yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, so he can explain why the radical coalition that we have also includes the governors of seven states that don't like this bill. i yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: the governors of seven states, fishermen, hunters, farmers, a whole list of people that oppose this bill. our amendment states that the central valley project and state water project shall be operated in a manner that meets all obligations under state and federal law with operational constraints based on the best available science. more than 750 plant and animal species depend upon the delta for their survival. many of these then support important industries such as fishermen, hunters, recreational industries and farmers that promote local and state economies, we've seen what happens when science is ignored in environmental procedures are gutted for the

saying of politics. in 2008 and 2009, salmon fisheries were forced to close because of low flows in the rivers. this resulted in the loss of over half a billion dollars. and nearly 5,000 jobs. the same number that the proponents of the bill claim that their bill would create. it would prevent the best available science in the bay and delta by permanently limiting agencies from acting on new scientific information developed since 1984. this alone ignores the last 15 years of the best available science. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and a no vote on this terrible piece of legislation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i yield 15 seconds to my friend, mr.

nunes: i remind my friend, mr. nunes. mr. nunes: the doctor who told us, dr. peter glick, two weeks ago dr. peter glick admitted to imperson ating someone else on the internet, stole information, then falsified the information and sent it out all over the planet. but dr. peter glick got caught. dr. peter glick got caught. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nunes: the main person they support got caught. mr. markey: i ask how much time remains on each side. the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. markey: thank you. could i ask on the minority? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. mr. markey: then i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: mr. chairman, i rise in support of the amendment. i said our country's resources problems should be based on sound science. to do so otherwise would be simply foolish and shortsighted. h.r. 1837 ignores years of california's watershed. we don't believe the earth is flat, we don't believe the thunder is made by bowling balls. we know better. science has given us the answer to so many questions about the world in which we live. we have used science to discover the truth. h.r. 1837 will prevent the use of the best available science and adapt a management in the bay-delta. by -- this amendment before us would require us to use the scientific research we have on california's natural resource.

it would acknowledge that the research shown is true. this is critical important to california, to every state in this union. mr. chairman, lastly, i keep hearing that the sacramento area supports this bill. i represent the sacramento area and i can tell you that both the city and county of sacramento strongly opposes this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to reject the bill. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: mr. chairman, i am the last speaker on our side, so i would appreciate if the majority could -- mr. mcclintock: and i am on the last speaker on our side. mr. markey: would you tell us, mr. chairman, who has the right to conclude debate? the chair: yeah. the gentleman from california. mr. markey: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman from

california has the right to close. mr. markey: the gentleman from california has the right to debate and could you tell me how much time i have remaining? the chair: one minute. mr. markey: while i yield myself one minute in order to just say this. if we don't do anything else here, at least we should say that we're going to use science. we're going to use the best available knowledge about science to ensure that this legislation does not invoke the law of unintended consequences, that we understand what we're doing, and i don't know why the republicans have this aversion to using modern science, but i'll tell you this. this is going to be a defining vote here on the house floor. do the republicans actually believe in science? cothey want modern science to be used -- do they want modern science to be used, or do they want science from two decades

ago to be used? the important of using science is it doesn't depend on one man. it relies on hundreds and thousands of scientists, testing each other's works. the republican bill would ignore 18 years of work by hundreds and thousands of scientists to reach today's consensus because they want that old science in order to take care of the special interests -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. markey: the complications of what would happen. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, the devastation of the central valley of california occurred because of the breaking of a federal promise, a federal agreement. the gentleman from california says, oh, it wasn't an agreement at all, it was a suggestion. well, that's not what the interior secretary said at the time. he said a deal is a deal. it turns out there is a need for additional water it will

come at the expense of the federal government. the senator who carried the conference report on the senate floor said it was a temporary measure until additional water was brought online. this bill redeems that promise. the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts would have us break that promise forever. we keep haring, well, this is then, this is now, science has changed, social policy. if that's the case then the federal government's promises are worthless. they mean nothing. it was a promise agreed to by all parties. it was broken by the federal government. what they're referring to is not science. it is ideological mass can raiding as science -- masquerading as science. so says the federal government. one of the scientists involved in the report is now charging that the department subverted science for political ends. it is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands

of families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based solutions that keep our promises. it's time we replaced a higher value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the environmental left. that's what this bill does. that's what the gentleman's amendment would prevent. finally, the gentleman would insert a requirement that the act require the best available science to move forward. well, the gentleman knows that what he's termed best available science was literally thrown out of court with the court saying not only is it not the best available science, it wasn't science at all. the only practical effect of the provision is provide employment for the only growth sector left in california's economy, environmental lawsuits, intended not to win because ultimately they do lose but rather to delay projects indefinitely and make them cost prohibited to pursue. but i compliment the gentleman on his creativity. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the

question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. the chair -- the chair understands that amendment number 9 will not be offered. pursuant to the rule -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 112-405 on which further proceedings were postponed and -- in the following order -- amendment number 2 by mr. thompson of california, amendment number 3 of mr. mcnerney of california,

amendment number 4 by mr. mcnerney of california, amendment number 5 by mr. garamendi of california, amendment number 6 by mrs. napolitano of california, amendment number 7 by mr. garamendi of california and amendment number 8 by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-405 by the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. thompson of california. the chair: a recorded vote has

been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 239.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 239 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-405 by the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 178. the nays are 242. and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-405 by the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. mcnerney of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation

with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177. the noes are 243 and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-405 by the

gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on the vote, the yeas are 181, the nays are 243, and

the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6, printed in house report 11-405, by the gentlewoman from california, ms. napolitano on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will vote by electronic device, and this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 1774, the nays are 250,

and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-405 by the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, on which further proceedings were postponed, and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 78 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. garamendi of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a record vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives.

any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 178, the nays are 247, and the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-405 by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-405 offered by mr. markey of

massachusetts. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 244, and the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the ruling, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1837. and sends back to the house -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the hole house reports that the committee has had under

consideration the bill h.r. 1837 and pursuant to house resolution 566, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate demanded on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the committee in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: the clerk: a bill to address certain water-related concerns on the san joaquin river and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill?

mr. garamendi: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. garamendi of california moves to recommit the bill with instructions to report the same back to the house with changes, after section 2, insert the following, state's rights, nothing in this action shall preempt or supersede state law including state water law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. members please take your discussions off the house floor.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, mr. speaker, i thank you for the opportunity to present this amendment, this amendment will not kill the bill, nor send it back to committee. but it is an amendment that's important to every representative in this house. if you care about the 10th amendment and you care about the ability of your state to set its own policies -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. mr. fware men dee: mr. speaker. every member in this house should be paying attention to this bill. we read the constitution the first day of this congress. the 10th amendment guarantees that the states have the ability to take care of their own water systems and many

other issues that pertain to the states. this bill, this bill overrides state law in california. this bill sets aside numerous states law -- state laws in california this bill overrides 150 years of california water law, set in place by the legislature, the governors and by the courts of california and the federal courts. this bill destroys the ability of california to conduct and manage its own water. i put this map up of california so that you might contemplate far few moments the impact and exactly what we're talking about. california is a big state, 38 million people. diverse. extraordinary water fights. there was a fellow that lived in california years ago, mark twain, and he said in california, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting and it's been true ever since.

this is the stall valley of california. the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere as well as the sacramento river an the san joaquin river join together in an inland estuary, one of the few in the world an also san francisco bay. this bill will lead to the destruction of the largest estuary on the west coast of the western hemisphere and it does so by overriding california law. and the california constitution. the california constitution holds the water of the state of california in trust, in trust. the state of california, the government is responsible for the care of that water. so that it can be appropriately distributed. not only for the benefits -- beneficial use of consumptive users, cities and farmers, but also for the environment.

this bill takes away the laws of the state of california that would provide for the protection of the environment. the california ceqa, environmental quality act, the air quality act the endangered species act of the state of california, are overridden by this bill an by the way, the federal law is also. it takes us back to 1994 at a period of time when we didn't know the since, we didn't understand what the full impact of water diversions and other con tam napts and other species would be in the delta. since 1994, we have seen the collapse of the delta fisheries, we have seen thousands upon thousands of fishermen both commercial and recreational unable to fish. the loss of much. much talk about a man-made drought. that's baloney, it was a real drought. yes, there were environmental

considerations that further reduced water that water was reduced urn contracts that called for shortages in the case of drought. so what are we talking about here with this bill? we're talking about the usurping of power by the federal government, taking the basic ability of the state of california to regulate its water, to deal with its environmental issues and causing this house, this federal government, to have that power. think closely, all of you who have a reclamation project in your district, and there's some 18 states ranging from the pacific to the mississippi. you have reclamation projects. think deeply, think about what happens when the federal government goes to california, the biggest state, and says, we don't care what your laws are. we're going to tell you what to do.

think what that might mean to you in the future when somebody in your state has the power to put before this house a law that runs over the top of your state laws. if you care about the 10th amendment if you care about states' rights you better be voting no because this is a precedent that you don't want to ever see in your state and we all want -- we don't want to see it in california. think deeply, senators, think deeply, members of this house, think deeply about what's at stake here. i ask for this motion to pass. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, it is odd, very odd, to hear the

argument again in this hall that a state's right to deny basic freedoms to its citizens trumps the 14th amendment to our constitution. the last time we heard this argument in this hall, it involved citizens' civil rights. now, it is the citizens' water rights. but make no mistake, it is the same old song. the reason we have a 14th amendment to our constitution is because its framers recognized that states could become abusive of the rights of their citizens, including their property rights, including their water rights, and the federal government had a responsibility and a duty to protect them. a responsibility and a duty. [applause] specifically vested in this congress, a responsibility and a duty that we exercise in the bill that the gentleman from california would have us gut.

what does the constitution actually say on the subject? it says no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states and it grants congress, quote, the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. let us turn to the provisions of the bill that the gentleman objects to. its title 4. it directs the interior secretary in the operation of the central valley project, a federal project, i might add, to strictly adhere to state water rights laws and priorities. it doesn't trample state water rights, it invokes and enforces them. title 4 goes on further to direct the secretary to strictly adhere to and honor withouter rights and priorities that were obtained or existed pursuant to various sections of california water code. i repeat, it doesn't trample

states' rights, it invokes them and enforces them. this sets no precedent for other states, california is the only state in the country with a coordinated operations agreement that combines a federal project, the central valley project, with a state project, the state water project, and done so, by the way, at california's request and with california's consent. in fact, congress has a long history of citing that coordinated operations agreement to invoke preemptive authority over this coordinated federal and state project. the central valley project improvement act in 1992 is replete with such pre-emptions. mr. speaker, fewer americans are working today than were working the day that this administration was sworn into office. this administration's actions

caused thousands and thousands of hardworking, farmworking families to lose their jobs. this measure solves that travesty. the same administration that is blocking the thousands of jobs that the keystone pipeline would produce has also vowed to veto this measure. i think the american people are going to have a great deal to say about that in coming days. ironically, the provision that the gentleman would have us remove was specifically placed in the bill because he and his colleagues objected that its original provision might cause the state government to actively undermine the rights of its senior water rights holders. that was a legitimate concern. senior water rights holers in northern california were scared to death that they might have the state undercut their water rights, and this bill

specifically addresses that concern. to address that concern, this provision was placed in the bill and now the gentleman objects to it. he first objected to the bill because the bill lacked this protection, now he objects because it has that protection. the gentleman knows -- i will not yield. the gentleman knows. the gentleman knows that i have great affection for him. but i must say he is becoming exceedingly hard to please. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are remined not to traffic the well while another member is under recognition. without objection, the previous question is order. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it.

mr. garamendi: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote, the yeas are 178 and the nays are 248, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient number having arisen, members will record their votes by electronic device. , members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 246, the nays are 175. without objection, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that congressman ed royce be removed as co-sponsor of h r. 1912. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, it is with a heavy heart that i bring to the attention of the house the news that a united states coast

guard helicopter crashed last night in mobile bay in a training operation. i spoke to a commander, where he informed me one crew member lost his life and three others are missing. mr. bonner: search efforts for the missing crew have been under way through last night an today and are ongoing at this time near the crash site off point clear, alabama. naturally i offered to captain rose the prayers and heart felt sympathies of the congress as well as our entire nation. not only do those -- to those immediate families of those brave coastie bus to the entire coast guard family. whether during a hurricane, an oil spill or one of their daily encounters with disabling when conducting a search and rescue mention, the united states coast guard plays a vital role that we too often take for granted. it is at times like this when we are reminded of the dangers

they face in their service to our nation. they are truly on the first line of protecting our country and we can never thank them enough. mr. speaker, i ask at this time that all americans lift a prayer to the good lord for the loss of life that has occurred. may god's blessings and healing hands be on those left behind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois wish to be recognized? >> to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i, too, come to the well to address a tragedy that happened this morning, early this morning, an f-4 tornado hit the city of harrisburg, illinois new york my district. mr. shimkus: there was extensive damage and six residents lost their lives. our thoughts and prayers are with those who lost family and friends, those who were injured and those who lost their homes.

i plan to visit harrisburg permly tomorrow and thank all those first responders who have been working tirelessly to care for the injured and to begin the long road back to cleanup. the mutual aide provided by the surrounding communities is also very heartwarming. i pledge to work with mayor eric greg and other local officials to rebuild the harrisburg re-- we all know and love. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs oklahoma under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 1134, to authorize the st. clair river crossing project to promote river values. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1134, an act to authorize the st. croix river crossing to promote river values. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri and the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i ask unanimous

consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill before us, s. 1134. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so orered. p mr. petri: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. petri: the passage of this bill will remove the last remaining roadblock to a new bridge over the st. croix river, a bridge that has been identified for replacement by the states of wisconsin and minnesota for nearly 60 years and a project that has actually been worked on for more than 30 years. support for this new bridge is bipartisan and bicameral. the governors of wisconsin and minnesota support it. the entire senate delegations from the two states support it. with few exceptions the members of the house delegations from minnesota and wisconsin support it. we just need this final action in order to finally proceed

with the bridge. the longer we delay, the more unsafe the current lift bridge becomes, congestion continues to worsen an costs just continue to rise. it's time to end the gridlock. i urge passage of the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: i claim 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 bridge some 219 feet above the st. croix river at a cost of $700 million for only 18,000 cars per day. this $700 -- the $700 million -- mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ms. mccollum: this $700 million bridge will connect all-park heights, minnesota, population 4,700 and wholesome, wisconsin, population 386. i quote from the "st. paul pioneer press" about the town in wisconsin, quote, it is not big enough for a stop sign on

its main street. it doesn't have a stop sign but congress could give it a $700 million bridge. you will see the bill dictates the location of the $700 millioning me bridge, and i quote from the bill, approximately six miles north of interstate 94 crosses. in other words, this bill mandates a 65-mile-per-hour interstate freeway bridge connecting a town of 368 people and builds it only six miles from an existing interstate crossing on the same river. what would the tea party call an -- -- an effective, efficient use of taxpayer dollars? a watchdog group calls it a massive misuse of taxpayer money. in a letter to congress opposing this bill, the taxpayers for commons said, and i quote from them, in an era of trillion-dollar deficits and $15 trillion national debt, it is simply unaccept to believe 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 national resources -- and natural resources committee on july 28, 2011, opposing s. 1134 and i quote, from the director of the national parks service, when he stated, the department cannot support this legislation as a national parks service. it's 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 two weeks ago during an interior appropriations subcommittee a direct question, that was on february 16, just this month. i asked, does the interior department still oppose s.-1134. salazar responded saying, our position remains unchanged.

a wild and scenic river is a wild and scenic river. the position of the park service was articulated as a year ago as the position of the department. we have issued met with the two states and i offered to work with a group to see whether an alternative can be found, end of quote. despite opposition from the interior department, an offer to work on a tompmies solution, congress will now be voting on a $700 millioning me 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 the new redistricting map places it in my district. according to a passed resolution by the oak park heights city council, the passage will do this and i quote from the city

council's resolution, quote, it will require an estimated $443 in annual property taxes for the next 10 years for most city owners and business owners. a vote for s. 1134 will be a tax increase. this bill is controversial because it puts congress in the position of prioritizing of $700 million to replace one bridge while minnesota has more than 1,100 structurally deficient bridges that all are in desperate need of repair or replacement. state legislators are saying, and i quote, we are united in our concern that the design of the bridge is toop expensive particularly in light of much more cost effectives.

those state legislators, many from my district urge defeat of this legislation. former vice president and u.s. senator walter mondale, an original sponsor of the wild and scenic rifrls act opposes this bill and i quote from vice president mondale, would be a profound mistake and urges a vote against the bill. this bill was even controversial in the senate. senator binge ham, senator mark udall of colorado, senator cantwell of washington opposed, saying, quote, in our opinion, waiving the protections for the lower st. croix is bad policy and it sets a dangerous precedent. here in the house, this bill is also controversial because it is an earmark and doesn't name a

specific project and specific location and mandates the construction of a $700 million bridge design. and it does that all through an exemption to federal law. earmarks are banned in the house unless a bill comes to the floor on suspension of rules just like this one. this mega bridge was highlighted in the "new york times" editorial. the editorial highlights my minnesota colleague and mega bridge champion, representative bachmann calls for a redefinition of what an earmark is to describe what a mega bridge and she has been successful in bringing this earmark to the floor. it's not just me. my dear friends, mr. ellison and other colleagues in the u.s. department of interior or opposing this bridge. the bill is opposed by taxpayers of common sense, the sierra

club, american rivers, league of conservation voters, former vice president mondale and a whole lot who care about fiscal responsibility, wise trappings investments and responsible environmental conservation. tomorrow we will vote on this bill. the question is, will the house rubber stamp a mega bridge or will congress reject this bad bill and come up with a smarter plan that will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. every member of this bill supports a replacement bridge but i ask my colleagues to reject this fiscal irresponsible bill. not one dollar will be lost. i have a minnesota department of transportation in my hand that outlines how dollars could be reprogrammed across our state creating thousands of jobs and rebuilding roads and bridges in

need of repair. s. 1134 is a bad bill and should be defeated by republicans and democrats alike. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. petri: i yield such time -- i yield two minutes to our colleague from the state of washington, chairman of natural resources committee, representative hastings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. as chairman of the natural resources which has partial jurisdiction, i support senate bill 1134. for over two decades, wisconsin and minnesota have been working on a plan to replace this bridge. this project has been delayed by lawsuit after lawsuit and these lawsuits and bureaucratic attacks is that the bridge spans the st. croix river which was listed in the 1972 wild and

scene irriver act. it says that the wild and scenic label on this river under federal law cannot stop these states from building a safe new bridge. it's as simple as that. and as regards to earmarks, this bill has been reviewed and is in compliance with the earmark definition in clause 9 of rule 21. the bill does not contain congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits. the bill is aimed at ensuring the federal and scenic wild river act doesn't prevent a bridge from being built. it affects multiple states. so, mr. speaker, the people of minnesota and wisconsin have been waiting decades to build this project. let's pass this bill and allow them to do so and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: could i inquire as to how much time i have

remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. mccollum: i yield 3 1/2 minutes to mr. rahall of west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. rahall: 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 g.o.p. 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 surface transportation bill, a robust bill that would create jobs and keep our economy moving by rebuilding america and putting americans to work. rather we are considering a bill that authorizes construction of

a specific bridge between minnesota and wisconsin with an estimated cost of $66 million and earmark instead of oply acknowledging that it is an earmark, the republicans are not saying it is not one and added it to the schedule less than 48 hours ago. do not get me wrong, i'm not against earmarks, but let's be open, transparent and honest with the american people. that's why earmarks got the bad name it did because we were not open and transparent and honest with the american people. if there's any doubt whether the bill that the house is now considering an earmark, all you have to do is read the bill. read the bill. it says, may authorize and assist in the construction of a new bridge crossing the st.

croix river. then the bill goes on lines 21 through 23, page 2, section 3, it provides an offset. guess where the off jet comes from, under the safetea rule. and that's how the majority is using it to fund this bill. it all sounds pretty specific to me. the bill tells the states what kind of bridge to build. looks like a duck and swims like a duck and quaks like a duck, it is an earmark. and i hope the members on the majority side are learning just what an earmark is. i recognize the need for this new bridge crossing st. croix to replace the stillwater bridge, but recognize the need to move similar transportation project including my own home state. what we ought to be doing is

passing a long-term surface transportation bill so we can address the backlog of deficient bridges in every state across the nation. instead we are voting on one earmark and doing nothing today to strengthen our nation's economic competitiveness and quality of life and the congestion that is in california and nothing to fix the bridges in my home state and trains are traveling on outdated tracks, nothing to address the commerce, because these arteries in commerce are being choked by transportation system ill-fit that is leading the global economy. last year, you announced that the house would take up the surface transportation bill by the end of the year. we know what has transpired. the transportation bill slashes $15 billion, destroying 550,000 american family-wage jobs.

it pro seeded to the rules committee and there weren't votes to pass the whole pack acknowledge and i'm trying to figure it out and who knows what we will get the next time before we are finally going to pass the transportation bill that puts americans to work, get our economy moving and helps long-term deficit reduction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hastings: will the gentleman yield? ms. mccollum: not on my time. i'm reclaiming my time. he has used it and i'm not yielding on my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: i yield to the gentleman from washington 30 seconds. mr. hastings: with all due respect to my good friend and colleague from west virginia, each person may have their own definition of an earmark, but we are governed by the definition of house rules, not the

quakquacking of a duck standard. the bill has been reviewed and clause 9 of house rule 21, the bill does not contain congressional earmarks and i know the gentleman has been very open about his support for earmarks. but we are governed by the rules of the house and it does not. the quacking duck, good comparison is not set here. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rahall: just read the bill. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my colleague from wisconsin, representative baldwin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. ms. baldwin: i rise today in strong support of the st. croix river crossing project authorization act. this past november i had a chance to visit the 181 year old

stillwater bridge and i met with community leaders. after seeing this bridge for myself and listening to arguments, i'm convinced that this legislation is necessary, reasonable and time-sensitive. the bridge project will support thousands of construction jobs in both wisconsin and minnesota. in addition, the new bridge will help shorten travel times reduce traffic congestion and most important improve safety and perhaps it will even save some lives. the stories i heard from people who use this bridge every day are truly startling. i heard sfr some folks who literally fear for their safety and afraid that something similar to the i-35 bridge collapse could happen to them. i heard from others about the long delays and frequent spring closures of the bridge. this is the reality on the ground and it is woefully

unacceptable. we have the power to change this. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and support this bipartisan legislation. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. recognize the gentlelady from minnesota. ms. mccollum: i yield a minute to mr. holt of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. holt holt i thank the gentlelady. you heard from representative mccollum. the dimensions of this how close it is to an existing large bridge and why it is a boondoggle and how this fits in the national picture of wild and scenic rivers. this will would waive the requirements of the wild and scenic rivers act a law that has protected the lower st. croix for nearly 30 years and protect 12,000 miles of rivers in 38 states and puerto rico and the

delaware river in my home state of new jersey. these are special rivers designated under the wild and scenic rivers law. when the resources committee marked up the legislation before us now, i offered a simple amendment. my amendment would have ensured any bridge authorized under this bill be designed and located in a way to minimize the direct and inversus environmental effect. it was defeated. . this bridge is far too large. it is far too expensive. and should congress pass this bill and waive the wild and scenic river protection, it's hard to imagine any future bridge project that won't receive a waiver like this issued by congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.

mr. petri: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: in 1972, the wild an scenic river act was used on this part of the river even though there was an existing bridge on that river. now the safety of that bridge is creating problems for people and the traffic buildup is creating problems for people and actually the national parks service already had met with everybody, found a way to build a new bridge, mitigate the adverse circumstances and an agreement was reached until outside groups who came in here with this dogmatic reverence for the wild and scenic river act basically took it to court, threw everything away and we have now exacerbated the problem. wild and scenic river, on a clear day if the traffic does not produce enough smog because it's backed up getting across the river, you can see an arena, the spoke stacks of a

power plant and maybe the orange jumpsuit of this -- jumpsuits of the county jail in this area. we are abusing the law to stop this progress when this bridge is needed desperately for safety reasons and for traffic reasons in this particular area. there is a reason this bill passed by unanimous consent in the senate. it solves a problem, it's common sense, it's the right thing to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yeels back. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you. i don't think the -- i don't think my constituents consider me an outside group. i yield one minute to mr. grijalva. mr. grijalva: this bill is too controversial and should not be on the suspension calendar. last year the committee held a hearing on the park service, the park service testified against the this bill, it was opposed by a range of other

organizations, fiscal conservatives, tax watchdogs and environmental conservationists. this billwares the wild an scenic river protection and this has never been done. this bridge threatens all 203 rivers in 38 states should not be allowed to proceed and it very much violates the no earmark pledge of the republican majority. congresswoman mccollum and congressman ellis introduced a better bill h.r. 3434 that removes congressional mandates from this bill that is under consideration and has a spening -- spending cap to protect taxpayers. i understand the immediate to create johns and the need to fix our failing infrastructure. there are other 2,000 bridges in minnesota and wisconsin that need immediate, dire attention that would create jobs and it would move the infrastructure

needs of this country in a rr, very direct way and in a very needed way. this is a waste of taxpayers' money and a violation of the wild an scenic rivers act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: this bill has bipartisan support and other things being equal, i think we listen to the representative in whose district the project would exist this district is in the represent -- in the district of my colleague, ron kind, from the state of minnesota and at this time, i would be happy to yield him four minutes. mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker and 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. s that bipartisan bill, it passed the senate under unanimous consent and the legislation before us today merely exempts this river, exempt this is bridge so 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 on its last leg. 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 bridge is lifted an we have a traffic jam miles long waiting for the bridge to open up again. those cars an 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 leg and there's consensus 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. and yes, you will see right next to it, it is a coal-burning power plant on the so-called part of the wild and scenic river. there's very little wild or scenic at this location. that's exactly why it's being sited at this location, along with two midge manufacturing plants. this is another view of the bridge in relationship to the power plant, just south of the spillwater area. this is 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 six years ago, i formed a process called resolve, to get all the stake holders at the table so they could discuss and scrub every option an every alternative that was available. at the enof that five-year

negotiating process, 26 of the 27 stake holders reached an agreement on what needed to be done. the only holdout was the sierra club. that's why we're having this big debate this evening. but even their propezal that came in at the 11th hour would cost as much, take another 10 years to build and cut into the bluff on the minnesota side, cause manager environmental damage. even local and regional offices of the national park services and the fish and wildlife service have signed off on this bridge project. i believe, as do most of the members of the wisconsin and minnesota delegations, as well as all four of the u.s. senators that it's time to build this bridge. both g governors in wisconsin and minnesota want to build this bridge. the departments of transportation in both wisconsin and minnesota want to build this bridge. 92% of the residents in wisconsin want to see this go forward. 88% of the residents in

minnesota and representative bachmann's district, where the bridge is also built want this is 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 and looked at the mitigation that can be done. in 26 of -- and 26 of the 27 stake holders reached this conclusion. it's unfortunate that the wild and scenic river act is being used to bludgeon a major infrastructure project that will create jobs in this region when we need them most. not only 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 has requested is not a viable option. the town of hudson that lies in between -- i ask unanimous

consent for two additional minutes. ms. mccollum: if we can have two additional minutes on our side, i have no oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kind: that is not a viable option. that's under study given the increased traffic load. this bridge that's being proposed considers not only current traffic flow projection but future traffic flow projections over the next 20 to 30 years. i know infrastructure projects can be difficult and contentious but when so many people at the federal, strait -- state and local levels, the agencies as well as private entities, have been at the table for five 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. now, i want to thank the ranking member and the chair of

the transportation committee for your support as well as the chairs of the subcommittee and ranking on the subcommittee for your support. transportation secretary lahood has been strongly in favor of moving this project forward. i also want to thank thed jamrgses, the governors of both wisconsin and minnesota for their interest and their support for this project. one of the reasons it's being brought up at this time is because governor dayton from minnesota says life is short and they need predictability and certainty on what's moving forward. he's been a strong advocate of the bridge but we can't be delaying this for another 16 years which is the 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 make this is legislation necessary, and i encourage my cloogs to support it so we all can move on with our lives. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair wishes to clarify that each side now has an additional two minutes. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: thank you, could you please tell me how many mins i have besides the two. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has six minutes remaining. ms. mccollum: i have six minutes and could i ask how much my friend from wisconsin, mr. petri, has?

as i said in the beginning of this debate this is a bad bill, excuse me, i would like to yield myself two minutes, please. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. his mccollum: as i said at the beginning of this bill, s. 1134 is a bad bill. it reflects bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy. the way the law has been structured that's making this moment happen specifies only one type of bridge can be built, it had to be a bridge that went 65 miles per 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 a large bridge. we just could have had a piece

of legislation that would have allowed an exemption without the specification that was aed in this legislation. i could have stood here and supported that. but i cannot support a $700 million interstate bridge when there's one sykes miles -- six miles away. the stillwater bridge needs to be replaced but it won't be replaced because it's going to be, it's going to be used as a bike and pedestrian bridge which in perpetuity the states of wisconsin and minnesota have to maintain and repair and will continue during the summer to be raised and lifted as boats go through. with that, i reserve the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. petri: i yield five minutes to my colleague from the state of wisconsin, representative duffy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman from wisconsin yielding. i think it's important that we're clear about what bill

truly does. this bill exclusively deems the st. croix river with the wild an scenic rivers act. that's all it does. there's no appropriations aspect new york budgetary authority, we're deeming this bridge consistent with the wild and scenic rivers act. 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 four years. i've only been in this house for a year and a couple of months but i'll 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 and supported this bill. you have vikings and packers supporting this bill. this is a remarkable day. listen, we go so far, you have the a.f.l. coy and local chambers together supporting this bill. this is remarkable. we haven't seen this kind of bipartisanship in the 15 months i have 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. these -- 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, remember that bridge collapsed. we remember seing the devastation. of that bridge when it collapsed. but a rating of 50 out of 100. the bridge we're 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. again, it was built in 1931. it's 82 years old. listen, the people in this region, they need the bridge. they want the bridge. everybody's working together. i want to make sure we're clear about the people that use this. i know the gentlelady from minnesota says it's only serving

a small community in wisconsin, a community of 386 people. you got to explain to me then how 18,000 people go across that bridge every day. are you dealing with the largest growing -- you are dealing with the largest growing county in wisconsin and the 13th largest growing metropolitan area in the country. that's what this bridge connects. people use it. this is a 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 it's $700 million. i think we ought 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 costs that get you upwards of

$600 million, that cost comes from all the mitigation, 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. and so i think it's important, you look at this, this is a shovel-ready project. shovel-ready. we hear it's going to create 6,000 new jobs over the course of three years. and it's far from rough. 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 yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, i would like to say 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 megabridge will also be directly in the minnesota state highway 36. tens of thousands of my constituents along highway 36 will be suffering 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 speakers he has left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has four minutes remaining. mr. petri: mr. speaker, at this

time i would like to ask representative bachmann from minnesota, a strong proponent of the legislation before us, i would like to yield four minutes. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, as representative bachmann approaches the -- ms. mccollum: mr. speaker, as representative bachmann approaches the well, the gentleman from wisconsin has the right to close and i'm wondering how many other speakers he has? the speaker pro tempore: how many speakers does the gentleman have? mr. petri: the one who is before us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has one? ms. mccollum: and are you closing or is representative bachmann closing? mr. petri: i've reserved i think 30 seconds. ms. mccollum: ok. i have one other speaker then after mrs. bachmann. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from minnesota for four minutes. mrs. bachmann: 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, this is -- 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% 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 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 birth place of minnesota. as long as people have been in the state of minnesota, stillwater is the birth place. 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 megabridge. 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, 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 of once -- opportunity, a once in a lifetime magic moment when we have governs that are 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 full square

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. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. ms. mccollum: is the gentleman from wisconsin prepared to close after my last -- after the last speaker? is the gentleman from wisconsin prepared to close after the last speaker? mr. petri: after you finished, yes. ms. mccollum: with that, mr. speaker, i yield as much time as remains to my colleague from minneapolis who knows firsthand the tragedy of what happen when is a bridge collapses and 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 mr. ellison of minneapolis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for four minutes. mr. ellison: you know, mr. speaker, i stood on a highway called highway 7 on friday at a bridge that was rated a 23 out of 100 scale. that bridge, 73 years old, in desperate need of repair, designated, structurally deficient -- designated structurally deficient. but i could go to another bridge over the mississippi river, only a few blocks from where the bridge fell down only a few years ago. but that would be on plymouth avenue and people who know the area, they know plymouth avenue. that bridge, mr. speaker, was and is shut down, you cannot drive a car over it. now, that would only be about

1,398 other bridges that are structurally deficient in minnesota, that need repair right now. you know, i'm sensitive to bridges that need repair. because it wasn't in somebody else's district that i-35 bridge fell. it was in my own. 13 minnesotans went to their reward, 100 had severe back and other injuries. i am incredibly sensitive to the need to fix our states' bridges, our nation's bridges. which is why i am against this project. $700 million bridge when we have structurally deficient bridges all over the state of minnesota, all over the united states. this is not a good use of taxpayer money. and i find it absolutely shocking that all these fiscal conservatives lining up to throw money at this enormously

overexpensive, overhyped megabridge. where are the antiearmark advocates around here? where are the people who call for smaller government? where are the conservatives, small c, who say, let's build a right-sized bridge that makes sense so that other bridges may be fixed around our state? well, i guess all of that only matters, mr. speaker, when it comes to your own little project or earmark project. then all of a sudden it gains a whole lot of other kind of credibility, undiscovered before. you know, mr. speaker, i think it needs to be pointed out that this bridge, this proposed bridge which would carry about 18,000 vehicles a day, that's important. i feel for those folks and i want them to have their bridge and i would support a sensible bridge. but you know what? the i-35 bridge, much talked about tonight, carries a

140,000--- carries 140,000 people every day. 18,000 at $700 million versus the i-35 bridge which cost us about $260 million, was built in one year, less than a year and carries 140,000? this is not a good use of taxpayer money. it soaks up resources that other people need. it violates our scenic and wild river act. this is a bad idea. you know, mr. speaker, i would far prefer if this bill were to go back into committee, go through the regular order, defeat here on suspension, but go back through the committee process so some sensible amendments might be offered so this could be a good, decent project perhaps. but that's not what's happening. suspension has put things that's supposed to be uncontroversial. we're supposed to be here passing post offices. but here we are dealing with what is absolutely a controversial piece of

legislation on the suspension calendar. with no chance to amend. i wish we had that chance. because if we did i would say, we need to come together as a state, as a nation and fix all the bridges of this country, all the bridges of this state and not just one big, fat megabridge. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. petri: mr. speaker, i thank you. i would remind the gentleman that we have come together, the legislation before us, 1134, passed the united states senate by unanimous consent, it has a few people who seem to have raised some concerns here but the fact of the matter is that al franklin, the senator from minnesota, the senator from minnesota, ron johnson, the senator from wisconsin, herb kohl, senators from both parties

have joined together in recognizing the need and importance and urging their colleagues, who unanimously supported this. it's about time we did our job here in the house of representatives. this project has been studied for over 20 years. representatives ron kind, as he said so eloquently in his statement, has consulted with every conceivable interest group in the area. as my colleague, representative bachmann, said, the people in minnesota and wisconsin are wondering when we're going to do our job. this is a major hazard now, an ole bridge, we saw what happened with other bridges in minnesota, the growing population, commuter populations back and forth from the greater minneapolis-st. paul area and it's about time this hazard was removed and we had a bridge that we could be proud of and what was less

intrusive than the one that's there now. i urge my colleagues to pass the legislation before us and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1134? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ms. mccollum: i was up here to be recognized for the recorded vote. i ask for the yeas and nays. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: those supporting a request for the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing.

a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass he bill h r. 3902 as amened. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3902 to amepped the district of columbia home rule act to revise the timing of special elections for local office in the district of columbia. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the squom from district of columbia, ms. norton, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i'll be brief. today we're doing a small and technical change to everyone except the people of the district of columbia who consistently have to live under a rule that costs the voters and the residents of the district of columbia to expend enormous additional dollars to have special elections rather than have having the ornary flexibility to try to combine

their votes at a time in which it would be less expensive. the bill which is, if you will, an omission, under the home rule act, provides for the district of columbia to fill vacancies on the first tuesday, 114 days after the date of such vacancy occurring. unfortunately, this does not provide the flexibility necessary to time special elections concurrently with other general and primary elections. therefore, this small and yet not small to the district of columbia change will allow them to place the election on a tuesday occurring between 70 and 174 days of the vacancy. understand, mr. speaker, if there is an ordinary election occurring within that process

this will cause us to have the election on that date. the bill has been carefully considered and passed unanimously by the committee. additionally it's supported by the entire city council. we'll soon hear from the delegate from the district of columbia, from the mayor and his administration. i want to take just a quick moment to thank the squealt from the district of columbia. it has been, in fact, her work with the committee that made this technical change one that we can all live with for the benefit of the people who host us in the federal city. with that, i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: i want to thank the chairman of the full committee for his generosity. i want to thank my friends on both sides of the committee for their assistance with h.r. 3902, especially the chairman of the full committee, my good friend mr. issa. and the chair of the

subcommittee, mr. garrity. they've worked closely with us on this bill. ial want to thank my good friends on our side, the ranking member of the full committee, mr. cummings and the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. davis, for their considerable support and assistance and mr. chairman, like you, i will be brief, you and i are the only ones here who have a vote in committee on this matter. the district of columbia special election reform act is subject to legislation i introduced last congress which, with the help of the chairman, was passed without objection by the house committee on oversight and reform and with his help, quickly got to the full house for a vote. final enactment of the bill was prevented not by this house but by an anonymous hold in the senate which fortunately no

longer allows such holds in that chamber. this bill is of great importance to the district of columbia, particularly now that the city council is faced with an example of a vacancy that this bill was designed to address and had the bill passed in the senate, the senate could have addressed. however, instead of holding the special election that we are now required to hold on april 3 , the day of the city's primary, the district must hold a special election on a different day, one month after the upcoming primary election, at a cost to the city of an additional $318,000. although this bill therefore cannot take effect before the upcoming special election, the bill will provide the district with the flexibility in the

future to conduct elections without the redundancy of coming to congress and without unnecessary cost to the city. district of columbia special election reform act makes minor changes in the district's home rule charter to provide greater -- to provide the city greater flexibility to conduct special elections so they can -- for vacancies in the office of mayor, attorney general, council chair an other members of the district of columbia council. current law requires that a special election be held on a rigid date, the first tuesday occurring more than 114 days after a vacancy. often the district know -- offering the district no flexibility. instead this bill, and by the way, mr. chairman, there were complaints when the district of columbia had a special election some time ago that the election

had to be held on a religious holiday and the district had to say, we can't do anything about it because they couldn't do it itself. instead this bill would establish a range during which a special election may be conducted. that range would be between a 70 -- between 70 and 174 days, giving the district the necessary flexibility to make a special election coincide with an already scheduled election, redeucing the chance the city would have to schedule costly multiple elections or do so in too short a time period and allowing the city to maximize voter turnout, for example, by not scheduling the election on a religious holiday and to reduce the time period when residents are without representation. mr. speaker, this noncontroversial bill which the committee passed by voice vote provides the district with the

necessary flexibility for holing timely and cost-efficient, cost-effective special leches. it involves no cost whatsoever to the federal government. the district of columbia special election reform act is of little, indeed, no concern, i dare say to the congress. but the d.c. council cannot amend the home rule charter which set up the district as the procedures and structural matter for setting up the district so the mayor and the council had to come to me to introduce this local bill. mr. chairman, you have indicated that such bills are not exactly congressional material. i hope that you and i can work together on a broader d.c. charter reform bill to give the district the authority to amend such local matters, such

trivial local matters on its own, a -- saving congress from having to spend the time, its very valuable time at that, on uniquely local procedural matters affecting only the local government, the district of columbia. i urbling passage of the bill an reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the speaker. seing that there are no further speakers, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. issa: i reserve the balance of my time but i'm prepared to close. ms. norton: i thank the chairman again for the haste with which he was able to get this bill heard today and i am pleased to yield back the remainder of my time, i have no

further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i urge immediate support for this important reform for the district of columbia and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3902 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass house resolution 556 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 556, resolution condemning the government of iran for its continued persecution and im-- persecution, imprisonment and sentencing of youcef nadarkhani on the charge of aposstacy. the speaker pro tempore: the -- pursuant to the rile the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts and another member will control 20 minutes. mr. pitts: i ask that all members have five days to revise and extend their wrarks

and -- remarks and include extraneous material on this measure. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: i want to thank leaders on both sides of the aisle for allowing this measure to come to the floor so promptly. article 18 of the universe declaration of human rights reads, quote, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. this right includes freedom to change his realor belief and freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, or ship and observance, end quote. iran was one of the original signers of the declaration. it has not removed their country from the agreement even through changes of government in october of 2009, yousef nard

-- nadarkhani was shocked to find out that his children were being forced to participate in muslim education at school. the pastor had no violent reaction to this, he only asked that his children be granted their rights to freedom of religion. these rights explicitly include parents' rights to bring up children under the religious teaching of the family. for the crime of asking that his rights be respected, pastor yousef was summoned to a tribunal. there, he was arrested and charged with unlawful protesting. this charge was later changed to aposstacy. after almost a year in prison, pastor yousef was convicted and sentenced to death.

a panel of judges demanded that he recant his faith. when confronted with this demand, pastor you've self stated, i cannot -- youcef stated, i cannot. while it is difficult to peer past the gates of an iran prison, we have some -- iranian prison, we have some evidence that there has been continued pressure on pastor youcef to recant and that there may have been attempts to trap him into blaspheming islam. despite this pressure, he has remained faithful. with our religious freedom protected by the first amendment, it is difficult for any of us to imagine what pastor youcef has been going through. torn away from his children and family, placed in a high security prison, with the likely outcome being the hangman's noose. today we're not asking iran to

respect our laws or our conventions. we're asking them to abide by the agreements at the united nations that they have signed on to. the authorities in iran are not proud of sentencing pastor youcef to death. indeed, the iranian government doesn't even want their own people to know that pastor youcef has been charged for practicing his religion. state media has actually reported that he is charged with rape and extortion, not apostasy. millions of iranians are members of a minority religious group, sunni muslims, christians, jews are all proud to call iran home. they want to live in peace with their neighbors and they want to

follow the law. but they cannot do so when their faith is under assault. this evening i am proud that we have bipartisan support for this resolution. i'm proud to join with representative keith ellison on this resolution. we stand together tonight in support of basic human rights and we appeal to the highest authorities in iran to spare the life of youcef nadarkhani. please let this father return to his wife and his children. further still, let the iranian people freely practice their faith. stand by your commitments to your people and to the world. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> i yield myself as much time as i may consume.

mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this important resolution. i would like to join my colleagues in calling for the immediate release of youcef nadarkhani and all of the other individuals who are held or charged on account of their religion. mr. higgins: i would also like to send a message to pastor youcef's family, please know that the united states stands behind you and we will do all we can to see that youcef is set free. mr. speaker, it is difficult to comprehend in this day and age that there are nations in which one is not free to practice the religion of their choosing. and in iran, freedom of religion is not the only right iranian citizens are denied. the iranian regime also continues to maintain severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association and assembly. tehran maintains strict control over domestic and international media aimed at reducing iranan

contact with the outside world. and individuals and groups risk arrest, torture, imprisonment for political protesting or for cooperating with foreign human rights organizations. women's and minority rights activists and other human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and students are regularly arrested and harassed. and once in prison, detainees are ill treated and tortured. these are just a few examples of the repressive tactics of the iranian regime. we must continue to speak out against these injustices and call on our friends and allies to do the same. mr. speaker, once again i ask iran to immediately release pastor youcef and end its state-sponsored persecution of religious minorities. thank you and i would like to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to a

champion of human rights, the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on homeland security and a member of the hell sink -- hell senky commission -- helsinki commission. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. aderholt: thank you. i want to thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for his work on this and authoring this resolution. i think, as mr. pitts mentioned, both sides of the aisle has worked together on this issue. i know many times the american people get frustrated with what goes on here in washington, but this is a time when democrats and republicans have come together, mr. speaker, and worked together and i think this is certainly a crucial thing that we're doing tonight. a few times, -- times, mr. speaker, do members of congress have the opportunity to work on life and death issues. and i will tell my colleagues tonight, mr. speaker, tonight is one of those issues. as has already been said by mr.

pitts, that this is an issue where a pastor, pastor youcef nadarkhani, is in prison because of his belief. there are few things in life that a government can provide for its citizens that's more important than religious expression and the simple ability to worship as one chooses. and that is why the support of this resolution tonight is so important. house resolution 556. we would ask that the people of this country, mr. speaker, would remember not only pastor youcef, but other members or other citizens of iran and other countries around the world that sit this the same position as pastor youcef does. but tonight we focus on pastor youcef, we ask the leadership in iran to set aside this ruling and release pastor youcef and also that he can be reunited

with his wife and his two young boys that are there in iran. so thank you, mr. speaker, for the opportunity to speak tonight. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota for five minutes. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, tonight we come together, republicans, democrats, muslims, christians and jews, to stand for a very simple idea and that idea is that it ought to be the case that a person can freely profess their faith. it ought to be the case that no matter what your religion is it's dear to you and you should not be punished for professor it publicly, wherever you -- professing it publicly wherever you are. you know, i have not really

sought out a lot of attention for my own faith but i got some of it anyway. and the fact is that i feel so privileged to be an american, where i can, for the first time ever, when i was sworn in, use the book of my faith. and as i heard about the story of pastor youcef, i thought to myself, wow, you know, here i am, a muslim in a christian majority country, free to swear in on a koran when i came to congress and there he is, a christian facing the death penalty simply for professing his faith. you know, pastor youcef, he's a husband, he's a father, he has two young children. they're not even teenagers, they're 7 and years old -- 9 years old. i know they must be incredibly proud of their father who would stand up against forces of repression that would kill him

simply because he professed his faith in christianity. it's wrong. and i don't say it as an american only, i say it as a citizen of this small planet we live on. that every human being should be able to worship and seek the divine as they see fit. pastor youcef deserves to be free. pastor youcef must be released. pastor youcef needs to walk out of that prison, grab his cross, go to his church and lead his congregation in prayer. freely. and he should be able to do it in his hometown, in a local chump -- church and all of us, no matter who you may be on this planet, you must stand for that idea. because if it can't be for one,

it can't really be for any. we have to stand together, people of all faiths, all cultures, all cultures and all backgrounds and ethnicities and say that the right to seek the divine as you see fit must be an essential component of the human experience. i also say a word of caution. and that is that the regime in iran uses opportunities to deprive the people of human rights whenever they claim that there's a threat of war looming. i urge diplomacy because i think that whenever they can claim that they're under military threat, this allows them to crack down on any dissenter and try to use people like pastor youcef as an example so that other people will not freely express themselves and claim

their god-given right, not only to freedom of faith, but to freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial. you know, we come together in this place, this congress that we're all in, and sometimes we debate taxes and sometimes we debate where wridges -- bridges should go and we debate all kinds of stuff but i pray there will never be a debate about the simple right of every individual to worship and seek god as they see fit. or not to. and i just am particularly saddened when i think about how the early muslim community , and iran professes islam, but the first muslims were persecuted in their home of mecca 1,400 years ago and they fled their country and they sought out their freedom of their faith in a distant land ruled by a christian king. in ethiopia. and there they found sanctuary

under that christian king and when their persecuters and tormenters crossed the red sea and came into africa and went to that king with bribery, bribes and said, give us these people back, they are renegades, that christian king listened to those early muslims and said, you know what? these people are under my protection, you can go home. i only wish tonight pastor youcef could get a return of that sanctuary in his own land. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: mr. speaker, at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, chairman of the armed services subcommittee on readiness. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. forbes: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i first want to compliment congressman pitts and congressman ellison for their leadership in this matter. and to recognize tonight, mr.

speaker, as we go through our busy lives, we often take for granted the privilege of living in a nation who's gonched by founders who realize -- governed by founders who realized there were rights that were so fundamental that they could not come from any state or any government, that this to come from the hands from the creator of life itself. at the center of these rights, some would say the foundation of them is the freedom of religion and as we travel around the world and see other citizens who do not have these rights, we may be saddened or even angered, but when the government of any nation of the world is so dangerous to the lives of its citizens that it's willing to rob one of those citizens of life itself merely because he will not recant his faith, we not only feel sadness and anger, but also fear. tonight the citizens of iran should be afraid of such an oppressive and dangerous government. tonight the neighbors of iran should be afraid of such a