A year after Democrats won control of Capitol Hill, Congress delivered its clearest victory yet over President Bush yesterday, resoundingly overturning his veto of a $23 billion water resources measure -- the first veto override of Bush's presidency.

The 79 to 14 vote in the Senate was followed last night by final passage of a huge, $151 billion health, education and labor spending bill ....

.... The Senate's veto-override vote on the water bill included 34 Republicans who abandoned the president. Just 12 stood by him. The Senate vote followed one in the House, which rejected the veto on Tuesday, 361 to 54. Both tallies far surpassed the two-thirds majorities needed to overcome Bush's disapproval.

(Weisman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801110.html))

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said, "We have said today as a Congress to this president, 'You can't just keep rolling over us like this. You can't make everything a fight, because we'll see it through'."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) explained, "We are making the hard decisions that Republicans refused to make and continue to refuse to make."

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) noted, "I hope that the Congress feels good about what we've done ... I believe in the institution of the legislative branch of government. I think it should exist, and for seven years this man has ignored us."

Meanwhile Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) lamented, "Sadly, because the authors of this bill have rained a few earmarks to every member's district, Congress didn't have the courage to stop this reckless overspending."

The Washington Post's Jonathan Weisman describes that "reckless overspending" as:

The water bill authorizes billions of dollars in coastal restoration, river navigation and dredging projects; levee and port construction; and other Army Corps of Engineers public works efforts. Seven years in the making, the measure took on particular political resonance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as Gulf Coast lawmakers secured nearly $2 billion in restoration and levee construction projects for the region.

The bill also authorizes the continuation of projects such as the restoration of the Everglades and the dredging of the upper Mississippi River, while expanding oversight of the Army Corps.

The measure authorizes $30 million to reduce nitrogen flowing from the Washington area's Blue Plains sewage-treatment plant into the Chesapeake Bay. It also authorizes $40 million for other Chesapeake Bay pollution-reduction projects.

An additional $192 million is authorized for the expansion of the bay's Poplar Island project, which involves rebuilding the island with dredged material from the channels serving the Port of Baltimore. The measure includes a $30 million increase for Chesapeake oyster restoration and an additional $20 million for other environmental protection projects for the bay.

(Weisman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801110_2.html))
____________________

Notes:

Weisman, Jonathan. "A Bush Veto Is Overridden for the 1st Time". Washington Post. November 9, 2007; page A04. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110801110.html

This bill represents what the majority of U.S. citizens believe government is for. A nearby small community relies on a levee system that dates from nearly 90 years ago. And much of California's levee system is the same, ripe for disaster. This bill will ensure that these levees are repaired, hopefully before they fail.

That Bush couldn't read the mood of the country, and understand that his veto would fail, shows just how out of touch he is. Even our own local Republican Bush lapdog, Wally Herger, went against his president on this one.

...'You can't just keep rolling over us like this.'
Yes, because you're just dips in the road.

This bill represents what the majority of U.S. citizens believe government is for. A nearby small community relies on a levee system that dates from nearly 90 years ago. And much of California's levee system is the same, ripe for disaster.

I keep wondering just how much the federal government is responsible for in such isolated cases? I mean, think about it ...are the citizens' taxes really meant to pay for things in far away locations that have no effect on them personally? And if so, where does it end?

That small community mentioned above ...does it, and should it, matter to US citizens 3,000 miles away? If the small community needs that levee, then why don't they fix it ...why are other people from 2,000 miles away required to pay for it when it has no bearing on their lives?

No, I really don't get such things ...and I surely don't get that our government has become so freakin' large and so overwhelmingly "responsible" for purely local projects.

It that small community noted above were to disappear tomorrow, how many Americans would be affected?

Baron Max

Holy shit. Congress still has a sack. I don't know whether to be happy they found it or be sad that it is news.

W was right on this one. That bill was full of pork. Congress sucks. Maybe that's why their ratings have shot up to a cool 11%. :eek:

The original Water Resources Bill was for 5 billion dollars, and now its for 23 billion dollars? what the hell happened, the House took the bill and raised it to 14 billion, the Senate up the ante to 15 billion and the compromise committee settled at 23 billion dollar?

Why wasn't the compromise 14 1/2 half billion dollars? that's a compromise, not combining both bill to almost double the cost of the thing, and now every body is congratulating themselves for over riding the Presidents Veto?

And the Congress is proud of this?

And the Congress is proud of this?

Ask the Republicans who helped make it happen.

Ask the Republicans who helped make it happen.

Ask the Democrats who helped spend it.

How about we ask both of them? :shrug:

How about we ask both of them? :shrug:

If people had any reading comprehension, they would have noted that I called congress on the spending bill, congress for the uniformed is both parties, and houses, the President acted responsably and vetoed the bill the Congress decided to spend the money anyway,

Ask the Republicans who helped make it happen.

But dear old reading comprehension impaired Tissa made it partisan, instead of joining the condemnation of congress, which is under the leadership of the Democrats, but this was a bipartisan bill so it is the whole Congress that shares the blame.

The Democrats are so all fired insistent that there should be a over ride of Bush for their pride, that they are willing to spend moneys that weren't even called for.

You tell 'em Buff! I agree 100% when it comes to the blame.

Ask the Democrats who helped spend it.

And? You're the one who doesn't like Democrats. You're the one who is upset that this legislation passed. The Democrats could not have done it without support from across the aisle.

But dear old reading comprehension impaired Tissa made it partisan, instead of joining the condemnation of congress, which is under the leadership of the Democrats, but this was a bipartisan bill so it is the whole Congress that shares the blame.

Ah, Chip: I don't have a problem with the override. You do. The difference between this override and the question of whether the Democrats can stop the war depends entirely on Republicans crossing the aisle. After all, the efforts of the Republicans to prevent the Democrats from inserting even a modicum of accountability into war spending is part of the reason Congress sees such low ratings among the public right now.

The Democrats are so all fired insistent that there should be a over ride of Bush for their pride, that they are willing to spend moneys that weren't even called for

Which is right in line with two things:

(1) GOP criticisms of Democrats as fiscally irresponsible
(2) Congressional history

The Democrats obviously thought this bill worth passing. And, as I've pointed out, one of the differences about this bill is that the GOP apparently agreed. As your criticism of Democrats shows, you need to ask the Republicans.

If that's too much for you to figure out, let me know.

After all, the efforts of the Republicans to prevent the Democrats from inserting even a modicum of accountability into war spending is part of the reason Congress sees such low ratings among the public right now.
Bull.

Congress funds the Executive's war-waging requests or it doesn't.

Congress has no Constitutional power to insert modicum into the Executive's Constitutional powers to wage congressionally funded war.

Congress gets to start a congressionally funded war, and it gets to end a congressionally funded war.

Congress can say nothing about how war gets waged.

G, you know, I would cut funding for the war, except I think I understand at least part of the Democrats' hesitation. There is a good chance that Bush would leave the troops out in the field, anyway. It's a bit difficult to avoid that worry, but it still doesn't justify continuing to play ball with a corrupt president spending American lives just so he can play conquistador.

G, you know, I would cut funding for the war, except I think I understand at least part of the Democrats' hesitation. There is a good chance that Bush would leave the troops out in the field, anyway. It's a bit difficult to avoid that worry, but it still doesn't justify continuing to play ball with a corrupt president spending American lives just so he can play conquistador.
Bush wouldn't leave the troops in the field and let Congress off the hook. It would be the consummate Iraq weapon of mass destruction.

That's why the Dem's still throw money Bush's way.

Bush wouldn't leave the troops in the field and let Congress off the hook.

And Jesus is coming to save you.

Tomorrow.

At five 'til noon.

And Jesus is coming to save you.

Tomorrow.

At five 'til noon.
And I see some nice young men in their clean white coats in your future.