By Larry Bivins

Since taking their seats in Congress, Rep. Sean Duffy and Sen. Ron Johnson have distinguished themselves as guardians of taxpayer dollars, railing almost nonstop against excessive government spending.

But the fiscal hawkishness of the Republican freshmen has not stopped them from backing controversial legislation to clear the way for construction of a $700 million bridge across the St. Croix River that critics condemn as a waste of money.

The House voted 339 to 80 today in favor of legislation that gives the proposed bridge at Stillwater, Minn., an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Senate approved the legislation in January. It now heads to President Barack Obama.

Bachmann's bill would override the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to clear the way for construction of a new bridge to replace the historic but decrepit Stillwater Lift Bridge connecting Minnesota and Wisconsin across the St. Croix River.

A bipartisan Senate version authored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar and co-sponsored by Johnson passed by unanimous consent Jan. 23. The measure also has the support of Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton in Minnesota and Republican Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin.

Critics led by Minnesota Democrat Rep. Betty McCollum, who represents the redrawn congressional district where the bridge would be located, have waged strenuous opposition. They have likened the proposed bridge to one in Alaska that was dubbed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and became symbolic of wasteful projects inserted into spending bills by members of Congress to benefit their districts in a now-banned process known as earmarks.

In a "Dear Colleague" letter Tuesday, McCollum urged House members to reject the bipartisan bill because it "represents bad fiscal policy, bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy."

McCollum agreed the outdated lift bridge needs to be replaced, but she said there is a less costly, more practical alternative.

Supporters say the new bridge is needed to relieve traffic congestion. They contend the original estimated cost in 1992 was $80 million, but the pricetag has grown as a result of delays and lawsuits.

Still, Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscal watchdog group in Washington, objects to the size and scope of the proposed bridge. The group pointed out the new bridge would accommodate a daily average of 18,000 cars, while the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis cost $234 million to rebuild after it collapsed and serves 140,000 cars a day.

The group said "wasting cash on the boondoggle bridge" would delay action on dozens of other bridges in Minnesota and Wisconsin that need work.

The group also said the bill resembled an earmark, designated funding for pet projects like the Bridge to Nowhere, despite a ban on such funding.

"This may seem like a local issue, but federal taxpayers will be on the hook for $160 million," the taxpayers' group said in a Jan. 13 statement. "In an acrimonious year between the political parties in Washington, we cannot afford bipartisanship that occurs only when it comes to wasteful, parochial projects."

Brandon Moody, a spokesman for Duffy, who in one of his first acts as a new member of Congress introduced legislation to ban earmarks, said critics are using disingenuous arguments to block the construction of a bridge they don't want to see built.

"Opponents of the bridge are offering a false choice," Moody said. "They're giving us an alternative they know doesn't exist."

Moody said Bachmann's legislation, which also has the support of Rep. Ron Kind, D-La Crosse, calls for no additional federal spending. It merely removes the federal government as a hurdle, he said.

"It's all about getting the federal government out of the way of what the states want to do," Moody said. "It does nothing but open up the possibility for states to move forward as they see fit."

Johnson agreed.

"The new bridge will be financed largely by the state governments who are taking the lead on this initiative," Johnson said. "The only question at this point is whether the federal government will continue to prevent the states from acting to address this long-standing problem. I believe Washington should get out of the way."

Kind said the project would not only address critical transportation needs but also preserve the scenic and recreational value of the area.

"The current 80-year-old bridge is functionally deficient, poses a hazard to public safety, and limits the ability of the region to grow and prosper," Kind said. "A new bridge is absolutely necessary to address a major transportation need and safety concern impacting the residents of both Minnesota and Wisconsin."

The Associated Press contributed.

View original article