[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 21 (Wednesday, March 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
        PERMITTING USE OF FUNDS FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BRIDGES

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1789) to amend title 23, United 
States Code, to permit the use of funds under the highway bridge 
replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic retrofit of bridges, 
and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not 
intend to object, but I yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Surface Transportation, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], 
for an explanation of the bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, S. 1789 as passed by the Senate on February 
7, provides for relatively minor adjustments to the Highway Bridge 
Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. This adjustment would enable a 
State to use its HBRRP funds for the seismic retrofit of a bridge, 
regardless of whether or not the bridge is structurally deficient or 
structurally obsolete. In effect, under this legislation, a State at 
its discretion may practice preventive medicine to those bridges which 
are located in earthquake prone areas.
  Mr. Speaker, it should also be noted that this legislation does not 
change the program's apportionment formula. As such, the current level 
of HBRRP funds each State receives shall remain unchanged.
  I assure the gentleman that the legislation is budget neutral and is 
supported by the administration.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I wish to emphasize very 
strongly here, and it is that this legislation does not change the 
apportionment of funds to the States. Therefore, no State will either 
gain funds or lose funds as a result of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this simply gives those States affected, California most 
significantly, for example, the flexibility of spending its funds as it 
decides are most necessary.
  Because it does not affect apportionment to other States, and because 
it does give increased flexibility, I strongly support this 
legislation.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1789, a bill 
to permit the use of funds under the Highway Bridge Replacement and 
Rehabilitation Program for seismic retrofit of bridges.
  One of the underlying principles of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 [ISTEA] was to enhance 
flexibility so that States could better meet our Nation's varied and 
critical transportation needs. An example of that flexibility is a 
provision in the law making bridge funds under the Federal Highway 
Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement Program [HBRR] eligible for 
seismic retrofitting activities. However, subsequent to enactment of 
ISTEA, the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] interpreted the ISTEA 
language as prohibiting the use of bridge program funds for seismic 
retrofitting activities unless the particular bridge is determined to 
be structurally deficient.
  S. 1789, as passed by the Senate, is intended to rectify this serious 
inequity in FHWA's interpretation by allowing a State to use funds for 
the seismic retrofit of a bridge without regard to whether the bridge 
is determined to require replacement or rehabilitation for nonseismic 
reasons.
  Thus, S. 1789 simply gives States the flexibility to use their annual 
bridge apportionments for seismic retrofit of any bridge. In doing so, 
S. 1789 does not alter, directly or indirectly, the formula used in 
apportioning bridge program funds. In addition, the intent of the bill 
is that a bridge only in need of seismic retrofitting and not otherwise 
deficient is not to be considered deficient for purposes of the bridge 
apportionment calculation. Each year the apportionment of HBRR funds 
would continue to be based, as at present, on the unmet needs to 
replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient or functionally obsolete 
bridges in each State.
  S. 1789 enjoys widespread support. It was passed by the Senate 
without objection and on a bipartisan basis; and it is supported by the 
administration. On this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that a letter of support from the Department of Transportation be 
included in the Record following my remarks.
  This bill is virtually identical to legislation I introduced a year 
ago and is similar to legislation I proposed in earlier years.
  Mr. Speaker, the recent California earthquakes have demonstrated the 
vulnerability of our infrastructure to natural disasters.
  In the Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, both the Cypress Viaduct and 
the San Francisco Bay Bridge suffered severe damage. In fact, two-
thirds of the 63 people who died in that earthquake perished when the 
viaduct collapsed.
  As a result of the Northridge Earthquake, 12 bridges were damaged, 
including the collapse of the Interstate 5 and Golden Gate Freeway 
Bridges, which severely disrupted the major north-south artery for the 
Los Angeles basin.
  There are 24,000 bridges in my State of California. More than 9,770 
of these were constructed before the higher earthquake building code. 
The State Department of Transportation has determined that about 1,500 
bridges will need seismic retrofit and of these, about 300 are not 
otherwise structurally deficient. California needs over $1.5 billion to 
correct seismic deficiencies on its bridges yet while it receives about 
$127 million a year from the Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Repair 
Program, it cannot spend any of these funds on those 300 bridges 
because of the current interpretation of the law. No one who has ever 
experienced or seen pictures of the devastation inflicted by an 
earthquake could understand why the Federal Government would not permit 
funds to be used for seismic protection of bridges.
  The fact is that not only should we be doing this, but that seismic 
retrofit works. Again, no better example exists than the span of 
Interstate 10 at Venice-La Cienega in California. The east and west-
bound lanes are held up by separate bridges. After the Northridge 
Earthquake, the span that had seismic protection was still standing. 
The lanes where this protection had not yet been retrofitted collapsed.
  Also, one other important fact is that S. 1789 does not target just 
one part of the country or one State. It would establish a national 
policy that would be available to all States. For example, no bridge in 
the Eastern United States has been built with seismic safety in mind, 
yet can any one of us assume that an earthquake of significant 
magnitude will never hit that area? The fact is that 16 States, as far 
east as Kentucky and Tennessee, are considered to be either at a high 
or a very high risk of earthquake damage. The strongest U.S. earthquake 
in recorded history was centered in Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, by enacting S. 1789 the Congress will be affirming an 
important policy tenet: the value of investment and preventive 
maintenance. The fact is that when we fail to seismically retrofit a 
bridge and it subsequently collapses, we pay the far greater cost of 
rebuilding it. By allowing the opportunity to make relatively minor 
investments in bridge structures now, we will inevitably save money 
and, more importantly, lives, in the future. It is a small cost to pay 
now compared to the costs we could face in the years to come. I urge 
passage of this much-needed legislation.
  I included for the Record a letter from Stephen Kaplan of the 
Department of Transportation.

                            U.S. Department of Transportation,

                                 Washington, DC, January 26, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Transportation would 
     like to submit the following comments in support of S. 1789, 
     a bill to permit the use of funds under the Highway Bridge 
     Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) for seismic 
     retrofit of bridges.
       S. 1789 would enable California, as well as other States, 
     to use HBRRP funds on non-deficient bridges to meet critical 
     seismic retrofit needs. S. 1789 would not alter HBRRP 
     apportionments.
       The Department supports S. 1789. We will be happy to work 
     with the Committee on this legislation. The Office of 
     Management and Budget has advised that, from the standpoint 
     of the Administration's program there is no objection to the 
     submission to Congress of the Department's views on this 
     legislation.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 1789.
           Sincerely,
                                                Stephen H. Kaplan,
                                                  General Counsel.
                                  ____

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, S. 
1789 is a simple bill which would allow bridge program funds to be used 
for the seismic retrofit of a bridge, even if the bridge is not 
considered deficient. It does not increase funding for the program, and 
the formula used in apportioning bridge funds to any State will not be 
altered by this bill.
  The recent experience in California demonstrated that bridges where a 
seismic retrofit project has been completed did perform well in the 
earthquake, so I urge the House to pass S. 1789 today.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I am delighted to yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. McKeon].
  (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, the recent earthquake 
was in my district in Northridge, CA. I have seen up front and close at 
hand bridges that fell that would not fit this definition of deficient. 
It is very important that we pass this legislation so we can retrofit 
these bridges to avoid this happening in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous approval of this bill.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1789. This bill is 
vitally important to California. Passage would permit the expenditure 
of Federal-aid highway funds for the seismic retrofitting of bridges. 
Under current law, States cannot use Federal funds for seismic 
retrofitting--only for structurally deficient or functionally obsolete 
bridges. The recent Northridge earthquake demonstrated that bridges 
that have not been retrofitted will, in fact, collapse.
  As an engineer, I can tell you that unretrofitted bridges are 
structurally deficient. Of the 10 bridges that collapsed, 9 had already 
been determined to be in need of seismic retrofitting.
  The California Department of Transportation [CALTRANS] has developed 
a good seismic retrofit program that has investigated and prioritized 
over 24,000 bridges. But because of budgetary problems, California has 
been forced to spread the seismic retrofit program over a period of 3 
years. While CALTRANS estimates that the program will cost over $1.5 
billion, it is far less than we are going to spend to restore the 
damaged highways.
  Governor Wilson has estimated the damage at $15 to $30 billion. The 
damage to the transportation system was in excess of $2 billion. But I 
am here to tell you that this disaster could have been much worse; 106 
other bridges in the Los Angeles area are also in need of seismic 
retrofitting. And had we completed these retrofittings prior to the 
Northridge earthquake, it is very likely that we only would have lost 
the one bridge that was directly on top of the fault line.
  S. 1789 is a prudent bill that will allow the State of California to 
accelerate this desperately needed program. It is a preventative 
measure that will ultimately save tens of thousands of lives.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1789. 
Mr. Rahall, chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, 
deserves our credit for helping to move so expeditiously on this 
legislation. S. 1789 will allow States expanded use of Federal funds to 
retrofit their bridges.
  This is important legislation. Retrofitting bridges is an investment 
which saves literally billions of dollars in the long-term. In Oregon, 
according to our State transportation agency, we have 2,000 bridges 
which need to be retrofitted to withstand a seismic disturbance. If an 
earthquake were to knock out one or two key bridges across the Columbia 
or Willamette Rivers in my district, economic trade and commerce from 
Canada to Mexico would be seriously affected--in many cases suspended 
completely. The economy of the entire West Coast of the North American 
Continent would suffer. The legislation before us today helps us 
address the potential for large-scale economic upheaval by utilizing 
foresight and allowing States to pursue state-wide bridge retrofitting 
plans. It will save money and lives, and deserves our support.
  Earlier this year, I had the honor of being named to the Task Force 
on Disasters--where I serve with Public Works Chairman Mineta--to 
grapple with some of these issues. I look forward to working with him 
on these issues on the task force, and urge my colleagues to support S. 
1789 today.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mazzoli). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 1789

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SEISMIC RETROFIT OF BRIDGES.

       Section 144 of title 23, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the third sentence of subsection (d), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``, except that a 
     State may carry out a project for seismic retrofit of a 
     bridge under this section without regard to whether the 
     bridge is eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under 
     this section''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``The use of funds authorized under this 
     section to carry out a project for the seismic retrofit of a 
     bridge shall not affect the apportionment of funds under this 
     section.''.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________