[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 173 (Thursday, November 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14113-S14118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the veto message on H.R. 1495, which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany H.R. 1495, a bill to provide for 
     the conservation and development of water and related 
     resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
     construct various projects for improvements to rivers and 
     harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the 
veto message occur at 11:45, with half of that debate time equally 
divided between Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the remaining half under 
the control of the Republican leader.
  This has been approved by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, I will take a couple minutes at 
this time.
  I have been watching the Congress pretty closely now for 35 years as 
a Member of the House and the Senate, and I have been involved in end 
of sessions 19 times in the Senate, but I must say, it is about as big 
a mess as I have ever seen. We are not going to have a single 
appropriations bill down to the President signed for the whole year, 
even by the end of this week.
  The bill that is on the way, the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education appropriations bill, which is $9.8 billion above what the 
President asked for and has lots of problems, is going to be vetoed, 
and will be back up here next week. Hopefully, we will find a way 
before this week is out to pass the Defense appropriations bill so our 
men and women will know they are going to get the assistance they need, 
the equipment they need, the protections they need. That would be the 
first appropriations bill to get to the President that he might 
actually sign.
  It is true right across the board. All year long, it has been about 
political positioning. It has all been about fighting over Iraq. There 
are so few things where we have come together and worked together and 
gotten something produced.
  Thank goodness a couple weeks ago we did the Amtrak authorization 
bill. I have urged, all year long: Let's quit finding issues we can 
fight over, and let's find some issues we can work together on, get 
bipartisan agreements on that would help the American people.
  I believe, actually, the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development 
Act, is one of the few things we can look at and say we did something 
good for our country and for our constituents this year. It is 
bipartisan. It has been laboriously developed over the last 5 or 6 
years--a long time coming.
  It is one of the few areas where we actually do something 
constructive, where you can see physically something the Federal 
Government has done. It creates jobs. It provides safety and 
protection, safe drinking water. It is one of the only bills that I 
think actually produces a positive result.
  I have always been proud of the Corps of Engineers because the Corps 
of Engineers is one of the few Government entities that actually does 
something, produces something--something you can see and feel and helps 
the quality of life. We are always involved in social welfare programs, 
giveaway programs, and we are always trying to find a way to raise 
taxes and do things that are not good for our constituents. This one 
actually does something good.
  Sure, there are disagreements. There are some programs in here that 
probably are not sufficiently justified. I know from past experience, 
almost every President has opposed this type of bill. I remember Jimmy 
Carter did not like the Corps of Engineers. We had a fight with him 
over river projects, water projects, the same thing with George H.W. 
Bush, the same thing with Bill Clinton. He had people in his 
administration, in the Office of Management and Budget--oh, they didn't 
like water resources projects.
  Here it is again. The President has vetoed this bill. So I must say, 
I am not boasting about it, but I have no qualms about saying the 
President's views notwithstanding, I will vote to override his veto on 
this legislation.

[[Page S14114]]

  This is about flood protection. This is about water and sewer 
projects. It is about doing something about water and the proper 
salinity in the Gulf of Mexico. These are good, deserved, justified 
projects that should go forward.
  So I will vote to override the veto. Perhaps the President did the 
right thing in some respect, but I buy the argument it is an 
authorization. It is not an appropriations bill. I have always in the 
past found that if you get a project authorized and then you go get the 
appropriations, you do not have a problem. Well, we kind of got away 
from that. We have gotten into difficulty. But I understand why the 
President vetoed it. He is trying to hold the line on spending. 
Congratulations. That is good. I am going to be supporting him on most 
of his vetoes.

  I cannot imagine any vetoes that might be forthcoming where I would 
not support the President--beyond this. But in this case, I believe 
this bill is in the best interests of the country. I know it is very 
beneficial to my State. A quarter of the State probably would not exist 
if we did not have flood control projects. My State is a poor State. We 
are still struggling to make sure people have safe drinking water, so 
they do not have to haul the water to their house, believe it or not, 
here in 2007. Ports and harbors are critical for the future economic 
development and competitiveness of this country in a global economy.
  So I look forward to having a brief discussion. I look forward to the 
vote. I will vote to override the President's veto.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes on the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I, too, stand in strong support of 
overriding President Bush's veto of the WRDA bill. I do so because this 
WRDA bill is absolutely crucial for our entire country and nowhere more 
so than my State of Louisiana.
  This is a real hallmark in our continuing recovery from the 
devastating 2005 hurricanes--Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This is an 
enormously important step in that continuing recovery. That is true for 
many reasons, but the most fundamental is a simple one. Unfortunately, 
it is a fact many people forget. So much of the devastation to the 
Greater New Orleans area, in particular, immediately following 
Hurricane Katrina, was not because of an act of God. It was manmade. It 
was not because of the size and ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, as bad 
as that was. It was because of fundamental flaws and mistakes made by 
the Corps of Engineers in building our levees in Greater New Orleans.
  Now, that does not explain all of the flooding, by any means. It does 
explain at least 70 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the New 
Orleans area. So that is why this authorization bill, to move forward 
on crucial Corps of Engineers projects, and to do it right, with proper 
oversight from outside, independent experts, is so very important.
  One of the first things I did coming to the Senate in early 2005 was 
to go to the EPW Committee to begin my work on this WRDA bill. I worked 
relentlessly on it there with my colleagues and then followed the bill 
to the conference committee. So this is a very important, momentous 
step in our recovery with regard to closing MRGO, with regard to 
fundamental coastal restoration, with regard to a true 100-year level 
of protection, with regard to important projects in other parts of the 
State, the Port of Iberia, protection for Vermilion Parish, work in the 
Calcasieu River, bank stabilization in the Washita and Black Rivers.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's 
finish this job. Let's finally get this work done today. Let's override 
President Bush's veto of WRDA.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, when the quorum call is resumed, I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between the two 
sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. With that unanimous consent request having been granted, 
Mr. President, I again suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes on the override.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senate.
  I came here to just spread the Record with a couple of minutes of my 
observations about the WRDA bill and to suggest that the President of 
the United States made a mistake. This bill should not have been 
vetoed. This bill is totally an authorizing bill.
  Now, I don't want to say he made a mistake and then talk technical 
language that nobody understands, but in the Congress, we have a way of 
spending money. We have a way of spending money called appropriations, 
and we have a way of spending money that is an entitlement, such as 
Social Security or veterans' pensions, and then we have another way 
where we just authorize a program to be funded later, if at all--to be 
funded later, maybe--and that is an authorization bill.
  This WRDA bill is the result of a 7-year effort on the part of the 
committee of jurisdiction to put together a composite of all of the 
public works projects from around the country so that when somebody 
seeks to get them funded, they can say they have been authorized by the 
Congress. However, that doesn't mean they will ever get funded. If we 
don't have enough money, the programs that are included in WRDA won't 
get funded, and if they get funded, there will be an opportunity for a 
President to veto a bill that contains the money, the expenditures.
  So as I see it--now I am speaking to the President of the United 
States, not my friend in the chair--Mr. President: You should have 
talked to some of us who have been here and who would have told you 
that no matter what numbers you put down on this bill, we don't spend 
any money unless and until we appropriate it, and we may never 
appropriate it. Many bills are authorized and the Congress never gets 
around to saying we have enough money to pay for them.
  So I am going to vote to override the President so we will have this 
authorizing bill called WRDA on the books for those projects that from 
time to time Members will say to the Appropriations Committee: It is 
time to spend money for this and it is time to spend money for that, or 
the appropriators may say: We don't have enough money for any of it.
  For instance, in my State of New Mexico, there is a provision for a 
park along the Rio Grande River where we have a greenbelt of sorts, and 
it will be a rather startling park for the city of Albuquerque if it is 
ever done. But it may never get done. It is just authorized by the WRDA 
bill after years of work. My office worked very hard on that program 
for a long time, and we were fortunate to get it in this bill, and 
maybe someday we will get to fund it.
  So I say to the President of the United States: I assume you 
understand you will get overridden on this bill, and I would assume 
rather handsomely. Many of us would listen to you if you are talking 
about spending too much money, but this one is not that; it isn't 
spending too much money because it doesn't spend any money. It may 
never spend any money. But when it does, those will be the 
opportunities for vetoes or for people to argue that you are spending 
too much.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senate for listening.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S14115]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, Senator Inhofe will be here shortly. We have both been 
in a hearing on global warming, and on that one, we don't see eye to 
eye, but on this override, we very much see eye to eye.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my strong 
support for the President's veto of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 2007, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override 
this veto. This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 
1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our 
national water infrastructure.
  When the House and Senate went to Conference on WRDA, the Senate bill 
totaled $14 billion and the House bill $15 billion. Somehow this 
resulted in a final conference report totaling $23 billion and 900 new 
projects--300 more than either of the House- or Senate-passed bills had 
included. These items are just further additions to the growing backlog 
at the Corps of Engineers.
  Buried among these projects are valid infrastructure needs including 
helping to protect the gulf coast against future hurricanes. However, 
as stated in the November 5, 2007, Washington Post editorial entitled 
``Fiscal Plunge: A vetoed $23 billion water bill is not worth saving,'' 
``The bill would indeed authorize about $1.9 billion for coastal 
ecosystem restoration and protection in Louisiana to help the state 
rebuild its defenses against hurricanes. The president supports that; 
he just thinks that Congress could have authorized it without also 
larding on billions of dollars' worth of economically and 
environmentally questionable projects.'' I will ask that the editorial 
be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  I know that many are arguing that we have to pass legislation in 
order to begin or complete important water infrastructure projects 
throughout the United States. However, I believe that we should be 
passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without 
sacrificing fiscal responsibility.
  In August, the Senate passed the Honest Leadership and Open 
Government Act of 2007 with the supposed intention of bringing 
integrity to the system of earmarking appropriation and authorizations 
bills. Unfortunately, within 10 days of its enactment, the Senate 
approved the conference report for WRDA that is just more of the same 
earmarks and then some. Prior to congressional consideration of the 
conference report, the Director of OMB and Assistant Secretary of the 
Army for Civil Works sent a letter to Congress stating that the 
excessive price and number of projects in this legislation would result 
in a Presidential veto. I am pleased that the President followed 
through on that statement and rightfully vetoed this water resources 
bill full of pork projects and unchecked Government spending.
  When issuing his veto of the Water Resources Development Act on 
November 2, 2007, the President stated, ``This bill does not set 
priorities. The authorization and funding of Federal water resources 
projects should be focused on those projects with the greatest merit 
that are also a Federal responsibility . . . This bill promises 
hundreds of earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the 
Nation's critical water resources needs . . . while diverting resources 
from the significant investments needed to maintain existing Federal 
water infrastructure. American taxpayers should not be asked to support 
a pork-barrel system of Federal authorization and funding where a 
project's merit is an afterthought.''
  During Senate consideration of this bill, Senator Feingold offered an 
amendment that I was pleased to cosponsor that would have established a 
system to give clarity to the process used for funding Corps projects. 
Of course, that amendment was not adopted because this Congress values 
pet projects over national priorities. I believe that this Congress has 
a duty to protect taxpayers' dollars and ensure that they are used for 
the most cost effective and critically needed projects. This bill fails 
to provide for any clarity or prioritization in the funding process and 
would result in further confusion and irresponsibility in how Corps 
projects are funded.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the attempt to override the 
President's veto of the Water Resources and Development Act of 2007.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial to which I 
referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Fiscal Plunge: A Vetoed $23 Billion Water Bill Is Not Worth Saving.

       Ah, the theatrics of Washington. On Friday, President Bush 
     vetoed the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a bill 
     that would authorize $23 billion in spending on water 
     projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. Lawmakers of both 
     parties were critical. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid 
     (D-Nev.) said that the veto shows ``President Bush is out of 
     touch with the American people and their priorities.'' 
     According to Mr. Reid, one of 81 senators to vote for the 
     WRDA (it passed the House 381 to 40), the bill would 
     ``strengthen our environment and economy and protect our 
     natural resources'' and fund projects ``essential to 
     protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region'' from 
     hurricanes. The veto is ``irresponsible,'' Mr. Reid declared.
       After almost five years in which he did little to check the 
     spending of a Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Bush is a 
     bit late in trying to recover his party's reputation for 
     fiscal conservatism. But even discounting for the White 
     House's political posturing, this is hardly an example of an 
     ``irresponsible'' veto. To the contrary, that word might 
     better be applied to the WRDA itself. The bill would indeed 
     authorize about $1.9 billion for coastal ecosystem 
     restoration and protection in Louisiana to help the state 
     rebuild its defenses against hurricanes. The president 
     supports that; he just thinks that Congress could have 
     authorized it without also larding on billions of dollars' 
     worth of economically and environmentally questionable 
     projects. And he's right: After all, the Senate and the House 
     versions of the legislation tipped the scales at $14 billion 
     and $15 billion, respectively. Then, in conference committee, 
     lawmakers added more pet projects to bring the total up to 
     $23 billion.
       The silver lining in the bill is that it takes some 
     tentative steps toward reforming the Army Corps, providing 
     for independent review of projects worth more than $45 
     million. But this modest change is much weaker than what the 
     overhaul reformers in the Senate had advocated. Thus Mr. 
     Bush's valid concern, expressed in his veto message, that the 
     WRDA ``does not set priorities'' among the $58 billion in 
     projects authorized in past bills. Indeed, though it has a 
     high nominal price tag, the WRDA only promises projects, 
     essential and otherwise, that have to compete for the $2 
     billion the Army Corps spends each year. So the WRDA is 
     largely a hollow political exercise. Given the overwhelming 
     margins by which both houses passed the bill, though, Mr. 
     Bush's veto is almost certain to be promptly overridden. This 
     time, Congress's empty gesture will trump the president's 
     futile one.

  Mr. McCAIN. I think it is important to note the historic significance 
of what I think is about to happen here because only 106 times in the 
entire history of the United States of America has the Congress 
overridden a Presidential veto--only 106 times. The first time was in 
1845 over the funding of military equipment. Then-President Tyler 
bypassed Congress and tried to buy some equipment that Congress had not 
approved of. Congress was able to stop that when his veto was 
overridden on the bill.
  The point is, there is, in our Constitution, a separation of powers 
and a balance of powers. I think when there is overwhelming support 
across party lines, overwhelming support from our communities from the 
bottom up, to pay attention to our infrastructure, to pay attention to 
the needs of our economy, to pay attention to the needs of the American 
people--when there is overwhelming bipartisan support, why would a 
President cast a veto?
  As I asked rhetorically before the President vetoed this WRDA bill, I 
said: Do we have to fight about everything? Aren't there some things on 
which we can agree? But it was not to be. I think if, in fact, we do 
override this veto--which I fully expect we will do, but I never count 
anything until it is done--I think what we are saying to the President 
is, he should respect us, he should respect the Senate, the House, and 
the American people. We were elected too. We are close to the people. 
We know what their needs are.

[[Page S14116]]

If, in fact, we do override this ill-advised veto, the American people 
will win today.
  This water resources bill is 7 long years in the making. If we 
override this veto, Mr. President, we are fulfilling a promise to the 
people of Louisiana. We promised them, after Katrina, we would rebuild. 
The President went there and said:

       I will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild 
     their communities.

  I say to the President: When you vetoed this bill, you stood up 
before the people of Louisiana and said: Sorry. One flick of the veto 
pen, and the President turns his back on the people of the gulf coast.
  I think testimony to that fact was given by Senators Landrieu and 
Vitter. The fact is, Congress is stepping in to do the right thing 
today. We are a separate but equal body, and we are showing across 
party lines that no matter who the President is, there are some moments 
in time when he needs to come to the table and work with us. This was 
one of those times because the WRDA bill is going to help ensure 
America's water infrastructure and flood control needs are met.
  Again, it puts the gulf coast on the path to recovery. But it does 
other things. In my State, it is going to finally take care of our 
problems in Sacramento, where 300,000 people, potentially, could be 
harmed and hurt and damaged because we have not done what we had to do 
to protect them. We do it in this bill.
  Yesterday, we heard from Senator Bill Nelson about the major 
restoration of the Everglades that is in this bill--another promise 
made by Republicans and Democrats alike. The Everglades is a national 
treasure--actually, a worldwide treasure. Yet we go to communities all 
over this Nation, from sea to shining sea, and we look at the 
communities and say that we will work with them on flood control, on 
making sure goods can move through our ports, and on recreation.
  The Corps and the BLM run many recreation areas that see millions of 
visitors every single year. So it is about recreation, commerce, flood 
control, and it is about environmental restoration.
  It enacts the most sweeping reforms for the Corps in more than 20 
years. I know Senator Feingold did not believe we did enough Corps 
reform. I respectfully say to Senator Feingold that we went very far. 
As a matter of fact, I believe we brought more independent review to 
this process because before--I agree with the Senator--the Corps was 
just going off on its own. So communities across our country have 
waited long enough for these vital projects.
  As Senator Inhofe said yesterday--and I see he is here now--this is 
an authorization bill. This doesn't spend a penny, but it is very 
important because it says we believe these projects are worthy of 
funding. Then those projects will go through a very tough 
appropriations process, and every one of these projects, as far as I 
know, draws on local funding, or State funding, and Federal funding.
  This WRDA bill comes from the people--from the people up. When I go 
to little communities back home--I went to one in Napa, where there is 
a flood control program; it is essential. It is a senior citizen 
retirement community, and our folks are frightened because they see 
what happens when California experiences these incredible shocks of 
nature, such as the fires, and now we are on the precipice of doing the 
right thing.
  I hope we override this veto. I look forward to the remarks of 
Senator Inhofe.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Boxer for all of her work 
and efforts. One thing that is kind of interesting about this is, it 
shows you this bill has the support of everyone, philosophically, 
across the whole scope. One of the ratings that came out recently rated 
me as the No. 1--ACU rating--conservative Member of the Senate, and 
Senator Boxer was No. 97. So she is a proud liberal, I am a proud 
conservative, and we proudly both support this bill. That is an 
accurate statement.
  Let me say to Senator Boxer and the Democrats who have been so 
supportive, they have done a good job talking about what we have done 
over the last 7 years. This is 7 years of work, Mr. President. It is 
one we have all worked together on. To the right, to my conservative 
friends, let me say the President cast his veto. I think the veto was 
ill-advised. When the President comes through with his vetoes of big 
spending bills that exceed the budget--maybe SCHIP when it comes in--I 
will support sustaining his veto, or when Labor-HHS comes along that 
will be over and above the budget, I will be one of the first ones on 
the floor to support the President in sustaining the veto.
  Last night, we had a lot of time. We weren't confined to a short 
period of time. I had an opportunity to do something I enjoy, and I had 
some kind comments about it from some of my Democratic friends. I was 
giving the history, back to 1816, of authorization versus 
appropriations. It is interesting because right now we are continuing 
to make that same argument. I think that is the strongest argument in 
favor of this bill. What is at stake is the authorization process.
  I am going to ask my conservative friends to support this override 
for two reasons. First of all, as was said by many before me--and I 
have to say it again--it doesn't spend a cent. This is not a spending 
bill. If your idea is it is out of range, and you cannot support it 
because it spends too much, that is the wrong way to look at it. We 
have worked 7 years to put together this bill. Mr. President, there are 
751 projects in the bill, and each one has gone through an 
authorization process, whereby we have received a report from the Corps 
of Engineers on each one, and it has taken a long time to get this 
done.

  One of the critics said last night: Why should we authorize more? We 
have not appropriated all that we have authorized in the past. That is 
my point. We have 751 projects and probably, judging from the past, we 
will only authorize maybe 70 percent of those, and they would not be 
authorized at the highest level. So that is why we have the discipline 
in place to keep excessive spending under control.
  Let's just say--and it will not happen because we are going to 
override the veto--we did not override the veto and we don't have this 
bill. There is no way of coming back with a different bill. It cannot 
be done procedurally. We know that. We would be operating to 
appropriate for what has not been authorized. That absolutely would not 
work. It takes all of the preparation, criteria, and reports out of the 
process.
  So, anyway, we don't know how many of these will ultimately be 
funded. I have to tell Senator Boxer I will be down here opposing some 
of the things we are authorizing today because that is the way the 
system works. That is where we have to have fiscal discipline. We have 
rule XVI, which says, if the appropriators come out and appropriate 
money that exceeds that which we authorize, it will take a 60-vote 
point of order margin on rule XVI. I will come down and personally 
lodge that point of order.
  So I say this: This bill does offer the maximum fiscal discipline, 
and I ask my conservative friends to join us in this veto override, and 
then join me in sustaining the vetoes on spending bills. Again, this is 
not a spending bill.
  Mr. President, I understand the yeas and nays are automatic.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. If my colleague wouldn't mind, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a list showing nationwide support for 
overriding this Presidential veto, including national business and 
labor groups, agricultural groups, national water and infrastructure 
groups, State and local government support, national conservation 
groups, and local agencies and organizations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Nationwide Support for Overriding the President's Veto of WRDA

       National Business and Labor Groups: United States Chamber 
     of Commerce, AFL-CIO, The Teamsters Union, National 
     Construction Alliance, United Association of Journeymen and 
     Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the 
     United States and Canada, United Brotherhood of Carpenters 
     and Joiners of America.
       Agricultural Groups: American Farm Bureau Federation, 
     National Corn Growers Association, American Soybean 
     Association, Corn Refiners Association, CropLife America, 
     National Association of Wheat Growers,

[[Page S14117]]

     National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers 
     Union, National Grain and Feed Association, National Oilseed 
     Processors Association, The Fertilizer Institute, United Egg 
     Producers.
       National Water and Infrastructure Groups: National 
     Waterways Conference, The Waterways Council, Water Resources 
     Coalition, American Electric Power, American Society of Civil 
     Engineers, Associated General Contractors of America, 
     American Association of Port Authorities, American Public 
     Works Association, National Association of Flood and 
     Stormwater Management Agencies.
       State and Local Government Support: Charlie Crist, Governor 
     of Florida, Kathleen Blanco, Governor of Louisiana, Tom 
     Leppert, Mayor of Dallas, Metropolitan Water Reclamation 
     District of Greater Chicago, Southeast Water Coalition, City 
     of Stamford, Connecticut, City of St. Helena, City of 
     Alameda, City of West Sacramento, Morgan Hill Chamber of 
     Commerce, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, The 
     Board of Supervisors of Marin County, The Board of 
     Supervisors of Santa Clara County.
       National Conservation Groups: The Nature Conservancy, 
     National Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation 
     Society, Ducks Unlimited.
       Local Agencies and Organizations: Association of California 
     Water Agencies, Bay Area Open Space Council, California State 
     Coastal Conservancy, East Bay Regional Park District, Friends 
     of Five Creeks, Heal the Bay, Laguna de Santa Rosa 
     Foundation, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, San 
     Francisco Bay Joint Venture, Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, 
     Santa Clara Valley Water District, Save Mount Diablo, Silicon 
     Valley Leadership Group, Sonoma Land Trust.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, would the Senator from North Dakota like 
to have a minute or so?
  Mr. CONRAD. May I have just a minute?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor as chairman of the 
Budget Committee to simply say this bill doesn't spend a dime. This is 
an authorizing bill. This bill authorizes projects. That makes them 
eligible for appropriations. That is all it does. It says to the 
Appropriations Committee that these projects have been reviewed, and 
they are authorized by the appropriate responsible committee.
  That is the first and necessary step, but it is not the step that can 
spend a dime. The Appropriations Committee is the only committee here 
that can actually create spending from this bill. So I think it is very 
important for people to realize that basic fact.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank very much the chairman and ranking 
member for a very professional job of managing this bill.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for 
his comments. He is exactly right. If there was time, I would repeat 
some of the things we talked about last night that the Senator from 
North Dakota was very complimentary on regarding the history of 
appropriators versus authorizers since 1816.
  I believe what is at stake is the authorization system, which I 
believe is the only discipline we have in the appropriations process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired. The question is, Shall 
the bill pass over the objections of the President of the United States 
to the contrary notwithstanding? The yeas and nays are required.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted: ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 406 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Allard
     Brownback
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Kyl
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Bunning
     Clinton
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 79, the nays are 14. 
Two-thirds of the Senators having voted in the affirmative, the bill, 
on reconsideration, is passed, the objections of the President of the 
United States to the contrary notwithstanding.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S14117, November 8, 2007, the following appears: The 
PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 79, the nays are 13.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING 
OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 79, the nays are 14.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say while colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle are here how important this moment is. It is very 
unusual for a Congress to override a Presidential veto. This is only 
the 107th time it has been done in the history of the country. The 
first one was in the 1840s. President Tyler tried to buy some military 
equipment without getting the approval of Congress and that started the 
first successful override.
  Today I think we sent a message, as Republicans and Democrats, to the 
executive branch. Mr. President, why should we have to fight over 
everything? We shouldn't have to argue over making sure our 
infrastructure is strong. I say to Senator Inhofe, whom I don't see on 
the floor at the moment, but to his staff: Thank you so much for 
working with our staff. This has been quite an experience. As most of 
you know, Senator Inhofe and I don't exactly see eye to eye on 
everything, but on this, we were very much a team.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his strong support in 
working with us. I know it was a little annoying when he saw me coming 
down the hall every time. He sort of ducked, because he knew I was 
saying: When are we going to do WRDA?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd. I think it is 
interesting that he stands up to get order, because he teaches us every 
day what the Constitution means. The Constitution means that we, in 
fact, are an equal branch of Government. Today I think we proved that 
point.
  I say to Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter, who isn't on the floor 
at the moment, but I want to say about Senator Landrieu what a fighter 
she is for her State. This bill fulfills a promise the President made 
on that very dark and gloomy night when he went out, with the eerie 
lights behind him, because he was right at ground zero of Katrina, and 
he said he would keep his commitment to the people of Louisiana; that 
he would protect them. Yet and still he vetoed this bill.
  I say to both Senators from Florida, whom I see on the floor, 
Senators Nelson and Martinez, how proud I am to have worked with them 
to make sure we fulfill our commitment to the Everglades. The trip I 
took with Senator Nelson and his wife, my husband and I, is embedded in 
my memory forever, and this bill sets us on a course we must follow.
  I say to communities all over the country, including my own, we know 
you have flood control needs, we know you need to keep up with imports 
and exports and make sure our ports function right. To those who want 
to preserve the environment, have restoration of the environment, we do 
that here. So this is a very important bill. The recreation industry is 
counting on us.
  This is one of those rare moments, in a very divided Senate, that we 
come together. I couldn't be more proud.
  In closing, I thank the following staffers, who have worked night and

[[Page S14118]]

day: Bettina Poirier, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushforth, Andy 
Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, and Let Mon Lee. Also, I thank 
Senator Baucus's staff: Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins; and from 
Senator Isakson's staff, Mike Quiello. I mentioned Senator Inhofe's 
staff in that recitation of names. Without them, the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 would never be law.
  I am proud to advise my colleagues that it is now law. When that last 
vote was cast, and when our Presiding Officer announced the vote, this 
bill became the law of the land. We can be very proud it is.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, may I take a moment to thank the 
chairwoman of this committee again for fulfilling the promise she made 
to have this bill--that was 7 years in the making--become law. And as 
of about 10 minutes after 12, eastern time, it did become law.
  People in Louisiana and throughout the gulf coast are cheering, dirt 
is being turned, levees are being built, and wetlands are being 
preserved. This Congress has kept its word to the people of Louisiana 
and the gulf coast, and for that this Senator is very grateful.
  Again, I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

                          ____________________