Recognizing the strategic value of the historical partnership between the United States and India.
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]
ID: B001287
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
đź“Ť Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đź“š How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another meaningless resolution from our esteemed Congress, designed to make everyone feel good about the "strategic partnership" between the US and India. Because, you know, that's exactly what we need – more empty words and handshakes.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** This resolution is a masterclass in stating the obvious: the US and India have a long-standing relationship, and it's good for regional stability, economic growth, and global security. Wow, who wouldn't want to acknowledge that? The main purpose is to reaffirm this partnership, because apparently, our politicians need to be reminded of something they already know.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** There are no actual provisions or changes to existing law in this resolution. It's a feel-good exercise, where Congress gets to pat itself on the back for being friends with India. The only "provision" is a reaffirmation of the partnership, which is about as binding as a promise from a politician during an election campaign.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This resolution affects no one and nothing, except perhaps the egos of the politicians involved. Indian Americans might feel good about being acknowledged, but that's about it. The real stakeholders – those with actual interests in the US-India relationship, like defense contractors, tech companies, or human rights organizations – will continue to operate as usual, unaffected by this empty gesture.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** Zero. Zilch. Nada. This resolution is a non-event, a waste of time and resources. It won't change the course of US-India relations, nor will it address any real issues or challenges facing the partnership. If anything, it might make some politicians feel good about themselves for a few minutes, but that's about it.
In conclusion, this resolution is a perfect example of legislative theater – all show, no substance. It's a cynical exercise in self-congratulation, designed to distract from real issues and actual problems. So, let's give our politicians a round of applause for this meaningless gesture, shall we?
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 13 nodes and 23 connections
Total contributions: $81,700
Top Donors - Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-6]
Showing top 12 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 537 — Department of the Interior l A significant percentage of critical minerals needed by the United States is on Indian lands, but the Biden Administration has actively discouraged development of critical mineral mining projects on Indian lands rather than assisting in their advancement. l Despite Indian nations having primary responsibility for their lands and environment and responsibility for the safety of their communities, the Biden Administration is reversing efforts to put Indian nations in charge of environmental regulation on their own lands. Moreover, Biden Administration policies, including those of the DOI, have dis- proportionately impacted American Indians and Indian nations. l By its failure to secure the border, the Biden Administration has robbed Indian nations on or near the Mexican border of safe and secure communities while permitting them to be swamped by a tide of illegal drugs, particularly fentanyl. l When ending COVID protocols at Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools, Biden’s DOI failed to ensure an accurate accounting of students returning from school shutdowns, which presents a significant danger to the families that trust their children to that federal agency. l The BIE is not reporting student academic assessment data to ensure parents and the larger tribal communities know their children are learning and are receiving a quality education. The new Administration must take the following actions to fulfill the nation’s trust responsibilities to American Indians and Indian nations: l End the war on fossil fuels and domestically available minerals and facilitate their development on lands owned by Indians and Indian nations. l End federal mandates and subsidies of electric vehicles. l Restore the right of tribal governments to enforce environmental regulation on their lands. l Secure the nation’s border to protect the sovereignty and safety of tribal lands. — 538 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Overhaul BIE schools to put parents and their children first. Finally, the new Administration should seek congressional reauthorization of the Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations,96 which provided a $1.9 bil- lion Trust Land Consolidation Fund to purchase fractional interests in trust or restricted land from willing sellers at fair market value, but which sunsets Novem- ber 24, 2022. New funds should come from the Great American Outdoors Act.97 AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but some deserve special mention. Kathleen Sgamma, Dan Kish, and Katie Tubb wrote the section on energy in its entirety. I received thoughtful, knowledgeable, and swift assistance from Aubrey Bettencourt, Mark Cruz, Lanny Erdos, Aurelia S. Giacometto, Casey Hammond, Jim Magagna, Chad Padgett, Jim Pond, Rob Roy Ramey II, Kyle E. Scherer, Tara Sweeney, John Tahsuda, Rob Wallace, and Gregory Zerzan. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter; no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.
Introduction
— 188 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Europe of its dependence on China. However, there are also transatlantic trade tensions that disturb the U.S.–EU relationship and that have been evident across Administrations. The U.S. must undertake a comprehensive review of trade arrangements between the EU and the United States to assure that U.S. businesses are treated fairly and to build productive reciprocity. Outside the EU, trade with the post-Brexit U.K. needs urgent development before London slips back into the orbit of the EU. Third, in the wake of Brexit, EU foreign policy now takes place without U.K. input, which disadvantages the United States, given that the U.K. has historically been aligned with many U.S. positions. Therefore, U.S. diplomacy must be more attentive to inner-EU developments, while also developing new allies inside the EU—especially the Central European countries on the eastern flank of the EU, which are most vulnerable to Russian aggression. South and Central Asia Many key American interests and responsibilities are found in South and Central Asia. Specifically, continuing to advance the bilateral relationship with India to mutual benefit is a crucial objective for U.S. policy. India plays a crucial role in countering the Chinese threat and securing a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is a critical security guarantor for the key routes of air and sea travel linking East and West and an important emerging U.S. economic partner. For instance, the 2019 Department of Defense Indo–Pacific Strategy Report noted that the Indian Ocean area “is at the nexus of global trade and commerce, with nearly half of the world’s 90,000 commercial vessels and two thirds of global oil trade traveling through its sea lanes. The region boasts some of the fastest-growing economies on Earth.”14 Meanwhile, the threat of transnational terrorism remains acute. The humiliat- ing withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan after a 20-year military campaign has created new challenges. It has provided an opportunity to reset the deeply troubled U.S.–Pakistan relationship and reassess U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region. The long-standing India–Pakistan rivalry and tensions regarding the disputed territory of Kashmir continue to pose risks to regional stability, especially because both countries are nuclear powers. The State Department’s role in strengthening the regional security and eco- nomic framework linking the U.S and India is crucial. In addition, the department has important functional responsibilities in dealing with a range of threats from nuclear proliferation to transnational proliferation. While American statecraft should also seek to improve bilateral relations throughout the region, U.S. policy must be clear-eyed and realistic about the perfidiousness of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the military–political rule in Pakistan. There can be no expecta- tion of normal relations with either. — 189 — Department of State The priority for statecraft is advancing the U.S.–Indian role as a cornerstone of the Quad, a cooperative framework including the U.S., India, Japan, and Aus- tralia. The Quad is comprised of the key nations in coordinating efforts for a free and open Indo–Pacific. It is an overarching group that nests the key U.S. bilateral and trilateral cooperative efforts that facilitate U.S. collaborative efforts across the Indo–Pacific. The State Department should also encourage the “Quad-Plus” concept that allows other regional powers to participate in Quad coordination on issues of mutual interest. Further, the State Department must support an inte- grated federal effort to deliver a revamped regional strategy for South Asia, as well as leading the execution of key tasks to implement the strategy.15 The Arctic Because of Alaska, the U.S. is an Arctic nation. The Arctic is a vast expanse of land and sea rich in resources including fish, minerals, and energy. For example, the region is estimated to contain 90 million barrels of oil and one-quarter of the world’s undiscovered natural gas reserves.16 The Arctic is lightly populated: Only 4 million people in the world live above the Arctic Circle, with more than half of those living in Russia. Only around 68,000 people in Alaska live above the Arctic Circle.17 However, the sheer immensity of the Alaskan Arctic means its population density is less than one person per square mile.18 The United States has several strong interests in the Arctic region. The rate of melting ice during summer months has led to increased interest not only from shipping and tourism sectors, but also from America’s global competitors, who are interested in exploiting the region’s strategic importance and accessing its bounty of natural resources. In the not-too-distant future, there will be a growing interest in the Arctic from both state and non-state actors alike. China has been open about its interest in the region, primarily as a highway for trade but also for its rich natural resources. While the PRC’s increasing intervention in Arctic affairs is a bit strained because it does not have an Arctic coastline, Russia does—and Russia has made no secret of its view that the Arctic is vital for economic and military reasons. Russia has invested heavily in new and refurbished Arctic bases and cold-weather equipment and capabilities. The north star of U.S. Arctic policy should remain national sov- ereignty, safeguarded through robust capabilities as well as through diplomatic, economic, and legal attentiveness. The next Administration should embrace the view that NATO must acknowl- edge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance. With the likely accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, every Arctic nation except for Russia will be a NATO member state. NATO has been slow to appreciate that the Arctic is a theater that it must defend, especially considering Russia’s brazen aggression against Ukraine. NATO must develop and implement an Arctic strategy that recognizes the importance of
Introduction
— 175 — Department of State numerous logistical challenges in negotiating, approving, and implementing trea- ties and agreements. This is particularly true under the Biden Administration. For example, under the Biden Administration, the State Department was considered sufficiently unreliable in terms of alignment and effectiveness such that its political leadership invoked its Circular 175 (C-175) authority to delegate its diplomatic capacity to other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. At time of publication, the State Department is negotiating (or seeking to nego- tiate) large-scale, sovereignty-eroding agreements that could come at considerable economic and other costs to the American people. Although such agreements should be evaluated and approved as are treaties, the Biden Administration is likely to simply call them “agreements.” The Biden State Department not only approves but also enforces treaties that have not been ratified by the U.S. Senate. This practice must be thoroughly reviewed—and most likely jettisoned. The next President should recalibrate how the State Department handles trea- ties and agreements, primarily by restoring constitutionality to these processes. He or she should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or inter- national agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction. The next Administration should also direct the secretary to order an immediate stand-down on enforcement of any treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate, and order a thorough review of the degree to which such enforcement has impacted the department’s functions, policies, and use of resources. The Secretary of State, in cooperation with the Office of the Attorney General and the White House Counsel’s Office, should also conduct a review to identify “agreements” that are really treaty commitments within the ordinary public mean- ing of the Constitution,6 and suspend compliance pending presidential transmittal of those agreements to the Senate for advice and consent. The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consider- ation for 20 years or more, with the understanding that those treaties are unlikely to be ratified. Under circumstances in which ratification of a stale treaty before the Senate still serves national interests, the treaty letter of transmittal and sub- mission should be updated for current circumstances. The Secretary of State must revoke most outstanding C-175 authorities that have been granted to other agen- cies during previous Administrations, although such revocations should be closely coordinated with the White House for logistical reasons. Coordinate with Other Agencies. Interagency engagement in this new environment must be similarly adjusted to mirror presidential direction. Indeed, coordination among federal agencies is challenging even in the most well-oiled Administrations. Although such coordination is inescapable and sometimes produc- tive, agencies tend to leverage each other’s resources in ways that occasionally have off-mission consequences for the agency or agencies with the resources. Ideally, the
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.