Inhofe-Roberts-Burr-Vitter to Visit GITMO on Monday
Inhofe Expresses Deep Concerns with Stimulus Bill
Inhofe Speaks Out Against Eric Holder Nomination
Inhofe Votes NO on Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary Nomination
Law Needs to Focus on Neediest Children (Inhofe Op-Ed, Oklahoman)
Inhofe Presses Gates on FCS and Military Priorities
Senators Re-Introduce the Life at Conception Act
Inhofe Disappointed in Presidents Reversal of Mexico City Policy on Taxpayer Funded Abortions
Inhofe Releases Annual Report for 2008
In the News...Odd couple: Obama order aligns polar opposites (Oklahoman Editorial)
In the News...Up a Creek: Picher rental plan should be scrapped (Oklahoman Editorial)
In the News...Funds secured for Fort Sill Reserve Center (The Lawton Constitution)
In the News...Sen. Inhofe: Stimulus Bill a Big Buyoff (Newsmax)
In the News...Inhofe, Coburn speak against current stimulus proposal (Tulsa World)
Enid
302 N Independence
Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
(580) 234-5105
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
McAlester
215 E Choctaw Ave
Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
(918) 426-0933
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Oklahoma City
1900 NW Expressway St
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
(405) 608-4381
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Tulsa
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104
(918) 748-5111
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Washington
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Inhofe-Roberts-Burr-Vitter to Visit GITMO on Monday
Senator Inhofe, a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will be leading a Congressional Delegation on Monday, February 2, 2009 to Guantanamo Bay (GITMO), that will include Senators Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and David Vitter (R-La.), on a fact-finding mission in response to President Obama's executive order to close the prison.
Senator Inhofe: "Several claims have been tossed around over the past few years in regards to the operations at GITMO, but with President Obama's intention to close down the facility, the United States could be faced with some very grave national security threats. President Obama's Executive Order failed to take into consideration the implications of closing GITMO - what happens to current detainees at GITMO, what does the military do with detainees held in other military prisons around the world, how does the military handle terrorists captured in the future, and what judicial process is going to be used. The trip is designed to help bring these and other issues to the forefront. Senator Roberts, Burr, and Vitter will be joining me on this trip."
Senator Burr: "I look forward to visiting the Guantanamo detention facility so that we can make decisions based on fact and first hand observations about what to do with these dangerous detainees. I am so far unconvinced that moving trained terrorists to the United States is in the best national security interests of our nation."
Senator Vitter: "I was very disappointed in President Obama's decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. This facility should not be closed, and these individuals should not be released until we can determine the extent of their potential involvement in terrorist activities. And we most certainly should use every available measure to ensure that they do not make their way into the United States if in fact they are released."
Senator Roberts: "This is my second trip to Gitmo. On this visit I am eager to talk with our honor bound men and women in uniform and our intelligence officials about safeguards and conditions for housing these detainees in the future. I am especially concerned with ridiculous speculation that Ft. Leavenworth is equipped to handle these detainees, some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world. I am convinced these terrorists cannot and will not be housed in Kansas."
Related Links:
INHOFE-BOREN-FALLIN-COLE -SULLIVAN -LUCAS SAY NO TO TERRORISTS COMING TO OKLAHOMA
Inhofe Presses Gates on FCS and Military Priorities
Inhofe Expresses Deep Concerns with Stimulus Bill
At a press conference on Thursday, Senator Inhofe spoke out this week on the insufficient infrastructure funding in both the House and Senate Stimulus bills. Senator Inhofe also released a letter he sent last week with EPW Chairman Boxer and committee members Sen. Baucus and Sen. Voinovich to Senate Appropriators stressing the importance of robust infrastructure funding.
To watch video of the press conference, click on the picture above
"Whenever I hear people talk about the stimulus, the first thing they mention is infrastructure and ready to go projects,” Inhofe said. “Yet I’m concerned that the amounts of money for infrastructure in both House and Senate Appropriations bills are alarmingly low considering the total package is over $800 billion. I want to make sure that the stimulus bills adequately fund our deteriorating infrastructure. There needs to be truth in advertising. You can't say the stimulus is an infrastructure investment bill when highway improvement makes up less than 4% of both the House and Senate’s proposed packages. I am working with a number of Senators from both sides of the aisle to craft an amendment to dramatically increase the level of highway investment in the Stimulus.”
Background:
In a letter sent to Senate Appropriators last week by Senator Inhofe, along with EPW Chairman Boxer and committee members Sen. Baucus and Sen. Voinovich, stressed the importance of robust infrastructure funding being provided in any stimulus package that comes from Congress. The letter was in response to concern over the inadequate $30 billion funding level for the Federal-Aid Highways program included in the House Appropriations Committee stimulus bill released on January 15th. The Senate Appropriations Committee stimulus bill includes only $27 billion for highways and bridges.
The following are excerpts from the January 23, 2009, letter addressed to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Inouye, and Ranking Member Senator Cochran:
-Transportation infrastructure is one of the best forms of stimulus spending that the government has at its disposal. The economic benefits from transportation investment include both the immediate job creation from construction in addition to the long term economic benefits associated with the completed project. According to economists, every $1 billion spent on infrastructure adds $3.4 billion to the gross domestic product. There is obviously an economic need for a stimulus and infrastructure investment can clearly deliver the needed results.
-The Department of Transportation recently estimated that for every $1 billion invested in highways and bridges at the Federal level, which is also matched by state funding, 34,800 jobs are created or maintained. We believe that the appropriate level of highway funding in the stimulus should create or maintain at least 2 million American jobs.
-According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the backlog of needed projects to simply maintain the current highway and bridge network is $495 billion. This includes projects that are ready to go as well as those that are not as far along in the process.
-Given the large number of ready to go highway projects and the economic benefits of highway investment, we believe the level of highway investment should be at least 10 percent of the total stimulus package.
Inhofe Speaks Out Against Eric Holder Nomination
Senator Inhofe released a YouTube video this week to speak out against Eric Holder's nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. To watch the video, click on the picture below.
Hello, I am Jim Inhofe, a proud Conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma, and I wanted you to be the first to know I am going to vote against to the appointment of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who value their 2nd amendment personal right to own their own firearms. I also believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who favor justice over political patronage. Finally, I believe I am speaking on behalf of Americans who realize we are in a War on Terror and want to continue the strong efforts to bring terrorists to justice. I am opposed to the appointment of Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
That he is opposed to the right to keep and bear arms is bad enough, but I am also very uncomfortable with Mr. Holder’s judgment and record on pardons and clemency during the Clinton Administration. He apparently chose to circumvent the standard process by which all pardons are considered and granted, and clouded this process with the appearance of impropriety. If the pardon of Mark Rich was not impropriety, and I believe it was, then it was at the very least extreme negligence, and such negligence has no place in any level of government. Mark Rich, whom many label a tax evader, is in fact even more than that. Rich was indicted in 1983 on 65 counts of not only tax evasion, but also fraud, racketeering, and trading with the enemy. Rich fled to Switzerland before he could stand trial, which is perhaps the most egregious element of this case—he was a fugitive and a regular fixture on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List. And Holder recommended a pardon, bypassed the Department of Justice and the hundreds of individuals who worked to bring Mark Rich to justice, when the man who was being pardoned was not even willing to face the same justice system to which every other American must answer. In fact, Holder admitted during his confirmation hearing that he did not adequately acquaint himself with the facts of the case. The United States Senate should not allow such injustice to go unanswered.
Equally egregious, Holder was deputy attorney general in an Administration which granted clemency to 16 members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, the terrorist organization FALN. This is a group that carried out violent protests, set off bombs several times in New York City and Chicago and was convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition. The Clinton Administration granted clemency despite opposition from the US Attorney’s office, FBI, and most importantly, the victims of FALN terrorist activities. This was Holder’s recommendation.
For at least these reasons, I oppose the nomination of an individual who just doesn’t agree with Americans that I know. I will be voting a definitive no on the Holder nomination.
I hope that if you feel as strongly as I do about this that you will let your feelings be known – just take the time to let your voices be heard in Washington. Start by leaving a comment on my YouTube page below. The Senate needs to hear your voice.
Inhofe Votes NO on Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary Nomination
On Monday, Senator Inhofe voted "no" on President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, and expressed his concerns with the nomination in a Senate Floor speech. Below are excerpts of Senate Floor speech. Click on the picture below to watch the video.
“This is one of those things that make people so angry about their government. The man who wants to be in charge of the IRS messed up his taxes, and got a pass from the US Senate. For as much as we talk about a level playing field, it sure looks like we don’t walk the walk when we have the opportunity.
“However, I want to emphasize that my objection to Timothy Geithner’s nomination to head the Treasury Department has nothing to do with his tax issues. I want Senators to realize what a vote for Mr. Geithner really is. It is ratifying aggressive federal government intervention in the economy. It is flippant use of billions in US taxpayer dollars to prop up favored institutions and pick winners and losers in the marketplace. This has created great uncertainty in the market, which is precisely what we don’t need right now.
“The government has gone too far, and under Mr. Geithner, all indications are that we are not going to slow down anytime soon. We need a change of course. We need to finally, trillions of dollars later, find the strength to let those who made poor decisions bear some of the consequences, instead of taxpayers. Timothy Geithner will take the helm of the Treasury Department at a time when the government has entangled itself into the economy to an unprecedented extent. Given his strong support—stronger by many accounts than Secretary Paulson himself—for ad hoc bailouts of big firms, I cannot support his nomination.”
Senator Inhofe’s Full Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:
Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Timothy Geithner for the position of Secretary of the Treasury, and I would like to detail a couple of the reasons.
First, I do not believe Mr. Geithner has been entirely candid about his tax issues. I think he has been less than forthcoming about all the facts. For example, Mr. Geithner accepted compensation from his employer to offset taxes, when he had never paid those taxes to begin with. And, having been informed about his oversight for tax years 2003 and 2004, he never bothered to check for 2001 and 2002. I can tell you that for people in Oklahoma and across the country, small businesses or an individual, who made an honest mistake on their taxes have found their government’s treatment of them slightly more aggressive than they have seen the treatment of Mr. Geithner – a man about to head the IRS. It’s one of those things that make people so angry about their government. The man who wants to be in charge of the IRS messed up his taxes, and got a pass from the US Senate. For as much as we talk about a level playing field, it sure looks like we don’t walk the walk when we have the opportunity.
However, I want to emphasize that my objection to Timothy Geithner’s nomination to head the Treasury Department has nothing to do with his tax issues. The matter which compels my coming to the floor is far, far more serious. I want Senators to realize what a vote for Mr. Geithner really is. It is ratifying aggressive federal government intervention in the economy. It is flippant use of billions in US taxpayer dollars to prop up favored institutions and pick winners and losers in the marketplace. This has created great uncertainty in the market, which is precisely what we don’t need right now. And let me say that not all federal intervention during a financial crisis is created equal. The FDIC, for example, did a good job managing the biggest bank failure in US history while we in Congress were all debating the TARP. What I object to is the midnight rescue packages, and the ad hoc approach. I object to the say one thing, do another programs. I object to the complete lack of any policy framework, explanation of principles, or coherent approach. I object to the absolute lack of any transparency whatsoever. I object to the indifference to the taxpayers’ interests. Put simply, I object to the bailout mania we have all witnessed.
It all started with Bear Stearns nearly a year ago. The initiator of the Bear Stearns deal was not Secretary Paulson or Chairman Bernanke, though of course they signed off on it. It was Timothy Geithner. After the deal was announced, Robert Novak reported in his column that an unnamed Fed official confided in him at the time that “we may have crossed a line” in bailing out Bear Stearns. Mr. Novak wrote that was an understatement, and that we wouldn’t know the ramifications of this decision for some time. Well, we are now trillions of dollars past that line and we’re beginning to comprehend the course on which that decision has set us. And I personally believe that trillions of dollars past that line, we’re not much better off. I say enough. The government has gone too far, and under Mr. Geithner, all indications are that we are not going to slow down anytime soon. We need a change of course. We need to finally, trillions of dollars later, find the strength to let those who made poor decisions bear some of the consequences, instead of taxpayers.
Timothy Geithner will take the helm of the Treasury Department at a time when the government has entangled itself into the economy to an unprecedented extent. Given his strong support—stronger by many accounts than Secretary Paulson himself—for ad hoc bailouts of big firms, I cannot support his nomination. I want this Senate to consider the message we would continue to send the American people. I oppose this nomination, and I yield the floor.
Law Needs to Focus on Neediest Children (Inhofe Op-Ed, Oklahoman)
Published: February 1, 2009
Last week, the U.S. Senate passed legislation to reauthorize current law that provides health care to children from families with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,000 for a family of four in 2009). Unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate has veered beyond the original intent of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Originally signed into law in 1997, SCHIP enjoys tremendous success and I believe the program must be reauthorized, but we need to do so responsibly.
To do so, SCHIP should remain squarely focused on the children who need it the most. I believe Congress should look to Oklahoma's success as an example before passing final legislation.
Oklahoma has been able to expand the insurance rolls to cover more children in a manner that is reasonable and fiscally responsible by designing its SCHIP program as an expansion of its Medicaid program. Oklahoma, under SoonerCare, currently covers children up to age 18 who have an income eligibility of up to 185 percent of FPL. As a result, we have decreased the number of uninsured children in Oklahoma.
Further, in considering this bill we simply must ask what kind of health coverage we want to incentivize. Specifically, I am concerned with more than $56 billion of spending in the bill to expand coverage for families of four with incomes up to $66,000 with government-sponsored health care. One of the main concerns with this expansion is the crowd-out effect when public subsidies encourage people to give up their private insurance.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the new SCHIP legislation demonstrates that nearly half a million families would be able to drop existing private coverage as a result of the expansion of the SCHIP program. In fact, the bill includes a loophole for New Jersey to expand coverage up to 350 percent of FPL and New York to expand coverage up to 400 percent of FPL ($88,000 a year for family of four). Why not focus the legislation to target funds at children without insurance, not those who already have private health care?
I am also working on an alternative approach, called the Kids First Act. My bill has a more fiscally responsible approach that would reauthorize SCHIP, as it was originally written, to cover targeted low-income children up to 200 percent of FPL. Importantly, our bill also included language allowing states to provide SCHIP coverage for unborn children.
I have long been dedicated to quality health care and desire to see my fellow Oklahomans and all Americans receive the best possible health care with the most choices. Now more than ever, we must be cautious of small steps that lead to universal government-run health care rather than a consumer-driven health care market, which would provide Americans with a wide array of choices and the opportunity to make their own decisions about their health care. Providing reasonable health insurance for America's low-income children is something we must get right.
Inhofe Presses Gates on FCS and Military Priorities
Senator Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week pressed Defense Secretary Robert Gates at an Armed Services hearing for a commitment to the Army's modernization program, the Future Combat System (FCS), and other military and national security priorities. One component of FCS, the Non- Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), is being integrated outside of Fort Sill in Elgin, OK. Secretary Gates was testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee on the challenges facing the Department of Defense in FY09 and his priorities for the coming year. Secretary Gates will continue on as Secretary of Defense under President Obama, and this was the first opportunity for the Senate Armed Services Committee to question the defense priorities of the Obama Administration.
"With the FCS program, the Army is undertaking a full-scaled modernization of its weapon systems that is long overdue," Senator Inhofe said. "It is of vital importance that Defense Secretary Gates makes continuing this program one of his top priorities. FCS will enable our military to continue taking the fight to our enemies, across the full spectrum of warfare. Components of FCS are currently in the field and in the hands of our warfighters saving Soldiers’ lives. When I pressed Secretary Gates for a commitment to FCS, he said it had been useful that the Army re-examined the entire FCS program, assessing what capabilities could be accelerated and spun out to the warfighter. He committed to taking a closer look at all other elements of FCS to determine the value of each for ‘hybrid’ complex wars - a mixture of both conventional and unconventional warfare. I will continue fighting to ensure FCS is fully-funded and that Secretary Gates, President Obama and the rest of Congress understand its necessity."
During the hearing, Senator Inhofe asked Secretary Gates for and received a commitment to maintain Department of Defense (DoD) funding for ongoing global train and equip initiatives, such as the International Military Education Training (IMET) and the Building Global Partnerships programs, to include military-to-military, civilian-to-civilian, and small-scale special forces training. "Secretary Gates confirmed the importance of these programs and the positive impact they are having throughout the globe," Inhofe said. "Secretary Gates stated that the current approach, DoD funded programs with the Departments of State and Defense working together, is the way is it should be executed."
Senator Inhofe also took the opportunity to ask Secretary Gates about the newly formed U.S. African Command (AFRICOM). Senator Inhofe has been a strong supporter of AFRICOM, especially its focus on working alongside Africans to improve their preparedness and response to security issues and humanitarian crises, as well as increased governmental accountability and economic development. "Because of my concern that the new African Command will not be adequately resourced or adequately focused on building partnerships among African nations, I asked Secretary Gates to continue prioritizing resources to AFRICOM,” Inhofe said. “Secretary Gates committed to continue to look at the resources being allocated to AFRICOM, ensuring that General Ward can effectively execute its mission. Importantly, Secretary Gates also committed to reassess the location of AFRICOM's headquarters from Stuttgart, Germany to a location possibly in Africa within three years."
Finally, Senator Inhofe expressed to Secretary Gates his strong disapproval of President Obama's commitment to close Guantanamo Bay, stressing that he would strongly oppose any effort to relocate prisoners to American soil, especially sites in Oklahoma. On Friday, January 23, 2009, Senator Inhofe joined other members of the Oklahoma Congressional Delegation to say “No” to terrorists being relocated from Guantanamo to locations in Oklahoma.
Senators Re-Introduce the Life at Conception Act
In an attempt to protect the unborn by resolving the question of when life begins, Senator Inhofe joined this week with Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune (R-S.D.), David Vitter (R-La.), and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), to re-introduced the Life at Conception Act, legislation that declares that life begins at conception and the unborn to be “persons” under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Sen. Inhofe said, “Our government has both a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the sanctity of human life. With Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a new Democratic President, we must fight twice as hard for the sanctity of life and promote our Life at Conception Act.”
Sen. Roger Wicker, said: “In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court refused to define when life begins, thus delegating this determination to the legislative branch. This legislation clearly defines that life begins at the moment of conception, a belief that is commonly held by most Americans and is something science has long proven.”
Sen. Jim DeMint said, “We must defend innocent, unborn children and extend to them the same rights of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ enjoyed by every American, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and protected by our Constitution.”
Sen. Mel Martinez said, “This effort is about fostering a culture of life, where every life is considered sacred, every child is celebrated, and life at all stages is given the dignity that it deserves.”
Sen. John Thune said, “Unborn children, as distinct, unique human beings, are fully deserving of our society’s attention, provision, and care. I believe this amendment would take a strong step toward achieving this goal.”
Sen. David Vitter said, “As science continues to advance, the evidence that life begin at conception is becoming more and more irrefutable. This bill is critical to the fight to protect the culture of life, especially as we face an administration and new Congress that seems determined to advance the agenda of a practice that a great number of Americans find abhorrent.”
In its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the court acknowledged that “if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe”], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
Inhofe Disappointed in Presidents Reversal of Mexico City Policy on Taxpayer Funded Abortions
Senator Inhofe on Monday made the following statement about President Obama’s reversal on Friday of the Mexico City Policy that opposes U.S. funding for international organizations that promote or perform abortions.
“Legalized abortion robs this nation of vast potential and it destroys some of our nation’s most cherished values: family, responsibility, and commitment,” Senator Inhofe said. “Our government has both a moral and constitutional obligation to protect the sanctity of human life. President Obama’s decision to reverse the Mexico City Policy that prevents the U.S. from funding international organizations that promote or perform abortions is extremely disappointing and clearly signals where the new President stands on this issue.
“I am strongly opposed to any sort of federal funding for these organizations. I have cosponsored legislation in the 111th Congress, the Title X Family Planning Act (S.85), prohibiting federal family planning funds from being awarded to any grantees and their subgrantees who perform abortions, and intend to cosponsor legislation to the same effect in the 111th Congress.
“With Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a new Democratic President, we must fight twice as hard for the sanctity of life, including ensuring that the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would effectively reverse many pro-life laws currently enacted, does not pass. I am extremely disappointed in this policy change and will do everything in my power to keep our government leaders committed to our constitutional right to life.”
Inhofe Releases Annual Report for 2008
Senator Inhofe released his Annual Report for 2008, and wrote the following note to Oklahoma constituents:
As we begin the 111th Congress, it is important to evaluate what was accomplished last year and what priorities remain. As a way to share what I did in the U.S. Senate on your behalf, I am pleased to provide this Annual Report for 2008. I hope that you will find this information useful.
Last year, our country faced many great challenges, most troubling of which was the collapse of the economy. I believe that Congress made a massive error in handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to one unelected bureaucrat. I adamantly opposed the bailouts – which have now totaled more than $1 trillion – and the New Year has proven that these funds were spent with no oversight and have done nothing to fix the economy. Rather than throwing your money away, I am calling on Congress to direct its attention to solutions that enable you to keep more of your hard-earned money and promote lasting economic growth.
I am committed to protecting Oklahoma’s way of life. In this report you will see where I worked to address our nation’s energy crisis using my state as the prime example for the vast potential we have to develop energy right here in our country and no longer be bound to foreign oil.
As the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I fought against overreaching government regulation and defeated the climate tax bill that would have cost thousands of dollars for American families. Additionally, I supported the work of the Economic Development Administration whose investments have been extremely successful in creating and sustaining thousands of jobs in Oklahoma and across America.
Through my leadership position on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I worked to strengthen our nation’s defense and build global partnerships that are vital to our national security.
What I have enjoyed most in my years of public service is flying to every corner of my home state and hearing directly from constituents about their views on the issues. I invite you to visit my website at www.inhofe.senate.gov to learn more and to share your views.
A lot needs to be done in this next Congress, but be assured; I stand in your corner. Thank you for giving me this honor to serve you in the U.S. Senate.
In the News...Odd couple: Obama order aligns polar opposites (Oklahoman Editorial)
Oklahoman
Editorial: Odd couple: Obama order aligns polar opposites
January 30, 2009
Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe and Michigan Sen. Carl Levin are polar opposites on most issues in Congress, yet find themselves eye to eye on President Barack Obama's recent executive order that could let individual states set their own auto emissions standards.
Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Bush administration's refusal to grant waivers to California and 13 other states that would let them develop their own tailpipe emissions standards.
Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, called Obama's decision an example of "environmental thuggery" and a blow to the U.S. auto industry."
The last thing our economy needs is a patchwork of regulatory compliance regimes in addition to the federal standard that would be even more costly for automobile manufacturers," Inhofe told the Tulsa World. "Put simply, this will mean job losses."
Levin, one of the Senate's most liberal members but a defender of Michigan-based car makers, said Obama's move would create a "patchwork" of emissions standards. California's standard, now in draft form, would discriminate against American-made cars of the same fuel efficiency as imported competitors, Levin said.
Both senators are right. Allowing individual emissions standards is bound to make U.S. cars more expensive. Saddling Detroit with new operating expenses, even as Washington hands out billions to car makers in loans, borders on schizophrenia.
We trust the two senators will work together to block this unwise policy. Inhofe and Levin, working together? That's going to take some getting used to.
In the News...Up a Creek: Picher rental plan should be scrapped (Oklahoman Editorial)
Oklahoman Editorial
Up a Creek: Picher rental plan should be scrapped
2009-01-30
The mess that is Tar Creek continues to make news in Oklahoma, and as usual it isn't good news.
Tar Creek is a Superfund site in northeastern Oklahoma where for years, various agencies tried to solve the many environmental problems left behind when the lead and zinc mining industry dried up. Those include sinkholes, tainted water and high concentrations of lead in the region.
In 2005, the state offered a buyout to families with young children, who are particularly susceptible to damage caused by lead. That was followed later by a $60 million federal program to help people move elsewhere. That program is now about halfway completed.
But recently it was reported that as many people are leaving the town of Picher, which is at the center of Tar Creek, other families are moving into rental units offered by the Picher Housing Authority. Some of these families have children.
Henry rightly called this "an outrage," especially considering the housing authority has the blessing of the feds - the U.S. Housing and Urban Development agency. Henry is urging HUD to move ahead with a plan to do away with the housing program. He and U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who helped get the federal buyout, agree there is no way that families with children should be in those rental units.
Right again. The state and federal buyout plans represented rare good news from Tar Creek - the chance for a real solution. Now this. Just because some people want to rent in Picher doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so.
In the News...Funds secured for Fort Sill Reserve Center (The Lawton Constitution)
Construction on the Armed Forces Reserve Center at Fort Sill is back on track now that setbacks caused during the bidding process have been resolved. The new Armed Forces Reserve Center is part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) law. As reported in the Lawton Constitution, Senator Inhofe was pleased to announce that “the $6 million shortfall on a proposed Armed Forces Reserve Center at Fort Sill has been taken care of,” and “the project is scheduled to be completed by December 2010.” Read below for the full article.
Lawton Constitution
By Mitch Meador, Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, January 27, 2009
WASHINGTON — The $6 million shortfall on a proposed Armed Forces Reserve Center at Fort Sill has been taken care of, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe announced Monday.
As part of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), the National Guard and Reserve are scheduled to replace all of their armories and maintenance facilities with Armed Forces Reserve Centers. Oklahoma has had one of these at Sand Springs for several years, and as part of the 2005 BRAC law it is supposed to get seven more, including Fort Sill’s.
A total of $39 million was authorized for the Fort Sill Armed Forces Reserve Center, but when bids were opened in September, all of them were too high.
“There was one glitch here. Our bids didn’t come in as low as anticipated by about $6 million,” Inhofe said. “This is something that is happening not just in Oklahoma, but all around.”
Inhofe said the additional expenditure was approved as a reallocation within the Army Budget Office, using funds previously authorized for BRAC. He said there was “not a real pushback” to the reallocation, just the normal opposition to anything that wasn’t previously authorized.
“We are pleased things went well,” Inhofe said. “The Army Budget Office is in the process of moving the money to the BRAC office as we speak, so good things are happening.”
The project is scheduled to be completed by December 2010, the senator said. The bids received by the Louisville District of the Army Corps of Engineers are good through the end of March, according to the district’s public affairs officer, Ron Elliott.
The proposed site of the Armed Forces Reserve Center is on the south side of Mowway Road, east of the new 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade Complex that’s now going up.
In the News...Sen. Inhofe: Stimulus Bill a Big Buyoff (Newsmax)
Newsmax
Sen. Inhofe: Stimulus Bill a 'Big Buyoff'
By: Rick Pedraza
Friday, January 30, 2009 10:31 PM
To watch the full Inhofe interview, Click Here
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., says the nearly trillion-dollar stimulus package the House of Representatives is heaping on Americans is nothing more than a huge spending bill with projects in it for people the Democratic-led Congress wants to buy off.
Inhofe, who says the bill will do nothing to stimulate the economy, also tells Newsmax TV that the superfluous bill will provide tax refunds to people who don't pay any taxes, and would even give government checks of up to $1,000 to illegal aliens.
“You have a stimulus bill that's supposed to stimulate the economy,” Inhofe explains. “We know how to do that. We did it under John Kennedy; we did it under Ronald Reagan. We know what it does and what you have to do for capital gains and for all these things to open up the economy. But this [stimulus package] doesn't do any of that. There’s so many things in there that are just bad.”
Inhofe notes that a lot of the pork lies in projects that have nothing to do with stimulating the U.S. economy, including:
-$30 billion on federal government building improvements
-$1.5 billion for homelessness prevention
-$650 million for digital TV coupons
-$650 million for wildlife management
-$600 million for the federal government to buy new green cars
-$570 million for climate change
-$75 million for smoking cessation activities
“The only tax decreases they have here are refundable tax credits,” Inhofe explains. “And that's really just giving refunds to people who don't pay taxes. That has nothing to do with stimulating the economy.”
One of Inhofe’s biggest objections to the $880 billion bill is that there is only $30 billion that goes toward some of what he believes are the real problems that should be addressed, such as roads and highways.
Inhofe says he personally met with President Barack Obama Monday to point out that the $30 billion earmarked for infrastructure represents only 3 percent of the total amount of the spending bill.
“When I told him that, he didn't believe it was that small a percentage,” Inhofe says. ”I said, ‘If we find that I'm right and you're wrong, would you go up to 10 percent?’ And he said, ‘I'd certainly look at that.’ Since then, he realizes that I am right. As far as roads and highways, it's $30 billion, and then a few [dollars] for water infrastructure.”
Inhofe believes it is the infrastructure improvements that could provide real jobs, while spurring the economy.
“We have over $1 billion worth of projects in America right now that are going to have to be done,” Inhofe points out. “Roads, bridges and that kind of thing; the type of thing government is supposed to be doing. We are going to do it, but this would allow them to do it earlier and use up some of that money they're throwing away.”
Inhofe also weighed in on Obama’s decision earlier this week to close the detention center on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, saying it is “a very dangerous and foolish idea,” and that he and several other lawmakers haven't given up the fight to keep it open.
Inhofe is leading a delegation to Guantanamo Bay, which he visited right after 9/11, to try to change the public’s perception about the facility.
“When they were accusing them of using interrogation methods that were not proper, I found that not to be true, but the perception is out there,” Inhofe says.
“First of all, this has been a real resource we've been able to use for a long time, and there's no place else we can put people like this,” Inhofe says about the detainees housed at Gitmo for alleged terrorist activities.
“If we were to close this thing down, we have people down there right now like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, along with his top four co-conspirators, and they're in the judicial process right now, which President Obama has said you must stop,” Inhofe says.
“What happens if they close it? We have to do something with these people. We have 120 hardcore terrorists that their countries of origin don't want back. There's no place that will take them. If we close Guantanamo, they've identified some 17 army installations around America where they could go, one of which happens to be in my state of Oklahoma.
“This is something that is totally unacceptable.”
Inhofe will be taking four colleagues with him to Cuba early next month, including Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., who is from Cuba and serves on the Armed Services Committee with Inhofe.
The purpose of the trip is to assess "the situation down there” in order “to tell America that we've got to keep this resource open. This is a great resource for us that can't be replaced anywhere else.”
To see the full Inhofe interview, Go Here Now.
In the News...Inhofe, Coburn speak against current stimulus proposal (Tulsa World)
Inhofe, Coburn speak against current stimulus proposal
by: JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Thursday, January 29, 2009
1/30/2009 6:55:18 AM
Link to Article
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sens. Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn weighed in Thursday against a massive package of spending and tax cuts designed to stimulate the economy.
Joining a group of fellow Republican senators, the two Oklahomans questioned whether many of the areas funded in the $800 billion-plus measure would actually end up providing a much-needed economic boost.
"We know what works," Inhofe said, citing previous packages that succeeded.
He repeated his previous comments of disappointment that spending on infrastructure projects such as highways is not a bigger percentage of the bill.
Citing the package's historic price tag, Inhofe said that each of the 3 million to 4 million jobs expected to be created would cost about $295,000.
Coburn also said spending on certain areas would help but predicted 80 percent of the money in the bill would not stimulate the economy.
"This is about spending money we don't have for things we don't need," he said.
Coburn said cities across Oklahoma have prepared their own lists of projects they hope to get funded.
"Everybody wants their share," he said.
Future generations will be denied wealth, Coburn said, if the bill passes.
"This bill is a generational theft bill," he said.
Others at the press conference spoke of the process used by congressional Democrats so far to advance the bill, a process the Republicans say does not track with the bipartisan approach sought by President Obama.
"We have been shut out," Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas said.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Ariz., warned Democrats of the risk they are taking by cramming down a stimulus package without Republican support only to find out it does not work months later.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama conceded Republicans have very little chance of changing the package but later expressed hope the ground will shift once the public learns more about the bill.
On Wednesday, the House passed its version by a vote of 244 to 188 without a single Republican vote.