[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 154 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9614-S9615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               H.R. 3999

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise to speak about H.R. 3999, which is the 
companion bill to the bill that Senator Durbin and I introduced in the 
Senate about bridges and bridge repair. Senator Boxer today asked that 
this bill be called up. It successfully was passed through our 
committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee. She asked that 
the bill be called up because, obviously, we are in the waning days of 
the session, and we believed this was an incredibly important bill for 
this country.
  Unfortunately, the other side blocked this bill; they would not allow 
this bill to be heard. I would like to make some comments about the 
objection from the other side to this bill.
  I do not understand it. I think everyone knows what happened in 
Minnesota. On August 1, our Nation was shocked to learn that this 
eight-lane highway in the middle of Minnesota, the I-35W bridge, 
collapsed. I have said many times after that terrible day that a bridge 
should not fall down in the middle of America, not a bridge that is an 
eight-lane freeway, not a bridge that is six blocks from my house, not 
a bridge that I drive my 13-year-old daughter over every day.
  Now, as you know, there has been great progress in rebuilding that 
bridge. In fact, we have a new bridge. That bridge opened about a week 
ago, and that new bridge spans the river. We are very proud of the 
workers who worked on that bridge. But it is also a spot of great 
sadness as we remember the 13 people who died, the 50-some people who 
were injured, the 100-some cars that went into the river, and all of 
the rescue workers who saved so many lives.
  We must still get to the bottom of why this enormous bridge fell into 
the middle of the Mississippi River. It did not happen because of an 
earthquake or a barge collision; something went terribly wrong. We need 
to get the answer. Evidence is accumulating that the bridge's condition 
had been deteriorating for years, and that it had been a subject of 
growing concern with the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
  This was not a bridge over troubled waters; this was a troubled 
bridge over waters. Still, as a former prosecutor, like the Presiding 
Officer, I know we must wait until all of the facts and evidence are in 
before we reach a verdict. We will need to be patient as the 
investigation continues.
  Mark Rosenker, the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety 
Board, said last month that the NTSB investigation is nearing 
completion, that a final report should be ready for public release very 
soon.
  The chairman also said that photographs of the gusset plate, which 
were a half inch thick and warped, were stressed by the weight of the 
bridge and may have been a key indicator to the dangerous state of the 
I-35W bridge.
  Now we know that this was most likely a design defect in the bridge, 
but the Chairman has said recently that these photographs show that 
there were some visible problems. So we will await the report to see 
what the NTSB thinks about that. But clearly there was some indication 
that there were problems with this bridge.
  Finally, the bridge collapse in Minnesota has shown that America 
needs to come to grips with the broader question about our 
deteriorating infrastructure. The Minnesota bridge disaster shocked 
Americans into realizing how important it is to have a safe, sound 
infrastructure. Because we also have learned that another bridge in our 
State, and I think you have seen this across the country, had a similar 
design.
  We have actually looked at all of our bridges in Minnesota. We have 
another bridge that is also closed down in the middle of St. Cloud, MN, 
a midsized city. This bridge has been closed down. And we look all over 
the country and we have problems with our infrastructure.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, more than 25 percent 
of the Nation's 600,000 bridges are either structurally deficient or 
functionally obsolete.
  Unfortunately, it took a disaster such as the bridge in our State to 
put the issue of infrastructure investment squarely on the national 
agenda. Of the 25 percent of the Nation's bridges that have been found 
to be in need of repair--the 600,000--74,000 come into the category of 
structurally deficient. In my home State, that means 1,579 bridges are 
considered structurally deficient. There is virtually no way to drive 
in or out of any State without going over one of these bridges. When 
the average age of a bridge in the country is 43 years and 25 percent 
of all American bridges are in need of repair or replacement, it is 
time to act.
  Recently, the Government Accountability Office released a study 
raising several issues regarding the Federal Highway Bridge Program. 
First, the program has expanded from improving deficient bridges to 
include funding criteria that make nearly all bridges eligible. Second, 
States are able to transfer bridge program funds to other 
transportation projects. Third, there are disincentives for States to 
reduce their inventories of deficient bridges since doing so would 
reduce their Federal bridge funds. Finally, GAO noted that the long-
term trend is more bridges in need of repair and the cost of repair 
rising as well. In other words, the Highway Bridge Fund is not fiscally 
sustainable.
  A few weeks ago, Transportation Secretary Peters announced that the 
Federal highway trust fund would not be able to meet its obligations. 
We replenished that fund, but that is not enough. We all know that is 
not enough. That is why Senator Durbin and I introduced S. 3338, the 
National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act, which is a 
companion bill to H.R. 3999, the bill Congressman Oberstar successfully 
authored and moved through the House. In the House, there was much 
Republican support for the bill. It passed by a wide margin.
  The reason I care about it is, after we looked at what happened with 
our bridge in Minnesota, we found out that about 50 percent of the 
Highway Bridge Fund, Federal funds, had not been used for bridge 
maintenance. It had been used for other things. This was all across the 
country. We found out they were used for a construction project, used 
to plant flowers, all kinds of things. We think if we have a Highway 
Bridge Program, that money should be used for bridge maintenance and 
bridge reconstruction.
  At the hearing Chairman Boxer had on this topic, we actually had some 
interesting testimony from witnesses who talked about the fact that 
bridge maintenance is never a very sexy thing. People don't like to do 
that as much because it doesn't involve cutting ribbons and new 
projects. There are all kinds of actual reasons we have not been 
putting the money that we should into bridge maintenance.
  What our bill does is require the Federal Highway Administration and 
State transportation departments to develop plans to begin repairing 
and replacing bridges that pose the greatest risk to the public. This 
triages it and says: Let's look at the bridges that are most in need of 
repair and let's put our money there first. I cannot believe my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would object to that kind of 
idea, that we should actually make sure we are repairing the most 
seriously problematic bridges first.
  It would also require the Federal Highway Administration to develop 
new bridge inspection standards and procedures that use the best 
technology available. You wouldn't believe some of the old technology 
that is still being used. As time goes on, we have developed new and 
more advanced technology, and that technology is

[[Page S9615]]

what should be used in order to examine bridges and figure out what is 
wrong with them and which ones should be repaired. As I mentioned, 
because some of the States have been transferring their bridge repairs 
to highway maintenance programs to use for wildflower plantings or road 
construction, this bill also ensures that Federal bridge funds can only 
be transferred when a State no longer has bridges on the national 
highway system that are eligible for replacement.
  Anyone out there, if they heard that bridge money was going to other 
things, it wouldn't make sense to them, when we have bridges falling in 
the middle of America.
  Finally, this bill authorizes an additional $1 billion for the 
reconstruction of structurally deficient bridges that are part of the 
national highway system.
  When you look at what we do here, we first improve the safety of 
these bridges. We do it by using a risk-based prioritization, a triage 
of reconstruction of deficient bridges. It has with it an independent 
review. It has with it a performance plan. It doesn't allow earmarking. 
It says: Let's look at where the most seriously deficient bridges are 
and go there first.
  Secondly, it strengthens bridge inspection standards and processes. 
It requires the immediate update of bridge inspection standards. We had 
a lot of testimony on this as to why it is important because we have 
new information and reasons we want to update the standards. Certainly, 
the bridge collapse in Minnesota showed we want increased scrutiny of 
inspection standards. We are going to await that report. We do know 
there may have been some problems with the inspection. It was a design 
defect initially, but there may have been problems with the inspection. 
That is why we want to upgrade.
  Third, we increase the investment for the reconstruction of 
structurally deficient bridges on the national highway system, $1 
billion. If they are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, it boggles 
my mind why the other side would block us from trying to spend $1 
billion on bridges in America that are sorely in need of repair.
  That is our plan. That is what we are trying to do. It is a start. We 
all know there is a lot more work that needs to be done and that will 
be done in the Transportation bill that our committee will be 
considering next year. We know work has to be done with funding with an 
infrastructure bank, to look at other ways to fund our transportation 
system. We know we need to do better with the increasing cost of 
gasoline, with public transportation and other ways of travel. We also 
know we have a burgeoning energy economy, which is exciting for the 
rural areas of my State, with wind and solar and geothermal and 
biomass. As we know from projects across the country, we will need 
better transportation systems to transport energy to market. Yet we 
have failed to improve our transportation system. If we are going to 
move into the next century's economy, we cannot be stuck in the last 
century's transportation system.
  This bill will at least make sure our most seriously dangerous 
bridges are repaired and maintained. It is a start. That is why I am 
asking my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to block this 
bill, not to add a bunch of amendments that have not gone through 
committee because we are in the waning days of the session. We only 
have the House bill now, because that is the easiest vehicle to use, 
even though the Senate bill was exactly the same. Then we don't have to 
have a conference committee. We just want to get this done. I am 
hopeful this will head us in the right direction toward action. As we 
learned that August 1 day in Minnesota, we cannot afford to wait. We 
have to get this done.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________