[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 4, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E542-E543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FLORIDA EVERGLADES BRIDGE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 4, 2009

  Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, in yesterday's Washington Times is an 
article about a very controversial bridge project through the Florida 
Everglades.
  This project has been strongly opposed by the Miccosukee Tribe 
through whose land this bridge would be built.
  A federal judge has blasted this projected bridge in a scathing 
opinion, but our Omnibus bill ordered that it be constructed anyway.
  The estimated cost is $225 million, but because almost all federal 
projects are given lowball estimates on the front end, it would 
probably end up costing much, much more. I have discussed this project 
with my friend, Representative Mario Diaz-Balart in whose district this 
bridge project is located.
  He told me he has discussed this bridge with the Army Corps of 
Engineers and all of the interested parties.
  He believes that, while a bridge may have to be built at some point, 
that other, cheaper alternatives should be considered first.
  I agree with Representative Balart, for whom I have the greatest 
respect.
  I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues and other 
readers of the Record the following article about this project from the 
Washington Times.

[[Page E543]]

                      [From the Washington Times]

                `Bridge to Nowhere' OK'd for Everglades

                           (By Stephen Dinan)

       A provision buried inside Congress' giant spending bill 
     would overturn a federal court order, discard part of 
     environmental law and reject an Indian tribe's plea, forcing 
     the government to build a bridge in Everglades National Park 
     that a federal judge declared ``a complete waste of taxpayer 
     dollars.''
       The project is being opposed by the Miccosukee tribe, and 
     U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro called it an 
     ``environmental bridge to nowhere.'' She ordered the 
     government in November to comply with federal environmental 
     laws, which would further delay the long-controversial 
     project.
       But lawmakers inserted a provision in the 1,123-page 
     omnibus spending bill that is pending in the Senate. It 
     waives those laws and in sweeping language orders the Army 
     Corps of Engineers to begin building the bridge ``immediately 
     and without further delay.''
       Those pushing for the bridge, which would elevate the 
     Tamiami Trail roadway to allow water to flow freely into the 
     Everglades, say Congress' urgency is justified.
       ``The project has been studied and delayed over and over 
     again for 20 years. Meantime, one of the world's great 
     treasures continues to die,'' said Dan McLaughlin, a 
     spokesman for Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat. ``The 
     National Academy of Sciences, in a report to Congress, says 
     the bridge is needed to allow water north of the road to flow 
     south into the Everglades. Senator Nelson supports it. It's 
     absolutely essential to restoring the `Glades. No bridge--no 
     water flow. No water--no Everglades.''
       But the Miccosukee, who went to court last year to stop the 
     bridge, are crying foul, saying it's hypocritical of Congress 
     to ignore its own environmental laws.
       The tribe also said that overturning a court order smacks 
     of the broken treaties and poor treatment Indians suffered in 
     years past.
       ``You tell the tribe to follow the law, but when the tribe 
     follows the law and wins, you throw them out of court. It's 
     really immoral and unconscionable,'' said Dexter Lehtinen, an 
     attorney for the tribe. His wife is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 
     a Florida Republican who Mr. Lehtinen said recuses herself 
     from these matters.
       The $212 million bridge is part of a complex and 
     contentious decades-old plan to try to restore the free flow 
     of water through the Everglades, the swamp that covers much 
     of southern Florida and is considered critical to the state's 
     ecosystem. Decades of development and road-building have 
     ruined the usual water flows.
       Plans to restore water flow have changed repeatedly, and 
     parts have been caught up in litigation, including the 
     proposal to build a one-mile-long bridge along the northern 
     park boundary at the Tamiami Trail, or U.S. Highway 41, which 
     backers say would help the free flow.
       The Miccosukee trace their time in the Everglades back to 
     the 1700s when they moved to avoid encroaching upon European 
     settlers farther north, in what is now Georgia, Alabama and 
     northern Florida. They gained U.S. government recognition in 
     1962 and have both official reservation land and other land 
     in perpetual lease.
       Rather than the bridge, the tribe wants the government to 
     instead clean out culverts and build swells that the 
     Miccosukee say better and more cheaply restore water flow.
       ``The judge found that the likelihood is that people in 
     Miami-Dade County are going to be flooded, there's not going 
     to be any benefit to Everglades National Park, and Miccosukee 
     land is going to be further damaged,'' said Terry Rice, owner 
     of an environmental services company and a former head of the 
     Army Corps of Engineers district that includes the 
     Everglades, who served as a witness for the tribe in court.
       ``Why do you say you have to build a project and you're not 
     going to abide by any laws unless you can't abide by the 
     laws?'' Mr. Rice said.
       The judge apparently agreed.
       In issuing her preliminary injunction against the bridge, 
     she said it won't begin to help water flow until the corps 
     takes other steps, which are still in the planning stages. 
     Given that, the judge said, rushing to build the project 
     amounts to ``no more than construction of an `environmental 
     bridge to nowhere' that accomplishes (and harms) nothing but 
     which would be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.''
       Backers acknowledged that tacking this sort of provision 
     onto a spending bill was unusual, but said the bridge has 
     widespread support, and only the tribe--and now the federal 
     judge--objected.
       Still, it could not be learned Monday who approved the 
     insertion of the provision that forces the bridge to be built 
     into the $410 billion spending bill making its way through 
     Congress.
       The Miccosukee, in an ad last week, blamed House Speaker 
     Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the 
     measure. The tribe called it ``a lamentable blast from the 
     past in American history.''
       But both leaders' offices said they weren't responsible.
       ``We had nothing to do with this,'' said Jim Manley, a 
     spokesman for Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat.
       ``This language was included at the request of the Bush 
     administration and has bipartisan support. Neither the 
     speaker nor her office played a role in its inclusion,'' said 
     Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Mrs. Pelosi, California 
     Democrat.
       The Army Corps of Engineers also said it wasn't the source.
       ``To our knowledge the corps did not promote or draft this 
     language,'' said spokeswoman Lt. Col Elizabeth Robbins.
       The Interior Department did not return messages for 
     comment.
       Spokesmen for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, 
     and Rep. Norm Dicks, Washington Democrat, the chairmen of the 
     Senate and House subcommittees that wrote the parts of the 
     bill funding the Interior Department, didn't have a comment 
     Monday night.
       A spokeswoman said Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, a Florida 
     Republican whose district could be affected, was unavailable, 
     while a spokeswoman for Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida 
     Republican, said the senator did not request the provision, 
     but she said she couldn't say whether he supported it.
       Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat whose 
     district is also affected, does support moving forward, said 
     spokesman Jonathan Beeton.
       ``The congresswoman supports this project because it is the 
     essential next step in Everglades restoration,'' Mr. Beeton 
     said. ``This view is supported by the National Academy of 
     Sciences. At the same time, she understands the concerns and 
     the deep commitment of the Miccosukee Tribe to the 
     restoration of the Everglades.''
       Several Democrats pointed to the Bush administration's 
     support for the provision. But that came in his fiscal 2009 
     budget, submitted nine months before the judge ruled that the 
     environmental laws hadn't been followed.

                          ____________________