[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30283-30295]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
President's veto message on H.R. 1495, which under the previous order 
is considered read and spread in full upon the Journal.
  The message from the President to the House of Representatives is as 
follows:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 1495, the ``Water 
Resources Development Act of 2007.''
  This bill lacks fiscal discipline. I fully support funding for water 
resources projects that will yield high economic and environmental 
returns to the Nation and each year my budget has proposed reasonable 
and responsible funding, including $4.9 billion for 2008, to support 
the Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) main missions. However, this 
authorization bill makes promises to local communities that the 
Congress does not have a track record of keeping. The House of 
Representatives took a $15 billion bill into negotiations with a $14 
billion bill from the Senate and instead of splitting the difference, 
emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion. This 
is not fiscally responsible, particularly when local communities have 
been waiting for funding for projects already in the pipeline. The 
bill's excessive authorization for over 900 projects and programs 
exacerbates the massive backlog of ongoing Corps construction projects, 
which will require an additional $38 billion in future appropriations 
to complete.
  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. My 
Administration has repeatedly urged the Congress to authorize only 
those projects and programs that provide a high return on investment 
and are within the three main missions of the Corps' civil works 
program: facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of 
damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems. This 
bill does not achieve that goal. This bill promises hundreds of 
earmarks and hinders the Corps' ability to fulfill the Nation's 
critical water resources needs--including hurricane protection for 
greater New Orleans, flood damage reduction for Sacramento, and 
restoration of the Everglades--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.
  I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally responsible bill that sets 
priorities. Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be 
good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates 
that fundamental commitment. For the reasons outlined above, I must 
veto H.R. 1495.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
                                     The White House, November 2, 2007.

  The Senate proceeded to reconsider the bill (H.R. 1495) 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, returned to the House by the President on November 2, 2007, 
with his objections, and passed by the House of Representatives, on 
reconsideration, on November 6, 2007.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, for 
clarification--because we have changed this a little bit--that our 
final decision is we are going to have an hour and a half kind of 
equally divided for those of us who are for overriding the veto, and 
then after that there will be an hour and a half for the other side, 
and we can divide our time as we want since we are agreeing on this. Is 
that correct?

[[Page 30284]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 45 minutes 
of his own, as does the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes, that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety minutes is reserved for the Republican 
leader, and all of that time can be parceled out in a manner the 
Senator sees fit.
  Mr. INHOFE. Good. The bottom line is, we are going to have an hour 
and a half to state why we think this is not a good veto and to 
override it.
  Mr. President, I do have a number of people, Republicans, who want to 
come down and be heard who did not have a lot of time for preparation. 
I am very glad this is coming up right now, but, hopefully, they are 
still going to be around.
  First of all, Senator Bond has been very helpful in this effort and 
is a very senior member of this committee that put this legislation 
together. I will yield him whatever time he shall use. Ten minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I 
congratulate him and the Chair, Senator Boxer from California, for 
bringing this balanced and much needed bill to the floor so we may 
expeditiously override the veto.
  Now WRDA is supposed to be authorized every 2 years, but there has 
not been a bill passed by this Congress during the entire 
administration. I have been working on this bill since 2001, so we are 
calling it WRDA 2001. The reason I have a direct interest in it is my 
State has nearly 1,000 miles of Missouri and Mississippi River frontage 
in addition to our lakes. Our communities rely on Corps projects for 
affordable water transportation, flood protection, energy production, 
environmental protection, and recreation opportunities.
  When we talk about the environment--and in a minute I will be telling 
you why the environmental benefits of transportation by water are so 
important--my constituents know that Corps projects mean jobs, trade 
competitiveness, reliable and affordable energy, drinking water, and 
protection from floods which ruin property and kill people.
  We are not alone because States up and down the Mississippi River, up 
and down the Missouri River, up and down the Ohio River, States in the 
central part of the Nation, depend on the lakes; and States on the 
coasts depend upon their ports as well. So this is truly a national 
bill. But I can speak to it directly from what I have seen and what I 
know in my part of the world.
  I am delighted we are completing our long journey to permit 
modernization of the Mississippi River locks. These locks were built 
during the Great
Depression, some 75 years ago,
for paddlewheel boats--paddlewheel boats--that only pushed 600-foot 
barge tows. Now we have 1,200-foot barge tows trying to get through 
600-foot locks. They have to double lock. And these locks are old.
  I have spent a lot of time with the people who depend on these 
locks--the farmers; shippers of cement, building materials, 
fertilizers, energy, coal, and petroleum that travel by water. They 
showed me and I have seen that these locks are not just leaking, sheets 
of water are coming through them. You can only use so much bailing wire 
and duct tape on a 75-year-old lock to keep it from going out.
  Now one medium-sized 1,200-foot barge tow carries the same amount of 
commodities that 870 large semitrucks would carry. It would take a 
train car unit 2\1/4\ miles long to carry the same load. But there is 
not room on our highways to put 870 trucks for every barge tow that 
would be used. The rails are filled. There is not room to put a 2\1/4\ 
or 2\3/4\ train on our railroads.
  If we want to get our commodities to the market, if we want to have 
the most environmentally friendly and efficient means of 
transportation, we have to be able to move goods up the Mississippi 
River.
  The locks in the bottleneck begin just above St. Louis. So all of the 
northern Midwest depends on those locks. The Mississippi River itself 
carries about 60 percent of the grain moving in international commerce, 
foreign trade--getting better prices for our farmers, keeping our rural 
communities healthy with good prices, and also lessening our balance of 
trade deficit. If you believe in selling our goods abroad, if you 
believe foreign sales are good for us--and I am strongly convinced they 
are--then we must have transportation.
  We have had a long, arduous process to get the 2-year bill in 7 
years, and we have been blessed with strong bipartisan support. From my 
part of the country, Senators Grassley, Harkin, Durbin, and Obama have 
played key roles, and I express my gratitude.
  Now the administration says they vetoed this bill because they say it 
is too big. If it were a normal 2-year bill, it would be big. But this 
is a 7-year bill, taking into account literally four different WRDA 
bills. If you total only three WRDA bills during the 5-year period--
1996 to 2000--the authorization levels are comparable.
  I think we must override the veto because this bill does not spend a 
dollar. It is an authorization bill. It says these projects are 
approved for consideration for funding. The Corps of Engineers has gone 
through extensive processes--engineering, public comment--to come to 
this point, and we are giving congressional blessings. This just adds 
projects to the list eligible. Put another way, it is a license to 
hunt. You still have to go out and hit the bird, and you cannot go 
beyond the limit. The limit is the budget.
  The White House should know this bill spends not one dollar. The 
breakfast menu is larger, but the breakfast budget is unchanged. To say 
otherwise is to either misinform or purposely mislead.
  The unfortunate reality for our State and the farmers and shippers in 
our State is that water resources and water transportation do not seem 
to be a high priority of this administration, despite the expectation 
of supporters in 2000.
  The previous administration was not supportive, and this one is no 
better. I know the White House staff will disagree, but OMB ought to 
try to go out and talk to the people who live in our part of the 
country. There are many areas where these projects are needed.
  In November of 2005, the Washington Times reported that President 
Bush noted during a press conference with Panamanian President 
Torrijos:

       [I]t's in our nation's interest that this canal be 
     modernized.

  Well, I think that is a great idea: modernize the Panama Canal. But 
while we are at it, why not modernize our own shipping areas? The 
administration does not oppose modernizing the Social Security-aged 
locks on the Mississippi River built for paddlewheel boats, but they 
also have not endorsed it or lifted a finger to endorse it. Endorsement 
was reserved for upgrading the waterways in Panama. My colleagues and I 
believe our Midwestern exporters deserve as much consideration as 
Chinese exporters who transit the Panama Canal.
  I could list the supporters of it: the National Corn Growers 
Association, Carpenters Union, Operating Union, American Farm Bureau 
Federation, American Soybean Association, scores of members of the 
Waterways Council, and a whole lot of hard-working folks in Missouri 
and Illinois with whom I have met.
  Our staffs have worked tirelessly on this legislation--not for days 
or weeks but years. There are many who have worked hard. I thank Ruth 
Van Mark, Ken Kopocis, Angie Giancarlo, Joe-Ellen Darcy; and a very 
special thanks to the bipartisan staff support of a very good friend of 
mine, Let Mon Lee, who has worked on the committee.
  The success of our economy and its people owes a great debt to the 
investments that were made by those who came before us.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for investments that will provide 
opportunity, value, competitiveness, and growth to our future so our 
export growth will not be limited to exporting barges.
  This, as shown on this chart, is what we are exporting. We are 
exporting the barges to countries in Latin America so they can ship 
efficiently, economically, in environmentally friendly

[[Page 30285]]

waters and take markets away from American farmers.
  My thanks to the committee and the staff of Environment and Public 
Works. We appreciate their work. I urge my colleagues to join with us 
and adopt this bill by a veto override.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, there will be other Members who want to 
come down to speak. When that happens, if staff will remind me, I will 
interrupt my remarks in order to give them time.
  But I want to approach this legislation a little bit differently. I 
could be standing here and saying some of the same things my good 
friend from Missouri said in terms of things that are in this 
authorization bill that are critical to my State of Oklahoma, but I 
think my State of Oklahoma already knows that. I already talked to them 
about it.
  We have things in this bill, and they are not all projects that will 
be built, but these are projects that the Corps of Engineers has 
carefully gone through, prioritized, and determined should be done.
  Let me give you an example. We have work on the most devastating 
Superfund site in America called Tar Creek in northern Oklahoma. That 
is something that is going to be addressed in this legislation. We are 
more than 50 percent through resolving that problem, but more needs to 
be done--things such as a lake called Arcadia Lake that is close to the 
central part of the State. The city of Edmond has been in not a lawsuit 
but a legal difference with the Corps of Engineers now for many years, 
and they were almost forced to pay several million dollars for water 
they never did receive. So a lot of this bill clarifies problems that 
are out there, and it is necessary.
  I think the Senator from Missouri made it very clear, the last time 
we had a bill was the year 2000--7 years ago--and actually that bill, 7 
years ago, was only a 1-year bill. A lot of people think it was a 2-
year bill. It was a 1-year bill. We are supposed to have these every 
year or 2 years, but we have not had one.
  Last year I can remember standing here on the floor, and I think we 
actually got it passed, but then we ran out of time before adjournment 
took place.
  It is very difficult for me to do this because I love our President, 
but I think he has been ill advised in this case because, as has been 
pointed out by the Senator from Missouri, this bill does not spend a 
dime. For people to walk around--and I am doing quite a bit of time on 
talk radio to make sure the public is aware of this--this is an 
authorization bill.
  In a minute, I am going to explain the history of authorization 
versus appropriations. I hope there are some people who are listening, 
particularly conservative people. The reason I say that--we are all 
rated around here for being conservative or liberal. I happen to be 
rated by the American Conservative Union, and several other 
organizations, not No. 2, I say to my friend from Colorado, not No. 3, 
but No. 1--the most conservative Member of the Senate. Yet I am 
standing here asking this Senate to override the President's veto of 
the authorization bill called WRDA.
  Now I see my friend, the junior Senator from Louisiana, is wanting to 
have some time. I will be glad to yield to him, and then I am going to 
come back and kind of go over some history at that time.
  How much time would the Senator like? Ten minutes?
  I yield the Senator 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I particularly thank my distinguished 
colleague from Oklahoma, the ranking member on the committee. I thank 
Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer and all of the committee members for 
all of their diligent work for many years, in fact, that has finally 
produced this very good and worthwhile WRDA bill which we are about to 
pass into law.
  I stand as one of the two Senators from Louisiana very excited about 
this moment because this legislation is absolutely crucial for our 
recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and, indeed, for our survival 
as a coastal culture, as a coastal State, moving into the future. It is 
absolutely vital in that regard. I believe passage of this bill, 
including overriding the President's veto, is absolutely necessary for 
the Nation and the Congress to keep the very generous and very solemn 
commitment made to the people of Louisiana and of the gulf coast 
following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This bill is enormously 
important, and it has been a long time in coming.
  While ordinarily a WRDA bill would be passed every other year, we 
haven't had one in many years to pass through the Congress. So, as a 
result, this is long overdue. This is the equivalent of two or three 
water resources bills combined.
  The good news is that from our perspective, particularly dealing with 
Louisiana issues, we have used that time and that opportunity to 
improve the bill dramatically, even from the moment when I came to the 
Senate 3 years ago and started working on the committee on this bill to 
improve it dramatically and to include more measures for coastal 
restoration, coastal protection, and hurricane protection for our 
survival.
  I want to make clear this isn't some parochial Louisiana matter. Even 
the provisions I care most deeply about have national importance and a 
national impact and truly are national priorities. Let me mention a few 
sets of numbers just to illustrate the point.
  Thirty-three: That is the number of States that rely directly on the 
protection systems in Louisiana authorized in this bill for maritime 
commerce--import and export of goods--and, of course, that includes the 
entirety of the Midwest and particularly grain and other products from 
farmers in the Midwest.
  Eighty: That is the percentage of domestically produced chemicals and 
petrochemicals that come from Louisiana and Texas vital to our economy. 
This bill is helping protect that economic infrastructure, that 
industry.
  Twenty-six: That is the percent of seafood that comes from Louisiana 
waters and includes more shrimp, crawfish, and oysters than any other 
State.
  Three million: That is the number of barrels of oil that could not be 
refined each day because of the shutdown of our refineries immediately 
after the hurricanes.
  One dollar: It doesn't sound like much, but that is the extra amount 
that each of our constituents nationwide paid per gallon as a result of 
the 2005 hurricanes that hit Louisiana. Each gallon of gas used to take 
kids to school and to drive to work, farmers using it in their 
tractors, boats to ship imports and exports, airplanes to fly 
passengers and cargo, truckers to drive their loads across the Nation--
$1 a gallon extra because of that disruption, because of a lack of 
protection.
  Mr. President, $2.8 billion: That is the extra amount all of our 
constituents paid nationwide in just 1 week as a result of those 
gasoline price spikes.
  Maybe the most important number is 4. That is from a commission, a 
study commissioned by FEMA. That is the amount of money saved: $4 for 
every $1 invested in mitigation and protection. That is a great savings 
for the future for the taxpayer.
  So this is vitally important for my people in Louisiana, but it is 
vitally important to the Nation because of that direct connection, 
because of that direct impact of the hurricanes on the Nation's 
economic vitality, on the Federal Treasury that had to respond to the 
devastation of the hurricanes.
  As I said, I am proud of the work all of us have done, including, as 
I served on the committee, on the conference committee, to fashion key 
provisions, taking into account the lessons of Hurricanes Rita and 
Katrina, key provisions that are now in this bill.
  Let me mention just a few. The Water Resources Council: That is a 
council and an integration team that would be verifying the Corps' 
work, the Corps' conclusions and findings in terms of the 
implementation of Louisiana projects. So we have experts from outside 
the Corps, from academia,

[[Page 30286]]

from the realm of practicing engineers to work hand in glove with the 
Corps so that design mistakes such as those that led to the levee 
breaches never happen again.
  True 100-year hurricane protection: As I grew up in the New Orleans 
area, I was told we had 100-year protection, but the day Katrina hit, 
it disclosed the fact that wasn't true. Now we will be building through 
this bill true 100-year hurricane protection, and I thank President 
Bush for his commitment to that and his commitment to ask for all of 
the funding necessary to do that.
  Moving forward on higher levels of protection for populated areas, 
what we would call true category 5 protection: The Corps is currently 
looking at that, designing that, but this bill will move that effort 
forward in a major way so we move forward with the design and 
implementation of that higher level of category 5 protection.
  Coastal restoration: We can talk about levees and physical barriers 
and the storm surge all we want, but if we continue to lose our rich 
coastland, which is the buffer land from storms, we will never be able 
to win that fight. So the fight starts with restoring our coastal 
barrier islands and coastal buffer lands. In this bill we have $4 
billion worth of that authorized work, 17 separate projects for coastal 
restoration. Of all of the work I have done in this bill, I think 
beefing up that portion of it is what I am most proud of because when I 
came to the Senate, when I came to this committee, there was only about 
$400 million dedicated to that coastal restoration, one specifically 
authorized project. Now there is $4 billion and 17 authorized projects.
  We can go on and on. Closing MRGO, the deadly hurricane highway which 
was directly related to so much of the catastrophic flooding in New 
Orleans; other important work around the State, work with regard to the 
Port of Iberia and improving hurricane and flood protection in 
Vermilion parish, work that is very crucial to the Calcasieu River to 
allow navigation in that area to go on and prosper; bank stabilization 
for the Quachita and Black Rivers in north Louisiana; other hurricane 
protection improvements in lower Jefferson and Lafourche Parish; 
studies to improve access to Vidalia, LA, and other areas; countless 
projects, countless examples of important work.
  Then last, but certainly not least, something we have been waiting 
on, working toward for 15 years and more, which is the Morganza to the 
gulf hurricane protection project to bring protection for the first 
time to a vital area just west of New Orleans, a populated area rich in 
culture, seafood, economic production, economic vitality. This project 
has been developed by the Corps over 15 years and more. It should have 
been in the last WRDA bill. In fact, it was in the last WRDA bill but 
is subject to a chief's report, and then the Corps of Engineers missed 
its deadline for that chief's report. That is finally being fully 
authorized, moving forward in an aggressive fashion because of this 
WRDA bill.
  So again, in closing, let me say, make no mistake about it; this bill 
is vitally important for Louisiana, for our people, for our continued 
recovery, for our survival. But I don't want that to come across as 
some narrow or parochial concern because it does touch all of America 
in terms of impact. If our gulf coast is devastated in the future, 
gasoline prices will spike far more than 2 years ago. Our economy will 
be disrupted far more than 2 years ago, and, yes, FEMA and the Federal 
Government will have to spend even more than 2 years ago to deal with 
such a future disaster.
  This WRDA bill is long overdue. It is fully justified. I thank 
Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, and all of the committee again for their 
very hard work as we move forward and finally pass this into law.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Louisiana. He has been an excellent member of the committee. He has 
certainly been looking out after the very serious problems that exist 
even today in his State of Louisiana, problems that exist as a result 
of Katrina and other things that were happening before, such as beach 
erosion and other problems they have.
  I also thank Senator Boxer. We joke around about this a little bit. 
We are kind of opposites in terms of philosophies, but we do come 
together in agreement on the process we use in determining what should 
be done for infrastructure in this country.
  Now, I said just a few minutes ago that I have what some would think 
is a distinction, and some would question that, but I am rated anyway 
as the most conservative member of the Senate, and here I am standing 
up asking my colleagues to join me in overriding a veto that the 
President should not have made. I think if there are any discerning 
people who really want to know why, it is pretty heavy lifting to 
follow this through, but I think it is important to do that.
  There are some things that work in government and a lot of things 
that don't work. My colleagues have heard me say this before when we 
were talking about the transportation bill, the fact that it is 
something that does work, where people who are using the transportation 
system are putting money into it. It comes from a trust account, and we 
make determinations as to how it should be allocated in accordance with 
the needs of the States, taking into consideration things such as 
highway deaths and things such as road miles and lane miles, and then 
make those allocations. Frankly, it works very well.
  This is almost the same process, except these are water projects. 
Several people have talked about how it is overdue. Actually, this bill 
is 6 years overdue. We had the last one in the year 2000. We tried in 
2001, 2002, 2003, and last year we came--we passed the bill on this 
floor, standing right here I can remember, and we thought it would be 
history by now, but the clock caught up with us and we didn't have time 
to get it out of conference and passed into law.
  Now, I think if we look at this--I am going to make a statement a lot 
of people would not understand, but I am making this statement for my 
conservative friends. If you take away the authorization process from 
the way we do business down here, then it has to be done by 
appropriators. What we are talking about today doesn't spend a dime. 
You have heard people say it, and I felt the President, in his message, 
was a little misleading to imply that this somehow is going to end up 
in more spending. It doesn't end up in more spending. It wouldn't 
matter what the amount of the bill is because what this does in this 
particular bill is it takes 751 projects, and it gives a maximum that 
can be spent on any project. If you go over the maximum, then you have 
what we call a 60-vote point of order which I will--I commit to 
standing up and invoking so we can't spend more money.
  Now, it doesn't mean--if the total amount that you would add up in 
this bill is $23 billion, it doesn't mean it is going to end up costing 
$23 billion. That money has to be appropriated, and historically it has 
averaged out to about 70 percent of the projects. I have already said 
there are--what is the total number of projects in this bill--751 
projects. Only 70 percent of those would get any funding, and then many 
of the rest of them will get funding at an amount far less than we are 
authorizing. We are saying you can go up to that amount.
  Now, to understand this, I would like to kind of walk us through. It 
appears I will have time to do this because we don't have any more on 
our side who are planning to come down and speak. So the significant 
difference between authorizing and appropriating in the Senate is a 
long history, and it goes back to 1816. Let's start with the charts 
back there.
  The responsibility of authorizing versus appropriating has been a 
debate that has been ongoing for a long time. What happened is, when 
they first created some 11 permanent standing committees, that happened 
in 1816 to handle legislative proposals.
  At that time, they weren't really sure about authorizing and 
appropriating because the problem hadn't

[[Page 30287]]

really come up yet--until 1867. In 1867, the Senate created the 
Appropriations Committee. It was the first step of the Senate to 
separate authorization and appropriations, saying that we should go 
through the process of authorizing before we appropriate.
  In 1899, the Senate adopted a change to rule XVI to remove most of 
the appropriations bills from its jurisdiction because the 
Appropriations Committee was enacting policy on how Federal agencies 
internally operated. There is the difference right there. The first 
time that happened was in 1899. So the rule XVI, as we know it today, 
which gave birth at that time, said we should segregate the authorizing 
process from the appropriations process. Some Senators argued that the 
Appropriations Committee was legislating on appropriations bills, and 
the Senate directed that certain authorizing committees would handle 
appropriations legislation for the issues within their jurisdiction. 
And this diminished the role of the Appropriations Committee that had 
been established.
  In 1922, the Senate changed course again and adopted another change 
to rule XVI. It is now rule XVI as we know it today. Rule XVI says that 
if you appropriate money that is not authorized, it takes a 
supermajority 60 votes--instead of 51 votes. That may not sound like a 
big difference to a lot of people, but I assure it is a huge difference 
in passing legislation. So that restored the general appropriations 
back to the Appropriations Committee. However, they had the 
authorization committees to take care of the problems.
  I will give you an example. The Armed Services Committee, on which I 
am honored to sit, is an authorization committee. I could use any 
number of examples. For example, I could talk about our F-22 vehicle 
coming up, and there are going to be people who don't really know that 
we need to have the F-22 because the F-15s and F-16s are inferior to 
some of the things Russia is making in their SU-30 and SU-35 vehicles. 
These are technical things that most of the Senators, if they are not 
sitting on the Armed Services Committee, would not know. Someone who 
didn't have the advantage of knowing why we should authorize different 
vehicles to defend America would have no way of doing it if they are 
just appropriators. So the example I use is a good one.
  Right now, in the bill we are considering today, which is in 
conference--the Senate armed services reauthorization bill--with the 
House, it addresses the problem with a ballistic missile defense 
system. A lot of people aren't aware of it unless they sit on the 
committee, but there are three phases: the midcourse phase, the boost 
phase, and the terminal phase. There are two vehicles on the boost 
phase that are still in R&D. We don't have them yet. We are naked in 
order to try to knock down something in a boost phase. We have two ways 
of knocking down missiles in the midcourse phase, and we are working on 
two in the terminal phase.
  I don't think there is anybody out there, after 9/11, who would not 
agree that we need to have this defense for America. That technology is 
there. If you are just an appropriator and not an authorizer, you would 
look at that and say: Wait a minute, we have six systems to knock down 
an incoming missile. So they may say we only need two; we can save X 
billions of dollars by only having two. But the problem is, as we all 
know, in the midcourse phase we don't know whether it is going to be 
within the range of a ground-based missile or where you can use an 
AEGIS missile fired off a ship. These are six technical systems that 
are necessary to defend America from an incoming missile. That comes 
from an authorization committee, not an appropriations committee. A lot 
of people, who don't have this information, are trying to knock down 
some of the money we are spending on missile defense. So I think that 
is probably the best example to use.
  The same principle is true on my other committee, the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. It applies to the bill today, the WRDA bill, 
the Water Resources Development Act bill. We review all projects and 
requests, and we make sure that every project of these 751 projects 
goes through a lot of scrutiny, and it has certain criteria that have 
to be met and an engineer's report from the Corps of Engineers.
  I remember one time I cast a very unpopular vote--it was the right 
vote--several years ago when we had the Everglades Restoration Act, 
which passed 99 to 1. That one was me because it didn't meet the 
criteria. It didn't have the engineer's report and all that. A lot of 
people voted for it because they were afraid they could not explain 
their vote back home. I never had that problem.
  We have all these projects that have gone through scrutiny, and when 
we finally pass the bill--which we have already passed and the 
President vetoed, and we are going to override the veto tomorrow--it 
will be reality tomorrow.
  Here is what will happen after that. None of these projects we are 
talking about--sure, a lot of them are in Oklahoma, and a lot are in 
Colorado, and the Senator from Missouri talked about his, and the 
Senator from California will talk about things authorized in 
California. These have all met certain criteria. Very likely, when they 
come up--a lot of them--for appropriations, I will come down to the 
floor and oppose them. It doesn't mean I agree with everything we have 
authorized. We are just saying that thought has gone into it, they have 
looked at it professionally, it met the criteria, it has engineering 
reports, and we ought to authorize it and let the appropriators come 
in, and we can look at it closely to see if maybe we authorized too 
much or maybe we disagree with it. Right now, I can tell you that I was 
opposing appropriations to many things we authorized.
  I can state it a different way. The only discipline we have in 
spending, I say to all these people who talk about earmarks, is the 
authorization process because if we take away the authorization 
process, we have no way of knowing, when the Appropriations Committee 
comes with a bill to the floor and says: We want to fund this, whether 
it meets the criteria.
  So what we are doing with the bill we have passed and the veto that 
will be overridden tomorrow--so it will become law--is we are saying 
that we are putting in a maximum of 751 projects so that they cannot go 
over that amount. If they do--I make this commitment on the floor of 
the Senate tonight--I will be the first one down here to stand up and 
say I am going to invoke rule XVI to require a 60-vote point of order 
so that we will have discipline, and the appropriators are not going to 
spend more money than has been authorized.
  That is a quick course. I don't expect that anybody will really 
understand it or believe it. I know in my heart that it is right and we 
have to have this process. This fight that has been taking place 
between the appropriators and authorizers since 1816 is something that 
is necessary, and we have to protect authorization.
  Let me bring up one more thing. If the President had never vetoed 
this bill--it doesn't make any difference because we are going to 
override the veto, and everybody has to know that. So this is kind of 
an exercise in futility. We have the bill; it is going to be reality. 
In the event that we are unable to override the veto tomorrow morning, 
that would mean we would not have an authorization bill. That means 
that any appropriator could come down here, or anybody else, and say we 
need to have this, and they could be swapping deals and meet no 
criteria whatsoever, and that is not the way we want to do it. So I see 
this as the only discipline we have for spending.
  I have mentioned that I have the rating of being the most 
conservative Member in the Senate, and I do. But I also realize I am a 
big spender in some areas. One is national defense, and one is 
infrastructure. That is what we are supposed to do in this body. If you 
don't think there is a crisis out there in transportation--our roads, 
highways, and waterways--not very many people realize that in Oklahoma, 
we are actually navigable. We have a navigation way that comes all the 
way to my hometown of Tulsa, OK, the Port of Catoosa, where they can 
come up

[[Page 30288]]

through Louisiana and up the Arkansas River, and right now we have a 
problem with that. We have a 12-foot channel, except for one small area 
that is 9 feet. That is a choke point. That limits what we can do.
  If there is anything we need in this country--and all you have to do 
is drive on the highways and you see the cars and trucks going by and 
see how much worse the traffic is today than it was in the past. One of 
the great ways to relieve that traffic is to be able to utilize to a 
greater extent our navigation ways. I don't have the statistics with 
me, but you can carry three trainloads of stuff on a barge and move it 
actually cheaper, in many respects, into places. So in order to do the 
things the Senator from Missouri talked about in increasing the 
capacity to use these navigation ways, and even to my State of 
Oklahoma, it is something that is going to have a profound impact on 
the future of transportation in this country.
  I don't think there is anybody who is so naive not to understand that 
we have a crisis in our transportation system. The traffic is worse 
every day, and I am sure each one of us--the 100 Senators who serve in 
this Chamber--gets hundreds of letters every day asking what are we 
going to do about the transportation system--not realizing that our 
action tonight will be a great relief to that problem.
  I believe in building the infrastructure of this country, and I 
believe in the authorization process. I believe it offers our only 
discipline on spending. I am sorry that a lot of conservatives don't 
understand this, and they believe this is a spending bill, when it is 
not. So as much as I hate to do this, I urge my colleagues on the 
Republican side to join me in overriding the President's veto of this 
very significant bill that each State in America needs.
  Again, I know we are going to be seeing the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Boxer, soon. It is interesting that the committee 
called the Environment and Public Works Committee had the largest 
jurisdiction of any of the committees. Up until the last election and 
the new majority came in in January, I was chairman. Now Senator Boxer 
is chairman, and I am ranking member. We have worked together on this 
bill, and this is not something we have spent just a few hours or days 
on; we spent 6 years on it. We spent a lot of time looking at last 
year's bill to see what is relevant today.
  Some of the detractors will say: Wait a minute, you have already 
authorized a lot of things that have not been appropriated. To that, I 
say you made my point. A lot of the things we are authorizing will not 
be appropriated. That fortifies the point that this should not be 
measured as a bill that is a $23 billion bill or something that 
indicates we are going to spend all this money. This is a bill that is 
necessary in the process to offer discipline to our spending, and that 
is what we intend to do.
  With that, I will retain the remainder of our time, in the event one 
of our Members wants more time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today and tomorrow will be very special 
days for me here in the Senate because the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, led by myself and Senator Inhofe, comes forward united 
across party lines to lead the effort to override the President's veto 
of the Water Resources Development Act, a bill that will authorize the 
projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  I wish to thank Senator Inhofe for his kind comments and say that I 
think everybody knows that when it comes to the environment, Senator 
Inhofe and I don't exactly see eye to eye. But when it comes to 
building the infrastructure of the United States of America, taking 
care of the needs of our communities, making sure there is flood 
control, that we can move goods because we need to dredge so many of 
our port areas, when it comes to making sure we have recreation areas, 
and, yes, that we do the kind of environmental restoration that will 
help us with flood control--for example, restoring the great coastal 
wetlands of Louisiana--we can and do work together.
  Yesterday, the House voted 361 to 54 to override the President's veto 
of this critical legislation, giving us in the Senate the opportunity 
to make this bill the law of the land by our vote tomorrow. I note it 
is very rare that we have successful veto overrides. Why is it? Because 
in their genius, our Founders said we need quite a supermajority to do 
that. So it is rare, indeed, when we have a strong vote such as this to 
go against a President of either party, and I have served with four 
from both political parties. The signal it sends to the executive 
branch, in a moment such as this, is we are asserting ourselves as 
representatives of the people. We are saying: Mr. President, we 
shouldn't have to have a fight about this. This is something we should 
work on together. When we did pass the conference report, I remember 
asking the President rhetorically: Do we have to fight about 
everything? I don't think we should. Senator Inhofe and I can set aside 
our differences to work on this bill. It seems to me we represent 
basically the entire philosophy from one end to the other, and it seems 
to me we should have had the support of the executive branch.
  Today and tomorrow are also special days for the many people and 
communities across our Nation that have waited so long for this time to 
come, for this important legislation to become law. Indeed, when we 
finally accomplish this tomorrow--and I pray we do--it will be 7 years 
in the making, 7 years since we actually had a Water Resources 
Development Act. That is too long to wait.
  I say to all the communities across our great country waiting for 
desperately needed flood control, such as New Orleans and the gulf 
coast, such as Sacramento in my State of California, where 300,000 
people are in jeopardy should there be a flooding problem, I say to all 
of you: The wait is nearly over and help is on the way.
  Again, I thank my ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Senator Inhofe. We do share a commitment to shoring up our 
Nation's infrastructure, including its water resources. On some issues, 
as we know, we do not stand shoulder to shoulder, but on this issue, we 
have stood shoulder to shoulder to get the work done, and I think we 
will stand shoulder to shoulder in the future, as well as look at other 
infrastructure needs in our States and communities.
  I also thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee 
chairman and ranking member, Senators Baucus and Isakson. They have 
been a very important part of our team helping to put this package 
together.
  Unfortunately, despite the bipartisan nature of this critical 
infrastructure investment and despite waiting 7 years, the President 
decided 7 years was not long enough and he vetoed the bill. I tell you 
the truth, I still cannot believe it. I know many of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle spoke with the President and said to the 
President: Please understand, Mr. President, this is not an 
appropriations bill, this is not a spending bill, this is an 
authorization bill. Anyone who wants to learn more about that simply 
read the record of what Senator Inhofe--if not the most fiscal 
conservative member, certainly one of the most in this body--said about 
this bill.
  This bill is an authorization bill, and every single project has to 
go through the rigors of the appropriations process. But what we have 
to do is give the Corps the ability to complete repairs to levees, 
flood walls, and pumps that failed to protect the lives and property of 
those in New Orleans.
  Remember when the President spoke in Jackson Square in September 2005 
and he offered a pledge to the American people. This is what he said 
that night. I remember the eeriness of the scene, where the President 
had come

[[Page 30289]]

out of the darkness because there was no electricity in New Orleans, 
and the lights were lighting him. It was, in a way, a touching moment.
  What the President said was important. This is what he said:

       Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what 
     it takes, we will stay as long as it takes to help citizens 
     rebuild their communities and their lives.

  I do believe when you say that, you need to mean it. We will do what 
it takes. Yet we had tonight Senator Landrieu and Senator Vitter, both 
representing New Orleans and Louisiana and representing their people 
with great emotion and great conviction, begging for this bill because 
this bill will help make Louisiana whole.
  I traveled to New Orleans with several members of the committee to 
conduct a field hearing this year. Seven Senators were on that trip, a 
clear indication of how important protecting New Orleans and the gulf 
coast is to the Members of this Senate. We saw the needs of the New 
Orleans area, but we also saw the hope and the optimism of the people 
and the community leaders that the Federal Government would, in fact, 
keep its commitments.
  This bill makes our promises real. This bill makes the promises of 
the President of the United States real. This misguided veto only 
created further delay, and I beg my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to listen to Senator Inhofe, to listen to Senator Vitter, to 
listen to Senator Landrieu, to listen to my words tonight.
  WRDA also contains the authorization for Louisiana's Wetlands 
Restoration Program, wetlands that are critical to protecting south 
Louisiana from hurricanes and improving the environment.
  Before I talk about the critical flood threat facing Sacramento in my 
State of California, I wish to talk a little bit about Florida, and 
then I am going to yield 5 minutes to Senator Nelson.
  Not only did I get to go to New Orleans, but I got an amazing 
invitation from Senator Nelson. Let's just say it was more than an 
invitation; it was a strong urging. It was a begging. It was so 
important to Senator Nelson that I certainly could not say no.
  I went to see the Everglades with my own eyes. My husband came with 
me and Senator Nelson and his wife Grace greeted us there. We went out 
on a tour of the Everglades which we will never forget.
  I can tell you the beauty of that place is most extraordinary. It is 
just extraordinary. As Senator Nelson will explain much better than I, 
we have an area that is in crisis. We have a window in which we must 
act to make sure the water flows into the Everglades to keep it alive, 
the river of grass.
  One of the lasting memories of that trip as we went out and dusk fell 
and we were out and we saw the alligators out there, we saw what 
appeared to me--and, of course, Senator Nelson had seen this--I think 
he got more pleasure watching my face as I thought all of a sudden we 
were in a meadow. I almost thought: How could this boat actually be 
moving in a meadowland? It was not a meadowland. It was this river of 
grass.
  We saw wildlife actually jumping out of this river of grass onto 
trees. It was a spectacular moment. I thought, God has given us this 
gift, and it is our obligation, it is our duty, it is our 
responsibility to make sure others get to see this gift.
  At this time, I am happy to yield 7 minutes to Senator Nelson and I 
look forward to his remarks. I reserve my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, as the Senator from 
California has been describing her experience, I have been enjoying 
enormously not only her reflection of that experience but remembering 
seeing the faces of Senator Boxer and her husband as they saw these new 
experiences of gliding in an airboat over a sea of grass that Marjory 
Douglas called river of grass.
  As we came to the edge and went into the big cypress preserve where 
cypress stands, clumps of large cypress trees dotted the landscape, as 
the Senator explained, it was getting close to sundown. As the light 
lowered, as you were gliding over this meadow of grass, it looked 
exactly like that until suddenly you were shocked into the reality that 
there was a doe and her fawn as they were bounding, not over the meadow 
but sloshing through the water as they headed toward the clump of 
cypress trees.
  It is now our responsibility to protect and preserve this national 
treasure--indeed, an international treasure--for the generations to 
come. It was 60 years ago that the Everglades National Park was created 
by an act of Congress and President Harry Truman signed the bill into 
law. The Senator at whose desk I now reside was then a young Member of 
Congress, Senator George Smathers, who helped bring that Everglades 
National Park 60 years ago, in December of 1947, into fruition.
  Now we sit here on a momentous occasion. In order for us to continue 
to try to protect this national and natural treasure, we have to 
overcome a Presidental veto. It is important not just to our State but 
so many States because of these water projects, because the last time 
we had such a law that authorized these water projects was back in 
2000.
  What that plan did in 2000 in an Everglades restoration plan, created 
after years of study and analysis, was to try to restore the Everglades 
to something of what nature intended. But we couldn't do it like nature 
had it because a huge portion of the south part of the peninsula of 
Florida was the Everglades. Decades later, it is so different because 
there are 6 million people living in South Florida, there is a major 
agricultural industry, and in the intervening half century, mankind has 
come in and diked and drained the natural flow of the water in a way 
Mother Nature never intended. So what was passed--the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan in 2000--was intended, given the changes in 
the population, the agriculture, and the existing diking and draining, 
to restore as much of that to the natural function that Mother Nature 
intended so we could preserve the Everglades.
  The bill we have in front of us contains two restoration projects 
that have undergone painstaking planning, design, and development, and 
they are ready for construction. But we can't get them constructed 
until we can get them authorized. The Indian River Lagoon and the 
Picayune Strand are vital projects--together worth $2 billion--in 
increasing the water quality and maintaining and preserving the natural 
areas to reverse the decades of damage and neglect.
  So 7 years after the creation of this plan, a plan that has been on 
hold because the Federal Government has faltered in its commitment to 
restoration of this national and natural treasure, it is time for us to 
get on and approve this bill, unfortunately, by overturning the 
President's veto.
  The biggest threat now to the restoration of the Everglades--thanks 
to folks such as Senator Boxer and those beyond the boundaries of 
Florida who are finally understanding how important it is--is the 
delay. We made a promise 7 years ago, and we are going to finally 
fulfill that promise. It is a partnership between the State of Florida 
and the Federal Government. We committed ourselves then to the largest 
restoration project in the world, and when we pass this legislation, 
despite those who have tried to detour it, the Federal Government will 
have made a significant step in living up to its commitment.
  So with this victory close at hand, let me remind my colleagues there 
are many more battles we are going to have to fight in the future to 
save the Everglades. But, Madam President, it is my pleasure to stand 
here to support Senator Boxer in this vote to override the President's 
veto.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 21 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before Senator Nelson leaves the floor, 
I again thank him for bringing me into this entire plan. I am glad I 
could be of help in saving the Everglades, and I think he has support 
on both sides of the aisle.

[[Page 30290]]

  There was an amazing story in the New York Times the other day about 
the Everglades and how we have to act. Madam President, you are one of 
the best environmentalists I know, and you know the window is closing 
for us on so many projects. We need to move now or it is too late. Once 
damage is irreparable, there is nothing more we can do. So I praise my 
friend, Senator Nelson.
  I also say that his whole family is dedicated to this issue. When I 
went out there and saw the love his family has for this area, the 
understanding they have, and how the whole community has been brought 
together by Senator Nelson, I think this is a seminal moment for his 
career because what we are doing is so critical. And as he points out, 
we can't move forward unless we have this authorization.
  The fact that we have to override a veto is sad. I mean, it is adding 
more time that we are losing. But I am hopeful that tomorrow, sometime 
perhaps even before noon, when the votes are taken, this bill will be 
the law of the land, and we can go back home and tell people we have, 
in fact, reached across party lines and done something for them, 
notwithstanding the President's objection.
  So I thank Senator Nelson. And, Madam President, I am going to yield 
7 minutes to Senator Murray, but before I do, I want to talk about one 
particular project that is in this bill for California.
  We have many in here, but I think it is important that people 
understand when we looked at this bill, we looked at so many serious 
problems, where lives are at risk, and one place that is true is in the 
Sacramento region of California. As you know, that is our capital. This 
conference report, this important bill, allows the Corps of Engineers 
and the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the necessary modifications 
at the existing Folsom Dam in California so we can protect 300,000 
residents of Sacramento and the capital itself from horrific flooding.
  Madam President, imagine 300,000 people living in a very precarious 
situation. The capital itself is in a very precarious situation, and we 
know we can make it safe. That veto left our citizens at risk. But, 
hopefully, tomorrow we will change that.
  Sacramento is not only the capital of California, where we have 37 
million people and growing, but it is also America's largest 
metropolitan area with less than 100-year flood control protection. So, 
again, it is America's largest metropolitan area with less than 100-
year flood control protection. And for those who don't know what that 
means, we mean a flood that comes once in 100 years. That is what you 
have to plan for when you have so many people in harm's way.
  Statistically, Sacramento is four times as likely to be devastated by 
flooding than New Orleans was. Sacramento is situated at the confluence 
of two great rivers, the American River and the Sacramento River. The 
Sacramento River is born in the Southern Cascade Mountain Range, while 
the American River originates in the High Sierra. The city sits in a 
low valley, in a low valley where these two rivers meet.
  This large floodplain is one reason California has such productive 
farmland, and we all benefit from that. It is beautiful farmland. But 
as a result of growth, the Sacramento metropolitan area is now home to 
nearly half a million people and contains 165,000 homes, 1,300 
government facilities, including the State capitol, and businesses 
providing 200,000 jobs. A major flood would cripple the Sacramento 
region's economy, significantly impair the operations of our government 
in our State, cause up to $15 billion in direct damages, up to $30 
billion in total economic loss, and we can't even put a pricetag on the 
loss of life.
  In our State, we know about flooding, we know about fires, and we 
know about earthquakes. I know, Madam President, in your State you have 
gone through many natural disasters as well.
  In 1986, as a result of storms, 13 people were killed, 67 were 
injured, 1,300 homes were destroyed, and 967 businesses damaged--the 
total damage cost over $400 million.
  In 1997, 8 people were killed, 23,000 homes destroyed, and 2,000 
businesses destroyed or damaged--the total damage was $1.8 billion.
  As the capital of the world's fifth largest economy, no one can deny 
it is important to protect the Sacramento region.
  I would simply say, in this bill we are taking care of this problem, 
and I want to thank the House for their strong support, particularly 
Doris Matsui and the late, wonderful Congressman Bob Matsui, who really 
got us started on this project. We are going to do the right thing for 
Sacramento. It means everything to our State.
  We also have many other important California projects in the bill--
the revitalizing Los Angeles River, restoring the Salton Sea, critical 
flood control projects, and dredging and navigation projects all 
throughout our communities. So this bill is really an economic 
lifeblood for California. It truly is. It is also a matter of life and 
death for our people.
  So today is a moving and a touching day. We did in about 8 months, as 
we took the gavel, what hasn't been done in 7 years. It is a prideful 
moment but much more important than that; it shows we can reach across 
party lines. It shows we can work together across State lines. It shows 
we can work together between the House and the Senate. This moment is 
about to come, and it is going to mean a great deal to the people of 
our country.
  Madam President, I yield 7 minutes to my dear friend from Washington 
State, Senator Patty Murray, who has been such a leader on these issues 
and many others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from California for 
the tremendous work she has done on this critical bill that supports 
the infrastructure across the country and for her diligence in keeping 
to the task to make sure we are finally here at this point where we are 
just a vote away from having this signed into law.
  Madam President, I wanted to come to the Senate floor tonight to urge 
the Senate to override the President's very shortsighted veto of this 
Water Resources Development Act. This is a bill that, as the Senator 
from California said, renews critical flood control, navigation, and 
water quality projects that are important across the country but are 
important in my home State of Washington as well.
  This bill ensures our waterways can continue to be used to move 
goods. It helps restore our beaches and our wetlands, which are 
important to our coastal communities, and it makes sure we are 
protected from catastrophic floods. These projects in this bill are 
essential for our economy. And as we saw with Hurricane Katrina, they 
can also be a matter of life and death. That is why I was astonished 
that President Bush vetoed this bill.
  More than 2 years after Katrina flooded 80 percent of New Orleans, 
destroyed coastal Mississippi, and killed 1,600 people, I couldn't 
believe the President said no to this bill. Even after he failed to 
respond to the devastation on the gulf, he is now standing in the way 
of projects that will protect the people of that region. Madam 
President, 81 Senators approved this bill in October because we 
understood our responsibility to invest in these important projects 
that provide for public safety and that keep our economy healthy.
  The President's veto is another example of his misplaced priorities. 
Throughout this year he has been insistent on playing political games 
at the expense of our Nation's economy and our health and safety. So, 
again, I urge our colleagues to override this veto and show the 
President he got it wrong.
  I know most of the Senate agree it is critical for us to address 
these issues now. This bill will help us avoid another catastrophe such 
as we saw in New Orleans, and it will help ensure our environment and 
our economy stays healthy.
  Too many years have passed since the Water Development Resources Act 
was reauthorized. It is 5 years overdue

[[Page 30291]]

now, and the needs are piling up. I again thank Senator Boxer and 
Senator Inhofe because their leadership in the first year of this 
Democratic-controlled Congress made sure that this bill did finally get 
to the President.
  The tragedy in New Orleans provided a dramatic example of how 
necessary this bill is, but there are hundreds of communities across 
the country that have been waiting for years for Congress to act on 
this bill and ensure that these vital projects finally get started.
  WRDA creates a national levee safety program and ensures thousands of 
miles of levees across the country will get a general safety 
inspection. It enables the Federal Government to act quickly on 
critical flood control projects, and it helps our local communities 
prepare for damaging and deadly floods.
  This bill is also about economic development. It ensures that 
shipping can continue on our waterways and helps us to move everything 
from wheat to cars to wind turbines from port to port. And it is about 
making sure our lakes and our beaches are clean and safe. It protects 
our environment and promotes recreation and it provides jobs.
  By vetoing this bill, the President said no to the communities that 
have been waiting for years to go ahead with these critical 
environmental, safety, and economic development projects. And, Madam 
President, some of those communities are in our home State. From 
shipping, to boating, to fishing, our waterways in the Pacific 
Northwest are vital to our way of life. That includes, by the way, a 
major shipping route on the Columbia River, with container ships and 
bulk carriers and tankers and car carriers that travel back and forth, 
as the Presiding Officer knows, carrying goods in, and shipping lumber 
and grain and countless other products out.
  So it is vital to the economy of our region the Columbia get regular 
dredging and maintenance. This bill, the WRDA bill, lifts restrictions 
on the number of days Federal dredges can operate to make sure that 
happens. And it helps our region in a number of other ways too. This 
bill gives the Corps of Engineers another tool so they can eliminate 
that huge backlog of permit applications for people who are trying to 
do everything from building piers to expanding ports. That will save 
our local governments millions of dollars.
  By vetoing this bill, the WRDA bill, the President essentially said 
no to the economy, to the safety, and to the environment in my home 
State of Washington.
  Sadly, the Water Resources Development Act is not the first important 
and bipartisan bill this President has blocked. It happens to be the 
fifth. Besides this bill, President Bush has vetoed children's health 
insurance; lifesaving stem cell research, twice; and our efforts to 
change course in Iraq and bring our troops home. He has, by the way, 
threatened to veto many of our appropriations bills. He says he objects 
to our spending bills because they invest $22 billion more than he 
asked for.
  President Bush is pretty happy to talk about pork and complain, but 
what he will not do and has not done yet is tell the American people 
what he wants to cut. Would he cut health care funding? Would he cut 
the money to build our deteriorating bridges and roads? Maybe he would 
cut investments to the FBI or the DEA. Perhaps it is the millions of 
dollars of funding we have in these bills for job training or education 
that he objects to. We don't know because he would not say.
  But he ought to know this. We stand by these important investments 
because our bills ensure our roads and our bridges and our airports and 
our railways are in good and safe condition. They ensure our kids can 
see a doctor. They ensure we can do cutting-edge research so we can 
find cures for diseases such as diabetes or MS. But as we have seen, 
the President has insisted on blocking these ideas and priorities and 
keeps repeating his apparent favorite four-letter word, which is 
``veto.''
  Instead of investing in our communities, he has continued to play 
political games. Instead of progress, all we have gotten are vetoes. I 
hope it is time for us to send a message to President Bush: We are not 
going to stand idly by and watch you veto these investments in our 
communities. I hope our colleagues override this veto on this important 
legislation, and I believe by standing together, as our friends in the 
House did, we can send a strong message to him about who has the right 
priorities for America. I hope by doing this we can finally unite with 
our Republican colleagues in choosing a new course for the other 
important bills--the children's health bill, all of our appropriations 
bills, even the stem cell research bill.
  I think it is time for Congress to turn a page on the President's 
obstruction. This is the first step. I hope there are more to come. As 
I have said before, and I will say it again now, people around this 
country are eager for a change. They want to see a light at the end of 
the tunnel, and we want to make sure the President does not put out 
that light.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 17 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I 
think what she did in her presentation is give a message of hope. I 
think this is a signal, this vote tomorrow. It is a signal we can work 
together across party lines to get things done for the good of the 
American people. People want to see that and they are going to see it.
  The President said this bill lacked fiscal discipline. He doesn't 
realize, I guess, it has been 7 years in the making. We used to do 
these WRDA bills, these water resources bills, every 2 years. So there 
has been pent-up demand, the normal pent-up demand in a country that is 
growing, whose economy is growing, that is importing more and exporting 
more goods. Of course we are going to have a pent-up demand.
  Then, when you put on top of that the disastrous consequences from 
Katrina and Rita and the fact that we are getting more floods and we 
are having more problems, you realize this bill is a very fair and 
defensible one. Again, as Senator Inhofe said, we don't spend a dime. 
This is an authorization bill, the first step in bringing Federal 
resources and expertise to a project that is developed at the local 
level.
  Every one of these projects is brought to us from our communities. 
That means the communities are willing to put up funds and our funding 
is so important because it spurs on these projects.
  I think what is sort of getting to the American people is the fact 
that, as the President says, a bill such as this, which is an 
authorizing bill, is too large. He seems to have a blank check for 
ventures overseas--$12 billion a month is going out the door, $12 
billion a month for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill equals 
literally 2 months of that funding. It has taken us 7 years.
  Put it into perspective. This bill that authorizes all these 
important flood control projects, navigation projects, recreation 
projects, environmental restoration projects--all these bills add up to 
2 months in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Then we read on the front page of the Washington Post the other day 
that the administration is paying millions of dollars to fix a dam in 
Iraq. I am all for that. I don't want to see anyone hurt in Iraq. But I 
don't want to see anyone hurt in Sacramento or in Seattle or in New 
Orleans or in any of the towns in Mississippi. I don't want to see us 
lose the Everglades. The fact of the matter is, I think the President 
is on weak ground in vetoing this bill that is so important for the 
public works of the country while spending so much on the public works 
of countries abroad.
  This is an investment in America we will be making tomorrow morning, 
if all is well, and we see that same kind of vote we had the last time. 
We can stand tall and proud. Seven years is too long a wait for a bill 
that authorizes essential programs, such as navigation, flood control, 
ecosystem restoration--but we are ready to go. I think this bill meets 
our communities' needs. Some of

[[Page 30292]]

them are unmet needs. Some of them are acute needs.
  Make no mistake, the projects that are authorized in this bill that I 
hope we will again pass tomorrow--again I hope we will override the 
President's veto--are going to protect thousands of homes and the lives 
of millions from catastrophic flooding. It is going to help us restore 
wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation--places where wildlife 
thrives and our families go to enjoy the outdoors.
  Indeed, as hunting, fishing, boating, camping, and other outdoor 
industries boom, this bill is an important part of keeping our 
recreation economy thriving.
  It also says, yes, our ports need attention. The waterways need to 
have capacity. We need to make shipping easier, safer, and efficient, 
so it keeps the economy moving. So much of our economy is dependent on 
water resources. Our ports and harbors are the gateway to the world. 
Our manufactured goods, such as autos and computer chips, move through 
those ports. Our agricultural goods, such as grains, wines, and fruit, 
pass through our ports and harbors to be sold around the world. Goods 
come in and they get distributed to the entire country. We are talking 
about thousands of jobs. We are talking about moving goods. We are 
talking about recreation.
  We are talking about 360 million visits a year to our lakes and our 
beaches and other areas; 25 million people visit a Corps project at 
least once a year and that generates 600,000 jobs.
  Let me say, tomorrow or later tonight my colleagues may hear some 
complaint about the fact that we didn't do enough Corps reform. I wish 
to say Members on both sides of the aisle spent a great deal of time on 
this issue. Senator Feingold has been a prime mover in this area, and I 
greatly respect the work he has done, but I have to say, as I have said 
to him, I know he wants more. But we went a long way. This is a good 
package. We have a truly independent review process. I think we 
actually made that independent review process more independent. We have 
outside experts, free of political pressure, coming in and examining 
all aspects of the environmental, economic, and engineering components 
of a project study. These panels will be able to receive and evaluate 
public comments. The panels will be available to advise the Corps 
throughout the entire development process.
  The bill requires the first updates of the Corps planning principles 
and guidelines since 1983, when President Reagan was in the White 
House. The bill will make the Corps mitigate the impact of its projects 
the same as any other party and make sure mitigation is done in kind, 
up front, and not as an afterthought.
  We included safety assurance reviews, increased watershed planning, 
authorized a levee safety assessment program, and expedited the 
deauthorization of the backlog of unconstructed projects.
  But Senator Feingold still believes we should have done more. 
Frankly, I would love to do more, and I will work on this in the 
future. But we went as far as we could go. We cannot make the perfect 
the enemy of the good. I find myself saying that over and over around 
here. We have to do good work. The only perfect work is the work each 
of us wants to do.
  I know what is perfect. Senator Cantwell knows what is perfect. 
Senator Inhofe knows what is perfect. If we write our own bill, to us 
it is perfect. But we have 100 of us, 100 different ``perfects.'' It 
means we have to reach across the aisle and work together.
  I say to Senator Feingold, even though he is not on the floor today, 
thank you for your leadership, but please reconsider your opposition. 
Vote with us on the override. We have gone a long way. We have acted in 
good faith, and we will continue to work with you in the future on so 
many of the important reform issues you bring to this floor.
  Tomorrow is a very big day for me as chairman of the committee, for 
Senator Inhofe, who actually started this bill when he had the gavel. 
He brought it pretty close to being the law, but we didn't quite get it 
over the line. He has worked with me as a solid team member.
  I think it is going to be a great day for the Congress. I think it is 
going to be a great day for the Constitution. What we are saying: Mr. 
President, we are elected too. We count too. The American people vote 
for us too. When so many of us tell you we believe strongly that we 
need to meet the infrastructure needs of our country, we hope you would 
come to the table. This time you chose not to do so. We hope in the 
future you will join us.
  It is a great day for the Constitution. The Framers of the 
Constitution foresaw this. They said: If you have an executive who 
decides to veto something that is a crying need in the Nation, and 
everybody agrees--67 of us, or two-thirds of those present and voting, 
can override a veto. Tomorrow is going to be a great day for the health 
and safety of the people of my State of California, of the United 
States.
  I look forward to coming to the floor tomorrow. I think Senator 
Inhofe and I will divide 15 minutes, and we will, once more, lay out in 
shorter form why we think it is essential to override this ill-advised 
veto.
  Madam President, thank you so much for your consideration, and for 
your work on this bill.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise in support of the Water 
Resources Development Act conference report.
  It has been 6 years since Congress last passed a water resources and 
development reauthorization bill. The time has come to finally pass 
this important legislation. I am very disappointed that the President 
has vetoed this bill.
  America's infrastructure and waterways system is the foundation of 
our economy. For too long, we have been ignoring our infrastructure, 
but Katrina was a wake-up call for all of us. In the wake of this 
disaster, we saw firsthand the devastating impact of a weak 
infrastructure on our people and our economy. The more we continue to 
fail to fund our water infrastructure, the more we are putting our 
Nation's competitiveness at risk in this global marketplace.
  Our physical infrastructure is a critical piece to making America 
more competitive. Our infinite needs are overwhelming and being 
squeezed. We should be rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness 
so that future generations have at least the same opportunity to enjoy 
our standard of living and quality of life. If we continue to ignore 
the upkeep--the deterioration of our locks and dams, flood control 
projects, and navigation channels--we risk disruptions in waterborne 
commerce, decreased protection against floods as we saw in Katrina and 
other environmental damage.
  Additionally, I am pleased that this bill includes many provisions 
that will benefit the Great Lakes. First, there is authority for the 
Corps to deal with a very serious threat facing the Great Lakes. Asian 
carp are just miles from the lakes, and the only thing standing in 
their way is a temporary dispersal barrier in the Chicago Ship & 
Sanitary Canal. This bill authorizes the Corps to complete construction 
of Barrier II which is the permanent barrier as well as to convert 
Barrier I into a permanent facility and to operate and maintain both 
dispersal barriers at full Federal cost. Under this authority, the 
Corps would study options for hydrologic separation of the canal and 
the Great Lakes while maintaining the movement of cargo and 
recreational vessels.
  This bill clarifies that any reconnaissance study under the Great 
Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration program is to be performed at 
full federal expense. The Great Lakes navigation system has been 
associated with impacts on Great Lakes fishery resources, and the 
purpose of the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration program is 
for the Corps to cooperate with others to plan, implement, and evaluate 
projects supporting the restoration of the fishery, ecosystem, and 
beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. When Congress authorized this 
program initially, the intention was for the Corps to develop projects 
under this authority just like other programs. That means that the 
reconnaissance study is to be a fully federal expense, and cost-sharing 
is required for

[[Page 30293]]

subsequent study, engineering, design, and construction.
  This bill reauthorizes the Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans and 
Sediment Remediation and the Great Lakes Tributary Models Program. 
These are two programs that allow the Corps to provide assistance for 
controlling the source of sediments and to identifying specific actions 
to resolve pollution problems.
  Also contained in this bill is authority directing the Corps to 
expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the 
navigation features of the Great Lakes and connecting channels for the 
purpose of supporting navigation. The Corps has a huge backlog of work, 
and that backlog includes the Great Lakes. Freighters are getting stuck 
in shipping channels, other ships are carrying reduced loads, and some 
shipments have simply ceased altogether. The Corps estimates a backlog 
of 16 million cubic yards of dredging at commercial Great Lakes harbors 
and channels, which the Army Corps expects will cost about $192 million 
to address. In order to help address this backlog, the Corps will be 
authorized to expedite this work.
  Lastly, this bill allows the St. Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation to carry out much-needed repairs, including maintenance 
dredging, of the Eisenhower and Snell lock facilities and related 
navigational infrastructure for the St. Lawrence Seaway. Unfortunately, 
like many of our infrastructure projects, we have not done much upkeep 
of the St. Lawrence Seaway. This bill will allow for those improvements 
to be made at a total cost of $134,650,000.
  The passage of this WRDA conference report cannot be delayed any 
further. It is simply too important to our Nation in terms of its 
benefits to our economy and environment and for the speedy recovery for 
the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to override the President's veto.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will vote to sustain President 
Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act. The President's 
veto of the WRDA bill is a welcome opportunity for Congress to modify 
the flawed, bloated bill. Instead of overriding the veto, Congress 
should be taking this opportunity to fix the bill.
  For 7 years, I have worked with Senator McCain and many of our 
colleagues to achieve essential reforms of the Corps of Engineers, and 
have long anticipated the day that meaningful reforms are enacted. 
Unfortunately, during conference, the Senate's strong Corps reform 
provisions were significantly watered down. Instead of the reform bill 
that the country needs, this bill is simply the latest example of 
business as usual.
  After a decade of Government and independent reports calling for 
reforming the Corps, and pointing out stunning flaws in Corps projects 
and project studies, and after the tragic failures of New Orleans' 
levees during Hurricane Katrina, the American people deserve meaningful 
reforms to ensure that the projects the Corps builds are safe, 
appropriate, environmentally responsible and fiscally sound. The 
urgency and necessity could not be clearer.
  A critical component of reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is 
ensuring independent review of significant Corps projects. This bill 
provides review but does not ensure it is truly independent.
  I will continue to push for Corps reforms that ensure fiscal 
responsibility, accountability, public safety, and environmental 
protections. This means ensuring that Americans' tax dollars are spent 
on the most important priorities, not just on Members' pet projects. 
Earlier this year, I was joined by Senators McCain, Coburn, Carper, 
Gregg, Sununu, and DeMint in offering an amendment to form a commission 
of non-Federal, water resources experts to provide Congress 
recommendations on a process for prioritizing Corps projects.
  However, the Senate defeated this effort. I can only conclude that 
many of our colleagues think the status quo is acceptable. To me, there 
is nothing acceptable about a $58 billion backlog (soon to be $81 
billion) of authorized but unfunded projects. Some of my colleagues 
have argued it is okay to authorize $23 billion in projects, because 
WRDA only authorizes projects and does not appropriate funds. This 
approach shirks our responsibility as elected officials. By authorizing 
WRDA projects, Congress is indicating these projects are worthy of 
funding and that taxpayer dollars should be committed to these 
projects. Unfortunately, without some way of prioritizing and with a 
limited annual construction budget of around $2 billion, our Nation's 
critical infrastructure and restoration projects--and the American 
people who depend on these water resources projects--will suffer.
  The President did the right thing when he vetoed the WRDA bill and I 
am disappointed that Congress is determined to override that veto. My 
colleagues would be better off if they listened to people like Mark 
Beorkrem, a true Corps reform champion. Mark recently passed away, but 
his 20 years of advocacy on behalf of the Mississippi River and 
reforming the Corps of Engineers will have profound and lasting effects 
on the health and vitality of the Mississippi and rivers across the 
country. Most recently, Mark played a pivotal role in ensuring the 
inclusion of a comprehensive ecosystem restoration component in the 
Corps' Mississippi River lock expansion project. He also provided 
leadership within the national Corps Reform Network, as well as the 
Sierra Club, sharing his knowledge and passion for environmental 
protection and restoration. The Mississippi and many of our Nation's 
rivers and wetlands are better off thanks to Mark's tireless efforts. 
We should be guided by his example.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President's veto of the WRDA 
conference report, and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record newspaper editorials on this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Nov. 5, 2007]

   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.

[[Page 30294]]

     
                                  ____
               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 6, 2007]

                            Scant Resources

       This week's anticipated veto override by Congress on a 
     water-projects spending bill will allow $23 billion in 
     unfunded mandates, codifying a pork-laden plan that, for the 
     most part, will not come to fruition. Ironically, these 
     members of Congress who have given overwhelming approval of 
     the bill and are poised to overthrow President Bush's veto 
     are highly unlikely to actually set aside real funding for 
     the bill when it comes time to parcel out appropriations.
       Congress gave landslide approval for this bill (81-12 in 
     the Senate and 381-40 in the House) to grant the $23 billion 
     for some 900 projects by the Army Corps of Engineers and yet 
     they failed to back up the mandates with actual funding. This 
     makes the political theater all the more an empty charade, 
     with Mr. Bush finally chastising Congress for its lack of 
     fiscal restraint and members of his own party lampooning his 
     efforts.
       The Water Resources Development Act adds to the backlog of 
     mandates the corps will ostensibly be handling--$38 billion 
     by Mr. Bush's count and $58 billion by Taxpayers for Common 
     Sense. It is puzzling that Congress would continue to add to 
     this burden when historically Congress allocates a mere $2 
     billion per year for new corps construction projects. It 
     seems most members relish the opportunity to send out a 
     crowing press release in their home district about a hard-
     fought earmark that has fat chance of ever improving the 
     quality of life for their constituents.
       The bill lacks the prioritization needed to ensure vital 
     projects are completed first. However, this is not new--pork 
     projects continue to dilute the corps' spending power as it 
     spreads itself too thin. This was apparent in Louisiana, a 
     state that by far has enjoyed the most in corps 
     appropriations (some $1.9 billion in the last five years to 
     second-place California's $1.4 billion). Yet, rather than 
     placing high priority on projects like the levees prior to 
     Hurricane Katrina, funding instead went to an unjustifiable 
     navigation canal lock project and the low-trafficked J. 
     Bennett Johnston Waterway.
       An odd set of bedfellows have urged oversight and belt-
     tightening on the water projects, from Sen. Russ Feingold, 
     Wisconsin Democrat, to the earmark watchdog Republicans Sen. 
     Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona. 
     While their logical stance will be dismissed, the consolation 
     is most of the projects in this earmark-laden bill won't see 
     the light of day.
                                  ____


                     [From USA Today, Nov. 7, 2006]

Our View on Flood Control: Despite Katrina, Business as Usual on Water 
  Projects. Instead of Setting Priorities, Congress Piles on the Pork.

       Suppose you need a new car. You want to spend $14,000. Your 
     spouse argues for $15,000. Then you go to the showroom and 
     you compromise--by driving away in a $23,000 vehicle.
       Add six more zeroes to each figure, and that's basically 
     what happened in Congress to the first legislation since 2000 
     to authorize new water projects. The Senate approved $14 
     billion, the House approved $15 billion and they 
     ``compromised'' on $23 billion.
       This bloated package--everything from dams and levees to 
     sewage treatment plants and beach restoration--is, of course, 
     an exercise in local greed and political clout. Neither is 
     going away any time soon. But in its ham-fisted grab for the 
     money, Congress also managed to ignore lessons taught so 
     painfully by Hurricane Katrina.
       It may complete the folly this week if the Senate, as 
     expected, follows Tuesday's House action and overrides a 
     richly deserved veto by President Bush.
       For decades, lawmakers have authorized water projects less 
     on the nation's needs than on their own need to bring home 
     federal dollars and get re-elected.
       In the process, the Gulf Coast was made steadily more 
     vulnerable. Projects to tame the Mississippi's flow and turn 
     it into a lucrative shipping channel degraded marshes and 
     swamps that had long protected New Orleans from storm surges. 
     Katrina blew past the vanishing buffers, pushed water up a 
     man-made channel and overwhelmed ineptly built federal 
     levees.
       While the $23 billion measure authorizes projects designed 
     to mitigate such blunders--strengthening New Orleans' levees, 
     for instance, and starting to restore the Louisiana coastal 
     wetlands and Florida's Everglades--it also includes an 
     assortment of dubious ones, on the Gulf Coast and elsewhere:
       $131 million to deepen Louisiana's Port of Iberia, even 
     though the project failed a government cost-benefit analysis. 
     After that, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., made sure the 
     calculation was redone.
       $2 billion to expand Upper Mississippi River navigation 
     locks to accommodate more barges. In 2001, the project was 
     halted when government planners were accused of 
     overestimating barge traffic and using other inaccurate 
     assumptions to justify the locks. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., vowed 
     to get the project built anyway.
       $56 million to replenish sand at Imperial Beach in San 
     Diego County. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., defends it as a 
     way to fight ``storm surge.'' That's dubious, and in any 
     case, why should taxpayers in Kansas have to re-sand a beach 
     in California?
       Millions more for local water supply projects and other 
     unspecified plans.
       Absent is any plan to reform this cavalier process. The 
     Senate rejected, 69-22, a measure to create a commission of 
     outside experts to set priorities.
       Unfortunately, Bush's record on fiscal responsibility is so 
     poor that his veto carries little credibility on Capitol 
     Hill. So, after sustaining vetoes it should have overridden 
     (on stem-cell research and children's health insurance), 
     Congress is now about to override a veto it should have 
     sustained.
       Lawmakers could have used this as an opportunity to write a 
     cheaper, cleaner, more sensible roadmap for making the nation 
     safer from hurricanes and floods. Instead, they are spending 
     tax dollars on a vehicle loaded with expensive, unnecessary 
     options.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, July 15, 2007]

                          Reform for the Corps

       Congress appears to be on track to approve a major water 
     resources bill that would, among other provisions, provide 
     long-overdue money for Everglades restoration and money to 
     begin rebuilding Louisiana's vulnerable wetlands. But the 
     House and Senate versions of the bill diverge on one crucial 
     issue: reforming the Army Corps of Engineers.
       This difference should be resolved by Senate and House 
     negotiators in favor of the stronger Senate version, which 
     guarantees meaningful reform.
       Compared with most government agencies, the corps has 
     always lived a charmed and largely undisciplined life, 
     accountable to no one except a Congress that is happy to let 
     it do whatever it wants as long as it builds the dams, 
     levees, bridges and other pork-barrel projects dear to 
     Congressional hearts.
       One result is that over the years the corps has inflated 
     the economic payoffs of its projects while underestimating 
     their potential damage to the environment. As the levee 
     failures during Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, the corps has 
     also made misjudgments in engineering and design.
       The Senate version addresses this by requiring independent 
     peer review of the design, cost and environmental 
     consequences of projects exceeding $40 million in value. The 
     House version offers a review process that is more loosely 
     structured and is independent in name only. It gives the 
     corps all sorts of wiggle room, including the authority to 
     define the scope of the reviews, which in turn could leave 
     important issues unexamined.
       There are other differences between the two versions, but 
     this is the most important. The Senate should stand firm.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           WRDA Veto Override

  Mr. DURBIN. I rise today supporting the override of the President's 
veto of the Water Resources Development Act, known as the WRDA bill. We 
have waited for this bill for a long time. Senator Boxer of California 
and Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma worked so hard on it; 7 years it took us 
to put this bill together. It is a bill which should be passed on a 
regular basis because the needs of our country are recurring. They did 
a great job in putting this bill together. The conference passed it 
with an overwhelming vote within 7 months after the session began.
  After 7 years of toil and 7 months hard work to put the bill 
together, it authorizes navigation, ecosystem restoration, and flood 
and storm damage reduction projects all over America. The projects in 
this bill are important for all of our Nation and represent benefits to 
rural and urban areas as well.
  In Chicago, for example, residents will see enormous benefits from 
the Thornton and McCook Reservoirs projects in this bill. These 
reservoirs are currently under construction, but until they are 
completed, significant areas in that part of the country will remain 
unprotected from major floods. I know what I am speaking of. It has not 
been that long ago--only a few weeks--that I was in the suburbs 
watching them as they packed the sandbags and turned the pumps on in

[[Page 30295]]

the basements and found ways to avoid the floodwater damage that was 
afflicting most of our area in the northern suburbs, in the northwest 
suburbs.
  These reservoirs, when completed, will provide some protection. 
Without them, millions of homeowners are going to be exposed to 
flooding. There is another element. It is not just the damage to the 
communities, it is not just the interruption of commerce, it is not the 
water-soaked basement and all of the stuff that has to be thrown away, 
it is not just the expense of buying a pump to try to clear out our 
home; it is also the fact that when we run into this flooding situation 
we have sewer backups that discharge raw sewage into Lake Michigan. 
That is unacceptable. It is the sort of thing every community along the 
lake has to take seriously.
  How does a community come up with the resources to deal with that so 
the storm drains do not overflow? Well, it is hard for them to come up 
with the resources by themselves. But with Federal assistance it is 
possible.
  Critics of this kind of approach say it is porkbarrel, more earmarks 
and Federal spending and, you know, these Senators, they are trying to 
put more money in their States for political reasons. Well, the fact 
is, this is Federal money earmarked for projects to avoid flooding, to 
protect homes, to protect neighborhoods, and to protect great national 
treasures such as Lake Michigan.
  The reservoirs not only will help stop sewage overflows, but they are 
going to save homeowners money. Almost 75 percent of the residential 
lots in South Holland, IL, are now in a floodplain. That will be 
removed when the Thornton projects are complete. Completing these 
projects will save the homeowners in South Holland $713,000 in annual 
insurance premiums.
  A lot of those homeowners are struggling with property taxes now and 
getting a break on flood insurance is certainly good news. This is just 
one of the many examples of how the WRDA bill will save homeowners real 
dollars and protect their homes.
  Another important feature of the bill for Illinois is increased lock 
capacity and improvements to the ecosystem of the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers. The Mississippi River, of course, is a beautiful 
river, and father of all waters, and has many claims to historic and 
natural significance. But it also is an important avenue of commerce. 
This is the backbone of the waterway system of America. It transports 
$12 billion worth of products each year, including over 1 billion 
bushels of grain to ports around the world. This efficient river 
transportation is vital to Illinois. Shipping by barge is inexpensive 
and helps keep our ports competitive. That is good for producers and 
good for consumers all over the world.
  More than half of the Illinois annual corn crop and 75 percent of all 
U.S. soybean exports travel along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois 
Rivers. Shipping by barge is not only cost effective, but it has real 
environmental benefits. Barges operate at 10 percent of the cost of 
trucks, 40 percent of the cost of trains, they release far less carbon 
monoxide, nitrous oxide, and hydrocarbons, and barges use much less 
fuel to operate.
  But the system of locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi that 
make travel possible is in desperate need of modernization. The current 
system was built 70 years ago and it needs to be repaired. Many of the 
older locks are only 600 feet in length. Most of the current barges are 
twice that length. That means these goods take twice as long to go down 
the river into the marketplace.
  The override veto before us today will authorize $2.2 billion for 
replacing and upgrading locks and dams, and--this is a critical part of 
it--$1.7 billion for ecosystem restoration along the river.
  We struck an agreement between those who want to use the river for 
commerce, and those who value it as a natural resource. We said, if we 
improve the locks and dams, we will put a comparable amount of money, 
$1.7 billion, into restoring the river, the ecosystem of the 
Mississippi River. So I think that is a fairminded, balanced approach 
to what our Nation needs.
  As we have seen in the tragedy that occurred along Minnesota's 35-W 
bridge, our country's infrastructure is aging and overburdened. The 
projects included in this bill are desperately needed to shore up our 
waterway system, a vital component of our national infrastructure.
  Unfortunately, the President vetoed this bill last Friday. After 
years of trying to put this bill together, this President discovered 
his veto pen this year and decided he would start vetoing bills one 
after the other. This is the latest casualty. The WRDA veto override 
was passed by the House yesterday with an overwhelming vote, 361 to 54.
  When the Senate originally considered the bill earlier this year, 
there were only five Senators who voted against it. In less than 1 week 
this Congress has come together to send the President a strong message 
that his fiscal priorities are misplaced and misguided. I do not 
understand how this President can ask us for $196 billion to rebuild 
Iraq, and we ask for $23 billion to put into rebuilding America's 
waterways, protecting the levees that could flood communities and doing 
things that are critical for our future, and the President says it is 
wasteful spending--wasteful if it is spent in America, not wasteful if 
it is spent in Iraq?
  I fear the President gets up every morning in the White House and 
looks out the window and all he sees is Iraq. If he looked out that 
window, he would see America is out here too. It needs investment. A 
strong America begins at home. The Water Resources Development Act will 
build the infrastructure which will build the economy, creating good 
business, good-paying jobs, construction jobs that cannot be 
outsourced, jobs that will be filled by Americans getting decent wages 
and good benefits, taking them home to their families, building up the 
neighborhoods and communities that are the backbone of this great 
Nation.
  The President does not see that. Oh, he can see $196 billion for 
Iraq. He cannot see $23 billion for America. I think he is wrong. By 
the vote yesterday in the House of Representatives, overwhelmingly they 
told him he was wrong. I hope we reach the same conclusion when this 
matter comes before us tomorrow. What was intended to be reauthorized 
every 2 years is now 5 years too late.
  If we follow the President's lead, we will postpone this again, we 
will see locks and dams continue to deteriorate, bridges continue to 
fail, and people wondering why in the world this great Nation of 
America is not making certain its infrastructure and backbone are 
strong enough to sustain economic growth.
  It is time the President stopped using his veto pen for essential 
projects, programs like those in this bill, and in the appropriations 
bills that will be sent his way. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this bill to override the President's veto.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________