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
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
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

(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

(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 INDO-
US 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

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 post-
World 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
*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
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-B527-
000077B07658.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
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-B527-
000077B07658.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
NO INDIAN APPROVAL
INDIA WON’T RATIFY THE DEAL – DOMESTIC OPPOSITION
AFP, “BUSH, SINGH DISCUSS EMBATTLED NUCLEAR PACT,” 7/9 2008

HTTP://AFP.GOOGLE.COM/ARTICLE/ALEQM5HRJN5GHUZC3UPTK9PI4AXQOTINTG
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
YES NSG/IAEA APPROVAL

THE IAEA WILL APPROVE THE DEAL VERY QUICKLY – BEFORE THE END OF JULY
GEORGE JAHN. “DIPLOMATS: UN NUCLEAR AGENCY SETS INDIA MEETING,” AP / 7/7

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
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
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
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
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
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/WP-
DYN/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
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/WP-
DYN/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
*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
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
PARTISANSHIP NOW
PARTISANSHIP IS HIGH NOW – RETIREMENT AND DRILLING
CLARKE 7/7/08 (DAVID, CQ STAFF WRITER, “PARTISANSHIP RISES AS GOP

APPROPRIATORS LEAVE” CQ POLITICS)
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
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
***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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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 52-
44, 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
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
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 high-
profile 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
*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
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 carbon-
based 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
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
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. 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
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
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 coal-
fired 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
*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
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
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
* 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 substantially in all
regions, with the largest changes in the Western region, where energy shortages are most
prominent, and the Midwest.
38
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
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-MAR-
2008+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
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-OF-
SOLAR-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
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
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.ENS-
NEWSWIRE.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
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.ENS-
NEWSWIRE.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
*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 solar-
cell 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
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
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
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
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
*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
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
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
**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
OIL LOBBY KEY

THE OIL LOBBY IS THE MOST POWERFUL IN WASHINGTON
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
ENERGY LOBBY KEY

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS MAKE THE ENERGY LOBBY EXTREMELY STRONG
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 coal-
producing 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
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
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
*INTERNALS*
POLITICAL CAPITAL KEY TO SPEED
PRESIDENTS ALWAYS CLAIM VICTORY, ANYWAYS, ENSURING THEMSELVES

INCREASED POLITICAL CAPITAL.
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
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
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
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
THE PRESIDENT'S
revolve around presidents' attempts to garner public support, both for themselves and for their policies. Three
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
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
possible. "°~ Where the public supported his policies-on fighting the war on terrorism abroad, on investigating and
prosecuting terrorism at home, and in reorganizing the government to enhance domestic security -the 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
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
to claim victory on one of his top
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 highest-
profile 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
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
Congress who were potential swing votes
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.
62
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
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
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 one-
point 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
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
***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
establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the world
[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
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
disappear. Once that happens,
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
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
would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not. First
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
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
police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other
starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand.
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
we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
68
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 non-
proliferation. 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 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.
69
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
Cirincione estimates that
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.
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,
the Soviet response? It is certainly conceivable that
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.
70
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 anti-
Vietnam 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
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 Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an
impending Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.
72
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
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
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
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

Administration
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
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
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
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
triangle.
77
GOOD – DEMOCRACY MODULE

NUCLEAR COOPERATION KEY TO DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND RESOLVING INDIA-
PAKISTAN 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-Pakistan-
India 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
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
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 non-
proliferation. 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
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 neo-
colonial 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 non-
proliferation regime. This was a mistake that Congress should reconsider before drafting
legislation to end sanctions. Offering India - a nuclear weapons state outside the Non-
Proliferation 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 fast-
improving relations with India.
81
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

PLS India Deal DA

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PLS India Deal DA

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SDI 2008-2009 INDIA DEAL BAD

INDIA NUCLEAR DEAL BAD

tax credits – DEMS LOVE.............................................................................................................................47

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (1/4)

FOSTER KLUG. “US-INDIA NUKE PACT IN JEOPARDY,” 7/10 2008

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (2/4)

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (3/4)

INDIA DEAL BAD 1NC (4/4)

CONABLE AND LAMPTON 93 – CHAIR; AND PRESIDENT OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON

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

BUSH IS PUSHING TO GET CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL BY SEPTEMBER

YES INDIAN APPROVAL

VANCOUVER SUN 7/9 2008

YES INDIAN APPROVAL

NOBODY IN SINGH’S NEW COLLATION WILL DEFECT

AFP, “BUSH, SINGH DISCUSS EMBATTLED NUCLEAR PACT,” 7/9 2008

YES NSG/IAEA APPROVAL

GEORGE JAHN. “DIPLOMATS: UN NUCLEAR AGENCY SETS INDIA MEETING,” AP / 7/7

THE NSG WILL APPROVE THE DEAL – US THREATS GUARANTEE IT

HENRY SOKOLSKI IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NONPROLIFERATION POLICY

YES NSG/IAEA APPROVAL

IHT, INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE. “AGENCY COULD APPROVE NUCLEAR RULES

US SUPPORT ENSURES IAEA AND NSG APPROVAL

BLOOMBERG 7/9 2008

NDTV “TOUGH ROAD AHEAD FOR NUKE DEAL,” 7/8 2008

NSG APPROVAL ISN’T GUARANTEED

A2: IRAN FEARS WILL TANK THE DEAL

VANCOUVER SUN 7/9 2008

NO DEAL – NO TIME, PLUS CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION BASED ON PROLIF AND

LOW CHANCE DEAL CAN GET DONE IN TIME

POLITICAL CAPITAL HIGH

BUSH IS WINNING NOW – FISA PASSAGE

ASSOCIATED PRESS 7/9/08 (“SENATE BOWS TO BUSH, APPROVES SURVEILLANCE

BUSH IS WINNING NOW – GI BILL APPROVAL

UPI 7/9/08 (“NEW G.I. BILL TO COST $100 BILLION”)

BUSH IS NOT A LAME DUCK – FISA PASSAGE

POLITICAL CAPITAL LOW

BUSH HAS NO CAPITAL – APPROVAL RATING

LA TIMES 6/30/08 (“BUSH THINKS POLLS ABOUT HIM ARE WRONG”)

BUSH IS A LAME DUCK – FISA WAS HIS FINAL ACT

CLARKE 7/7/08 (DAVID, CQ STAFF WRITER, “PARTISANSHIP RISES AS GOP

VIRGINIA-PILOT 7/7/08 (“GI BILL PROVES THE MERITS OF POLITICA BIPARTISANSHIP”)

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – CONTROVERSIAL

INTERNATIONAL OIL DAILY, “CONGRESS MULLS TAX CREDITS,” AMERICAS 6/4/2008

FUNDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY CAUSES PARTISAN FIGHTS

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – PARTISAN

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS A PARTISAN ISSUE –BIPARTISAN EFFORTS ARE BLOCKED BY

LESTER, 4/27/08 [WILL LESTER, ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER, “LAUTENBERG:

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY – GOP HATES

FRIEDMAN, '08 (THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLUMNIST, AUTHOR, “MR.

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVES – STRONG OPPOSITION

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,”

GEOTHERMAL – GOP HATES

REUTERS “GEOTHERMAL POWER GETS BOOST IN SENATE” NOV. 16, 2006

SOLAR – GOP HATES

SOLAR – GOP HATES

WIND – DEMOCRATS HATES

JAMES HOARE IS MANAGING ATTORNEY AT THE SYRACUSE, NEW YORK OFFICE OF

TAX CREDITS – PARTISAN

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY TAX CREDITS ARE HIGHLY PARTISAN