After Earmark Debate, House Votes to Replace Stillwater Bridge WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Thursday to allow construction of a new $700 million bridge between Minnesota and Wisconsin, a project that has drawn comparisons to earmarks and required a Congressional exemption from a landmark environmental law. The vote comes after months of impasse between lawmakers supporting the project, who say a new bridge is needed to replace the current outdated structure, and critics like Representative Betty McCollum, Democrat of Minnesota, who called it a "monument to government waste." The vote was 339 to 80, with 16 Republicans and 64 Democrats voting against the measure. Representative Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican and former presidential candidate, sponsored the measure, which authorizes the construction of a four-lane bridge across the St. Croix River connecting Oak Park Heights, Minn., a town of about 4,000 people in her district, to the unincorporated township of Houlton, Wis., which also has about 4,000 residents. This is it! After decades of bureaucratic holdups and frivolous lawsuits from radical environmentalists, the people of the St. Croix River Valley finally have their bridge," Mrs. Bachmann said in a statement. The bill did not authorize financing for the bridge, whose cost will be split by Minnesota and Wisconsin, drawing from general pools of state and federal transportation money. Minnesota's governor, Mark Dayton, had said his state would lose $160 million in federal money if Congress did not act to exempt the project from the environmental regulations. But critics of the project zeroed in on the fact that the legislation included an $8 million offset that had been specifically designated for the project in a 2005 transportation bill. They said that amounted to an earmark - and used it to attack Mrs. Bachmann, who has long railed against the legislative gimmick, which lets lawmakers attach pet projects to bills. "It may not fit the Congressional definition of an earmark, but it is a project which specifically benefits the bill sponsor's district," said Erich Zimmerman, a policy analyst with Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. In a debate on the bill Wednesday, Representative Nick Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia, said: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, by golly, it's probably a duck. This is an earmark. Mrs. Bachmann rejected that criticism. Newly drawn Congressional boundaries will put the project in the district represented by Ms. McCollum, who had advocated for a smaller bridge estimated to cost several million dollars less. She continued to express her concern after the vote Thursday. "Congress" passage of this $700 million bridge bill doesn't diminish its excessive cost, size, negative effect on Highway 36 traffic congestion, or its adverse impact on the St. Croix River," Ms. McCollum said. The project had bipartisan support from members of the Minnesota and Wisconsin Congressional delegations. Organized labor also backed the bill. The Senate approved a similar bill in January. The measure will now head to President Obama's desk, where he is expected to sign it into law. It is the first time in the 40-year history of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that Congress has exempted a bridge project from requirements of the act, experts said. One environmentalist group said the vote set a bad precedent. Carol Hardin, chairwoman of the Sierra Club's St. Croix Valley Interstate Group in Hudson, Wis., said lawmakers overrode environmental laws and placed development over preserving the natural resources of the river. "They chose to build an excessively large, excessively expensive bridge when a smaller alternative that would have protected the views and pristine nature of the river would have been better," Ms. Hardin said. The Stillwater Bridge was built in 1931, and was intended for light traffic. But now it carries 16,000 cars per day, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Almost everyone agreed that a new bridge was needed, but opponents said that state and federal officials rejected plans for a smaller, less costly bridge. Taxpayers for Common Sense said the new bridge would require $160 million or more in federal financing and consume a significant portion of Minnesota's and Wisconsin's federal highway funding, leaving less for other worthy projects. The group points out that two states have more than 2,000 structurally deficient bridges. The bill also goes further than simply allowing the two states to build the project, the group said, in that it dictates the type of bridge that must be built. "It seems unique to us that Congress would be mandating to Minnesota and Wisconsin the type of bridge that they have to build if they want to move forward with this project," Mr. Zimmerman said.