    [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]