Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
In Opposition to Overriding the President’s Veto of the Water
Resources Development Act
November 8, 2007
MR. FEINGOLD. Mr. 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 seven 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 that 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.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the President’s
veto of the WRDA conference report, and I ask unanimous consent to place
newspaper editorials on this bill in the record.
|
