STATE FARM'S HEAD ON A PLATTER
What Gulf Coast Congressman Gene Taylor wanted the Easter Bunny to bring him.
South Mississippi Living 4/07

Friday, November 09, 2007

Juror in Kodrin v. State Farm: 'we all agreed ... that the insurer didn't do right by the insureds and they were treated very poorly'

Originally published here on November 8th.


After the verdict came in late yesterday in the Kodrin v. State Farm case in Louisiana, I was contacted by one of the jurors who told me more about the jury's thinking in finding against State Farm and awarding $100,000 in punitive damages to the Kodrins. Complete surprise to me to be contacted by her, but much appreciated to hear the words of this juror.

Here's what she said (she gave me permission to quote her but asked I leave her name out):

  • "It was upsetting to everyone, especially afterwards to see the uncontrollable tears afterwards by Mr. and Mrs. Kodrin, even when they were leaving and getting into their car, they were still crying. We were told not to award based on sympathy and I truly believe we did follow the judge's instructions. We all agreed at the onset of our deliberations that the insurance company did not 'do right' by the insureds and that they were treated very poorly. We wanted to try to 'make them whole' as we say."

  • "This case was very upsetting to all of us since every person on the 8 member jury has suffered or has a close relative who has suffered due to Katrina. State Farm continued to pursue the 'Flood' claim on the telephone with the Kodrins and the couple did not want to file the flood claim since they felt it was wind damage first (and since obviously there were no witnesses, no one can say which came first, the wind or the water)."

  • "Since we were not allowed to read or listen to news, I was curious what had been reported the last couple of days and when I came upon this blog and this statement: the Kodrins have agreed, by accepting the flood money that at least that amount of damage to the home was due to uncovered flood. This infuriated me since this was exactly why they did not want to file a flood insurance claim (which is paid by the government, not the insurance companies). It proved after the fact that State Farm was trying to get away with not paying on the wind policy that this couple has paid to them religiously since 1993 and it was brought out by the plaintiffs' attorney in the trial that State Farm 'encouraged' their claims reps to write flood claims rather than wind claims in the area of Port Sulphur. We decided that it is very possible and probable that when the water topped the levee, the wind had already damaged their home an hour prior. We decided to give them the maximum allowed on their wind policy and for lost contents, loss of garage, cost of living in another city and having to relocate to another town (from what was Mrs. Kodrin's childhood home and property). Through all of this the past 2 years, Mrs. Kodrin was having serious health problems and although it did not sway our decision, we knew it was exacerbated by this stress. Had State Farm simply honored their agreement with the Kodrins back in 2005, they would have saved a lot of trouble and expense. We awarded as much as we thought we could without being extravagant but some of us would have given them more if we could have. It was not our goal or task to set a precedent for future claims against insurance companies for Katrina or Rita claims." (The underlined material in her quote is a reference to my post of yesterday on the Kodrin case).
  • She said the jury also awarded $50,000 each in punitive damages to Mr. and Mrs. Kodrin. "I feel very good about what we decided as did the other 7 jury members and we all felt that we did what was right and would be able to sleep tonight because of our decision."

Eloquent words, I will let them speak for themselves. As a lawyer, I am grateful for the service of jurors such as the one who contacted me and the others in the Kodrin case, and all people who serve and make our justice system work. I am also grateful for the chance to hear this valuable perspective and to tell this story. By the way, here's another link to the AP story on the verdict.


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Thursday, November 08, 2007

House Approves Homeowner's Protection Bill

Press Release from Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn
November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC—House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today released the following statement regarding House passage of H.R. 3355, the Homeowners’ Defense Act of 2007.

“Today, the New Direction Congress passed legislation that will help homeowners better recoup property damages suffered from catastrophic natural disasters such as the recent California wildfires.

“This legislation authorizes the Secretary of Treasury to implement a national homeowners' insurance stabilization program that grants liquidity loans to state and regional reinsurance programs for the purpose of making home insurance more affordable. These loans will also help to make homeowners’ insurance more available and solvent.

“Owning a home is part of the American Dream and no homeowner should have to be burdened with undue delays in restoring property that has been decimated by a hurricane, tornado, or wildfire.”



Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Senate overrides Bush's water bill veto








Story Highlights

  • Senate negates veto of bill that helps Gulf Coast, Everglades, Great Lakes
  • White House says "no one is surprised that this veto was overridden"
  • Bill funds projects including the reconstruction of levees around New Orleans
  • President Bush has called the measure too costly
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Thursday handed President Bush his first veto override -- authorizing $23 billion in new water projects.

The vote was 79-14. Approval by two-thirds of the Senate, 67 members, was required for passage.

Bush spiked the measure Friday despite its overwhelming bipartisan support, calling it too costly and complaining that the 900 projects it authorized would overtax the Army Corps of Engineers.

But the House of Representatives passed it again Tuesday on a 361-54 vote -- well beyond the two-thirds margin needed for an override -- and the White House said it was resigned to seeing the bill become law.

Supporters said the projects authorized under the Water Resources Development Act are necessary to rebuild the Gulf Coast after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, restore the Everglades and Great Lakes fisheries and build flood-control projects nationwide.

They said it has been more than seven years since Congress passed a major water resources bill.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California who was responsible for shepherding the bill through the Senate, said the Senate was sending the president a message.


"You should respect the Senate, the House, the Congress and American people because we are elected, too," Boxer said. "We are close to the people. We know what their needs are."

Florida Sens. Bill Nelson, a Democrat, and Mel Martinez, a Republican, said they also decided to vote to override the veto, noting that the bill authorizes nearly $2 billion for Florida projects, most of it related to the Everglades.

"It's time for us to save one of the great natural wonders of the world," Nelson said at a news conference.

Before Thursday's vote, two senators from states hard-hit by Hurricane Katrina -- a Republican and a Democrat -- urged their peers to override the veto.

"This is about flood protection, this is about water and sewer projects, it is about doing something about water and the proper salinity in the Gulf of Mexico.

"These are good, deserved, justified projects that should go forward," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, whose home in Pascagoula was wiped out by the storm.

"A quarter of the state probably wouldn't even exist if we didn't have flood control projects," Lott said. Nearly every president has had trouble with water resource programs, and Bush was "just trying to hold the line on spending."

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, said the bill has overwhelming support from both sides.

Landrieu said the bill will lay a foundation for reconstruction after the storm, which killed more than 1,800 people in Louisiana and Mississippi.

The measure will fund projects including the reconstruction of levees around New Orleans, Louisiana, and closing off the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet -- a manmade channel blamed for funneling Katrina's storm surge into the city's Lower 9th Ward and neighboring St. Bernard Parish.

In his veto message, Bush complained that Congress added about $8 billion in projects to the bill in committee after each house had passed its own version. "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," he said.

In a statement issued after Thursday's vote, the White House said,"No one is surprised that this veto was overridden."

But, White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said in the statement, "It's obvious that the bill doesn't make difficult choices and doesn't set spending priorities. We don't believe it's a responsible way to budget."

Bush's veto of the water projects bill was the fifth veto of his presidency. All of those came in his second term, according to Senate data.

Bush has vetoed fewer bills than any president since James A. Garfield, who issued no vetoes during his seven months in office in 1881.

Congress unsuccessfully attempted to override three of the president's previous four vetoes.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Homeless in Hancock County a Growing Concern Among Katrina Volunteers



From: Kathleen Johnson - Katrina Relief Filed 11/7/07 GCN

(Editor's Note: Kathleen Johnson has been working as a Katrina recovery volunteer in Hancock County since shortly after the hurricane)


Its a bigger issue than most want to admit to. Hancock County is not all about those million dollar homes that used to be on the beach.

There is no homeless shelter (and there was not one before the storm), there is no halfway house for families who lose housing here for a variety of reason, there is no halfway house for young pregnant teens or young pregnant adults, there is no halfway house for those released from prison and transported here on release. Isn't it time we stood up and admitted that this is at crisis proportions?

Here is the picture of a place in Hancock County that is housing up to eight homeless people a night - its a pump house. I took the photograph yesterday as I was out doing a social service work call with someone from the Food Pantry.

We have people still living in tents, in cars, and gutted out homes. Given the magnitude of the problem with the lack of affordable housing - this problem is impacting even our office as we deal more and more with social service work along with recovery issues.

Where do we send these referrals? And a bus ticket out of town, as offered as advice from one source, is not a Christian solution. Most of these people had homes and apartments before the storm and were contributing participants of this community. But so many are falling between the services available.

Kathleen Johnson
Katrina Relief
http://www.reliefvolunteers.com
(228)466-4630 (O)
(228) 344-8616 (C)


© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

The Rapids of Justice Build Slowly in Mississippi

by Ana Maria

With a heavy heart and incredible sadness, I read that Mike “Mini Me” Chaney had become Mississippi’s next George Dale-type of Insurance Commissioner. You know, the kind that is in the pocket of Big Insurance doing its bidding while doling out words that pretend to be for the average American Joe or Jane. I’m stunned.

Having grown up here, perhaps I shouldn’t be so stunned. It’s been a two decades since I left Mississippi to live, work, and being very politically active in Tennessee, California, and the Northern Virginia/DC/Maryland area. I’ve seen how many, many others live, work, play, and vote.

Since mid-2000, I’ve lived primarily in Northern California in the heart, the capitol of Silicon Valley—San Jose, the 10th largest city in the nation. The diverse population had no single dominant ethnicity or race. A third were Caucasian, a third were Latino, and a third were Asian. Women and men of all ancestries ran for and were elected to office. The diversity of the cultural backgrounds made for a rich tapestry of perspectives and solutions to problems every municipality faces.

Here in the Southern part of the U.S. diversity in racial or cultural make up usually means African American and Caucasian. And here in the state of Mississippi, I just have to wonder the extent to which Chaney’s victory was because of his skin color. Goodness knows that it certainly couldn’t because the man had better ideas or experience or vision or passion than my friend Gary Anderson. Though he was part of the Governor’s coat tails which were long and strong.

On election day, I saw for the umteenth time John Grisham’s The Chamber. The movie and book were set at a time when the Klan and racial stratification reigned supreme. The movie—like the book—is set in Mississippi and surrounded the issue of the death penalty for a man found guilty of bombing a law office killing two children whose dad worked on behalf of civil rights. The lawyer was Jewish.

The movie got me to thinking, particularly about this campaign.

On Tuesday, I learned of reports that in Jeff Davis County eight state patrol cars were patrolling the county. Usually, the county has one patrol car—as I understand it. At one point in the day, I received the Anderson Campaign email alert that voter turnout was low. Extra patrol cars, low voter turnout, easy walk for the white guy running against an articulate, polished, educated, experienced, and visionary candidate.

While the superb team and candidate we had in Gary Anderson did not emerge completely victorious this election season, the mere fact that his candidacy was extremely viable is a major testament to how far things have finally come. Not that long ago, the thought of a viable statewide campaign for public office being aggressively and successfully pursued by an African American man here in Mississippi would have been sheer fantasy. Gary Anderson has successfully broken down that barrier, and he did so with enthusiasm, passion, class, and a campaign worthy of our respect for all that it had to overcome to achieve all that is has achieved.

How often each day do we pass through doors that men and women of all backgrounds, religions, economic, religious, and racial backgrounds have broken down so that others of us can benefit from the blood, sweat, and tears we invested. Too often, those of us who break down those doors are not the ones who benefit directly from our efforts. Nevertheless, an eternal debt of gratitude we owe for those who have helped to make the quality of our lives that which it is at present.

So, here, I thank Mr. Gary Anderson for the fortitude, commitment, vision and passion he and his campaign always exhibited throughout the campaign. Gary did this with class, and I am proud to have supported his candidacy, to have become a big fan, and to remain supportive throughout the future.

On an upside electoral note, our fantastic Attorney General Jim Hood strolled back into office, and that is an important victory. With Hood, we have a strong state leader who has proven many times that he is more than up to the task to stand up to Big Insurance. Plus, he has many a powerful legal levers at his disposal. Just as the Anderson campaign gives me hope about the future of Mississippi, having Hood in as the State Attorney General gives me hope that our future may see some interesting legal maneuvering to hold the insurance companies accountable for how they have seem to have deliberately hamstrung us economically.

The debilitating impact on us financially as well as emotionally and economically has been discussed in many articles as of late, a number of which have been copied and posted here on A.M. in the Morning!

While all the traditional issues concerning governance are also of tremendous interest to me, the insanity of the insurance crisis continues to plague us here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and throughout the Katrina-ravaged region from New Orleans, Louisiana, to Bayou Lebatre, Alabama. The insurance crisis has caused an economic redevelopment crisis. That crisis has made housing of any sort scarce as well as all the usual things we expect to find in cities and towns across the nation: grocery stores, movie theaters, bakeries—do you see a pattern? Yes, I’m food-centric, though you may not know it by looking at me. ;)

The lack of businesses being able to rebuild means that men and women have no jobs, which turns into a severe cash flow crunch. These stressors turn dovetail into mental health problems. And, of course, we have a severe shortage of mental health professionals because their homes and places of businesses were also destroyed and unable to be rebuilt because of the insurance crisis. Hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and law and order kinds of issues are so overwhelming throughout the region to be rather commonplace. I hear elderly people saying that none of this will be returned to normal in their lifetime—and they may have another 5-10-15 years. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the priorities of the greatest, most powerful nation on the planet.

Throughout this week as various candidates, their campaigns, and their supporters are licking their wounds that the stinging electoral defeat may have caused. Let us remember that there is always another election around the corner. And we have to contend with the results in the meantime. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but how?

The basics are always the place to start be it with the football team, the marching band, or those of us who are even remotely interested in being more successful within the political arena. This includes voters, campaign staff, candidates, and political parties and organizations.

If we were unimpressed with the results then we have the liberty, the responsibility, the authority to lay down now a stronger foundation for the next election. Even in defeat, we can look at the glass as half full and figure out how to begin this minute to improve our own political skills, our verbal jui-jitsu skills to become more politically savvy in the electoral arena, AND the legislative arena.

While having Gary Anderson as our Insurance Commissioner would have clearly been my preference, the real insurance battle, however, must continue to be pushed at the federal level, which is what Congressman Gene Taylor and the U.S. House of Representatives have been doing with passage of the multiple peril legislation this past September—legislation that we can help pass in the Senate. Putting insurance reform on the national radar is what Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have done with their co-sponsorship of the bill to strip the insurance industry of its exemption from the nation’s anti-trust laws. Lott and Landrieu know that the insurance industry should be subjected to the same laws of our nation to which the rest of the financial services industry is subjected.

As far as the implication of the resounding electoral defeat of a perfect candidate for statewide office in the state of Mississippi, a candidate who is African American and who many of us had hoped would be the first African American to be elected to statewide office since Reconstruction? We can choose to look at the glass as half full, that 43% of the voters cast their ballot for this history breaking opportunity. We know that the barriers of race, gender, class are mighty—mightier still here in Mississippi. Not many decades ago, running a viable, statewide campaign as an African American man would have not even have been a thought in most people’s minds.

Though we may be impatient, our energies may seem as a wasted investment or the opportunity may seem forever lost in the final tallying of Tuesday’s vote, we also know that every jagged rock over which mighty rapids flow will eventually wear down into a smooth edge. The rapids of justice build far too slowly for many of us, particularly here in Mississippi. Whether inside and outside of Mississippi, each of us can choose whether we will be a drop of water like a teardrop of sadness.

Or we can choose to jump into the river, joining with other drops of water that over time will smooth out the rough edges of the obstacles before us. These are the drops of water which comprise the mighty rapids of the justice we seek.

© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

STATEMENT OF REP. GENE TAYLOR IN RESPONSE TO 5th CIRCUIT ANTI-CONCURRENT CAUSATION RULING:

This decision reinforces my conviction that Congress needs to enact federal insurance reform. The states and the courts have failed to protect homeowners and taxpayers from fraudulent insurance practices.

The multiple peril insurance provision in H.R. 3121, the House flood insurance reform bill, would offer coastal residents the option to cover both wind and flood risk in one policy. The policy will cover hurricane damage without requiring homeowners to hire lawyers and engineers to divide the wind damage from the flood damage. People who lose everything will not have to endure years of delay only to have a court rule that windstorm insurance does not cover wind damage.

During floor consideration of H.R. 3121, the House passed my amendment to prohibit insurance companies that contract with the flood program from using anti-concurrent causation language to exclude coverage of wind damage simply because there also is some flooding.

I urge coastal residents and businesses to contact Senators and demand that they approve the House provisions to protect policyholders and taxpayers.

State Farm has insisted that its anti-concurrent causation language excluded coverage of all wind damage where there was any flooding, even if the flooding occurred hours later, and with no regard to the severity of the wind damage or the flood damage.

This practice violates State Farm’s contract with the National Flood Insurance Program. State Farm has a fiduciary responsibility to represent federal taxpayers when adjusting a flood claim, and has an obligation to provide a proper adjustment of combined wind and water losses. State Farm said that wind coverage was excluded in thousands of cases, but not once did they prove that all the damage was caused by flooding. In each case, a proper adjustment as required by the NFIP contract would have apportioned the loss between wind damage and flooding.

Every time State Farm invoked the anti-concurrent causation provision, it put its own interests ahead of federal taxpayers and stuck taxpayers with the bill. In some cases, the flood program was billed for wind damage that a fair adjustment would have billed to State Farm. In other cases, federal taxpayers provided home repair grants, FEMA trailers, rental assistance, subsidized loans, and special tax deductions for wind damage that should have been covered by State Farm.

Why would anyone in a hurricane-risk area ever buy another policy from State Farm? When Gulf Coast residents buy insurance, the one thing we are most concerned about is a major hurricane. Thousands of us paid decades of high premiums to State Farm for full windstorm coverage. We also bought federal flood insurance from our State Farm agents, for which the agents receive commissions and the company receives generous payments for its administrative expenses. We bought all the insurance that our good neighbors advised us would provide full hurricane coverage. Now we know that it is impossible to buy State Farm insurance and know that your damage will be covered.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Court backs State Farm in Katrina case

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN


A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld policy language that a major insurer has used to deny hundreds of policyholders' claims on the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned a federal judge's ruling that a key clause in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.'s homeowner policies is ambiguous and therefore cannot be enforced.

State Farm says its policies cover damage from a hurricane's wind but not its rising water. The Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer also says damage from a combination of wind and flood water can be excluded from coverage by "anti-concurrent cause" language in its policies.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. in Gulfport, Miss., had ruled that this clause is ambiguous and can't be enforced, but a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit disagreed.

"State Farm argues that the ACC Clause is not ambiguous because it cannot be construed to have two or more reasonable meanings and it does not conflict with any other provisions in the policy. We agree with State Farm," Judge Will Garwood wrote in a 17-page ruling.

A different three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit already has found that similar language in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. policies is not ambiguous and can be enforced.

The 5th Circuit's ruling Tuesday was for a case filed by John and Claire Tuepker, State Farm policyholders whose home in Long Beach, Miss., was demolished by the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

The court also upheld Senter's ruling in the Tuepkers' case that State Farm policies do not cover damage from storm surge, a hurricane's wind-driven water.

State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said the company is pleased with the ruling.

"The court's ruling reinforces our confidence in the clarity of the policy language," he said. "While we're pleased the court resolved these issues, State Farm is working to settle remaining outstanding claims (on the Gulf Coast)."

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Humorous PSA from Levees.org

This humorous PSA featuring high school seniors dramatizes how the US Army Corps of Engineers investigated their own work, a clear conflict of interest.

Please view the 64-second video below.

BEST IF VIEWED BY 9pm CST TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6.

If enough people watch the PSA in the first 24 hours, it will earn a place on the homepage of YouTube where it may be viewed by millions!

Want to do more? You can also:

1. Register at YouTube and rate the PSA.

2. View and rate our other PSAs on YouTube.

Help New Orleans and people nationwide. Bring to light that the official levee investigation in New Orleans was controlled by the SAME people who are RESPONSIBLE for the levees design and construction.

www.levees.org


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

State Farm Faces Katrina Trial in La.



By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
© 2007 The Associated Press


NEW ORLEANS — A jury heard opening statements Monday for the first federal trial in Louisiana against State Farm Insurance Cos. for a policyholder's lawsuit over Hurricane Katrina damage.

The eight-member jury will be asked to decide whether Katrina's wind or floodwater was responsible for demolishing the Port Sulphur home of Michael and Judy Kodrin, who sued State Farm for denying their claim after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.

"That's going to be the main issue in the case," U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier told a 30-member jury pool.


State Farm, which says its homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not rising water, concluded Katrina's storm surge destroyed the Kodrins' house and denied the couple's claim.

The Kodrins, however, argue that hurricane-force winds destroyed their wood-frame home hours before water overtopped a nearby river levee and flooded their Plaquemines Parish neighborhood.

"When the water filled up like that, the game was already over," John Redmann, an attorney for the Kodrins, said in his opening statement.

State Farm attorney Ryan Acomb said there's an "honest dispute" over the cause of damage to the property. He urged jurors to be guided by evidence and not let sympathy for the homeowners cloud their judgment.

"We don't know of any witnesses to what happened to the home during Hurricane Katrina," Acomb said. "All you can go by is the circumstantial evidence."

The wind-versus-water debate at the center of this case also was the central issue in several federal court cases State Farm already has faced in Mississippi.

In January, a federal jury in Gulfport, Miss., awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a couple who sued State Farm for refusing to cover Katrina's storm surge damage to their Biloxi home. A federal judge later reduced the award to $1 million but said State Farm acted in a "grossly negligent way" by denying the policyholder's claim.

This week's trial, which is expected to last several days, isn't the first Katrina insurance case heard in federal court in New Orleans. In April, a jury awarded more than $2.8 million in damages and penalties to a Louisiana man who sued Allstate Insurance Co. over storm damage.

Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm, the nation's largest property insurer, also is Louisiana's largest residential property insurer, writing 32 percent of the policies in the state in 2006.

Louisiana policyholders filed several hundred lawsuits against State Farm after Katrina. Company spokesman Jeff McCollum said four of those cases have been tried in state courts and decided by judges, but the Kodrins' suit is the first to be tried in federal court.

Michael Kodrin, a marina manager before Katrina hit, was expected to testify Monday afternoon. He and his wife moved to Raceland after the storm.

Katrina reduced the Kodrins' home to rubble; only their mailbox and rear steps were left standing. These so-called "slab" cases are among the most contentious of Katrina claims, because experts are left with little physical evidence to help them determine if wind or water caused the damage.

The Kodrins say a State Farm adjuster initially told them that wind apparently caused most of the damage to their home. Later, however, an engineer who inspected the property for the insurer concluded that storm surge destroyed the house.

The Kodrins estimate that Katrina caused a total of $341,745 in damage to their property. State Farm says the market value of the property is only $110,000.

A separate flood insurance policy already has paid the couple $76,000, but they are seeking an additional $207,086 from State Farm for damage to their home, its contents and their living expenses.


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Monday, November 05, 2007

Bush vetoes $23-billion water bill




Congress is expected to override the president next week in a bipartisan vote.
By Richard Simon
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — President Bush delivered his threatened veto of a $23-billion water bill Friday, but Congress is virtually certain to reverse it in the first override of a Bush veto.

And Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress are moving closer to a federal budget showdown that could result in more vetoes.

The House and Senate are expected to move swiftly next week to override Bush's veto of a bill loaded with water-related projects sought by members of both parties, from shoring up California's levees to protecting the Gulf Coast from hurricanes.



In a statement accompanying his veto, Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, "I am 100% confident that we can override this veto."

The defiant bipartisan response to the veto underscores the difficulty the president faces in his new zeal to hold down federal spending, especially when it affects highly visible construction projects cherished by lawmakers.

"This will be the first veto this Congress has overridden, and it was all about getting parochial water projects back to their home districts," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

The bill would authorize more than 900 projects, such as restoration in the Florida Everglades and the replacement of seven Depression-era locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers that farm groups say is crucial for shipping grain.

For California, the bill authorizes $1.3 billion for 54 projects, including $106 million to strengthen the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees, $25 million for revitalizing the concrete-bound Los Angeles River and $38 million for replenishing sand at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, a project that supporters say would protect coastal residents from storms.

It is the fifth bill that Bush has vetoed -- the fewest by any president since James A. Garfield, who was shot in 1881 after four months in office and died weeks later. Bush has vetoed two bills that would have expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research, a bill to pay for the Iraq war that included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and a bill that would have expanded a children's health insurance program. The four vetoes were sustained.

The Water Resources Development Act passed the House 381-40 and the Senate 81-12, far more than the two-thirds needed to make the measure law over the president's objections. The override would be the first since 1998, when Congress reversed President Clinton's veto of $287 million worth of military construction projects from a spending bill.

"Nothing seems as dear to members of Congress as their water projects," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

Bixby expects that Bush, with support from congressional Republicans, will wield more influence over the appropriations bills. "Bush has a willing and sufficient minority with him to sustain his vetoes -- so long as it isn't a water project," he said.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), leader of a group of House conservatives, said he expected the water-bill veto to be overridden. "I plan to vote to sustain the veto, and I assume it will be a very small group of us," he said. "When the appropriations bills come . . . that's where the real fight on fiscal responsibility will be, and my guess is we'll have enough Republicans to sustain" a veto.

The water bill is supported by a number of Bush's usual allies, including business and farm groups. The measure even brought together Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Olka.), the panel's ranking member, who rarely agree. Inhofe had appealed to Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Budget Director Jim Nussle to urge the president not to veto the bill, and he vowed to lead the fight to override the veto.

"I share the president's concerns on excessive spending," said Republican bill supporter Sen. Mel Martinez. "There are some things in this bill that are not pretty in terms of government spending. But at the end of the day, as a Floridian, Everglades restoration is such an integral part of this WRDA bill we have to take the good with the bad."

Democrats pounced on the veto to portray Bush as out of touch with domestic priorities.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Next week, the House is expected to take up the first of a string of spending bills that could face Bush vetoes: a $215-billion bill that combines Democratic-sought funding increases for health and education programs with spending for popular veterans programs.

Although the fiscal year began Oct. 1, Congress has yet to send Bush a spending bill.

Bush, signaling a new determination to erase the red ink in the budget, has complained that Congress added $22 billion to his budget and seemed addicted to earmarks. In the first six years of his administration, federal spending soared. Bush never vetoed a GOP-written spending bill. His administration inherited a budget surplus and has presided over six years of deficits, including a record $412.7 billion in fiscal 2004.

On Friday in his veto statement, Bush noted that the House originally approved a $15-billion water bill and the Senate approved a $14-billion measure, but instead of the customary splitting the difference during negotiations, they "emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion."

"This is not fiscally responsible," he said.

The water bill authorizes projects, but the funds must be provided through the separate appropriations process.

Bush complained that some of the projects fall outside the main mission of the Army Corps of Engineers: "facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems."

richard.simon@latimes.com


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......