House Poised For Historic Snub Of Indian Prime Minister
Instead of the red carpet, India’s new Prime Minister may be about to get the cold shoulder from Congress.
The post House Poised For Historic Snub Of Indian Prime Minister appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Parag Dharmavarapu is an intern with the Center for American Progress’ National Security and International Policy team.
Prime Minster Narendra Modi, of the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
CREDIT: AP Photo/ Dharmesh Jobanputra
The last two Prime Ministers of India – the world’s largest democracy – have had the opportunity to speak before the world’s oldest republic. Now House Republicans, keen to start the election season, are threatening the chance that India’s new leader gets that same opportunity.
After accepting President Barack Obama’s invitation to visit the United States in September, 83 members of Congress invited newly-elected Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to speak before a joint session of Congress. In the letter written to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), those Members rightly noted that opportunity for the sitting Indian Prime Minister to speak before Congress is a decades-old tradition. In a number of congressional hearings, leading governmental and non-governmental voices have also called for Congress to welcome PM Modi to formally address a joint session, including the Center for American Progress’ Vikram Singh.
However, House Republicans are eager to kick-off election campaigning and the six-week recess before November mid-term elections. In the interest of getting its members back into their districts to politick all the sooner, the House’s leadership may push to end the legislative session on September 19th, instead of October 2nd, according to a report from the Hindustan Times. Neither Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) nor his office responded to messages seeking clarity on the end date of the legislative session. This truncated schedule will make any address by Prime Minister Modi, who plans on visiting Washington in late September, before Congress impossible.
By potentially denying Modi an opportunity to highlight the importance of the relationship, House Republicans are placing campaign priorities ahead of their duty to facilitate global partnerships. After refusing to grant Modi a visa in 2005 and allegedly spying on his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the United States would be wise to warmly receive Prime Minister Modi and not exacerbate ill-feelings.
Despite making significant breakthroughs on major issues like defense and civil nuclear ties, the U.S.-India strategic partnership agreements have been accompanied by serious obstacles and lack measurable progress, such as setbacks in the civil-nuclear deal due to disagreements over the liability that nuclear companies would be required to take on under Indian law. Setting the right tone with Prime Minister Modi, who won a historic election in May, will be crucial for, in President Obama’s words, “the century’s defining partnership.”
In a speech given at the Center for American Progress last Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry praised Prime Minister Modi for his vision for India and highlighted the election as a “potentially transformative moment in our partnership with India,” and noted that the mutual relationship is needed to solve some of world’s greatest challenges.” Kerry, who was in India this past week attending the 5th annual U.S.-Indian Strategic Dialogue, emphasized the U.S.’ and India’s shared vision on issues ranging from clean energy to homeland security.
For the United States, this partnership means more than just several thousand jobs and billions of dollars in trade and defense contracts. It’s a relationship with a rising, global power – a partner who can promote democratic values, counter global threats like terrorism and climate change, and hedge Chinese geopolitical dominance in Asia. Uniting the world’s oldest democracy and the world’s largest democracy is a crucial piece in the United States’ foreign policy rebalance and is a relationship that should not only be prioritized, but should also be bipartisan.
Members from all sides of the aisle have emphasized the importance of the relationship. A long proponent of strong bilateral ties with India, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stressed that we should “resist the domestic forces that would turn our strategic relationship into a transactional one…[or risk] fall[ing] far short of our potential, as we have before.” While some members of Congress have taken a positive step towards strengthening Indo-American relations, some have, quite frankly, showcased exactly why legislators need greater exposure to our strategic partner. Hopefully Prime Minister Modi will get the opportunity to do just that in September.
The post House Poised For Historic Snub Of Indian Prime Minister appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Twelve States Are Suing The EPA Over Its Attempt To Fight Climate Change
And one Republican candidate for governor is pledging to make his state the thirteenth.
The post Twelve States Are Suing The EPA Over Its Attempt To Fight Climate Change appeared first on ThinkProgress.
Union members, led by the United Mine Workers of America, protest the EPA’s regulations on carbon emissions from coal plants on Thursday, July 31, 2014.
CREDIT: AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar
West Virginia, Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming.
These are the twelve states asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to effectively invalidate the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently-proposed regulations of carbon emissions from existing coal plants — regulations that represent the most significant thing America has ever done to combat climate change. The states are specifically challenging the legality of a 2011 settlement the U.S. government entered into with three environmental organization and another group of states, in which the EPA promised to regulate carbon.
“Without this court’s prompt intervention, petitioners will be forced to undertake burdensome measures in the coming months to meet the demands of the unlawful rule,” the petition reads.
The petition represents the second attempt by some of the states — all of which are either large producers or consumers of coal — to nullify the EPA’s rules through the court system. In July, nine of the thirteen states joined forces with coal company Murray Energy to sue the EPA, arguing it has no legal authority to limit carbon from coal plants. Murray Energy’s CEO says the EPA is “lying” about climate change’s existence and that the earth is actually cooling.
Both lawsuits essentially argue the same thing — that the EPA is not legally allowed to regulate coal facilities under the Clean Air Act. The states say that general air pollution from coal plants is already regulated under the Act, therefore greenhouse gas rules “impose impermissible double regulation.”
While it is true that coal plants are required to limit many air pollutants, they are not currently required to limit greenhouse gases. The states say this doesn’t matter — coal plants are already regulated and can’t be double-regulated.
“Such a rule [is] clearly unlawful,” the petition reads.
The Supreme Court has already affirmed numerous times that the EPA is allowed to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the high court ruled specifically that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions could be considered “air pollutants” under the Act, and that the U.S. government had authority to curb them. Just last month, the Supreme Court effectively affirmed 7 to 2 that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources, like coal plants.
The twelve states also face an additional issue of so-called “ripeness,” that is, whether their lawsuit is timely. The proposed regulations are years away from being finalized, much less implemented, making it difficult to successfully allege in court that harm would be done. Still, the states say their suit is ripe because the EPA has already declared the rule’s legality.
The lawsuit is also being used to score political points, with Arkansas gubernatorial candidate Asa Hutchinson pledging on Monday to have his state join the coalition if he’s elected.
“I want to send a signal — nationally and in Arkansas — that this is a position I will take,” he said.
Regulating carbon emissions from coal plants will be the most significant thing America has ever done to combat climate change. The electricity sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions here, and dropping those 25 percent in 6 years amounts to a reduction of roughly 300 million tons of CO2 each year.
While coal has traditionally been the largest source of electricity generation in the United States for more than 60 years, its dominance has already been rapidly declining without the help of these regulations. Coal’s annual share of total net generation declined from nearly 50 percent in 2007 to 39 percent in 2013, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
At the same time, total renewable energy generation has increased by 50 percent in that time frame, with 13 percent of all U.S. electricity coming from renewable sources in 2013.
The post Twelve States Are Suing The EPA Over Its Attempt To Fight Climate Change appeared first on ThinkProgress.
