Mediaboss Marketing

The House voted Tuesday to pass a Republican-backed bill delaying implementation of Obama-era reductions in smog-causing air pollutants.

Lawmakers voted 229 to 199 to approve the Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017. The measure delays by eight more years the implementation of 2015 air pollution standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the prior administration.

The bill also makes key technical changes that environmentalists say will weaken the Clean Air Act, including switching the EPA's mandated review of air-quality standards from every five years to every 10. Ground-level ozone can cause breathing problems among sensitive groups, causing thousands of premature deaths each year.

The House voted largely along party lines to approve the bill and defeat a series of Democratic amendments. Similar legislation is advancing in the GOP-controlled Senate.

More than a dozen major health organizations opposed the bill, including the National Medical Assn., the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Assn. The head of the American Lung Assn. called the industry-backed bill a "direct assault" on the right of Americans to breathe healthy air, and urged senators from both parties to reject it.

"The bill would delay lifesaving protections against ozone pollution, exposing Americans to unnecessary pollution levels that will lead to asthma attacks and premature deaths that could have been prevented," said Harold P. Wimmer, the group's national president and CEO.

House Republicans on Tuesday lauded what they called common-sense legislation to protect American jobs. The GOP bill is supported by several pro-business groups, including the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It is part of a larger push by the Trump administration and congressional Republicans to weaken, block or delay stricter pollution and public health standards approved under President Obama.

Primary sponsor Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) praised the progress made in cleaning up the nation's air since the 1970s, when choking blankets of smog regularly blanketed U.S. cities. But he said the stricter standards approved by Obama's EPA would force American companies to invest billions of dollars in new pollution reduction measures.

"This bill keeps us moving forward toward cleaner air," said Olson, whose Houston-area district depends on the oil and gas industry. "This bill is about listening to job creators back home."

Democrats countered that the GOP bill, which they derided as the "Smoggy Skies Act," would cost lives through increased rates of asthma and lung disease while endangering decades of hard-won progress in cleaning up the environment.

"This is a blueprint to Make America Sick Again," said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), mocking the Trump campaign slogan.

Ground-level ozone is created when common pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants and other sources react in the atmosphere to sunlight. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards adopted by the EPA in 2015 reduced the allowed amount of ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.

The EPA estimated at the time that the $1.4 billion it would cost to meet the stricter standards would be far outweighed by billions of dollars saved from fewer emergency room visits and other public health gains.

The agency cited recent studies showing ozone at 72 parts per billion is harmful to healthy adults exercising outdoors. Children are at increased risk because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, the agency said.

The EPA projected that the "vast majority" of U.S. counties would meet the stricter standards by 2025 under state and federal rules and programs then underway. Many of those clean-air initiatives are now in the crosshairs of regulatory rollbacks and budget cuts championed by the Trump administration.

View post:
House approves measure to delay Obama-era smog reductions - Los Angeles Times

The 2017 presidential election in Iran was a nasty one. Mr. Rouhani and his primary opponent, Ebrahim Raisi, hurled accusations against each other about their roles in a notorious 1988 massacre of political dissidents that had been a taboo subject for members of the ruling elite. Both Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Raisi are positioning themselves for the day that the 78-year-old Mr. Khamenei, who has had cancer, dies.

Like several Americans arrested since 2012, Mr. Wang walked into this buzz saw.

But its not just internal score-settling that led to Mr. Wangs imprisonment. The supreme leader, the countrys national-security institutions and most of the ruling clergy, including those allied to Mr. Rouhani, really do believe that America is waging a cultural war against Irans Islamist order. And for Mr. Khamenei, a scholar like Mr. Wang, a journalist like the Iranian-American Jason Rezaian and a businessman like the Iranian-American Siamak Namazi are foot soldiers of a counterrevolution. Their arrests are meant to fortify spiritually the regimes supporters and terrify those who would challenge the basic tenets of the Islamic Republic, especially the most fundamental principle: continuing hostility against the United States.

A founding father of Irans feared ministry of intelligence, Mr. Rouhani has had a more relaxed attitude about the cultural war that Mr. Khamenei sees everywhere inside Iranian society. The president thinks greater freedom of expression and association are needed for economic growth. But he isnt intellectually laissez-faire: When university students protested against censorship in 1999, the cleric publicly threatened the youths with death. Indeed, there is an intellectual no-mans land between the two men, where hostage-taking can be seen by both as legitimate.

The United States has always been in a difficult spot in dealing with the clerical regimes propensity for hostage-taking. Doing nothing or paying ransom just invite more abuse. American citizens should think twice about visiting Iran. But allowing another nation to have open season on American citizens is outrageous. Washington has never tried serious punishment, like blistering sanctions against the countrys banking and energy sectors. Other factors the price of oil, the Europeans, dreams of engagement, nuclear diplomacy always seem to get in the way. Nor has the United States had the stomach to play rough with the Revolutionary Guards: they take our citizens and yet we dont send Delta Force to nab their senior commanders operating abroad.

Mr. Wangs arrest certainly signals the need for a different approach. Fearfully maintaining an arms-control agreement that through sunset clauses guarantees the Islamic Republic an industrial-size uranium enrichment program isnt how to do it. Economically or militarily, the United States needs to scare Irans ruling class, convince it that hostage-taking carries an unbearable price. But it seems increasingly clear that President Trump will not intimidate the mullahs.

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Middle Eastern specialist in the Central Intelligence Agencys clandestine service, is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

Read more:
On Iran, Trump Is Obama 2.0 - New York Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

It is ironic that the contemporary discussion concerning American diplomacy should focus on the Paris Climate Accord. Students of history will appreciate that in 1778 that the first grand diplomatic debate of our country, the Treaty of Amity and Commerce, centered on France and is considered the first cornerstone treaty in American history.

It is important to hearken back to those initial debates because these ghosts haunt our decisions today. The American Congress was concerned about such a treaty, even in that desperate year of 1778 because they knew that Americas word had to be binding, and that future American foreign policy would henceforward be governed by any such treaty. It is not an accident of history that during the only two World Wars, the focus of American military policy was the defense and liberation of our oldest ally, France.

It is in this vein that we should reject President Obamas penchant for actively subverting the treaty process and engaging in dangerous executive agreements that distort the constitutional requirements of Senate approval. This is not to reject altogether the use of executive agreements: Diplomacy is fluid and the expediency of any given time may require the president to utilize executive agreements to protect and promote American vital interests.

However, when such diplomacy is potentially multipresidential as is the case of the Iran deal (formally known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA), or multigenerational as is the case with the Paris Climate Accords, then it is clear from any originalist argument that this is what the Founders wanted. Further, treaties create stability and credibility that no executive agreement can ever come near.

Although international relations between nations require both treaties and executive agreements, treaties signal the intent of longevity. They hold any single president and Congress accountable to the past whereby a prior Congress and president spent months, or years, debating the merits of binding American foreign policy down a specific path. They negate the vagaries of any given lapse of judgment and force the American government to do something it often does poorly look at American interests from a long-term strategic objective. NATO, the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, and the mutual security treaties with South Korea and Japan are all clear examples. These treaties, from Presidents Truman to Trump, continue to govern American foreign policy and have created the strongest alliance of western democracies in world history.

In contrast, Mr. Obama engaged in dangerous adventurism through executive decisions designed to subvert the authority of the Senate and the American people. If the Iran deal and the Paris Accords were as important as the previous administration claimed and were the lynchpin of the Obama diplomatic legacy, then why were they not crafted as treaties, sent to the Senate and by that action, allowed the constitutionally proper voice of the American people to be heard?

Concerning the Iran deal, former Secretary of State John Kerry stunned many when he admitted that the reason it was not submitted as a treaty was that the administration knew it would not pass. He also stated, Weve been clear from the beginning. Were not negotiating a legally binding plan. Were negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement. An administration known for its mental gymnastics receives another gold medal. It has been claimed that one of the reasons the Obama administration engaged in this was for expediency. The Obama administration cited a variety of treaties that the Senate has refused to ratify, notably the Law of the Sea Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In both cases, it is highly questionable if these are advantageous to the United States. But here is the point: The Founders intended bad treaties to be defeated, and they intended that long-lasting diplomacy would be based on treaties and not fiat. Both the Paris Accords and the Iran deal should be required to pass the test for treaties: They commit multiple presidential administrations, they are multigenerational, and they will require America to be a credible partner, even if others are not. America has always rejected the full force of European realism. Every nation knows that if America commits, America keeps its word, but that commitment must be made in a procedurally and constitutionally sound manner.

All that the Obama administration achieved did not enhance American interests, but was a series of calculated moves to shore up the administrations political base. The Obama administration knew full well that any executive agreement made by any president could be overturned by any future one. Now the situation has been muddied, in part because many of our allies do not fully understand American history, political culture or constitutional law. The United States specifically avoided ad hoc diplomacy during our formative years. Rather, it engaged in hard-nosed diplomacy and only made international agreements after much soul-searching and debate. Foreign policys No. 1 currency is credibility. Lose that, and it takes generations for it to return.

R. James Woolsey is former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Lamont Colucci is associate professor of politics at Ripon College.

Continued here:
Subverting the role of the treaty in American diplomacy - Washington Times

The latter notion seemed to die almost immediately on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, leaving the president to throw up his hands and say he would simply let Mr. Obamas program die of its own weight. Im not going to own it, he told reporters. I can tell you the Republicans are not going to own it. Well let Obamacare fail, and then the Democrats are going to come to us.

Nearly every president arrives in office promising a new direction, especially those succeeding someone from the other party. But few, if any, have spent as much of their early months focused on undoing what the last president did rather than promoting their own proactive ideas as Mr. Trump has.

Where the president has succeeded so far, it has largely been in cases where he could act on his own authority. He approved the Keystone XL pipeline that Mr. Obama had rejected. He pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and the Paris climate change accord that his predecessor had negotiated. And he began repealing environmental and business regulations that were imposed during the last administration.

But reversing the Iran and health care initiatives both require building support among other political players at home and abroad, a task for which Mr. Trump has yet to show much proclivity. At home in the worlds of real estate and entertainment, Mr. Trump is accustomed to giving orders and proclaiming, Youre fired! But the art-of-the-deal negotiating skills he boasted about on the campaign trail last year have not closed the deal with fellow world leaders or with fellow Republicans.

The problem in Washington, besides every piece of legislation having its own special interest group, is that bills are purposely written to be complicated, said Michael Dubke, who served as White House communications director under Mr. Trump. And complicated is hard to unwind.

Mr. Trump could, of course, simply abandon the Iran deal as he did with the trade and climate agreements, and he may yet. But while that may be satisfying, he has been told by advisers that the United States would find it harder to pressure the clerical leadership in Tehran without allies, and so he has not risked alienating them with a unilateral move.

John R. Bolton, a former ambassador to the United Nations and strong critic of the nuclear deal, said time is on Irans side and Mr. Trump should find a way to convince the allies. We need to explain this to the Europeans, he said. They may find it hard to accept, but plain speaking is still an American virtue, occasionally even in diplomacy.

As for health care, Mr. Trump chastised Democrats on Tuesday for not going along Dems totally obstruct, he tweeted but he made no serious effort to reach out to them, nor might it be realistic to expect them to join a drive to repeal what they consider to be one of their proudest achievements. While he did lobby Republicans, some said he did not make a serious enough effort to do so. The White House devoted its public message this week to buy-America themes rather than health care.

Vice President Mike Pence said on Tuesday that lawmakers should either repeal Mr. Obamas program outright or return to the legislation that has now failed. Either way, inaction is not an option, he said in a speech to members of the National Retail Federation in Washington. Congress needs to step up. Congress needs to do their job, and Congress needs to do their job now.

Republicans on Capitol Hill expressed weariness of the health care debate and seemed ready to turn to other priorities, like cutting taxes. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, vowed to hold a vote to repeal Mr. Obamas health care program without a replacement, but it was quickly clear there were not the votes for that. In the House, Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin on Tuesday focused on tax cuts, energy production and budget balancing.

At the White House, that Rose Garden rally where Mr. Trump prematurely celebrated the passage of a health care bill in the House before it had gone to the Senate now seems long ago.

Mr. Trump has been left to contemplate his next move. He could try to find another way to get the bulldozer to work. Or he could move on to another property.

View original post here:
Trump Finds That Demolishing Obama's Legacy Is Not So Simple - New York Times

Former Obama official Samantha Power, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has agreed to testify before the House intelligence committee as part of its Russia probe, Fox News has learned.

Power will join the roster of former Obama administration officials in testifying before the congressional panel as part of their probe into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign officials in the 2016 presidential election.

Some lawmakers also want to hear from Obama administration officials over their potential role in "unmasking" the identities of Trump associates from intelligence reports last year. Power and former national security adviser Susan Rice are among the former officials who could face such questions.

Rice initially had been expected to testify at a closed-door session Tuesday before the same House panel, but is instead expected to speak to lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee later this week.

Power, though, has agreed to engage with the House committee, a spokesman for the former ambassador told Fox News.

Ambassador Power strongly supports any bipartisan effort to investigate and address Russias interference in our electoral process and she wanted to engage both House and Senate Committees charged with investigating it, David Pressman, counsel to Power and partner at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, told Fox News. Ambassador Power is very much looking forward to providing any assistance and encouragement she can to bipartisan efforts aimed at addressing this serious threat to our nations security.

A date for Power to testify has yet to be confirmed, and a source close to the committee told Fox News it will not be this week.

Several other Obama officials are making an appearance on Capitol Hill this week to testify behind closed doors.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper appeared before both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Monday.

MORE OBAMA OFFICIALS SCRUTINIZED IN 'UNMASKING' PROBE

Former White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough will also testify this week, Fox News was told.

All sessions with former Obama administration officials are set to be closed, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

Fox News Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

Brooke Singman is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

See original here:
Obama official Samantha Power agrees to testify before House intel panel - Fox News