Rob Bishop: “In 1972, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was used on this part of the river, even though there was already an existing…”

“In 1972, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was used on this part of the river, even though there was already an existing bridge on that river. Now the safety of that bridge is creating problems for people, and the traffic buildup is creating problems for people. Actually, the National Park Service already had met with everybody, found a way to build a new bridge and mitigate the adverse circumstances. An agreement was reached until outside groups, who came in here with this dogmatic reverence for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, basically took it to court, threw everything away, and we have now exacerbated the problem. Wild and scenic river? On a clear day, if indeed the traffic does not produce enough smog that has backed up because we are trying to get across this river, you can actually see a marina, the smokestacks of a power plant that is in the neighborhood of a sewage plant, and maybe even the orange jumpsuits of the county jail that is in this area. We are abusing the law to stop this progress, stop this bridge that is needed desperately for safety reasons and for traffic reasons in this particular area. There is a reason this bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate. It solves a problem, it's common sense, and it's the right thing to do. Ms. McCOLLUM. In response, I don't think my constituents consider me an outside group. With that, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).”