UPDATED: McCollum Questions Interior Secretary Ken Salazar About St. Croix River Crossing Project

Editor's Note: Below are the questions Rep. Betty McCollum asked Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar during the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, followed by his response.

To view the exchange, scrub to the 59 minute mark of the video embedded above this post. 

Fourth District Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) participated in the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior Thusday afternoon, regarding the fiscal year 2013 budget.

During the hearing, McCollum questioned Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on 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," she said. "This is truly a mega-bridge connecting Minnesota and rural Wisconsin. 

“I strongly oppose this legislation,” McCollum said. “It represents bad fiscal policy, bad transportation policy and bad environmental policy. 

McCollum said the proponents of this bridge "are stretching the truth" to win support for Senate 1134. “I would like to set the record straight on a few issues surrounding this bill.”

McCollum: 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?

Salazar: “Our position remains unchanged. That a wild and scenic river is a wild and scenic river and the position of the park service as articulated a year ago is the position of the (Interior) department. We have met with the delegations from the two states, and Secretary LaHood and I have offered to work as part of a work group among the delegations to see whether an alternative can be found. 

McCollum: 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?

Salazar: “That is not my understanding. My understanding is that Secretary LaHood and I offered to work with the Congressional delegation from both states to see whether we could find a common ground based on the alternative, which you have proposed, and the alternative other members of the congressional delegation have proposed.”

McCollum: I’d like to clear up another misstatement. This week in Roll Call, Rep. 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? 

Salazar: “I think it is probably possible. It may take an act of Congress, and I don’t know what else, but there are probably ways in which it can be done although it obviously would be a difficult climb.”

McCollum: 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.

Is there precedent for the National Park Service granting approval to replace bridges in Wild and Scenic Rivers when the new bridge is on the same or a similar footprint as the existing bridge? Are you aware of another similar exemption ever being granted to build such a massive bridge on a protected river? 

Salazar: “I have not studied the information to be able to answer that question.”

McCollum: 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-plus other Wild and Scenic Rivers in the country?

Salazar: “The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is, in fact, the law; and we abide by that law. So the statement of the National Park Service where it raised it’s concern about the construction of this bridge is accordance with existing the law.”