Pls India Deal Da

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

1 OF 82 *INDEX*

*INDEX*

INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL BAD *index*.............................................................................................................................................................1 India deal bad 1NC (1/4)..................................................................................................................................3 India deal bad 1NC (2/4)..................................................................................................................................4 India deal bad 1NC (3/4)..................................................................................................................................5 India deal bad 1NC (4/4)..................................................................................................................................6 *Uniqueness*...................................................................................................................................................7 Top of the docket..............................................................................................................................................7 Yes Indian approval..........................................................................................................................................8 yes indian approval...........................................................................................................................................9 No Indian approval.........................................................................................................................................10 Yes NSG/IAEA approval................................................................................................................................11 yes nsg/iaea approval......................................................................................................................................12 no iaea/isg approval........................................................................................................................................13 A2: Iran fears will tank the deal.....................................................................................................................14 No India deal..................................................................................................................................................15 no india deal...................................................................................................................................................16 Deal possible..................................................................................................................................................17 *link uniqueness*...........................................................................................................................................18 political capital high.......................................................................................................................................18 political capital low........................................................................................................................................19 partisanship now.............................................................................................................................................20 bipartisanship now..........................................................................................................................................21 ***links*........................................................................................................................................................22 *BUSH GOOD *............................................................................................................................................22 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – controversial...................................................................................................22 alternative energy – partisan ..........................................................................................................................23 alternative energy – gop hates ......................................................................................................................24 *TYPES OF ENERGY*.................................................................................................................................25 solar/wind/geothermal – gop hates.................................................................................................................25 geothermal – gop hates...................................................................................................................................26 Solar – GOP hates...........................................................................................................................................27 SOLAR – GOP HATES..................................................................................................................................28 Wind – unpopular...........................................................................................................................................29 wind – democrats hates..................................................................................................................................30 tax credits – partisan.......................................................................................................................................31 Carbon tax – Congress hates..........................................................................................................................32 cap and trade – BIG COAL...........................................................................................................................33 *BUSH BAD *...............................................................................................................................................35 alternative energy – popular...........................................................................................................................35 Alternative energy – bipart............................................................................................................................36 Alternative energy – DEMS love...................................................................................................................37 *TYPES OF ENERGY*.................................................................................................................................38 Nuclear power –popular.................................................................................................................................38 NUCLEAR POWER – gop LOVES.............................................................................................................39 geothermal – bipartISAN...............................................................................................................................40 .......................................................................................................................................................................40 Solar – popular..............................................................................................................................................41 BIOFUEL – capital.........................................................................................................................................42 wind – bipart..................................................................................................................................................43 wind – popular ...............................................................................................................................................44 *MECHANISMS*.........................................................................................................................................45 RPS – bipartisan.............................................................................................................................................45 RPS – POPULAR .........................................................................................................................................46

1

SDI 2008-2009 SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

INDIA DEAL BAD 2 OF 82

tax credits – DEMS LOVE.............................................................................................................................47 satellites – BIPART ........................................................................................................................................48 emission caps..................................................................................................................................................49 *CREDIT/BLAME*.......................................................................................................................................50 congress = credit / blame................................................................................................................................50 bush = credit...................................................................................................................................................51 bush = blame ..................................................................................................................................................52 **Lobbies*.....................................................................................................................................................53 coal lobby key.................................................................................................................................................53 Oil lobby key..................................................................................................................................................54 Energy lobby key............................................................................................................................................55 green gop key.................................................................................................................................................56 a2: business/oil lobby.....................................................................................................................................57 *INTERNALS*..............................................................................................................................................58 political capital KEY TO SPEED...................................................................................................................58 Political Capital Key to India Deal.................................................................................................................59 AGENCIES ...................................................................................................................................................60 Public Key Agenda.........................................................................................................................................61 Public NOT KEY AGENDA..........................................................................................................................62 Bipart Key Agenda........................................................................................................................................63 Bipart Not Key AGENDA..............................................................................................................................64 Olive Branch Key Agenda..............................................................................................................................65 Olive Branch NOT KEY AGENDA...............................................................................................................66 ***impact***.................................................................................................................................................67 bad – Proliferation module.............................................................................................................................67 bad – extension – prolif..................................................................................................................................69 bad – nuclear terrorism module .....................................................................................................................70 bad – free trade module..................................................................................................................................71 bad – indo/pak module...................................................................................................................................72 bad – at – us/indo relations.............................................................................................................................73 bad – at – proliferation...................................................................................................................................74 good – us/indo relations module.....................................................................................................................75 good – extensions – relations.........................................................................................................................76 good – democracy module..............................................................................................................................78 good – indian economy module.....................................................................................................................79 good – proliferation module...........................................................................................................................80 .......................................................................................................................................................................80 good – at – us/sino relations ..........................................................................................................................81 good – at – proliferation.................................................................................................................................82

2

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

3 OF 82

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (1/4)

A) UNIQUENESS – (1) INDIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY ARE LIKELY TO APPROVE THE US/INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL. FORTUNATELY, CONGRESS IS UNLIKELY TO RATIFY THE FINAL AGREEMENT BEFORE BUSH LEAVES OFFICE, KILLING THE DEAL FOREVER FOSTER KLUG. “US-INDIA NUKE PACT IN JEOPARDY,” 7/10 2008 HTTP://AP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5HJHNPZ7XX0WPDJPISWHHLVAXJ0PAD91R2 MV80 Even with India's last-minute revival of a languishing civil nuclear accord with the U nited States, it may be too late for an election-year Congress to ratify what has been one of President Bush's top foreign policy initiatives. The administration hopes the agreement will form the cornerstone of a closer relationship with a democratic, economically vibrant country that borders nuclear-armed China. After months of deadlock, India is confident it now that it has the necessary political support at home for the deal. But it

could be weeks, or even months, before the accord is taken up by crucial international organizations and, if approved, is then sent to the U.S. Congress for final consideration. By then, American lawmakers probably would have only a handful of days left in their legislative calendar. The lack of time even has supporters skeptical about the immediate future of the deal, which would allow shipments of atomic fuel and technology to India. "There's not that many days left to do this, assuming they act yesterday," Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South Asia and the self-described "lead cheerleader" for the deal, said in an interview . "It's not impossible but highly unlikely that they've done this thing in time." The next president could take up the accord when he takes over in January. Failure to secure approval under Bush, however, would leave it to an uncertain fate. Both leading candidates for president, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, have indicated support for the deal. But it is not clear that either would consider it a priority as president. The new administration also would be working without many of the high-level Bush officials who led painstaking talks with India and then persuaded skeptical U.S. lawmakers to give their approval. Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Corp., said that "the underbelly of this deal, as Bush envisioned it, was that, with our help, India was going to become a global power, and that meant becoming a global nuclear power. I just don't know if McCain or Obama are going to embrace that." Bush has argued that the nuclear deal would empower a friendly democracy that has demonstrated what he sees as nuclear responsibility. The deal would reverse three decades of U.S. policy on India, which has not signed international nonproliferation accords but has tested nuclear weapons. India, in exchange for much-needed energy support, would open its civilian, but not its military, reactors to international inspections. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's communist allies have withdrawn their support for his coalition government to protest his plan to push forward with the nuclear deal. Those communist parties were not part of Singh's coalition, but the government counted on those parties' lawmakers for a majority in parliamentary votes. Singh said this week, however, that he was able to secure alternative support from new allies that would allow the communists to walk away and still keep the deal and his government afloat. Despite Singh's political maneuvers, the agreement still must be approved by the [IAEA] International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog organization, and the [NSG] Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that export nuclear material . India has started circulating its so-called safeguards agreement with the IAEA among the 35 nations on the agency's board, which is expected to approve the deal within weeks. On Thursday, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, welcomed India's move to open some civilian nuclear facilities to international perusal. Critics, however, said the agreement on how the oversight will be carried out is flawed . Congress has only a few remaining weeks of work left in July. Lawmakers will be campaigning for November elections in their home districts in August and will return to

Washington for a few weeks in September beforesume campaabout 30 legislative days "It's going to be tight, if only because we are in the second half of an election year."

3

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

4 OF 82

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (2/4) (2) RECENT STATE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS PROVE THAT BUSH WILL COMMIT EVERYTHING HE HAS TO GETTING THE DEAL DONE IN TIME PRESS TRUST OF INDIA. “US WILL DO 'WHATEVER IT CAN' IF INDIA MOVES FORWARD ON DEAL,” 7/10 2008 HTTP://WWW.PTINEWS.COM/PTI%5CPTISITE.NSF/0/31DF755C66E3C9376525748200186E1 1?OPENDOCUMENT Amidst the political turmoil in India, the United States has said it was committed to Indo-US nuclear deal and if New Delhi moves forward, Washington will do "whatever it can" to fulfill its commitments. "The position of the United States government is, we are committed to this (Indo-US nuclear) deal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said at his briefing here. "If the Indian government completes the discussions it has been having about moving forward on a variety of different fronts regarding this deal, the United States government has committed to doing whatever it can to fulfill its commitments here domestically," he said. The Spokesman was responding to a query on a report in The Washington Post that made the point that although hurdles may have been crossed in India, the deal faces difficulty in Congress on account of the time factor and in the stipulations of the enabling legislation, the Hyde Act of 2006. "Now, of course, we have the Congress, but we have the Congress to work with on this issue. They have an important role to play in it. But we have been in close contact with the Congress and key members of Congress on this issue really throughout this period to keep them updated on it," he added.

B) LINK (1) ALTERNATIVE ENERGY BUILDS POLITICAL CAPITAL MCGINNIS 08 [MICHAEL P. MCGINNIS, STAFF WRITER, “INLAND VIEWS; BUSH CAN STILL SALVAGE HIS ENERGY LEGACY”, THE PRESS ENTERPRISE, 06/25/08, LEXISNEXIS] There is plenty of room for criticism in the handling of the wars, and undoubtedly, it will be discussed in great detail for many years to come. But I feel that Bush's greatest failure will be his energy policy, or more precisely, the lack of a cohesive energy policy. In his final months as a lame-duck president, Bush still has one deadly weapon: the veto. Our president makes no bones about being an oilman, and it's no great secret that oil money has played a role throughout his presidency. Bush is blatantly pandering to big oil by threatening to veto any action by Congress to remove oil-industry tax breaks and use those funds to further the development of alternative fuels. This would undoubtedly be the crowning touch to an ignoble administration. We have an energy crisis. There is no doubt that we are a great nation that is full of rich resources and a tremendous wealth of brainpower. We have demonstrated time and again our "can-do" attitude. So why do we insist on an energy policy that depends on foreign oil and the utilization of food crops to augment our fuel supply? We are subsidizing every gallon of ethanol produced in this country and placing a tariff on every gallon imported to protect this boondoggle. Some California utilities are showing leadership, such as Southern California Edison's commitment to a large-scale solar energy installation, which will exceed 250 megawatts. Additionally, Edison will be involved in one of the largest wind turbine parks with the Tehachapi wind project. This is the kind of leadership that must come from our president and Congress. We must have a viable national energy policy with clearly defined goals. We need to develop our vast coal reserves; and yes, we have the technology to make coal energy cleaner. But, as always, it is expensive to make a clean-burning fuel. Nuclear generation looks interesting, but only if we can resolve the problem with the disposal of spent fuel. Unfortunately, the free ride with cheap energy is over, but as I see it, solar energy is the Holy Grail, the panacea for our future. It's not cheap (yet), but the price is dropping and new technologies are coming forth. The amount of money going to an exceedingly wealthy industry (big oil) could be better spent on developing more efficient alternative fuels.

Bush can still shape his presidential legacy in a positive way by just doing the right thing to establish a viable energy policy that lessens our dependence on oil.

4

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

5 OF 82

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (3/4) (2) POLITICAL CAPITAL IS KEY TO SPEED UP THE AGENDA AND ENSURE PASSAGE BEFORE NOVEMBER DANA MILBANK 9/20/2002 “PERSISTENCE ON IRAQ PAYS OFF FOR BUSH: STRATEGY MIRRORS EARLIER POLITICAL FIGHTS,” WASHINGTON POST As President Bush sent his proposed Iraq attack resolution to Capitol Hill yesterday, his rout of congressional Democrats was virtually complete. The opposition party had all but resigned itself to passing the resolution with the wording Bush desired on the timetable he demanded. A few short weeks ago, it appeared the administration was in disarray on Iraq, and the opposition at home and overseas to attacking Iraq was formidable. Now, bewildered opponents are studying how the White House apparently turned the situation on its head both in Congress and the United Nations. The Bush White House's maneuver on Iraq was nothing new. It followed a pattern of hard-nosed politics similar to Bush's victories in winning support for a massive tax cut, trade promotion authority, withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and even, to some extent, success in the Florida election recount. The pattern goes something like this: Bush finds himself in a jam, with heavy opposition to the position he advocates. After a sometimes painful period of stumbling, he casts aside all other issues so that he can focus his administration's attention -- and the public's -- on just one topic. Then, he hammers away at the issue, using the bully pulpit with numbing repetition and marshaling all arguments to make his case. When one rationale doesn't sell, he drops it and adopts a new one.

C) IMPACT (1) INDIA DEAL CRUSHES US-SINO RELATIONS JACOB 05, NATIONAL CHENGCHI UNIVERSITY, TAIWAN (JABIN, “CHINA AND THE INDOUS ENTENTE”, IPCS ARTICLE 1814, AUGUST 5, 05) The Chinese messages for India ranged from warning to hopes that India would not allow the US to scuttle the improving Sino-Indian relationship. Following Mukherjee's visit, an opinion piece in the People's Daily, titled, "Washington draws India in against China", pointedly asked if the defence agreement was directed against China, calling it "of special significance....that the United States on the one hand presses the EU to keep arms embargo on China and urges Israel to cancel arms sales to China while on the other hand signs a wide-ranging defence agreement with India." The editorial described the pact as "partly intended to diminish China's influence in this region" and quoted an unnamed former Indian ambassador to the US saying that while China was not mentioned, the China factor was "only too obvious". Dr Singh's oblique reference to China in his interview to The Washington Post saying, "we have seen in our neighbourhood reckless proliferation in disregard of all international obligations", could not have endeared him to the Chinese. Again, on 20 July, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, summoned the American charge-de-affaires to register his government's displeasure over the Pentagon Report, calling it, "a move to grossly interfere in China's internal affairs and foment dissension between China and its neighbouring countries". The next day, a People's Daily opinion piece stated that the US had since the beginning of the year, "made frequent adjustments to its strategic disposition in the Asia-Pacific region" and was trying "to restrain, encircle and block up China". In all these cases, while apportioning major blame to the US, China also sought, through direct and indirect reference to India, to remind it not to use its burgeoning ties with the US to target China.

5

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

6 OF 82

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (4/4) B. US-SINO RELATIONS ARE KEY TO PREVENT MULTIPLE SCENARIOS FOR NUCLEAR CONFLICT CONABLE AND LAMPTON 93 – CHAIR; AND PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON US-CHINA RELATIONS [BARBER B., JR. AND DAVID M., “CHINA: THE COMING POWER; A TROUBLED RELATIONSHIP,” FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEC 92/JAN 93, LN] Regionally American interests are both numerous and important. The two most protracted, economically distracting and politically explosive American military commitments in the postWorld War II era were Korea and Vietnam. In both cases China figured prominently. The lesson is that regional stability requires workable U.S.-China relations. Competition between Beijing and Washington takes the form of exploiting indigenous regional conflicts by both powers, resulting in local problems that expand to suck both countries into a self-defeating vortex. The most serious threats to American security and economic interests in Asia include armed conflict with nuclear potential between the two Koreas and between India and Pakistan; a deterioration of relations between Beijing and Taipei that could lead to economic or military conflict; a re-ignition of the Cambodian conflict; and a botched transition to Beijing's sovereignty in Hong Kong in 1997. None of these problems can be handled effectively without substantial Sino- American cooperation. Constructive relations with Beijing will not assure P.R.C. cooperation in all cases; needlessly bad relations will nearly ensure conflict. The Republic of Korea's formal diplomatic recognition of Beijing last August, at the expense of Taipei, is just one indication of the increasing importance the region attaches to building positive ties to the P.R.C. In Cambodia, although there is not certainty that the 1991 peace agreement to have free and open elections in 1993 will be successful, progress to date could not have occurred without China's cooperation. Further, Beijing's somewhat improved relationship with Hanoi has made progress in Cambodia more likely. It has further reduced the level of conflict in the region to the point where in 1991 Washington was able to contemplate eventual normalization of relations with Hanoi. To China's southwest, Beijing is seeking to improve relations with New Delhi while maintaining its traditionally warm ties to Islamabad. China's apparent nuclear cooperation with Pakistan and recurring reports of pending and/or actual missile technology sales to Islamabad are contrary to the U.S. interests and are regionally destabilizing. Nonetheless closer Sino-Indian relations are a trend very much in the U.S. interest. In the Taiwan Strait relations between Taipei and Beijing have their own dynamic and are not under Washington's control. Indeed Beijing-Taipei relations easily could become one of the most serious problems in Sino-American relations. Recent Chinese protest over Washington's decision to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Taiwan is just one indication of the conflict, contradictions and policy dilemmas that lie just below the surface. The P.R.C.'s incentive to continue a policy of moderation toward Taiwan would be greatly lessened by a deterioration of its relations with the United States. Worsening China-Taiwan relations would also adversely affect U.S. interests. First, many of Taiwan's firms -- with $ 3 billion plus investments in the mainland -- are exporting to the United States. If the American market dries up for Chinese exports some of Taiwan's investment in the P.R.C. will also vanish. Second, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act charges the U.S. president with assuring that America helps maintain Taiwan's capacity to defend itself. If U.S.-P.R.C. relations deteriorate one can expect more mainland hostility toward Taiwan, which will exacerbate the dilemmas facing Washington.

6

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

7 OF 82

*UNIQUENESS*

TOP OF THE DOCKET BUSH IS PUSHING TO GET THE DEAL DONE BEFORE JANUARY DEB RIECHMANN. “BUSH PUSHES US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL,” 7/8 2008 President Bush defended a languishing deal his administration negotiated to sell India nuclear fuel and technology, saying he reassured India's prime minister that the pact was important for both countries despite heavy opposition on both sides. Bush's meeting on Wednesday with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was one of a series of one-and-one sessions the president scheduled on the final day of the three-day G-8 summit of economic powers. "I respect the prime minister a lot," Bush said, speaking with reporters after their meeting. "I also respect India a lot. And I think it's very important that the United States continues to work with our friend to develop not only a new strategic relationship, but a relationship that addresses some of the world's problems. We talked about the India-U.S. nuclear deal — how important that is for our respective countries." Singh said, "In this increasingly interdependent world that we live in, whether it the question of climate change or whether it is a question of managing the global economy, India and the United States must stand tall, must stand shoulder to shoulder." If ratified by Washington and New Delhi, the pact would reverse three decades of U.S. policy by allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, which has not signed international nonproliferation accords but has tested nuclear weapons. In return, India, would open its civilian reactors to international inspections. U.S. critics worry the agreement could spark a nuclear arms race in Asia and weaken international efforts to prevent states like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. In India, critics say it would undermine India's weapons program and give Washington too much influence over Indian foreign policy. Singh's communist allies withdrew their support for his four-year-old coalition government on Tuesday to protest the government's plan to push forward with the nuclear deal. Bush is trying to prod Congress to approve the pact before time runs out on his administration in January. Before returning home late in the day, Bush was also meeting separately with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Chinese President Hu Jintao and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Many South Koreans have protested the recent resumption of U.S. beef imports. Both China and South Korea are important players in the international effort to get North Korea to scale back its nuclear weapons program. BUSH IS PUSHING TO GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL BY SEPTEMBER ECONOMIC TIMES, “US PLAYS 'TIME RUNNING OUT' TUNE AGAIN,” 7/9 2008 HTTP://ECONOMICTIMES.INDIATIMES.COM/NEWS/POLITICSNATION/US_PLAYS_TIME_RU NNING_OUT_TUNE_AGAIN/ARTICLESHOW/3212777.CMS The statement clearly shows that the US would like India to move fast to get the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors so that the Bush administration can push for a NSG waiver before September. The aim is to get the nuclear deal to the US Congress before it goes into a recess in September ahead of the US presidential elections. With this deadline in mind, India had quietly approached the IAEA which has called a meeting of the board of governors on July 28 to approve the safeguards agreement.

7

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

8 OF 82

YES INDIAN APPROVAL INDIA WILL APPROVE THE DEAL – PRIME MINISTER SINGH HAS THE NECESSARY COALITION VANCOUVER SUN 7/9 2008 Meanwhile, in India, the deal fell foul of communist and left-wing parties allied with Singh's Congress in government. They see the nuclear deal as an abandonment of India's sovereignty that will make New Delhi little more than a "stooge of U.S. imperialism." For months Singh has faced the unhappy alternatives of letting the deal with Washington die or losing his government majority and facing an election at a time when the economy is rocky and inflation climbing. He seemed prepared to dump the nuclear deal, and even U.S. officials last week pronounced it dead. But Congress has not been the natural party of power in modern India without learning many tricks of political manipulation. Singh and his operatives let the communists blow off steam to the point of national boredom and then did a deal with the small Samajwadi party, which represents low castes and Muslims in the state of Uttar Pradesh where it is under pressure and needs support. So the communists have deserted, Samajwadi will save the Singh government, and the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group are ready to sign off on the deal by the end of the Bush presidency. INDIA WILL APPROVE THE DEAL – THE PRIME MINISTER JUST MADE A DEAL WITH THE MINORITY SP PARTY AMY YEE. “SINGH PLAYS ACE TO RAISE STAKES IN DOMESTIC BATTLE,” FINANCIAL TIMES 7/9 2008 HTTP://WWW.FT.COM/CMS/S/0/9D462E00-4D4E-11DD-B527000077B07658.HTML?NCLICK_CHECK=1 On his way to the Group of Eight summit in Japan on Monday, Manmohan Singh, India's prime minister, did not seem like a man worried that his government might collapse. Mr Singh calmly told reporters at a press conference on his private jet that he remained firmly in support of a pact with the US to boost nuclear energy in his country. He signalled he would soon seek approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a necessary step towards -finalising the landmark nuclear deal. Confirmation of his intentions was enough, finally, to push his leftwing allies to withdraw their support from the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), the ruling coalition. Without the support of the left's bloc of 59 seats, the UPA is, in effect, a minority government. The leftwing allies, led by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), say they will submit a letter today to Pratibha Patil, India's president, to withdraw their support from the government. Under pressure from opposition parties, Ms Patil is likely to call a parliamentary vote of confidence as early as next month, which will determine if the UPA clings to power or is forced into early elections ahead of polls due to be held by next May. This is an outcome Mr Singh had been anticipating. For 10 months the leftists have threatened to pull out of the Congress party-led coalition if Mr Singh moved to finalise the Indo-US nuclear pact, which they believe would compromise India's sovereignty. With little time left to seal the agreement before George W. Bush leaves office as US president, Mr Singh was forced to act. The prime minister had an ace up his sleeve. In frantic rounds of talks in New Delhi last week, he and Sonia Gandhi, Congress party president, met representatives from the Samajwadi party (SP). Although an old foe of Congress, the party pledged support for the nuclear deal. Its 39 parliamentary seats combined with those of a few smaller parties would allow the UPA to retain its majority after the left's -withdrawal.

8

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

9 OF 82

YES INDIAN APPROVAL NOBODY IN SINGH’S NEW COLLATION WILL DEFECT AMY Yee. “SINGH PLAYS ACE TO RAISE STAKES IN DOMESTIC BATTLE,” FINANCIAL TIMES 7/9 2008 HTTP://WWW.FT.COM/CMS/S/0/9D462E00-4D4E-11DD-B527000077B07658.HTML?NCLICK_CHECK=1 But even with this ace, it remains to be seen whether Mr Singh will win his gamble. There is talk that some members from the SP and smaller parties might defect from the UPA and leave the coalition just a few seats short of a majority. "The numbers are very close," said G. Parthasarathy, India's former ambassador to Pakistan. As New Delhi's political parties test their alliances in the next few weeks, "there will be a lot of wheeling and dealing". There is also the question of what price Congress will pay for joining forces with the SP, which might want to replace key ministers in exchange for support. But some observers believe that, at the least, the politically wily SP could help speed through stalled financial services bills to reform the insurance and banking industries that have been blocked by the ideologists in the left bloc. The opposition Bharatiya Janata party has lambasted Mr Singh for letting inflation reach a 13-year high of 11.6 per cent and has called for a vote of confidence. Rather than see the government fall, however, the BJP, and other parties, might want to buy time to firm up their alliances ahead of four critical state elections this autumn. "Every party says they are ready [for early elections]. But no one is actually ready," said Bhaskara Rao, chairman of the Centre for Media Studies. The game is far from over. "A month is a long time in Indian politics," said Pratap Mehta, president of the Centre for Policy Research, a think-tank in New Delhi. Minority help The Samajwadi party (SP) has a history of pragmatic alliances with governments. Its support should ensure Manmohan Singh wins any vote in parliament and avoids an early election this year. *FYI: In Indian politics, if the ruling party loses it’s majority there’s a new round of elections to determine a majority party. If SP folks defect over the nuclear deal it’d require a new election, but nobody is ready for those elections

9

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

10 OF 82

NO INDIAN APPROVAL INDIA WON’T RATIFY THE DEAL – DOMESTIC OPPOSITION AFP, “BUSH, SINGH DISCUSS EMBATTLED NUCLEAR PACT,” 7/9 HTTP://AFP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5HRJN5GHUZC3UPTK9PI4AXQOTINTG

2008

Singh and Bush in 2005 unveiled the agreement to share civilian nuclear technology, which would see India enter the fold of global nuclear commerce after being shut out for decades. But Singh faces intense domestic opposition over fears it could draw India too close to the United States, a concern that Tuesday prompted a bloc of left-wing parties to announce they were quitting his coalition. Singh did not spell out whether he would submit the accord for ratification but emphasised the need for US-Indian cooperation on issues like climate change and helping the sputtering global economy. "India and the United States must stand tall, stand shoulder-to-shoulder, and that's what is going to happen," he said. In a harsh message apparently aimed at critics of warmer US-India ties, Singh said closer cooperation on key global issues was "the will of the Indian people, particularly the thinking segments of our population." But it was unclear from the prime minister's public remarks whether he would push ahead with ratification, a key US goal that is growing more urgent with around 200 days left before Bush steps down in January 2009.

10

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

11 OF 82

YES NSG/IAEA APPROVAL THE IAEA WILL APPROVE THE DEAL VERY QUICKLY – BEFORE THE END OF JULY

7/7

GEORGE JAHN. “DIPLOMATS: UN NUCLEAR AGENCY SETS INDIA MEETING,” AP / 2008 HTTP://AP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5JFSMYTI61JXHN8EL4VMUO9W_MU_WD91P1 GG00 The International Atomic Energy Agency's board nations are expected to approve nuclear rules for India on July 28 in an important step for U.S. and Indian attempts to sign a landmark nuclear deal, diplomats told The Associated Press. Without so-called IAEA safeguards, India cannot hope to gain the business of countries exporting nuclear technology. The so-called Nuclear Suppliers Group is expected to meet shortly after any IAEA board approval of the pact, said one of four diplomats. The four — all of them with links to the IAEA — demanded anonymity in divulging the date of the meeting because their information was confidential and not yet formally announced by India or the Vienna-based agency. One of the diplomats said the July 28 meeting was formally meant to discuss budget and technical matters. But with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei eager to see the U.S.-India agreement move forward, and both Washington and New Delhi pushing for an early IAEA board decision on the safeguards agreement, discussion and expected approval of the safeguards text would also be put on the agenda. THE NSG WILL APPROVE THE DEAL – US THREATS GUARANTEE IT HENRY SOKOLSKI IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NONPROLIFERATION POLICY EDUCATION CENTER, A NONPROFIT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION IN WASHINGTON, D.C.“NEGOTIATING INDIA'S NEXT NUCLEAR EXPLOSION,” WALL STREET JOURNAL 7/10, 2008 In the next few weeks, India is also expected to submit a safeguards agreement before the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna. India will make a unilateral statement aimed at reserving its right to expel IAEA inspectors from reactor sites if the U.S., or other fuel suppliers, suspend nuclear fuel shipments for any reason -- including Indian resumption of testing. Indian officials are also likely to plead for nuclear fuel supply guarantees so the country can stockpile uranium fuel against future nuclear fuel supplier cutoffs that might occur -- again, following a future nuclear test. If, as expected, no

IAEA board member or NSG country objects to these Indian statements, India will construe the silence as assent. The U.S. State Department is quite aware of these views. It's a key reason why late last year, State pleaded with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs not to release the Department's unclassified answers to whether or not the Executive believed the deal required the U.S. to cut off nuclear supplies to India if it tests; if the Department thought India could stockpile U.S. nuclear fuel to reduce U.S. influence on Indian nuclear testing policies; and precisely what kind of safeguards India must agree to. Oddly, the Committee agreed to keep State's answers under wraps. This suggests American diplomats want India to think it can test with impunity while it is telling Congress India can't. But there's more: Earlier this year, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee suggested India "delink" finalizing the U.S. nuclear deal from getting the IAEA and the NSG approvals. His idea was to get the U.S. to convince the IAEA and NSG to allow India to do business with any nuclear supplier state. This would then allow India to import Russian and French nuclear goods, instead of American goods which would be laden with troublesome nonproliferation conditions. His pitch was more than hype. The U.S. actually has been twisting arms at the NSG, threatening to

leave and so dissolve the group if countries critical of the India deal did not fall into line on India. Also, as a practical matter, U.S. reactor sales to India won't happen even if New Delhi refuses to buy Russian or French. Why? No private U.S. nuclear firm would risk doing business with India until it establishes a sufficient amount of Indian nuclear damage liability coverage. Given India's horrific experience with the American-built Union Carbine chemical-plant accident at Bhopal, when this will occur is anybody's guess.

11

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

12 OF 82

YES NSG/IAEA APPROVAL IAEA AND NSG APPROVAL WILL BE QUICK IHT, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE. “AGENCY COULD APPROVE NUCLEAR RULES FOR INDIA WITHIN WEEKS, SAY DIPLOMATS,” 7/8 2008 HTTP://WWW.IHT.COM/ARTICLES/AP/2008/07/08/EUROPE/EU-NUCLEAR-INDIA.PHP The International Atomic Energy Agency's 35 board nations could approve nuclear rules for India within weeks, diplomats said, in an important step for attempts by New Delhi and Washington to breathe life into their landmark nuclear deal. Without so-called IAEA safeguards, India cannot hope to gain the business of countries exporting nuclear technology which are grouped in the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The NSG group is expected to meet shortly after any board approval of rules for IAEA inspections of India's nonmilitary facilities, said one of five diplomats discussing the issue with The Associated Press on Monday. Three of the five — all of them with links to the IAEA — said the board could meet on the issue as early as July 28, with the agency informally considering that date. They demanded anonymity because their information was confidential. US SUPPORT ENSURES IAEA AND NSG APPROVAL BLOOMBERG 7/9 2008 India needs a renewed push from the U.S. to win over the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] and the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG] to get access to technology and fuel. The 2005 U.S. agreement, held up by political opposition in India, would allow the country to import nuclear materials without joining the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ``If you have a heavyweight superpower to shepherd the Indian nuclear deal through recalcitrant members of the IAEA and even more so the NSG, that's the Indian hope,'' said Mahesh Rangarajan, a New Delhi-based independent political analyst. ``The U.S. is crucial to get this deal through.''

12

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

13 OF 82

NO IAEA/ISG APPROVAL NO NSG APPROVAL – THREE COUNTRIES WILL BLOCK THE DEAL AND THE THRESHOLD FOR WINNING A TAKE-OUT IS VERY LOW – IT ONLY TAKES ONE COUNTRY BECAUSE EVERY MEMBER HAS VETO POWER NDTV “TOUGH ROAD AHEAD FOR NUKE DEAL,” 7/8 2008 HTTP://WWW.NDTV.COM/CONVERGENCE/NDTV/STORY.ASPX?ID=NEWEN20080056258&C H=7/8/2008%2011:58:00%20PM But sources say three other countries could be a problem: Ireland, Sweden and New Zealand, who have strong non proliferation agendas Even though Australia will not sell uranium to India, it's expected to go by the consensus The big supporters for India at the NSG will of course, be the United States, Britain, France and Russia But every country on the NSG has veto power, so consensus among the NSG is crucial. EVEN IF THE NSG APPROVES THE DEAL, IT’LL TAKE A LONG TIME – MEANS CONGRESS WON’T HAVE TIME TO APPROVE THE DEAL Mark Heinrich, “India seeks IAEA nod to push atom pact with U.S.” Reuters, 7/9, 2008 http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0952514620080709?sp=true India must also obtain a waiver for the nuclear deal from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, where reservations lurk because NSG regulations ban trade with non-NPT states. It is unclear when the NSG, which acts by consensus only, will meet. "A number of states will have serious questions, serious concerns. They will not like to be railroaded by time pressures into approval," said a Western diplomat accredited to the IAEA. Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association urged IAEA governors not to simply rubber-stamp the safeguards deal. "Given that India maintains a nuclear weapons program outside of safeguards, facility-specific safeguards on a few additional 'civilian' reactors provide no serious non-proliferation benefits," he said in Washington. He said governors should also be alert for any Indian assertion of a "right" to abrogate the safeguards pact if foreign fuel supplies are interrupted, even if that is because India had resumed nuclear testing. "Such proposals should be flatly rejected ... as illegitimate and contrary to IAEA standards," said Kimball. NSG APPROVAL ISN’T GUARANTEED The Economist, “Overconfident India,” 7/9 2008 http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11700198 They may turn out to be right. Mr Bush will certainly push hard for it. But with several other NSG members having expressed concerns, and the attitude of China, India's great rival, still unknown, the deal's safe passage cannot be assumed. Then again, it is unsurprising that so many Indians do assume it. A pronounced feature of their country's rapid emergence is the awesome self-confidence—and sometimes hubris—it inspires in Indian breasts.

13

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

14 OF 82

A2: IRAN FEARS WILL TANK THE DEAL CONGRESSIONAL FEARS ABOUT INDIA’S TIES TO IRAN ARE NO LONGER AN OBSTACLE TO GETTING THE DEAL DONE VANCOUVER SUN 7/9 2008 U.S. politicians have also expressed extreme unhappiness with the Singh government's cosy relationship with Iran, from whom New Delhi hopes to buy masses of natural gas via pipeline. That chorus of dissent has died down as U.S. politicians have come to accept that using military force to contain the religious fanatics in Tehran and their nuclear weapons ambitions is not on the cards. Indeed, wiser heads have come to recognize that a friendly intermediary like India may soon prove useful.

14

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

15 OF 82

NO INDIA DEAL NO DEAL – NO TIME TO APPROVE IT REUTERS, “US STAYS COMMITTED TO NUCLEAR TREATY WITH INDIA,” 7/9 2008 HTTP://IN.REUTERS.COM/ARTICLE/OILRPT/IDINN0944300820080709?SP=TRUE The Bush administration is committed to a nuclear cooperation agreement with India and will push for congressional approval once India finishes work on the deal, the State Department said on Wednesday. But an influential member of Congress and critic of the accord, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said there was there was no longer enough time on U.S. lawmakers' calendar in this election year to get the accord approved by both houses of Congress. India took a step toward putting the long-stalled nuclear deal into effect by sending a draft nuclear safeguard accord with the International Atomic Energy Agency to the IAEA's board of governors, the U.N. watchdog said earlier on Wednesday. "We are committed to this deal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "If the Indian government completes a lot of the discussions it has been having about moving forward on a variety of different fronts regarding this deal, the U.S. government is committed to doing whatever it can to fulfill its commitments here domestically," McCormack said. He said the Bush administration had been in close contact with key members of the Democratic-majority Congress to keep them updated. Before the pact can go to the U.S. Congress, it will need approval of IAEA board of governors, then the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, where there are doubts about it because India is outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The pact is potentially worth billions of dollars to U.S. and European nuclear supply companies, and would give India more energy alternatives to drive its booming economy. But critics say the deal reverses 30 years of U.S. policy opposing nuclear cooperation with India after it developed nuclear weapons in contravention of global rules. Markey, a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said the Bush administration was "running on fumes and fiction" if it thought the deal could still get through Congress this year, when lawmakers will be in a hurry to go home this fall and campaign for November elections. "There is simply not enough time left on the congressional calendar this year to vote on US-India nuclear deal once the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Suppliers' Group have considered it," Markey said in a statement. (Editing by Doina Chiacu) NO DEAL – NO TIME, PLUS CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION BASED ON PROLIF AND IRAN Howard LaFranchi. “U.S., India Revive Sweeping Nuke Deal,” 7/10 2008 The Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0710/p02s01-usfp.html Some members of Congress threaten to withhold approval unless India gives up its growing ties with Iran, while others have raised objections to a plan they say could end up providing India the uranium fuel it would need to produce more nuclear weapons. And even if those concerns are met, there simply may no longer be enough time – given the approvals needed from key international players – for Congress to reach a vote on the deal. "Does Congress have time to get this done before the year is out? We're hearing happy talk in Washington and New Delhi that everyone will have time, but I don't think so," says Darryl Kimball, executive director of Arms Control Association in Washington.

15

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

16 OF 82

NO INDIA DEAL ZERO CHANCE OF A DEAL – THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP GLENN KESSLER. “CONGRESS MAY NOT PASS U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR PACT: NEW DELHI COULD TURN TO OTHER NATIONS,” WASHINGTON POST 7/9, 2008, HTTP://WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM/WPDYN/CONTENT/ARTICLE/2008/07/08/AR2008070801523.HTML?HPID=SEC-POLITICS India's civil nuclear agreement with the United States may have cleared a key hurdle in New Delhi this week, but it appears unlikely to win final approval in the U.S. Congress this year, raising the possibility that India could begin nuclear trade with other countries even without the Bush administration's signature deal, according to administration officials and congressional aides. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has struggled to keep his coalition government intact over the controversial deal to give New Delhi access to U.S. nuclear technology for the first time since it conducted a nuclear test in 1974. This week, he secured an agreement with the Samajwadi Party to back the deal, giving him enough support to retain his majority even as the Communists bolted over fears that the pact would infringe on India's sovereignty. But the legislation passed in 2006 -- the so-called Hyde Act -- that gave preliminary approval to the U.S.-India agreement, requires that Congress be in 30 days of continuous session to consider it. Congressional aides said that clock can begin to tick only once India clears two more hurdles -- completing an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA], and securing approval from the 45 nations that form the Nuclear Suppliers Group [NSG], which governs trade in reactors and uranium. Because of the long August recess, less than 40 days are left in the session before Congress adjourns on Sept. 26. "At this point, both [the IAEA and NSG actions] have to take place in the next couple of weeks" for the deal to be considered by Congress, said Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But the IAEA Board of Governors is not expected to take up the matter until August, whereas the NSG may take several months to reach a consensus. LOW CHANCE DEAL CAN GET DONE IN TIME AFP, “MORE HURDLES SEEN FOR US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL,” 7/7 2008 HTTP://AFP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5GNAXEKMBPZPGD8PPPPZWJJABSVIW Although the deal was given overwhelming approval in 2006 by the US House of Representatives and Senate, as a partnership centerpiece for the world's two biggest democracies, she expects lawmakers now to question "some of the shortcomings from a non proliferation perspective." Aside from having general IAEA safeguards, US law also requires India to make "substantial progress towards concluding an additional protocol" giving enhanced access and information and inspection techniques to the nuclear agency, she said. "India has not held a single meeting on this additional protocol," Squassoni said. "Although it is a voluntary safeguards strengthening measure, many states view it as a new benchmark for nuclear supplies and this, in fact, has been discussed in the NSG." "I don't anticipate anything is going to get to this Congress when it resumes (after the summer break) in September," she said. A key House legislator, Gary Ackerman, said he was uncertain if there was enough time under the Bush administration to consider the deal. "Possible? Yes. Probable? No," he was reported saying. The New York Times warned against rushing through the deal, saying Bush gave away far too much and got far too little for it. There was "no promise" from India to stop producing material or not to expand its nuclear arsenal or not to resume nuclear testing, it said in a weekend editorial. At a minimum, it said, the United States must insist that international suppliers halt nuclear trade if India tested another nuclear weapon, as it last did in 1998. "This is not an ordinary situation because India is asserting that the (IAEA) safeguards agreement can be terminated by India if foreign (nuclear) fuel supplies are interrupted even if India conducts a test," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association. "That assertion should be flatly rejected by the director general of the IAEA and member states, he said. "Otherwise this would make a mockery of the principle of permanent safeguards."

16

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

17 OF 82

DEAL POSSIBLE A DEAL IS POSSIBLE, BUT WILL BE SUPER TOUGH – BUSH CAN USE FEARS THAT INDIA WILL GET NUCLEAR SUPPLIES FROM OTHER SOURCES TO PERSUADE CONGRESS GLENN KESSLER. “CONGRESS MAY NOT PASS U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR PACT: NEW DELHI COULD TURN TO OTHER NATIONS,” WASHINGTON POST 7/9, 2008, HTTP://WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM/WPDYN/CONTENT/ARTICLE/2008/07/08/AR2008070801523.HTML?HPID=SEC-POLITICS Now, with the near impossibility of congressional passage by year-end, officials and experts have begun to focus on the possibility that other countries -- such as France and Russia -would rush in to make nuclear sales to India while U.S. companies still face legal restrictions. "India doesn't need the U.S. deal at all" once the NSG grants approval, said Sharon Squassoni, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "It was a fatal flaw in the logic of the U.S. Congress." A State Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing congressional strategy, agreed. "I don't believe there is anything to prevent them from doing that, if we don't ratify it," he said, noting the irony of the United States not profiting from a deal it set in motion. But he suggested the administration would use that awkward situation to pressure Congress not to thwart potential business opportunities for American companies. "It is the hidden force of this agreement," the official said. "It is U.S. business that sees an opportuni7/

17

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

18 OF 82

*LINK UNIQUENESS*

POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH BUSH IS WINNING NOW – FISA PASSAGE ASSOCIATED PRESS 7/9/08 (“SENATE BOWS TO BUSH, APPROVES SURVEILLANCE BILL”) Bowing to President Bush's demands, the Senate sent the White House a bill Wednesday overhauling bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits complaining they helped the U.S. spy on Americans. The relatively one-sided vote, 69-28, came only after a lengthy and heated debate that pitted privacy and civil liberties concerns against the desire to prevent terrorist attacks. It ended almost a year of wrangling over surveillance rules and the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. BUSH IS WINNING NOW – GI BILL APPROVAL UPI 7/9/08 (“NEW G.I. BILL TO COST $100 BILLION”) A G.I. Bill signed by U.S. President George Bush will cost $100 billion in veterans' education benefits over the next 10 years, budget officials say. The Congressional Budget Office never got a chance to formally present its figures because the bill, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by Bush last week, had so much bipartisan support that it was never given a committee hearing. But CBO figures show it will increase veterans' education benefits by $62.8 billion, or 170 percent of current education spending, over the period, the Politico, a Washington publication, reported Wednesday. BUSH IS NOT A LAME DUCK – FISA PASSAGE FELLER 7/10/08 (BEN, ASSOCIATED PRESS, “ON NATIONAL SECURITY, BUSH STILL HAS JUICE”) For an unpopular guy on his way out of his office, President Bush still has some juice. When Bush signed a law Thursday to broaden the government's eavesdropping power, he served notice of how much sway he still holds on matters of national security. Yes, he is relevant in the twilight of his second term, even with anemic public approval ratings and much of the country tuning him out. Bush got the anti-terrorism spying legislation largely on his terms. He also has won fight after fight to keep the Iraq war going without a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops. He vetoed a bill that would have banned waterboarding for terror suspects, then watched as Democrats failed to override him. Contrast this to Bush's domestic agenda, which is all but ignored by the Democratic-controlled Congress. He keeps pushing for items that seem to be going nowhere, from offshore drilling to tax cuts to a trade deal with Colombia. Lawmakers blew right by him in approving a massive farm bill. Why the difference on security? …The message: I'm still in charge here. "Being a lame duck means you have less clout," Ornstein said. "But you're still the president of the United States."

18

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

19 OF 82

POLITICAL CAPITAL LOW BUSH HAS NO POLITICAL CAPITAL SMITH 6/24/08 [BARRY SMITH, STAFF WRITER FOR THE FREEDOM COMMUNICATIONS' RALEIGH BUREAU “BUSH WON’T GET MUCH SUPPORT ON GAS”, JACKSON DAILY NEWS, 06/24/08, I'm not very optimistic that Congress will heed the president's call and allow for the drilling to begin. This is an election year, and the president doesn't have much of the political capital that he boasted about when he was re-elected four years ago left. Some might even say that the president is bankrupt when it comes to political capital. It's really a shame when a president gets near the end of his term and he can't persuade Congress to help out a nation filled with motorists that are hurting every time they pump gasoline into cars. The president will need a lot of help if he's to get Congress to pass anything this year. That help will have to come from a grassroots effort. It wont come from inside the district of Columbia. BUSH HAS NO CAPITAL – APPROVAL RATING LA TIMES 6/30/08 (“BUSH THINKS POLLS ABOUT HIM ARE WRONG”) The president's popularity rating is at an all-time low -- 23% of all registered voters, according to the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll, discussed here last week. Those numbers are down from February, when he had an approval rating of 35%, and contrast with November 2001, just after the 9/11 terror attacks, when his popularity rating among registered voters was at 85% BUSH IS A LAME DUCK – FISA WAS HIS FINAL ACT NEW YORK DAILY NEWS 7/10/08 (THE WASHINGTON BUREAU, “FISA: BUSH'S LAST HURRAH?”) With only scant resistance from the so-called civil libertarians and Democrats in Congress, President Bush signed today an enhanced electronic wiretapping law that protects telecom companies from being sued for violating the privacy of innocent Americans. “This law will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from lawsuits from past or future cooperation with the government. This law will protect the liberties of our citizens while maintaining the vital flow of intelligence,” Bush promised at a Rose Garden signing ceremony. It was a good, but perhaps last, legislative victory for a lame duck President, who stands little chance of winning from Congress his other priorities , like permanent tax cuts, privatization of Social Security and immigration reform. Bush claims no American’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy will be violated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

19

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

20 OF 82

PARTISANSHIP NOW PARTISANSHIP IS HIGH NOW – RETIREMENT AND DRILLING CLARKE 7/7/08 (DAVID, CQ STAFF WRITER, APPROPRIATORS LEAVE” CQ POLITICS)

“PARTISANSHIP

RISES AS

GOP

The retirement of several Republicans known for bipartisan cooperation on spending bills will likely make the House Appropriations Committee even more of a battleground next year. The panel’s traditional collegiality has already faded, as was evident before the July Fourth recess when Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., abruptly adjourned a markup after Republicans pushed an offshore-drilling amendment representing a GOP theme in the debate over gasoline price increases. Partisan fights on the Appropriations Committee used to be rare because panel members traditionally observed a go-along-to-get-along attitude and prided themselves on producing bills supported on both sides of the aisle. “These three years have been very contentious, more partisan than normal,” said James T. Walsh of New York, one of the Republicans retiring this fall. “The Democrats were highly partisan the year they won the majority back [in 2006], and we’ve been partisan because of the change in leadership.

20

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

21 OF 82

BIPARTISANSHIP NOW BIPARTISANSHIP IS HIGH NOW – GI BILL VIRGINIA-PILOT 7/7/08 (“GI BILL PROVES THE MERITS OF POLITICA BIPARTISANSHIP”) Optimism about Washington's work can be hard to find. So the cheering last week was conspicuous by its rarity, as Congress passed and the president signed a bill that will substantially expand the help veterans receive for education. It's no coincidence that the forces behind the legislation are senators less ideological than practical, both of them moderates, and both veterans of the Vietnam War. Sens. Chuck Hagel (a Republican) and Jim Webb (a Democrat) battled for months against the White House and GOP leadership to ensure that today's veterans receive benefits they deserve. In the end, those two senators - with an assist from Sens. Frank Lautenberg and John Warner - convinced every reasonable man and woman on Capitol Hill of the rightness of their cause and even managed to get an initially hostile president to endorse it…Even as the legislation provides real and new options for veterans, as well as for their families, it also shows Washington that the future doesn't have to be dictated by chest-thumping and demagoguery. "It also gives me confidence and renewed hope," said Webb, "that the Congress can begin working more effectively across party lines to do the work of the people." Perhaps, if we're lucky, some of that hope will rub off.

21

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

22 OF 82

***LINKS*

*BUSH GOOD *

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – CONTROVERSIAL EVEN IF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS POPULAR – FUNDING INCENTIVES CAUSES FIGHTS INTERNATIONAL OIL DAILY, “CONGRESS MULLS TAX CREDITS,” AMERICAS 6/4/2008 There is wide bipartisan support for extending production tax incentives for solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and other renewable energy sources that are currently set to expire this year. The measure has been held up over internal squabbles among Democrats about how to pay for the tax breaks. Fiscally conservative Democrats in the House want to offset the cost of the tax breaks by repealing drilling incentives for the oil and gas industry, but that is a nonstarter with Senate Republicans. The renewable industry says Congress needs to act soon to avoid disrupting investment in alternative energy projects. Domenici said the renewable energy tax credits will pay for themselves by reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs. "But now, all of a sudden, Democrats have decided that we shouldn't extend these credits unless they are paid for," Domenici said. "The problem is that in this atmosphere, it is very difficult to find ways to do this that everyone can agree on. FUNDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CAUSES PARTISAN FIGHTS HERALD SUN, 7/3/08 [THE HERALD SUN, “CONGRESS STALLS TAX CREDITS,” 7/3/08 LEXIS] Republicans and Democrats seem to agree that tax credits for renewable energy make a great deal of sense. So why can't they agree on extending the credits for another year? The answer, we're sorry to say, is the kind of partisan wrangling that puts ideology above what's best for the country. At issue is a package of tax breaks worth about $50 billion over the next ten years, including tax credits for installing solar panels and for businesses that invest in research and development. Given the nation's desperate need to find alternative energy sources, this sort of tangible encouragement is sorely needed. Plus, nearly 400 companies, including Goldman Sachs and General Electric, have signed a letter urging the Senate to approve the bill, which has already passed the House. Democrats want to extend the credits, but Republicans are blocking the way because of how Democrats want to pay for it -- by closing a loophole that lets hedge fund managers shelter income offshore and by delaying a new tax benefit for multinational corporations.

22

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

23 OF 82

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – PARTISAN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS A PARTISAN ISSUE VOORHEES, 08 [JOSH VOORHEES, E&E DAILY REPORTER, “OIL AND GAS: PARTISAN FIGHT OVER SOARING PRICES REACHES FEVER PITCH,” ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY DAILY, 5/19/08, LEXIS] After a brief bipartisan detour last week to halt deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Congress is expected to return this week to the well-tread path of partisan politics over how best to solve -- and whom to blame for -- the nation's growing energy woes. With only a week left before the summer-long driving season kicks off, Democratic lawmakers will have their chance to question a parade of their usual suspects: The secretary general of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, executives from the "Big Five" oil companies and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman are all scheduled to appear before congressional committees. Peter Beutel, an analyst with energy risk management firm Cameron Hanover, said the hearings will likely be an exercise in partisan theatre. "The whole thing seems a bit like blame-storming to me," he said. "I'd expect people on both sides of the aisle will be grandstanding." The hearings come on the heels of weeks of accusations from both sides over who is to blame for soaring gasoline prices that reached a record high Friday of $3.79 per gallon, according to AAA. Democrats have focused their barbs at the Bush administration while pushing legislation to curb oil companies' profits. They want to repeal industry tax breaks and institute a "windfall profits" tax on earnings that are not reinvested in alternative energy research and development. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS A PARTISAN ISSUE –BIPARTISAN EFFORTS ARE BLOCKED BY REPUBLICANS LESTER, 4/27/08 [WILL LESTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, “LAUTENBERG: PRESSURE BUSH, GOP TO CHANGE ENERGY POLICY,” THE BISMARCK TRIBUNE, 4/27/08, LEXIS] The public should pressure President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress to change energy policies that have led to record gasoline prices and intense economic pressures on working people, veteran Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Saturday. "It's long past time to change our national priorities," the New Jersey senator said in the Democrats' weekly radio address. "We know there's little hope that President Bush will suddenly wake up and see the light. But unfortunately, his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand by his side, with the oil and energy companies for the status quo and against the American people." Lautenberg said Democrats are attempting to change the nation's approach to energy but face stiff resistance from Bush and his allies.

23

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

24 OF 82

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – GOP HATES GOP HATES ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – TAX CREDITS PROVE FRIEDMAN, '08 (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLUMNIST, AUTHOR, “MR. BUSH, LEAD OR LEAVE,” NEW YORK TIMES, 6/22/08, HTTP://WWW.NYTIMES.COM/2008/06/22/OPINION/22FRIEDMAN.HTML?HP) That bill is H.R. 6049 — “The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008,” which extends for another eight years the investment tax credit for installing solar energy and extends for one year the production tax credit for producing wind power and for three years the credits for geothermal, wave energy and other renewables. These critical tax credits for renewables are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and, if they do, it will mean thousands of jobs lost and billions of dollars of investments not made. “Already clean energy projects in the U.S. are being put on hold,” said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines — because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies. That seems to be exactly what the Republican Party is trying to block, since the Senate Republicans — sorry to say, with the help of John McCain — have now managed to defeat the renewal of these tax credits six different times. REPUBLICANS OPPOSE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES – STRONG OPPOSITION MARTIN VAUGHN, WALL STREET JOURNAL STAFF WRITER, “HOUSE VOTES FOR ALTENATIVE ENERGY TAX BREAKS”, WALL STREET JOURNAL, 5/22/08, HTTP://WWW.TENNESSEEANYTIME.ORG/ENERGY/NODE/228 The House of Representatives passed a $57 billion package of tax incentives for wind, solar and other alternative-energy sources, and other business tax breaks. The House approved the bill on a 263-160 vote. But Republican opposition to the bill was strong enough to indicate that the GOP would likely be able to sustain a possible veto from President Bush. Thirty-five Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while the 160 no votes on the bill are well above the one-third threshold needed to sustain a White House veto. Mr. Bush said earlier Wednesday that he will veto the bill unless provisions he opposes are removed.

24

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

25 OF 82

* TYPES OF ENERGY*

SOLAR/WIND/GEOTHERMAL – GOP HATES REPUBLICANS OPPOSE INCENTIVES FOR SOLAR, WIND AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DAVIES, 08 [FRANK DAVIES, STAFF WRITER, “CONGRESS FAILS TO EXTEND CREDITS,” SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 6/11/08 LEXIS] WASHINGTON - To the disappointment of many Silicon Valley companies, partisan politics in Congress on Tuesday continued to block the extension of tax credits for renewable energy and research and development. The Senate voted 50-44 - 10 votes short of the total needed - to close debate and take a final vote on a package of tax credits for solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy producers, which are due to expire at the end of the year. The bill also would reinstate R&D tax credits that expired at the end of 2007. That provision had the support of Cisco Systems, Oracle, Intel and Microsoft, along with other corporate giants including IBM, AT&T, Boeing, General Electric, Walt Disney and Goldman Sachs. Paying for the tax credits has been a stumbling block in Congress. This bill would have raised revenue by closing what its backers called a loophole on the taxing of deferred compensation, and would have delayed a new, liberalized rule on interest expenses. Most Republicans opposed the bill, criticizing it as a tax increase. The House and Senate have passed different versions of a tax credit bill, but have disagreed on the need for revenue offsets to pay for the credits. House leaders insist on the "pay for" provisions.

25

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

26 OF 82

GEOTHERMAL – GOP HATES GEOTHERMAL IS UNIQUELY UNPOPULAR WITH REPUBLICANS REUTERS “GEOTHERMAL POWER GETS BOOST IN SENATE” NOV. 16, 2006 HTTP://WWW.MSNBC.MSN.COM/ID/15749933/ “We have some tax problems,” Reid said. “These geothermal plants cost money to build and the tax credits for them have not been as favorable as for wind and solar.” Reid said he will seek more money for geothermal projects, but worries the Bush administration is more interested in expanding U.S. crude oil pumping capacity than in expanding renewable energy sources. “This administration is so oil-friendly that we have been able to get their attention on virtually nothing that is not oil related,” Reid said. “They’re not that interested in renewables.” Bush administration officials said they are already pushing hard to expand renewable supplies. “To say that we’re not interested in renewables is categorically incorrect,” said Craig Stevens, an Energy Department spokesman, citing administration proposals to set aside more money for new energy sources.

26

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

27 OF 82

SOLAR – GOP HATES REPUBLICANS DON’T WANT SOLAR ENERGY H. JOSEF HERBERT, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, ASSOCIATED PRESS, JUNE 10, 2008 HTTP://AP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5G8PZNJHU9YUP14PMASKNGT5UDKSAD917N 7HO0 Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster. Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday. Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy. Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it. But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks. The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand. In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

27

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

28 OF 82

SOLAR – GOP HATES GOP HATES SOLAR LAS VEGAS REVIEW, “BILL TO LIFT SOLAR POWER HALTED BY REPUBLICANS,” JUNE 19, 2008, HTTP://WWW.REDORBIT.COM/NEWS/SCIENCE/1440454/BILL_TO_LIFT_SOLAR_POWER_H ALTED_BY_REPUBLICANS/INDEX.HTML The solar energy industry is poised to pump billions of dollars into the Nevada economy and create thousands of jobs - but advocates say the Senate on Tuesday shot down a bill needed to give the sun power industry a jump-start. Republicans for the second time in a week prevented the Senate from taking up a tax bill providing more than $50 billion in renewable-energy credits and tax breaks for families and businesses. The vote Tuesday to move to the legislation was 5244, eight short of the 60 votes needed. Only five Republicans voted to end the filibuster against action on the bill; others objected to the Democratic plan to pay for the tax relief by making some hedge fund managers and multinational corporations pay more taxes. Opponents argued that tax relief should not be matched with what they regarded as tax increases. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., voted for the renewable-energy tax credits but switched to oppose the bill because of provisions that allow him to bring back the bill later for another vote. "Just as they have done with every opportunity to strengthen our weakening economy and lower record gas prices, Republicans today said no to helping businesses invest in renewable energy," Reid said following the vote. Sen. John Ensign, R.-Nev., said he voted against the bill because it contained tax increases to offset the cost of the tax benefit for renewables, and a controversial "tax earmark" for New York. Ensign said Democrats should abandon the bill in its present form.

28

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

29 OF 82

WIND – UNPOPULAR WINDPOWER IS UNPOPULAR – RUINS PARKS H. STERLING BURNETT, 04, WRITER, “WIND POWER: NOT GREEN, BUT RED,” DAILY NEWS RECORD, HTTP://WWW.KVNEWS.COM/ARTICLES/2004/07/10/NEWS/NEWS10.TXT A recent report from Great Britain, where wind power is growing at even a faster rate than in the United States, states that, as wind farms grow, wind power is increasingly unpopular. The industry portrayed wind farms as "parks," tricking its way into unspoiled countryside in "green" disguise. Wind farms, rather than being parks are more similar to highways, industrial buildings and railways. Often, because of the prevailing wind currents, the most favorable locations for wind farms also happen to be areas with particularly spectacular views in relatively wild places. Worse, wind farms produce only a fraction of the energy of a conventional power plant but require hundreds of times the acreage. For instance, two of the biggest wind "farms" in Europe have 159 turbines and cover thousands of acres between them but together they take a year to produce less than four days' output from a single 2,000 megawatts conventional power station

29

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

30 OF 82

WIND – DEMOCRATS HATES DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES FIGHT TO REMOVE WEST VIRGINIAN WIND FARMS. JAMES HOARE IS MANAGING ATTORNEY AT THE SYRACUSE, NEW YORK OFFICE OF MCGIVNEY, KLUGER & GANNON, “DEMOCRATS LEAD FIGHT AGAINST WEST VIRGINIA WIND FARMS”, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE NEWS, 2/1/06 U.S. Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall, both West Virginia Democrats, are leading a highprofile fight against industrial wind farms on the state's mountaintop ridges. At issue is an existing industrial wind farm complex in Tucker County atop the West Virginia Allegheny Plateau-the largest wind farm east of the Mississippi River--and four even larger industrial wind farms proposed for nearby mountain ridges. The proposed wind farms in Grant, Greenbrier, and Pendleton counties would result in a 10-fold increase in giant wind turbines in West Virginia's mountain country. Mollohan voiced his opposition to the proposed wind farms in a letter read at a public meeting of concerned citizens December 15 at the Charleston Civic Center. Mollohan wrote, "Because of the huge physical size of these projects, their starkly industrial appearance, and the fact that they dominate the view of the entire area in which they are located, these projects naturally raise concerns when they are proposed to be sited in areas that people enjoy for their scenic, natural beauty." Beyond the negative effect industrial wind farms have on West Virginia's scenic ridgelines, Mollohan pointed out the projects make little economic sense. Mollohan's letter noted wind power depends on "major tax preferences" from state and federal governments and yet still has trouble competing with conventional power sources. Mollohan also expressed concern that environmental effects, including excessive bird and bat kills in addition to the disruption of West Virginia's scenic beauty, could "become exponentially worse as the industry, supported by those government subsidies, expands ... in environmentally sensitive areas."

30

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

31 OF 82

*MECHANISMS*

TAX CREDITS – PARTISAN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TAX CREDITS ARE HIGHLY PARTISAN SCHUMER 5/8/08[CHARLES E. SCHUMER, U.S. SENATOR, “THE ENERGY BATTLES”, NEW YORK TIMES, 05/8/08, LEXISNEXIS] In the 110th Congress alone, the Republicans have blocked four different attempts by the Democrats to extend the alternative tax provisions. On June 21 of last year, the extension of the energy credits received 57 votes; on Dec. 7, it received 53 votes; on Dec. 13, it received 59 votes; and on Feb. 6 of this year, it received 58 votes. Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes to pass the bill. Each time, the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the bill; the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against.

31

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

32 OF 82

CARBON TAX – CONGRESS HATES CARBOX TAX IS UNPOPULAR WITH CONGRESS, THEY PREFER CAP AND TRADE MARTIN HUTCHINSON 3/8/08, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, ELECTION 2008: US WILL SUFFER EITHER WAY, THE MARKET ORACLE, HTTP://WWW.MARKETORACLE.CO.UK/INDEX.PHP?NAME=NEWS&FILE=ARTICLE&SID=4 995 Provided the tax was set at a moderate rate, it would provide incentives to shift from carbonbased fuels to other energy generation systems, while the market itself would determine which carbon uses would be discontinued and which were too expensive to change. It wouldn't matter too much at what level the tax was initially set, since a moderate error in setting the level would produce only moderately suboptimal polluter behavior, as the incentives produced either a little too much clean-up and consequent economic damage, or not quite enough. The carbon tax is unpopular with politicians, because of the word “tax.” From bitter experience, they have found that raising taxes leads to unpopularity and, ultimately, to electoral defeat. Even if other taxes are lowered, the squawks of the complaints and protest of the losers are always much louder than the contented purring of the winners. That explains their preference for a “cap-and-trade” emissions policy, under which politicians pretend to give something away, providing licenses to pollute, which can then be traded among users.

32

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

33 OF 82

CAP AND TRADE – BIG COAL BIG COAL OPPOSES CAP AND TRADE REUTERS NEWS SERVICE, “CARBON BACKLASH: COAL DIVIDES CORPORATIONS” THE HEAT IS ONLINE, JULY 1, 2007 coal mining companies, which for years have been branded the bad guys of global warming, are fighting back. They are questioning not only the science but also the motives of some of the NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S.

big-name corporations who have made well-publicized commitments to cleaning up their act. At a recent industry conference in New York, Arch Coal, one of America's "Big Four" producers, stressed the need for research and investment in "clean coal" technology that would allow the country to utilize its abundant reserves while weaning itself off foreign oil. "If we want to address climate concerns, we need to invest more heavily in coal -not less," Chief Executive Steven Leer told the McCloskey Coal USA conference. "We cannot reduce foreign oil dependence without increased coal use," he said. "Debate can help advance clean-coal technology investment." A more outspoken executive, Robert Murray, chairman and chief executive of Murray Energy Corp. ,

warned the coal industry could collapse with the loss of 3 million to 4 million jobs if carbon dioxide emission controls are introduced. He has even put his money where his mouth is by refusing to do business with Caterpillar Inc. -- a manufacturer of the very mining equipment his company needs. "There are a number of companies that are promoting constraints on coal use to achieve greater profits and/or competitive advantages," Murray said at the coal conference. He branded more than 20 major corporations that make up the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) "un-American" for allying with environmental groups he calls "enemies of coal." USCAP, which backs moves to cap carbon dioxide emissions, includes Caterpillar, General Electric Co., Dupont Co, AIG, General Motors, Dow Chemical Co, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsico Inc., Alcoa Inc. and ConocoPhillips, "I've been trying to get their attention," Murray said. "(CEO) Jeffrey Immelt of GE and I debated this for about 45 minutes, but I didn't convince him of anything because he sells windmills ... he wants to see the global warming come along." There was no immediate comment from GE. Caterpillar said that while it would not debate the science, it believes it is incumbent on industry to reduce emissions. "Knowing this debate is going to get under way in earnest we're here to protect the interests of our customers, particularly coal," the truck and tractor maker said in a statement. "We can be more effective protecting those interests by supporting a single national mandate ..." Congress is

considering several bills that aim to fight global warming by putting tough limits on greenhouse gases. Supporters say the bills would provide incentives for companies to invest in technology to cut emissions. Murray, whose private company produces about 30 million tons of coal per year, has formed the Coal-based Stakeholders Chief Executive Officers Group, comprising CEOs of railroads, some coal companies and utilities . It

opposes so-called "cap and trade" regulations, arguing that caps on emissions will devastate the U.S. coal industry which fuels about 50 percent of the country's electricity generation. COAL CONTROLS THE AGENDA JEFF GOODELL, AUTHOR OF THE BOOK BIG COAL, “COOKING THE CLIMATE WITH COAL”, NATURAL HISTORY MAGAZINE, MAY 06

33

SDI 2008-2009 SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

INDIA DEAL BAD 34 OF 82

Opportunity was returning in the form of a $2 billion coal-fired power plant, which the world’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corporation, of St. Louis, was about to build just a few miles southwest of Nashville. According to the governor, the plant, to be known as the Prairie State Energy Campus, would create 2,500 construction jobs, 450 permanent jobs, and $100 million or so a year in spin-off revenues. A phalanx of Peabody executives was on hand to show their support. Peabody’s CEO at the time, Irl F. Engelhardt, stepped up to the microphone. “The technology Prairie State will use is absolutely the best that has been put together on a coal plant,” Engelhardt assured the crowd. “Prairie State is an important step forward in terms of the cleanliness of coal plants, and ultimately will help us get to near-zero emissions from coal plants.” A few local politicians chimed in, the band struck up the Hornets’ fight song, and there was a lot of clapping and backslapping. Even the kids in the bleachers, most of them born long after the coal industry had died in the region, were on their feet cheering. “Coal is U.S.A.!” someone shouted. “Coal is U.S.A.!” For Big Coal—

the alliance of coal mining companies, utilities, railroads, and lobbying groups that make coal such a powerful political and economic force in America—the slogan “Opportunity Returns” is a rather coy understatement. “Boom” is more like it: the world is in the midst of an unprecedented love affair with coal. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the energy equivalent of some 1,350 thousand-megawatt coalfired power plants will be built by 2030. Forty percent of them will be in China, where coal is fueling a stunning economic transformation. India will add another 10 percent or so, and most of the remaining half will be added in the West. In the United States, the IEA predicts, about a third of the new electric-generating capacity built by 2025 will be coal-fired. Besides Peabody’s Prairie State plant, more than 120 new coal plants are now in the works throughout the nation.

34

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

35 OF 82

*BUSH BAD *

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – POPULAR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS PUBLICALLY POPULAR THE WASHINGTON TIMES '08 (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, “AMERICANS ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE,” LEXIS, 7/7/08) Ninety percent of Americans, including 82 percent of Republicans, 96 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of independents, answered "definitely" or "probably" yes when asked if the United States should work to phase out of fossil fuels to be replaced by clean, renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar electricity, as well as hybrid and clean diesel technologies for cars. Three out of four Americans, including 62 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats and 77 percent of independents support "a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in the United States if there was stepped-up investment in clean, safe renewable energy - such as wind and solar - and improved home energy-efficiency standards." More than four out of five Americans (82 percent), including 69 percent of Republicans, 91 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of independents, agreed that "the United States should be a leader not a follower when it comes to action on global warming." Only 15 percent of Americans, including 24 percent of Republicans, 9 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of independents thought steps to curb global warming would "hurt the U.S. economy," while 56 percent said it would "create new jobs and investments." The remaining 25 percent predicted neutral impact on the economy. RENEWABLES ARE WILDLY POPULAR WITH LAWMAKERS ROBERT BRADLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH, ADJUNCT SCHOLAR OF THE CATO INSTITUTE, RENEWABLE ENERGY: NOT CHEAP, NOT “GREEN,” CATO POLICY ANALYSIS NO. 280, AUGUST 27, 1997, HTTP://WWW.CATO.ORG/PUBS/PAS/PA-280.HTML Renewable energy--power generated from the nearly infinite elements of nature such as sunshine, wind, the movement of water, the internal heat of the Earth, and the combustion of replenishable crops--is widely popular with the public and governmental officials because it is thought to be an inexhaustible and environmentally benign source of power, particularly compared with the supposedly finite and environmentally problematic alternative of reliance on fossil fuels and nuclear power. RENEWABLES ARE BIPARTISAN ASCRIBE NEWSWIRE, 7-23-2001 In the United States, we will now turn our attention to winning meaningful domestic policies to attack the global warming threat, including higher fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks, binding caps on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and requirements that a steadily increasing share of our electricity come from clean renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, and solar energy. There is bipartisan support in our Congress for these initiatives, and growing public awareness of the need for the U.S. to clean up our act at home.

35

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

36 OF 82

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – BIPART THERE IS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR LEGISLATION THAT SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NEW YORK TIMES, “DEMOCRATS MAY GIVE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY A NEW PUSH,” 12/10/06 THE fortunes of alternative energy companies have been linked to two factors outside their control: oil prices and politics. Rising oil prices have moved in the companies’ favor over the last few years, making the price of producing energy from wind, solar, geothermal or organic sources more competitive. Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones

to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS BECOMING A BI-PARTISAN ISSUE LANDRIEU, 6/27/08 [MARY LANDRIEU, LOUISIANA SEN., “BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS COMMIT TO DRAFTING ENERGY LEGISLATION URGE LEADERSHIP OF BOTH PARTIES TO HOLD ENERGY SUMMIT FOLLOWING JULY 4.” STATES NEWS SERVICE, 6/27/08, LEXIS] "For too long Congress has let partisan politics block good energy policies," said U.S. Senator John Thune, R-South Dakota. "It is time for Congress to put these differences aside, find real solutions and put America back on a path toward energy independence. I join my colleagues in calling for an emergency energy summit, so we can begin to turn this energy crisis around." "American families are feeling the pain of our growing energy crisis," said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. "Gas is at $4 a gallon. Now is the time to come together to create real solutions that will produce new domestic sources of energy. Our nation desperately needs to become more energy independent and this summit is a step in the right direction." "Without a doubt, Americans are in desperate need of relief from high energy prices," said U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln D-Arkansas. "Nowhere is that felt more than in Arkansas and other rural states across the country. America's reliance on foreign oil is not a sustainable strategy. I believe our country should focus on a long-term investment strategy that

includes renewable and alternative energy sources, which will pave a road to energy independence, and we must act now." "There are no quick fixes in dealing with this issue, but there are things we can and must do," said U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Georgia. "With skyrocketing gas prices, it is absolutely critical for Congress to act now and act boldly. Holding an energy summit to hear from the experts on energy policy is a positive first-step in moving towards a bipartisan solution." "Partisan bickering will not lower gas prices or put us on a course toward energy independence," said U.S. Senator Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas. "We need to really sit down and talk about all the options on the table, evaluate their merits and move full speed ahead on meaningful reform." "The energy

challenges facing our country cannot be solved without bipartisan commitment and cooperation," said U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tennessee. "I am pleased to be part of an effort to bring together the best ideas of both parties and am anxious to move our country forward with balanced legislation that makes us more secure."

36

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

37 OF 82

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – DEMS LOVE INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ARE POPULAR WITH DEMOCRATS MARK SILVA 2008 (REPORTER FOR THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, “FATHER'S DAY ADDRESS FROM DEMOCRATS”, BALTIMORE SUN, 6/14/08) "My wife and I don't talk that much in public about politics, but we are both proud Democrats - and for a simple reason: Democrats understand what families like ours are going through, and they're trying to make things better. In just the last couple of weeks, Democrats in the Senate proposed three bills that would have helped bring energy prices down in the short term and the long term. "One of their bills would have stopped giving American tax dollars to the giant oil companies that are already making record profits - and would have stood up to the foreign countries that produce the oil and charge us way too much. "Another Democratic plan was to give tax incentives to innovative American companies that are researching and developing new ways of powering our cars and heating our homes, like solar, wind and even geothermal power. "And Democrats introduced a third bill to fight global warming, reduce our country's dependence on oil, create jobs here at home and grow our economy. "But Republicans? They haven't offered much of anything. In fact, Republicans are spending their time blocking Democrats from getting anything done at all, including those three bills to lower energy costs. And that's the difference: Democrats are trying to change things, but Republicans only want more of the same old ideas that got us into this mess in the first place. More of the same isn't working for my family, and I bet it's not working for yours. "Father's Day is tomorrow. I'll be spending it with my three children, thinking about how I can be a better dad - and provide my kids with everything they deserve. I know it's not supposed to be this hard to get ahead. But Democrats are trying to make the American Dream affordable again, and in a country as great as ours, I know we can succeed. "This is Jeff Alberici - a husband, a father and a teacher from Auburn, New York. Wishing my father Gino and all fathers a happy Father's Day. Thanks for listening and have a great weekend." Newstex ID: TB-2155-25989072

37

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

38 OF 82

* TYPES OF ENERGY*

NUCLEAR POWER –POPULAR NUCLEAR POWER HAS TREMENDOUS SUPPORT – ENERGY PRICES ANN STOUFFER BISCONTI, PH.D IN SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, AND PRESIDENT OF BISCONTI RESEARCH INC. “MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS” BISCONTI, APRIL 2001 HTTP://WWW.NMCCO.COM/EDUCATION/FACTS/PUBLIC/MANDATE.PDF Public support for building new nuclear power plants has increased dramatically in the past few months, as concern about energy shortages and prices spreads across the nation. Two-thirds of U.S. adults–66%–now support building more nuclear power plants, compared with 51% in January and 42% in October 1999. That’s an increase of 24 percentage points over the past year and a half. Support for building new nuclear power plants has increased substantial- ly in all regions, with the largest changes in the Western region, where energy shortages are most prominent, and the Midwest.

38

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

39 OF 82

NUCLEAR POWER – GOP LOVES GOP LIKES NUCLEAR POWER – MCCAIN PROVES BOB DROGIN, "MCCAIN PUSHES NUCLEAR POWER," LOS ANGELES TIMES 6/19/08 SPRINGFIELD, MO. -- Sen. John McCain proposed Wednesday to dramatically increase America's commitment to nuclear power, calling for a crash program to build 45 reactors by 2030 and a long-term goal of building 100 such plants across the country. On the second day of a campaign swing devoted to energy security, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee also committed to spending $2 billion a year for research and development "to make clean coal a reality" in an effort to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power. But his speech here included unabashed support for an energy source and technology that has been suspect in many communities since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, the most serious commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history. No nuclear power plant has been built in America in more than 30 years, and few U.S. companies have invested in the technology to build new plants. The nation draws about 20% of its electricity from 104 working commercial reactors, but many are nearing the end of the operating period allowed by their licenses. "We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," McCain told a forum at Missouri State University.

39

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

40 OF 82

GEOTHERMAL – BIPARTISAN GEOTHERMAL ENERGY HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT REUTERS ’08 (REUTERS, “RENEWABLE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ASKS CONGRESS TO DIRECT DOE TO FOLLOW NEW LAW,” 3/19/08, HTTP://WWW.REUTERS.COM/ARTICLE/PRESSRELEASE/IDUS236657+19-MAR2008+PRN20080319) Last month, a bipartisan group of a dozen Senators led by Senators Wyden (D-OR) and Murkowski (R-AK) sent Secretary Bodman a letter urging DOE to move forward immediately with the new geothermal research law. "An important part of the Energy Independence and Security Act, HR 6, are the provisions that authorize and direct the Department of Energy to undertake a broad, new advanced geothermal energy research program," the Senators told Bodman. "These provisions were based upon legislation that had strong, bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate..." they added. In their statement today, GEA urged Congress to "direct the DOE to implement the new law and to provide adequate funding to achieve its goals." The association proposed funding for the program should be $77.5 million in FY 2009.

40

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

41 OF 82

SOLAR – POPULAR SOLAR POWER IS OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR AMONG VOTERS-SCHOTT POLLS PROVE THE NAIB, SCHOTT SOLAR BAROMETER, SCHOTT NORTH AMERICA INC., “94% OF AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF SOLAR POWER,” THE SIETCH BLOG, 6/10/08, HTTP://WWW.BLOG.THESIETCH.ORG/2008/06/10/94-OF-AMERICANS-IN-FAVOR-OFSOLAR-POWER/ Proving once again that the American people are far ahead of the American politicians (side note: Dear politicians if you don’t get your act together we are all going to fire you) on renewable energy policy. A vast majority of Americans, across all political parties, overwhelmingly support development and funding of solar energy. Ninety-one percent of Republicans, 97 percent of Democrats and 98 percent of Independents agree that developing solar power is vital to the United States. These and other findings were reported today in the SCHOTT Solar Barometer, a nationally representative survey conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research.

41

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

42 OF 82

BIOFUEL – CAPITAL ETHANOL GIVES POLITICAL CAPITAL JACK LYNE 08’, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, “FUELING A BOON OR A BOONDOGGLE,” SITESELECTION.COM, HTTP://WWW.SITESELECTION.COM/SSINSIDER/INCENTIVE/TI0708.HTM "Elected officials are primarily motivated by the hunt for political capital, including campaign contributions but, most importantly, votes," says the Cato Institute's Taylor. "As long as they believe that ethanol subsidies will deliver political capital, they will vote for ethanol subsidies." BIOFUEL IS POPULAR – APPEALS TO EVERY VOTER JONNA KNAPPENBERGER 08, BACKERS WANT RENEWABLE ENERGY INCENTIVES IN STIMULUS BILL, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY BLOG Kenneth P. Green, at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said Republicans in Congress are generally less enamored with wind and solar energy than Democrats. Both support biofuel, made from vegetable oil, animal fat or recycled cooking grease. "Biofuel is popular because a lot of farm people want to grow it and everyone wants the farm vote," Green said. The federal government provides subsidies to the biofuel industry. "Congressmen trumpet it as freedom from foreign oil. It's popular because it appeals to their constituencies," Green said. BIOFUEL IS POPULAR – DEMOCRATS NATURFUEL.COM 07’, “BIO DISEL”, (LAST MENTIONED DATE 2007), HTTP://WWW.NATURALFUEL.COM/INDEX.PHP?OPTION=COM_CONTENT&TASK=BLOGCA TEGORY&ID=15&ITEMID=18 Growing pressure on governments to address rising oil prices and global warming is leading to policies aimed at creating a viable alternative fuel market. Governments are using tax concessions, grants and other forms of taxation incentives to create an attractive environment for the investment and sale of biofuels. In the USA , a key platform of the new Democrat majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives is to increase incentives for alternative fuels and impose a national cap on greenhouse emissions. The Biofuels Blenders’ Incentives continue to be extended with bipartisan support. Legislation to make the incentive permanent is anticipated by industry supporters and participants.

42

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

43 OF 82

WIND – BIPART BUSH AND CONGRESS BOTH LIKE WIND ENERGY –TAX CREDIT PROVES ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, CONGRESS FUELS WIND ENERGY BOOM WITH TAX CREDIT, INTERNATIONAL DAILY NEWSWIRE, 3/13/02, HTTP://WWW.ENSNEWSWIRE.COM/ENS/MAR2002/2002-03-13-02.ASP The U.S. wind energy industry is set to spin into high gear with the passage by both houses of Congress of an extended production tax credit for electricity generated by wind power. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) executive director Randall Swisher said that with the tax credit back in place "wind energy development in the U.S. should resume the blistering pace it set last year when more wind capacity was installed than in any previous year in U.S. history." The King Mountain Wind Ranch near Odessa, Texas, added almost 77 meagwatts of capacity to the state's wind power capacity in 2001.(Photo courtesy Cielo Wind Power) The 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit, which had expired December 31, 2001, will be extended retroactively for two years to December 31, 2003. The measure was passed as part of an economic stimulus and unemployment insurance bill (H.R. 3090) approved by the House on March 7 and by the Senate on March 8. The House approved the package by an overwhelming vote of 417-3. The Senate approved the same package by a vote of 85-9, with six members not voting. President George W. Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill containing the tax credit into law. Swisher said the reinstatement of the tax credit means that about $3 billion in wind energy investments forecast over the next several years are now back on track. "More importantly, hundreds of furloughed wind industry employees can now go back to work building and installing new high-tech wind turbines." he said. Formed in 1974, the 700 member AWEA is the national trade association of the U.S. wind energy industry including turbine manufacturers, wind project developers, utilities and academics.

43

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

44 OF 82

WIND – POPULAR WIND ENERGY IS POPULAR IN CONGRESS ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE, “CONGRESS FUELS WIND ENERGY BOOM WITH TAX CREDIT,” INTERNATIONAL DAILY NEWSWIRE, 3/13/02, HTTP://WWW.ENSNEWSWIRE.COM/ENS/MAR2002/2002-03-13-02.ASP The U.S. wind energy industry is set to spin into high gear with the passage by both houses of Congress of an extended production tax credit for electricity generated by wind power. American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) executive director Randall Swisher said that with the tax credit back in place "wind energy development in the U.S. should resume the blistering pace it set last year when more wind capacity was installed than in any previous year in U.S. history." The 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit, which had expired December 31, 2001, will be extended retroactively for two years to December 31, 2003. The measure was passed as part of an economic stimulus and unemployment insurance bill (H.R. 3090) approved by the House on March 7 and by the Senate on March 8. The The House approved the package by an overwhelming vote of 417-3. Senate approved the same package by a vote of 85-9, with six members not voting. President George W. Bush has indicated that he will sign the bill containing the tax credit into law. Swisher said the reinstatement of the tax credit means that about $3 billion in wind energy investments forecast over the next several years are now back on track. "More importantly, hundreds of furloughed wind industry employees can now go back to work building and installing new high-tech wind turbines." he said.

44

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

45 OF 82

*MECHANISMS*

RPS – BIPARTISAN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE PUTTING THEIR WEIGHT BEHIND RPS NORM ALSTER, “DEMOCRATS MAY GIVE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY A NEW PUSH” NYT, DECEMBER 10, 2006 THE fortunes of alternative energy companies have been linked to two factors outside their control: oil prices and politics. Rising oil prices have moved in the companies’ favor over the last few years, making the price of producing energy from wind, solar, geothermal or organic sources more competitive. Now some analysts and money managers are hoping the imminent Democratic takeover of Congress will also be bullish for alternative energy stocks by improving prospects for favorable legislation for the industry. One likely initiative, known as a national renewable portfolio standard, would require utilities to derive 10 percent of their electricity output from renewable sources by 2020. Currently, less than 3 percent of electricity is generated from such sources. Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the presumptive chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, says he hopes to pass “some version” of a renewable portfolio standard in the next Congress. The details of such legislation — as well as whether it would be approved by Congress and signed by President Bush — are very much uncertain. But that hasn’t stopped investors from placing their bets. Democrats may be in the forefront, but they aren’t the only ones to jump on the alternative energy bandwagon, said Randy Gwirtzman, a research analyst at Baron Capital, which is based in New York. “Both sides of the aisle have shown they’re in favor of alternative energy sources,” he said. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, for example, is concerned about the nation’s reliance on imported oil. “With the surging prices of oil,” he said, “there’s a strong feeling among Republicans that our economy and national security can be damaged if we don’t decrease our dependency.” Mr. Gwirtzman recommends shares of SunPower, which he said has a highly competitive solarcell product line that is well positioned to benefit from a more sympathetic Congress. Stuart Bush, technology analyst at RBC Capital Markets based in Austin, Tex., also likes SunPower, which is a spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor. Mr. Bush says SunPower solar cells are more efficient than the industry average in converting solar energy into electricity. Unlike many other alternative energy companies, SunPower already generates a small profit, and its revenue could reach $600 million next year and $1 billion in 2008, Mr. Bush said. A renewable portfolio standard should help alternative energy move closer to parity with traditional energy sources, Mr. Bush said. “Each technology individually is on a path to reducing costs and achieving parity with traditional energy sources, some very dramatically.

45

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

46 OF 82

RPS – POPULAR RPS IS POPULAR WITH THE SENATE AND HOUSE JAMES WOOLSEY (FORMER CIA DIRECTOR), ROBERT MCFARLANE (FORMER NSA ADVISOR TO PRES. REAGAN), AND RET. ADM. THOMAS MOORER (FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF), LETTER TO 16 SENATORS, 2001 The U.S. Senate has passed a renewable electricity standard bill three times since 2002, but the full House of Representatives has never even been given an opportunity to vote on one. With new House leadership and a high level of public support for renewable energy, we are more hopeful than ever that House members will at last get a chance to vote for clean energy, too. The national renewable electricity standard proposal in the House would require that utilities acquire 20 percent clean, renewable energy by 2020, while a 15 percent by 2020 standard is expected in the Senate. Both bills would significantly increase America’s use of renewable energy. A national coalition has formed to pass the bill. Activists can play a critical role in the campaign by contacting their representatives to urge them to support the House and Senate bill.

46

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

47 OF 82

TAX CREDITS – DEMS LOVE DEMOCRATS LIKE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TAX CREDITS JOHN SHAW, “US HOUSE, SENATE STILL TRYING TO FIND WAY TO PASS TAX PACKAGE”, MARKET NEWS INTERNATIONAL, 7/2/08, LEXIS In the last several weeks, Senate Democrats have tried to bring up a tax package that included a $62 billion one year patch to the AMT and a $59 billion tax extenders package that would renew such popular provisions as the research and development tax credit and a package of incentives for alternative energy production. DEMOCRATS WANT CLEAN ENERGY INCENTIVES – CANTWELL PROVES DAVID M. HERSZENHORN, POLITICAL REPORTER, “CONGRESS MOVING FOR SWIFT PASSAGE OF STIMULUS,” NEW YORK TIMES, 1/26/08, LEXIS Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, called for extending clean-energy tax incentives, which she said would spur $7 billion in spending by the wind power industry and create 75,000 jobs in 2008. Senators Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, and Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, pushed for the increase in food stamps.

47

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

48 OF 82

SATELLITES – BIPART SOLAR SATELLITES HAVE BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT JEREMY SINGER, SPACE NEWS STAFF WRITER, PENTAGON CONSIDERING STUDY ON SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER, SPACE NEWS, 4/11/07, HTTP://WWW.SPACE.COM/BUSINESSTECHNOLOGY/070411_TECH_WED.HTML The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin a study in the near future on the possibility of using satellites to collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials. The officials said the study does not mean that the military plans to demonstrate or deploy a space-based solar power constellation. However, as the Pentagon looks at a variety of alternative energy sources, this could be one possible method of supplying energy to troops in bases or on the battlefield, they said.The military's work in this area also could aid development of a system that could provide energy to non-military users as well, according to Lt. Col. Michael Hornitschek, chief of rated force policy on the Air Force staff at the Pentagon. Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in conducting a formal study, according to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith, chief of future concepts at the NSSO. The NSSO would need to find the financial resources and available manpower to conduct the study, Smith said. Hornitschek would lead work on the study on behalf of the NSSO if the NSSO elects to pursue it, and he said he hopes that a system could be deployed in roughly 20 years. John Mankins, president of the Space Solar Power Association in Washington, said space-based solar power could offer a massive improvement over terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure to the sun avoids the nighttime periods where terrestrial systems cannot collect solar energy.The ability to constantly gather solar energy would allow a space-based system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or people on the ground by constantly transmitting energy to Earth at a level that is high enough to be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage, said Mankins, a former NASA official who previously served as manager of advanced concept studies at NASA headquarters before leaving the agency in 2005. Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank, said it is too early to determine if space-based solar power is viable, but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a potential "game changer" for energy use. The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally friendly source of energy, Kueter said.

48

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

49 OF 82

EMISSION CAPS EMISSION CUTS ARE POLITICAL SUICIDE AND ANGER THE CAR AND COAL COMPANIES PAUL ROBERTS, ENERGY EXPERT AND WRITER FOR HARPERS,2004, THE END OF OIL, PG.127 At the time, many climate activists hailed Kyoto as a breakthrough, and its subsequent collapse has been popularly ascribed to the self-serving politics of various corporations and industrialized nations, most notably the United States. In this view, the deal unraveled after the Clinton administration suddenly realized that fulfilling its Kyoto cuts would require the White House to take on the big U.S. emitters, such as car companies and coal-fired utilities — a move that would have been political suicide for Gore’s intended 2000 election campaign. Despite Gore’s clear interest in signing a climate treaty, “in the end, it came down to raw politics’ recalls one U.S. climate policy analyst who, like many, would speak only off the record. “Clinton and especially Gore regarded climate as important, but they didn’t want to do anything that would offend car companies, the utilities, or the coal states.”

49

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

50 OF 82

*CREDIT/BLAME*

CONGRESS = CREDIT / BLAME BUSH WILL GET CREDIT OR BLAME AUGER, JAMES, RESEARCH FELLOW WITHIN THE INTERACTION DESIGN DEPARTMENT AT THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART IN LONDON, ELECTION 2008: FUEL PRICES BECOMING KEY ISSUE IN U.S. ELECTION CAMPAIGN, 6/18/2008, LEXIS Bush came to power pledging a comprehensive answer to the nation's energy problems, but he leaves office with the world in the midst of a putative energy crisis. This is clearly not all his fault-he would have increased supply long ago if Congress had let him, but critics charge that he has consistently failed to look beyond oil and make a serious drive on alternative energy and conservation. McCain is now embracing a similar short-termist approach, even if he tries to retain his green mantle at the same time. Most of Obama's goals are meanwhile laudable, but whether such policies could really make the difference he is after are open to question.

50

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

51 OF 82

BUSH = CREDIT CREDIT WILL BE GIVEN TO BUSH FOR LEADING US TO A CLEAN WORLD BUSINESS WIRE, REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 6/11/08, LEXIS Confidence should also be the watchword when it comes to energy policy. And that's the third economic decision we need to get right. By almost any goal you have in mind - whether it's lower gas prices, a stronger economy, national security, or greater energy independence - it all points in the same direction: We must produce more energy right here in the United States. With crude oil already over 130 dollars a barrel and gas at four dollars, everyone in elected office ought to explain what solutions they have in mind for bringing the cost down, or at least slowing the trend. And if they're honest about it, they'll end up talking about increasing supply. Twenty, forty, or fifty years from now, I'm pretty sure this country will have energy sources that are more diverse and environmentally sound than many of us can even imagine today. A good deal of credit will belong to President Bush for giving unprecedented support to developing alternative and renewable fuels, and the engine technology to use those fuels with high efficiency. These are tremendously promising fields. And the United States, driven by a combination of market forces, concern for the environment, and our own native ingenuity, has chosen to lead the way. POLITICAL VISIBILITY VIRTUALLY GUARANTEES THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH PLAN*** MICHAEL A. FITTS (PROF. OF LAW @ UNIV. PENNSYLVANIA) 1996 UNIV. PENN L. REV P.827 To the extent that the modern president is subject to heightened visibility about what he says and does and is led to make increasingly specific statements about who should win and who should lose on an issue, his ability to mediate conflict and control the agenda can be undermined. The modern president is supposed to have a position on such matters as affirmative action, the war in Bosnia, the baseball strike, and the newest EPA regulations, the list is infinite. Perhaps in response to these pressures, each modern president has made more speeches and taken more positions than his predecessors, with Bill Clinton giving three times as many speeches as Reagan during the same period. In such circumstances, the president is far less able to exercise agenda control, refuse to take symbolic stands, or take inconsistent positions. The well-documented tendency of the press to emphasize the strategic implications of politics exacerbates this process by turning issues into zero-sum games.

51

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

52 OF 82

BUSH = BLAME PEOPLE BLAME BUSH FOR ENERGY CRISIS PERRIELLO, TOM, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR US REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL SECURITY CONSULTANT, TEACHING FELLOW FOR YALE LAW SCHOOL, AZNEW, STRAWBERRIES AND SWEAT: SIGNS OF SUCCESS FOR TOM PERRIELLO IN VA-05, 6/9/2008, HTTP://WWW.RAISINGKAINE.COM/SHOW DIARY.DO?DIARYID=14530 By far, the issue on people's mind was gasoline prices. Virgil and Republicans have been touting ANWAR as the panacea for high gas prices. It is absurd, but it permits to the GOP to frame the issue as "you're paying $4 at the pump because Democrats don't want to hurts a few polar bears." The truth is that our current problems are the result of 7 years of mismanagement and bad policy by the Bush Administration, especially the failure to invest both intellectual and actual capital in the development of alternative energy before we were in a crisis. Not much you can honestly say to folks about bringing gas prices down short-term, and to his credit, Tom did not try to do so. Rather, he took the opportunity to talk about long-term solutions, and how new scientific discoveries would generate jobs and about the importance of leadership in addressing these issues. PRESIDENTS ARE THE FOCAL POINT OF POLITICS – FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE THEY’RE TOO DAMN SEXY TO IGNORE CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER 4/28/2002 Bruce Morton, Cnn Correspondent: Networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Blitzer: Competing for face time on the cable news networks. Stay with us. Blitzer: Welcome back. Time now for Bruce Morton's essay on the struggle for balanced coverage on the cable networks. Morton: The Democrats have written the three cable news networks -- CNN, Fox and MSNBC -- complaining that the Bush administration gets much more coverage than elected Democrats. They cite CNN, which they say, from January 1 through March 21, aired 157 live events involving the Bush administration, and 7 involving elected Democrats. Fox and MS, they say, did much the same thing. The coverage gap is certainly real, for several reasons. First, since September 11, the U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan, so the president has been an active commander in chief. And covering the war, networks will often air whatever the president says, even if he's praising the Easter Bunny. Plus, the White House press secretary's briefing, the Pentagon's, maybe the State Department's. Why not? It's easy, it's cheap, the cameras are pooled, and in war time, the briefings may make major news. You never know. But there's a reason for the coverage gap that's older than Mr. Bush's administration. In war or peace, the president is a commanding figure -- one man to whose politics and character and, nowadays, sex life, endless attention is paid. Congress is 535 people. What it does is complicated, compromises on budget items done in private, and lacks the drama of the White House. There's a primetime TV show about a president. None about the Congress. If a small newspaper has one reporter in Washington, he'll cover two things, the local congressional delegation and, on big occasions, the White House. So the complaining Democrats have a point, but it's worth remembering that coverage of a president, while always intense, isn't always positive. You could ask the Clintons. 9 Presidents will always get more coverage than Congresses. They're sexier. But it won't always be coverage they like.

52

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

53 OF 82

**LOBBIES*

COAL LOBBY KEY GOVERNMENT DECISIONS ARE HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY COAL COMPANIES WHEN IT COMES TO ALT ENERGY ERIC PIANIN, “'BIG COAL' SWAYED BUSH” WASHINGTON POST, MAY 23, 2002 HTTP://WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG/HEADLINES02/0523-05.HTM A member of a government advisory committee on coal charged last year that President Bush's decision to reverse himself on a campaign pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was a "monumental mistake" that resulted from vigorous coal industry pressure, newly disclosed documents show. Jane Hughes Turnbull, an executive of a California renewable energy concern, made the assertions in a March 16, 2001, letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham explaining her decision to resign from the National Coal Council, the advisory group. Bush had announced three days earlier that he had abandoned his campaign promise to reduce power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that many scientists say is to blame for global warming. "The recent reversal in policy is profoundly short-sighted, an obvious and expedient response to industry -- I should say to misperceived industry interests," Turnbull said in her letter. Turnbull, a Clinton administration appointee, said it had become evident by the time of the 2000 presidential election that the coal industry's leadership "was intent on bolstering the economic well-being of the industry, if need be at the expense of the environment," rather than seeking a more balanced approach using both coal and cleaner, renewable energy sources. The letter was among 1,500 pages of documents related to Vice President Cheney's energy task force that were released this week in the latest response to a lawsuit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The documents also include a March 28, 2001, letter from former House member Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) praising the administration for its handling of the carbon dioxide issue. His letter credited the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market policy think tank with financial backing from industry, for providing Bush with the "intellectual support and political cover to 'do the right thing' " on carbon dioxide emissions. Kemp was an institute fellow at the time. NRDC officials yesterday cited the two letters to Abraham as added evidence that industry officials played a key role in the president's decision to revise his plans on carbon dioxide emissions and Cheney's development of a national energy policy. "The coal industry and an industry front group appear to be dictating our nation's energy future," said NRDC senior attorney Sharon Buccino. Jeanne Lopatto, the Energy Department's chief spokeswoman, dismissed Buccino's assertions as "recycled" criticisms lacking in substance. "If you look at the administration's national energy policy, the business groups had very little success in shaping" the final proposals, Lopatto said. "Eighty percent of the Nuclear Energy Institute's recommendations were rejected, 90 percent of the National Mining Association's recommendations were rejected, and 70 percent of the American Gas Association's recommendations were rejected."

53

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

54 OF 82

OIL LOBBY KEY THE OIL LOBBY IS THE MOST POWERFUL IN WASHINGTON PAUL ROBERTS, ENERGY EXPERT AND WRITER FOR HARPERS,2004, THE END OF OIL, PG. 286 This influence has several sources. World energy production, especially in oil and gas, is controlled by a relatively small number of oil states and companies. The top six oil producers in the world — Saudi Aramco, the National Iranian Oil Company, Mexico’s PEMEX, Venezuela’s PdVSA, ExxonMobil, and Shell — together control nearly one of every three barrels of oil consumed on the planet. This concentration of wealth and power means that, when confronted by unfavorable laws, a competing energy technology, or even a threatening idea (climate change, for example), producers collectively bring to bear enormous financial, political, and even diplomatic resources to defend themselves. Such collectivism is most evident in the oil sector. Shell and ExxonMobil, for example, may compete brutally for market share, but they have in common concerns about climate policy or energy regulations that could affect oil consumption, and they have, in times past, pooled their considerable lobbying power to delay or defeat those policies. As one economist who advises the U.S. Energy Department put it, “a few CEOs represent most of the non-OPEC production, which means that oil can make its voice be heard in Washington or anywhere else much more easily than, say, conservation, or any of the new energy technologies, or even natural gas?’

54

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

55 OF 82

ENERGY LOBBY KEY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MAKE THE ENERGY LOBBY EXTREMELY STRONG PAUL ROBERTS, ENERGY EXPERT AND WRITER FOR HARPERS,2004, THE END OF OIL, PG. 294 In theory, American energy policy harnesses the forces of a largely free energy market to ensure sufficient long-term energy supplies in a manner compatible with the nation’s other social and environmental goals. In practice, American energy policy is incoherent and fragmented, without anything resembling a long-term strategy. In writing energy legislation, American lawmakers tend to be parochial, as interested in rewarding, or punishing, various states, regions, or industries, as in advancing some overarching national energy strategy. The resulting energy laws are frequently wish lists aimed at protecting regional interests, such as those of oil producers in Texa s or Alaska or coal-mining companies in the East and in Wyoming or the big utilities in the Midwest and South, or ethanol producers in the Corn Belt, or the political interests of a particular lawmaker or committee chairperson. If there are any unifying themes in American energy policy, they are the steady move away from the heavy regulation of the twentieth century and a steady movement toward greater supply. These have had the mostly beneficial impact of keeping energy prices lower than in more regulated economies, such as Europe’s, but have also fostered an environment that gives the energy industry great influence over energy laws and policies. For example, U.S. lawmakers and presidents have historically favored policies that promote production of conventional energy sources — not just because vibrant industrial economies always need energy, but because energy producers make large campaign contributions. Since 1990, the oil and gas industry has given more than $159 million to American politicians; of that, 73 percent has gone to Republican candidates, who, not surprisingly, tend most often to side with the industry. In the 2000 election cycle alone, oil and gas companies gave $34 million, more than three-quarters of which went to Republicans.’2 By contrast, there is no industry built around using less energy, and thus few campaign contributions flow from backers of efficiency. And while the United States has a renewables industry, it is nowhere near as large as Europe’s, and hardly in a position yet to play the political-contributions game. FOSSIL FUEL IS A STRONG LOBBY – EMPIRICS PROVE ROSS GELBSPAN, EDITOR AND REPORTER AT THE BOSTON GLOBE AND THE WASHINGTON POST AND PROFESSOR AT THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM , THE HEAT IS ON, 1997, P. 102 Even as they oppose a United Nations—coordinated response to the climate crisis, the GCC and other oil and coal industry activists appear to have developed their own new world order. For them, the global environment is merely a subset of the economy, and whatever nature sees fit to do will have to wait until it is subjected to a cost-benefit it analysis to determine whether it will impose too harsh an economic burden on the U.S. economy. And the fossil fuel lobbies are actively promoting this world-view. In July 1996 the U.S. delegation—which had hitherto refused to commit :0 binding emissions limits—changed its position and announced it would support the imposition of mandatory reductions in coal and oil emissions. The oil lobby proceeded to mobilize -senators an L congressmen from both parties—virtually all of whom represent oil- or coalproducing states or states with automobile manufacturers, trucking interests, and other industries which would be affected by a cap on fossil fuel burning. They warned the Clinton administration not to commit the United States to any mandatory limits without first spelling out for the public the negative economic impacts of such a move. “We do not believe the United States should enter into treaty commitments it cannot keep,” said a letter to Clinton signed by Democratic Senators Bennett Johnston and John Breaux of Louisiana, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Wendell Ford of Kentucky Howell Heflin of Alabama, and Byron Dorgon of North Dakota.

55

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

56 OF 82

GREEN GOP KEY SUPPORT OF GREEN ELEPHANTS IS KEY TO BUSH’S AGENDA THE AUTHOR JOHN MCCAUGHEY EDITS AND PUBLISHES ENERGY PERSPECTIVE, A WASHINGTON-BASED, FORTNIGHTLY PUBLICATION THAT FEATURES IN-DEPTH COVERAGE OF MAJOR ENERGY TOPICS, WORLD OIL 2/1/2003 Fuller sees three groups managing the House, each capable of producing legislation. They include CATs, Blue Dogs and Green Republicans. Ah, some translation is required. CATs are Conservative Action Team members, better known as the most conservative Republican representatives. Much of their attention is focused on limiting spending. "Blue Dogs" are conservative Democrats who support fiscal restraint. Several of them opposed the last energy bill. "Green Republicans" are moderates that are particularly active on environmental issues. Nevertheless, their support is vital to the Republican leadership on key votes.

56

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

57 OF 82

A2: BUSINESS/OIL LOBBY THEIR LOBBIES LINKS ARE A LIE – THE BUSINESS LOBBY – AND EVEN SOME OIL COMPANIES – SUPPORT WARMING LEGISLATION ROSS GELBSPAN, EDITOR AND REPORTER AT THE BOSTON GLOBE AND THE WASHINGTON POST AND PROFESSOR AT THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM , THE HEAT IS ON, 1997, P. 85 The fossil fuel lobby “wants you to believe that the science is divided, while business is united. In fact, the reverse is true,” said Michael Marvin, director of one industry group, the Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future. This group is seeking to jump-start the alternative energy business into an enterprise of worldwide scope, sparked by the climate threat. “There is no one in the business community—except for the oil and coal companies—who does not believe in the validity of the science and the reality of the climate threat,” added an executive from the insurance industry, whose profitability is dramatically jeopardized by extreme weather events. As these objections gather momentum, the oil and coal industries are becoming increasingly isolated from the larger business community. Even within the fossil fuel industry, some elements have separated themselves from the disinformation campaigns financed by coal and oil interests. In a private meeting in Houston, executives of a branch of Royal Dutch/Shell decided that the company would not participate in the propaganda campaigns of Western Fuels and other industry giants because, in the words of one insider, “we didn’t want to fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have become trapped in all their lies.”

57

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

58 OF 82

*INTERNALS*

POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO SPEED PRESIDENTS ALWAYS CLAIM INCREASED POLITICAL CAPITAL.

VICTORY,

ANYWAYS,

ENSURING

THEMSELVES

DANA MILBANK 7/22/2003 “NO LEMONS: IT'S ALL LEMONADE IN BUSH'S WHITE HOUSE,” WASHINGTON POST What Bush and his advisers realize is that claiming victory is self-fulfilling. During the campaign, Bush talked freely about winning, and the sense of inevitability his campaign created was key to its success, particularly in the primaries. At the same time, Bush has a history of taking the best deal he can get from a legislature -- in Texas or in Congress -- and declaring victory. He and his advisers know that few Americans will notice or care that he didn't get quite what he wanted. When Americans get their tax rebate checks in the coming months, how many of them will care that the tax cut Bush won was $ 1.3 trillion instead of the $ 1.6 trillion he proposed? If Congress passes a version of Bush's religious-charity legislation, how many Americans will know or care that there was a major dispute over 42 U.S.C. 1994 Sec. 1994A.(d) (1) in H.R. 7? Looking on the bright side, of course, is Politics 101. "You're always in a better position when you're arguing about the size of your victory," says GOP strategist Mike Murphy. But Murphy argues that Bush has an additional reason for the claim-victory approach: his narrow win in the 2000 election, in which he lost the popular vote and ended up with a closely split Congress. "Each victory helps you amalgamate political power," says Murphy, who earlier this year wrote an article on the subject in the Weekly Standard titled "Compromise First, Then Crush Them." "The first two years he should build popularity and political power by piling up victories and 'getting things done,' " Murphy wrote. "He can then amass great credit and apply the power that popularity will bring to hold Congress, win reelection, gain more power, and dictate policies more to his liking." LOOKING LIKE A LOSER REMOVES A PRESIDENT’S ABILITY TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION. NORMAN ORNSTEIN (RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE) 5/27/1993 “CLINTON CAN STILL EMERGE A WINNER,” ROLL CALL If a president develops a reputation for being weak or for being a loser -somebody who says., "Do this!" and nothing happens, who is ignored or spurned by other interests in the political process he will suffer death by a thousand cuts. Lawmakers will delay jumping on his bandwagon, holding off as long as possible until they see which side will win. Stories about incompetence, arrogance, or failure will be reported always, and given prominence, because they prove the point.

58

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

59 OF 82

POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO INDIA DEAL POLITICAL CAPITAL IS KEY TO THE DEAL LK SHARMA JULY 20, 2005 "WELCOMING INDIA AS A NUKE NATION, BUSH ASSURED 'FULL CIVIL NUCLEAR ENERGY COOPERATION" DECCAN HERALD; WWW.DECCANHERALD.COM/DECCANHERALD/JUL202005/INDEX2157532005719.ASP The Indo-US diplomacy achieved criticality with the Bush administration making a strategic choice in favour of a nuclear India. The US promised to free India's nuclear power programme and high technology sectors from restrictive regimes in exchange for certain assurances from India. The bold initiative taken by President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh crowned the success of the summit that may transform the nature of the Indo-US relationship. However, as all things nuclear, the reversal of the US policy shocked the non-proliferation ayatollahs in the Democrat and Republican camps and the think tanks in anti-nuclear organizations. Mr. Bush will have to invest considerable political capital if he has to keep his promise of modifying domestic laws and international understanding to accommodate the nuclear India in the order established by the nuclear haves. Similarly, some in India may suspect that the prime minister has made too many concessions to strike the deal with the US BUSH NEED POLITICAL CAPITAL TO MUSCLE INDIA DEAL OUTLOOK INDIA 2005 "INDIA-US TIES SCALE NEW HEIGHTS IN 2005", DECEMBER, SRIDHAR KRISHNASWAMI WASHINGTON, DEC 23 (PTI) There are real questions if this Bush White House has enough political muscle to get the "deal" through Congress given not only its troubles on Capitol Hill on non-India related issues but also if it has strength to take on those who are adamanatly opposed to this who have the power of persuading key Congressional leaders.

59

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

60 OF 82

AGENCIES EXECUTIVE AGENCY DECISIONS ARE ALWAYS CONNECTED TO THE PRESIDENT. JEFFREY E. COHEN AND KEN COLLIER (PROFESSORS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT FORDHAM AND KANSAS) 1999 PRESIDENTIAL POLICYMAKING: AN END OF CENTURY ASSESSMENT, P. 42 In his study of the agenda-setting process, Kingdon finds that respondents cite the president and his administration as perhaps the most important actor with agenda influence. As Kingdon states, "there is little doubt that the president remains a powerful force in agenda setting, particularly compared to other actors." Moreover, the views of department heads and others associated with the administration are usually thought of as the president's or as having the president's stamp of approval. When they speak, it is for the administration and the president. Thus, the president has many "voices". AGENCY DECISIONS DO NOT PROVIDE POLITICAL COVER FOR THE PRESIDENT DAVID E. LEWIS (PROF. POLITICS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS @ PRINCETON) 2003 PRESIDENTS AND THE POLITICS OF AGENCY DESIGN, P. 4 Agency design determines bureaucratic responsiveness to democratic impulses and pressure, particularly those channeled through elected officials like the president. It can determine the success or failure of modern presidents in meeting constitutional and electoral mandates. One of the central concerns of presidency scholars beginning with Richard Neustadt (1960) has been increasing public expectations of presidents (Lowi 1985; Skowronek 1993). The president is held accountable for the success or failure of the entire government. When the economy is in recession, when an agency blunders, or when some social problem goes unaddressed, it is the president whose reelection and historical legacy are on the line. THE PRESIDENT IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL AGENCY DECISIONS, EVEN THOSE THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. PETER M. SHANE (DEAN AND PROF. LAW @ UNIV. PITTSBURGH) 1995 POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY IN A SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES: THE CASE OF PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW OF RULEMAKING, ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW The reason for the insignificance of the transparency argument is that, even without plenary power to second-guess all bureaucratic policy makers, the President may well be held generally and properly accountable for overall bureaucratic performance in any event. That is because voters know the President has appointed all key policy makers and the most important managers of executive affairs. The President's value structure is likely to dominate the bureaucracy even if he is not formally able to command all important policy decisions. Professor Abner Greene has recently catalogued a series of reasons why this is so: OMB reviews virtually all agency budgets; the Attorney General controls most agency litigation; the President's support may be critical to an agency in its negotiations with Congress. For these reasons, Presidents do not inevitably have less influence over "independent" agencies than they do over "purely executive" establishments.

60

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

61 OF 82

PUBLIC KEY AGENDA PUBLIC SUPPORT IS A CRITICAL RESOURCE FOR THE PRESIDENT – CREATING AND MAINTAINING POPULARITY IS KEY TO AGENDA SUCCESS GEORGE C. EDWARDS III (DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND JORDAN CHAIR IN THE BUSH SCHOOL @ TX A&M UNIV.) 2005 THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY: APPRAISALS AND PROSPECTS P. 16-17 RELATIONS with the public lie at the core of the modern presidency. Both politics and policy revolve around presidents' attempts to garner public support, both for themselves and for their policies. Three THE PRESIDENT'S

fundamental and widely shared premises about the relationship between public opinion and presidential leadership underlie this mode of governance. The first is that public support is a crucial political resource for the president, that it is difficult for

others who hold power to deny the legitimate demands of a president with popular support. A president who lacks the public's support is likely to face frustration and perhaps humiliation at the hands of his opponents. As Bill Clinton exclaimed after he was acquitted in his impeachment trial, "Thank god for public opinion." The second premise supporting the White House's intense focus on public opinion is the view that the president not only must earn public support with his performance in office but also must actively take his case to the people. Moreover, he must do it not only

at reelection time but all the time. As Clinton adviser Dick Morris put it: Once upon a time, elections settled things for the term of office. Now, they are mere punctuation marks in an ongoing search for public support and a functioning majority. Each day is election day in

modern America.. . . A politician needs a permanent campaign to keep a permanent majority .2 The third (and least analyzed) premise sustaining the public presidency is that through the permanent campaign the White House can successfully persuade or even mobilize the public. Commentators on the presidency in both the press and the academy often assume that the White House can move public opinion if the president has the skill and will to effectively exploit the "bully pulpit." As a result, modern presidents choose to engage in a permanent campaign for the public's support as their core strategy for governing.

61

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

62 OF 82

PUBLIC NOT KEY AGENDA PUBLIC SUPPORT DOES NOT CARRY ACROSS ISSUES AND CONGRESS WILL NEVER ABANDON THEIR CONSTITUENTS FOR EVEN THE MOST POPULAR OF PRESIDENTS – POST SEPTEMBER 11TH BUSH PROVES. GEORGE C. EDWARDS III (DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND JORDAN CHAIR IN THE BUSH SCHOOL @ TX A&M UNIV) 2005 THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY: APPRAISALS AND PROSPECTS P. 40-42 One of the perennial questions about presidential-congressional relations is the impact of the president's public approval on the support he receives in Congress. Did George W. Bush's extraordinarily high approval ratings following the terrorist attacks

provide him significant political resources in his attempts to obtain congressional support for his policies? Did the patriotic response to the attacks help him to mobilize the public on behalf of his programs? Bush certainly seemed aware of the potential advantages of public support-as well as its ephemeral nature. As the president put it, "It is important to move as quickly as you can in order to spend whatever capital you have as quickly as

Where the public supported his policies-on fighting the war on terrorism abroad, on investigating and president ultimately won most of what he sought. Even on security issues, however, the going was not always easy. He lost on the issue of privatizing airport security workers, although Congress considered the bill in the immediate aftermath of the September iith attacks. Bush also faced a protracted battle over the new Department of Homeland Security, when his proposal for additional flexibility in personnel policy in the department infuriated labor unions, a core Democratic constituency. Passing legislation was even more difficult on the divisive domestic issues that remained on Congress's agenda, including health care, environmental protection, energy, the economy, government support for faith-based social programs, corporate malfeasance, judicial nominees, and taxes. The politics of the war on terrorism did not fundamentally alter the consideration of these issues, which continued to divide the public and their representatives in Congress as they had before. The inevitable differences between the parties emerged predictably, exacerbated by the narrow majorities in each chamber and the jockeying for advantage in the midterm elections. Bipartisanship in one arena (the war on terrorism) does not necessarily carry over into another. As the parties in Congress have become more homogeneous over time and as the number of competitive seats possible. "°~

prosecuting terrorism at home, and in reorganizing the government to enhance domestic security -the

has shrunk, especially in the House, the differences between the parties have increased. The opposition party does not offer very fertile ground for presidents on most issues-even during wartime. Thus, President Bush failed to obtain many of his top-priority items in 2002, including making the zooi tax cuts permanent and passing his fiscal stimulus program, providing government funding for a robust faith-based programs initiative, and obtaining drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. No progress was made on partially privatizing Social Security, banning human cloning and certain kinds of abortion, or passing private-school tax credits, and the president experienced plenty of frustration on obtaining confirmation of his judicial appointees. He also had to sign a farm bill that was much more costly than he wanted. In December 2001 the president concluded quiet negotiations with the Dem- ocrats led by Senator Edward Kennedy and signed a bill on education reform. He was thus able

-priority issues, even though he had given up many of the most controversial elements of his original proposal. It is significant that to accomplish even this much, the president chose to negotiate in private rather than to go public. In 2003, following the historic results of the 2002 midterm elections, many observers predicted that the president would be more successful in Congress. Such predictions were illusory, however. With Bush focused mostly on the war in Iraq, a small but crucial number of Republican moderates in the Senate broke ranks and dealt significant blows to several of his highestprofile policies, reducing by more than half the president's $726 billion tax cut proposal and defeating his plan for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Democrats were no easier to deal with, forcing the to claim victory on one of his top

president to accept a faith-based plan stripped of its essential features and to put on hold his proposals for providing a prescription drug program for seniors and for capping medical malpractice lawsuit damages. The opposition also continued to oppose

effectively his nominations to appellate courts. The modest impact of Bush's high approval ratings is not surprising. The president's public support must compete for influence with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress, including members' ideology, party, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and constituency interests. Although constituency interests may seem to overlap with presidential approval, they should he viewed as distinct forces. It is quite possible for constituents to approve of the president but oppose him on particular policies, and it is opinions on these policies that will ring most loudly in congressional ears. Members of Congress are unlikely to vote against the clear interests of their constituents or the firm tenets of their ideology solely in deference to a widely supported chief executive.57 It is interesting that at the beginning of his term, Bush's travels seemed motivated more by demonstrating his support in states where he ran well in the election than in convincing more skeptical voters of the soundness of his proposals. He did not travel to California until May 29 and visited New York even later. Instead, the White House gave priority to states that Bush had won and that were represented by Democratic senators, including Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, North and South Dakota, Montana, and North Carolina. The goal of these trips seemed to be to demonstrate preexisting public support in the constituencies of members of

. Whatever the president's motivations, he obtained the support of only one Senate Democrat-Zell Miller of Georgia, who had announced his support for the tax cut before Bush was inaugurated-in the 4 April bellwether vote on his full tax cut. Congress who were potential swing votes

62

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

63 OF 82

BIPART KEY AGENDA PRESIDENTS MUST ACQUIRE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT TO CREATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGE*** GEORGE C. EDWARDS III (DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND JORDAN CHAIR IN THE BUSH SCHOOL @ TX A&M UNIV) 1997 PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP P. 321 Despite the advantage that presidents have in dealing with members of their party in Congress, they are often forced to solicit bipartisan support. There are several reasons for this. First, the opposition party may control one or both houses of Congress. Thus even if all members of the president's party supported the administration on its key initiatives, that would not be sufficient. Between 1953 and 1992, Republican presidents faced a Democratic House of Representatives for twenty-six years and a Democratic Senate for twenty years. President Clinton has faced a Republican House and Senate since 1995. A second reason for bipartisanship is that presidents cannot depend on all the members of their party to support them on all issues. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 showed clearly that members of the president's own party frequently oppose the president. As Jimmy Carter wrote, "I learned the hard way that there was no party loyalty or discipline when a complicated or controversial issue was at stake-none." Southern Democrats support Democratic presidents less consistently than do Northern Democrats. Not only do partisan strategies often fail, but they also may provoke the other party into a more unified posture of opposition. Where there is confrontation, there can be no consensus, and consensus is often required to, legislate changes on important issues. Presidents are also inhibited in their partisanship by pressures to be "president of all the people" rather than a highly partisan figure. This role expectation of being somewhat above the political fray undoubtedly constrains presidents in their roles as party leaders.

63

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

64 OF 82

BIPART NOT KEY AGENDA BIPARTISANSHIP DOESN’T SPILLOVER INTO OTHER ISSUES. GEORGE C. EDWARDS III (DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND JORDAN CHAIR IN THE BUSH SCHOOL @ TX A&M UNIV.) 2005 THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY: APPRAISALS AND PROSPECTS P. 40-42 Bipartisanship in one arena (the war on terrorism) does not necessarily carry over into another. As the parties in Congress have become more homogeneous over time and as the number of competitive seats has shrunk, especially in the House, the differences between the parties have increased. The opposition party does not offer very fertile ground for presidents on most issues-even during wartime. Thus, President Bush failed to obtain many of his top-priority items in 2002, including making the zooi tax cuts permanent and passing his fiscal stimulus program, providing government funding for a robust faith-based programs initiative, and obtaining drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. No progress was made on partially privatizing Social Security, banning human cloning and certain kinds of abortion, or passing private-school tax credits, and the president experienced plenty of frustration on obtaining confirmation of his judicial appointees. He also had to sign a farm bill that was

64

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

65 OF 82

OLIVE BRANCH KEY AGENDA COALITION-BUILDING IS NECESSARY FOR BUSH AGENDA SUCCESS. LAWRENCE R. JACOBS (POLITICAL SCIENCE PROF @ UMN) 11/7/2004 “BUSH EFFORT TO MOBILIZE HIS BASE DEEPENED DIVISIONS,” HTTP://WWW.STARTRIBUNE.COM/STORIES/1519/5071431.HTML The divisions in the country are deep. The president's base strategy unified Democrats, who often bolt their party to support Republican presidential candidates; nearly nine out of 10 supported Kerry. Even more striking, the Bush campaign did not win over independents who usually "swing" elections. Kerry received a narrow onepoint edge among independents nationally and double-digit leads in key battleground states like Florida and Ohio as well as in many blue states. The polarization fueled by the campaign generated significant public suspicion regarding the president's conduct of the war in Iraq and even his landmark reforms of Medicare and education. With the Democratic and Republican parties polarized and the country divided into nearly equal halves, Bush will now be turning to the business of governing and building supportive coalitions in Congress for a momentous agenda.

65

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

66 OF 82

OLIVE BRANCH NOT KEY AGENDA OPPOSITION WON’T ACCEPT OLIVE BRANCHES BECAUSE IT’S POLITICAL KAMIKAZE. BARBARA SINCLAIR (MARVIN HOFFENBERG PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN POLITICS @ UCLA) 2005 THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENCY: APPRAISALS AND PROSPECTS P. 107 Members of the other party, in contrast, are likely to see a strong, successful president as a threat to their future goal advancement. They are less likely to share his policy preferences, so an increase in his legislative effectiveness may threaten their policy goals. Their electoral goals are diametrically opposed to his; the president wants his party to hold the White House and increase its congressional representation. To the extent that the president's legislative success advances his party's electoral success, contributing to that success is costly for members of the other party.

66

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

67 OF 82

***IMPACT***

BAD – PROLIFERATION MODULE A. INDIA DEAL CAUSES MASSIVE PROLIF-10 NATIONS NUCLEARIZE NEW YORK TIMES 7/19/05 But several nuclear weapons experts said in interviews Monday that the main effect of the India accord would be less on Iran, North Korea or even Pakistan - which has admitted to sharing its weapons technology with others - than on the many states that have signed up to the bargain implied by the concept of "atoms for peace." Among the countries that are widely known or thought to be able to produce nuclear weapons, but which have not done so because of their desire to comply with the terms of the nonproliferation treaty, are Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The fear is that these countries, seeing the deal offered India, might be tempted to get nuclear arms, especially if the crises over North Korea and Iran spin out of control. "If you open the door for India, a lot of other countries are likely to step through it," said Leonard S. Spector, deputy director of the Monterey Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "China is already thinking of selling additional reactors to Pakistan."

B. WILDFIRE PROLIF WILL TRIGGER PREEMPTIVE NUCLEAR WARS AROUND THE PLANET UTGOFF 02, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY, FORCES, AND RESOURCES DIVISION OF INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS [VICTOR A., “PROLIFERATION, MISSILE DEFENCE AND AMERICAN AMBITIONS,” SURVIVAL, SUMMER, P. 87-90] Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either the United States or the Soviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, the US has retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has extended its protection to some of the previous allies of the Soviet Union and plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of

if strong protectors, especially the United States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional states would begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets, and these initiatives would spur establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world

increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dangerous. Meanwhile, more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will

the transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear disappear. Once that happens,

proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that

, the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First

nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second, as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons failing into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.’ These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states ‘known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional conflict. China and Russia fought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely states without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examples Egypt attacked Israel in 1973 even though it saw Israel as a nuclear power at the time. Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and fought Britain’s efforts to take them back, even though Britain had nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a ‘victory or destruction’’ policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat. And Japan’s war minister, during debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested ‘Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?” If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nuclear-armed nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states. Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not recognize clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens. Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war. ‘These people are not willing to die for this interest’. ‘No sane person would actually use such weapons’. ‘Perhaps the opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use nuclear weapons’. ‘If I don’t hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed’. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently from within, might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened yet. But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.’ Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from

. Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other

Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional

shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped , we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while

67

SDI 2008-2009 SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

INDIA DEAL BAD 68 OF 82

we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

68

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

69 OF 82

BAD – EXTENSION – PROLIF COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE MOST QUALIFIED SOURCE- DAMAGE TO NON PROLIF REGIME OUTWEIGH BENEFITS ROBERT J. EINHORN IS A SENIOR ADVISER IN THE CSIS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, WHERE HE WORKS ON A BROAD RANGE OF NONPROLIFERATION, ARMS CONTROL, AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. BEFORE COMING TO CSIS, HE SERVED IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 29 YEARS. FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO AUGUST 2001, HE WAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NONPROLIFERATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, MISSILE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, AND ADVANCED CONVENTIONAL ARMS NATIONAL INTEREST WINTER 06

Administration officials have claimed that by aligning India more closely with the policies and practices of the international non-proliferation regime, the deal achieves a net gain for nonproliferation. Several of the steps pledged by India are simply reaffirmations of existing positions-for example, continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, strengthening export controls and supporting negotiations on a multilateral fissile-material cutoff treaty. Some other steps are indeed new and useful. Among these are the commitments to place civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and to refrain from transferring enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not already possess them. Still, the non-proliferation gains of the deal are meager compared to the major damage to nonproliferation goals that will result if the deal goes forward as it currently stands. NUCLEAR DEAL SHATTERS OUR PROLIF CRED CAUSING ALLIED AND ROGUE ACQUISITION ROBERT J. EINHORN IS A SENIOR ADVISER IN THE CSIS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, WHERE HE WORKS ON A BROAD RANGE OF NONPROLIFERATION, ARMS CONTROL, AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. BEFORE COMING TO CSIS, HE SERVED IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 29 YEARS. FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO AUGUST 2001, HE WAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NONPROLIFERATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, MISSILE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, AND ADVANCED CONVENTIONAL ARMS NATIONAL INTEREST WINTER 06

By seeking an exception to the rules to accommodate America's new friendship with India, the deal reinforces the impression that the U.S. approach to non-proliferation has become selective and self-serving, not consistent and principled. Rules the United States initiated and championed would be perceived as less binding and more optional. Countries with good relations with Washington may conclude that the United States will tolerate and eventually accommodate a decision to acquire nuclear weapons, while China and Russia may feel less inhibited about engaging in nuclear cooperation with "special friends" of their own that the United States might find risky and objectionable.

69

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

70 OF 82

BAD – NUCLEAR TERRORISM MODULE A. INDIA NUKE DEAL CAUSES NUCLEAR TERRORISM ROBICHAUD AND ANDREWS 06, PROGRAM OFFICER AND RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION (CARL, BRIAN, “UNILATERAL CONCESSIONS”, MOTHER JONES, 3/10) In practical terms, it will most likely lead to a world with more nuclear weapons and materials in India and Pakistan, where they are particularly vulnerable to theft or diversion by terrorists. The deal, announced last Thursday (reportedly without consultations with Congress or review by nuclear experts in the Departments of State, Defense, or Energy) would provide India with substantial, and most likely permanent, nuclear assistance. Before going into effect it will require changes in United States law and in rules governing the Nuclear Supplier’s Group. The agreement would violate long-standing international law prohibiting assistance to another nation’s nuclear weapon program. The deal is ostensibly for “civilian nuclear cooperation” but explicitly opens a loophole for India to place some of its reactors, including prototype “fast breeder reactors” capable of producing large amounts of weapons-grade material, outside of international oversight. The net result is that India can use the new “civilian” nuclear assistance from the United States to free up its scarce uranium reserves for its military program. The Carnegie Endowment’s Joseph

India ’s production capacity would rise from around eight nuclear bombs per year to several dozen. The United States cannot cut deals with India without repercussions. Any change in the size and posture of India’s nuclear arsenal will force Pakistan to reassess its own nuclear force. China has reportedly started discussions with Pakistan over open nuclear assistance, a practice that U.S. diplomatic pressure helped halt a decade ago. And Russia may well contemplate a similar deal with Iran. Even if the deal had no military implications it would not be without risks . While the deal offers monitoring of civilian nuclear sites, these mechanisms are hardly watertight. A. Q. Khan’s black market network showed how civilian controls could be undermined by careless and unscrupulous middlemen. Significantly, he garnered materials and know-how from Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, countries with strong rule of law and anti-corruption statutes. If illicit diversion could occur in Germany, it could most certainly occur in India. More widespread use of nuclear power—especially with spotty inspections—makes diversion more likely. The best defense against nuclear terrorism is to ensure that existing weapons-usable material (especially in the former Soviet Union, but also in India and Pakistan) is secure and that no new material is being produced. The package does nothing to address the former and actively undermines the latter. Cirincione estimates that

B. NUCLEAR TERRORISM WILL TRIGGER A GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR BERES 87, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW AT PURDUE UNIVERSITY [LOUIS RENÉ, TERRORISM AND GLOBAL SECURITY: THE NUCLEAR THREAT, P. 42-43] Nuclear terrorism could even spark full-scale war between states. Such war could involve the entire spectrum of nuclear-conflict possibilities, ranging from a nuclear attack upon a non-nuclear state to systemwide nuclear war. How might such far-reaching consequences of nuclear terrorism come about? Perhaps the most likely way would involve a terrorist nuclear assault against a state by terrorists hosted in another state. For example, consider the following scenario: Early in the 1990s, Israel and its Arab-state neighbors finally stand ready to conclude a comprehensive, multilateral peace settlement. With a bilateral treaty between Israel and Egypt already many years old, only the interests of the Palestinians—as defined by the PLO—seem to have been left out. On the eve of the proposed signing of the peace agreement, half a dozen crude nuclear explosives in the one-kiloton range detonate in as many Israeli cities. Public grief in Israel over the many thousands dead ands maimed is matched only by the outcry for revenge. In response to the public mood, the government of Israel initiates selected strikes against terrorist strongholds in Lebanon, whereupon Lebanese Shiite forces and Syria retaliate against Israel. Before long, the entire region is ablaze, conflict has escalated to nuclear forms, and all countries in the area have suffered unprecedented destruction. Of course, such a scenario is fraught with the makings of even wider destruction. How would the United States react to the situation in the Middle East? What would be

a chain reaction of interstate nuclear conflict could ensure, one that would ultimately involve the superpowers or even every nuclear-weapons state on the planet. What, exactly, would this mean? Whether the terms of assessment be statistical or human, the consequences of nuclear war require an entirely new paradigm of death. Only such a paradigm would allow us a proper framework for absorbing the vision of near-total obliteration and the outer limits of human destructiveness. Any nuclear war would have effectively permanent and irreversible consequences. Whatever the actual extent of injuries and fatalities, such a war would entomb the spirit of the entire species in a planetary casket strewn with shorn bodies and imbecile imaginations. the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that

70

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

71 OF 82

BAD – FREE TRADE MODULE A. INDIA DEAL KILLS FREE TRADE MORICI 06, PROFESSOR OF BUSINESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND (PETER, “CONGRESS SHOULD SCUTTLE BUSH'S NUCLEAR DEAL WITH INDIA” ESR, 3/6/06) On trade, President Bush brought back little new from India beyond the opportunity to sell civilian nuclear reactors. Generally, India will continue to import those goods and technologies it cannot make or develop for itself and protect the rest of its industries, even when the United States, Europe and Japan offer better products more cheaply. India's rhetoric and posture in the Doha Round of global trade talks have made that abundantly clear. U.S. trade with India is not large, and the U.S. bilateral trade deficit with India, at $11 billion, is dwarfed by the $202 billion gap with China. Yet, the United States does not need to create another China in India by powering its industry with nuclear technology and further opening the U.S. market to its products. Those can wait until India is ready to get serious about exposing its businesses to global competition. If India, like China, starts racking up large trade surpluses, U.S. protectionists will have the opening they seek, and that could cook for good the U.S. commitment to free trade. B. FREE TRADE IS KEY TO AVERT NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION COPLEY NEWS SERVICE 99 [DEC 1, LN] For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or antiVietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.

71

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

72 OF 82

BAD – INDO/PAK MODULE A. INDIA DEAL CRUSHES INDO/PAK RELATIONS PAN 06, STAFF WRITER- COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (ESTHER, “THE US-INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL”, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS BACKROUND Q AND A, 2/24/06 What effect will the deal have on U.S. and Indian relations with Pakistan? Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, who has suffered fierce criticism at home—and survived two assassination attempts—or his strong alliance with the United States since 9/11, has not received a similar deal on nuclear energy from Washington. Some experts say this apparent U.S. favoritism toward India could increase the nuclear rivalry between the intensely competitive nations, and potentially raise tensions in the already dangerous region. "My impression is that [the Pakistanis] are worried this will feed the Indian nuclear weapons program and therefore weaken deterrence," Blackwill said. Other experts say the two countries, both admittedly now nuclear, could be forced to deal more cautiously with each other. Pakistan is already a proliferation risk: Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's illicit nuclear network, revealed in 2004, shocked the world with its brazen trade of nuclear technology. Some experts worry the U.S.-India deal could prompt Pakistan to go elsewhere for similar terms. B. INDO/ PAK WAR GOES NUCLEAR AND CAUSES EXTINCTION FAI 01, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON-BASED KASHMIRI AMERICAN COUNCIL (DR.GHULAM, “INDIA PAKISTAN SUMMIT AND THE ISSUE OF KASHMIR”, JULY 8TH, 2001. WASHINGTON TIMES. The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The Director of Central Intelligence, the Department of Defense, and world experts generally place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles. Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.

72

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

73 OF 82

BAD – AT – US/INDO RELATIONS 1. DEAL NOT KEY TO RELATIONS KRETON 05, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER AND DIRECTOR OF ITS SOUTH ASIA PROJECT (MICHAEL, “IS THE U.S. - INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT GOOD OR BAD FOR PROLIFERATION?”, STIMSON CENTER PUBLICATIONS) One question worth asking is whether the Bush administration believes that relaxing the rules of nuclear commerce is essential to improve Indo-U.S. relations. There is bipartisan support to improve ties, which began in a serious way at the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and has picked up considerable speed during the Bush administration. President Bush has greatly increased military cooperation with New Delhi, including the offer of advanced combat aircraft and their co-production in India. The United States has long been ready to increase trade and investment in India. The Bush administration has also relaxed restrictions on space cooperation, and is working more closely than ever with New Delhi on regional security problems. In other words, significantly improved ties are being forged without having to relax existing rules to prevent proliferation. So why has the administration proposed to weaken these rules? Does it honestly believe that foreign nuclear suppliers will agree only to make an exception for India, and not for other nations? At a time when Washington is pushing hard to toughen requirements for nuclear commerce to states that have pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons or appear to be seeking them, does it make sense to relax requirements on states that have nuclear weapons?

2. STRONG RELATIONS DON’T EQUAL POLICY SUCCESS OR ALLIANCE COOPERATION KRETON 05, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER AND DIRECTOR OF ITS SOUTH ASIA PROJECT (MICHAEL, “IS THE U.S. - INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT GOOD OR BAD FOR PROLIFERATION?”, STIMSON CENTER PUBLICATIONS) After three hundred years of colonial rule, India will not follow the beat of a distant drummer, nor accept a junior partnership to Washington. Improved ties will therefore be based on common interests, as well as a respect for differences that result when national interests diverge. Washington can therefore expect New Delhi to keep improving ties with Beijing, while striving to avoid choosing sides in the event of a crisis over Taiwan. Likewise, New Delhi’s approach to Islamic extremism will sometimes coincide and other times differ with Washington. India’s concerns begin with Pakistan, where Washington's policies have often frustrated India. India’s parliament passed resolutions against both Gulf wars, and has rejected the Bush administration’s entreaties to provide ground forces in this front of the “global war against terrorism.”

3. RELATIONS INEVITABLE WITHOUT DEAL KRETON 06, PRESIDENT EMERITUS OF THE HENRY L. STIMSON CENTER AND DIRECTOR OF ITS SOUTH ASIA PROJECT (MICHAEL,” NEGOTIATING THE US-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION DEAL”, STIMSON CENTER PUBLICATIONS) If the Congress doesn’t make special rules for India the new strategic partnership between New Delhi and Washington will be placed at risk. This argument, which was hatched in India and has now migrated to the United States, is particularly bogus. Indo-US relations are moving ahead smartly in defense cooperation, trade and investment, agriculture, public health, and many other areas. As proponents of the deal rightly argue, there is every reason to believe that our two countries will work side by side in the years to come on promoting democracy and combating terrorism. Some day in the future, New Delhi will gain Washington’s support for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. It is false and foolish to assert that all of this would be jeopardized if the nuclear deal were not consummated in the exact form contrived by perhaps a dozen individuals negotiating in extreme secrecy. If the Congress acts in ways to address the deal’s proliferation risks, bilateral Indo-US relations would still survive and prosper. Otherwise, the basic premise of a strategic partnership is deeply suspect.

73

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

74 OF 82

BAD – AT – PROLIFERATION COMPARATIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE MOST QUALIFIED SOURCE- DAMAGE TO NON PROLIF REGIME OUTWEIGH BENEFITS ROBERT J. EINHORN IS A SENIOR ADVISER IN THE CSIS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, WHERE HE WORKS ON A BROAD RANGE OF NONPROLIFERATION, ARMS CONTROL, AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. BEFORE COMING TO CSIS, HE SERVED IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 29 YEARS. FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO AUGUST 2001, HE WAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NONPROLIFERATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, MISSILE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, AND ADVANCED CONVENTIONAL ARMS NATIONAL INTEREST WINTER 06

officials have claimed that by aligning India more closely with the policies and practices of the international non-proliferation regime, the deal achieves a net gain for non-proliferation. Several of the steps pledged by India are simply reaffirmations of existing positions--for Administration

example, continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, strengthening export controls and supporting negotiations on a multilateral fissile-material cutoff treaty. Some other steps are indeed new and useful. Among these are the commitments to place civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and to refrain from transferring enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not already possess them. Still, the non-proliferation gains of the deal are meager compared to the major damage to non-proliferation goals that will result if the deal goes forward as it currently stands. NUCLEAR DEAL SHATTERS OUR PROLIF CRED CAUSING ALLIED AND ROGUE ACQUISITION ROBERT J. EINHORN IS A SENIOR ADVISER IN THE CSIS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, WHERE HE WORKS ON A BROAD RANGE OF NONPROLIFERATION, ARMS CONTROL, AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES. BEFORE COMING TO CSIS, HE SERVED IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR 29 YEARS. FROM NOVEMBER 1999 TO AUGUST 2001, HE WAS ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NONPROLIFERATION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WHERE HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NONPROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, MISSILE DELIVERY SYSTEMS, AND ADVANCED CONVENTIONAL ARMS NATIONAL INTEREST WINTER 06

By seeking an exception to the rules to accommodate America's new friendship with India, the deal reinforces the impression that the U.S. approach to non-proliferation has become selective and self-serving, not consistent and principled. Rules the United States initiated and championed would be perceived as less binding and more optional. Countries with good relations with Washington may conclude that the United States will tolerate and eventually accommodate a decision to acquire nuclear weapons, while China and Russia may feel less inhibited about engaging in nuclear cooperation with "special friends" of their own that the United States might find risky and objectionable.

74

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

75 OF 82

GOOD – US/INDO RELATIONS MODULE A. THE INDIA DEAL IS KEY TO REINVIGORATING US/INDIAN RELATIONS TELLIS 05, A SENIOR ASSOCIATE AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE (ASHLEY, “US-INDIA PARTNERSHIP”, HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY, 11/16/05 Since the character of our policy, leadership, and diplomacy will be critical to making such U.S.Indian collaboration whether tacit or explicit possible, both the Administration and the Congress will have to partner in this regard. The most important contribution that the legislative branch can make here is by helping to change India's entitative status from that of a target under U.S. non-proliferation laws to that of a full partner. The Administration's civilian nuclear agreement with India is directed fundamentally towards this objective. To be sure, it will produce important and tangible non-proliferation gains for the United States an argument I have elaborated in Attachment A to this testimony just as it will bestow energy and environmental benefits on India. But, at a grand strategic level, it is intended to do much more: given the lessons learned from over fifty years of alternating engagement and opposition, the civil nuclear cooperation agreement is intended to convey in one fell swoop the abiding American interest in crafting a full and productive partnership with India to advance our common goals in this new century. As Undersecretary of State Burns phrased it in his recent testimony, "our ongoing diplomatic efforts to conclude a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement are not simply exercises in bargaining and tough-minded negotiation; they represent a broad confidence-building effort grounded in a political commitment from the highest levels of our two governments." RELATIONS ARE KEY TO PREVENTING NUCLEAR WAR NYT, 6/10/02 Military cooperation between India and the United States has remarkably quickened since Sept. 11, with a burst of navy, air force and army joint exercises, the revival of American military sales to India and a blur of high-level visits by generals and admirals. The fledgling relationship between American and Indian military leaders will be important to Mr. Rumsfeld in talks intended to put to rest fears of war between India and Pakistan. "We can hope this translates into some influence and trust, though I don't want to overstate it," a senior American defense official said in an interview on Thursday. "I don't want to predict this guarantees success." The American diplomatic efforts yielded their first real gains on Saturday when India welcomed a pledge by Pakistan's military ruler to stop permanently the infiltration of militants into Kashmir. India indicated that it would soon take steps to reduce tensions, but a million troops are still fully mobilized along the border -- a situation likely to persist for months -- and the process of resolving the crisis has just begun. India has linked the killing of civilians in Kashmir to a Pakistan-backed insurgency there and has presented its confrontation with Pakistan as part of the global campaign against terrorism. India itself made an unstinting offer of support to the United States after Sept. 11, and Washington responded by ending the sanctions placed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. With that, the estrangement that prevailed between the world's two largest democracies during the cold war, when India drew close to the Soviet Union and the United States allied with Pakistan, has eased. India, for decades a champion of nonalignment, seeks warmer ties with the United States in hopes of gaining access to sophisticated military technology and help in dealing with Pakistan. From the start of President Bush's term, some influential officials in his administration saw India as a potential counterweight to that other Asian behemoth, China, whose growing power was seen as a potential strategic threat. But since Sept. 11, the priority has been terrorism.

The United States is hoping its deeper military and political ties with India will give it some measure of leverage to prevent a war between India and Pakistan that could lead to a nuclear holocaust and would play havoc with the hunt for Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

75

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

76 OF 82

GOOD – EXTENSIONS – RELATIONS KEY TO RELATIONS WASHINGTON POST 7/19/05 But supporters of the approach said it was an important part of a White House strategy to accelerate New Delhi's rise as a global power and as a regional counterweight to China. As part of the strategy, the administration is also seeking ways to bolster Japan's posture in the region. The Bush administration, which had not expected to reach agreement on the matter until a future Bush visit to India, said it moved more quickly because it had secured commitments from New Delhi to limit the spread of nuclear materials and technology. The agreement does not formally recognize India as a nuclear

power -- a status India had sought -- but it is a significant plum for the world's most populous democracy and cements India as a key strategic U.S. ally in Asia for the coming decades. R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, called the agreement "a major move forward for the U.S." and "the high-water mark of U.S.-India relations since 1947." Burns said the agreement, the subject of months of talks and six weeks of intense negotiations, is in line with "efforts that nuclear powers have taken to maintain a responsible policy in terms of nonproliferation." KEY TO RELATIONS NARAYANAN 05, INDIAN-AMERICAN ACTIVIST- US INDIA FRIENDSHIP, AND OUTSIDE VIEW COLUMNIST- WASHINGTON POST (RAM, “INDIA, NPT AND CIVILIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY”, INDOLINK NEWS) Couldn’t US-India ties develop further without nuclear cooperation? No. Nuclear power is deemed a national necessity in India and all national parties, business and analyst community feel that nuclear cooperation is the touchstone of US sincerity. Therefore Indian leaders would be unable to take US efforts to build close ties seriously if American laws and diplomacy are still aimed at isolating India in the nuclear arena. Moreover, India has made a national decision to develop its nuclear energy sector – with or without outside help. It is better for the US to be involved in this expansion than to remain outside. Opening of the Indian facilities to IAEA safeguards and US participation will bring international best practices in safety, security, and materials accounting to these facilities – something that the US is supporting worldwide as a measure against terrorism.

KEY TO RELATIONS THE ECONOMIST 7/23/05 Of these four areas of contention, Mr Singh's visit marked a breakthrough only on the last. But this one matters so much that it has transformed the relationship. America has agreed to help India acquire "the same benefits and advantages" as other states with nuclear weapons. India is to be granted "full civil nuclear energy co-operation"—such as fuel supplies and the transfer of technology. This is hugely important for India. One of the biggest constraints on the continuing success of its fast-growing economy is an electricity shortage. Nuclear energy, which at present accounts for only about 3% of total generation, is, in many eyes, an attractive alternative to coal and expensive imported oil and gas. The American move is also a great symbolic victory. For decades India has faced sanctions because of its nuclear-weapons programme. Now, America is, in effect, offering to help it to become a respectable bomb-wielding citizen. In return, to the consternation of critics at home, India has promised to adopt the same responsibilities as other nuclear powers, including separating its civilian nuclear facilities from military ones, opening the former to international inspection and maintaining its moratorium on nuclear testing. For more upbeat Indian analysts, the nuclear deal is proof that the country has achieved "dehyphenation"— a decoupling of its relations with America from the sometimes vicious America-India-Pakistan

76

SDI 2008-2009 SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

INDIA DEAL BAD 77 OF 82

triangle.

77

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

78 OF 82

GOOD – DEMOCRACY MODULE NUCLEAR COOPERATION KEY TO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND RESOLVING INDIAPAKISTAN CONFLICTS INDO-ASIAN NEWS SERVICE 2005 “US-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION A WIN-WIN FOR BOTH”, JULY 14 Fourthly, a civil nuclear cooperation between the US and India will facilitate them to become major allies so as to promote democracy in the region and beyond. Fifthly, if the US abandons its hidden agenda to scuttle India's gas pipeline project with Iran through Pakistan and seriously forges nuclear cooperation, it would help sustain peace between New Delhi and Islamabad. A positive US outlook will also help alleviate concerns of American critics that Washington secretly uses the prospect of nuclear cooperation merely to scuttle the Iran-PakistanIndia gas project in its bid to isolate Tehran and pursue militarism there.

DEMOCRATIZATION PREVENTS GLOBAL NUCLEAR CONFLICT MURAVCHIK 01 JOSHUA, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, “DEMOCRACY AND NUCLEAR PEACE” JULY 11 HTTP://WWW.NPEC-WEB.ORG/SYLLABI/MURAVCHIK.HTM The greatest impetus for world peace -- and perforce of nuclear peace -- is the spread of democracy. In a famous article, and subsequent book, Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy's extension was leading to "the end of history." By this he meant the conclusion of man's quest for the right social order, but he also meant the "diminution of the likelihood of large-scale conflict between states." (1) Fukuyama's phrase was intentionally provocative, even tongue-in-cheek, but he was pointing to two down-to-earth historical observations: that democracies are more peaceful than other kinds of government and that the world is growing more democratic. Neither point has gone unchallenged. Only a few decades ago, as distinguished an observer of international relations as George Kennan made a claim quite contrary to the first of these assertions. Democracies, he said, were slow to anger, but once aroused "a democracy . . . . fights in anger . . . . to the bitter end." (2) Kennan's view was strongly influenced by the policy of "unconditional surrender" pursued in World War II. But subsequent experience, such as the negotiated settlements America sought in Korea and Vietnam proved him wrong. Democracies are not only slow to anger but also quick to compromise. And to forgive. Notwithstanding the insistence on unconditional surrender, America treated Japan and that part of Germany that it occupied with extraordinary generosity.

78

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

79 OF 82

GOOD – INDIAN ECONOMY MODULE DEAL WOULD PROVIDE GROWTH TO US AND INDIAN ECONOMIES AND INDIAN ECONOMIC GROWTH KEY TO ASIAN STABILITY REDIFF INDIA ABROAD 2/22/2006 “RONEN SEN WARNS AGAINST N-DEAL CHANGES”, HTTP://US.REDIFF.COM/NEWS/2006/MAR/21SEN.HTM?Q=NP&FILE=.HTM But the long-term benefits to the US would be significant because even going by conservative projections, "India would need to import around 60,000 megawatts of nuclear power generating capacity in the next two and a half decades, and American companies like GE would obviously get a major stake of this multi-billion dollar business." "This would translate into tens of thousands of new jobs in this country, and moreover, with greater energy security, India's economic growth rate would be sustained at very high levels and the Indian market's demand for both capital and consumer goods would expand rapidly. So a wide range of companies, apart from the nuclear power suppliers, would increase from the increased prosperity in one of the fastest growing markets, which could very soon become the world's fastest growing market." Sen said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the mark when she wrote in her op-ed in The Washington Post on March 13 that the new partnership between the United States and India would have a decisive influence on the future of the global system as it evolves in the coming decades. "And yes, the civilian nuclear deal does fit into this perspective," Sen said. N-deal is in Washington's interest: Bush "Just imagine, look at it purely in strategic terms. If India continues to grow as an economic power, it would be a major factor for balance and stability in Asia and the world." ASIAN INSTABILITY CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR, RISK EXTINCTION JOSEPH CIRINCINONE 2000 (DIRECTOR OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION PROJECT AS CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE) “THE ASIAN NUCLEAR REACTION CHAIN”) The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimu- late additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945

79

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

80 OF 82

GOOD – PROLIFERATION MODULE US-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION IS KEY TO ALL US NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS INDO-ASIAN NEWS SERVICE 2005 “US-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION A WIN-WIN FOR BOTH”, JULY 14 Firstly, forging nuclear cooperation could encourage India to actively help the US in its non-proliferation efforts. India has already exhibited its clean track record and showed it is a responsible nuclear power: New Delhi's nuclear technology is primarily used for civil use; it has good track record on strict nuclear export controls and has institutionalised the nuclear export control with the passing of "The Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Bill, 2005"; and unlike some other countries India's nuclear arsenal has not led to any aggressive posture or militarism. Even the need for nuclear weapons is warranted by the compulsion of changed regional and international security environment. Also, aligning with India, a country wedded to nuclear morality, could provide the US moral authority to project itself as the champion of nuclear nonproliferation. Secondly, a fruitful outcome vis-?-vis civil nuclear cooperation could successfully pave way for India to join the Proliferation Security Initiative of the Bush Administration (PSI) in the US counter-proliferation efforts. India can prove to be a worthy and reliable partner in this regard. Already, a number of countries have allied with the US for counter-proliferation and carrying out interdictions in land, air and sea routes. India is one of the most resourceful countries that can offer support and expertise to help to the interdiction efforts in South Asia and Indian Ocean region, promoting counter-proliferation goals. UNCHECKED, PROLIFERATION CAUSES NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION. VICTOR A. UTGOFF 2002, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE STRATEGY, FORCES, AND RESOURCES DIVISION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS, SURVIVAL, “PROLIFERATION, MISSILE DEFENCE AND AMERICAN AMBITIONS” 2002 P. 87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

80

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

81 OF 82

GOOD – AT – US/SINO RELATIONS 1.INDIAN ALLIANCE ISN’T GOING TO CONTAIN CHINA AND INDIA HAS NO INTEREST IN DOING SO TELLIS 05, A SENIOR ASSOCIATE AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE (ASHLEY, “US-INDIA PARTNERSHIP”, HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE TESTIMONY, 11/16/05 If I am permitted to digress a bit, let me say parenthetically, that advancing the growth of Indian power, as the Administration currently intends, is not directed, as many critics have alleged, at "containing" China. I do not believe that a policy of containing China is either feasible or necessary at this point in time. (India too, currently, has no interest in becoming part of any coalition aimed at containing China.) Rather, the Administration's strategy of assisting India to become a major world power in the twenty-first century is directed, first and foremost, towards constructing a stable geopolitical order in Asia that is conducive to peace and prosperity. There is little doubt today that the Asian continent is poised to become the new center of gravity in international politics. Although lower growth in the labor force, reduced export performance, diminishing returns to capital, changes in demographic structure, and the maturation of the economy all suggest that national growth rates in several key Asian states in particular Japan, South Korea, and possibly China are likely to decline in comparison to the latter half of the Cold War period, the spurt in Indian growth rates, coupled with the relatively high though still marginally declining growth rates in China, will propel Asia's share of the global economy to some 43% by 2025, thus making the continent the largest single locus of economic power worldwide. 2. INDIA WON’T CONTAIN CHINA, IT WANTS STRATEGIC INDEPENDENCE AND GOOD CHINESE RELATIONS FINANCIAL TIMES 7/20/05 The broad case for partnership is compelling. India and the US are natural trading partners or, rather, would be if India's government made greater effort to release its huge economic potential. Closer business links and co-operation in space technology and agriculture should bring real gains. India and the US are also natural partners in promoting democracy around the world. India brings legitimacy to an agenda that many in the developing world see as bound up with US neocolonial interests. India is not likely to play the role some in Washington wish to ascribe to it, as the emerging military counterbalance to China. It wants strategic autonomy and good relations with China. But India can help US interests by contributing to a balance of influence that favours peace and democracy. Yet all of this would have been possible without selling out the global nonproliferation regime. This was a mistake that Congress should reconsider before drafting legislation to end sanctions. Offering India - a nuclear weapons state outside the NonProliferation Treaty - full civilian nuclear co-operation undermines the NPT. It smacks of double standards and will make it even more difficult to build a consensus on Iran and North Korea.

3. INDIA WON’T JOIN ANTI CHINA ALLIANCE THE ECONOMIST 2/23/06 India certainly has no intention of joining an anti-China axis. Nor, for now, does it have to choose between two big suitors. China, which at first voiced reservations about the Indian nuclear deal with America, is now shrewdly acquiescent. Perhaps it hopes that American congressmen and Indian Communists will kill it anyway. Or perhaps it does not want to jeopardise its own fastimproving relations with India.

81

SDI 2008-2009

INDIA DEAL BAD

SCHISSLER-PETIT-LANNING

82 OF 82

GOOD – AT – PROLIFERATION THE NPT IS SHOT NOW US NEWSWIRE 9-9-05 May's disappointing and sterile review conference of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty brought into sharp relief the critical problems confronting the worldwide effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. Although always divided, the nuclear weapon haves and have nots drifted further apart at the conference on how best to reduce the global threats posed by nuclear weapons. Yet, the challenges facing all countries are growing more severe: Iran has resumed activities that could lead to a nuclear weapon; multiparty talks with North Korea on abandoning its nuclear arms ambitions have sputtered; and the Bush administration is seeking to rewrite U.S. law and international rules to pursue civilian nuclear cooperation with nuclear-armed India. The panelists will discuss how countries must find common ground to address today's shared nuclear dangers. THE INDIA DEAL IS KEY TO INDIAN RATIFICATION OF THE NPT NY NEWSDAY.COM 7-23-2005 The deal, still to be approved by Congress and other nuclear powers, would lift a ban on civilian nuclear technology sales to India, which developed nuclear weapons in contravention of the international non-proliferation treaty. In return, India would allow international inspections and safeguards on its civilian nuclear program, halt all further nuclear weapons tests and agree not to sell its weapons technology to other nations. It's a good proposal that may ultimately result in India signing on to the non-proliferation treaty. Despite some downsides, it should be approved. THE INDIA DEAL IS KEY TO GLOBAL NON-PROLIFERATION STATES NEWS SERVICE 9-8-05 The Bush administration's proposed U.S.-India civil nuclear energy cooperation initiative is a good deal for the United States, according to Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns. It meets our national security interests because it aligns a 21st century power with the U.S. in democracy promotion, nonproliferation efforts and global energy security, Burns told the House International Relations Committee at a September 8 hearing on U.S.-India relations.The administration announced the nuclear energy cooperation initiative along with several other economic, environmental, political, public health and technology initiatives during the July visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington. (See related article.)Administration officials are now lobbying Congress to modify several pieces of legislation so that the nuclear energy initiative can move forward. Currently, U.S. law prohibits this sort of cooperation with countries, like India, that are not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Burns maintained that the initiative would help bring India into the global nonproliferation order. He said that under the agreement India has committed to allow stringent international oversight of its civil nuclear operations, protect nuclear materials, adhere to its moratorium on nuclear testing and refrain from transferring sensitive technologies to other states.

82