[Senate Hearing 110-1263] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 110-1263 IMPROVING THE FEDERAL BRIDGE PROGRAM: INCLUDING AN ASSESSMENT OF S. 3338 AND H.R. 3999 ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/ congress.senate ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 88-907 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 __________ COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 OPENING STATEMENTS Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1 Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3 Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 7 Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 9 Sanders, Hon. Bernie, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..... 9 Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Deleware, prepared statement............................................. 172 Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared statement................................... 172 WITNESSES Coleman, Hon. Norm, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 10 Oberstar, Hon. James L., A Representative In Congress from the State of Minnesota............................................. 13 Madison, Hon. Thomas J. Jr., Administrator, Federal Highway Administration................................................. 18 Prepared statement........................................... 21 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Lautenberg....................................... 31 Senator Cardin........................................... 33 Senator Sanders.......................................... 36 Senator Inhofe........................................... 37 Siggerud, Katherine, Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues United States Government Accountability Office.......... 41 Prepared statement........................................... 43 Response to an additional question from Senator Lautenberg... 67 Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 68 Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders...... 68 Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 69 Herrmann, Andrew, P.E., F.Asce, Managing Partner, Hardesty And Hanover, Llp................................................... 91 Prepared statement........................................... 94 Response to an additional question from Senator Lautenberg... 102 Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 102 Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders....... 103 Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 104 John Krieger, Staff Attorney, Federal Tax And Budget Policy, United States Public Interest Research Group................... 106 Prepared statement........................................... 108 Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin....... 145 Responses to additional questions from Senator Sanders....... 145 Gary Ridley, Director, Oklahoma Department of Transportation..... 147 Prepared statement........................................... 150 Responses to additional questions from: Senator Lautenberg....................................... 160 Senator Sanders.......................................... 161 Senator Inhofe........................................... 162 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Article, Star-Tribune, Clue on 35W bridge might have been missed. 174 Statements: Malcolm T Kerley, P.E., Chair, Highway Subcommittee on Bridged and Structures American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials....................... 177 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation.................. 183 Oklahoma Department of Transportation........................ 187 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.................................................. 194 IMPROVING THE FEDERAL BRIDGE PROGRAM: INCLUDING AN ASSESSMENT OF S. 3338 AND H.R. 3999 ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Washington, DC. The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, Sanders, Klobuchar, Barrasso OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Boxer. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will come to order. During rush hour, just over a year ago on August 1st, the I-35 West Bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, sending dozens of cars into the Mississippi. This tragedy claimed the lives of 13 people. It has also served as an urgent wake-up call that we cannot neglect our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. I just want to say, we are so fortunate that Senator Klobuchar is on this Committee. We would never have not gone into this topic as deeply as we did because of what happened. But having her on this Committee has been a tremendous asset. I just want the people of her State to know that. The National Transportation Safety Board has not yet issued the results of its investigation into the Minnesota bridge collapse. But we do know that additional resources are needed to repair and replace aging bridges and highways across our Nation. It shouldn't take a tragedy like the one in Minneapolis to remind us that the safety of our bridges, highways and other infrastructure can be a matter of life and death. Yet today we are facing a crisis with the Highway Trust Fund that we use to repair our roads and bridges, as well as invest in new infrastructure. But this one, this particular crisis we can prevent, if we can restore the $8 billion to the Highway Trust Fund and prevent cuts to highway spending nationwide. I have been trying to get that done, Senator Reid has been trying to get that done, Senator Murray has been trying to get that done, and I know we have strong bipartisan support. But we have several Republicans who have objected to making that fix. The Highway Trust Fund's balances have dropped quickly over the past couple of months. According to FHWA, revenues have dropped from $4.2 billion at the end of July to less than $1.4 billion at the beginning of September. This drop is due to the fact that Americans are driving less, and the funds generated by the gas tax have been much lower than previously anticipated. This leaves us with a precarious situation where the fund is now unable, where the FHWA is now unable to fully reimburse States for critical highway construction projects. FHWA is going to slow down the repayment of States if we can't come up with the funds to restore the shortfall. This means thousands of jobs are lost and important transportation improvements are stalled or canceled. If we don't fix the trust fund shortfall now, the highway account is expected to experience as much as a $3.1 billion shortfall in 2009, which would result in an approximately 30 percent reduction in funds. According to my California Department of Transit, if no action is taken to avert the shortfall, my State of California would experience a potential revenue reduction of $930 million. This means a loss of 32,315 jobs in my State. And California is certainly not alone. Every one of our States will suffer. That is why today, before we get to this hearing, I call upon all my colleagues, my Republican colleagues, who have objected to this, to focus on the communities that will lose jobs and the families that will be hurt if we don't fix this Highway Trust Fund. Today our specific focus is the State of repair of our bridges. Half of all our bridges in this Country were built before 1964. The average age of a bridge in the National Bridge Inventory is 43 years old. Of approximately 600,000 bridges nationwide, 26 percent are considered deficient. This means we need to make significant investments just to maintain our bridges at safe functioning levels, followed by even larger investments over the next 20 to 30 years to completely replace aging bridges. Since its creation, the Highway Bridge Program has provided approximately $77 billion for bridge repair and replacement. The most recent highway reauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU, included a total of $21.6 billion in Federal funding for the Highway Bridge Program with an average of $4.3 billion in Federal funding provided per year. Unfortunately, this amount of funding is not enough to maintain our bridges in a State of good repair. According to DOT's conditions and performance report, the average annual cost to eliminate the repair backlog and fix other problems that are expected to develop between now and 2024 will be $12.4 billion annually from all levels of government. Senator Klobuchar and Chairman Oberstar have worked together to address problems with our Nation's bridges by introducing legislation entitled The National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008. The House version of this legislation, H.R. 3999, was approved by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 357 to 55 in the House of Representatives on July 24th. This legislation makes changes to the requirements set forth in the Highway Bridge Program, while authorizing a one-time additional $1 billion for bridge repair and replacement. I have to point out to you, Congressman Oberstar, that that $1 billion is an interesting number. Because a few days ago, Vice President Cheney and President Bush announced they are sending $1 billion to Georgia. That is not Atlanta, Georgia. That is the country of Georgia. And that is the cost of the war they just fought. The reason I bring this up is it seems that there is no hesitation when there is a need abroad. Now, the fact is that war in Georgia cost $1 billion. What about our friends in Europe pitching in? But no, we are sending $1 billion. So frankly, I think the fact that your bill just picked that billion dollars for bridge repair is something America ought to understand. We need to start spending money here. One key provision in the legislation is the requirement for the DOT to develop a national risk-based priority system for the repair, rehabilitation or replacement of each structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridge. This Committee is releasing a GAO report today on the Highway Bridge Program entitled Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for A More Focused and Sustainable Program. In this report, GAO found that the current Highway Bridge Program does not have clearly defined goals that encourages States to reduce their overall number of deficient bridges. By developing national risk-based criteria and requiring each State to develop their own performance plans based on the risk-based priority system, the Federal Government should be able to focus investment on those bridges that are in most need of repair. There are States like California who have specific needs like seismic retrofitting, which should be considered a priority in a risk-based system. We need to invest more in our Nation's bridges, but we also need to insure that Federal funds dedicated to bridge repair and replacement are well spent and used as intended. We all know we have great challenges before us. But at the end of the day, I believe we can come together to set these priorities. If we are going to keep our people safe, our economy strong and healthy, we need to make a serious investment in our infrastructure. And it begins with safety. Now, here is the way we do our hearings. I just want to let everyone know. I would be calling on my Ranking Member, my friend, Senator Inhofe. Then we would go next to Senator Klobuchar, then we go next to a Republican and next to Bernie, then we would open it up. Senator. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses, and I will single out Congressman Oberstar. We go all the way back to when we served together on that committee in the House in 1987. At that time, if you remember, you were the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I was, I think, the only commercial pilot on the committee. We really got busy and solved a lot of things and that has endured all the way to this day. I have to say to you, Madam Chairman, I have had extensive conversations just this week with Congressman Oberstar, because we both share the concern, the crisis in the Highway Trust Fund. It is going to have to be resolved. Also, welcome my colleague, Senator Coleman, who has been very busy the last week, and who worked tirelessly to secure emergency funding after the collapse of the I-35 bridge last year. I was honored to help him and his State in time of need. He is one of the primary requestors, along with the Chairman and me, of the GAO study that will be released today. Also I want to extent my warm welcome to Gary Ridley. He will be on the third panel. Gary Ridley, hold your hand up and make sure they know who you are. He is unquestionably the best director anywhere in America. I recall when a Democrat Governor was elected, Madam Chairman, I called and said, I only have one request. You have the best director there, I don't know whether he is a Democrat or Republican, but he is the best, and of course he is still on the job. We work all kinds of hours, I have called him in the middle of the night, he has called me in the middle of the night. And he is very much concerned about this. We want to really bring this out. Even though this is a bridge hearing, I say to my good friend, Gary Ridley, we want to talk about the crisis that we are faced with right now and what our options are. Finally, I want to welcome our new FHWA Administrator, Thomas Madison. I talked to him before this meeting. He may be having second thoughts right now. But this is his initial meeting and we are glad to have him here. I am a little concerned. This hearing is a repeat of a hearing we had in September of last year. We have been having about one highway hearing a month as we gear up for reauthorization. This pace doesn't allow us the opportunity to retread the same territory. In fact, most of the organizations represented at the last bridge hearing are here again today. This hearing is designed to look at both the bridge program as a whole and Congressman Oberstar's bridge bill, which passed in the House and was introduced in the Senate by Senator Klobuchar. Since this is otherwise the same hearing we had last year, I will focus my comments on this proposed legislation. I believe this is not the right bill at the right time. It adds, in my opinion, and I have talked to a lot of the people in our State of Oklahoma, more red tape, to a portion of the highway program that already has many bureaucratic hurdles that States don't like. In fact, some States transfer money, since I believe this happened in the State of Oklahoma, from that account, the bridge program, to other, more flexible programs in order to have more flexibility in fixing their bridges. We are a year from the expiration of SAFETEA. Any major policy changes should be handled in the context of reauthorization. Otherwise, they distract from the overall goal of getting a comprehensive bill done on time. I agree the current bridge program needs revisioned. But this bill moves, I believe, in the wrong direction. I am concerned that in the wake of the Minnesota tragedy and series of high profile news stories about the poor condition of the Nation's bridges that we are disproportionately focusing on a single aspect of the system. It is certainly true that our bridges are in terrible disrepair. As I have noted before, my State of Oklahoma, I will wait until Director Ridley is testifying and ask him this question, I think today we have the largest number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in the entire Country. We, I think, are now dead last in the condition of our bridges. We used to be tied with two other States. So we are very much concerned about this. Let me emphasize again that I agree the existing bridge program needs work to make it more usable for States, but with all due respect to my colleagues, this bill doesn't do that and it should be done in the context of a larger reauthorization bill. I said the same thing, Madam Chairman, to some of my Republicans yesterday when I addressed the conference. I said, talking about the Highway Fund crisis that we have, they wanted to get other things accomplished by adding amendments to this. I said, that is fine, we need improvement. But in the wake of the 2009 reauthorization bill, that is where we ought to be addressing these new problems that exist. In closing, I want to comment on the precarious situation as far as the Highway Trust Fund. Chairman Boxer and I have been working for several months to get a fix on the Senate floor. Despite our best efforts, we have officially bumped up against a hard deadline, because I understand that as early as this week, the Secretary will begin not fully reimbursing States. On Monday, the Oklahoma Transportation Commissioner has decided to delay $80 million of ready to go projects, they have already been set out, and people hired, ready, picks and shovels, ready to go to work, and perhaps another $40 million if Congress does not act this week on the shortfall. So it has to be done. I suspect other States have the same problems. I know that in talking to Congressman Oberstar about this, he shares my concern over this crisis that we are faced with. Inaction not only means critical projects not getting done, but construction workers are going to be laid off. We don't want this to happen. So those of us who have been around a while remember when we used to always have a surplus. You remember that, Congressman Oberstar, we had surpluses in the Highway Trust Fund up until the time, long after I left and came over to the Senate. I remember objecting very much, back in 1998, when they took $8 billion out of the Highway Trust Fund and put it into the general fund in the 1998 Balanced Budget Act, I believe it was. I said at that time, this is a mistake. It is less than honest, because people, I think probably the most popular tax we have is the tax you pay at the pump, because people know and believe it is going to go to improve our road structure, our bridges and all these things. But it is totally dishonest to take money out of that, and those people are finding out now that that money is being used for other purposes. So I think there is a fix there. I wholeheartedly endorse it. I have talked to my colleagues about it, and I think that we need to undo the damage that was done back in 1998. We have to at least temporarily fix, the crisis would be behind us, the immediate crisis. I am hoping we will be able to do that, Madam Chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma Thank you Madame Chairman. I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses. I enjoy working with my good friend Jim Oberstar, who is here with us today, and I look forward to negotiating out the finer points of the next highway bill with him. When I was first elected to Congress back in 1987, Jim was my Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee on what was then the Committee on Public Works and Transportation and as an aviator, I was a very active member of the subcommittee and got to know Jim pretty well. We may have even taken a few fact finding trips together. I also would like to welcome my colleague Senator Coleman, who worked tirelessly to secure emergency funding for the collapsed I-35 bridge last year. I was honored to help him in his states time of need. He is also one of the primary requesters, along with the Chairman and me, of a GAO study being released today on how to improve the Highway Bridge program Also, I want to extend a warm welcome to Gary Ridley, whom I believe is the best highway director in the country. I have had many a phone call with Gary at odd hours of the day and night and I can confirm that he is always available and on top of things. In fact, he and I have been in close contact since it became clear that the Highway Trust Fund could be broke as early as this week. This morning, he is representing the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. His testimony on how a stand alone Bridge bill will negatively influence my State's capital bridge expenditures while ignoring the vast needs of the rest of highway system is consistent with comments I have received from other States. Finally, welcome to our new FHWA Administrator Thomas Madison. I regret that your first appearance before our Committee as Administrator has to be under crisis circumstances, but I understand that you are drinking as fast as you can from the fire hose and I am confident that together we will find a satisfactory solution to the HTF crisis. I'm a little concerned this hearing is a repeat of a hearing we had September of last year. We have been having about one highway hearing a month as we gear up for reauthorization. This pace does not allow us the opportunity to retread the same territory. In fact most of the organizations represented at the last bridge hearing are here again today. This hearing is designed to look at both the bridge program as a whole and Congressman Oberstar's bridge bill, which passed the House and introduced in the Senate by Senator Klobuchar. Since this is otherwise the same hearing we had last year, I will focus my comments on this proposed legislation. I believe this is the wrong bill at the wrong time. It adds more red tape to a portion of the highway program that already has so many bureaucratic hurdles that states do not like to use this program to repair their bridges. In fact, some states transfer money from the bridge program to other more flexible programs in order to more effectively fix their bridges. We are a year from the expiration of SAFETEA. Any major policy changes should be handled in the context of reauthorization. Otherwise they distract us from the overall goal of getting a comprehensive bill done on time. I agree the current bridge program needs revision, but this bill moves in exactly the wrong direction. It further handcuffs the states ability to address its greatest bridge priorities. I'm concerned that in the wake of the Minnesota tragedy and a series of high profile news stories about the poor condition of the nation's bridges, we are disproportionately focusing on a single aspect of the system. It is certainly true our bridges are in terrible disrepair. As I have noted before, my State of Oklahoma has the distinction of having the greatest number of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges in the country. I agree we must rework the bridge program, but we cannot let the needs of bridges overshadow the overwhelming needs of the rest of our highway system. Let me emphasize once again that I agree the existing bridge program needs work to make it more useable for States, but with all due respect to my Minnesota colleagues, this bill does not do that and it should be done in the context of the larger reauthorization bill. It is, in my opinion, counterproductive to try and fix our crumbling infrastructure through piecemeal efforts. We need a comprehensive reform which should be done through a reauthorization bill next year. In closing, I want to comment on the precarious situation we find ourselves in with respect to the solvency of the HTF. Chairman Boxer and I have been working for several months to get a fix to the Senate floor. Despite our best efforts, we have officially bumped up against a hard deadline because I understand that as early as this week the Secretary will begin not fully reimbursing States. On Monday, the Oklahoma Transportation Commissioners decided to delay $80 million of ready to go projects for at least a month with a possible additional $40 million if Congress does not act this week to shore up the shortfall. I suspect that other States have had to make that difficult decision too. Inaction not only means critical projects are not getting done, but construction workers are going to be laid off. We must act this week and I am working to convince my colleagues of the urgency of the situation and would encourage all those listening who understand the importance of a robust transportation infrastructure program to contact their Senators and urge them to support H.R. 6532, which will restore $8 billion taken from the HTF in 1998. This is not a long term fix but it will give us time to come up with a permanent funding fix. Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. Senator Inhofe. Were you going to go through with opening statements first? Senator Boxer. Yes, I am. Senator Inhofe. OK, that is fine. Senator Boxer. I wanted to point out, since my dear friend, Senator Inhofe, said that this was a repeat, this is not a repeat of another hearing. We are considering legislation to address the problem of these bridges. And that legislation is S. 338 by Senator Klobuchar and H.R. 3999 by Congressman Oberstar. We are absolutely looking at specific legislation. Now, it may not be that my friend wants to deal with this this year, but others of us do. So we will find out today where we stand on that, and we are going to go to Senator Klobuchar. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing. I want to welcome my two colleagues, Senator Coleman and then also Congressman Oberstar. You should know, Madam Chair, that Congressman Oberstar's dad and my grandpa were both miners in northern Minnesota, and when you think of Congressman Oberstar's strong advocacy on behalf of transportation, when you are up north, strong means boisterous, loud and with a lot of gritted teeth. And he gets things done. I also want to thank you, Chairwoman, for the support you and the Committee have given me in the State of Minnesota, throughout our bridge collapse, and Senator Inhofe, of the 35W collapse. This led to the process of us bringing the companion bill to the House bill S. 3338 before you today. Our bridge, as you can see, and everyone remembers this photo, fell down on August 1st, 2007. As I said that day, a bridge just shouldn't fall down in the middle of America, not an eight-lane highway and not a bridge that is six blocks from my house, not a bridge that I drive my 13 year old daughter over every single day. I am pleased to share with the Committee that great progress has been made in rebuilding the 35W bridge. In fact, a new bridge already spans the river. It is expected to open as early as next week, well ahead of schedule, if you can imagine getting this done in this time, because of the help of Congress and the leadership we had here, we are going to see cars and trucks once again crossing the Mississippi River. We must get to the bottom of why this bridge fell down. Evidence is accumulating that the bridge's condition has been deteriorating for years, that it was a subject of growing concern with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This wasn't a bridge over troubled waters, this was a troubled bridge over water. I will say, as a former prosecutor, I know we must wait until the facts in evidence are in before we reach a verdict. Mark Rosenker, the Chair of the NTSB, said the investigation is nearing completion and that a final report will be ready for public release within a couple of months. He has also recently said that photographs of the gusset plates which were one half inch thick and warped were stressed by the weight of the bridge and should have been a key indicator to the dangerous State of the I-35W bridge. We look forward to this report, giving us a definitive answer of why it collapsed, but also how inspections could have been improved, which gets to the bill we are talking about today. I would say that the bridge collapse in Minnesota, if there is any silver lining, it has shown that America needs to come to grips with broader questions about our deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked Americans into a realization of how important it is to invest in safe, sound infrastructure. I would also add, just to bring I home, that because we inspected all of our bridges in Minnesota after this happened, we learned that another bridge of similar design in St. Cloud, Minnesota, in the heart of a major regional city, is now closed with plans to replace it, with the same problems with the gusset plates. According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structural deficient or functionally obsolete. There is virtually no way to drive in and out of our State or any other State in this Country without driving over a structurally deficient bridge at some point. When the average age of a bridge in this Country is 43 years and 25 percent of all American bridges are in need of serious repair, it is time to act. I think the GAO study is going to be interesting today. I understand it is going to talk about the funding criteria that should be looked at, the transferring of the bridge program funds, the disincentives that exist for States to reduce their inventories, and the long-term trend of more and more bridges in need of repair. The two things that I believe we need to do is first of all, as you brought up, Madam Chair, is to adequately fund the Highway Fund, the trust fund. I know we are working on that in Congress. I think it is unfortunate that Senator Gregg and others have been holding this up. We must get this done. The second thing, Senator Durbin and I and Senator Coleman is a co-sponsor, have introduced the companion bill to Congressman Oberstar's bill. This legislation would require the Federal Highway Administration and State transportation departments to develop plans to begin repairing and replacing bridges that pose the greatest risk to the public. It would require the Federal Highway Administration to develop a new bridge inspection standard and procedures that would use the best technology available. Because some States have been transferring their bridge repair funds to highway maintenance programs for things like wildflower planting or road construction, this bill would also ensure that Federal bridge funds can only be transferred when a State no longer has bridges on the national highway system that are eligible for replacement. Finally, it would authorize an additional $1 billion for the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges that are part of the national highway system. This is just a start, but it is a good start. If the President will sign it, the Senate passes it, I am hopeful that it will get us headed in the right direction for the repair of our bridges. We have seen this, it was six blocks from my house. And something has been wrong, not only with our under-funding of our highway system, but also in the way these inspections and the repair of these bridges have been handled on a national basis. So I thank my two colleagues for being here and I thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership in the House. Thank you very much. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Barrasso. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just 1 week ago today, I was in Minneapolis and had a chance to see the remarkable progress that has been made. I actually had a chance to see both of the Senators from Minnesota and I want to thank both of you for the incredible hospitality that you showed me and many of my colleagues just this past week. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for holding these hearings today on improving the Federal bridge program. In Wyoming we generally have short, narrow bridges, and like many of our neighbors in the mountain west, we receive about $10 million a year. It is not a big portion of the Highway Bridge Program formula. I do know that this legislation has good intentions. I know it doesn't necessarily work for States like Wyoming, because it takes away some of our flexibility. For the last 10 years, Wyoming has not transferred one dollar out of the bridge program into another program. And I understand that some States have managed to mis-use some of the transferability of bridge funds. Wyoming clearly is not in that category. I am just concerned that this further restricts the transfers, may take away some of the flexibility that is needed by the other States. I look forward to the hearings and look forward to discussing this. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Sanders. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing. We thank our guest panelists for being here. Let me begin by just reiterating the point that you made, Madam Chair. I think we all recognize, and I certainly can tell you that it is true in Vermont, that we have a major bridge crisis in the United States of America. But anyone who thinks that it is just bridges would be terribly wrong. We have in my State, and I suspect all over this Country, our roads are crumbling, potholes all over the place. And I speak as a former mayor in saying what everybody knows to be true, that if you don't do good maintenance, you are just throwing money away, because then you have to rebuild the bed and everything else. If you want to save money, you do maintenance on a regular basis. So we have to work on our roads. Our rail system is far behind the rest of the world, Europe, Japan, even China. We need to invest billions in our rails. Our water plants, I don't know about California, but in Vermont, we have major problems at water plants, clean water, very, very expensive proposition. Wastewater plants are a major problem. So the question is, how, in the United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, are we sitting around while our infrastructure is collapsing in front of us? And I think, Madam Chair, it speaks to national priorities. Let me be very frank, let me be a little bit partisan. Just a little bit. There are some people who think it is more important that we give a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the population by repealing the eState tax. Then when we say, oh, my goodness, we need to rebuild our infrastructure, and by the way, make millions of good-paying jobs, oh, that is government spending, that is big government, we can't do that. Well, I respectfully disagree. Ten billion dollars a month in Iraq, huge tax breaks for people who don't need it, and we are not rebuilding our infrastructure. And you know what, it ain't going to get any better. Senator Inhofe, if we don't put money in it tomorrow, it is not going to get better next week. It will only get worse, we will only have to spend more money. So I certainly believe, with our panelists, that we have to invest heavily in our bridges in Vermont. Many of our bridges are old. Just in the last week, they have shut down several bridges. It impacts our economy. People on television say hey, how do I get home? Bridge is closed, small bridges. So we have to rebuild our bridges, and we have to take a hard look at our entire infrastructure. As you know, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated it was $1.6 trillion that we needed to invest. Let's do it. Let's show the rest of the world that we are in fact a first class nation. So we have a lot of work, and I applaud you, Madam Chair and Mr. Inhofe, for bringing us together to move forward. Thank you. Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. And I want to now call on Senator Coleman, then Congressman Oberstar. STATEMENT OF HON. NORM COLEMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator Coleman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. This month marks a turning point of sorts, less than 14 months after the terrible collapse of the I-35W bridge. On Monday, we will open the new bridge. That is a shining moment, a positive moment. But the collapse certainly has highlighted the need for our Nation to be more vigilant and proactive in maintaining our infrastructure. I do want to thank my colleagues, Senator Klobuchar and Senator Oberstar, for their commitment. Senator Oberstar certainly is longstanding on these issues. It is imperative we need to do more. It is why Senator Levin and I, together with the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Committee, requested the GAO report that we are looking at today. The report in many ways confirms what we already knew, that the Federal Highway Bridge Program lacks focus and performance measures and is unsustainable financially as currently constructed. We have a lot of reforming to do and our lives and our economy depend on it. Going forward, I would like to suggest we need reform in five areas, which I will touch upon briefly. First, we need a better way to measure the condition of bridges. In the aftermath of the I-35W collapse, people had a strong emotional reaction to the fact that the bridge had been rated structurally efficient. While the GAO has pointed out that the term ``structurally deficient'' doesn't necessarily mean unsafe, the fact that 25 percent of the U.S. bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, I am sure that makes folks wonder, is my bridge safe? It is hard to know what to fix first without a good measuring stick for bridge quality. Part of what we need to do in answering that question is to take a critical look at the bridge inspection and bridge rating systems, which the Department of Transportation's Inspector General is working on now. We are looking forward to the results of that review. No. 2, we need a better funding source for infrastructure. The current crisis in the Highway Trust Fund is not an anomaly. It is the leading edge of a long-term problem. With high gas prices a permanent reality, people will drive less and they will utilize vehicles that use less gasoline. That means less funding going into the trust fund, resulting in less money for transportation and infrastructure. I think one of the strengths of the Highway Fund has been the user fee approach to revenue. If you drive, you pay for the roads you use. But as technology changes, we need to find ways to get users to pay for the transportation resources they use. This report doesn't prescribe a solution, but we know from last week's announcement by Secretary Peters that folks simply need to put their heads together and shore up the Highway Trust Fund over the long term. No. 3, we need a better way to prioritize money for infrastructure work. Our job is not just to authorize and appropriate money, but to set priorities and goals. Under the Highway Bridge Program, States get money based on the number of deficient bridges but have no obligation to use that money on repairing these bridges. Any bridge, indeed, just about anything a car drives on, could receive those funds. And next year, when funds are being doled out, a State would actually get more money if they had more deficient bridges than the previous year. So there is no incentive to use the money on troubled bridges. It is imperative that we take a step back and develop targeted goals for the rehabilitation of our bridges. The GAO report suggests the expanded use of bridge management systems by States could be useful for prioritizing projects, and hopefully we can explore this further as we consider changes to this important infrastructure program. The legislation Chairman Oberstar has championed, which Senator Klobuchar and I have introduced in the Senate, also lays out some ideas worth considering. For instance, this legislation requires that plans be developed to ensure that bridges with the highest risk are replaced before those with the lower risk factors. No. 4, we need greater accountability. States have latitude in spending the dollars provided through the program. None of us want to micro-manage our States. But without sufficient accountability there is neither a carrot nor a stick for States to improve the conditions of their bridges. Indeed, the program as a whole needs to be more accountable to the American taxpayer. The GAO finds the program to be lacking a system to measure whether it is truly making a difference. While I am glad that the numbers of deficient bridges have decreased by 12 percent since 1998, I am troubled that we can't measure whether the Highway Bridge Program has actually contributed to that decline. Finally, No. 5, we need to engage the American people in this challenge. This need is great, but if we just stick the taxpayer with a huge bill, our efforts at infrastructure reform will fail. Voters need to understand the scope and importance of the problem as we fashion solutions. We should welcome the work being done by folks like Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Schwarzenegger and Ed Rendell, an Independent, a Republican and a Democrat, because we need ideas outside of Washington help us get through this crisis we are in, not to mention fiscal partners in this solution. Madam Chairman, we all know change is a difficult thing. But the sooner and more broadly we attack our infrastructure problem, the sooner we will reach the safe, more economically supportive system we all seek. When I was a mayor, I worked with community partners to plant thousands of trees along the Mississippi River. I learned a lesson that the best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago, and the second best time is right now. The Senate looks to this Committee for leadership and urges you to take bold steps that will inspire the Senate, the House, the Administration and the American people to follow. The solution isn't really throwing money we don't have at the problem or raising taxes. It starts with using the money we have more efficiently. And as Congress begins work on a new highway bill, this report should be our blueprint going forward. I look forward to working closely with you to implement the recommendations outlined in this report. Thank you. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Last but certainly not least, the partner that developed this very important piece of legislation that Senator Klobuchar has introduced here, Congressman Oberstar. We all have such great respect for your many years of devotion to this topic, and we welcome you here today. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much. It is always a great privilege to be in the other body, as we affectionately call the Senate. I have so many friends here, Bernie Sanders served with me in the House and you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe, a friend of long standing. I don't have old friends any more, they are friends of long standing. [Laughter.] Mr. Oberstar. Senator Barrasso, I haven't met you previously, but it is good to see you here from the State of Wyoming. And Senator Coleman, who was a delegate for me when I was seeking the Senate seat, way back in ancient history. Senator Klobuchar, whose roots are in the iron ore mining company of northern Minnesota, and has been a friend, a dear friend for a very long time. Bernie Sanders talked about maintenance. I would quote San Francisco's longshoreman philosopher, Eric Hoffer, who wrote and said many times, ``You can tell a quality of a society by the quality of its maintenance. Show me a city whose water systems are failing, whose sewer systems are failing, whose highways are in disrepair and I will show you a society that doesn't function.'' That is where we are. We are in a State of disrepair, as documented by the National Commission on Transportation Policy and Revenue Study. That has been documented by the National Academy of Sciences, by the American Council of Engineering. But let me do three things here. One, put this in a little historical context, this legislation, discuss a few of the items of the legislation, I won't repeat what has already been said about the bill, then respond to a few concerns raised. The subcommittee met pursuant to call at 10:05 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn, on December 1, 1987 with me presiding. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight began 2 days of hearings on the status of the National Bridge Inspection Program on the 20th anniversary of the Silver Bridge collapse across the Ohio River. We established the National Bridge Inspection Program in 1968 in Congress. It had been poorly managed, poorly funded, very little attended by both the Federal Highway Administration and by the respective State departments of transportation. Then came the Myannis Bridge collapse, then came the Silver Bridge collapse. And on the 20th anniversary of that tragedy, in 1967, in December 1987, I conducted this hearing with Bill Clinger, the Ranking Member of the Committee, whom you will remember, and Congressman Molinari from New York also in attendance on the Republican side. More than the cost of rehabilitating a bridge is involved. If you take away a bridge span, you affect miles of highways in the many communities that feed into and depend upon that bridge. That's what happened on August 1 of last year. I said then there are an estimated 376,000 bridges in the National Bridge Program, there are now 556,000 bridges in the national highway system. Then they carried 85 percent of the highway traffic of America. They still carry 85 percent of the highway traffic of America. Seventy-six thousand of those bridges in 1987 were described as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Today, it is 156,000. Today, that is 76,000 that are structurally deficient alone. We need to know there are elements of bridge design of particular concern to inspectors, bridges without redundant members. I-35W bridge, 740 bridges like that were built in the mid-1960's across America, with the same failure to establish and design into the bridge redundant features. We ought to be sure that bridge inspectors are sensitive to the importance, are aware of and are looking for fracture-critical members. A fracture-critical item collapsed in the I-35W bridge. This is what we highlighted in 1987. We discussed flooding and the scouring from bridge piers and a host of things. But the principal witness, a professor of bridge engineering, Gerald Donaldson, highway safety director for the Center for Auto Safety, said, ``It is too much to hope that in say, the next 5 years, the overwhelming majority of States will be using sophisticated technology for bridge inspection.'' There are dozens of other references to that. Dr. Donaldson went on to say that bridge inspection is in the stone age. Well, it is still there. It is not too early, it is not anticipatory, it does not preclude our action next year in writing the Surface Transportation legislation follow-on to what I think will be a transformational piece of legislation in the history of surface transportation in America. It is not too early to start now. In fact, it is too late. But maybe just in time. I proposed these principles last year, after the bridge collapsed, and said, there are four concepts that we need to address, then held hearings on those concepts. Not on a bill, but on the concepts. And on the idea of a separate account in the Highway Trust Fund for structurally deficient bridges to be funded by a five cent increase in the user fee. Well, I think if we had acted on it in the following week, if the Congress had stayed in session 1 week longer, that bill would be law, the five cents would be in, we would be dealing with these bridges now. But to paraphrase Benjamin Banneker, tragedy is a terrible thing to waste. That tragedy, in fact, was wasted, at least to that extent. But the House spoke on the bill, we now have 72,000 structurally deficient bridges, 79,000 functionally obsolete. We need a better process of identifying failures in bridges before they collapse. We need better training for bridge inspectors at the Federal and State level. We need more inspectors. We need an inventory of the structurally deficient bridges, and we need to hone that list down to what likely will be 2,600 or so of the most critical bridges that need to be fixed first and to have that list vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, as provided in this bill, then establish the funding mechanism for them. So there is a multi-step process. The first step is to raise the standards by which we design and build bridges, raise the quality of training of bridge inspectors, increase the number of bridge inspectors at the Federal and State level, and then reinspect those structurally deficient bridges according to the higher standards, establish a national structurally deficient bridge inventory, the most critical bridges, have it vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, establish a separate bridge repair account. And then make it earmark-proof. And the mechanism that I propose in this legislation that the House has passed is that there will be no deviation from that list by either the executive branch at the Federal level or the State level, or the legislative branch at the Federal or State level. And if there is a deviation, if someone tries to earmark, say, this bridge should have priority over the other one and do it in an appropriation bill, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to withhold all the funds for all bridge repairs in the Country. Now, that is as foolproof as you can get, it takes it out of the hands, and deals with these critical structures. Why a bridge and not a stretch of roadway? If a stretch of roadway fails, you don't fall into a river. You don't fall onto a train track or some other conveyance underneath it. These are vital, critical members of our surface transportation system. So if we pass this legislation, get it moving today, we will have this information in hand when we move to the next authorization level next year. And believe me, in our committee, we are going to move in January and have something ready before the next Administration, whoever it is, can screw it up. Because I don't trust them. I have learned, in 20 years, you can't trust the executive branch, in fact, you can't trust yourselves even to get things done in time that we need to do. But this time we are going to do it. We have the opportunity. The European community is doing it. Senator Boxer. Congressman, if you could wrap it up in a minute. Mr. Oberstar. I am doing it. This is a 20 year, $1.3 trillion investment plan of the European economic community. What is wrong with us? We are not a Third World country. Where is our $1.3 trillion for highways and transit and inter-city high speed passenger rail and a 2,000 mile canal across Europe to link the North Atlantic and the Black Sea? That is the kind of vision that we need in America, not sitting here rubbing our worry beads. The people will support us if we lead. Thank you. Senator Boxer. Well, tell us what you really think. [Laughter.] Senator Boxer. I want to make a point here. Do you know that it is Chairman Oberstar's birthday today? And we all say happy birthday. [Applause.] Senator Boxer. That was a happy birthday speech. I also want to say, moving things through the Senate, oh, and a birthday kiss. Which you deserve. And I don't ever know where all of my colleagues are coming from, and this is the Senate, it is a little bit different. But it is my intention, and I have shared this with Senator Klobuchar, to work hard on both sides of the aisle and try to get support for the Oberstar-Klobuchar effort here. And it is my intention to try and get this bill out as soon as possible. Because I personally agree with you, we are having some very fruitful talks between Republicans and Democrats on the Committee on the larger bill. I am excited, we have come up with principles. I am convinced we will have a very good bill. But we can get started on this, because I am so glad you made the point, when a bridge collapses, it is catastrophic. That is why I think this is worthy of our attention at this very moment. Now, Senator Cardin, we are delighted you are here. Would you like to make a statement? And then we will go to our panel. By the way, you are all free to go. We don't have any questions for you, do we? Mr. Oberstar. I do want, if I may, Madam Chair, to respond to the question about flexibility. Historically, in the transportation program, we have given States, at Governors' requests, State DOTs' requests, flexibility to move funds from one account to another. We gave them flexibility to move up to 50 percent of their bridge funds to other accounts. They moved, in the last 5 years, $4.7 billion out of bridge accounts to other accounts, doing an overlay, doing a fix here or an access here. Then when the bridge collapsed, it was, oh, my goodness, we need flexibility. Well, you had in and you squandered it. Now, if in the case of Wyoming, they have not flexed their money out of the bridge account and used it, then they are not disadvantaged by the provisions in this legislation. Senator Boxer. I think that is a good point. Let me just respond, then I will turn to my friend. I have had the same complaints about this bill from my people back home. I said, sorry, the fact of the matter is, I love you more than I can say, and I trust you, too. But on this front, we have so many problems, because money has moved out. Yes? Senator Inhofe. Let me just say, and Congressman Oberstar knows this, our situation in Oklahoma is really about as bad as any State. One of the reasons for the hearing today is to hear from people on the State level representing these States, including Oklahoma. It is true that some of this has been transferred, but it has been transferred to an account where it can go back and work on bridges and get it done quicker than it could be done if you had left it in the one account. We will hear this today, from witnesses talking about this. You and I and everyone at this table, and the Chairman, we all want to accomplish the same thing. So this hearing today is going about to hear from the outside, to hear is this the best way to do it. Mr. Oberstar. Remember that the principle in this legislation is, fix your structurally deficient bridges first. These are the ones that are going to be identified, vetted by the National Academy of Sciences, established in a separate structurally deficient bridge account. Fix those first, then you can flex your dollars to whatever else you need. But if it is not a national priority, then defeat the bill, throw the whole thing out. We will deal with that next year in the transportation program. We will take every bit of flexibility away from the States and say, if these are national priorities, then you are going to live with them. But if we are going to have a national priority, then we ought to pay tribute to it and live with it. And it is a national priority and has been to have a bridge account. So within that bridge account and within the structurally deficient bridges the legislation simply says, fix these first. Then you can shift those dollars to whatever other cause you care about. Senator Boxer. I see we actually did have some questions on your birthday for you. But if you need to go elsewhere, of course, hope Senator Klobuchar will come up here. Senator Coleman, we thank you very much. And Chairman Oberstar, you are free to stay, go. We love having you here, so as long as you can stay we would love to have you. But both of us will be in touch with you on all of these matters. Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, before Chairman Oberstar leaves, I just really want to make a comment. You were quoting the 1987 work. That is my first year in the Congress. I was on the Transportation Committee with you in 1987. I just want the Committee to know, we saw the passion of the Chairman here today in his statements. But there is no person in the U.S. Congress who understands the transportation needs of this Country better than Chairman Oberstar. Every time I have talked to him about any transportation problem in Maryland, he has already been there, he knows it, he knows every State in this Nation and the needs of every State in this Nation. We are very fortunate to have his leadership in the Congress of the United States. Madam Chair, I am going to ask that my opening statement be made a part of the record and just summarize one point, and that is what happened last month in Maryland, just to underscore your point about the urgency. When an 18-wheeler drove off the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, which connects, of course, the eastern and western shores of Maryland, the Governor order an investigation. We found out that there was u-bolt corrosion, which cannot be seen through the normal inspections that are currently done with our bridges. They needed ultrasound to do it. It wasn't part of the standard protocol. And just understanding your point, we need to have better inspections. As a result of not doing that maintenance, we now have a huge problem of maintenance on that bridge, which is causing economic problems for the eastern shore of Maryland. Just pointing out, you are right, we should have acted before, let's act on the urgency that this issue demands. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would yield back the balance of my time. [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland Thank you, Madam Chair. Everyday 4 billion vehicles cross bridges in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, found that 27.1 percent, or more than 160,000 of the nation's 600,000 bridges, were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In Maryland 29 percent of my state's bridges were rated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Maryland State Highway Administration has cited an unfunded preservation need of $221 million just for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. Madame Chair, we have a lot of bridges in America and they need a lot of work. I join my colleagues in supporting a bold investment plan to save our nation's bridges. I also think we need to begin to utilize promising technologies that improve the thoroughness of bridge inspections. Just last month in Maryland, a tragic accident on the eastbound span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge sent an 18-wheel tractor trailer over a jersey barrier and into the Chesapeake Bay, killing the driver. The original span of the Bay Bridge opened in 1952. The accident last month marks the first time that a vehicle has jumped the bridge's jersey rail. In many respects that is an enviable safety record, but it is clearly not good enough. Maryland Governor O'Malley ordered State transportation officials to immediately investigate the causes of the crash and to re-inspect the bridge. State inspectors found corroded steel in the U-bolts, which fasten the barriers to the deck of the bridge. According to the chief engineer of the Maryland Transportation Authority, the U-bolt corrosion had been overlooked in the past because routine annual inspections are visual. This corrosion was identified only because ultrasound and radar were used to penetrate into the structure of the bridge. This discovery demonstrates the advantage of newer technologies for bridge inspection. We know Maryland is not the only State that has experienced bridge corrosion, or tragedy related to deteriorating bridges, in recent years. The memories of the collapse of a bridge on InterState 35 West in Minneapolis just over a year ago, which killed 13, are still with us. In addition to the public safety concern, this is an economic and American competitiveness issue. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out that without significant repairs and new construction, our aging roads, bridges, and transit cannot begin to handle the growing transportation needs that commuters, emergency responders, truckers and delivery drivers, and law enforcement require on a daily basis. The economy depends on the soundness of our bridges as well. We are seeing that impact right now. The lane closures on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge are having a major impact on the economic vitality of my state's economy, especially on the Eastern Shore. We need a bold investment plan for our nation's bridges and other infrastructure. We also need to utilize the latest in screening and inspection technologie--such as radar, ultrasound and other electronic sensors--to assess which bridges need attention first. These technologies can save money and save lives. Washington needs to once again take the development of our national infrastructure as a serious national issue, for our security, our economy, and to ensure American competitiveness. This hearing and the legislation we are considering start us down that neglected path. Thank you. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Mr. Oberstar. What we would propose in this also is to use aviation technology, non-destructive testing capability, to find those very failures of u-bolts, pigeon droppings that cause corrosion, use that in our bridges instead of drawing chains across the bridge and listening to hear if there is something deficient. Senator Boxer. Well, we can't thank you enough for your leadership. And we are just pleased to have you on your birthday. We have two panels. Panel two, Hon. Thomas Madison, Jr., Administrator, FHWA, and Ms. Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability Office. We are very happy to have both of you here. We are going to start it off with Hon. Thomas Madison. We have a 5- minute clock, so try to stay to that if you can. And we will put your full statement in the record. Welcome, sir. And by the way, thank you for staying in touch with us so closely on the problems in the Trust Fund. It meant a lot when you phoned us. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. MADISON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Mr. Madison. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the Committee. I am honored to be here today to discuss the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Bridge Program. First, I want to address the other topic, Madam Chairman, that I think is on the forefront of all of our minds today, and that is the imminent cash shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund. The Administration and Congress have been aware of the predicted shortfall for several years. Recently, the time line was accelerated by an unprecedented drop in the gas tax, the primary funding source for the highway program. FHWA has been closely monitoring the highway account and had determined that if the balance reached $3 billion or less, we would need to take action to manage the cash-flow. The severity of the situation became evident in late August, particularly after the highway account was reduced by $631 million based upon the Treasury's certification of actual second quarter receipts for Fiscal Year 2008. FHWA is taking steps to stretch revenues and allow for continued reimbursement to States on an equitable basis. Starting tomorrow, FHWA will make reimbursements on a weekly basis rather than twice daily. Next week, if the total amount of reimbursement requests exceeds available cash, each State will receive a prorated share. Our States work hard to keep the Nation's bridges and roads safe and in good repair, and they shouldn't have to suffer because Federal spending is outpacing revenues. That is why the Secretary called on Congress to pass legislation to provide $8 billion from the general fund to cover the shortfall in the trust fund. The transfer is only a short-term fix. The unpredictability of the fuel tax revenues is a clear sign that we must fundamentally change our approach to transportation financing in America. The question we must ask is not how to make the trust fund solvent into the future, but how can we make the trust fund effective to solve our transportation challenges. Even if gas prices stabilize, more fuel efficient vehicles and other conservation measures make the gas tax less and less sustainable. Now to address the subject of today's hearing, America's bridge program. Although the Nation's bridge population is aging, contrary to popular press reports and some of the information we have heard already this morning, the condition of bridges is improving. Working with States, we reduced the percentage of structurally deficient bridges from 19.4 percent in 1994 to 12.4 percent today. We must maintain this trend and improve the safety and integrity of bridges while improving system performance and reliability. To do this will require new and innovative ways to sustain funding for infrastructure. The Secretary's recently announced proposal to reform the way transportation decisions and investments are made would provide States with more flexibility and make it easier for them to attract new forms of investment and add capacity where congestion is worst. A new, more focused program structure would target bridge funding at those projects that truly need investment. In addition, the Bridge Inspection Program and the National Bridge Inventory would remain firmly in place. Two weeks ago, I also visited the site of the tragic I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. I was very impressed by the innovations, the technologies and the dedication of the staff, both from the public sector and the private sector, that are working together to re-open this bridge well ahead of the intended schedule. While the reasons for the collapse remain uncertain, I can assure you that FHWA will learn quickly and widely distribute the lessons that we learn from the investigation to help prevent a similar tragedy in the future. To conclude, I join Secretary Peters in urging your support for legislation enabling an $8 billion general fund transfer to the Highway Trust Fund. Quick passage of a clean bill transferring these funds will allow us to fulfill our obligations under SAFETEA-LU and continue our support for the safety and construction programs funded by the trust fund, even as we work together on long-range funding solutions for our bridges and roads. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today, Madam Chairman and Committee, and I would be happy to try and answer any questions for you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Madison follows [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.171 Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. And now we will hear from Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues from the GAO. Welcome. STATEMENT OF KATHERINE SIGGERUD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE Ms. Siggerud. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to today's hearing on the Federal bridge program and the proposed bridge legislation that is before this Committee. We are all aware of the shocking collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis last year. It has of course raised questions about the condition and safety of our Nation's bridges and about the Federal programs that fund their inspection and repair. I am here today to discuss the work that this Committee and the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee requested of us regarding the Federal program. To the extent that our work touches on areas of the proposed legislation, I will also provide those observations. To provide context, our review focused on the Highway Bridge Program that provides annual formula grants, over $4 billion in 2007, to States for replacing and rehabilitating bridges. While most bridges are in good condition, inspections result in some bridges being classified as deficient. This includes structurally deficient bridges that have at least one component in poor condition and functionally obsolete bridges, whose current design is no longer adequate for the traffic they serve. You asked us to review how States use the bridge program and make decisions about funding bridge improvements. It is important to understand that the program gives States broad discretion to use program funds and select bridge projects. Some States are focused on reducing their number of deficient bridges, while other States are pursuing additional bridge safety priorities. For example, California, as you noted, Madam Chair, has focused on seismically retrofitting bridges. While classifying bridges as deficient is a useful snapshot of their condition, it is generally not viewed as useful for setting repair priorities, because it doesn't always equate to immediate safety risk. Therefore, many States have developed tools for selecting bridge projects that go beyond the Federal rating system. These include bridge management systems, capturing detailed information about bridge elements and State- specific bridge condition ratings. The program allows States to transfer a portion of the bridge program funds to other Federal highway programs and about half of them have done that at some point since 1998. The overall effect of this is difficult to determine, since States have also used funds from other Federal highway programs for bridge repairs. There is good news with regard to bridge condition. The number of structurally deficient bridges has decreased by 22 percent over the past decade. But continuing this level of progress on bridges will be difficult, given aging of the significant number of bridges built in the 1950's and 1960's. The overall improvement we found is most notable on rural bridges and locally owned as opposed to State bridges. It is likely that the bridge program made a contribution to these improvements. But the extent was hard to determine because the program is only one of several funding sources the States use. In addition, as I noted, States are using the funds both for reducing their deficient bridges and for other purposes whose results are not measured. In our view, given the significant needs and fiscal challenges facing this and other Federal Aid Highway programs, it is important to assure that this program is having strong results. Both next year's authorization and the legislation we are discussing today provide an opportunity to do so. With regard to reauthorization, we have established several principles for the reform of the Federal Aid Highway program that we applied in our review of the bridge program. First, are there clearly identified interests and program goals that reflect them? The program's broad eligibility makes nearly any bridge potentially eligible for Federal funding. Reconsidering this policy could lead to a focus, for example, on passenger and freight mobility along with safety that could guide the use of Federal bridge dollars. The legislation's requirement that all of its additional funds be focused on structurally deficient bridges on the national highway system could be a step in the direction of defining the Federal interest. Second, programs should tie together funding, performance and accountability. The program does not require that goals be set and progress be measured in its formula, like other parts of the Federal Aid Highway Program, and does not tie States' level of funding to performance improvements. The legislation's requirement for risk-based prioritization and performance plans has the potential to move in this direction, depending on how these are implemented. In our view, these would be most effective if, one, they are also used to measure and report results; two, they are tied to funding; and three, they build on, rather than replace, similar systems already in place in many States. Furthermore, it would be most useful to consider these reforms together with an overall reform of surface transportation programs that are facing similar issues focused on performance and accountability. Finally, fiscal sustainability is a significant challenge. Analysis shows that additional investments in bridges and roads in general, if properly prioritized, will have important safety and economic benefits. Bridges are aging and the demand for these projects will continue and likely increase. This will need to be addressed in overall revisions of the Federal Aid Highway program and actions to address the crisis in the Highway Trust Fund. Chairman Boxer, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Ms. Siggerud follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.145 Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. Just to underscore what Mr. Madison said, clearly we are going to be working all day today. We had another impasse this morning, so we are going to try to keep on working on the trust fund. We can't, we can't have a failure here, because we have 84,000 people who lost their jobs in August. We can't do this. So hopefully we can move it. I want to talk about the bridges. Your testimony presents your belief, your written testimony, that the current condition of our Nation's bridges does not represent a safety crisis. How do you explain the recent failure of a major interState bridge in Minnesota and the high number of structurally deficient bridges in every State and the anecdotal evidence we heard just today that bridges are being closed? And you say there is not a safety crisis. How do you square that with what is going on? Mr. Madison. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the question. That is accurate, we don't believe that there is a crisis with respect to bridge safety in America right now. The fact that a percentage of bridges are structurally deficient or categorized as deficient in some form or fashion doesn't necessarily mean that they are unsafe. So when you mentioned the tragedy at the I-35W bridge in Minnesota, while NTSB has not yet concluded its findings and given us a final report on what they believe happened, it doesn't appear that it was a condition-related circumstance. That is to say, their intermediate report in January indicated that it may have been or is likely to have been a design flaw at that particular structure that caused the tragedy. In general, we have seen an increase in investment by States in their bridge programs. Despite the shifting funds from different accounts that we heard about in earlier testimony today, we have seen a significant increase in the amount of money that is being invested by States in their bridges. Consequently we have seen a reduction in the overall number of deficient bridges in America. Senator Boxer. And we have heard some numbers here. The structurally deficient number, what is that number you have for the number of bridges that are structurally deficient in the United States of America? Mr. Madison. Madam Chairman, I believe that of the 600,000 bridges, roughly, in America, about 126,000 on the national highway system are categorized as deficient. Senator Boxer. OK. So let's talk about that, Mr. Madison. Because I have to tell you, I heard the same thing from my State people. Just because you say something is structurally deficient, that shouldn't indicate a problem. What? What? That defies common sense. Why do we do this? Why do we test these bridges if we are not going to pay attention to what we find? Now, out of the 600,000, 126,000 are structurally deficient. What do you suggest that we do, just sit around and wait for them to collapse? What do you think? Should we work on them? Should we have a special program, as Senator Klobuchar wants to do, I want to do, others want to do? To just go ahead and have them ranked and go in an order of which ones are more structurally deficient? What word would you rather use? What words would you rather use? When any average American hears the words, your home is structurally deficient, somebody tells you that, what do you mean? Well, it could collapse in an earthquake. Oh, OK. The roof could collapse. It has a couple of problems in the back yard because the soil is eroding. Oh, well, do you think I should do something about it? I will tell you, the engineer that says no I am getting rid of. I want to know how I fix it. So I am confused. Do you think we should change our terminology so people don't get the ``wrong idea?'' If there is nothing wrong with these--what is wrong with these 120,000 bridges? Mr. Madison. I am not suggesting that we change the terminology, Madam Chairman, only that we understand it. You make an excellent point; the terms structurally deficient or functionally obsolete are engineering terms that the public would view as requiring a greater sense of urgency. Senator Boxer. What does structurally deficient mean? I know functionally obsolete is another problem. But structurally deficient, what is your definition? Mr. Madison. I will give you my definition, but could I just correct something that I said earlier to you? Senator Boxer. Yes. Mr. Madison. That is, 126,000 bridges are deficient. And within that deficiency category, there are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. So there are approximately 74,000 structurally deficient bridges. Senator Boxer. I'm very appreciative of that. Mr. Madison. The definition essentially means that most bridges are dynamic structures that have multiple constituent parts. Each of those parts is inspected as required at a regular inspection interval. So when there are structural issues with a particular component of a bridge, it is given a condition rating. The overall rating of the bridge would indicate whether or not it would be categorized as structurally deficient. That does not mean that it is unsafe or that there is imminent danger in the structure having a failure or collapse. Senator Boxer. OK, and I will close with this, so let me just say that your definition, your Federal Highway people said, it is a bridge which has deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements. Let me say that again. Because this playing down, oh, it is structurally deficient, no big deal, let's see what you people said. A bridge which has deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load care and capacity, or the waterway opening beneath the bridge is insufficient and causing significant interruptions. A structurally deficient bridge is often weight- limited, requires immediate rehabilitation to remain open or it is closed. So let's not have the American people misunderstand here. If a bridge is deemed structurally deficient, it is often weight-limited, require immediate rehabilitation or it is closed. Now, if we just let the American people think that what we say doesn't matter, that is a problem. I have a problem with this. Excuse me for saying this, but I honestly believe it is, we are at a point where we are short of funds, so we try to wish away what is staring us in the face. I don't think that Senator Inhofe and I want to do that. Now, we may come out with different recipes on how to fix it. But I think let's at least admit the truth, especially after this bridge collapse. Senator Inhofe. Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by NACE International, which is a professional technical association working to reduce the effects of corrosion on infrastructure, be inserted into the record. Senator Boxer. Absolutely without objection. [The referenced material follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.126 Senator Inhofe. And let me also State, because there is some confusion here, on the whole issue, the funding problem, the crisis that we are in right now. I support the fix that is out there. I do know there are problems that people have with the way that we have put our authorization bills together in the past. I want to correct those. But the time to do that is not now, during the crisis. The time to do that is in the 2009 reauthorization bill. I just hope that people understand that we have a crisis, we need to fix it and we will address these problems. We need to do it in a way that we can deliberate and spend time on it and get it done. Mr. Administrator, I will ask you a question that sounds like a tough question, but it is easy for you, because are the new guy on the block. So none of this is your fault. I am not as satisfied as everyone else seems to be that we had adequate notice of this crisis. I do know that we had no anticipation as to what would happen to the trust fund because so many people think of the taxes being a percentage as opposed to what it really is, a centage, which means price goes up, the revenues go down. Why did it take so long? Why did we not just wake up 1 day and find out the crisis is here? Why didn't we have more adequate warning? What do you think? Mr. Madison. It is a very fair question, Senator. Let me try and address it as best I can, because as you indicate, some of this activity predated my tenure here at Federal Highways. But essentially in hearings like this, Secretary Peters, others from the DOT, and the Administration have been predicting for years that we were likely to have a cash shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, potentially by the end of the reauthorization period in September 2009. In recent months, in fact, as recently as July, that prediction or that forecast was changed to indicate that the shortfall may occur as soon as October of this year. And the primary cause for that, as you indicate, is the dramatic increase in gasoline prices, which caused the precipitous drop in vehicle miles traveled. We saw in a relatively short period of about 8 months 50 billion vehicle miles traveled less than we would have typically seen in previous years. So the dramatic reduction in vehicle miles traveled meant a lot less money was going into the Highway Trust Fund. At the same time, Senator, at the end of the Fiscal Year and at the end of this construction season, we typically see every year in July, August, and September, the requests from the States typically increased. So we reached this impasse several weeks sooner than what was originally predicted. Senator Inhofe. I understand that. I didn't feel, and I have talked to Director Ridley several times, too. We were both concerned that this came precipitously and we didn't have adequate time. But we understand pretty much. I just wanted you to get on record on that. Nothing really much has been said about the jobs. I think that is a secondary, it is important, you have so many people out there anticipating that they are going to be, they are on the line, they have their shovels in their hand, they are ready to go to work, then all of a sudden the rug is pulled out from under them. Do you have any brief comment you can make on what not fixing it in a timely fashion will have on jobs nationally? Mr. Madison. It will have an impact, Senator. In fact, I was talking with your---- Senator Inhofe. Any numbers of guesses? Mr. Madison. I don't have numbers, because---- Senator Boxer. I have the sheet. It is over 300,000 jobs. Senator Inhofe. OK. I just wanted to get it on record. Senator Boxer. Do you have the sheet? Could we give it to Senator Inhofe? Senator Inhofe. That is all right, I just wanted to get this in the record. Senator Boxer. Good. Senator Inhofe. I have the sheet, too. Mr. Madison. Senator, as you know, much of the reimbursements from the Highway Trust Fund are for projects that are either already completed or are significantly underway. So we have been working very closely with the States since the announcement on Friday. Our first priority is to try and have an equitable distribution plan to be fair to all States to ensure that, to the best we can, we help them prioritize their bills to us so that we can fund them appropriately and tailor those priorities to each State. I have talked with Director Ridley and we have been in contact with all the other States. There are varying degrees of impact, depending on where States are in their bond position or debt position or other circumstances. But as I think you will hear from Director Ridley later, this will have a dramatic impact and potentially immediate impact in your State, if a fix isn't handed down. Senator Inhofe. I know that is true, and I have talked to Director Ridley about that. In fact, the other questions I was going to ask you, I will wait for the third panel. But I would say this, that the poor condition of the bridges is widely publicized. We all know that. Do you think that our bridges are more dangerous or in worse condition relative to the rest of our highway infrastructure? And do you think that we should have a separate bridge program or would it be better to require States to evaluate their transportation needs and priorities as a whole? I ask this question because as close a friend as Congressman Oberstar is, I always get a little bit upset when somebody says, well, we will take care of it here at the Federal level because the States are not capable of doing it. Do you have an answer to the question in terms of other--there are other dangers, too, that are out there, other than just bridges. Mr. Madison. That is right. It is difficult to compare conditions or have a ratio between bridges and highway conditions. But I will say, to answer your question, yes, we should have a national bridge program. We don't believe that Senator Klobuchar's and Chairman Oberstar's bill is exactly the right way to go about that. I say that respectfully, because we worked closely with their staffs in developing this legislation. But we believe that as was mentioned earlier today, flexibility to the maximum extent possible should be given to folks like Gary Ridley and the Governors of States to handle funding priorities as they look at their own bridges in their States, because they are the ones that are doing the inspections, and know first-hand where their priorities should be. Senator Inhofe. That is an excellent answer, Mr. Administrator. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Boxer. Let me just put in the record, since my Ranking Member has made a very good point here about the jobs. I do think it is important to note that five times on the floor of the U.S. Senate we tried to make this fix. The President threatened to veto several of those times. So I was very grateful when you did finally come around. But it is kind of tough. Now you are saying, urgent, urgent, you have turned the alarm bell into a siren. We hear it. But just to be specific, in Oklahoma, or Minnesota, 4,962 jobs are at stake. In Oklahoma, let me make sure I get this line right, 6,009 jobs are at stake, and in California, 32,315 jobs are at stake here. All told, 379,537. Do you have this sheet? Mr. Madison. I do not, Senator. Senator Boxer. OK, we will get you this sheet. And we will put this in the record, without objection. [The referenced information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.124 Senator Boxer. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you to our witnesses and the work you are doing. Welcome, Mr. Madison. I appreciated our meeting yesterday. I just wanted to clarify one thing you said about the 35W bridge, where you said it appears as though it was a design defect, and it does appear, as Chairman Oberstar so articulately described about the lack of a backup system, basically, is how I explain it, in the bridge, and redundancy. But I do think it is important that you know that on July 28th, actually Chairman Rosenker sort of changed his talk a little bit about this. He had always said it was a design defect and there is no way it could have been discovered on inspection. He then said publicly, and I will ask to put this article from the Minneapolis Star and Tribune dated July 28th, 2008 in the record, Madam Chair. He actually said that one of the things they are looking at is photos from 1999 which showed, and I mentioned this in my testimony, which showed problems with these plates and showed that they may have been warped. They are looking into whether or not that should have been caught on inspection. I don't know if you are aware of that, but I think it is important, as we talk about the need for better bridge inspections, and again, we do not know the conclusions of this report. But he himself brought this up. This wasn't some investigative report. He himself went out of his way to say that they are now looking at whether that should have been caught on inspection. Were you aware of that? Mr. Madison. Thank you for the clarification, Senator. I personally was not aware of that. However, I met with Chairman Rosenker last week and he praised the working relationship that the Federal Highways Administration's research and technical experts have with NTSB and they have been working hand in glove to analyze and do the forensic analysis. So while I wasn't personally aware, I am quite certain that our experts at the Federal Highway Administration were aware of that. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Again, I know many of the people at MinnDOT. They do a good job. My uncle used to work there in Rochester, Minnesota. But the point of this is there may have been a problem with the inspections as well. And when the bridge collapsed, actually right afterwards a lot of people were saying, we knew which bridge that was. So I don't think that we should come to any conclusions that yes, it was design defect, but we don't know, there may have been a problem with the inspection process, which gets me to our bill and what we have been talking about here. Now, the bill that we have would change things in terms of, as Chairman Boxer has been explaining, not allowing States to transfer out of the Highway Bridge Program. It just seems odd to me that we have this highway bridge problem, we know there are bridges, not only I-35, but St. Cloud and other places that are in need of repair. So does the Administration actually support allowing States to take the money out of the bridge program when there are these structurally deficient bridges and put it elsewhere? Mr. Madison. What we have seen and what was described earlier, Senator, is accurate. There are transfers of funds from different accounts. But again, I want to reiterate that in the aggregate, we have seen more spending by the States than has been prescribed in our Highway Bridge Program. On average, in the last 5 years, States have spent about an additional $820 million a year. So we don't disagree, and I think you are going to hear more about this in the GAO report, that there needs to be more focus on these funding programs and they need to be more clear in terms of performance measures. But in terms of spending on the bridges and the general condition of our bridges in America, we don't characterize then at this point as a crisis or safety crisis. Senator Klobuchar. Yes, we call it what it is, but Senator Cardin just talked about boats, a truck going off the bridge, there are clearly some issues here. All we are trying to do is say if we call this a bridge program, then let's make it a bridge program and let's make it a first-class bridge program in terms of the way that we do inspection. I know that current law calls for routine bridge inspections at least once every 24 months, including bridges that are structurally deficient. Our bill calls for inspection of these structurally deficient bridges, not all bridges, every year. Why would you want to allow 2 years to pass? Mr. Madison. We believe that, while the current 24 month minimum requirement should exists, bridge inspections should be done on a risk-based system. In other words, again, States know and like you mentioned, your MinnDOT folks know which bridges may be in the worst State of disrepair. So they prioritize those accordingly. They report that information to us and we maintain it in a National Bridge Inventory. But we don't believe the right solution at this time is for Washington to prescribe a set number of bridge inspections and a blanket approach for all bridges, even all structurally deficient bridges or those bridges that are categorized with that term, because it would be an onerous mandate on States, to come up with the resources to pay for all those inspections that may not necessarily equate to additional safety. Senator Klobuchar. You know, again, our bill does have a rational basis in that we are focusing on these structurally deficient bridges. My issue here is that we clearly have had a problem here, and we will see what the NTSB said, but Chairman Rosenker was clearly indicating that there were some pictures showing these things were warped in some way. And we have Senator Cardin talking about how they discovered some bolts underneath. When we look at what has been happening, where the money hasn't been always going in every State, maybe in Wyoming, but to these bridges, it just seems to me that this isn't a Federal mandate. We are putting Federal money into bridges and we want to make sure it is used in the best way, instead of just a pork barrel way across the Country, that it is used on the bridges that are deemed to be a risk to public safety. That is what we are trying to do here. Mr. Madison. Thank you, and I understand that, Senator. If I may, I would like to point out that, the current regulatory minimum requirement is every 24months, and that about 83 percent of our bridges are inspected every 2 years. Another 12 percent are inspected annually already, and the balance is done on a longer interval. Senator Klobuchar. OK, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Senator Boxer. Thank you. I wanted to talk to GAO, first of all, it is very fortuitous timing. A year ago, Senator Inhofe and I, as Ranking Member and Chair of this Committee, along with Senators Levin and Coleman, on Homeland Security, requested this report. Now it comes out today and it comes out just about the time that we are hoping to mark up Senator Klobuchar's bill. I know that GAO doesn't take positions on bills, and I am not asking you that at all, although the Administration opposes it, which doesn't surprise me. What do you consider to be the key findings of the report that you are releasing today, in the plainest of language? If you would say the top three findings or five or two, what would they be? Ms. Siggerud. That is a tough assignment, Senator Boxer, but I will get right into it. I think it is first of all important to understand that we did find some good news in terms of improvement in conditions of bridges. But we are very concerned long term about the extent to which that slow and steady improvement we saw over the past decade will continue to be delivered on, given aging and the very important challenges we have to resources that we have all been talking about today. Senator Boxer. So you would say there has been improvement, but in your view, you would like to see it faster? Faster improvement? Ms. Siggerud. Faster improvement, as well as we realize that will be quite difficult, because of the aging bridges and the financial pressures that the States are under, and of course, the problem in the Highway Trust Fund. Senator Boxer. So I am just going to stop you, because I want to speak English that is clear. I am not going to speak English that says a structurally deficient bridge isn't a problem. Because that is like saying this isn't my name. I am not doing that. I want to talk realism here. So we are pleased we have made some progress. We are concerned because the bridges are aging, that is a natural thing, we can't reverse it. We have stresses on financing. So those two things together give GAO concern, is that fair? Ms. Siggerud. Yes. Senator Boxer. OK, next. Ms. Siggerud. The next point then is that under the circumstances, when we have these kinds of challenges and the fiscal situation that we are in of what can be done to make sure that we are making the very best use of the Federal dollar through the Highway Bridge Program. As we have said both for this program and for the entire Federal Aid Highway Program, it is our view that the Federal interest needs to be defined and we need to set performance goals, we need to have accountability for those goals, and see what we can do to tie the financial flow of dollars from the Federal Government to achievement of those goals. Senator Boxer. So if I were to translate that into my English, it would be, we need to prioritize what we do? Ms. Siggerud. Yes. Senator Boxer. So we have a problem, it is getting worse because of a confluence of factors, and we need to prioritize what we do and make sure that we are doing the right thing with the dollars in the bridge fund? Ms. Siggerud. Right. And there are a number of options for doing that, Senator Boxer. One is on the table before you today, and that is to decide that we are going to focus on certain types of bridges on the national highway system, the interState highway system, some particular class of roads that we consider to be of the most important national interest. That is one option. We could also go to the option of having very specific performance goals set by States with Federal oversight and then holding them accountable and tying the number of dollars States get to making progress on the prioritization that we are talking about. Senator Boxer. Very good. Ms. Siggerud. The Senate could also consider in reauthorization or through this bill various matching funds, depending on the extent to which a particular project is related to achieving a national interest. Senator Boxer. OK. I know that Senator Lautenberg is on his way and wants to question the panel. So we will continue. Senator Inhofe, do you have any questions for this panel? Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, I don't. I am anxious to get to the third panel, so you go ahead and get your questions out of the way. Senator Boxer. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Ms. Siggerud, I have some questions about the report. One of the things that you noted in the report is the need to link the States' past performance on reducing its inventory of bridges as a way to make States more accountable. Ms. Siggerud. Yes. Senator Klobuchar. I think that is an interesting concept, as we look at how can we make sure the money is going where it is and divide the money up appropriately. But my concern is that with this method, we may have too much of a focus on numbers without looking at results and safety. So if we just look at the numbers of deficient bridges, do you think it would create an incentive for a State to fix many small, easy to repair bridges, and this could have a consequence of neglecting repairs to larger, high traffic, costly to repair bridges? This is not to say they would ever want to have a dangerous bridge in their State. Ms. Siggerud. Of course. Senator Klobuchar. But as they are kind of allocating what they do, and I am afraid it would create some kind of, I can see in our State they would say, oh, we could get 100 bridges done instead of the I-35 bridge. What do you think about this unintended incentive, if we were to go that route? Ms. Siggerud. There are a number of unintended incentives in this program. The current program essentially ties the number of deficient bridges and their deck area, the amount of the grant that goes to States is based on that number. So to the extent that the number of deficient bridges or the amount of deck area decreases over time, the States get fewer dollars in the following years. But that does not happen if in fact those bridges do not improve their condition. So there is already an interesting incentive in the current program. But I think your question about the number of bridges is actually right on, and I would hope that we could move to a more nuanced type of performance result in terms of incentivizing and rewarding performance. The other thing that we did find in working with States is that because the amount of dollars available to States every year is never sufficient to address all the structurally deficient bridges, we said that it often happens that dealing with small bridges is a more practical approach, because taking on construction of a very large and complicated bridge is something that needs to be planned over a long period of time and needs more dollars than are typically available from the Highway Bridge Program. Senator Klobuchar. So do you see why we think it would help, and this is why this bill with Congressman Oberstar and Senator Durbin and others, that we are trying to come up with a way to have some Federal influence in terms of determining which ones are truly public safety risks? Do you think that would help? Ms. Siggerud. It seems to me there are really two parts of the bill that get at that. One is the risk prioritization concept, and the other is the performance planning concepts. In our view, really the devil is in the detail there in terms of how those would be implemented. In our work with States, it is very clear that many of them are using sophisticated approaches in bridge management systems. So to target their priorities, is there a way to build on that good information analysis that is already available and have these additional tools be useful, rather than an add-on. Senator Klobuchar. Good. Would you endorse some kind of funding bonus for States if they pursued national projects? Ms. Siggerud. We haven't looked at that in particular. I have to say that is something that came up occasionally in the work we have done on this and the rest of the Federal Aid Highway Program, is considering different levels of Federal match, depending on the relationship to a national interest. Senator Klobuchar. And obviously here with our proposal we are looking at if they don't fix their bridges first, they are not going to get any more money. Ms. Siggerud. Right. Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Madison, just one last question, I see Senator Lautenberg is here, about when this whole collapse happened, as we were trying to struggle with, Secretary Peters was there that day, came back with us to look at the bridge. I was struck by this, there are State inspections, and then there are Federal inspections. How is that work divided up and is there a better way to do that? Mr. Madison. They are not exactly duplicate inspections. In fact, our Federal Highway Administration division staff members work with the States to monitor their annual bridge programs. We audit each State's program to ensure that they are covering all the requirements of the National Bridge Inspection standards. So we are not necessarily performing double inspections, Senator. Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much. Senator Boxer. Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for giving me an opportunity to ask a few questions and to be here for this very important meeting. It has been more than a year since the dramatic and tragic collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis, and no one has worked harder to try to make a remedy, to bring our attention to the terrible tragedy that occurred that day than Senator Klobuchar. I congratulate her for her effort and look forward to what I think is going to be a good outcome as a consequence of her interest and her skill here. Still today, more than 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are classified as deficient. And both our witnesses, and we are pleased to see you, it means that these bridges are deteriorating to the point where they have structural problems, or they are too outdated to handle today's needs. New Jersey, the number is 34 percent, or one out of every three bridges deserves serious and quick attention. We are fighting hard to expand forms of transportation that are more energy efficient, more convenient and less dependent on oil. Amtrak, for instance, is a perfect example. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the full statement that I have here will be included in the record. Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered. Senator Lautenberg. I thank you. [The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:] Statement of Hon. Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey Madam Chairman, It's been more than a year since the dramatic and tragic collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. And still, more than 25 percent of our nation's bridges are classified as deficient. That means these bridges are either deteriorating to the point where they have structural problems or are too outdated to handle today's cars, trucks and buses. In New Jersey, that number is 34 percent, or one out of every three bridges. We are fighting hard to expand forms of transportation that are more energy-efficient, more convenient, and less dependent on oil. Amtrak is a perfect example. But we must also recognize that, to protect our travelers and prepare our nation's infrastructure for the future, we need to repair the country's crumbling bridges. Their failure is not an option. I commend Senator Klobuchar for introducing her legislation to take on this challenge. Bridge repairs start with states doing regular and thorough inspections. Bridges like the George Washington and Benjamin Franklin are critical for drivers traveling in and out of New Jersey. Their failure would stall our economy--not to mention the many innocent lives that would be put at risk. Once states identify safety problems, they need the money to repair those problems. Much of this funding comes from the Federal bridge program. Unfortunately, we have recently learned that the highway trust fund, which funds this program, is running dry. This means work on highway and bridge projects around the country is at risk of delay. We have tried five times in recent months to replenish the fund, but it has been blocked each time. This is unacceptable, and I hope the minority allows the Senate to complete its work on the bill to fix this shortfall. We cannot take risks with our travelers when it comes to their safety or the nation's transportation infrastructure.We need to modernize our bridges even as we focus on other forms of transportation at the same time. Thank you Madam Chairman. I look forward to today's testimony. Senator Lautenberg. I would like to ask Mr. Madison, heavy trucks cause more damage to our bridges. Secretary Peters recognized this when she was the Arizona transportation director in 1999, when she opposed increasing the Federal truck weight limit from 80,000 pounds to 97,000 pounds. She cited safety concerns and the extra damage to bridges from these super-heavy trucks. Legislation is now pending in the Senate to allow this truck weight limit increase. What does the Administration have to say? Do they support or oppose that bill? Mr. Madison. We have concerns with the bill, Senator, for the reasons that you just described. I think Secretary Peters is still of the same mind set that these heavy trucks with multiple axles, create significantly more damage on our highways and bridges. I don't have specific information that would guide us in the State of Maine, but I know if, for example, 97,000 pounds 6-axle tractor-semitrailers were allowed on the entire National Network, approximately one-third of the bridges would be stressed beyond their design rating, leading to the deterioration in service life as well as eventual requirements for rehabilitation or replacement. Senator Lautenberg. According to a report by your agency published in 2000, trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds cause-- correct me if I am wrong--twice as much damage to roads and bridges as they pay for in Federal fees and highway gas tax. Is that true? Mr. Madison. That is an answer that I don't have, Senator, but I would be happy to get back to you on the record with an answer. [The referenced information was not received at time of print.] Senator Lautenberg. How might we get these excess weight trucks to pay their fair share of the damage that they cause? Mr. Madison. Well, it speaks to the need to reform our overall transportation program, which might include managing or operating the system differently. And it may include managed truck lanes or restricted lanes that are for exclusive use by trucks that may be designed or built differently and there could potentially be a fee associated with those lanes. Senator Lautenberg. The one thing I think that has to happen is that the traveling public and their families have the right to know that their Government is taking a truly risk- based approach to fixing the Country's bridges. Wouldn't it be a waste to fix bridges which aren't in as bad shape as others, assuming that they are used equally? That information is important and I think we should make certain that the public is aware of that. Mr. Madison. We agree completely, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. Ms. Siggerud, you said in your testimony, States shouldn't be allowed to spend Federal bridge funds on other kinds of road projects. Ms. Siggerud. Actually what we said, Senator Lautenberg, is we simply said that States are using them for other kinds of projects. We didn't take a position on the propriety of that. Please go ahead. Senator Lautenberg. But shouldn't our Federal policies require States to fix what infrastructure they have that is not up to standard, that is deficient, before getting into new infrastructure programs? Ms. Siggerud. I think this transfer provision can be very troublesome, particularly in certain States where we haven't seen replacement of those Federal dollars with other State or Federal Aid dollars from other Federal Aid Highway programs. Our view, however, is that what we need to do here is determine what we want the Federal dollar to do specifically, there is very broad eligibility for this program, and then hold States accountable for programming projects that meet those Federal interests. Senator Lautenberg. Right. I think it is fair to say that the question arises, shouldn't we get the risk out of travel as much as we can, and certainly as we saw once again in Minnesota, what can happen? We have seen bridge collapses around the Country and we know that a lot of them have such serious problems. Shouldn't that come as a priority in our transportation efforts? Ms. Siggerud. As a representative of GAO, I certainly can't argue against risk prioritization. Obviously it is very, very important as we decide which transportation projects to fund when we have limited State and Federal dollars, safety being the very highest priority. But we also need to be looking at congestion mobility improvements and a variety of other goals that we have, and then using good analysis, to select those that most deliver on those problems. Senator Lautenberg. Yes. OK, well, I think that risk is the first thing. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. I don't want to rush you at all, except that we have a whole other panel. Ask one more question. Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Madison, the 2000 report that we were discussing, the most common combination vehicles, those registered weights between 75,000 and 80,000 pounds, now pay only 80 percent of the Federal highway costs. And combinations registered between 80,000 and 100,000 pounds pay only half of their share of Federal highway costs, and I add my word that they create. Any future increase in Federal fuel taxes without corresponding increases in taxes on the heaviest trucks will further exacerbate the under-payment of Federal funds, user fees by heavy trucks. That is a clear statement. I assume you stick by that statement. Mr. Madison. I am not familiar with that specific information, Senator. We can get an answer back to you on the record. [The referenced information was not received at time of print.] Senator Lautenberg. Well, it is the final report, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, May 2000. It has not soured under the date. Mr. Madison. I have to believe we still wholeheartedly support that, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Senator Boxer. Senator, we are so glad you could join us. Senator Sanders. And unless Senator Klobuchar has more questions, then this will be the last questioning of the panel, and we will move to panel three. I appreciate your patience, panel three. Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Let me ask both of our panelists a pretty simple question. My understanding is that of the total of almost 600,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory, approximately 12.4 percent are structurally deficient, and 14.8 percent are functionally obsolete. I could tell you that in rural States like Vermont we have a lot of problems. As I mentioned earlier, just in the last month, a couple of bridges were shut down, at great inconvenience for travelers and for businesses. Given that reality of the serious infrastructure problem we are facing with bridges, do you believe that we need to substantially increase funding for our States and local government to make the necessary repairs? Simple question. Mr. Madison. We believe that our budget request is the appropriate level to fund our bridge program at this time. Senator Sanders. You do? Mr. Madison. Yes. Senator Sanders. Even though bridges all over rural America are collapsing and States don't have the money to repair them? You think what you are providing is a sufficient sum? Mr. Madison. Senator, we believe, again, that the amount of money that is provided for bridge programs, reconstruction, and new construction is at the appropriate level. Senator Sanders. But I ask you a question, if somebody needed surgery, somebody was hurting, you would say that they are in need of help, but where is the money going to come from? How would you tell us with a straight face, when you have heard over and over again today, hear it all over America, Governors are telling you they don't have the money to repair their bridges, they are worried about things like what happened in Minnesota? We want to put people back to work. How do you tell us with a straight face that this is enough money? Mr. Madison. The term that you mentioned, structurally deficient, and the other terms that we spoke about earlier, are engineering terms that help us manage our bridge system nationally and give guidance to the States on how to manage their own respective programs, helps prioritize those investment decisions. I am certainly not arguing, Senator, that our needs in this country do not far outpace the available resources, but we believe there needs to be---- Senator Sanders. You just said the needs outpace the available resources? Mr. Madison. Correct. Senator Sanders. So are you going to go back and fight for more resources? Mr. Madison. In the Department of Transportation's reform proposal, Senator we suggest that it is time for some new and innovative financing methodologies that will help us fund priorities. Senator Sanders. Does that mean more money from the Federal Government? Mr. Madison. I think it means more flexibility to States to make---- Senator Sanders. I thank you very much. And again, Madam Chair, this is exactly what the problem is. You talk to anybody in America, they understand our infrastructure is collapsing. And these guys keep talking in double talk, we need this, we need that, we need everything. But you know what you need? You need to put people to work to rebuild our infrastructure. Unless you guys are magicians and know how to do that without funding, I don't know how you do it. And I think what you are hearing is one of the reasons of why we are not addressing a major crisis facing this Country. If I could ask Ms. Siggerud a question. My understanding is that all over America, including the State of Vermont, States are not able to utilize the Federal funds that have come in because of the matching formula. In other words, States which are having financial problems right now can't come up with the 10 percent or the 20 percent and the Feds are taking back the money. Do you think we should be adjusting or taking a look at that matching formula so that States could better move that money into their infrastructure? Ms. Siggerud. Senator Sanders, the GAO has not looked into that particular issue or the problems in those States in any detail. But what we have said with regard to reauthorization of the Federal Aid Highway Program is that the matching formulas are a key tool for making sure that we are funding the best types of programs and that we may want to revisit that concept, depending on where it is we want to take this transportation program and how we want to define the Federal interest. Senator Sanders. And that is fair enough. But what happens if, as is the case right now, a lot of States are having financial problems, and they are stealing from Peter to pay Paul, and they are not able to come up with the funding and they have to return the money. Is that something we want to take a look at? Ms. Siggerud. I certainly think it should be considered in the reauthorization program. I don't have any particular recommendations with regard to that situation today. Senator Sanders. Madam Chair, I think that is a problem that we are seeing around the Country. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense if we are giving a grant out and States can't use the grant because of financial problems. That is all. I would yield to Senator Klobuchar if she had an additional question. Senator Klobuchar. I already had a second round, I am fine. Senator Sanders. Thank you very much. Senator Boxer. I want to thank you so very much, both of you, for your answers. Obviously this is just the beginning of our debate over how we are going to do this, fix our bridges, fix our highways, et cetera. So thank you very much. We will call up panel three, Mr. Andrew Herrmann, Hardesty and Hanover, LLP, on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He is a minority witness. Mr. John Krieger, U.S. Public Interest Research Group. He is a minority witness. Majority, those two are majority witnesses. So sorry. I was wondering. OK, Mr. Andrew Herrmann is a majority witness, Mr. Krieger is a majority witness. And Mr. Gary Ridley, Director of Oklahoma Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and he is a minority witness. My staff reversed this whole, entire thing. [Laughter.] Senator Boxer. But you know what, we are all Americans. So whatever. We are all here to challenge our very important issues. So please start, Mr. Herrmann. We really welcome you and the American Society of Civil Engineers. STATEMENT OF ANDREW HERRMANN, P.E., F.ASCE, MANAGING PARTNER, HARDESTY AND HANOVER, LLP Mr. Herrmann. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe and members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Andrew Herrmann, I serve on the board of direction of the American Society of Civil Engineers. I am Chairman of the 2009 Report Card of America's Infrastructure Advisory Council. I am a senior partner of Hardesty and Hanover, a transportation consulting engineering firm headquartered in New York. During my 35 year career, I have been responsible for many of the firm's major bridge projects, with experience in inspection, rating, design, rehabilitation and construction of bridges. Let me start by thanking you for holding this hearing. I can say there are few infrastructure issues of greater importance to Americans today than bridge safety. In that respect, I am pleased to voice ASCE's strong support of the National Highway System Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which would provide dedicated funding to the States to repair, rehabilitate and replace structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System. I also would like to say that ASCE strongly supports the National Highway Trust Fund fix. More than 4 billion vehicles cross bridges in the United States every day. Like all man-made structures, bridges deteriorate. Deferred maintenance accelerates deterioration and causes bridges to be more susceptible to failure. In 2005, ASCE issued the latest in a series of assessments of the Nation's infrastructure. Our 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure found that as of 2003, 27.1 percent of the Nation's bridges were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, an improvement from the 28.5 percent in the year 2000. In fact, over the past 15 years, the number of deficient bridges has steadily declined from 34.6 percent in 1992 to 25.6 percent in 2007. However, this improvement is contrasted with the fact that one in three urban bridges was classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, which is much higher than the national average. For another perspective, the 10-year improvement rate from 1994 to 2004 was 5.8 percent fewer deficient bridges. If we project this rate forward from 2004, it will take until the year 2050 to remove all deficient bridges. Unfortunately, the rate of deficient bridge reduction from 1998 to 2006 is actually decreasing. Using the current projections from 2006, all deficient bridges will not be eliminated now until the year 2063. Progress has been made in the past in removing deficient bridges, but our progress is now slipping or leveling off. The Federal 2006 Highway Administration's Condition and Performance Report estimated that at all levels, $12.4 billion in total should be spent on bridge repairs annually. In 2008 dollars, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials last month pegged the total price tag at $140 billion to repair or modernize the Nation's bridges. There is clearly a demonstrated need to invest additional resources in our Nation's bridges. The National Bridge Inspection standards in place since the early 1970's require biennial safety inspections of bridges to be performed by qualified inspectors. Approximately 83 percent of our bridges are inspected once every 2 years. Standard condition evaluations are documented for individual bridge components, as well as ratings for the functional aspects of the bridge. These ratings are weighted and combined into an overall sufficiency rating for the bridge, which can define it as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, both of which trigger the need for remedial action. Bridge inspection services should not be considered a commodity. Currently, NBIS regulations do not require bridge inspectors to be professional engineers, but do require individuals responsible for load rating the bridges to be PEs. ASCE believes that non-PE bridge inspectors and technicians may be used for routine inspection procedures and records, but the pre-inspection evaluation, the actual inspection, ratings and condition evaluation should be performed by registered professional engineers experienced in bridge design and inspection. The bridge engineer may have to make immediate decisions to close a lane, to close an entire bridge or to prohibit truck traffic on a bridge to protect the public safety. ASCE strongly supports quick action to enact the NHS Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which would authorize additional funds to repair, rehabilitate and replace structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System. This is accomplished through improving the bridge inspection requirements, providing dedicated funding for structurally deficient NHS bridges, distributing funds based on public safety and need, and establishing a bridge reconstruction trust fund. A thorough review of current bridge inspection requirements seems appropriate. ASCE strongly supports a requirement that bridge inspections be performed by registered professional engineers who are certified bridge inspectors. The initiatives, compliance reviews of State bridge inspection programs and increased emphasis on steps to address structurally deficient bridges are vital to improving State bridge programs and must emphasize bridge safety, not bureaucracy. Additional funding to repair, rehabilitate and replace structurally deficient bridges on the NHS would be a good complement to the current FHWA bridge program, because of the emphasis on the NHS bridges. National Highway System bridges carry a large percentage, more than 70 percent of all traffic on bridges. Over the over 116,000 bridges on the National Highway System, 6,175 are structurally deficient, including nearly half, 22,830, which are part of the interState system. Senator Boxer. Mr. Herrmann, could you sum up? We are running out of time and I want to make sure everybody gets heard. So just give me your sum-up. Mr. Herrmann. OK. Improving the safety of the Nation's bridges is an important goal. But the rest of the Nation's infrastructure faces just as many needs. ASCE's 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the Nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of D. ASCE is now working on and will release its next report card in March 2009, with the expectation that continued under-investment and delayed maintenance over the past 3 years will result in grades that have not improved significantly, if at all. Successfully and efficiently addressing the Nation's infrastructure issues will require long-term, comprehensive, nationwide strategies including identifying potential financing methods and investment in requirements. For the safety and security of our families, we as a Nation can no longer afford to ignore this growing problem. Aging infrastructure represents a growing threat to public health, safety and welfare, as well as the economic well-being of our Nation. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Herrmann follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.149 Senator Boxer. I think that sums it up. We appreciate it. Mr. Krieger, we are very happy to have you here, U.S. Public Interest Research Group. STATEMENT OF JOHN KRIEGER, STAFF ATTORNEY, FEDERAL TAX AND BUDGET POLICY, UNITED STATES PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP Mr. Krieger. Thank you, Madam Chairperson and Senator Inhofe. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue that is crucial to the safety and security of American families. I speak today on behalf of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a national federation of non-partisan, non- profit State-based public interest advocates and the many other organizations that also support this legislation, including the Transportation for America Coalition, an alliance of national membership groups focused on building a modernized infrastructure and healthy communities where people can live, work and play. As the latest wave of dangerous storms crashing into our coasts has reminded us, we as a Country are only strong and safe when our national infrastructure is sound and in a State of good repair. For that reason, we firmly believe that a Federal highway dollar is best spent on preservation and maintenance rather than building new capacity. We urge the Committee to support this legislation and to focus Federal funding on our Nation's significant backlog of aging and crumbling infrastructure. The height of new bridge construction occurred from 1956 to 1971, during the early phase of the interState highway system. Therefore, many of the bridges that Americans travel on every day are reaching a critical age at the same time. According to a needs assessment from the Department of Transportation, the existing bridge investment backlog on the National Highway System is over $65 billion. Last year, America saw the horror of the Minnesota I-35 West Bridge collapse. One year later, it is important to understand the systematic causes of that tragedy in order to avoid future disasters. There is no organized lobby that pressures State officials for bridge repair. On the contrary, well-connected developers and road builders lobby aggressively on the State level for wider lanes, new branch roads and additional off ramps. Builders often prefer lucrative contracts to pour concrete and lay steel for new highways rather than the uncertainty of relatively complex and labor-intensive restoration and repair. Meanwhile, elected officials find it all too easy to defer preventive maintenance that is scarcely noticed and rarely celebrated by voters. Over the last two decades, State departments of transportation have received vastly increased flexibility to shift funds between Federal programs to fulfill their transportation plans. The Highway Bridge Program, as you know, is the primary source of funds for highway bridge replacement, reconstruction and capital maintenance. States, however, can flex or transfer 50 percent of their Federal bridge funds into non-bridge programs. During the last 5 years, as we have heard earlier, most States divert that money into new projects, diluting the intention of the Federal program. In fact, Federal highway data shows that 36 States transferred more money out of bridge repair accounts than into them over the span of the last 5 years. Compounding the problem, Federal funds are doled out based on formulas that often reward deferred maintenance. States receive funding based on their outstanding costs for replacing deficient bridges, but there is little accountability to ensure that States use the money for this purpose. By deferring maintenance and allowing a bridge to deteriorate to the point of replacement, States can tap into more readily available capital funds, albeit it as a much greater total cost to the taxpayers. The legislation before us today would be a strong step in the right direction. The legislation requires that State departments of transportation address all bridges on the National Highway System that have a sufficient rating below 50 on a scale of 1 to 100 before being eligible to transfer Federal funds into other programs. This common-sense solution ensures that States address those bridges that are in worse condition than the I-35 West bridge before diverting bridge funds into other projects. The legislation also infuses more accountability into the National Bridge repair and replacement program by ensuring that investments are based on priorities like safety and mobility and not on politics. Next session, this Committee will be called upon to debate and write much of the next surface transportation funding authorization. In order to revamp our transportation system for the needs of the 21st century, fix it first policies and accountability for spending must be prioritized. Unless we change the way that American finances bridge repair, we remain doomed to repeat mistakes of the past. The bridge collapse in Minnesota should serve as a wake-up call. We urge this Committee to embrace and approach the highway spending that prioritizes maintenance and repair of our existing roadways and bridges. Our Country can no longer afford the cost of inaction and misplaced priorities as our bridges continue to age and deteriorate. For that reason, we ask that you support the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act. I thank you once again for this opportunity. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Krieger follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.151 Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Krieger. As I have explained to my Ranking Member, I have given the gavel to Senator Klobuchar, because I need to go to a noon meeting. Mr. Ridley, know that I join in all the wonderful things that Jim Inhofe said about your career. I am just leaving because I have this urgent meeting, and I am turning this over to Senator Klobuchar. After you finish, she will do her 5 minutes and then go to Senator Inhofe, then I have told her, as long as she wants to keep you here, questioning you, she should feel free to do that. We will read it all in the record. Thank you all, and thank you, Senator Inhofe. Senator Klobuchar. [Presiding]. Mr. Ridley. STATEMENT OF GARY RIDLEY, DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Ridley. Madam Chair and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Gary Ridley. I am the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and as with all State DOT directors, a member of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. On behalf of the State of Oklahoma and AASHTO, we want to thank you for the opportunity to be with you this morning to offer testimony related to the content of Senate Bill 3338 and House Resolution 3999 with regard to increasing the effectiveness of the Federal Bridge Program. In the current form, the proposed legislation seeks overall highway-bridge program improvement through increased levels of Federal involvement, and also focuses attention on several perceived deficiencies in the National Bridge Inspection program. We would submit that the deteriorating conditions of our Nation's transportation infrastructure is no secret. It is not the result of lack of Federal involvement, a mismanaged investment strategy or a failed bridge inspection program. In plain terms, it is a result of the failure to provide the necessary financial resources to properly maintain and expand the very system that helped make this Country what it is today. An increase in the bridge inspection frequency will only duplicate the documentation of known bridge deficiencies, just as the creation of a new 5 year plan will only reemphasize how woefully ill-prepared we are to face the Nation's future with a clear knowledge and understanding of the shortcomings of our past. In that context, we would offer the following observations concerning the bill. A risk-based prioritization system, subject to the approval of the Secretary, affords little opportunity to improve the Federal bridge program, but will certainly contribute to another layer of Federal bureaucracy. Bridge management systems used in each State are already designed to consider risk-based factors and are being enhanced to incorporate risk-based modeling. The prioritization of bridge rehabilitation and replacement must begin with bridge management and must carefully be vetted by State transportation professionals to ensure that a balanced approach to managing all transportation assets is being implemented. It is unlikely that the requirement for load rating all bridges on the Federal Aid system every 24 months will yield meaningful information. However, load ratings should be reevaluated when the conditions observed in the field have changed significantly from the as-built condition of the structure. Also, the posting of safe load-carrying capacities for each bridge indicates that load rating tonnage, posted tonnage, would be required for all bridges. Such methodology would diminish the effectiveness of posting only those bridges incapable of carrying legally loaded trucks. The development of a new 5 year performance plan for bridge inspection and bridge rehabilitation and replacements to be approved by the Secretary provides no tangible benefit. The Bridge Inspection Program is clearly described in the National Bridge Inspection Standards, and the opportunity for Federal input and oversight already exists through the review of the approved, mandated State-wide Transportation Improvement Plan, or STIP. It is safe to say that States already utilize the bridge condition information provided by their bridge management systems, along with a host of other considerations, to identify transportation system deficiencies in formulating and prioritizing the investment strategies presented in their STIP. A new performance plan provides no new enhanced information beyond that which exists today and does nothing to improve the inspection program or to expedite bridge program or project delivery. Undoubtedly, the National Bridge Inspection Program can be improved upon. However, the focus of any improvement should be with qualitative nature, rather than simply quantitative. We would offer the following observations in that support. When determining bridge inspection frequency, structural deficiency is not the true measure of structural integrity and should not be exclusively used as a trigger for annual inspection cycles. Bridges should be, and are already placed on a more frequent inspection cycle based on the condition of the main structural members and traffic volumes. The frequency of inspection of fracture-critical members should be based on a documented, in-depth assessment of condition of that member and the amount of truck traffic that is carried by the structure. Truck traffic is a driving force behind fracture-critical member fatigue cycles. Therefore, fracture-critical members with low average daily truck traffic may not need to be inspected at the same frequency as fracture- critical members carrying large volumes of traffic. Ultimately, sound engineering judgment should be used for inspection frequency in determinations for both structural deficiency and fracture-critical bridges. These considerations and judgment are self-evident in the fact that States have implemented an inspection frequency of 12 months or less on almost 7,000 of the Nation's 25,000 structurally deficient Federal Highway Aid Bridges. With regard to possible changes to increase the effectiveness of Federal ridge program and bridge inspection procedures, we request your consideration of the following recommendations. The membership of AASHTO's Standing Committee on Highways, or SCOH, is representative of the best transportation engineers in the Country and therefore, the world. This standing committee, made up of transportation professionals, should be tasked with the evaluation of the bridge program and the National Bridge Inspection Standards in order to return improvement recommendations back to Congress for their consideration. The further consideration of S. 3338 and H.R. 3999 should be limited to the appropriation of $1 billion to be utilized exclusively for the construction contracts to rehabilitate or replace structurally deficient bridges on the National Highway System and mandate the obligation of these funds with 18 months of apportionment. In conclusion, we would reiterate that the further assessment, inspection, documentation and prioritization of deficient bridges will not make them better bridges. The only way to begin to reverse the current trends is to substantially increase the Federal investment in all facets of our national transportation system, both bridges and pavements. We would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ridley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8907.161 Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Ridley, and thank you to all of our panelists. I was noticing, Mr. Herrmann, that in your testimony, you talked about how over $12 billion should be spent annually on bridge repair, is that right? Mr. Herrmann. That goes back to the Report Card in 2005. It was $12.4 billion. I think it was FHWA's statistics. Senator Klobuchar. I thought it was an interesting figure, because there are some estimates that that is how much we are spending a month in Iraq to build, among other things, bridges in Iraq. So you are saying that $12 billion a year, and then we are now spending only around $4 billion a year on bridge repair, is that right? Mr. Herrmann. I think AASHTO came up with a number from the Federal Government, $5 billion, and I think from States and other sources there is another $5 billion. So it is about $2 billion short. Senator Klobuchar. OK. And you know what we are trying to do is, one, I agree with Mr. Ridley, we are trying to inject more funding into the system. We have tried to do that in several stimulus packages and other things. But the other thing we are trying to do is make sure the money that we have is spent in the right way. One of the things that Congressman Oberstar, because he has limited time, wasn't able to say that he has looked at this, and in Minnesota, in the 5-years leading up to our bridge collapse, only 51 percent of the bridge repair money was spent in that way. It was spent on other things. So that is why he and I are both so focused on trying to put safety standards in place and make sure that the money is spent in the right way. So could you tell me what the consequence, the on the ground consequence that you think there is of not spending the money we have designated, although it is not enough, in the right way? Then also not having enough money, period, for our own infrastructure? Mr. Herrmann. Obviously the statistic came out that our average bridge is 43 years old. About the time that these were designed, their design life was about 50 years. Now, bridges can be made to last longer, but they need maintenance, and they do need rehabilitation. If we don't have sufficient funding, we can't do that, and the rate of structurally deficient bridges will increase. As I stated earlier, if we take a look at the average over the past couple of years, the rate of decreasing that deficient bridge number is actually decreasing. So it is going to take longer to get rid of deficient bridges at the present rate. Senator Klobuchar. And the bill that we have here in the Senate that is similar to Congressman Oberstar's bill makes its allocation based on a formula that takes into account public safety. Do you think that is a key criteria for determining the funding? Mr. Herrmann. ASCE's canon of ethics puts public safety, health and welfare above everything for an engineer. So public safety is an excellent way to regard removal of deficient bridges. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Krieger, you were talking, which was kind of interesting, about why you think this is going on at the State levels. I tried to figure out why, in the past 5 years, as Congressman Oberstar had pointed out, in our State, 51 percent of the bridge money went to that maintenance. We had some State issues as well with a lack of funding. You believe, I wondered if you could expand on this, that you have issues of, there is not really a bridge repair lobby, that people aren't focused on that, it is not very glamorous, it is not very sexy and it is not as interesting as maybe building new projects. Do you want to expand on that? Mr. Krieger. Yes, thank you. We have been engaged over the last, for quite some time on the State level, trying to push, within State DOTs and State elected officials to do the right thing and to look at maintenance and repair. What happens is, in a lot of cases, there is pressure that comes from the outside and from the inside to do the thing that leads to the big ribbon-cutting. Those that push for the maintenance and repair and point to some of the things that their constituencies see, which are bridges in really bad shape, are kind of deemed as Chicken Littles. So there is definitely this sense of what is more popular among the voters and also this sense of, if you are an elected official or an appointee, in your time in office doing the thing that gets you the most political capital, which is not necessarily maintenance and repair. Then on top of that, in the situation of the flexing funds back and forth, it is logistically and politically difficult to do some of these maintenance and repair projects when it is easier to do some of the other new projects that, as I said before, are more politically popular. Senator Klobuchar. OK. We will go back to that for Senator Inhofe. I do think this is a combination of what you and Mr. Herrmann have talked about, with the lack of focus on this bridge repair, which is why we are doing this bill, but also what Mr. Ridley is referring to, which is the lack of funding, period. So thank you. Senator Inhofe? Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, let me repeat, since it has been a long meeting, we may have forgotten how serious the problem is in Oklahoma. We are actually third in the number of bridges, only behind Texas and California. A lot of people don't realize that. The State of ill repair is about the worst in the Nation. Second, I don't like to have, in these discussions, bringing in political things, talking about how much you spend in Iraq or the war on terror and all that. We have a problem. I am ranked usually as the most conservative member of the U.S. Senate. And yet I am a big spender in some areas. One is national defense, but the other clearly is infrastructure. I would like to remind, I know that Mr. Ridley knows this, that when I was the author, at that time the Republicans were majority, I authored the 2005 Transportation Reauthorization Bill and characterized it as the largest non-military authorization bill in this Nation's history. I think it was. But I also said it was inadequate. It wasn't enough. And it just barely maintained what we have today, and it didn't take care of this crisis that is out there that everybody knows is there. That is why this should not be a partisan discussion. We need to spend more money on infrastructure, it is a crisis, we recognize that. Mr. Ridley, you and I have talked several times in the last few days. Could you recount for my colleagues and for the record what you have done in Oklahoma since last Friday to manage this highway finance Trust Fund crisis? Mr. Ridley. On Monday, Senator, we had our Transportation Commission. And we had a little over $80 million worth of projects that we had open bids just 2 weeks before that was going to be taken to the Commission for approval. One of those, quite frankly, was a $40 million project on a half a billion dollar bridge that we are replacing in Oklahoma City that is structurally deficient, that has 250 fracture- critical members on it. It is one that certainly needs to be replaced. But we had to ask the Commission to defer that letting until the crisis here in the Trust Fund is solved. We also suspended all right-of-way acquisition for any of our projects. And depending on what takes place, I informed the Commission, depending on what takes place with the Trust Fund over the next few days, we may suspend work on construction projects, have to, because of the cash-flow of the reimbursement of the billing from the Federal Trust Fund. Senator Inhofe. You have done a good job of it. I would assume that your counterparts in other States, you have had communication with them. The same thing is happening there, in most States. Mr. Ridley. That is correct. All States are different in their approach. We rely, 85 percent of our construction program currently is Federal funds. Consequently, any disruption in making payments by the Trust Fund will have a dramatic effect on our cash-flow. Senator Inhofe. We have talked also, Mr. Ridley, about the upcoming 2009 reauthorization bill. I have mentioned to you that some of this concern that is out there, that money is not going all to surface transportation, in fact, I have seen this in the last 22 years that I have been on both the House Committee and then the Senate Committee, that it goes to other areas. One of our meetings preparing, that we have had here with Senator Boxer, preparing for the 2009 reauthorization bill, we have talked about funding mechanisms and trying to isolate these things to have each one pay for its own. We are trying to address this. But it is a crisis that is out there. Now, Mr. Krieger, I am going to ask you, but I want to ask Mr. Ridley first, it is my understanding, and I am not sure about Oklahoma, but in many States, money is indeed transferred out of the bridge account. One reason for that, as I said in my opening statement, when Mr. Oberstar was here, is that there is so much red tape in there that they can actually use that money to repair and to rebuild bridges in another account that doesn't have the same red tape and maybe get more for the dollars. Do you think either Oklahoma or some other States are using this rationale? Mr. Ridley. Absolutely, Senator. The problem with using the money in the bridge account, because of the guidance, if you will, by the Federal Government, makes it so extremely difficult to use those moneys for bridge rehabilitation at times. Let me give you an example, Senator, that you are very familiar with. Oklahoma, not unlike Minnesota, had a bridge tragedy itself in 2002. Our bridge was knocked down, not collapsed. We started immediately to put a plan in place to rebuild that bridge. Federal Highways told us that we could not use bridge funds to replace that bridge, because the last inspection of it had it rated as an 80. And not until we had some calls from your office and some others was the decision made that yes, we could. We were going to have to remove money out of our bridge program into the NHS in order to be able to rebuild the bridge back, rather than just use the money out of the bridge program, which certainly seems somewhat foolish with us. Senator Inhofe. And I remember being there with Secretary Peters the day after this, and with you. And she recognized that. That is one of the reasons that we did it the way we did it. I applaud you for getting that done. By the way, that job, I am sure you have the numbers on this, but it was done like in two-thirds of the time that they thought it was going to be done. It was so similar to the tragedy that took place between Port Isabel, Texas, and South Padre Island, just a few weeks before, when it was rammed by a barge. So you really performed well. I think that is a good way of putting it. Mr. Krieger--I know, I am going over. Senator Klobuchar. That is OK, go ahead. Senator Inhofe. It would be very difficult, I think, for you to try to analyze how much of the 36 that you use actually did come back for bridge use that didn't come back to that account. And you might have a comment about that, or maybe there is a methodology that can be used. It would be interesting for all of us up here to know how much of this diversion actually did go back into bridges. Do you have any thoughts on that? Mr. Krieger. I don't have a specific answer to that. What I can speak to is that the ISTEA bill built in quite a bit of flexibility for States. This is where the flexing comes from in the first place. And that flexibility, when not matched specifically with accountability, as you know, any time you have flexibility and you don't match it with a level of accountability, and I think we have heard that repeatedly during this hearing today, has led to the situation that we are at now. That is why we specifically support the legislation that is before us today, is because what it does, it says, there is a national crisis, a national priority, let's get these bridges, regardless of State lines, let's get these bridges inspected, inspected correctly, categorized, prioritized and then fixed. We have engaged the public in this discussion and have tried to get the public really as engaged as possible. They know nothing of these kind of rescissions and complex formulas and things like that. But what they do know is a crisis, and they do know national priorities. Senator Inhofe. You answered the question. But what you might do is kind of look at that and see if there is a way to determine, because I think it would be worthwhile knowing. I have worked at the local level and at the State level. Unfortunately, here in Washington I have to say that there is this mentality that if it isn't done in Washington and directed from Washington, it is not going to be right. This bothers me. I have always said, even back in the days when I was mayor, the closer you are to the people, the better ideas you have on resolving these problems. Mr. Ridley, we talked about the bridges and the dangers there. We all know that, we know that certainly from our Oklahoma experiences. In fact, we have, in Oklahoma City one of the concerns I have on this delay is what is going to happen on that cross-town. We have chunks of rock that are falling down and very likely could kill somebody. So there is a lot of danger there. But do you make a conscious evaluation of the relative dangers of other things, too? There are other dangers in the Highway Bill and the highway construction. Do you have any comments on that, on what you would do to try to address the thing that all of us feel is the most significant, and that is dangers to health or human life? Mr. Ridley. Certainly, Senator, a DOT director or a State has to balance the program. And let me give you some examples. The tragedy that took place in Minnesota, our hearts really went out for them because of what took place in 2002 in Oklahoma. But we need to realize, last year, those 13 people that were killed with that collapse was terrible, a terrible tragedy. At the same time, last year over 40,000 people were killed on our highways. In my State, on the roads that I am responsible for, last year over 500 people were killed on the roads that I am responsible for, none of them in a bridge collapse. We have a real problem, not only just in Oklahoma, but in all States. Twenty-five percent of our roads in Oklahoma are critical or inadequate. That means they don't have shoulders on them, poor horizontal and vertical sight distance, bad geometrics, no recovery area for an errant vehicle, so that they can bring a car under control or bring it back up on the highway. In 25 percent of our roads, those that are critical or inadequate, over 50 percent of all accidents occur. So we know that there are problems that we can correct. But without the funds, we cannot. So you balance the problems with our bridges along with the problems with our roadways to develop a plan. Federal Government provides us, about 16, 18 percent of the Federal program is tied to bridges under the BR program. We spend about 26, 27 percent on bridges. So it is not that we are not spending money on bridges. And other States do as well. But you have to marry it with everything else. A lot of things that happen with the fatality accidents across the Country are certainly driver error. But I don't think that a 16 year old girl driving on a two lane highway at night in a rainstorm, drops her wheel off the edge line, where there is no shoulder, no recovery area, poor horizontal and vertical sight distance, that the penalty for that mistake ought to be personal injury or death. But that is certainly what can happen. We see it every day on our system, across the Country. So you can't just focus on bridges, oblivious to everything else. You have to balance it with all aspects of transportation and certainly safety is a prime consideration of our State. And I know it is with the other 49. Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much. Just one last short question. The problem that we are going to have right now if we don't get this thing through, we have to have, and I think the Chairman and I both agree on this, we have to have this fixed, we have come up with a fix that I think is good and it is going to have to be done. If it isn't, and you look at all the problems, I don't know whether you have had a chance to look and see in terms of jobs how many penalties, for example. You have contracts, you have let contracts. There are penalties involved if we don't live up to our part of this. It is going to cost the State of Oklahoma and the Federal Government penalties. There are going to be delays, there could be lawsuits. I know you have thought about all of these unintended consequences. And right-of-way acquisition, all these things. It is chaotic. We could go on and on. I just hope that this hearing will reflect that this isn't just in the State of Oklahoma, but by not doing this fix now instead of waiting until next year, the consequences are dire, not only in money, but in lives, Madam Chairman. I applaud you, Director Ridley, for the great job that you have done. We are truly blessed in the State of Oklahoma to have your service. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. I also thank you, Mr. Ridley, for your work that you have done. I was just in Oklahoma at Fort Sill, bidding farewell to some of our troops. It was 109 degrees as I called Senator Inhofe to say hello and how much I enjoyed the weather when I was there. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. I can imagine the heat has its own impact, just as the cold does in Minnesota, on the roads. And obviously, I support and we badly, on our side of the aisle, want to get that fix done to the transit fund. We have tried now three times and have been blocked. We hope, with the Administration helping us this time, that we will be successful. But I did want to get at this issue of priorities with funding in general. This isn't just about bridges, as we pointed out. This is about our infrastructure funding. I know, Senator Inhofe, you mentioned it was partisan. But I do think in the end we only have so much money and we have to decide how we are going to divide it up. I was thinking, my daughter had a slumber party with six girls and two extra came. They had ordered this pizza and they had it all divided up--this is a mom's way of looking at the world--and the extra guests came. I saw them all trying to figure out how they were going to divide up the extra pizza. That is what this is all about. It is about limited resources and how we are going to spend them. That is why I have an issue with some of the priorities that we have had in the past when we are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq and bridges are falling down in the middle of Minnesota. So I appreciate that you understand that this infrastructure should be a key priority. Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, I might just say that we have the Defense Authorization bill on the floor. I have an amendment, so if you will excuse me. I will leave their fate in your hands. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I think I will just have a few more minutes here. Back to the GAO report, Mr. Ridley, you correctly State that this is about funding, first and foremost, that is what it is about. But we have this issue of bridge funding, and we are dealing, we know we are not going to get everything we want in funding here, so we are figuring out how, with this one program, can we better fund it. We have in the GAO report some suggestions which clearly indicate that the current system provides States with an incentive to not replace or repair their bridges, just because of the way that it works. We heard from the head of the GAO. Do you think that is a problem, the way the current system works? Mr. Ridley. I think maybe evidence to the contrary, Madam Chair. In recent years, out of the Federal Trust Fund, a little over $5 billion was set aside for bridge replacement, bridge rehab. Yet States have spent over $10 billion, as Mr. Herrmann had said. It doesn't look to me like States are robbing from the bridge fund to do other things, it looks like they are using the ability to be able to move funds in order to adequately try and handle the bridge problem. Again, I can refer to Oklahoma easier than I can others, in the last 30 months, we have repaired or replaced 242 bridges for a cost over $900 million. So we are trying to tackle our bridge program. As I mentioned earlier, some 27 percent of all of our funds in our 8 year program are tied to bridge replacement and bridge repair, major rehabilitation. I would assume that other States would do the same thing. They have a responsibility to the people that they work for to do the same thing. Senator Klobuchar. Obviously I am struggling with what happened in our State, where we know we have this one fact and maybe some other money we know was also used for bridge repair, that only 50 percent was really used for bridge repair. We also know that there was some knowledge that there were some problems with the bridge. Obviously no one wanted this to occur, it wasn't intentional. But we are just trying to figure out, Congressman Oberstar and I, how we could best target those funds. What we are concerned about is that some of these funds have been going to less high priority projects. Secretary Peters and the Administration believes that the Federal Government in fact needs to develop better outcome measures for how this money is spent. Could you comment on that? Mr. Ridley. As I stated, I think that we appreciate the look-see at our bridge program nationally and how we do the inspection. Again, Madam Chair, I think that if you task, if this Committee or Congress or the Senate would task the professionals that are in all States, the State chief bridge engineers which are on a committee, so there is 50 of them, some of the smartest minds that I have ever been around, if you would task them to look at the bridge inspection standards, see if there are things that could be done differently and make a better bridge program, and have them report back to you shortly, I think they would. This is our bridge management system that we use in Oklahoma. About all States have a bridge management system that uses a lot of risk factors in the modeling to ensure that everything is considered when you are making selections of bridge projects, either rehabilitation or replacement. So I think there are some things out there that maybe are not universally known. But again, I would ask you to use these professionals. Again, they are some of the best minds I know. Have them report back to you. I am sure there are some things that could be changed for major improvement. I truly believe that. Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Krieger's point, and I am sure you will most likely say from your experience with Oklahoma, this hasn't happened, but do you think it is possible in another State, I won't even name one, that there could be some incentive to want to put money into more glamorous projects instead of this ongoing work of maintenance and that that could lead to some of these problems about not putting money into maintenance? Mr. Ridley. Again, that is an idea that I don't know I could comment on. I know in our State, asset preservation is a big part of what we do. You have to look at preserving your existing assets before you add any new assets. Certainly other States are pressured with other things as far as congestion is concerned that they may have to deal with in adding additional assets. I can't comment on that. But we focus very heavily on asset preservation, which may mean replacement of bridges, it may mean replacement of pavement or adding shoulders, but improving the asset that we currently have. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Just a few last questions. Mr. Krieger, do you think the provision that we have in our bill aimed at prohibiting any congressional or Administration earmarks that could divert the funding from our most pressing problems, based on public safety, would be adequate to address some of the problems we have been facing here as we look at where these funds have been going? Mr. Krieger. Yes, I certainly think that it is an important provision. As I said in the testimony, and again as we have heard from other witnesses today, there is, in the case of this being a large, an important national priority that you have to, to the degree that is possible, extract the politics as much as possible and just attack the problem. I think that is what your legislation does extremely well. The one thing, as far as this flexing question goes, the one thing that we do know as a fact is that close to $5 billion over 5 years has been flexed out of the Highway Bridge Program, the national program, and put into other places. We don't know exactly in every case where that has gone. But it has happened, and it is very much the sense of, a homeowner, and I think we heard this analogy earlier from the Chairperson, that homeowner with a cracked foundation, instead of it deferring, it is almost like, when you are taking this $5 billion out and putting it on other places, it is like building a big pool in your back yard or an extension in the house when you have a cracked foundation. We have to really address that foundation. Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Herrmann, Mr. Krieger, everyone, for being here this long time. I will end, Mr. Ridley, with a good Oklahoma story for you. When I went to that deployment ceremony in what was 109 degrees, it was so hot that 37 people fainted. They are all fine, they got treatment. I went home from Oklahoma that day with our National Guard, and I called a friend and I was telling her the story. My 13 year old daughter heard me talking and she ran to the top of the stairs, the ceremony was an hour long, she said, ``Daddy, Mommy talked so long that 37 people fainted.'' [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. I would point out, I only spoke 4 minutes. So with that story, I will end our hearing so everyone can go to lunch. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [Additional material submitted for the record follows.] Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware The last two times we have reauthorized the Nation's surface transportation law, our priority has been giving states as much flexibility as possible in the use of that money. As a former Governor, I support letting states determine their transportation priorities and where money is most needed. However, we can go too far. We still have to answer to the Federal taxpayer with regard to how their money is being spent. In terms of the Bridge Program, this means making sure the taxpayer dollars are going to bridges most in need of repair. It means ensuring that progress is made in the maintenance of bridges to keep American drivers safe. Currently, states with the most deficient bridges get the most money, which makes sense. But when we allow states to flex that money into other programs while neglecting structurally deficient bridges then it starts to seem like our formula rewards bad behavior. I am proud that Delaware has one of the best Bridge programs in the country and we have very few structurally deficient bridges. However, we too face our challenges. The Corps of Engineers maintains four bridges over the C&D Canal that cuts through the middle of my state. Two of those bridges--the St. Georges and the Summit Bridge--currently have weight restrictions on them while repair work is being done. We need to make sure funding is available to do this kind of important work. But we need to make sure progress is being made to ensure bridges are being repaired to keep American drivers safe. As we consider reauthorization of this program, it may be time to require that states meet performance standards to demonstrate progress in repairing bridges that need it. Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland Thank you, Madam Chair. Everyday 4 billion vehicles cross bridges in the United States. The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, found that 27.1 percent, or more than 160,000 of the nation's 600,000 bridges, were structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In Maryland 29 percent of my state's bridges were rated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Maryland State Highway Administration has cited an unfunded preservation need of $221 million just for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. Madame Chair, we have a lot of bridges in America and they need a lot of work. I join my colleagues in supporting a bold investment plan to save our nation's bridges. I also think we need to begin to utilize promising technologies that improve the thoroughness of bridge inspections. Just last month in Maryland, a tragic accident on the eastbound span of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge sent an 18-wheel tractor trailer over a jersey barrier and into the Chesapeake Bay, killing the driver. The original span of the Bay Bridge opened in 1952. The accident last month marks the first time that a vehicle has jumped the bridge's jersey rail. In many respects that is an enviable safety record, but it is clearly not good enough. Maryland Governor O'Malley ordered State transportation officials to immediately investigate the causes of the crash and to re-inspect the bridge. State inspectors found corroded steel in the U-bolts, which fasten the barriers to the deck of the bridge. According to the chief engineer of the Maryland Transportation Authority, the U-bolt corrosion had been overlooked in the past because routine annual inspections are visual. This corrosion was identified only because ultrasound and radar were used to penetrate into the structure of the bridge. This discovery demonstrates the advantage of newer technologies for bridge inspection. We know Maryland is not the only State that has experienced bridge corrosion, or tragedy related to deteriorating bridges, in recent years. The memories of the collapse of a bridge on InterState 35 West in Minneapolis just over a year ago, which killed 13, are still with us. In addition to the public safety concern, this is an economic and American competitiveness issue. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out that without significant repairs and new construction, our aging roads, bridges, and transit cannot begin to handle the growing transportation needs that commuters, emergency responders, truckers and delivery drivers, and law enforcement require on a daily basis. The economy depends on the soundness of our bridges as well. We are seeing that impact right now. The lane closures on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge are having a major impact on the economic vitality of my state's economy, especially on the Eastern Shore. We need a bold investment plan for our nation's bridges and other infrastructure. We also need to utilize the latest in screening and inspection technologie--such as radar, ultrasound and other electronic sensors--to assess which bridges need attention first. These technologies can save money and save lives. Washington needs to once again take the development of our national infrastructure as a serious national issue, for our security, our economy, and to ensure American competitiveness. This hearing and the legislation we are considering start us down that neglected path. Thank you. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] [all]