense agencies. For qualified FMS customers,

the U.S. Congress provides funding through foreign military financing (FMF) . Authorized by the State Department, and administered through DSCA, FMF funding is a non-repayable loan legally granted to

strategic countries – most notably Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq. While FMS cases must have departmental approval, they are exempt from the export licensing process.

Process of FMSState Department 19, “U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade”, https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/, GMDI

FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS) Under FMS, the United States government manages the transfer of approximately $43 billion per year of defense equipment purchased by foreign allies and partners. The Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers in the Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs (PM/RSAT) manages the FMS process, in close partnership with the Department of Defense’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which implements FMS cases by working through the military services to negotiate with U.S. defense contractors, and by providing the customer with training, sustainment, and contractor logistics support for the lifetime of the sale.

The FMS sales process begins when a country submits a formal Letter of Request (LOR) that specifies a desired military capability and a rough price. Sales are approved following U.S. government review and after Congressional notification, when required. After the sale is approved, the DSCA issues a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) that specifies the exact defense articles, training, and support to be delivered. Processing time for FMS cases may vary, but they may take months to negotiate, especially for major defense articles that require

modifications to standard U.S. systems. Due primarily to the time required to construct sophisticated defense systems such as fighter aircraft, countries often do not take delivery of the full package until years after the LOA is finalized. Major FMS sales that have been formally notified to Congress are publicly announced on the DSCA website.

Purpose of salesDefense Security Cooperation Agency No Date, “Foreign Military Sales (FMS)”, https://www.dsca.mil/programs/foreign-military-sales-fms, GMDIPurpose:

The Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program is a form of security assistance authorized by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), as amended [22 U.S.C. 2751, et. seq.] and a fundamental tool of U.S. foreign policy.

Under Section 3, of the AECA, the U.S. may sell defense articles and services to foreign countries and international organizations when the President formally finds that to do so will strengthen the security of the U.S. and promote world peace.

Under FMS, the U.S. Government and a foreign government enter into a government-to-government agreement called a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA).

DCSDCS DefinitionNDIA No Date, “The National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) is an association for the United States government and the defense industry” http://www.ndia.org/policy/international/fms-vs-dcs

DCS Process DCS is regarded as a more flexible process, as the purchaser consults directly with industry about specific products and services it needs. Foreign customers leverage more negotiating power regarding the type of contract (fixed price or firm fixed price), how the contract is written, final delivery requirements, and methods of payment. However, they must carry more risk and administrative burdens. DCS has the added benefit of giving customers options

to purchase more non-standard systems that are mission specific, and designed to tackle readiness challenges. In these cases, the Pentagon does not support these types of mission requirements in their stockpiles, or in their annual budget. Qualifying for an export license through DCS is based on how a product or service is categorized. The State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) executes authority in issuing export licenses to all defense related products and services on the U.S. Munitions List (USML), pursuant to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) grants export licenses to more commercial and “dual-use” defense products and services on the Commerce Control List (CCL), pursuant to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Like the FMS program, DCS advances interoperability between the U.S military and its allies. Furthermore, foreign countries use FMF funding to purchase U.S. defense products and systems through both the FMS program and, on occasion, the DCS process.

Process of DCSState Department 19, “U.S. Arms Sales and Defense Trade”, https://www.state.gov/u-s-arms-sales-and-defense-trade/, GMDI

Under DCS, the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (PM/DDTC) provides regulatory approvals for more than $136 billion per year in sales of defense equipment, services, and related manufacturing technologies controlled under the 21 categories of the U.S. Munitions List (USML). These sales are negotiated privately between foreign end-users and U.S. companies.

Under U.S. law, any U.S. company or individual involved in certain activities involving items enumerated on the USML is required to receive an approved export license or other approval before providing any USML regulated item, technical data, or service to a foreign end-user.

As with FMS, export licenses approved under DCS are approved following an intensive U.S. government review, and after Congressional notification, as required. Export licenses are valid up to four years. Authorizations for defense services are also required and may be for longer timeframes. They may be extended or amended as needed.

DCS cases are considered to be proprietary agreements between the foreign governments or companies and the U.S. defense contractor, however certain information about cases notified to

Congress is published quarterly in the Federal Register, in fulfillment of requirements in the Arms Export Control Act.

Sales process and purposeRobert Nicholas et al 14 is a partner at the Defense Communication Services Agency, https://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/final-fms-dcs_30_sep.pdf, GMDI

In addition to the U.S. Government’s FMS program, U.S. Contractors 71 can sell U.S. defense articles and services to Non-U.S Purchasers 72 without the direct involvement of the U.S. Government, subject to certain regulatory hurdles and U.S. Government oversight. This type of transaction is typically referred to as a Direct Commercial Sale (“DCS”). DCS is like FMS in that it is as “an integral part of safeguarding U.S. national security and furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives.”73 Both FMS and DCS facilitate the interoperability of foreign military partners and U.S. forces, and thus they are seen by the U.S. Government as complementary, not competing.74