National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008

Madam Chairman, on August 1 of last year, I was at this microphone managing the conference report, with our colleague, Mr. Mica from Florida, ranking member on the committee, the conference report on the Water Resources Development Act when my BlackBerry buzzed. I looked to see what message was coming in, and I saw an announcement that a bridge had collapsed and there was an ``M'' alongside it. I thought, a Third World country? Then I looked closer. That M was Minnesota. That bridge was I-35W. It carries, or had carried, an average of 140,000 vehicles a day. Thirteen people were victims, 88 to 100 other people were injured, a dramatic collapse.

Twenty years ago, on December 1, 1987, 20 years ago, I opened hearings as Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight on Bridge Safety. I said, ``There are an estimated 376,000 bridges . . . of that number, 217,000 are Federal-aid Interstate, primary, secondary and urban bridges.

``They carry 85 percent of the Nation's traffic, yet 76,000 of these bridges are deficient and that number has been gradually increasing over the last four years.''

That was 20 years ago. Today, we have 153,000 structurally and functionally deficient bridges.

``We know there are elements of bridge design of particular concern to bridge inspectors; that is, bridges without redundant members to prevent a tragic collapse if that one critical member should fail.''

I-35W was one of those fracture critical bridges. One essential element failed. The whole bridge could collapse and it did. There were multiple causes, and we await the determination of the National Transportation Safety Board.

I said further, ``We have to ensure that inspection personnel are keenly aware of the problems involved with bridges whose supporting members are set in the floor of the body of water as compared to those that are set up on pilings driven into the subsoil and deeper.''

We're hoping in these hearings ``to find out how many of these types of bridges are in the Nation's bridge inventory. Right now that information appears to be scarce and perhaps in many States not maintained at all.''

A key witness at that hearing, professor of bridge engineering Dr. Gerald Donaldson, said that in his estimation, ``Bridge maintenance was in the Stone Age. We have no good, logical way of selecting the proper bridges to repair, rehabilitate or replace other than our memory and manual review.

``Most States have virtually no bridge maintenance programs with specific, qualified maintenance goals; no documented maintenance processes; no rationally planned aggressive strategies to arrest or slow bridge deterioration. Many States address maintenance deficiencies on an ad hoc basis.''

He said, ``There are many States out there who are not even using the easily available technology'' to assess bridge conditions.

``In terms of more sophisticated technology, many of the States basically are only dimly aware of what that technology is.''

Well, I can say that in 20 years, not much has changed. Despite efforts to increase funding for bridge inspection, bridge safety, personnel, train those personnel better, train Federal and State inspectors to higher standards over the last 20 years, we have failed, and a bridge failed.

We bring to the House floor today legislation that will put the Nation on the right track to raising the standards by which we build bridges in the first place, raising the standards by which we determine which bridges are structurally deficient and which among those are the most critical bridges to repair and a categorizing and prioritizing of those bridges to increase the standards by which we train bridge inspectors at the Federal and State level and increase the funding for States and the Federal Government to hire the necessary number of bridge inspectors to raise the standards, make those bridges safer, prevent future loss and future collapse as happened in Minnesota.

This legislation will move us in that direction. There may be some little differences about the structure of this proposal, but we in the committee are agreed on the path, on the direction, on the goal, on the objectives.

The funding issues we will address next year in the surface transportation authorization bill. For now, we need to put in place this structure raising the standards by which we determine structural deficiency of bridges, categorizing them, establishing a yardstick of measurement, having it vetted by the National Academy of Sciences so that we have an absolutely transparent and reliable means of determining the prioritization for investment in and addressing the needs of structurally deficient bridges.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) in whose district I-35W collapsed.

If the gentleman would yield, paraphrasing Benjamin Banneker, a brilliant man, who said, ``A mind is a terrible thing to waste.'' And I said, paraphrasing it, a tragedy is a terrible thing to waste.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), whose district borders on the I-35W Bridge.

Does the gentleman have time to yield?

Those are valid concerns.

First of all, on the bridge inspection standards, the Federal Highway Administration is directed by the legislation to raise the standards. They will do this in consultation with the States. Pennsylvania is recognized as having very high standards for its bridge inspectors, and the country can benefit from Pennsylvania in that process. So Pennsylvania will be one of the leaders.

Secondly, the matter of transfer of funds, of flexibility, we, for years, when we first established the bridge category, gave States flexibility to transfer funds out of that account up to 50 percent. In the SAFETEA legislation, SAFETEA-LU current law, the language was further refined to distribute funds on a needs basis. If that formula is wrong, if that's the wrong way to do it, then we will correct it in the next legislation. This legislation deals only with current law. And that needs formula is based on the question to be determined by each State, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, on how much it costs to maintain, to replace bridges in a State, and then, under those factors, the allocation is made by the Federal Highway Administration to the States.

Maybe we need to change that altogether in the next legislation. I'm only dealing with current law, again, in this bill. And since we have seen in my State, Minnesota, they transferred 49 percent of their money--just to the limit of the law--out of the bridge account to other purposes, and then said, when the bridge collapsed, that, oh, well, there was so much money spent on bicycle paths, we didn't have money for bridges. They transferred the money out. They made the decision to do that. We're saying in this legislation, fix your bridge, your most critical bridge issues first. Certify you've done that. Then you can transfer those remaining dollars out elsewhere. But I think we want accountability for the States.

Now, the gentleman from Tennessee raised a very important issue--if the gentleman would continue to yield--about this category for bridges. Another issue for consideration next year is whether we should have a bridge category at all. That's something we can make a determination on. Maybe we shouldn't have this at all. Maybe we should just simply have a bridge inspection program and require States to act on the results of their own bridge inspections made to these new higher standards and verified by the National Academy of Sciences.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

If the gentleman would yield further, ask them that question about whether we ought to have a category for bridges at all.

And that's something we must consider in the broader policy considerations next year.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for raising this issue as members of the committee on the other side of the aisle have done. And the needs-based formula I think has served us well. It has been a good principle.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

We ought to revisit the needs formula in the upcoming legislation for the new authorization and revamp, if necessary, that needs-based formula so that it more equitably reflects the needs of the States and their commitment to and actions taken on maintenance replacement of their bridges on the national highway system.

I think we will have lots of help on that next year.

I would inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, the Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Here is, in the well of the House, a chart listing the status of the structurally deficient bridges eligible for replacement State by State. We also have a smaller document at the committee table that Members can take with them. But this shows 589 bridges on the interstate system and 2,067 bridges overall on the national highway system that are in the structurally deficient category, eligible for replacement, and that is the standard by which we, in this legislation, determine whether a State qualifies for moving money out of its bridge account. We're just saying, once you have determined that you have structurally deficient bridges, fix them first, and we're saying just those that need to be replaced, not those that just need adjustments, but those that need to be replaced, do that first, then transfer money out of your bridge account.

States have transferred the money out of their bridge account, as I said earlier, and the State of Minnesota didn't address their bridge needs, and then the bridge collapsed. And they're looking for a handout. Well, if we're going to continue in the future with a category for bridge maintenance and replacement, then this is the standard we should have. We can make the determination in the next legislation.

I will rely heavily on the gentleman from Tennessee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), Chair of the Surface Subcommittee, who has one of the most severe bridge problems on Interstate 5 in the State of Oregon, on whether we should continue with the idea of a category for bridge funding. If we do, then we have to have better standards by which bridges are built, maintained and inspected. And this legislation puts us on course toward that goal.

Now I want to show what has happened. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) cited the speed with which the State of Minnesota has responded in rebuilding the bridge. These two photographs show the bridge replacement in two phases, the top portion showing where it was just about 3 weeks ago, and the bottom portion with only 2\1/2\ feet separating the two segments, the north and south segments of the bridge. I was on that bridge on Sunday afternoon, observed the extraordinary work, the speed with which the bridge was constructed.

This is the way we should build bridges for the future, with sensors embedded in the structure itself, sensors that tell the temperature of the bridge, the coefficient of expansion and contraction. The wind velocity pressures on the bridge will be detected by sensors in that structure. There are also long-in-use rollers on the bridge so they can move north and south, expansion and contraction, but much higher quality than ever before built into those rollers. There is also an ice detection system operated by temperature, so that before freezing conditions are encountered, de-icing may be sprayed onto the bridge structure to prevent icing conditions. These are highly advanced technology systems that have not been built into bridges previously, and as many sensors as are going into this bridge, there are also sensors that detect minute cracks that can develop in a bridge and alert bridge engineers before something serious happens. That is the kind of quality that we need to build into future bridge construction and maintenance and replacement.

Now the questions that have been raised about the transferability, frankly, I am really troubled that in the last 5 years, States have transferred $5 billion out of their bridge account and then turn around and complain that they don't have flexibility. We give them flexibility to transfer up to 50 percent of their bridge account into other programs. But then they turn around and complain that this legislation will restrain their flexibility. I'm saying, as long as we have this bridge category, as long as there is a definition of structural deficiency, that States should address those structure deficiency issues, those structurally deficient bridges and if they are candidates for replacement, replace them. Use your bridge formula funds to replace those bridges. And then when you have done that and certified to the Federal Highway Administration you have addressed this, then you can transfer those funds elsewhere.

How much time do we have on our side?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is no limitation on the flexibility of States to use their bridge formula funds so long as they comply with one issue, and that is, certify that where you have structurally deficient

bridges that are on the national highway system that should be replaced that you have addressed the replacement issue.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the highest number of structurally deficient bridges in the Nation. Yet they transferred $2.2 billion of their Federal highway bridge funds out of that program into other needs of the State. Well, over that same period of time, since 2003, they transferred those dollars, and the number of structurally deficient bridges in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania increased by 500. You can't have it both ways, I'm saying. We have a category for bridge construction, maintenance and replacement, and if you transfer money out of it, then you can't complain that you don't have flexibility. You can't complain that a bridge fell down because there are other needs. Address those needs first.

The highway bridge program represents about 11 percent of the overall funding level of the current law, SAFETEA-LU, but as the Office of Management and Budget has issued rescission orders cutting funds from the overall surface transportation program, $3.4 billion in rescission of contract authority have come out of the bridge program.

So States are victimizing their bridge formula program when the rescissions come. Now maybe we should make the whole thing a block grant program and not have categories. If we do, then States will have all the authority they need to shift dollars around.

But I think that over the years, successive Congresses in the 50 years of the interstate highway system and the highway trust fund have concurred in the categories of funding. They serve a useful purpose, and we should maintain those categories, and make some adjustments in them. I think we should revisit the needs formula as the gentleman from Tennessee has suggested, and other Members have suggested. We should perhaps rewrite the entire needs formula. But that is a matter for next year, not in this bill.

I thought we should have a down payment of a billion dollars to get States started on addressing their structurally deficient bridge problem and expand that funding next year when we get into the authorization period. For the moment, I think this legislation represents what we can do and should be doing in the short term to set the stage for a longer-haul revision of the bridge program.

Again I compliment the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation for moving ahead so vigorously on I-35W and leaving a great legacy for the future.

I also once again express my great appreciation to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) the chairman of our Surface Subcommittee, and the gentleman from Tennessee, the ranking member on the subcommittee, and my good friend and partner, the ranking member on the committee, Mr. Mica, for participating and for their thoughtful observations about the legislation before us, for the many suggestions that we have incorporated, and look forward to continuing this work as we move towards the reauthorization next year.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The amendment makes technical corrections to the bill. It clarifies that the Department of Transportation should consult with States when establishing a process for assigning risk-based priorities for bridge reconstruction and rehabilitation. We want to make sure that the Federal Government is consulting with, taking the best advice and best ideas from all of the States in crafting the risk-based program for evaluation of bridges.

The Federal Government should not be doing this on its own. Our intention from the very outset was that this should be a cooperative program as the Federal aid highway program always has been, and this language makes it very clear that the department must consult with the States. It defines complex bridges for purposes of addressing qualifications for managers and team leaders.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

The gentleman's amendment is a very good one, and an important outcome to the endeavor to raise the standards to evaluate bridges and maintain bridges and replace bridges. I think it is important for us to adopt this amendment and to direct the Government Accountability Office to provide recommendations on how successful aspects of bridge-rating systems can be incorporated into the bridge- rating program and be a valuable asset for us next year as we go into the authorization process.

Bridge rating is a very complex process. It will be very useful for us to have GAO's input on better ways of rating bridges, ensuring that the traveling public has a complete understanding of the condition of the bridges on which they are traveling. This does not mean that we can define away the condition of bridges, but rather that we better understand the condition of bridges.

Under current Federal law, long-standing law, States are required to inspect all bridges longer than 20 feet at least once every 2 years and then to report those findings to the Federal Highway Administration. In the course of the inspection, conditions on various elements of the bridge are rated on a scale of zero, failure, to nine, excellent. ``Structurally deficient'' bridge means there are elements that need to be monitored or repaired or that the bridge entirely needs to be replaced.

Now this current rating system, as the gentleman from Florida said, when a bridge is rated structurally deficient doesn't mean it is going to fall down tomorrow or the next day, but that under various conditions it could well be unsafe. And if it is ultimately determined to be unsafe, that structure should be closed. We should have a rating system, but that rating system has not been evaluated in probably 25 years, certainly not since I held those hearings in 1987.

I think the amendment before us will put GAO on the course of doing that evaluation and giving us a better yardstick of measurement for determining various conditions of bridges. I look forward to the work to be done by GAO on both structural and functional deficiency rating systems for our Nation's bridges.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment.

I want to thank the gentleman for his kind remarks but especially for bringing forth this amendment. In the course of consideration of legislation, we can't think of all the circumstances that legislation should cover; so it's useful and important for us to have Members such as Mr. Diaz-Balart to bring to the committee's attention unique circumstances in discrete regions of the country.

This amendment will add the consideration of public safety and availability of evacuation routes as further elements in consideration of the prioritization of bridges that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. And we need look no further than the television pictures of the evacuation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Rita and Wilma that flashed across our screen day and night to see the congestion and the confusion and the problems and even the question of whether one or another bridge that was on the screen could hold all those vehicles and all the people on those bridges.

The gentleman from Florida, whose State is in the path of nature's fury so often, brings to us a very valuable contribution and one that must be included. And I am delighted that we are able to accept this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it forth.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman claim time in opposition?

Will the gentleman yield?

I too concur and I join the gentleman from Minnesota and the local government officials in a review of the Winona Bridge.

As the gentleman pointed out, Madam Chairman, it's such a terrible irony that we're highlighting this bridge on a stamp celebrating Minnesota's sesquicentennial and then the bridge is found to be deficient, so deficient that it had to be closed.

The gentleman's amendment requiring that a report within 15 days of a finding that results in closure of a bridge should also report on the economic impact and the effect on regional transportation, this will benefit all of America, not just Winona or the recent situation at Hastings in Minnesota close by. It will benefit all of America.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

This amendment requires the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress, within 15 days of issuing a critical finding that results in the closure of a bridge, on the economic impact and effect on regional transportation that will result from the bridge closure.

This amendment also requires the Secretary to recommend solutions to mitigate such hardships.

The gentleman's district was recently hit with one such closure in the City of Winona. In early June, the Minnesota Department of Transportation ordered the closure of the Highway 43 bridge over the Mississippi River.

The closure was triggered when inspectors raised concerns about steel plates that help to hold the bridge together. One plate was so riddled with corrosion that an inspector's hammer went right through it.

The 2,289-foot-long bridge is the main artery between Winona, Minnesota, a town of about 30,000 people, and the Wisconsin communities of Fountain City and Arcadia. Roughly 11,600 vehicles crossed the bridge daily before it was closed.

Commuters to and from Winona are now burdened with a significant detour on their trip to work. To access the nearest river crossings at Wabasha and La Crosse, they have to drive an additional 60 to 70 miles each way, adding well over an hour to their commutes and forcing them to bear extreme financial burdens given the current skyrocketing price of gas.

To help mitigate this added inconvenience, the City of Winona has been forced to spend almost $85,000 a week to ferry commuters across the Mississippi River. Once across the river, shuttle buses and vans drive commuters to various points in the city.

Many businesses in Winona have also experienced economic difficulties as a result of the bridge closure and employers worry about their employees' ability to arrive at work on time.

We have seen similar hardships in St. Cloud and Duluth, Minnesota, where bridges were closed because of safety concerns.

The flow of goods and people on our nation's interconnected surface transportation system are greatly inconvenienced by disruption to bridges anywhere on the system.

This amendment ensures that we take the necessary steps to consider, at the Federal level, what can be done to minimize the economic impact of bridge closures on our nation's roadways.

To assist cities and States impacted by bridge closures, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose the amendment.

The gentlewoman from Michigan has brought us a very important technical consideration for bridge construction. The idea of carbon fiber use in bridge construction is a novel but a very important one.

Carbon fiber technology has proven itself in the aircraft industry and manufacturing of critical parts of the fuselage or hull of aircraft, tail sections, the ailerons.

We have seen wide use of carbon fiber technology in the bicycle manufacturing. I have several of those carbon fiber bikes that are extraordinarily durable, flexible, but strong.

And the item that the gentlewoman showed the House Chamber a moment ago, I have seen firsthand as she demonstrated it in the committee and at the Rules Committee. I think this is a great suggestion.

Resistance to corrosion, avoiding costly repairs, longevity and strength all are great qualities. I am delighted the gentlewoman has brought this consideration to the bill that is before us.

And I would also point out that the bridge in Southfield, Michigan, Bridge Street Bridge was the first all carbon fiber reinforced bridge in the Nation. We ought to learn from this experience and adopt this amendment and apply the lessons of Michigan and of the gentlewoman from Michigan.

And we accept, of course the amendment. Having said all these good things about it, I must say we accept the amendment and are delighted she has brought it to us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not oppose it.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for bringing this very, very valuable amendment to our attention and to the floor today. And we will accept this amendment.

Corrosion is the enemy of all structures. We saw that so repeatedly in aviation, where corrosion from condensation, moisture on the internal structure of hull and movable structures on aircraft are fatal.

We see every time we drive across the country, just looking under a bridge, you see the corrosion at work. It is the enemy of stability in our surface transportation system.

I showed a moment ago the work nearing completion on the replacement of the I-35W bridge. And exactly what the gentleman from Texas has said, Mr. Chairman, the State of Minnesota and the contractor are doing. They are, they have embedded in this structure corrosion- resistant materials. They have also embedded in the structure itself detection systems that can determine corrosion, that can determine deterioration of the bridge before it becomes a critical factor.

So the notion that we should have a corrosion management plan is extremely important to the funding of the program, to maintenance of bridges. And had we had, had there been such a farsighted provision, a requirement in Federal and State law, the Silver River Bridge between Ohio and West Virginia in 1967 might not have collapsed. I would say would not have collapsed.

Now, it is the 20th anniversary of that tragedy in which I held hearings which I referred to at the outset of my remarks in general debate. 20 years later, came back to look at what is the status of bridge inspection, maintenance and construction, and a distinguished bridge engineer, professor of bridge engineers said it is in the Stone Age. The gentleman's amendment will left us out of the stone age and address the issue of stress corrosion cracking. 46 people died, perhaps needlessly. That could have been prevented.

In 1983, the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut. I see the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on the floor. Collapse of its bridge bearings rusted internally, pushed a corner of the slab off the support, killing three people.

In the Minnesota, I-35W replacement bridge, those bridge bearings are now enclosed, protected from the elements, and a sensor internally to determine whether there is moisture and whether there might be corrosion. So the gentleman's amendment really is important for the future of sound bridge construction and maintenance, and we are happy to accept it, and thank you for bringing the issue to our attention.

I yield back the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield, in the authorization next year, I invite the gentleman to the committee to present this concept again as we fashion the long-term legislation, and invite him to make that proposal that we incorporate it in permanent law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.

Over half of the bridges of this country were built before 1964, within the first 8 years of the Interstate Highway System and of the establishment of the highway trust fund. Since then, trucks have gotten 20 percent longer and 10,000 pounds heavier. Cars have expanded in size and now have shrunk in size. More pressure is being exerted on the Nation's road and bridge structures and especially on bridges where even the bridge formula has been modified in the manufacture of trucks and engines.

The gentleman's amendment to direct the GAO to study the factors that play a role in delaying the construction of bridge rehabilitation projects or bridge repair projects is very, very important and thoughtful, especially coming from the State with the Mianus bridge collapse that result in fatalities. So I'm happy to accept the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Before the gentleman yields back, would he yield to me?

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

In the hearing I referenced at the outset of my remarks today, 1987 was the time when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Clinger) was the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.

Together, we conducted this hearing and long-term investigation of issues, but I observed that there were two bridge designs that raised questions--the pin and hanger design that was used in the Mianus River Bridge that collapsed and the bridge design using spread footings in which the bridge piers are set on the bottom of a river or of a body of water but not on pilings that go into the subsoil and down to bedrock. That was the structure used in the construction of the Schoharie Creek Bridge in New York State that collapsed in the aftermath or in the course of, I should say, a swirling flood.

Bridges of that nature were not being properly inspected. Bridges that were set in the water were not properly being reviewed by underwater devices or by scuba divers' going down to the base in the aftermath of a flood to inspect the condition of the bridge footing, itself.

So the concern of the gentleman from Iowa of bridges that are located in a 500-year floodplain is supported by the history of bridge collapse in the aftermath of floods. So I think the gentleman's amendment is entirely relevant and appropriate, and I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished ranking member for his support. I support, of course, the amendment.

Would the gentleman yield?

I concur with the gentleman's remarks.

The amendment ensures that the 5-year performance plans required under the bill will account for historic bridges located within the State.

The gentlewoman has described the limitation on that approval and the requirements expected of the Department of Transportation of the State, and I include in the Record at this point my further evaluation of the amendment, which we do accept on our side.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).

This amendment ensures that the five-year performance plans required under this bill account for historic bridges located within the State.

H.R. 3999 ensures that States develop a risk-based prioritization of their bridge inventory, and lay out a strategy for addressing their bridge deficiencies.

This amendment recognizes that there are some States with bridges listed in the National Register of Historic Places, and ensures that the performance plans allow for States to institute more frequent, in- depth inspection of these facilities in lieu of replacement of these facilities.

The amendment requires the exemption to be allowed only if the Secretary determines that increased inspection frequency and intensity is appropriate given the condition and usage of the bridge, and will increase the overall safety of the State's bridge inventory.

This amendment ensures that States with these historically significant facilities are not aversely impacted in developing and implementing their performance plans.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

The gentleman has stated the case very well. I think his recitation of the history of the United States accepting people from many nationalities is well-said, and I also support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Capuano, I offer an amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) raised this issue of a National Tunnel Inspection Program, of course, from very firsthand experience in the City of Boston, with the collapse of the roof and several sections that collapsed resulting in at least one fatality and many injuries.

At the time, the gentleman offered the amendment on a previous piece of legislation. It was not the appropriate vehicle, and I counseled the gentleman to wait until we would have an appropriate bill from the committee with which we could consider his proposal. This was way last year. I didn't know at the time that we were going to have a bridge collapse in Minnesota and that we might have this very appropriate vehicle.

The amendment creates a National Tunnel Inspection Program at the Federal Highway Administration to develop national inspection standards for proper safety inspection and evaluation of highway tunnels. National standards would be designed to ensure uniformity throughout the States in inspection and evaluation of highway tunnels.

And the tragedy of the tunnel in the Boston harbor tunnel in that city is adequate reminder that we need to raise the standards, do a more vigorous and effective job of inspecting tunnels throughout the United States, and I ask for adoption of the amendment.

I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).

This amendment creates a National Tunnel Inspection Program that would establish national tunnel inspection standards and ensure uniformity among the States in the conduct of such inspections.

The substance of this amendment was approved by the House in January by a voice vote.

While the need for these improvements to our surface transportation program has long existed, the tragic tunnel collapse in Boston, Massachusetts, two years ago brought about the catalyst for its implementation.

On Monday, July 10, 2006, at approximately 11:00 p.m., a section of the suspended concrete ceiling above the eastbound lanes of the Interstate 90 connector tunnel in Boston, Massachusetts, fell onto a vehicle traveling to Logan International Airport. A passenger, riding in the right front seat of the vehicle, was killed, while the driver escaped with minor injuries.

The National Transportation Safety Board (``NTSB'') immediately launched an investigation into the cause of the ceiling panel collapse.

The NTSB report observed that had the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority inspected the area above the suspended ceilings at regular intervals, the anchor creep that led to this accident would likely have been detected, and this tragedy could have been prevented.

While we cannot undo the damage caused by this accident, we can, and we must, take the necessary actions to prevent future tunnel collapses.

The NTSB report also found that the Federal Highway Administration (``FHWA'') lacked the regulatory authority to conduct tunnel inspections, and recommended that the FHWA seek legislation authorizing the agency to establish a mandatory tunnel inspection program similar to the National Bridge Inspection Program.

That is exactly what this amendment will do--establish a national program to inspect highway tunnels.

The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State Departments of Transportation, private organizations and individuals, will establish national tunnel inspection standards for safety inspections and evaluations of all public highway tunnels.

The program also establishes criteria for certification and training of tunnel inspectors, and requires States to prepare and maintain an inventory of public highway tunnels.

The NTSB report made clear that the death that occurred on that July evening could have been prevented had this tunnel been inspected at regular intervals. This legislation will establish a framework to address this serious safety concern, and ensure that tragedies like that of July 10, 2006, will not occur again.

To address the absence of comprehensive inspections standards for our nation's highway tunnels, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I thank my friend, the Republican Whip, for yielding.

On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour and 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 415, a bill to designate segments of the Taunton River in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers.

In addition, we will consider H.R. 5959, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009; H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act; and, we may also consider important energy-related legislation.

In response, if the gentleman would yield.

It is the same bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There is an extensive letter to all of our colleagues from Congressmen Frank, McGovern, Kennedy, Langevin, and Lynch.

I don't want to read the whole letter; but responding to the points in question, I am looking at the letter to see whether or not--one of the points they make is that notwithstanding this bill there are several barriers to this proposal going forward, that is the LNG plant. Killing the bill that would provide environmental benefits to people of our districts would in no way save the LNG plant from the rejection it has already received. The point being, and I have not read the entire letter, but that there are other impediments apparently to moving forward on that LNG plant. As I say, it is a long letter, I haven't read it fully, but I do know that each one of the points that was raised in the article today have been responded to and therefore will be the subject of debate once the bill is considered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes. As you know, we have been talking about, on both sides of the aisle, developing greater domestic supply from that which we have control over here in this country. I think both sides agree that that is an objective that ought to be pursued. The differences have been I think where that should be done at least in the short term, maybe not in the long term.

In the short term, it is our belief that there is very substantial areas available for further exploration and development of energy resources from our own country. As the gentleman may have heard me say on the floor earlier today, there is about 88 million acres that we believe is currently available for leasing that experts indicate are prime opportunities for finding, drilling, and producing energy for our country. We may well consider legislation which will try to accelerate, particularly in Alaska, where there is 23 million acres in the National Petroleum Reserve area designated and approved by the Congress for drilling, where approximately 1 million acres of that has been currently let for lease but there are substantial millions of acres still available. So we may well have legislation which will direct the administration to accelerate the leases for that area and speed the development.

In addition, we may well include in that legislation the Use It Or Lose It bill, we had disagreements on whether that was appropriate, which essentially says to companies: Don't inventory large segments. If you are not going to use it, let's get it back and give it to some who may well use it at this point in time. Again, an opportunity to accelerate the exploration and securing of oil within our control here in this country.

In addition, that legislation I think will include a requirement that any oil petroleum products that are produced as a result of this legislation or as a result of these leaseholds being extended, that petroleum would need to be used

in the United States of America, not exported to Japan or to other nations.

You had in a piece of legislation that you had in 2005 a similar provision. I can't recall the phrase right now, but essentially requiring due diligent requirement as they proceeded with the leases to develop the energy. So we think our Use Or Lose It is, while not exactly what you include in your 2005 bill, certainly a similar objective of saying: You get the leases, let's develop the oil.

We will also be calling I think in that legislation, Mr. Whip, on the President to pursue finishing construction of the natural gas and the oil pipelines from Alaska as soon as possible. If that requires resources, for the administration to ask for those resources.

We share again a view that it is prudent for us to develop all of the lands that we currently have available. And pretty significant, again, I don't know whether you were there, but the 88 million acres essentially covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, New Jersey, and most of Maryland. So a pretty large area that is available now.

So we want to pursue that, but clearly want to see further exploration, further drilling, and further utilization of our own resources here in this country, all with the view of bringing prices down.

Now, we don't know specifically why prices have spiked so rapidly, but we are very concerned about it. As you have heard me say before, prices during the last 8 years of the nineties went from $1.06 to $1.46, about one nickel a year. Prices during the last 7\1/2\ years have spiked from that $1.46 to now $4.15 or so. All the energy policies that have been adopted have obviously been adopted in the last 7\1/2\ years with President Bush's signature. There is no energy bill that is passed without his signature. So that we believe that we have not been successful over the last 7\1/2\ years of getting an energy policy in place which has given us independence and provided for stable prices.

Both the President and proponents of the 2005 legislation, which I voted for, by the way, because I think we need to seek energy independence, but the proponents of that bill indicated 3 years ago that it would keep prices down and make sure that we had supply. That hasn't been the case. Obviously, that was not the intent of anybody who was for the bill that that wouldn't happen, but that is the legislation that we currently are looking at. We are developing that now and trying to write the language essentially with the objective of utilizing the 88 million acres that we currently have authorized on which to drill because we think that is the quickest way to proceed.

You mentioned H.R. 6. First of all, as you heard in my list, we are not contemplating adding that into this legislation that we might be considering. However, let me say this, very honestly. You and I both, I think every Member in this body very much supports the free market system. We have found it provides the greatest good for the greatest number throughout the world.

In 2005, you put incentives in the bill, $14 billion worth of tax breaks for oil companies. Oil was then, as you point out, about half of what it is bringing today at the pump. The free market system, in my view, is if you are getting a high price for your product, you try to produce more of it and you try to find more of it. The oil companies are earning the highest price that they have ever received in the history of the sale of oil. That ought to be the incentive, not taxpayers who are paying the highest price at the pump they have ever paid, also having to pay higher taxes because the oil companies are getting an incentive of $14 billion of tax cuts to incentivize what ought to be incentivized by the price that they are getting for their product.

I want to say further that the information I have, and I think you will find this interesting, is that Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year. I am informed $32 billion of that profit was spent to buy back stock. Not to do additional research, not to drill in America or any place else, but $32 billion to buy back their stock. Obviously that did have a very good effect on those stockholders who remained because their equity clearly went up. I do not criticize that, but I point it out because it was not spent either to produce more oil product, petroleum product, or to pursue alternative energy sources which we think is important which is what we will use the $14 billion in H.R. 6, whether it was hybrid cars, ethanol research, water, wind, hydroelectric, or from my perspective, nuclear.

Let me also say that I understand what you are saying, but when we talk about this 68 million or 88 million acres, let me give you this point. The oil and gas companies hold leases on these 68 million now, land and water.

They are not producing on these acreage, and 81 percent, according to experts, of the estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the OCS are currently available for development in these reserves, and they are equal to 107 billion barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

So what we are saying and what we will say in this legislation is that you have about 14 years supply here for America if you would develop this 107 billion barrels of oil or 658 trillion feet of natural gas on the land or offshore that you currently have leases on.

So I think this is a good debate to have, and ultimately hopefully at some point in time we will get through the politics of this issue on both sides and we will get to a point where frankly we develop this.

But I will also tell my friend that if we focus only on petroleum, we will not serve your young son or my grandchildren--you are much younger than I am--or my grandchildren very well because I will tell you, and as you know, I have a great granddaughter. She is 18 months of age. When she is my age, petroleum will not be her major source of energy. We know that. Petroleum is a wasting resource. By that I mean it is a resource that is going to go away. We don't know how much is left. Experts don't know how much Saudi Arabia still has. But we need to pursue vigorously alternatives while at the same time, as you and I would agree, developing that 107 billion barrels that we have here in this country that are currently available for lease.

Frankly, if the companies tell us that they really can't produce from that, then maybe we ought to look at other sites as well. But certainly it seems to us, you ought to use what you have first; and if that doesn't work, we ought to go on to a second or third or fourth site.

I thank the gentleman for his tolerance in my taking that time.

Will my friend yield just on that?

I just want to say that I understand what you have just said. But, of course, they never did have that until the 2005 bill, or one of the tax bills that was passed around that time. Prior to that time, the manufacturers had that, as you observed, that's correct, but the oil companies were never included in it originally or for long periods of time. They were added just in the last 2005 or 2006 or 2004, I am not sure exactly which bill added it. So it is not as if that had been in place when the tax to which you refer, the incentive to which you refer, was originally included in the code.

That's under discussion. As I said, we're discussing the component parts of the bill. We haven't decided how that bill will come to the floor. But I will certainly look forward to discussing it with you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I cannot confirm, because I haven't seen the report on that, nor has the chairman told me that he made such an announcement. I did read an article in which he indicated that he thought that might be the case.

As you know, he tried to move the Labor-Health bill through to markup

through the full committee, and as you know, the ranking member moved to substitute the Interior bill rather than do the Labor-Health bill.

The chairman believed he was pursuing the regular order. I have never seen, in the 23 years that I served on the Appropriations Committee, one of the appropriations bills substituted for another one of the appropriations bills in the appropriations process.

So a lot of unusual things are happening, unfortunately. And we haven't been pursuing regular order. I lament that, personally. I think that we ought to do that.

I will say that last year, as you know, we passed every appropriations bill through the House of Representatives by the August break. We had some difficulty at the end doing that, but we got them all passed. And we passed them all in the year, in the calendar year that we were supposed to pass them, not in the fiscal year, in December. As you know in a number of years we didn't do that until the following year: nine one year, eight the other passed in January, the end of January or the middle of February, as I recall, 2 years. I forget whether it was 2004 and 2005 or 2005 and 2006.

So I share the gentlemen's concern. I think both sides share the concern that the appropriations process is not proceeding in the regular order. But I want to say to the gentleman that from my perspective, I have not concluded that we're not going to consider any appropriations bills on the floor.

Will my friend yield on that?

Thank you.

Senator Reid in the other body has made it pretty clear that he does not believe, again, given the failure to pursue regular order in the Senate, that he will be able to get any bills passed, the Senate appropriations bills.

So one of the factors under consideration by Mr. Obey is that if the Senate is not going to consider any bills, that because they cannot get the bills through the House and to the President--of course, the President sent down a number, said, If you go over that number, I'm going to veto all of the bills anyway. And we had real difficulty last year, as you know, with that happening. That's not happened in my career before. I don't mean that a President hasn't indicated he would veto, but there was always room to work on that.

But that is one of the complicating factors or two of the complicating factors: the President's position and the Senate's position as well.

But I think the major problem is that the regular order Mr. Obey did not feel was being pursued in the committee.

I would not agree with the gentleman. After all, we did pass the Iraq funding, we passed a very substantive supplemental, we passed a GI bill, we passed an unemployment insurance extension. We passed an energy bill last year signed by the President. I think much of what we passed in our '06 that was passed, that got through the Senate, was signed by the President and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

Furthermore, let me just remind you, and I'm sure you recall this, that we took 50 hours longer to do the appropriations bills last year than we did in 2006 when your side was in charge. And we had extensive debate. We had 10 open bills, open rules, and we had two rules at the end, because it was clear that we were having great difficulty getting our bills done in a time cramp. Even under those bills, we spent hours debating them. We spent 17 hours on the Homeland Security bill, for instance, and 12 hours on the Labor-Health bill on the floor.

I don't want to get too testy, and you and I are good friends.

But very frankly, it was not a process that we thought was very substantive last year, and every indication that we have received this year, it is not going to be very substantive this year when we consider appropriation bills.

Now, having said that, we didn't pursue the regular order on the Labor-Health bill. The gentleman is correct there are five bills which have passed, and I would reiterate that I have not yet, from my standpoint, concluded that we're not going to consider appropriation bills on the floor this year.

So I want to make it clear. I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Obey announced. There was an article that said I was supporting Mr. Obey's position. I went a little further. What I supported of Mr. Obey's position was that regular order was not being followed in the appropriations committee, not the representation that you say he made with reference to no bills coming to the floor.

I think he's correct that regular order is not being pursued, and very frankly--and I'm going to talk to you about that, talk to my friend about this, because I think it is unfortunate that we have come to this place where the consideration of these bills last year became very politicized, and this year the announcement clearly was very early on out of your conference or your retreat and subsequently that it wasn't going to be a very happy process this year. I don't mean an agreement process. No reason why there should be an agreement. But Mr. Obey has concerns that it would simply be impossible for him to get the bills through.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, to tell us what is planned for next week.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

On H.R. 415, the Taunton River bill, the Wild and Scenic Rivers bill, does the gentleman know, does the location change at all? Or was it the location that was on the bill that earlier was scheduled for this week?

I will.

I think one of our concerns about that on the energy topic, which I would hope to go to for a few minutes next, is there was a proposed liquid natural gas facility in that area that I think this designation will impact unless it is defined somehow out of that. And if the gentleman wants to respond to that, I would yield.

I thank the gentleman for that. And that is exactly right. That will be a bill to be debated, and leaders shouldn't be expected to know everything about every aspect of that, and particularly on a bill that will be debated. I would assume that this designation would create an additional obstacle, and there may be other obstacles already in place and I am sure that will be part of the debate.

The gentleman's last comment about work for next week indicated that there may be other energy-related bills scheduled for the floor next week. Does the gentleman have a sense of what some of those options might be, and which ones may be more likely to be on the floor next week?

I would yield.

In that regard, on the 2005 energy bill that I voted for and the gentleman just said he voted for, I think we did head things in the right direction. Of course from the 6 years prior to 2007, energy gas prices increased by about 50 cents a gallon; and in the 17 months since then, they have better than doubled. Everybody can take the numbers and do lots of things with them. Nobody likes the doubled number. There is no doubt about that.

In one of the early bills, I think it was H.R. 6, actually this Congress voted to repeal the incentives that we put in that bill that you and I voted for in 2005, the House voted to repeal those incentives which would have made it easier to promote the NPRA drilling area. I think maybe the position we would hopefully take in the future would be that we would want to continue to make those things easier to do rather than harder to do.

I would also say in terms of the 68 million acres, I have heard that a lot and I am sure we will continue to hear it a lot. Number one, not all of that land has oil or gas on it. Two, even if it does, you don't drill on every acre to drain this important resource from it. We are all going to learn a lot more about the gas and oil business, even than we know today, and my guess is that we know a lot more than we did even 6 months ago.

I do know in the last 6 years, as we frankly have accelerated exploration, that lawsuits to slow down exploration have gone up 718 percent in the last 6 years.

So if we want to deal with things like lawsuits and trying to expedite the process, that's a very appropriate thing to do, and at that point it is even more appropriate to hold people to their strict lease standards that they have.

The 22 million acres in Alaska, while that is some place we ought to look for both oil and gas, I don't know that we are going to be in an either/or environment, and particularly in this case where we want to look at what makes the most sense the quickest. I would also mention to the gentleman that we have a bill on the ANWR itself, it is H.R. 6107, that already adopts that principle that none of the petroleum coming out of there would go anywhere but to the United States. So many are already cosponsoring legislation that accepts that principle. It is a principle that if it's an easy way to open up new resources, I think it is something that we should be talking about and making sure that we get it just right. We do not want to assume that the oil companies can be micromanaged by Congress. We want to do what we can to make sure that we are producing American energy in the maximum way, and also understand that every oil lease does not result in oil. If it did, my good friend and I could open up Hoyer & Blunt and become oilmen if we could just get a lease. A lease doesn't mean there is anything there, but we ought to be sure that these leases are being vigorously pursued. We also should be sure that we are doing anything we reasonably can do to remove impediments, whether those impediments are lawsuits or the language that was in H.R. 6 that the House of Representatives passed. The Senate didn't pass it so the law didn't change, but the message to people out there looking for oil is that there is a new sheriff in town and the rules are different than they were under the old sheriff, and maybe we ought to get out of town.

A lot of this hesitancy about exploring could result from debates right here on the floor. We want to do things in debate, and I take my friend's word that he wants to, too, that encourages exploration, not discourages exploration.

I yield to my good friend.

I thank the gentleman for that. I am old enough now that I never argue with anyone who suggests I am a lot younger, even if I am not a lot younger. My children and grandchildren, too, I think, will live in a world much different than the world we are in right now; but it will take awhile to get there. And I absolutely agree we should be at an all-systems-forward effort to find the next technology, and while we are finding the next technology, to use the resources we have as an economic asset, not to see them as an environmental hazard. We need to get there. We need to have a debate that gets us there.

We are going to have some figures that we are going to disagree about. It is hard with these sort of believed reserves to know what they are. I personally think I will have a lot of facts that suggest that 81 percent of the known reserves in oil and gas are not in those 68 million acres, but I am also for pursuing those 68 million acres vigorously.

The oil shale in the West, we had a hearing last week that only members of my party attended because we wanted to talk about this whole issue of what this Congress could have done, and just the oil shale amounts in the West that I think are not calculated into your figure are hugely significant in how we use our resources in the future. We want to do that. We want to remove obstacles.

On the $14 billion, and we have debated this before and I am not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I think everybody in this room understands that $14 billion so-called tax break for the so-called oil companies is their part of the domestic manufacturing tax incentive that every American business gets. Now if we want to take that away from companies that are successful, that's a different principle. Maybe we take it away from computer companies. Who do we take it away from? We want those jobs here. That is what that is about. I would like to have that debate one of these days about whether or not those manufacturing jobs need to be here. We think that they need to be here for every other industry in the country. Why is this the one industry where we say, they are going to manufacture here anyway, particularly based on everything we know about the worldwide oil challenge we face, why would we want to do anything that would encourage the oil product to be refined somewhere outside of this country? That is what that domestic manufacturing incentive is for. I think every time when we talk about this as a big tax break for the oil companies, it sounds like we have gone into the tax law and said if you are an oil company, you get something that nobody else gets. What we have done in the tax law is say if you are an oil company and you refine a product, if you manufacture a product, if you produce a product in this country, you get exactly what everybody else gets that makes that decision to make their computer in Texas instead of Romania. That's what that incentive is.

Now, every time it is discussed on the floor, it is this big benefit that was just designed for the oil companies, and that is just not the fact. It is a domestic manufacturing benefit.

I yield.

I thank my friend, but part of the unfortunate circumstance we find ourselves in is, as we have restricted access to some of our own supply, we in fact saw in the last decade that this industry that had been forced to be totally domestic, and we hoped it could be totally domestic again, was sending jobs out of the country because we were bringing in refined product for the first time.

Because we were bringing in refined product for the first time, we were doing other things that the Congress should want to reverse.

One other topic I have today, and I look forward to a good debate on these energy issues. I would hope these energy issues could come to the floor under a rule, by the way, and I would ask my friend if there is any plan to bring the energy bills that he would hope to bring to the floor in the next week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks with a rule that allows more than a 40-minute debate on a suspension bill.

And I would yield.

I thank my friend. I think that will be a helpful addition to this debate.

You know, when you have a suspension debate on a bill, particularly a bill that maybe has a majority but it can't get a suspension number, you check a box but you really don't move the agenda forward. I would hope that we could see some of these under rules.

My final topic of the day, unless you raise another one, is I read in the Associated Press just yesterday that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Obey, announced that the House will not consider a single appropriations bill this year. If that was true, this will be the first time in at least 22 years, maybe ever, that the House has failed to consider a single appropriation bill in any given session.

The committee has passed five bills that are out of full committee ready to go to the floor: Homeland Security; Military Construction; Energy and Water; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Financial Services. And I guess I'm asking my friend to verify whether or not the chairman's view on this is the view of the majority, and if we would expect not to see any appropriations bills on the floor.

And you can take this question in whatever order in July, in August, or as he said, this year.

And I would yield.

I just suggest, the statement I read, and perhaps it was not accurate, but it seemed like an incredibly definitive statement on the part of the chairman; and since this is the work that the Congress has to do to fund the government, I would assume that the chairman will soon be conferring with the leader and the Speaker to determine if bills are coming to the floor or not.

We might ask Mr. Obey what his views might be about his bills that are already through the committee in regular order and why those five bills couldn't come to the House.

You know, we have, in the years of our majority, always with an open rule, taken substantial time. It seemed to me 1 year we took five full days of hearing amendments on the Labor HHS bill and other bills, numerous bills at a time.

The evaluation of last year, the House passed its bills, but at the end of the day, we had one vote on one big bill which may not have been nearly as healthy as having nine individual votes and then having to carry three bills over into the next year to get them done one at a time. But that's not really the question.

The question is what about the bills that are out of the committee now and what would be a violation of any regular order problem to bring those to the House and take the time that we clearly have? We're passing a lot of legislation off the House floor, but not very much of it winds up on the President's desk. If we begin to determine the House schedule based on what the Senate is willing to do and a bill that can get to the President, not much of what we've done in the last several weeks really had much impact.

But I would yield.

If we don't deal with any bills this year, I guess our average is going to go down quickly. If we had 12 hours on Labor H last year and zero this year, I guess for this Congress we will say we spent an average of 6 hours debating the bills because one of them never got debated at all.

We are.

He's a capable man, and I'm sure he can figure out a way.

So I would like to close by saying we would like to see at least the bills that are through the full committee on the floor and would hope that the energy bills that the gentleman is looking at can come to the floor with a rule that allows a substantial and full debate on this critical problem of both gas prices at the pump now and home heating and other things that are going to quickly become problems for Americans.

Madam Chairman and my colleagues, I am pleased to be with you tonight to discuss an important piece of legislation that has been brought forth by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

First of all I have to compliment the ranking member of the Highway Subcommittee, Mr. Duncan, the gentleman from Tennessee, for his leadership and his efforts in working together with his counterpart, Mr. DeFazio, and also my counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, to try to bring legislation to the floor that will make our bridges safer, that we have seen problems with our infrastructure in this Nation.

We have a responsibility from the Federal Government. We can't fix every bridge in every county, every city across every road in the country, but we do have an obligation where we have Federal funds, where we have interstate, where we have bridges and infrastructure that's so important for the commerce of this Nation to make certain that they are sound, that we have adequate protocols and procedures for inspection of those bridges, and that we try to make certain that those bridges are inspected on an appropriate basis and that there is remediation. It's one thing to make demands of local State government from the Federal level, but what we want to do is ask reasonable people to take reasonable actions and take corrective actions where they are needed, rather than dictate from on high.

First of all, let me say my sympathy goes out to everyone and all those who lost their loved ones in the tragedy that struck Minnesota. I was on the floor with Chairman Oberstar when we learned of the collapse of the I-35 bridge, and Congress acted immediately to replace that structure. That structure's replacement is actually an example I am going to use in the future for replacement of any infrastructure in this country.

In 437 days that bridge will be replaced, and if we could do that with other projects across the Nation, we would save so much time, money and hassle and red tape, but it shows that we can, if we want to take action, in replacing our infrastructure.

But, again, we had a tragedy. We weren't sure the day that it happened what the cause was, and we are still having information gathered by the National Safety Transportation Board, and they will file a final report. But I might also say that the loss of even one life in the collapse of a bridge is too much, and we have to act again to ensure bridge safety, but we have to also look at some of the conditions.

Even if we take the Minnesota bridge collapse, we do know now, and I have seen pictures of a design flaw of problems with the gusset plate, one of the structural support systems. That flaw was identified over several terms of different administrations in Minnesota. I have seen pictures that transcend, again, the flaw that was found, and not a lot was done about it.

We also have learned that the bridge was underdesigned, really, for the kind of traffic that it has today, and that's another problem we have with larger trucks and vehicles on our bridges, and we also know that bridge was under construction and a contractor had put a significant amount of weight which may have led to the collapse. We don't know that. There were other vehicles too, we know, on the bridge. All of that will give us a final determination of why that bridge went down.

But what we have got to do is not base our policy for the future, and this legislation, on presuming that certain things took place. We have got to deal with facts, and, again, in an appropriate and logical manner in which we proceed to ensure safety of bridges.

One of the things that I learned from all of this is that the trucks and vehicles that we have running over our bridges today, I think anyone who goes down the interstate, or down a major highway, sees a sign, a weight limit for bridges that's usually posted.

The amazing thing I found about today is that while we limit the weight of those vehicles, the violations of people going over those bridges with excessive weights is just mind-popping. It is happening across the country. So, many bridges like the Minnesota bridge that were built to a certain design for a certain era and certain weights, even though that weight limit is posted, one of the problems is that people drive vehicles that weigh far in excess, many times over. In fact, the Department of Transportation even publishes statistics on the estimates and the incidence of some of these violations. So that's something that we have got to address, too.

Again, I have a number of areas in this bill I think we have worked on that are good provisions, the training and certification of bridge inspectors, the requirement that States adopt a risk-based list and prioritization of the bridges that do need attention. There are good provisions in here. I do have a couple of things that give me hiccups, and I have expressed my concern about. I had attempted to go before the Rules Committee and offer an amendment that would have corrected two of the major flaws that I see in the approach we are taking here.

That was, unfortunately, rejected.

People have come and asked me how I'm going to vote on this measure. Quite frankly, I don't know. And I won't know until tomorrow, until I've heard the rest of the debate because, again, there are two flaws in this that concern me. Mr. Duncan mentioned them, and again I'll repeat them. One is lack of flexibility that allows our States that have been responsible to move money around. And I will submit for the Record a list of some of those States.

But States like California will be impacted here that in the past have asked to transfer funds. I mentioned to a Member from California that, even though I think that California has acted responsibly, California has also been the victim of natural disasters or earthquakes. Sometimes their bridges have collapsed. Sometimes their roads have collapsed. Sometimes they need to move money around. This bill does, unfortunately, set up some inflexibility that I think will harm some States that have had to use that mechanism in the past, but yet have been responsible in the manner in which they have expended their money, both Federal and State money, for bridge projects.

My State of Florida also is a responsible State and will be penalized by the terms of this. I have a very strong statement from our Secretary of Transportation, Stephanie Kopelousos, in opposition to the terms that were provided in this bill.

Now, I know that the chairman has tried to make some accommodations in this. I'm sorry that the Rules Committee did not see fit to take an amendment that would have provided a corrective remedy to help Florida, California, Tennessee--I've got a long list that I will submit in the Record of States who may be penalized, and some of them penalized for doing the right thing.

The other thing, too, is it does penalize States who have done the right thing, and that's unfortunate. I don't think we should put our States that act in good faith at a disadvantage for legislation that we've passed here.

So while there are some good provisions, I have some questions about what we're doing. This isn't the final say on this bill, it will have to go through the other body. And we want it to be good and thoughtful and productive and effective legislation as it is finalized.

So those are some of the comments that I wanted to provide as we speak here now in general debate. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, this amendment is an amendment that deals with what I spoke of during general debate. It is nice that we consider adding additional authorization for money to repair our bridges. It is nice that we institute some corrective measures that will require States to prioritize bridges that are at risk. But I think that we need to go further in trying to look at some of the issues that have brought about the problems we have seen with maintaining some of our bridges, and also pinpointing the bridges that pose a risk that deserve our attention and that warrant action.

So the amendment that I am offering today requires that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, conduct a study on the effectiveness of the bridge-rating system used by the Federal Highway Administration.

Since the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, the terms ``structurally deficient'' bridge and ``functionally obsolete'' bridge have been commonly used and intertwined in describing the condition of highway bridges across the country. I think that is one of the problems that we've had in the whole bridge inspection system is the basic definition.

However, the general public has little understanding of what the terms actually mean. Most people, even Members of Congress, would assume that if a bridge is classified as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, that the bridge is immediately in danger of collapsing. That's not the case, and we need to differentiate, again a definition that makes sense, on the actual condition of the bridge.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, a rating of structurally deficient means that there are elements of the bridge that need to be monitored and/or repaired. The fact that a bridge is deficient does not imply that it is likely to collapse or that it is in fact unsafe. It means that the bridge must be monitored, inspected, and properly maintained.

In reality, there are structurally deficient bridges at the top end of the current bridge-rating scale that can safely remain in service for 20 years or more if the owner of the bridge, the State or whatever entity, performs the necessary maintenance to keep the bridge structurally sound.

At the same time, there are structurally deficient bridges at the bottom of the rating scale that are closed to all traffic because the bridge may collapse at any moment.

I believe it is a disservice to the American people to have a bridge- rating system that does very little to actually distinguish between the bridges that can stay open and are safe for 20 years or more with a comprehensive maintenance plan, and a 100-year-old bridge that may collapse tomorrow if it remains open to traffic.

So to get to the heart of the issue that we are discussing, to try to approach this on a reasonable basis, if we are going to put money into these programs, repair these bridges and repair bridges that need repair, we need an amendment like this that will require GAO to evaluate the existing bridge-rating system, which is deficient, and it will also evaluate the rating systems used by the State Departments of Transportation and make recommendations on how the existing rating system can be improved to more accurately convey the condition of bridges throughout the United States.

So that's the purpose of this amendment. It is a simple amendment trying to get to the heart of the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In conclusion, the intent of this legislation is excellent to identify bridges that are deficient, that are obsolete, that need repair, that need attention, and provide the resources to do that.

But, again, the rating system by which we determine whether a bridge is structurally deficient or structurally obsolete, that rating system is out of date. We need the General Accounting Office to come up with a better rating system, one that makes sense in the 21st century, so that we can do a better job in assessing those bridges that do need repair, targeting the money to those bridges, but having a good rating system, and that's what this simple amendment does.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1344 provides for consideration of H.R. 3999, the National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008 under a structured rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation. The rule makes in order 11 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership in addressing the critical needs of bridges on our Federal highway system. I know that this issue is especially close to home for him, and my other colleagues from Minnesota, because of the tragedy that occurred when the I-35 bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last summer.

The staggering truth is that one-fourth of all bridges nationwide are deficient. Half of all of the bridges in use were constructed in the 1960s. It is projected that motorist traffic will double in the next 30 years. In the same time, freight traffic in the U.S. will likely grow 92 percent in order to accommodate forecasted increases in American economic output. Growing demand for the movement of goods and services will place an unprecedented strain on our aging system.

Our communities need the resources to ensure that our families and friends don't have to worry about their safety during their morning commute to work, quick trip to the grocery store, or the drive to drop their children off at school. We owe it to the American public to regain their trust in the safety of our bridges and highways.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration will go a long way to regain that trust from the American people. The legislation authorizes an additional $1 billion for bridge repair and replacement, and setting inspection standards for such bridges. It ensures that funds are concentrated on the most pressing bridge safety concerns by mandating that priority bridges be inspected annually and all other bridges biennially.

I would also like to take a moment to acknowledge the work of my Republican colleague from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and thank him for the opportunity to work with him and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) on an amendment that we will offer here today related to the rusting and corrosion damage to bridges. Our amendment expresses the sense of Congress that States should prepare corrosion mitigation and prevention plans when planning the construction of new bridges or the rehabilitation of existing bridges.

Our amendment calls attention to a serious problem: many of our Nation's bridges are simply rusting away because of corrosion. Many of our bridges have surpassed their initial life expectancy, yet we rely on them to support another 20, 30, 40 years of travel.

Corrosion is a significant factor in determining the useful life of a bridge. Without preventative measures, water penetrates and corrodes the steel rebar that reinforces our bridges, causing it to swell and fracture the concrete from the inside out. Weather and salt--especially in the northeast, where we must salt our roads in the winter--cause steel beams to rust and undermine the integrity of the whole structure.

But corrosion can be reduced by using widely available technology and construction methods if they are incorporated into the engineering and design phase of the bridge project. Prevention measures range from simple steps like selecting more resistant building materials, or using coated rebar in concrete structures, to complex methods that cause electrical reactions in water to prevent rust from forming. This sounds complicated, but the same technology is commonly used by the shipbuilding industry to prevent corrosion.

It is much easier and more cost effective to prevent or limit corrosion and rust at the beginning of a project. Corrosion prevention and mitigation plans can cost as little as a few thousand dollars to prepare during the design phase of a bridge project, but they can save municipalities hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in replacement and repair costs; delaying the need for maintenance by a factor of years. Having these plans up front can extend the life of the bridge, thereby saving both lives and millions of dollars in unnecessary repairs. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the Conaway-Arcuri-Sutton amendment later today.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass up this opportunity. We rely on bridges too much for everyday activities. Thanks to Chairman Oberstar and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we can rest a little easier knowing that this legislation will make the bridges on our national highway system much safer.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for his management of this very important bill.

I would like to say that very few things that we do in the House of Representatives are more important than this rule and the underlying bill because while energy is important and so many things we deal with are very important, nothing is more important than the safety of our family and the safety of our children, and that's what this bill is all about.

It is about the safety of our roadways, about our bridges. The crisis we face in maintaining safe bridges is just as pressing, if not more, than any of the other issues that we face today. We must act now while we have an opportunity to restore public faith in our bridges and to prevent another tragedy like the collapse of the I-35 bridge last year.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned that \1/4\ of all bridges nationwide are deficient. The State of New York is in even worse position with well over 6,000 of its 17,000 bridges rated as structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. In my upstate district alone, there are over 260 bridges that have been identified by the State Transportation Department as structurally deficient, and 9 of those are in my hometown of Utica, New York.

While that reality is troubling, the Congress now has an opportunity to take action to address this problem. Again, the legislation in this rule provides for consideration authorizes an additional $1 billion for Federal bridge programs next year.

Again, I thank Chairman Oberstar for his leadership and commitment to our Nation's infrastructure and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1344 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.