To provide for a comprehensive study of the damages to the Alaska Way Viaduct from the Nisqually earthquake to determine whether to repair, retrofit, or replace the Viaduct and whether emergency relief funding should be made available for the Viaduct.

SA 624. Mr. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 605 proposed by Mr. Inhofe to the bill H.R. 3, to
authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and
transit programs, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on
the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title I, add the following:

SEC. 18__. ALASKA WAY VIADUCT STUDY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in 2001, the Alaska Way Viaduct, a critical segment of
the National Highway System in Seattle, Washington, was
seriously damaged by the Nisqually earthquake;
(2) an effort to address the possible repair, retrofit, or
replacement of the Alaska Way Viaduct that conforms with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) is underway; and
(3) as a result of the efforts referred to in paragraph
(1), a locally preferred alternative for the Alaska Way
Viaduct is being developed.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.
(2) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Seattle,
Washington.
(3) Earthquake.--The term ``earthquake'' means the
Nisqually earthquake of 2001.
(4) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the emergency fund
authorized under section 125 of title 23, United States Code.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means the Washington State
Department of Transportation.
(6) Viaduct.--The term ``Viaduct'' means the Alaska Way
Viaduct.
(c) Study.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation with
the State and the City, shall conduct a comprehensive study
to determine the specific damage to the Viaduct from the
earthquake that contribute to the ongoing degradation of the
Viaduct.
(2) Requirements.--The study under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) identify any repair, retrofit, and replacement costs
for the Viaduct that are eligible for additional assistance
from the Fund, consistent with the emergency relief manual
governing eligible expenses from the Fund; and
(B) determine the amount of assistance from the Fund for
which the Viaduct is eligible.
(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the findings of the study.
(d) Assistance From the Emergency Relief Program.--If the
study indicates that the Viaduct is eligible for assistance
from the Fund, the assistance shall be made available for the
Viaduct subject to the conditions that--
(1) the amount of assistance provided from the Fund shall
not exceed--
(A) 50 percent of the cost of a new comparable replacement
structure for the Viaduct; or
(B) if the study determines that repair or retrofit of the
Viaduct is feasible, 86.5 percent of the cost of repair or
retrofit of the Viaduct;
(2) for any single fiscal year, the amount of assistance
provided from the Fund shall not exceed $50,000,000;
(3) amounts made available from the Fund may be applied
toward the replacement costs of a new alternative structure
for the Viaduct, as provided for under existing Federal
Highway Administration regulations; and
(4) if amounts from the Fund are to be used toward the
replacement costs of a new alternative structure for the
Viaduct under paragraph (3)--
(A) the State and the City shall examine all available
capital financing opportunities available under Federal
guidelines, including--
(i) funding under subchapter II of chapter 1 of title 23,
United States Code;
(ii) funding through a State infrastructure bank;
(iii) user fees (including tolls);
(iv) design-build arrangements; and
(v) private financing;
(B) the State and the City shall explore cost-saving
opportunities that may be available by coordinating the
Viaduct replacement project and any seawall replacement
project for the City; and
(C) usual and reasonable finance costs incurred by the
State and the City shall, consistent with existing Federal
Highway Administration regulations, be considered to be
eligible expenditures under section 125 of title 23, United
States Code.
______