St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. McCOLLUM. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source