[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 127 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10854-S10855]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me mention something else I think is 
critical. I have heard ugly rumors that the President of the United 
States might end up vetoing what we call the WRDA bill, the Water 
Resources Development Act. Let me say I don't understand. I am coming 
from a conservative perspective. I am ranked by the American 
Conservative Union, No. 1 out of 100 most conservative Member. Yet I am 
saying to you there are two things we ought to be spending money on in 
this country. One is national defense and the other is infrastructure.
  We have a crisis in our infrastructure. The big bill on 
transportation infrastructure we passed a year ago is going to do 
nothing more than maintain what we have now, and it is anticipated in 
20 years we will increase our traffic by 50 percent. What are we going 
to do?
  The same thing is true with the Water Resources Development Act. We 
have not had a reauthorization in 7 years. It should happen every other 
year.
  When you say I don't care if this thing is $10 billion or $20 
billion, the amount is not significant because it is not spending 
money, it is authorizing. If we authorize something--hopefully, we will 
pass this bill today. If we authorize something, it may never be 
appropriated or it may be appropriated 10 years down the road. So it 
does not have any remote effect on the budget today.
  I think it is dishonest for people to say this is somehow a spending 
bill and therefore we should vote against it. That is not true at all. 
I have the history of this body right here in my hand, and I have given 
several presentations on this recently. I say to my friend from 
Montana, who is new in this Chamber, this discussion has been going on 
between appropriators and authorizers since 1816.
  In 1867, they realized they needed to segregate the functions of 
authorization and appropriations so they established the appropriators, 
the Appropriations Committee. That was a good thing. But what happened 
on that, which has been the case for a long time, the appropriators 
slowly took over a little bit at a time so they ended up authorizing 
their own appropriations. That is what we don't want.
  Let me give an example. In the Senate Armed Services Committee, on 
which I am honored to sit, we go through all types of items, such as 
missile defense, as an example. We will have the boost phase and the 
midcourse phase and the terminal phase and we will have maybe two 
systems on each one. They are not redundant, but there are many people 
who say: Wait a minute. Maybe we should do away with that system 
because we can save this much money.
  But take the midcourse. We had the Aegis System and then we had the 
THAAD system in the terminal phase. These are not redundant because 
they take care of an incoming missile from different areas with 
different technologies. You would not know that if you are just an 
appropriator because you don't have the staff to go in and study and 
get into the details. But we authorize, in the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, because we do have that expertise.
  I say the same thing is true in my other committee that I used to 
chair. It was the Environment and Public Works Committee. As it applies 
to this particular bill, the WRDA bill--we have a set of criteria and 
evaluated equally all these projects. There will be many projects that 
have been authorized that I will come on the floor and oppose 
vigorously when appropriations time comes. But at least we will know 
they have gone through a process and they meet certain criteria. That 
is what is important. If you take that away, that is the first line of 
defense, doing away with superfluous types of earmarking.
  This is the only part of that system that offers discipline in the 
whole appropriations process. That is what this is all about. That is 
why the WRDA bill is so significant. Yet people who are liberal, 
conservatives, Democrats, Republicans who come together and realize we 
have an infrastructure in this country that has been sadly neglected, 
and we are going to have to do something about it, our opportunity will 
be today and I hope we can do the responsible thing and pass it.
  Then, during the August recess, you are going to hear this person, 
who is rated the most conservative Member of this body, out talking all 
over the Nation why this is the conservative approach to logically 
authorize these projects and then determine which ones are worthwhile.
  At least we know these have met a certain criteria.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. I will yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased that my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, 
the distinguished ranking member--and was the distinguished chair of 
the EPW Committee--has taken to the floor to state the case.
  You know, we fight so much, debate so much about so many issues, but 
this is one, I would say to my friend, where we have come together 
because we recognize that to have a great country, you have to have 
infrastructure that is capable, that is going to meet the needs of our 
people.
  I would say to my friend, is it not true that even though you and I 
might not agree with every single project--as my friend pointed out, 
this is the authorizing bill, and we did have criteria here. We did 
work with Members. I would say to my friend, isn't it true that we were 
the first committee that actually followed the ethics rules that were 
not even law? We filled out our conflict of interest forms, we 
presented the bill, and this bill was 7 years in the making.
  I just want to say to my friend, when he goes home and when he speaks 
about this, does he expect to have a good, receptive audience? I think 
my friend will. As I go to California, I am going to do the same thing.

[[Page S10855]]

  Many people will call us the odd couple because we do not agree on 
everything. But on this one, is it not true that we see eye to eye?
  Mr. INHOFE. It is. Reclaiming my time, I think you are being very 
generous when you say we don't always agree on every issue. In fact, 
there are no two people who probably disagree more. That tells you 
something. That tells you we have to do this. This is something this 
country cannot do without.
  Let me give you an example. I spent several years as the mayor of a 
major city, Tulsa, OK. The greatest problem we had was not crime in the 
streets, it was not prostitution, it was unfunded mandates. Now, what 
we do in this is go back to some of these small communities and say: We 
have mandated that in your drinking water system, your wastewater 
system, you do these things. And we should be responsible for helping 
you to comply with these mandates. It is very important.
  There is a group called Citizens Against Government Waste. I have 
right here--and I am going to submit this as part of the Record. For 16 
years prior to right now, they have identified 76,000 projects they 
thought were--that fall into this category of being earmarks.
  Do you know the interesting thing about this, I ask my friend from 
California, Senator Boxer. It is interesting that all of these 
projects, with very few exceptions, were not authorized.
  Now, if you look at what the Congressional Research Service comes up 
with, around 115,000, those include the ones that were authorized. So 
that tells you where the problem is. The problem is not in projects 
that were authorized, it is in projects that are not authorized. That 
is why we are doing the responsible thing today. I am hoping there is 
no one on either side who will hold up this bill because we have to 
keep moving with it before the recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Before I get into my remarks, I thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma and the Senator from California for the leadership they have 
shown on the WRDA bill.
  I couldn't agree more; infrastructure is critically important to this 
country. Infrastructure that revolves around our water resources may be 
the most important infrastructure we have. And to invest in that is 
truly a good investment that benefits our kids and grandkids and 
generations thereafter.
  So thank you both for your work on this bill and, hopefully, it can 
be passed with a good, healthy vote coming out of this body.

                          ____________________