Water Projects
The Senate has a lot on its plate next week, including immigration and, possibly, emergency war funding.
It may also have some pork, at least in some conservatives’ view. And that includes Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee.
He is upset about some projects in the Water Resources Development Act, being pushed hard by his Oklahoma colleauge, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa.
And, if Coburn gets a chance, he may try to strip some of them.
Coburn hasn’t specifically targeted any of the numerous Oklahoma projects in the bill, which is in a kind of Senate limbo right now. Though senators spent some hours discussing the bill on Thursday, they were essentially just killing time (a Senate specialty). Basically, action on the bill is being stalled by yet another dispute over federal judges.
But here’s what’s at stake for a lot of communites in Oklahoma. Inhofe, the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a co-author of the bill, inserted these provisions:
_ An authorization to spend $30 million more to relocate people living in the contaminated towns of Picher, Cardin and Hockerville, near the Tar Creek Superfund site;
_ An order that the Army Corps of Engineers forgive a disputed interest debt owed by the city of Edmond related to water payments for Lake Arcadia;
_ Creation of a program in Oklahoma to encourage public-private partnerships for development on Corps lakes in Oklahoma;
_ Removal of a technical hurdle to private development on Lake Texoma;
_$1.7 million for sewer improvements and other water infrastructure projects in Ada;
_$10 million for the Waste Water Master Plan and water related infrastructure for Norman;
_$1 million for sewer and utility upgrades and water related infrastructure for Eastern Oklahoma State University in Wilburton;
_$500,000 for arsenic program and water related infrastructure for Weatherford;
_$1.5 million for water improvements and water related infrastructure in Bethany;
_$1.5 million for water improvements and water related infrastructure for Woodward;
_$2.5 million for water and sewer improvements and water related infrastructure for the Cities of Disney and Langley;
_$3.3 million for bayou restoration and water related infrastructure for Durant;
_$2 million for improvements to water related infrastructure for Midwest City;
_$1.9 million for water and sewer infrastructure improvements for Ardmore;
_$16 million for water related wastewater treatment related projects for Guymon;
_$5 million for water related infrastructure improvement projects at the Lugert-Altus Irrigation District in Altus;
_$650,000 for the industrial park sewer infrastructure project in Chickasha;
_$275,000 for water testing facility and water related infrastructure development at Oklahoma Panhandle State University in Goodwell;
_$2.5 million for the waterline transport infrastructure project in Bartlesville;
_$500,000 for water treatment infrastructure improvements for Konawa;
_$3.3 million for water improvements and water related infrastructure in Mustang;
_$250,000 for waste water improvement infrastructure in Alva; and
_$6.5 million to update the Oklahoma Statewide Comprehensive Water Plan administered by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board.
BTW: If you’re wondering, as I was, where Disney is, it’s in Mayes County in the northeast corner of the state.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Votes on War Funding/Farm Aid
After splitting along party lines on emergency spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Thursday night, all five of Oklahoma’s members in the U.S. House voted for a separate emergency bill providing $3.5 billion in agricultural disaster relief.
Both bills were approved late Thursday and now go to the Senate. President Bush has vowed to veto the war spending bill.
On the ag relief bill, Rep. Tom Cole, R-Moore, said, “Oklahomans have experienced numerous losses due to the recent wild fires, floods and tornadoes that have struck many portions of our state. This bill will open the door for those people who have been greatly affected by these natural disasters to seek assistance from the federal government.”
The bill will cover crop or livestock losses from either 2005, 2006 or 2007, if a farmer had crop insurance at the time and lost at least 35 percent of his or her crop; for livestock producers, eligibility depends on whether his or her county was part of a disaster declaration.
Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, was the only Oklahoma member to vote for the war spending bill, which divides the money into two installments _ one that would be provided immediately and another in July after Bush reports to Congress on progress made by the Iraqi government on several different fronts.
Boren, the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation, has been frustrated with what he sees as a lack of progress by Iraqis in taking control of their country, and he opposed Bush’s plan to add more troops this year. But he voted against a war spending bill last month _ eventually vetoed by the president _ that set timelines for troop withdrawals.
On Thursday, he was one of the conservative Democrats who had opposed the bill with timelines to support the new approach of giving the money in two installments to get the military through September.
Boren said, “The removal of the timeline for withdrawal addressed my concerns with the original bill. I remain opposed to setting a date for withdrawal because that would show our hand to our enemies. But this proposal uses benchmarks to measure progress rather than arbitrary timelines.
“Time is of the essence. We need to get this money to the troops in the field so they can continue their mission, and this bill does that. It also holds the Iraqi government accountable. It does this without imposing timelines that tie the hands of military commanders.”
Cole reacted strongly against the bill, which was supported by only two Republicans.
“No matter where you stand on the war, it is unconscionable to put our troops on life support until Congress decides to pull the plug,” Cole said. “Those are our sons and daughters over there _ they deserve to get the resources they need, and time is running out.”
The Senate isn’t expected to go along with the House approach, but it’s not clear what Democratic leaders on that side of the Capitol plan to do.
Meanwhile, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Muskogee, is expected to propose an amendment to a water projects bill next week that would fund the wars through September without any strings attached. He would not include funding for farm relief.
Emergency spending, by the way, goes directly to the national debt. Combined, the war spending and farm relief bills top $100 billion.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Fallin Gets New Committee
Rep. Mary Fallin, the freshman Republican from Oklahoma City, was named to the House Committee on Natural Resources on Thursday, and she’ll join two other Oklahomans on that panel.
The committee has jurisdiction over Native American issues, public parks and trails and a range of environmental matters.
It might not have the cache — or the stroke — of such committees as Appropriations, which doles out the money, or Ways and Means, which sets tax policy and oversees entitlement programs.
But the committee does a lot of work on a lot of issues, including oil and gas drilling on public land, the endangered species act and all things Native American.
Reps. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, and Tom Cole, R-Moore, also serve on the 49-member panel.
Fallin is also a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Small Business Committee.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Inhofe: Back to Iraq
Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, is heading back to Iraq this weekend, according to a spokesman who said the senator wants to gauge the success of the surge and talk to Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.
Inhofe has been an unwavering booster of the war in Iraq, and he has traveled to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle several times, each time returning with an upbeat assessment of the situation there.
I’ve included these past comments by Inhofe in a previous blog posting, but I’ll risk boring you here with a rerun just to back up the premise that _ if the pattern holds _ Inhofe will report next week of dramatic progress in Iraq:
In August 2003, just a few months after the invasion, Inhofe said, “I felt much better (about the progress) after being there. My overall assessment is things are going very well.”
After a trip to the Sunni Triangle in April 2005, he said, “We’re light years ahead of where I thought we were. We’re moving in the right direction.”
Then, in December 2005, he returned from a trip to Baghad and Fallujah and reported, “Each time, it’s been better, but the progress has never been as dramatic as this.”
Last April, in a speech on the Senate floor, Inhofe said, “You almost have go to there and see these people, and see what they are doing now that they say they couldn’t have done. It is very difficult for an American to walk through the streets _ whether it is Tikrit, Fallujah, Baghdad or anywhere else _ without people running up to you and saying my daughter can now get married, our girls can now go to school, now we have water we can drink, now we have a sewage system that we haven’t had since the end of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
And last month, Inhofe said on the Senate floor, “We now see an improved Iraq. We see hospitals. We see manufacturers that are making clothing. We see girls that are going to school. This has never happened in the history of Iraq. We’ve seen all this progress ..”
He has said that he promotes the progress to counter what he considers disportionately negative stories in the national media.
Though other lawmakers return from Iraq with praise for accomplishments and talk of signs for hope, they typically temper those comments with warnings about the remaining challenges. Inhofe, meanwhile, has been loathe to utter a discouraging word.
According to his spokesman, Inhofe requested the trip he’s taking this weekend and no other lawmakers will be traveling with him.
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
Iraq Spending Bill: The Details
It’s likely to be a long night on the House floor as lawmakers once again take up legislation to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the next few months.
President Bush vetoed the funding bill sent to him last week because it included timelines for withdrawing troops. He has already vowed to veto this bill as well because it would divide the money up in two parts _ one allotment would be made once the bill is signed but the other would be withheld until the president reported to Congress progress made on a number of political issues in Iraq.
There are plenty of news reports on this new legislation available to you — from newspapers, wire services, broadcast outlets, etc. — most of which, by necessity, summarize the bill’s contents and intent.
I wanted to let you read the description of the bill sent to Democratic lawmakers earlier this week. There is some jargon and, of course, some acronyms: BRAC refers to base closure and realignment; SCHIP is the state health insurance program for children; LIHEAP is a program that helps the poor pay for their heating bills; and FY is fiscal year.
What you get from this description is an explanation of what Democrats are looking for in terms of progress in Iraq — the “benchmarks.”
Chris Casteel
Washington Bureau
This is from the Democratic Whip’s Office (that’s the leader who is responsible for counting and rounding up votes on bills).
FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bills
On Thursday and Friday, May 10 and 11, the House will likely consider the FY 2007 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bills.
The Supplemental will be divided into two separate bills. The first bill will focus primarily on the issue of Iraq but also include provisions addressing other military and domestic emergencies such as funding for international assistance and food aid; military construction for Iraq and Afghanistan; Veterans’ medical care; BRAC; homeland security improvements; Hurricane Katrina Recovery; Avian flu; LIHEAP; SCHIP.
This bill would also include provisions adopting a minimum wage and associated tax relief provisions; restrictions on the closure of Walter Reed; waiver of Stafford Act; forgiveness for community disaster loans; and a Medicaid provision.
The second bill will focus on rural and agricultural concerns such as agricultural disaster relief; wild land firefighting; funds for rural schools; and resources for California Salmon issues.
Please note: All of the funding levels in both bills are identical to what was passed in the Supplemental Conference report.
The leadership of our Caucus is urging all Members to support this legislation. These bills represent yet another step in a systematic approach to transition control to the Iraqi people and end American involvement in this war.
Please find below a detailed summary below that outlines the language regarding Iraqi funding and benchmarks as well as the other provisions within the two bills:
Supplemental Bill #1:
Iraq:
Would provide the full $95.5 billion for defense needs included in the vetoed bill, but all except 3 months of funding would be fenced and unavailable for obligation until released by subsequent legislation similar to the way the MX issue was handled in 1984:
Would include benchmarks similar to those proposed by the President and included in the vetoed bill and require the President to report to Congress by July 13 on progress in meeting those benchmarks. These benchmarks would include progress by the Government of Iraq in:
· Giving United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias;
· Delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis;
· Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces;
· Eliminating militia control of local security;
· Establishing a strong militia disarmament program;
· Ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws;
· Establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan;
· Eradicating safe havens; reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and
· Ensuring the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected.
Would require the President to report to Congress by July 13 on whether specified goals actually have been accomplished. These goals include the Government of Iraq:
· Enacting a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis;
· Adopting legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taking steps to implement such legislation, and setting a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections;
· Reforming current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws;
· Amending the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in Article 137 of such constitution; and
· Allocating and beginning expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
After receiving the reports in July, both the House and Senate would vote on whether to release the remaining Defense funds. Expedited procedures are written into this bill to ensure that the subsequent vote takes place in both Houses by the end of July. These expedited procedures would be considered on the House floor in July in conjunction with the FY 2008 Defense appropriations bill.
Those procedures would also guarantee a vote in the House on an amendment to provide that defense funding related to Iraq could only be used to plan and execute the redeployment of troops within 180 days of enactment.
The only exceptions to this troop redeployment would be for troops protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces; serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; or training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
Would require the President to submit a monthly report accounting for the number of Iraqi security battalions at each level of combat proficiency.
Would also include a sense of Congress provision that as each battalion of the security forces of Iraq achieves the appropriate combat proficiency sufficient to conduct independent combat operations without support from Coalition forces in Iraq, a unit of the United States of comparable size should be withdrawn.
Would also include:
Prohibition on establishment of permanent bases in Iraq;
Prohibition on torture;
Murtha readiness provisions;
Death gratuity amendment.
Other Matters:
o $6.2 billion for international assistance (including food aid) for Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and others;
o $1.7 billion for military construction related to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
o $1.8 billion for veterans’ medical care;
o $3.1 billion to fully fund BRAC;
o $2.250 billion to improve homeland security;
o $6.8 billion for Hurricane Katrina recovery;
o $663 million for Avian flu;
o $400 million for LIHEAP;
o $393 million to fund the short-term SCHIP fix;
o Minimum wage and associated tax relief provisions.
o Restrictions on the closure of Walter Reed;
o Waiver of Stafford Act;
o Community disaster loan forgiveness provision;
o Durbin Medicaid provision.
Supplemental Bill #2:
Agricultural and Rural Relief:
o $3.5 billion for agricultural disaster relief;
o $500 million for wild land firefighting;
o $425 million for Rural Schools;
o $60 million for California Salmon.
