The Cracks are Showing

[one...two...tree 2,762]

More to the story...

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was sponsored by

Rep. James Oberstar (D - MN)

Rep. Richard Baker (R - LA)

Rep. Eddie Johnson (D - TX)

Rep. John Mica (R - FL)

"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."

It was passed and then vetoed by President Bush, but a veto override was successful with a 79% 'aye' votes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1495/show

....

You can click on that link, Gary - nothing but the facts there which contradict your notion that the Democrats in Congress don't have the ball(s) to put forth real legislation. This was a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. So you've got to wonder why Bush vetoed it, let alone why McCain also opposed the bill.

Good argument Jabberwocky. I'm impressed

Carry on. (lol)

Thanks. I was inspired by Murray's victory past the fourth round at Wimbledon today.

[GaryC 7]

More to the story...

Water Resources Development Act of 2007 was sponsored by

Rep. James Oberstar (D - MN)

Rep. Richard Baker (R - LA)

Rep. Eddie Johnson (D - TX)

Rep. John Mica (R - FL)

"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."

It was passed and then vetoed by President Bush, but a veto override was successful with a 79% 'aye' votes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1495/show

....

You can click on that link, Gary - nothing but the facts there which contradict your notion that the Democrats in Congress don't have the ball(s) to put forth real legislation. This was a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support from both Republicans and Democrats. So you've got to wonder why Bush vetoed it, let alone why McCain also opposed the bill.

Good argument Jabberwocky. I'm impressed

Carry on. (lol)

Bad argument. The bill was vetoed by Bush because it was loaded with huge amounts of pork unrelated to the bill. It also didn't authorize any money to do these projects. Also, this is just recently, what about the last 50 years? You can cherrypick and provide half truths all you want. The facts are still the facts.

Here are the facts:

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group committed to being an "independent watchdog for American taxpayers," commented that the bill was just a continuation of the political practices that led to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005. It stated, "In the starkest terms, Katrina showed us that the time is long passed to end the political spoils system that has driven water project investment for more than a century. We need a modern, accountable and prioritized system to develop and award projects. It’s a message that Congress has failed to grasp." While the bill provided funding for water projects around the country, it also contained "more than 800 parochial pork barrel projects for virtually every Congressional district in the nation." According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, instead of dispersing funds by need, the legislators distributed as much as they could to their own districts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resourc...ent_Act_of_2007

The dems in congress have no balls. They need to pass a clean bill that has money in it to do the job rather than use a good sounding title as an excuse to load it up with all their pet projects. And you need to open your eyes to the truth, the dems are responsible for the poor condition of our infrastucture. They are the ones that have been holding the purse strings for most of the last 50 years.

[GaryC 7]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ 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.

Edited June 29, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, the bill was not a 'Democrat' bill, it had sponsors from both parties. Take a look at the votes on this bill:

House Passage: 04/19/2007 : Bill Passed 394 - 25 (Roll no. 234)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 05/16/2007 : Bill Passed 91 - 4 (Record Vote Number 170)

House Conference Report Vote: 08/01/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 381 - 40 (Roll no. 790)

Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/24/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 81 - 12 (Record Vote Number 347)

Presidential Passage: 11/02/2007 : Vetoed Became Public Law Number 110-114

House Override of Veto: 11/06/2007 : Veto Override Passed: 361 - 54 (Roll no. 1040)

NOTE: A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING IS REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.

Senate Override of Veto: 11/08/2007 : Veto Override Passed 79 - 14 (Record Vote Number 406)

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_det...php?cs_id=16192

.......

Pres. Bush has an interesting definition of what is pork barrel spending, which obviously doesn't coincide with the majority of Republicans in Congress. We could argue up and down over just what is or isn't pork barrel spending but the fact is, this was a bipartisan bill with an overwhelming support in Congress.

Don't you find it a bit odd that when it comes to the money the Bush Administration has wanted for Iraq, money which has been used for all those no-bid lucrative contracts to such companies as Halliburton (Cheney's homeboys), fiscal conservation isn't in his vocabulary? This really is a fundamental argument over priorities. On one hand, you have the Bush Administration focused on Iraq (with McCain fully behind it) and you have our own domestic infrastructure in dire need of attention. This is just one more example of how out of touch Bush and McCain are when it comes to priorities.

[Sassy1natl 0]

**sits back and watches cuz she's learnin' sumfin**

[mendeleev 68]

After infrastructure gets built, it needs to be maintained. (Those of us who have ridden around on Russian roads know that!) Our flood control infrastructure, mostly, is not new. It was built decades ago (when the Dems controlled Congress.)

Help me understand. Just who did control Congress from '94 until '06? If you don't spend steadily on maintainence, things breaks.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, the bill was not a 'Democrat' bill, it had sponsors from both parties. Take a look at the votes on this bill:

House Passage: 04/19/2007 : Bill Passed 394 - 25 (Roll no. 234)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 05/16/2007 : Bill Passed 91 - 4 (Record Vote Number 170)

House Conference Report Vote: 08/01/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 381 - 40 (Roll no. 790)

Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/24/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 81 - 12 (Record Vote Number 347)

Presidential Passage: 11/02/2007 : Vetoed Became Public Law Number 110-114

House Override of Veto: 11/06/2007 : Veto Override Passed: 361 - 54 (Roll no. 1040)

NOTE: A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING IS REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.

Senate Override of Veto: 11/08/2007 : Veto Override Passed 79 - 14 (Record Vote Number 406)

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_det...php?cs_id=16192

.......

Pres. Bush has an interesting definition of what is pork barrel spending, which obviously doesn't coincide with the majority of Republicans in Congress. We could argue up and down over just what is or isn't pork barrel spending but the fact is, this was a bipartisan bill with an overwhelming support in Congress.

Don't you find it a bit odd that when it comes to the money the Bush Administration has wanted for Iraq, money which has been used for all those no-bid lucrative contracts to such companies as Halliburton (Cheney's homeboys), fiscal conservation isn't in his vocabulary? This really is a fundamental argument over priorities. On one hand, you have the Bush Administration focused on Iraq (with McCain fully behind it) and you have our own domestic infrastructure in dire need of attention. This is just one more example of how out of touch Bush and McCain are when it comes to priorities.

It's all about the Bush administration to you isn't it? Nothing else exists. The dikes, levies and dams that are falling apart were built over the last 50 years. So what do you do? Focus on the short time the reps had control. Tunnel vision?

The reason this bill had bi-partisan support? Because every congressman had some goody in it for his district. Who runs things? The dems. They have the majority, they chair the committees, and they set the rules. So who is responsible for the pork filled do nothing bill? The dems. You just can't take it any other way.

[GaryC 7]

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007: A Pork Fest for Wealthy Beach-Front Property Owners

by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.

WebMemo #1458

On April 19, 2007, the House passed the pork-laden Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (H.R. 1495) and sent it to the Senate, where it has acquired additional earmarks. Some of these earmarks would require the Army Corps of Engineers to finance a series of costly projects that benefit the rich and influential who can afford a lobbyist with access to Members of Congress and committee staff.

Notwithstanding continuing concern over the flood protection afforded storm-vulnerable cities like New Orleans, Galveston, Miami, and Biloxi, as well as the need to rebuild and strengthen existing but inadequate flood protection systems, this Congress appears intent on diverting taxpayer dollars from core responsibilities to water-sports and other low-priority schemes. Indicative of this bill's misplaced spending priorities is the authorization of more money for one of Representative Don Young's (R–AK) infamous Bridges to Nowhere (Section 4005).

To its credit, the Bush Administration's recent Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) warns of the wasteful spending included in the bill and the inclusion of many projects outside the three main missions of the Corps. The SAP states that "the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1495 in its current form."[1] Specifically, the Administration expressed concern about spending proposals targeted to wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects—heretofore a state and local responsibility—and "a costly commitment to periodic nourishment of sand beaches." The Corps' beach replenishment program reflects a trickle-up economic policy designed to transfer the tax dollars of ordinary Americans to protect the vacation homes and seasonal businesses of the well-to-do.[2]

As has been the case in most years, the Corps budget is fully earmarked, and many of the included projects focus on its core missions of inland navigation and flood control and protection. While many of these projects have been subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the estimated value of their benefits exceeds their costs, other projects in the bill instead reflect the influence of privileged constituencies and their lobbyists working on retainer. Among the many questionable earmarks included in the bill are:

* Funding for a study on the impact on navigation of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (renamed "Don Young's Way" in SAFTEA-LU) at Cook Inlet in Alaska (Section 4005);

* Riverfront development to enhance recreation in Perth Amboy, New Jersey (Section 4048);

* Ecosystem restoration of the Walla Walla River Basin in Washington (Section 4063);

* Water supply projects in Wilke County and Yadkinville, North Carolina, and Abilene, Texas (Sections 4058, 4059 and 4077);

* Authorization of $5,300,000 for the construction of Lake Lanier Olympic Center in Georgia (Section 5061); and

* Authorization of $65,000,000 for a Lido Key Beach, Florida, replenishment project (Section 3036).

Several other beach replenishment projects have been added to Section 1001 of H.R. 1495, including:

* $21,000,000 for Imperial Beach, California, beach replenishment;

* $101,000, 000 for beach replenishment at Ocean City, Sea Isle City, and contiguous New Jersey seashore resorts;

* $59,000,000 for central New Jersey seashore beach replenishment;

* $122,000,000 for beach replenishment in northern New Jersey; and

* $10,600,000 for beach replenishment on Pawley's Island, South Carolina.

Behind the diversion of taxpayer money from essential flood safety programs to geographically and seasonally limited recreation activities like the Corps' beach replenishment program is a trade association—the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA)—that represents seaside resorts. Also involved are lobbying firms that specialize in obtaining resort-oriented earmarks, among which is Marlowe & Co., a firm that also represents the ASBPA and serves as a contact on the Association's press release.

As noted in an earlier Heritage report,[3] Marlowe & Co. (headquartered at 1776 K Street, NW, in Washington, D.C.) is one of the leading beach earmark acquisition firms. Lobbying reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate included many contracts between Marlowe and dozens of beach resort communities seeking money from the Corps for "beach nourishment" projects, among them Pawley's Island, South Carolina, and Imperial Beach, California, both of which would receive earmarks from H.R. 1495. Each town paid Marlowe & Co. $20,000 for services rendered during the first half of 2006.[4] Should Congress go forward and give Pawley's Island the $10.6 million Marlowe has requested for it, the town will have received a remarkable return on its retainer: $10.60 of taxpayer money for every two pennies it paid Marlowe.

Other reports filed with the Senate indicate that Marlowe & Co. also represents (among its many other clients) Virginia Beach, Virginia; St. Augustine Point, Florida; Cape May Point, New Jersey; and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It further reports that the ASBPA paid almost $10,000 for similar services, including advocacy before the Office and Management and Budget "to ensure that shore protection is not a low budget priority."

In a 2004 interview with The Hill, firm owner Howard Marlowe bragged: "We know beaches!" The article went on to note that the company earned more than $700,000 in 2003 and estimates that it has won more that $100 million in beach projects since it has been in the business.[5]

Even more revealing was information that Marlowe & Co. had posted on its Web site until 2005, which promoted its services by providing prospective clients with its success stories. For its beach nourishment practice, the firm once provided 14 pages listing the 170 beach earmarks it had secured for its clients between 1998 and 2005. Although its Web site no longer provides any details on the congressional favors it receives—visitors to the site are urged to contact the firm directly for details about its successes—the 2005 list is still available at the original URL.[6]

Assuming that Marlowe was describing his company's success accurately, one has to wonder exactly how his firm was allowed to participate so intimately in the congressional budgeting, authorizing, and appropriations processes. Indeed, as these and other earmarks suggest, and as the lobbyists' own promotional materials imply, Congress and the congressional committees responsible for water resources and the Army Corps of Engineers have effectively privatized some portion of the congressional budget process to the K Street lobbying firms and appear to have allowed them wide latitude in selecting what projects are included in the legislation.

Once a bill is passed and signed into law, the money for the project is guaranteed, and the Members of Congress who endorsed the project respond by issuing press releases bragging about the money they have brought back to the district, while the lobbyists involved brag to current and prospective clients about the money that they have obtained for their paying clients.

Although the beach resort people represent only one of many factions attempting to divert Army Corps of Engineers money to their personal benefit, they do offer a useful case study of how the growing influence of today's lobbying and advocacy profession can lead to policies that undermine the safety and security of the American people. Much of the responsible policy focus has been on how best to use the federal resources available to secure from danger many of the nation's key metropolitan areas and crowded commercial centers, but the ASBPA uses what political clout it has to divert those resources to recreation and the protection of seasonal vacation homes and businesses.

When President Bush presented his FY 2008 budget with its focus on core safety responsibilities, the President of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association—Harry Simmons, Mayor of Caswell Beach, North Carolina—responded in language reminiscent of "surfer-speak": "This budget request for 2008 is nothing short of a wipe-out for our nation's coastal communities."[7] Marlowe's Web site provides a table comparing the President's beach spending plans with what an unidentified source suggests might be needed. Whereas the President proposes $54 million in beach work, the unidentified source claims that $280 million is needed, some of which need-based funding would be directed to Marlowe clients as per lobbying reports filed with the United States Senate.[8]

In defense of its urgent demands for more spending, Mr. Simmons provided a helpful ecology lesson to the readers of his press release:

This budget is bad for beaches. Replenishing beaches by adding sand to the system protects coastal habitat by replacing the sand that marine life needs to live. Without sand on a beach, sea turtles, birds, plants and other forms of marine wildlife won't have an ecological infrastructure in place.[9]

There you have it: No earmarks, No sand! While we do not know for certain the President's views on "turtles, birds, plants and other forms of marine life," we do know that his budget priorities focus on a life form missing from Mr. Simmons's complaint: people. And we know from sad experience that incompetence in Washington's oversight of, and resource allocation for, the Army Corps of Engineers contributed to the disaster in New Orleans when hurricane Katrina passed by on August 29, 2005.

How much of that disaster was due to the diversion of resources that Mr. Simmons and others continue to urge is something worthy of a more detailed examination to ensure that another New Orleans–type disaster never happens again.[10] Until then, these low-priority projects should be stripped from H.R. 1495. If they are not, the President should give serious consideration to vetoing any bill that includes them.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1458.cfm

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, the bill was not a 'Democrat' bill, it had sponsors from both parties. Take a look at the votes on this bill:

House Passage: 04/19/2007 : Bill Passed 394 - 25 (Roll no. 234)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 05/16/2007 : Bill Passed 91 - 4 (Record Vote Number 170)

House Conference Report Vote: 08/01/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 381 - 40 (Roll no. 790)

Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/24/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 81 - 12 (Record Vote Number 347)

Presidential Passage: 11/02/2007 : Vetoed Became Public Law Number 110-114

House Override of Veto: 11/06/2007 : Veto Override Passed: 361 - 54 (Roll no. 1040)

NOTE: A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING IS REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.

Senate Override of Veto: 11/08/2007 : Veto Override Passed 79 - 14 (Record Vote Number 406)

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_det...php?cs_id=16192

.......

Pres. Bush has an interesting definition of what is pork barrel spending, which obviously doesn't coincide with the majority of Republicans in Congress. We could argue up and down over just what is or isn't pork barrel spending but the fact is, this was a bipartisan bill with an overwhelming support in Congress.

Don't you find it a bit odd that when it comes to the money the Bush Administration has wanted for Iraq, money which has been used for all those no-bid lucrative contracts to such companies as Halliburton (Cheney's homeboys), fiscal conservation isn't in his vocabulary? This really is a fundamental argument over priorities. On one hand, you have the Bush Administration focused on Iraq (with McCain fully behind it) and you have our own domestic infrastructure in dire need of attention. This is just one more example of how out of touch Bush and McCain are when it comes to priorities.

It's all about the Bush administration to you isn't it? Nothing else exists. The dikes, levies and dams that are falling apart were built over the last 50 years. So what do you do? Focus on the short time the reps had control. Tunnel vision?

The reason this bill had bi-partisan support? Because every congressman had some goody in it for his district. Who runs things? The dems. They have the majority, they chair the committees, and they set the rules. So who is responsible for the pork filled do nothing bill? The dems. You just can't take it any other way.

Um, the bill was vetoed by Pres. Bush even though it had overwhelming bipartisan support...is it now politically incorrect to say the name of the yahoo who vetoed the bill?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I actually read that Heritage article before you posted it, Gary, and if you look at those 'questionable' earmarks, you'll find below an explanation for them. Again, why such domestic expenditures are fiscally irresponsible according to your post of Bush's official statement, but not the billions of dollars given to no bid contracts to rebuild Iraq? At the very least, Bush (and McCain) are being inconsistent and at worst, hypocritical.

Why Pass The Water Resources Development Act 2007?

By Arthur Holst, , Ph.D., Philadelphia Water Department

The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is a necessity for securing America’s water resources now and in the future. The positive effects of the bill are immediate, short term, and long term. Furthermore, they far outweigh the costs, because we will be protecting something that no amount of money can replace or control if we do not take immediate action: America’s water resources.

Passing WRDA 2007 will instantaneously begin affecting America in three ways. First, it will bolster bipartisan support in an increasingly disparate congress. Second, the bill will also give the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) significantly different mandates. Congress will give them authorization to survey and research projects in new areas with new goals in mind (particularly environmental sustainability). Lastly, states will be able to consider the possible implementations of the bill without worrying about costs they will incur.

WRDA 2007 clearly demarks that the bill is federally funded, and states have no monetary obligation to the resulting water projects. In the short term, WRDA 2007 will induce changes with visible and noteworthy results. Most prominently, the areas hit worst by Hurricane Katrina and other storms will finally be restored in a manner that sufficiently protects them from future storm damages. Furthermore, the water resources of America will be developed more efficiently on multiple fronts: engineers will use their increased authorization to construct superior water projects, while WRDA 2007 will also deauthorize floundering or environmentally hazardous projects.

But what makes some feel that this bill is excessive rather than necessary is the shortsighted inability to understand that the most profound effects of WRDA 2007 will not become visible for a number of years. The big issue is that this bill would produce environmentally friendly water projects. Even conservative politicians are increasingly acknowledging the importance of the environment, and WRDA 2007 is the next big step in its protection. But to protect from the environmental damage already done, the bill will also authorize the construction of projects that defend American coastlines and riverbanks from the super-storms that come hand-in-hand with global climate change.

Ultimately, even the most conservative politicians must be swayed by the fact that what we pay for now protects us from paying more later. These projects, pork or not, will eventually be needed to make the most of America’s water resources. Waiting until after an environmental disaster strikes to realize that a water project is essential (i.e. strengthening the New Orleans levees), requires not only the cost of the project but also the cost of reconstruction-not to mention the emotional toll it takes on the country. Thus, it is safer and more cost effective to pay less now than we would have to pay after a disaster.

Furthermore, the new projects will have lower upkeep costs, not only because the new equipment will take less to maintain, but also because they last longer which keeps long term upkeep costs down. Critics of WRDA 2007, such as Arizona Senator John McCain, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, and U.S. President George Bush hold that “after a decade of… 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 reform” (Feingold, 2007). But how long until a “meaningful” reform bill gets through congress?

I doubt one acceptable to Congressman Feingold and his cohorts will make it through both houses without a gigantic amount of pork. And how long until the next Katrina-like incident devastates another American coastal area? We can only hope that America will be prepared by then, and right now the only legislation that will prepare us is WRDA 2007. But these congressmen no longer have power over the bill; it has been passed and awaits the president’s decision.

Mr. Holst is the Government Affairs Manager for the Philadelphia Water Department. He can be reached at 215-685-6143 or e-mail Arthur.Holst@phila.gov .

http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/news/cwp/vie...=531030&A=3

Edited June 29, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[GaryC 7]

Gary, the bill was not a 'Democrat' bill, it had sponsors from both parties. Take a look at the votes on this bill:

House Passage: 04/19/2007 : Bill Passed 394 - 25 (Roll no. 234)

Senate Passage With Amendment: 05/16/2007 : Bill Passed 91 - 4 (Record Vote Number 170)

House Conference Report Vote: 08/01/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 381 - 40 (Roll no. 790)

Senate Conference Report Vote: 09/24/2007 : Conference Report Adopted 81 - 12 (Record Vote Number 347)

Presidential Passage: 11/02/2007 : Vetoed Became Public Law Number 110-114

House Override of Veto: 11/06/2007 : Veto Override Passed: 361 - 54 (Roll no. 1040)

NOTE: A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY OF THOSE PRESENT AND VOTING IS REQUIRED TO OVERRIDE A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.

Senate Override of Veto: 11/08/2007 : Veto Override Passed 79 - 14 (Record Vote Number 406)

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_det...php?cs_id=16192

.......

Pres. Bush has an interesting definition of what is pork barrel spending, which obviously doesn't coincide with the majority of Republicans in Congress. We could argue up and down over just what is or isn't pork barrel spending but the fact is, this was a bipartisan bill with an overwhelming support in Congress.

Don't you find it a bit odd that when it comes to the money the Bush Administration has wanted for Iraq, money which has been used for all those no-bid lucrative contracts to such companies as Halliburton (Cheney's homeboys), fiscal conservation isn't in his vocabulary? This really is a fundamental argument over priorities. On one hand, you have the Bush Administration focused on Iraq (with McCain fully behind it) and you have our own domestic infrastructure in dire need of attention. This is just one more example of how out of touch Bush and McCain are when it comes to priorities.

It's all about the Bush administration to you isn't it? Nothing else exists. The dikes, levies and dams that are falling apart were built over the last 50 years. So what do you do? Focus on the short time the reps had control. Tunnel vision?

The reason this bill had bi-partisan support? Because every congressman had some goody in it for his district. Who runs things? The dems. They have the majority, they chair the committees, and they set the rules. So who is responsible for the pork filled do nothing bill? The dems. You just can't take it any other way.

Um, the bill was vetoed by Pres. Bush even though it had overwhelming bipartisan support...is it now politically incorrect to say the name of the yahoo who vetoed the bill?

The bi-partisan support was for the water bill, not the massive amounts of pork added to it. Why can't the dems just pass a bill that addresses the problem without adding a Christmas present for everyone involved? The pork was the problem, not the bill. It's something you seem to be blind to.

[GaryC 7]

To add the reasons why Bush said he vetoed the bill:

President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2nd, explaining[6]:

“ This bill lacks fiscal discipline. ..."

What does Bush know about fiscal discipline? This is the gut that came into office when the deficit was at 5 trillion dollars and had actually stopped growing. Now that his two terms draw to a close, the federal deficit is almost twice what it was when he came in - a staggering 9.7 trillion dollars with a rising trend. And that even though he had a fully Republican Congress to work with for 6 out of his 8 years. How dare he speak of fiscal responsibility?

Yeah, this pork laden bill even gave Bush heartburn. For a president that likes to spend money this one finally reached the point where the pork was more important than the bill itself. Bush felt he had to veto this one even though he knew the bill was needed and he also knew that he would be painted as someone that didn't care about the issue. You should be so proud of your liberal buddies. They managed to create a false issue by wanting to break the bank. A win - win for them, if he passed it all their rich buddies got their pork, if he vetoed it they had an issue to bash Bush with. I am sure you feel very proud of them. Congratulations.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

At first I thought you were talking about butt cracks....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A little more dose of reality for you, Gary. Truth is, Bush is opposed to environmental conservation and has deemed any money spent on environmental conservation as fiscally irresponsible. It's your right to agree with Bush, but once again, you're on the wrong side of what the majority wants.

....

Saving the dammed

Bush veto override opens funding channel for $145 million in Ventura River project funds

Since its construction in 1947, the Matilija Dam has blocked the passage of spawning salmon up the Ventura River, interfering with the Ojai Valley ecosystem.

Since his election in 2001, President Bush has blocked the passage of the Water Resources Development Act, denying funding for key restoration projects — including the removal of the Matilija Dam — and interfering with Washington legislators.

Bush’s “Dam it” approach was working.

But the presidential paradigm fell flat Nov. 8 when legislators in Washington proved that even giant walls of concrete or ideology can be toppled with enough solidarity.

Overriding a Bush veto for the first time since he took office, Congress passed a bill opening funding floodgates for the Matilija Dam Ecosystem Restoration Project.

Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) generated the local portion of the Water Resources Development Act, H.R. 1495, which authorizes $145 million for the Matilija project. She is now trying to get the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to appropriate the project, a necessary step that will allocate the first installment of the $145 million limit for the Ventura County project.

“I am pleased that the Senate has joined the House in overriding the president’s irresponsible veto of this strong bipartisan bill,” Capps said in a release.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail...mp;IssueNum=150