On the recordFebruary 29, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation. This bill is too controversial and should not be on the suspension calendar. Last year the majority held a hearing on the issue in the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. The Park Service testified against the bill. It was also opposed by a range of national organizations--from fiscal conservatives and tax watchdogs to environmental conservationists. This bill, it has already been stated, would create the first ever exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for construction of a bridge in a protected river. This has never been done, and the question is, why now? This precedent for a $700 million mega-bridge that threatens all 203 protected 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 Ellison introduced a better bill, H.R. 3434, that removes congressional mandate from this bill that is under consideration and sets a spending cap to protect taxpayers. I understand the need to create jobs. I understand the need to fix our falling infrastructure. There are over 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 very, very direct way and in a very needed way. This is a waste of taxpayers' money and a violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.





