Fiscally Responsible St. Croix River Crossing Authorization Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The bill before the House today, S. 1134, is a controversial bill that represents wasteful government spending, bad transportation policy, and bad environmental policy.

A new bridge across the protected St. Croix River between my State of Minnesota and Wisconsin needs to be built. The aging Stillwater Lift Bridge needs to be replaced and everyone agrees on that, but I support a more affordable and more appropriately scaled replacement bridge.

This bill is controversial because it does much more than authorize a replacement bridge. This bill mandates construction of an exotic and massive extradosed style bridge some 219 feet above the St. Croix River at a cost of $700 million for only 18,000 cars per day.

This $700 million extradosed megabridge will connect Oak Park Heights, Minnesota--population 4,700--and Houlton, Wisconsin-- population 386.

I quote from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, January 25, 2012, about Houlton, Wisconsin, it ``is not big enough for a stop sign on its main street.''

Houlton, Wisconsin, may not have a stop sign, but Congress could give it a $700 million bridge.

This bill is controversial because, if you look at page 2, line 10 of the bill, you will see that the bill dictates the location of this $700 million megabridge, and I quote from the bill, ``approximately 6 miles north of the Interstate-94 crossing.'' In other words, this bill mandates a 65-mile-per-hour interstate freeway bridge connecting a town of 368 people and builds it only 6 miles from an existing interstate crossing on the same river.

What would the Tea Party call an effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars? Would they call this that? The fiscal watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense calls the bill, and I quote from them, ``A massive misuse of taxpayer money.''

In a letter to Congress opposing this bill, the Taxpayers for Common Sense said:

In an era of trillion-dollar deficits and a $15 trillion

national debt, it is simply unacceptable to spend $700

million on a bridge to carry so few vehicles when an

interstate bridge exists nearby.

This bill is controversial because it is opposed by the Interior Department, which testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on July 28, 2011, opposing S. 1134. I quote from the Director of the National Park Service, when he stated:

The Department cannot support this legislation as the

National Park Service is determined that the St. Croix River

Project would have a direct and adverse impact to the river

and these impacts cannot be mitigated.

To be very clear, I asked Interior Secretary Salazar 2 weeks ago during an Interior appropriations subcommittee hearing a direct question. That was on February 16, just this month. I asked:

Does the Interior Department still oppose S. 1134?

Interior Secretary Salazar responded, saying:

Our position remains unchanged. A wild and scenic river is

a wild and scenic river. The position of the Parks Service as

articulated a year ago is the position of the Department. We

have, as you know, Congresswoman McCollum, met with the

delegations from the two States and Secretary LaHood and I

have offered to work with a work group to see whether or not

an alternative can be found.

Unfortunately, despite opposition from the Interior Department, an offer to work on a compromised solution, Congress will now be voting on a $700 million megabridge.

This bill is controversial because it will directly result in a property tax increase for the residents of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota, a community in which Minnesota's new redistricting map places it in my new congressional district. According to a unanimously passed resolution by the Oak Park Heights City Council, the passage of S. 1134 by Congress will do this to the city of Oak Park Heights. I quote from the city council's resolution:

It will require an estimated $443 in annual property tax

increase for the next 10 years to most city homeowners and

businesses.

A vote for S. 1134 will be a tax increase on Minnesotans.

This bill is controversial because it puts Congress in the position of prioritizing spending of $700 million of taxpayers' money to replace one bridge while Minnesota has more than 1,100 additionally structurally deficient bridges--far less costly--that all are in desperate need of repair or replacement. In fact, dozens of Minnesota State legislators wrote our delegation saying:

We are united in our concern that the current design of the

bridge is far too expensive, particularly in light of much

more cost effective alternatives.

Those State legislators, many from my congressional district, urge defeat of this legislation. Former Vice President and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale, an original sponsor of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, opposes this bill, saying that the passage, and I quote from Vice President Mondale, ``would be a profound mistake.'' He urges a vote against the bill.

This bill was even controversial in the Senate. Senator Jeff Bingaman, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington oppose S. 1134, saying:

In our opinion, waiving the protections of the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act for the lower St. Croix is bad policy

and sets a dangerous precedent.

Here in the House, this bill is also controversial. It is controversial because this bill is an earmark, pure and simple. This bill designates a specific project in a specific location and it mandates the construction of a $700 million extradosed bridge design, and it does that all through an exemption to Federal law. Of course, earmarks are banned in the House except when a bill comes to the floor on suspension of rules and all the rules and points of order are waived, just like this one.

This megabridge was highlighted in a New York Times editorial. The editorial highlights my Minnesota colleague and megabridge champion, Representative Bachmann, who has called for a redefinition of what an earmark is to accommodate ``a bridge over a vital waterway.'' Today Congresswoman Bachmann has been successful in bringing this earmark to the floor.

It's not just me. My dear friend from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, and other House colleagues and the U.S. Department of the Interior are opposing this $700 million bridge. The bill is also opposed by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, American Rivers, League of Conservation Voters, former Vice President Mondale, and a whole lot of Minnesotans who care deeply about fiscal responsibility, wise transportation investments, and responsible environmental conservation.

Tomorrow we will vote on this bill. The question is: Will the House give a rubber stamp to a $700 million megabridge or will this Congress reject this bad bill and direct Minnesota and Wisconsin to come up with a smarter plan that would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars?

Every Minnesotan and every Wisconsin Member of this House supports a replacement bridge, none more than me. But I ask my colleagues to reject this fiscally irresponsible bill. Not one dollar of Minnesota transportation funds will be lost.

I have a Minnesota Department of Transportation document in my hand that outlines how hundreds of millions of dollars could be reprogrammed across our State creating thousands of jobs and rebuilding roads and bridges in great need of repair.

S. 1134 is a bad bill, and it should be defeated by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

With that, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

In reclaiming my time, I will not yield to the gentleman on my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

In response, I don't think my constituents consider me an outside group.

With that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Could you please tell me how many minutes I have besides the 2.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

As I said at the beginning of this debate, this bill, S. 1134, is a bad bill. It reflects our irresponsible fiscal policy, bad transportation policy, and bad environmental policy.

The way the law has been structured into making this moment happen specifies only one type of bridge could be built, and it had to be a bridge that went 65 miles an hour. And then the legislation before us today takes it even farther and for the first time puts in that a bridge that is going to be a replacement bridge in a wild and scenic river must be an extradosed bridge. It mandates the size and the scope of the bridge. Ladies and gentlemen, we just could have had a piece of legislation that would have allowed an exemption without the specification that was added in this legislation. I could have stood here and supported it, but I cannot support a $700 million interstate bridge when there is one 6 miles away.

The Stillwater bridge needs to be replaced, but it won't be replaced, actually, because the historic lift bridge is going to be used as a bike and pedestrian bridge which in perpetuity the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota will have to maintain and repair and will continue during the summer to be raised and lifted as boats go through.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state for the record that I have seven bridges in my congressional district with hundreds of thousands of car trips a day in worse condition than the lift bridge in Stillwater. This mega-bridge also will feed directly into Minnesota State Highway 36. Tens of thousands of my constituents along Highway 36, Oakdale, Maplewood, Roseville, North St. Paul, and Little Canada will be suffering with crippling traffic congestion and higher property taxes to pay to relieve that congestion. This is a bad piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I would ask how much time I have remaining and of Mr. Petri how many more speakers he has left.

Mr. Speaker, as Representative Bachmann approaches the well, the gentleman from Wisconsin has the right to close, and I would like to know how many other speakers he has.

And are you closing or is Representative Bachmann closing?

I have one other speaker, then, after Mrs. Bachmann.

Is the gentleman from Wisconsin prepared to close after the last speaker that I have on my side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as remains to my colleague from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, who faced firsthand the tragedy of what happens when a bridge collapses. As I pointed out, I have seven bridges that have hundreds of thousands of cars every day on them in worse shape than the Stillwater bridge.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Minneapolis.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bridge is in my congressional district. I have been living and breathing this issue for the last 16 years.

Mr. Speaker, it's time to build a bridge. This is a bipartisan bill. It passed the Senate under unanimous consent. This legislation before us today merely exempts this river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. It exempts this bridge so that the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota can move forward on this vital infrastructure project.

This is what we have today, Mr. Speaker. It's an 82-year-old lift bridge that's on its last life. Last summer the drawbridge was up for 10 days, prohibiting traffic from crossing because of high water. Every summer, every time a boat travels underneath this bridge, the lift bridge is lifted and we have a traffic jam miles long waiting for the bridge to open up again.

Those cars and trucks are spewing fumes, dropping oil. It is a major environmental problem, not to mention the safety concern that we have with this old lift bridge. It's on its final legs, and there's consensus that we have to build a new bridge.

This is what's recommended by the States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.

This is what the new bridge would look like. Yes, you will see right next to it is a coal-burning power plant on this so-called part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers. There is very little wild or scenic at this location, and that's exactly why it's being sited along this location, along with two major manufacturing plants.

This is another view of the bridge in relationship to the power plant just south of the Stillwater area, and this is actually the view from downtown Stillwater looking south along the river at this bridge. You can barely see it because of how it's designed to blend into the atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, about 6 years ago I formed a process called ``resolve'' to get all the stakeholders at the table so that they could discuss and scrub every option and every alternative that was available. At the end of that 5-year negotiating process, 26 of the 27 stakeholders reached an agreement on what needed to be done.

The only holdout was the Sierra Club, and that's why we're having this big debate this evening. Even their proposal that came in at the eleventh hour would cost just as much, it would take another 10 years to build, and it would actually cut into the bluff on the Minnesota side, causing more environmental damage.

Even the local and regional offices of the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service had signed off on this bridge project.

I believe, as do most of the members of the Wisconsin and Minnesota delegation, as well as all four of the U.S. senators, that it's time to build this bridge. Both governors in Wisconsin and Minnesota want to build this bridge. The Departments of Transportation in both Wisconsin and Minnesota want to build this bridge. Ninety-two percent of the residents in Wisconsin want to see this bridge go forward. Eighty-eight percent of the residents in Minnesota in Representative Bachmann's district, where the bridge is also built, wants this bridge to go forward. It is time to build this bridge.

Every option, every alternative has been considered. This is where we keep coming back to time and time again. They looked at the cost. They looked at the design. They looked at the location. They looked at the environmental impact. They looked at the mitigation that can be done, and 26 of the 27 stakeholders reached this conclusion. It's unfortunate that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is being used to bludgeon a major infrastructure project that will create jobs in this region when we need them the most, not only the short-term jobs in building this bridge but the long-term economic development and the explosion of economic growth and job creation that will result from the creation of this bridge.

Heading south, as my colleague from Minnesota had suggested, to hook up to the interstate highway, was not a viable option. Yet the town of Hudson that lies in between----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Going south to hook up to the interstate bridge down there is not a viable option. That too is under study for expansion, given the increased traffic load that's going through it today. What this bridge that's being proposed considers is not only current traffic flow projections, but future traffic flow projections over the next 20 or 30 years.

I know infrastructure projects can be difficult. I know they can be contentious. But when so many people at the Federal, State, and local level of the agencies, as well as private entities, have been at the table for 5 years negotiating and trying to reach agreement on what bridge is necessary, when they do finally reach an agreement, that tells me it's time to build a bridge.

I want to thank the ranking member and the chair of the Transportation Committee for your support, as well as the chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member on the subcommittee for your support.

Transportation Secretary LaHood has been strongly in favor of moving this project forward. And I also want to thank the administrations, the Governors of both Wisconsin and Minnesota, for their interest and support for this project. One of the reasons it is being brought up at this time is because Governor Dayton from Minnesota says life is short and they need predictability and certainty on what projects are moving forward. He has been a strong advocate of this bridge, but we can't be delaying this and dragging this out for another 16 years, which is the likely outcome if the opposition figures out a way to bring this bill down. Enough is enough.

We have explored this. We have exhausted it, and we keep coming back to the same place as before--this bridge, which makes this legislation necessary, and I encourage my colleagues to support it so we all can move on with our lives.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to have the Record reflect very clearly that if Representative McCollum gets her way, she will kill building the bridge over the St. Croix River. As we all know, and as our office has been told, this is one of the longest, if not the longest, unfinished bridge projects in the history of the United States. That's why it's come to this point, Mr. Speaker, where we actually have to go to Congress to get permission from the Federal Government so that the State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin can build this commonsense bridge at their own expense, and that's the point that we're at.

Not only will Representative McCollum be acting against the wishes of 86 percent of the people that live and reside in the St. Croix River Valley, the responsibility for the increased costs of building this bridge rests squarely on the shoulders of Representative McCollum and on her compatriots who have fought for decades to kill the building of this bridge.

The cost? The bridge would have cost $80 million to complete back in 1992 if her compatriots wouldn't have tied this bridge project up for decades in the Federal courts in nuisance lawsuits. And why? Because they said there was pollution that was involved. And what was this pollution that they asserted? They said it would be visual pollution. Visual pollution? Because a Federal bureaucrat came out to this river and pointed to the river and said that they didn't think that a bridge would look good built on this river, and that's in spite of the fact that there's already a bridge that's here on this river. This is a wide part of the river. This is the river that is literally the birthplace of Minnesota. As long as people have been in the State of Minnesota, Stillwater is the birthplace.

I've been working on this issue as a young mother living in this community, as an activist citizen who saw what a commonsense project this is. Representative McCollum has talked about this being a mega- bridge. This is a four-lane bridge. And after all, why wouldn't you build a four-lane bridge when you have a four-lane highway on Minnesota connected to a four-lane highway in Wisconsin? Representative McCollum is suggesting that we should be building a two or a three-lane bridge. Why would you build a bridge that would be obsolete the day that it's opened? You would build a commonsense, four-lane bridge to connect two four-lane highways.

This is also a center for industry in this region. We have not only the prison, the State prison; we have also one of the largest window manufacturers in the world, we have the sewer treatment plant, the water treatment plant, and we have a marina. This is the place that has been the site that's been selected as the perfect place to build this bridge to connect these two communities.

As we've heard before, this is an area that has a bridge that currently has a safety rating that's far below the safety rating of the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis in 2007. We have a historic opportunity, a once-in-a-lifetime magic moment when we have Governors that are Republican and Democrat, Senators that are Republican and Democrat, representatives that are Republican and Democrat, saying, for once let's come together and do what the people expect.

And why did we get to this point? Bureaucratic red tape. We are here in foursquare agreement with the administration, saying, let's get this done on behalf of the people of these two States. Let's do what should have been done decades ago, and let's build this commonsense bridge.

Stillwater, Minnesota is the site of Minnesota's birthplace. And now it's the site of what we are told is the longest-running, unfinished bridge project in the Nation. In the 1950s, discussions began for a replacement to the current, 1931 Lift Bridge, connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin, over the St. Croix River.

In 1992, we saw progress. That year, a coalition of residents, businesses, transportation officials and environmental experts, settled on a bridge design to replace the existing Lift Bridge. They proposed a four-lane bridge to connect four-lane highways in both states to be built south of Stillwater.

We are here today for Congressional approval for this project to proceed. Without

Congressional approval, the project will continue to face the government redtape and lawsuits that it's seen over the past 20 years.

The St. Croix River Crossing Project before us is a bipartisan project, with strong bipartisan support. All four Senators from our States, each State's governor and numerous colleagues of mine all publically proclaim their support for this commonsense project. It doesn't get more bipartisan than this.

A recent survey of residents in the region shows an overwhelming 86% of people support the project.

The bill before us doesn't appropriate a nickel. This is no earmark. Instead, it allows a commonsense, bipartisan project to proceed.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1134 because this is the final hurdle and our magic moment. Together, we can build this.

I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding.

I think it is important that we are clear about what this bill truly does. This bill exclusively deems the St. Croix River consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. That's all it does is deem it consistent. There is no appropriations aspect; there's no budgetary authority. All we're doing is deeming this bridge consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

You know, today is a pretty special day. It's a special day because it's leap day. It's February 29. It comes around only once every 4 years. And I have only been in this House for a year and a couple of months; but I have to tell you what, bipartisanship doesn't come around that often. But it is here tonight on the House floor. Bipartisanship, this is what I mean by that: you have two Governors, a Republican and a Democrat, who support this bill. You have Senators from Wisconsin and Minnesota, all four of them, Republicans and Democrats, supporting this bill. You have progressives and conservatives in this Chamber who have all come out in support of this bill. You have Vikings and Packers supporting this bill. This is a remarkable day.

Listen, we go so far, you have the AFL CIO and local chambers together supporting this bill. This is remarkable. We haven't seen this kind of bipartisanship in the 15 months that I've been here. This is a great bill. This gets the job done because people are doing what their constituents asked them to do, which is work together. It makes sense.

This is working across party lines for a very important reason. It's because we all in this region understand the

importance of bridges and what happens when something goes wrong. We all remember I 35 between Minneapolis and St. Paul that had a sufficiency rating of 50, 50 out of 100. And a few years ago, we remember that bridge collapsed. We remember seeing the devastation of that bridge when it collapsed. But a rating of 50 out of 100.

The bridge we are talking about today, the one that is used across the St. Croix River, has a rating of 32 out of 100. It is less safe than I 35 was when it collapsed. And again, it was built in 1931. It is 81, 82 years old.

Listen, the people in this region they need the bridge. They want the bridge. Everybody is working together. I want to make sure we're clear about the people who use this. I know the gentlelady from Minnesota says it's only serving a small community in Holton, Wisconsin, a community of 386 people. You've got to explain to me, then, how 18,000 people go across that bridge every day.

You are dealing with the largest-growing county in Wisconsin, and the 13th largest metropolitan area in this country. That's what this bridge connects. People use it. This is a bedroom county. They work in St. Croix County over in Minneapolis-St. Paul. They use that bridge to get back and forth to work; 18,000 people a day use this bridge. This is no small feat.

We're talking about the funding component saying that it's $700 million. I think we have to be clear on what that $700 million is. It's really only $292 million when you look at the actual cost of construction of the bridge, $292 million. If you want to look at the extra cost that gets you upwards of $600 million, that cost comes from all of the mitigation, the environmental mitigation work that's been requested over the decades of negotiation trying to get this bridge done. It's not the bridge cost. It's the bipartisan effort trying to get people to agree to make this project go forward that increases the cost so dramatically to $600-plus million.

So I think it's important. You look at this, this is a shovel-ready project. Shovel ready. We hear it is going to create 6,000 new jobs over the course of 3 years. And it is far from rushed. We have talked about this, again, for decades. And I think when people would say it is a bad bill or a controversial bill, it's important to note Republican and Democrat Senators, Governors, Congressmen, communities have rallied around this project.

Let's get it done. Let's finally build the St. Croix River bridge.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite know from which side to request time on this issue. You see, I am for legitimate, well-scrutinized, scrubbed, and screened earmarks. Now, unless the GOP leadership can convince me that this is not an earmark, then I will vote ``no'' on the bill.

We should be here today debating a long-term, robust surface transportation bill that would create jobs and keep our economy moving forward by rebuilding America and by putting Americans to work. Rather, we are considering a bill that authorizes the construction of a specific bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin with an estimated total project cost of $574 million to $690 million--an earmark. Instead of openly acknowledging that this bill is a blatant earmark, the Republican leadership pretends that it is not one. It was quietly added to the schedule less than 48 hours ago, scheduled for this post-sundown debate.

Do not get me wrong. I am not against earmarks, but let's be open, transparent, and honest with the American people. That's why ``earmark'' got the bad name it did, because we were not open and transparent and honest with the American people. So if there is any doubt whether the bill that the House is now considering today is an earmark, all you have to do is read the bill:

. . . may authorize and assist in the construction of a new

extradosed bridge crossing the St. Croix River approximately

6 miles north of the I 94 crossing.

Then the bill goes on on lines 21 through 23, page 2, section 3. It provides an offset. Guess where that offset comes from? Earmarks under the SAFETEA LU, under the previous transportation bill. It's how the majority is funding this bill. That was our last transportation bill, which took so much grief.

It all sounds pretty specific to me. In fact, the bill even tells the States what kind of bridge to build. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, by golly, it's probably a duck. This is an earmark, and I sincerely hope that the some-90 new Members on the majority side are learning just what an earmark is.

Now, I recognize the need for this new bridge crossing the St. Croix to replace the deficient 80-year-old Stillwater Lift Bridge, but I also recognize the need to move similar transportation projects forward across this great country, including in my own home State of West Virginia. What we ought to be doing is passing a long-term, robust surface transportation bill so that we can address the backlog of deficient bridges, roads, and transit systems in every State across the Nation.

Instead, we're voting on one earmark, and we are doing nothing today to strengthen our Nation's economic competitiveness and quality of life. We are doing nothing to alleviate the congestion that continues to cripple the economy in California. We are doing nothing to fix the bridges that are in disrepair in my home State. We are doing nothing to solve the fact that trains are traveling on outdated tracks across this country. We are doing nothing to address the commerce that is being trapped on turnpikes because these arteries of commerce are being choked by a transportation system ill fit for the country that is leading the global economy.

Last November, the Speaker announced that the House would take up the surface transportation bill by the end of the year. We all know what subsequently transpired, which is that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee produced a bill which slashes $15.8 billion in highway funding to the States, destroying 550,000 American family-wage jobs.

The bill then proceeded to the Rules Committee, which is where it was divided up into I don't know how many different pieces because there weren't the votes to pass the whole package. Who knows what kind of mishmash we got that time. I'm still trying to figure it out. Then who knows what type of mishmash we'll get the next time before we finally pass, if we are going to, a transportation bill that puts Americans to work, that gets our economy moving, and that helps long-term deficit reduction.