[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16] [Senate] [Pages 22219-22221] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]H.R. 3999 Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise to speak about H.R. 3999, which is the companion bill to the bill that Senator Durbin and I introduced in the Senate about bridges and bridge repair. Senator Boxer today asked that this bill be called up. It successfully was passed through our committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. She asked that the bill be called up because, obviously, we are in the waning days of the session, and we believed this was an incredibly important bill for this country. Unfortunately, the other side blocked this bill; they would not allow this bill to be heard. I would like to make some comments about the objection from the other side to this bill. I do not understand it. I think everyone knows what happened in Minnesota. On August 1, our Nation was shocked to learn that this eight-lane highway in the middle of Minnesota, the I-35W bridge, collapsed. I have said many times after that terrible day that a bridge should not fall down in the middle of America, not a bridge that is an eight-lane freeway, not a bridge that is six blocks from my house, not a bridge that I drive my 13-year-old daughter over every day. Now, as you know, there has been great progress in rebuilding that bridge. In fact, we have a new bridge. That bridge opened about a week ago, and that new bridge spans the river. We are very proud of the workers who worked on that bridge. But it is also a spot of great sadness as we remember the 13 people who died, the 50-some people who were injured, the 100-some cars that went into the river, and all of the rescue workers who saved so many lives. [[Page 22220]] We must still get to the bottom of why this enormous bridge fell into the middle of the Mississippi River. It did not happen because of an earthquake or a barge collision; something went terribly wrong. We need to get the answer. Evidence is accumulating that the bridge's condition had been deteriorating for years, and that it had been a subject of growing concern with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. This was not a bridge over troubled waters; this was a troubled bridge over waters. Still, as a former prosecutor, like the Presiding Officer, I know we must wait until all of the facts and evidence are in before we reach a verdict. We will need to be patient as the investigation continues. Mark Rosenker, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said last month that the NTSB investigation is nearing completion, that a final report should be ready for public release very soon. The chairman also said that photographs of the gusset plate, which were a half inch thick and warped, were stressed by the weight of the bridge and may have been a key indicator to the dangerous state of the I-35W bridge. Now we know that this was most likely a design defect in the bridge, but the Chairman has said recently that these photographs show that there were some visible problems. So we will await the report to see what the NTSB thinks about that. But clearly there was some indication that there were problems with this bridge. Finally, the bridge collapse in Minnesota has shown that America needs to come to grips with the broader question about our deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked Americans into realizing how important it is to have a safe, sound infrastructure. Because we also have learned that another bridge in our State, and I think you have seen this across the country, had a similar design. We have actually looked at all of our bridges in Minnesota. We have another bridge that is also closed down in the middle of St. Cloud, MN, a midsized city. This bridge has been closed down. And we look all over the country and we have problems with our infrastructure. According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 25 percent of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Unfortunately, it took a disaster such as the bridge in our State to put the issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national agenda. Of the 25 percent of the Nation's bridges that have been found to be in need of repair--the 600,000--74,000 come into the category of structurally deficient. In my home State, that means 1,579 bridges are considered structurally deficient. There is virtually no way to drive in or out of any State without going over one of these bridges. When the average age of a bridge in the country is 43 years and 25 percent of all American bridges are in need of repair or replacement, it is time to act. Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a study raising several issues regarding the Federal Highway Bridge Program. First, the program has expanded from improving deficient bridges to include funding criteria that make nearly all bridges eligible. Second, States are able to transfer bridge program funds to other transportation projects. Third, there are disincentives for States to reduce their inventories of deficient bridges since doing so would reduce their Federal bridge funds. Finally, GAO noted that the long- term trend is more bridges in need of repair and the cost of repair rising as well. In other words, the Highway Bridge Fund is not fiscally sustainable. A few weeks ago, Transportation Secretary Peters announced that the Federal highway trust fund would not be able to meet its obligations. We replenished that fund, but that is not enough. We all know that is not enough. That is why Senator Durbin and I introduced S. 3338, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which is a companion bill to H.R. 3999, the bill Congressman Oberstar successfully authored and moved through the House. In the House, there was much Republican support for the bill. It passed by a wide margin. The reason I care about it is, after we looked at what happened with our bridge in Minnesota, we found out that about 50 percent of the Highway Bridge Fund, Federal funds, had not been used for bridge maintenance. It had been used for other things. This was all across the country. We found out they were used for a construction project, used to plant flowers, all kinds of things. We think if we have a Highway Bridge Program, that money should be used for bridge maintenance and bridge reconstruction. At the hearing Chairman Boxer had on this topic, we actually had some interesting testimony from witnesses who talked about the fact that bridge maintenance is never a very sexy thing. People don't like to do that as much because it doesn't involve cutting ribbons and new projects. There are all kinds of actual reasons we have not been putting the money that we should into bridge maintenance. What our bill does is 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. This triages it and says: Let's look at the bridges that are most in need of repair and let's put our money there first. I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would object to that kind of idea, that we should actually make sure we are repairing the most seriously problematic bridges first. It would also require the Federal Highway Administration to develop new bridge inspection standards and procedures that use the best technology available. You wouldn't believe some of the old technology that is still being used. As time goes on, we have developed new and more advanced technology, and that technology is what should be used in order to examine bridges and figure out what is wrong with them and which ones should be repaired. As I mentioned, because some of the States have been transferring their bridge repairs to highway maintenance programs to use for wildflower plantings or road construction, this bill also ensures 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. Anyone out there, if they heard that bridge money was going to other things, it wouldn't make sense to them, when we have bridges falling in the middle of America. Finally, this bill authorizes an additional $1 billion for the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges that are part of the national highway system. When you look at what we do here, we first improve the safety of these bridges. We do it by using a risk-based prioritization, a triage of reconstruction of deficient bridges. It has with it an independent review. It has with it a performance plan. It doesn't allow earmarking. It says: Let's look at where the most seriously deficient bridges are and go there first. Secondly, it strengthens bridge inspection standards and processes. It requires the immediate update of bridge inspection standards. We had a lot of testimony on this as to why it is important because we have new information and reasons we want to update the standards. Certainly, the bridge collapse in Minnesota showed we want increased scrutiny of inspection standards. We are going to await that report. We do know there may have been some problems with the inspection. It was a design defect initially, but there may have been problems with the inspection. That is why we want to upgrade. Third, we increase the investment for the reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges on the national highway system, $1 billion. If they are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, it boggles my mind why the other side would block us from trying to spend $1 billion on bridges in America that are sorely in need of repair. [[Page 22221]] That is our plan. That is what we are trying to do. It is a start. We all know there is a lot more work that needs to be done and that will be done in the Transportation bill that our committee will be considering next year. We know work has to be done with funding with an infrastructure bank, to look at other ways to fund our transportation system. We know we need to do better with the increasing cost of gasoline, with public transportation and other ways of travel. We also know we have a burgeoning energy economy, which is exciting for the rural areas of my State, with wind and solar and geothermal and biomass. As we know from projects across the country, we will need better transportation systems to transport energy to market. Yet we have failed to improve our transportation system. If we are going to move into the next century's economy, we cannot be stuck in the last century's transportation system. This bill will at least make sure our most seriously dangerous bridges are repaired and maintained. It is a start. That is why I am asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to block this bill, not to add a bunch of amendments that have not gone through committee because we are in the waning days of the session. We only have the House bill now, because that is the easiest vehicle to use, even though the Senate bill was exactly the same. Then we don't have to have a conference committee. We just want to get this done. I am hopeful this will head us in the right direction toward action. As we learned that August 1 day in Minnesota, we cannot afford to wait. We have to get this done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________