Congresswoman McCollum: Let’s Build a Smart, Cost-Effective Bridge for Minnesota and Wisconsin
For Immediate Release: February 29, 2012
Contact: Maria Reppas, (202) 225-6631 / (202) 527-0149 maria.reppas@mail.house.gov
Washington, DC – Tonight, Congresswoman Betty McCollum (MN-04) spoke on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to voice her opposition to The St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act (S. 1134). This legislation authorizes construction of a $700 million mega-bridge over the protected St. Croix River between Minnesota and Wisconsin, benefiting only 18,000 cars per day. The bridge would be built only six miles from Interstate 94 crossing over the same river.
The House will vote on S. 1134 tomorrow.
Congresswoman McCollum delivered the following remarks:
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 – 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 the 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" mega-bridge would connect Oak Park Heights, Minnesota – population 4,700 – to Houlton, Wisconsin – population 386.
I quote from the St. Paul Pioneer Press (Jan. 25, 2012) that Houlton, Wisconsin, "...is not big enough for a stop sign on its main street."
Houlton, Wisconsin may not have a stop sign, but today 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 mega-bridge as "...approximately 6 miles north of the Interstate-94 crossing." In other words, this bill mandates a 65 miles-per-hour interstate freeway bridge, connecting a town of 386 people and builds it only six miles from an existing Interstate crossing of the same river.
Is this what the Tea Party would call an efficient and effective use of tax dollars?
The fiscal watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense calls the bill, "a massive misuse of taxpayer money."
In a letter to Congress opposing this bill, 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.
The Deputy Director of the National Parks Service stated, "The Department cannot support this legislation as the National Park Service 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 clear, I asked Interior Secretary Salazar two weeks ago during an Interior Appropriations Subcommittee hearing a direct question.
I asked, "Does the Interior Department still oppose S 1134?
Interior Secretary Salazar responded, "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 delegations from the two states and Secretary LaHood and I have offered to work with a work group to see whether an alternative can be found."
Unfortunately, despite the opposition from the Interior Department and the offer to work for a compromise solution, Congress will now be voting on a $700 million mega-bridge.
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 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 require an estimated $443 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 $700 million of taxpayer money to replace one bridge while Minnesota has more than 1,100 additional "structurally deficient" bridges –far less costly – that are all in desperate need of repair or replacement.
In fact, dozens of Minnesota state legislators wrote our delegations saying, "We are united in our concerns 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, urged 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 passage "would be a profound mistake" and he urges a vote against this bill.
This bill was even controversial in the Senate. Senator Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington opposed S. 1134 saying, "In our opinion, waiving the protections of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for the Lower St. Croix River is bad policy and sets a dangerous precedent."
Here in the House, this bill is also controversial. It is controversial because it 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. It does it all through an exemption to federal law.
Of course, earmarks are banned in the House except when a bill come to the floor on suspension of the rules and points order are waived – just like this one!
This mega-bridge was highlighted in a New York Times editorial. The editorial highlights my Minnesota colleague and mega-bridge champion, Rep. 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 her earmark to the floor. Now, it is not just me, my dear friend from Minneapolis, Mr. Ellison, other House colleagues, and the U.S. Interior Department are opposing this $700 million boondoggle bridge.
This bill is also opposed by:
• Taxpayers for Common Sense
• The Sierra Club
• National Parks Conservation Association
• American Rivers
• League of Conservation Voters
• Former Vice President Walter Mondale
• And, a whole lot of Minnesotans who care deeply about responsible fiscal policy, wise transportation investments, and responsible environmental conservation.
Tomorrow we will vote on this bill.
Will this House give a rubber stamp to a $700 million mega-bridge? 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 Minnesota and Wisconsin member of this House supports a replacement bridge – none more than I. 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 in need of repair.
S. 1134 is a bad bill, and it should be defeated by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Congresswoman Betty McCollum serves on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees.
####