Congresswoman McCollum Questions Interior Secretary Ken Salazar

Mr. Secretary, as we have discussed previously, you are familiar with legislation that passed the Senate – S. 1134, the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act.

This bill exempts the St. Croix Crossing Project from the protections of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and it mandates the construction of an extradosed design bridge at a cost of $700 million. This is truly a mega-bridge connecting Minnesota and rural Wisconsin.

I strongly oppose this legislation. It represents bad fiscal policy, bad transportation policy, and bad environmental policy.

The proponents of this bridge are stretching the truth to win support for S. 1134.

I would like to set the record straight on a few issues surrounding this bill.

Last July the National Park Service testified in the Senate that the Department of the Interior cannot support S. 1134 because this mega-bridge has a "Direct and adverse effect" on the St. Croix River.

Does the Interior Department still oppose S. 1134?"

Mr. Secretary, my Minnesota colleague, Rep. Michele Bachmann strongly supports this $700 million mega-bridge. Two weeks ago Congresswoman Bachmann was on TV in the Twin Cities saying, quote, "I have no doubt we'll see this bridge built...We also have the Obama Administration on board..."

Mr. Secretary, I doubt my colleague has been talking to President Obama, so is it your understanding that the Obama Administration is "on board" with granting an exemption to build this $700 million mega-bridge?

I'd like to clear up another misstatement. This week in Roll Call, Representative Bachmann and three other House colleagues wrote an op-ed in support of the $700 million mega-bridge. But the mega-bridge proponents stated in the op-ed that, quote, "The existing bridge cannot be removed or replaced because of its placement on the National Registry of Historic Places..."

Secretary Salazar, is it impossible to remove a bridge on the National Historic Registry?

In fact, with one simple call to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, I received a list of three other Minnesota bridges in 2009 alone that have gone through the full 106 and 4f process, allowing the bridges to be removed and replaced. Everyone knows the existing Stillwater lift bridge is outdated, but I raise this point to highlight another false statement made in support of this project.

For the record, has the National Park Service ever approved a replacement bridge in a Wild and Scenic River, without requiring an Act of Congress?

Mr. Secretary, I have a visual that illustrates the over-sized scale of the proposed bridge. Here, you see the existing lift bridge that carries 18,000 vehicles per day. On the other side you see the existing Interstate 94 bridge that carries 91,000 vehicles per day, it is under capacity and is less than 6 miles from the site of the proposed mega-bridge. You can see the proposed "mega-bridge" is 219 feet above the water, nearly the height of the U.S. Capitol.

Are you aware of another similar exemption ever being granted to build such a massive bridge on a protected river?

So in your opinion, if this legislation becomes law and this mega-bridge is constructed, Congress would establish a legislative precedent that could apply to the 200+ other Wild and Scenic Rivers in the country?

I'd like to thank you for clarifying these misstatements by proponents of this mega-bridge, which is a totally unnecessary monument to the waste of taxpayer money, and a threat to the nation's Wild and Scenic Rivers.