[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.
____________________