U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–406 2010

S. HRG. 110–1005 

CONDITION OF OUR NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE: 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVES FROM MAYORS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE CONDITION OF OUR NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE 

LOCAL PERSPECTIVE OF MAYORS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

( 

Available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate05sh.html 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ROBERT P. CASEY, Pennsylvania 

JON TESTER, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

SHAWN MAHER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE, Republican Staff Director and Counsel 

AMY S. FRIEND, Chief Counsel 

MARK OSTERLE, Republican Counsel 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008 

Page 

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd .................................................................. 1 

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 3 

Senator Hagel ................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement ................................................................................... 37 

Senator Reed ..................................................................................................... 17 

Senator Dole ...................................................................................................... 17 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 18 

Senator Martinez .............................................................................................. 20 

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 21 

Senator Corker .................................................................................................. 22 

WITNESSES 

Saxby Chambliss, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .................................. 3 

Johnny Isakson, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia .................................... 4 

Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ............................................. 5 

Mel Martinez, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida ......................................... 6 

Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, New York, New York ........................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Shirley Franklin, Mayor, Atlanta, Georgia ........................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

John Peyton, Mayor, Jacksonville, Florida ............................................................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Mark Funkhouser, Mayor, Kansas City, Missouri ................................................ 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

CONDITION OF OUR NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE: LOCAL PERSPECTIVES FROM MAYORS 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met at 10:15 a.m., in room SD–538, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Christopher J. Dodd (Chairman of the 

Committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD 

Chairman DODD. The Committee will come to order. 

I appreciate all who are here this morning. I want to particularly 

thank our mayors who are joining us for this hearing on the issue 

of our infrastructure problems in the country. We gather this morning to examine once again the condition of our Nation’s physical infrastructure and proposals that are needed to make improvements 

in it. 

When the Committee last gathered to examine this critical issue, 

we considered the perspectives from individuals who held expertise 

in public and private financing, civil engineering, labor and business. They were unanimous in voicing compelling support for increased investment in our Nation’s infrastructure and for the need 

to develop and implement alternative ways to finance this critically 

important investment in our Nation’s future. 

Today we consider the local perspective on our Nation’s infrastructure, and we will hear from individuals who are most qualified 

to offer that critical perspective—our Nation’s mayors. We are fortunate to have before us a distinguished panel of leaders who represent cities from different regions of our Nation, who hold different political affiliations, and who face different challenges in 

their communities. But what they share in common is far more important than what differentiates them. These mayors, like their colleagues across the Nation, bear the lion’s share of responsibility for 

maintaining the roads, bridges, mass transit systems, drinking 

water systems, waste water removal systems, and other vital components of our national structures. 

The Federal Highway Administration reports that out of the 4 

million miles of roads in our Nation, over 3 million miles are owned 

by counties, cities, and towns. Local governments maintain almost 

60 percent of our Nation’s 54,000 drinking water systems and 98 

percent of the 16,000 waste water systems in the country. Our 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

counties and cities and towns also have a front-line perspective on 

what happens when the needs of our infrastructures go unmet. 

I have just a couple of photographs to illustrate the point here. 

Obviously, we all remember last summer, in August in Minneapolis, the collapse that afternoon of the bridge, the loss of lives, 

and the national attention it drew to the condition of our highway 

systems. And then the second photograph—Mayor Bloomberg, you 

will be familiar with this one—is the New York City steam pipe explosion that caused great disruption in the city, again, a further example of what is happening. 

When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, Mayor Rybak was 

among the first to respond. When the steam pipe exploded in New 

York City, Mayor Bloomberg was among the first to respond. And 

when the Mianus River bridge collapsed in my home State of Connecticut in 1983, I know that several mayors in Fairfield County 

joined State officials in responding to that tragedy. 

Here in Washington, we may cite alarming statistics like the 

14,000 Americans who die each year at least in part because of 

crumbling roads and bridges; the over 5,500 Americans who are 

sickened each year from some of the 850 billion gallons of storm 

water and raw sewage left untreated by obsolete waste water systems; or the average American who wastes 1.5 hours a year, if you 

will, in traffic congestion—excuse me, 51.5 hours a year in traffic 

congestion. 

However, our mayors see these alarming statistics as more than 

just numbers on a piece of paper. They witness how these statistics 

play out each and every day in their communities and the people 

who are affected by them. They personally console individuals and 

loved ones in road accidents caused by poorly engineered highways 

or collapsed bridges. They personally connect with individuals who 

are sickened by an overburdened drinking water system or waste 

water system. And they experience the devastating economic effects 

when jobs are lost because the infrastructure in their communities 

cannot provide for effective movement of people, goods, and information. 

There is no question that the mayors are acutely aware of our 

Nation’s enormous immediate and unmet infrastructure needs. In 

fact, this awareness has already translated into meaningful action. 

I want to commend recent and comprehensive efforts undertaken 

by State and local governments to raise the awareness of infrastructure needs nationwide. Efforts such as Building America’s Future, which Mayor Bloomberg has undertaken with Governors 

Rendell and Schwarzenegger, are certainly well known to most 

Americans. The American Society of Engineers estimates that an 

investment of $1.6 trillion over 5 years is required just to bring our 

current infrastructure to an acceptable level. That translates into 

$320 billion a year just to upgrade existing structures to serve the 

needs of our Nation. 

As we face the prospect of significant long-term budget deficits, 

a weakening economy, decreasing tax revenues, and increasing unemployment, it is clear that the current ways by which we invest 

in our Nation’s infrastructure has become as obsolete as many of 

the infrastructure systems themselves. We must, I think, forge a 

strong partnership between Federal, State, and local governments 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

to explore other creative and fiscally responsible ideas that protect 

Americans to keep our economy as strong as possible. 

We also cannot afford to delay. I believe the cost of meeting our 

infrastructure needs is great, but the cost of failing to meet them 

is even greater, and it will grow every day. That is why, along with 

my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel, who is here 

with us this morning, and a variety of other people, we have proposed creating a national infrastructure bank to help us meet these 

challenges. The bank would mark the first Federal effort to 

prioritize infrastructure projects across different modes of transportation and water treatment. It will be the first Federal program to 

rate these different infrastructure projects on the basis of merit 

and to invest in projects based on their merit. And by focusing on 

projects of regional and national significance, the bank would help 

us meet some of the largest challenges that we are confronted with. 

This proposal will not solve all of our problems, obviously, but we 

believe that it will go a long way to addressing many of the concerns that we have heard from our witnesses, as we will today, and 

those who appeared prior to today. And I will continue to work, obviously, with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and 

other Members of this Committee to find that common ground that 

I hope we can, and we will be able to move this legislation forward, 

my hope would be even in this Congress. I do not know an exact 

timetable. As you know, we are very busy working on legislation 

to address the housing issues in our country. But I do hope that 

we can move a bill through this Committee possibly in a timely 

fashion. 

I appreciate, obviously, the willingness of our witnesses to share 

their insights with the Committee today. We look forward to your 

testimony. I know that we have several other Members who are 

here to introduce some of our witnesses, and before doing that, let 

me turn to my colleague from Alabama, the Ranking Member of 

this Committee, for any opening comments he wants to make, and 

then we will turn to the introduction of witnesses and any comments of our colleagues here. 

Senator Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I just 

want to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and ask that 

my written statement be made part of the record. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. That is it? 

Senator SHELBY. It is a long statement. 

Chairman DODD. Well, we have a couple of our colleagues here. 

Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson are here to represent 

Mayor Franklin, a good friend, and why don’t I invite both of you— 

where is Johnny? There you are right there. If the two of you want 

to step up and introduce the mayor of Atlanta. 

STATEMENT OF SAXBY CHAMBLISS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to introVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:24 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050406 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A406.XXX A406

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

duce what is, without question, one of the most outstanding mayors 

the city of Atlanta has ever had and one of the most outstanding 

mayors in America. 

I know you are here to talk about infrastructure problems and 

the needs of cities across America, and there is no city that we can 

look at that has had more of an issue with respect to decaying infrastructure than has the city of Atlanta. The predecessors to 

Mayor Franklin frankly did not pay much attention to this. They 

decided they would rather pay big fines to the Federal Government 

than address the issue of decaying water and sewer systems in Atlanta and the surrounding areas. 

Mayor Franklin came into office and did something very unique. 

As an elected official, she made a decision, No. 1, that we have got 

a serious problem that has got to be addressed, and she made the 

decision to address it in the right in which to fix it over a long period of time. And instead of looking to the Federal Government for 

funding solely from the standpoint of fixing it, instead of looking 

to the State government solely for the funding to fix it, she decided 

that the residents of the city of Atlanta needed to pay their fair 

share, and then let’s work in coordination with the State and Federal Government to provide some additional assistance. 

So what she did was to come in and raise user fees in the city 

of Atlanta by a significant amount, something that was normally 

not thought of as very popular. But thanks to her leadership, the 

citizens of the city Atlanta accepted it, and we now have a major 

project in excess of $3 billion that is underway under her leadership, and we are seeing real progress. The Federal Government has 

stepped up to lend a helping hand. The State government has 

stepped up to lend a helping hand. But, frankly, Mayor Franklin’s 

leadership on this issue is what has caused it to happen. 

In addition to that issue of infrastructure, under her leadership 

we have seen the infrastructure at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, the 

busiest airport in the world, expand in great numbers, great measures. She has overseen a $6 billion-plus expansion at HartsfieldJackson. We have added a fifth runway. And, again, thanks to her 

leadership, we are seeing a much busier airport in Atlanta today, 

serving the needs of people all over the world, something that was 

not happening 10 years ago. 

So I am very pleased to be here today to introduce her to this 

Committee and just to tell you that you could not have a better resource than Mayor Franklin to talk to when it comes to infrastructure needs and, most importantly, ways to fix those infrastructure 

needs. 

So it is my privilege to share with my colleague Senator Isakson 

the honor of introducing Mayor Shirley Franklin. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Johnny, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Chairman Dodd. I will not be redundant in what Saxby said, except to say that I came to the Atlanta business community, and for 33 years, 20 of which I ran a 

company, I worked with elected officials and mayors in Atlanta. We 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

had had benign neglect for a long time in our major infrastructure. 

We needed our fifth runway. We needed a new CSO. We needed 

to address homelessness. Shirley Franklin on each and every one 

of those counts had the vision, the intestinal fortitude, and the will 

to see to it that we did it in a public-private partnership with the 

city of Atlanta and its people being the first to step up to the table. 

Just one example. While doing the airport runway, while ad- dressing the CSO, a $3.2 billion problem, she also saw to it that 

homelessness in Atlanta was addressed through a project she put 

together, and we have 24/7 gateway centers that every day serve 

500 homeless people, gives them food, gives them shelter, gives 

them direction, has helped the streets of Atlanta, but most important, the humanity of Atlanta. In the words of my grandson, Charlie, she is ‘‘a good old gal and a rock star,’’ and we are mighty 

proud of her. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DODD. Cannot get a better endorsement than that, I 

think. Well, thank you very much, both Senators from Georgia. We 

appreciate it very much. 

And our colleague from Florida, we obviously have Mel Martinez 

from Florida on the Committee, but Bill Nelson, my good friend, is 

also here. Why don’t we start with you, Bill, and introduce the 

mayor of Jacksonville. 

STATEMENT OF BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to come along 

with Mel and tell you about our mayor, the mayor of the bold new 

city of the South, the first coast of Florida, a city that was quite 

visionary some three decades ago when it decided to consolidate its 

government, and so, in essence, the city government is the county 

government. And there are a number of cities in Florida that are 

having now a recognition of that kind of charter form of government is the most efficient. And, of course, atop that structure sits 

the mayor of Jacksonville, an extremely powerful person and one 

who has great vision. 

Now, it is great that Mayor Peyton is here to talk about infrastructure because Jacksonville has really been quite visionary in 

getting the infrastructure that we need. Our colleagues from Atlanta are talking about the infrastructure of the airport, and indeed that is, and yet the Jacksonville airport, as Jacksonville was 

host to the Super Bowl, who ever thought about a little city being 

host to a Super Bowl, and yet people realized it was not a little 

city, and the city the size it was handled that Super Bowl and all 

of its traffic with exceptional aplomb, discretion, and efficiency. 

And so representing that here, as you all talk about the desperate need that we have in this country for infrastructure, if it 

had been this Senator’s druthers, instead of that stimulus bill, 

sending out checks, this Senator’s preference was that we would 

have put that money into infrastructure. And now you all are addressing that, and I commend you for it, and I am very happy that 

our mayor is here to address the specifics of that legislation. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

Mel, do you want to say a word or two? 

STATEMENT OF MEL MARTINEZ, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go ahead 

and join in. I have some opening comments on the whole subject, 

but I really appreciate John Peyton being here. He is a good friend 

and a good man and a good mayor. Again, as Senator Nelson indicated, hosting the Super Bowl was the pinnacle, I think, of his 

mayoralty. But he has worked on some other things, too, that are 

laudable. He has launched a nationally recognized early childhood 

literacy program for which I know, Mayor, you have received a lot 

of attention, and I think deservedly so. 

The city of Jacksonville is one of our great cities. This mayor 

form of government, when I was mayor of Orlando, Orange County 

in Orlando, I quickly went to Jacksonville and met with his predecessor to see how this mega government was working. They have 

done a great job. I am proud to have you here. Welcome. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thanks very much, and let me say to 

Mayor Funkhouser and to Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Schumer I 

know would like to get by. He still may. He is not here, but let me 

just say how pleased we are you are here, Mayor Bloomberg. It is 

a great honor to have you before the Committee, the 108th mayor 

of New York City. It is a remarkable city and a remarkable job 

with it, and I think most people are aware of your background in 

the private sector and then moving into the second stage of your 

life, the public sector, two times being elected by the people of that 

city. So we are honored to have you here. 

Mayor Funkhouser, I know Claire McCaskill as well wanted to 

be by this morning to present you to the Committee, and she has 

another Committee assignment this morning that she is chairing, 

I believe. But it is important, I think, that everyone know here that 

the mayor of Kansas City is a former auditor. He was named National Public Official of the Year by Governing Magazine in 2003. 

He holds a doctorate in public administration and sociology from 

the University of Missouri, and is also in Washington the lead participant in the Brookings Institution Summit for American Prosperity, a remarkable career and a great career. And you are wonderful to be with us this morning and share some thoughts. 

Let me turn, if I could just quickly, to Senator Hagel. He has 

been my co-author of this bill we have spent the last 3 years on, 

along with people I know that Mayor Bloomberg knows, Felix 

Rohatyn and Bernie Schwartz, not to mention the Center for Strategic International Studies, CSIS, and a lot of good people who 

have spent a lot of time helping us craft this idea that we have 

asked you to comment on this morning. 

But, Chuck, do you want to make any opening comments? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL 

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have a statement 

that I would ask to be included in the record. Thank you. And 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding another hearing on this 

issue, and, of course, to our distinguished witnesses who are on the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

front line of governing in this country. Just a couple of comments, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Many of you may have noted this week a column in the Washington Post by Fareed Zakaria on the world economy and America’s 

competitive position in the world today. And I commend the article 

to you, and I want to just quote two lines from that piece. Fareed 

wrote, ‘‘U.S. spending on infrastructure as a percentage of GDP is 

the lowest in the industrialized world.’’ 

Earlier this year, many of you may have noted as well Morgan 

Stanley predicted that emerging economies, including countries 

throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, will spend over $22 

trillion on new infrastructure over the next 10 years. And that 

Morgan Stanley report goes on in some detail about the specific 

projects in the countries. No group of leaders in this country understands the need for infrastructure more, as we know, Mr. Chairman, than our mayors, and these four in particular who have, not 

unlike all bodies of government, been restricted by fiscal realities, 

and they are no different in some ways than we are here representing the Federal Government. But yet they have come up with 

creative, new, dynamic, 21st century ideas on how to do this. And 

that is as much the essence of this hearing as you and I have 

talked over the years, Mr. Chairman. 

We must find 21st century ideas, programs, systems, processes, 

policies to address 21st century challenges. If we are not willing to 

do that, not only do we fail our country, the next generation of 

Americans, and the next generation after that, but we will find 

ourselves falling behind in a very competitive world. And we cannot afford to do that. 

So I do not know of an issue that is more fundamental to our 

future, Mr. Chairman, and to our Nation’s future than this infrastructure challenge. We are, I believe—this country—represented 

by the finest minds, most creative thinkers. Our balance sheet, we 

have some—at the witness table, some here around this table, who 

have been in business. Balance sheets are important. America’s 

balance sheet is more significant than any nation’s balance sheet. 

I wouldn’t trade our balance sheet for China’s, for India’s, or any 

other country. But we will squander that balance sheet unless we 

provide some very, very insightful 21st century leadership. And 

those before us this morning, Mr. Chairman, have done that, are 

doing that in difficult times. 

So I am very proud to join with you, Mr. Chairman, in this effort 

in this Committee, and I thank all who have been particularly involved. You mentioned some of them, and there are others, and to 

our distinguished witnesses, and look forward to their comments. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very, very much. 

Mayor Bloomberg, we are honored that you are here this morning, and thank you for the work you have been doing on this with 

Governor Rendell and Governor Schwarzenegger. It is great to 

have the three of you involved in this, and we are honored you are 

here this morning. And we thank you for all the work you have 

been doing as well. The floor is yours. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, MAYOR, 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Shelby, Members of the Committee. Mel, I have to say, my mother is 

a big supporter of yours, Dickinson High School, 1925, who when 

I came in before this Committee, wanted to make sure I said hello, 

so I have said hello. But keep up the good work. 

I am the mayor of New York City. I am also the co-chair, as Senator Dodd said, of Building America’s Future, a coalition of State 

and local officials that we founded along with Governor Rendell 

and Governor Schwarzenegger this past January. And the reason 

that we came together is really very simple: We are facing an infrastructure crisis in this country that threatens our status as an economic superpower and threatens the health and the safety of the 

people that we serve. 

As you know, infrastructure is not a sexy or glamorous topic, but 

it is one of the most pressing issues facing our country today. And 

that is why, in good economic times and in bad ones, we in New 

York have made infrastructure a top priority. Attached to my testimony today is a summary list of the projects that we are currently 

working on, but let me just point out a few. 

We in the city of New York, with city taxpayer dollars, have in- vested $2 billion in a new subway extension to open up the Far 

West Side of Manhattan; $6 billion on our Water Tunnel so that 

we can have a critical back-up supply of water for our city; and $6 

billion on upgrades to our sewage treatment plants. Nobody wants 

to spend money on infrastructure, particularly in difficult times 

when we do not have enough money to do everything else we have 

to do. But this is our future, this is our legacy, and we are not 

going to walk away from it. 

Across the city, in addition to this, we are spending tens of billions of dollars on other things, improvements and expansions, but 

the truth of the matter is that is certainly not enough. New York 

City and the region needs something like $30 billion just in the 

next 5 years to continue to bring our mass transit system up to a 

state of good repair and to expand its capacity to meet growing demand. We need $23 billion to do the same for our drinking water 

and our sewerage system. And we are not unique in this regard. 

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the entire 

country needs to invest at least $1.6 trillion over the next 5 years 

to maintain and expand our roads and bridges, bring our rail networks up to a state of good repair, and construct critical water and 

waste water projects. This $1.6 trillion is obviously a staggering amount of money. But 

it is also staggering how little the Federal Government is doing to 

help cities and States address these challenges. Senator, I think 

you pointed out, it is not always easy to do this, but during the 

Great Depression, you should remember that the New Deal did 

provide economic stimulus in the form of jobs to build infrastructure. La Guardia Airport—which I am sure a lot of you have flown 

in and out of—was a New Deal project, as was the electrification 

of the New York-Washington rail line. These projects created jobs, 

but they also created a lasting infrastructure that still serves our 

country. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

And then, after World War II, Congress saw the need to tie the 

Nation together with a highway network and, together with President Eisenhower, they made that network a national priority and 

funded 90 percent of its total costs. Think about it this way. You 

had a Democratic and a Republican President instituting a stimulus package and a jobs creation program—yes, they did both—but 

most importantly for our country, they invested in our future, not 

short-term, politically popular giveaways with dubious economic 

impact. Decades of growth came from the institutions and the initiatives that they started 70 and 50 years ago. Lately, sadly, we 

have looked for ways to avoid short-term investments that give us 

long-term benefits. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, in all fairness, the Federal Government 

did take the lead in funding transit projects around the Nation, including Washington’s Metro system. 

But the decades that followed did see less and less leadership 

from Washington, less and less willingness to open its purse 

strings. 

Now, I am as happy as any other mayor to get Federal or State 

funding, but I will say New York City taxpayers have gotten tired 

of waiting for both. And so the five boroughs that I represent have 

reached into their own pockets and paid higher taxes to make the 

kind of investments that we have to so that we will be proud of 

what we leave our children and grandchildren. 

In 1980, the Federal Government was spending 6 percent of its 

entire domestic budget on infrastructure. Today, that is less than 

4 percent. And as a result, State and local governments are now 

responsible for three out of every four dollars spent on public infrastructure. 

To remain the world’s economic superpower, we must build the 

infrastructure to support strong and sustained growth. And that 

means, very simply, things have got to start changing in Washington, and I hope the year 2009 will be a watershed year. 

The expiration of the current transportation bill will allow for a 

new debate on our infrastructure needs, and I would hope and expect that it will focus on two important issues: one, what should 

the role of the Federal Government be in our transportation system; and how we are going to pay for everything that we know we 

need. 

There are a few principles that I believe should guide the discussion: 

First, we need to set clear goals—both for the short term and 

long term—and clear metrics for measuring success. Right now, we 

have no coherent national transportation policy. It is just a grab 

bag of programs with no goals that correspond to national priorities, such as reducing our dependence on oil and cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. We also lack performance standards to ensure 

that we can meet our goals, which is just basic accountability. And 

we lack incentives that encourage cities and States to be more efficient, which is a basic tenet of market economics. These practices 

are straight from Management 101, and we need to put them to 

work when it comes to transportation. 

Second, we need to dramatically increase funding. There are no 

two ways around it—no ways around it. Infrastructure costs 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

money. But polls show that people are willing to pay for it—if they 

know they will benefit. Voters really are smarter than we give 

them credit for. They know there is no free lunch. But they want 

to get infrastructure fixed. And there are lots of things on the 

table. We need Congress to step up. 

Third, and finally, we need to fund projects based on merit, not 

on politics. We think one of the most promising concepts is the one 

introduced by Senators Dodd and Hagel: a national infrastructure 

bank. That bank would create an independent, nonpartisan entity 

that would fund the most vital needs and not the most parochial 

needs. 

So the system is broken, but these three principles we think 

would help, and we are not sitting there just asking for money. We 

are doing what we can with our own money. It is just much too 

big a problem for any one city. The pain has to be spread around 

the country because the benefits are countrywide. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Mayor, that was excellent testimony. Thank 

you very, very much. 

Mayor Franklin, thank you for being here. I have known Mayor 

Franklin for some time, we have great mutual friends, and as well 

it is an honor to have you with us this morning. 

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY FRANKLIN, MAYOR, 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Members of the Committee, for inviting me to participate, and 

also thank you to Senators Chambliss and Isakson for joining us 

this morning and introducing me. 

I am pleased to join my colleagues from cities across America to 

come forward and speak on this subject. In Atlanta, I have a selfproclaimed nickname. I am ‘‘The Sewer Mayor,’’ and I chose that 

name because I wanted to raise the issue of infrastructure to the 

discussion level across the city. I named myself in 2003 before the 

press did. But I am pleased to be here to let you know how important it is that we address the issue that you have studied in previous hearings, but also to address the issues as described by my 

colleague Mayor Bloomberg. 

When I took office as mayor of the city of Atlanta in January of 

2002, it did not take me very long to realize that the city had severely neglected infrastructure that would require my immediate 

attention, particularly the rebuilding of our water and sewer infrastructure. We are a city of 500,000 people with a water and sewer 

system that serves over 1 million people each day. We recently 

passed the halfway mark in our $4 billion water program, the details are described in the written testimony that I have presented. 

In Atlanta, there is a pressing need for a broader and more comprehensive approach to transportation planning and funding focused on a more pedestrian and public transit-oriented system. 

Last year, I was invited to testify before the National Surface 

Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission about the city of 

Atlanta’s transportation vision and its relationships with transportation agencies and transit providers in the region. Our transportation infrastructure is critical to the economic well-being not just 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

of Atlanta and its residents, but especially our entire region, which 

is expected to grow by over 2 million people by the year 2030. For 

the city of Atlanta alone, we are expecting a 75-percent increase 

above our 2005 population in 2030. 

We are certainly interested in this fund because, indeed, Atlanta 

has stepped up to fund water and sewer infrastructure ourselves. 

In my second year in office, I raised water and sewer rates nearly 

50 percent. Rates are up almost 75 percent now, and I have pending before the City Council yet another rate increase to help pay 

for water and sewer infrastructure. 

We believe that we cannot do this alone, not for too long. And, 

in fact, we need support from the Federal Government in terms of 

matching funds and Federal assistance. I announced a Clean 

Water Atlanta Program, a comprehensive long-term program, involving a complete overhaul of the city’s over 100-year-old water 

and sewer infrastructure. The program includes court-ordered mandates to repair and replace sewer infrastructure and voluntary upgrades to our water system. 

As part of this program, we have drastically reduced sanitary 

and combined sewer overflows; separated the sewers; built more 

than 120 miles of new water mains; inspected more than 1,000 

miles of sewers; and rehabbed about 250 miles of sewers. As a result of these efforts, one of our primary waterways—the Chattahoochee River—is cleaner than it was 10 years ago. Although we have secured $500 million in low-interest State loans and approximately $6 million in grants from the EPA, we 

have undertaken this initiative largely on the backs of the city’s 

residents, some 25 percent of whom live at or below the poverty 

level. Atlanta’s customers are already paying some of the highest 

water and sewer rates, and, unfortunately, we will have to continue 

to raise rates to fund this program. 

The condition of our infrastructure has a profound impact not 

just on the city, but on the entire metropolitan region, and I believe 

on the State of Georgia and the Southeast region. My testimony 

contains more detail on the national scope of water and sewer problems, but suffice it to say Atlanta’s situation is not unique. 

Local governments are the primary investor in water and waste 

water infrastructure in the United States, and there have been numerous studies by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that the local 

share, as has been noted by Mayor Bloomberg, surpasses the Federal share and the State share. 

So I would like to move quickly to transportation. This area is 

one—Atlanta is originally a railroad crossing town, so infrastructure for transportation is very dear to our hearts. In the metropolitan Atlanta region, we have discovered that the elevated environmental and social-economic impact of congestion has a tremendous 

impact on our future for economic prosperity. We believe that if we 

are not able to address this core problem, Atlanta will not be able 

to continue to be one of the key hubs of economic activity in the 

United States. 

The Federal Government was very good at matching us for the 

building of our transit system, MARTA, Metropolitan Atlanta transit system, and we are looking forward to continuing that relationship as we look into the future. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

Mr. Chairman, it is a matter of record that the Federal Government has reduced its overall commitment to infrastructure, and we 

are pleased to come today to testify on behalf of this bill that we 

might be able to apply for Federal funds to assist us with transportation, with water and sewer infrastructure, and, additionally, with 

other types of infrastructure, whether it is roads and bridges, in 

the city of Atlanta and in American cities. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DODD. Mayor, thank you very, very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

Mayor Peyton, we are delighted to have you with us and look forward to your testimony. 

By the way, any supporting documents and materials you think 

the Committee would benefit from, please know that it will be included in the record. And I am going to turn, when we complete 

hearing from our witnesses, to my colleagues for any opening statements they may have. I know time is difficult for some people, so 

I want to give you a chance to make some opening comments, and 

then we will get to some questions if we can, just to give you some 

idea of how we are going to proceed. 

Mayor, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PEYTON, MAYOR, 

JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 

Mr. PEYTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me, and Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee. I want thank Senator 

Nelson and Senator Martinez for their kind introduction. I appreciate their great representation of our State. I am honored to be 

here with this distinguished group of mayors to talk a critical issue 

certainly facing our cities and, of course, our country. 

I serve as mayor of Jacksonville, Florida, which is the most populous city in Florida and the 13th largest city in America, which is 

a really unknown fact by most. We have a population of about 

850,000, and as Senator Nelson said, we are a consolidated citycounty, which certainly changes our numbers. 

Jacksonville is a high-growth city and is really at the center of 

a high-growth metropolitan area. But with the growth comes needs, 

and primarily major capital investment needs. New roads, new 

sewers must be built while still maintaining older existing infrastructure in the urban core. 

For example, my Growth Management Task Force I appointed a 

few years ago analyzed the development and transportation needs 

in our city, Jacksonville, and predicted that about $2.6 billion is 

the shortfall in transportation funding alone. 

Our Nation’s vital economic centers are metropolitan areas like 

Jacksonville, Florida, where basic infrastructure is in disrepair or 

altogether lacking. 

Like the Interstate Highway System, the physical assets of these 

major metropolitan areas yield huge national benefits. Meeting 

these needs extends well beyond our capacity typically in local government, and others of regional and national significance demand 

a greater and more strategic Federal partnership to really move 

the ball. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

Jacksonville, fortunately, has a really long history of being good 

stewards and strong physical management and self-help. We have 

dedicated numerous local resources like they are doing in Atlanta 

to really invest in infrastructure with local projects, with largescale projects that also have a national influence. We recently 

passed a half-cent sales tax in Duval County in the year 2000 

called the Better Jacksonville Plan, which basically was a $2.2 billion infrastructure investment in our community. And most recently I passed a fee for storm water, which is a dedicated funding 

source, first of its kind in Jacksonville for public infrastructure and 

primarily water improvement for the St. John’s River. 

However, State action over the past year to reduce local property 

taxes has resulted in a loss of about $100 million to our local revenue. Now we are struggling to sustain delivery of fundamental 

city services on a daily basis, let alone find the resources to address 

compelling, longer-term infrastructure needs. 

In my written testimony, I highlighted two specific examples of 

infrastructure needs that illustrate how appropriate and integral 

the Federal Government partnership is to completing these 

projects: build-out of the transportation network surrounding our 

expanding marine port terminal, and expansion of our sewer system and septic tank phase-out initiative. 

Jacksonville is the fastest-growing deepwater port on the East 

Coast of the United States, and as you know, the Panama Canal 

is widening, scheduled to open 2015. And as that widens, we are 

now able to receive Asian carriers that otherwise could not economically deliver to the East Coast. Jacksonville has become the 

port of choice primarily because of our three major Federal interstate systems—I–75, I–10, and I–95—and, of course, three rail 

hubs. We are proud of our port expansion, but quite frankly, the 

growth of the seaport as a tremendous economic booster really is 

not designed from an infrastructure standpoint to handle this kind 

of growth. 

The port generates about $3 billion in economic activity, which 

will increase to $5 billion when the two terminals that we have 

currently under construction will be operational. The port system 

will employ about 100,000 people within the next 10 years. But one 

terminal expansion will increase the number of trucks on local 

roads by 250,000 within its first year of operation and 500,000 

within 3 to 5 years of operation. 

Our existing local transportation infrastructure simply cannot 

handle this type of shift in trade from the West Coast to the East 

Coast as it is today. We will need new roads and rail to divert port 

traffic away from our local neighborhoods and directly onto our 

interstate network. The necessary highway improvements will total 

at least $326 million, and potential rail yards have a construction 

estimate of $100 million. 

Now, in Jacksonville, the St. John’s River, which is hosting all 

of this port expansion, supports more than 19,000 jobs in our community with an annual economic impact of about $2.2 billion. Property along our river accounts for more than $1.3 billion in the county tax rolls. This river is a tremendous asset, and that is why we 

think it is important to invest in it. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

But the river faces significant problems, in notable part due to 

failing septic tanks, not unlike what they are facing in Atlanta, 

and, of course, it requires major investment to replace sewers. The 

city already has provided $80 million, and the State has granted 

about $12 million toward this cause. But it will cost between $408 

million to finish the job. There is no local or State funding source 

that can, quite frankly, address this need at this magnitude. Florida’s clean water revolving loan Fund is insufficient, and, of course, 

in 2007 the Federal allocation of State funds was only $36 million. 

But most Federal grant formulas do not adequately target resources to infrastructure projects on a regional or national level. 

These systems tend to promote equity distribution among States 

and then within States between urban and rural areas. We spread 

these funds so thin that, without national strategic direction, there 

is little impact to the most significant needs. 

As both a businessman and an elected official, I believe that a 

more cost-effective approach, like what Mayor Bloomberg is proposing, targets our limited resources around strategies and investments in projects based on merit and projects that will generate 

the greatest return. 

The principles that underlie the proposed national infrastructure 

bank follow, I believe, this framework—dedicating sufficient funding for large-scale projects with true regional or national significance, while allowing the formula-based funds to be allocated more 

appropriately to smaller, localized projects. 

For our Nation’s continued economic vitality and for us, it is all 

about the economy. We need a national funding strategy for activity that yields the highest ROI, return on investment, the term I 

used when I was in the private sector. We must assure that the 

quality of our infrastructure meets or exceeds those of the major 

metropolitan regions and countries that we are competing with 

around the world. 

I appreciate this opportunity and certainly would be welcome to 

answer any questions at any point. 

Chairman DODD. Well, Mayor, thank you very much. Very eloquent testimony, and I commend you for the job you have done as 

well. It is very exciting, what you are doing in Jacksonville. Those 

are exciting numbers—except the 500,000 trucks on the road. That 

is not an exciting number if you are living near 95 around New 

York and Connecticut. I see Mayor Bloomberg and I rolling our 

eyes a little bit, along with Bob Menendez in New Jersey. 

Mayor Funkhouser, thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MARK FUNKHOUSER, MAYOR, 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Chairman Dodd, Ranking Member Shelby, and 

Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for inviting me to testify today on behalf of the city of Kansas City, Missouri. It is an honor and a pleasure to join Mayor Bloomberg, 

Mayor Franklin, and Mayor Peyton on this panel to offer a local 

perspective on the condition of our Nation’s infrastructure. 

I come before you today as the elected representative of the citizens of Kansas City, the largest city in Missouri, with more than 

445,000 residents. Given today’s topic, however, I would like to exVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:24 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050406 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A406.XXX A406

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

pand my jurisdiction, at least for a moment, to encompass the entire Kansas City region. As you are likely aware, this wider region 

spans two States, six counties, and more than 100 municipalities, 

and is home to nearly 2 million Americans. In the context of today’s hearing, I speak in these broader terms because together we 

form one economy, and we share much of the infrastructure that 

is vital to our communities’ shared health and prosperity. 

Just the same, however, the health and prosperity of our Nation’s metro communities are vital to that of the Nation. In today’s 

world, metropolitan areas drive the American economy. Consider 

the following: 83 percent of Americans live and work in metropolitan areas; 65 percent live and work in the Nation’s 100 largest 

metro areas; 74 percent of the country’s most educated citizens call 

metro areas home; 84 percent of our most recent immigrants do as 

well; and, metro areas offer 76 percent of our knowledge economy 

jobs. 

As these figures clearly demonstrate, our Nation’s metropolitan 

communities are the incubators of the 21st century American economy and will continue to serve as the arena for American innovation and competitiveness globally. In order to provide meaningful 

support to the national economy, then, we must sustain and improve the quality of life in our metro communities and provide a 

sound foundation upon which to continue to produce and innovate. 

It is a simple fact that cities grow when people want to live in 

them. And solid, dependable infrastructure is the most fundamental component of cities where folks want to live. 

Kansas City, in particular, continues its historical role as a vital 

hub within the Nation’s commercial and commuter transportation 

infrastructure. As many of you are certainly aware, the city initiated the Nation’s first interstate and has long served as the home 

to the Kansas City Southern Rail Network and a primary junction 

between three major commercial rail systems. 

Prior to becoming mayor, I was the city auditor, and my office 

conducted an annual survey of citizens’ satisfaction with city services. Year after year, people in Kansas City tell us that they are 

most concerned with the condition of the streets, sidewalks, 

bridges, sewers, and storm water drains. Further, when we surveyed business owners in Kansas City, we were told the same 

thing: infrastructure is paramount. I continue to hear this as 

mayor at regular town hall meetings throughout the city. Every 

time I hear a complaint about city services, it is grounded in, it has 

to do with infrastructure. 

Yet, as municipalities, we are simply unable to meet the infrastructure needs of the region on our own. This is something I have 

devoted a great deal of time studying as auditor and now I spend 

a lot more time working on as mayor. Despite ongoing efforts to leverage existing resources, the scale and cost of a regional highway 

and road system, public transit, water and waste water systems 

are more than we can shoulder on an already constrained budget. 

Even if we pool our resources with the other municipalities of our 

region, as we are trying to do, we will not be able to tackle the 

daunting challenges we face. The expense is too large, the challenges too far-reaching to be adequately addressed by local and muVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:24 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050406 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A406.XXX A406

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 

nicipal governments alone. Only the Federal Government has resources to match the scale of the problems. In Kansas City, for example, we have a $6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance, and our citizens are paying. We are a hightax-effort city. Kansas City residents pay as a portion of their income much more than their suburban counterparts and much more 

than most big cities in taxes, and yet these problems continue to 

grow. Despite the best efforts of local officials, these and other infrastructure problems will demand a more robust and assertive 

Federal commitment. 

Much the same, our city’s outdated sewer system allows over 6 

billion gallons of sewage overflow every year into our rivers, 

streams, and urban lakes. These circumstances mean that we are 

under the gun from the Federal Government and others locally to 

improve existing facilities. But the price tag for this little repair job 

is $2.3 billion. That is a hefty chunk of change for a city with an 

annual budget of only $1.3 billion, a median household income of 

$37,000, and 23,000 households with annual incomes of $10,000 a 

year or less. Their sewer rates could quadruple over the next decade, and the cost of construction on these projects is increasing at 

a rate much faster than our revenues are increasing. 

This is reason enough to support the National Infrastructure 

Bank Act of 2007, but I want to also express my support for the 

Federal partnership that that act represents. The proposed legislation presents a good concept for how to provide long-term funding 

for large, regionally significant infrastructure projects. In general, 

the bill represents a commitment on behalf of the Federal Government to assist metropolitan areas meet their infrastructure needs 

and ensure the continued economic vitality and growth of the 

American economy. On a deeper level, it allows the Federal Government to make a more realistic assessment of its economy and 

begin to act strategically to ensure prosperity and global competitiveness far into the future. 

With this proposed legislation, the Federal Government can 

begin to address infrastructure not as a budgetary cost, but as an 

investment—because it is an investment. Productivity is the result 

of capital applied to labor. In other words, a man with a spade cannot be as productive as a man with a backhoe. In the same way, 

our cities cannot be as productive if we do not have infrastructure 

adequate to meet the demands of a rapidly diversifying and expanding global economy. So long as we fail to invest in these capital resources, we will fall behind other nations in this global economy, nations that do understand the value of quality infrastructure 

and that are making the necessary investments to ensure their 

competitiveness. 

I want to close with this thought: Recently Jack Schenendorf, 

Vice Chair of the National Surface Transportation and Revenue 

Study Commission, spoke in Kansas City about the need for progressive funding. He said this: ‘‘If we don’t step up to the plate and 

come up with a solution, our children and our grandchildren will 

have a lesser standard of life than they have today.’’ 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Mayor, thank you very, very much, and thank 

you for your tremendous work in this area. I know you have spent 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

a great deal of time thinking about it, in addition to the management of your own city’s issues. So we appreciate immensely your 

thought process and your contribution to this bill effort as well as 

it has been of tremendous assistance to us. 

I would just like to give my colleagues a chance maybe to share 

a few thoughts on this, knowing time constraints and so forth, and 

then we will get to some very direct questions. Jack, do you have 

anything you would like to raise. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the mayors 

and thank them for their extraordinary leadership. You are truly 

on the front lines, and we appreciate what you do to deliver services to our constituents. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Senator Dole. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ELIZABETH DOLE 

Senator DOLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some comments that I would like to make and to raise this morning, and I 

want to thank you and Ranking Member Shelby for bringing us together to focus on this important topic. And certainly my great 

thanks to our outstanding mayors for your witness this morning, 

for sharing your experience and your expertise with us. 

There is no question, of course, that our Nation’s infrastructure 

is in dire need of maintenance and repair. Deteriorating infrastructure diminishes highway safety and puts a strain on our economy. 

According to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission’s Report, which was released in January, 

the Texas Transportation Institute estimates that congestion cost 

the American economy $78 billion in 2005. The same report estimates that the average driver consumed an additional 26 gallons 

of fuel during rush hour commuting. 

As we continue to explore ways to stimulate the economy, funding for transportation infrastructure should be right at the top of 

the list. We need to take a serious look at how the Federal Government allocates money for transportation projects before it is time 

to reauthorize the next highway bill. 

In North Carolina, there are many high-priority projects that are 

in need of immediate funding. One of these projects, the Interstate 

85 bridges over the Yadkin River, is located near my home town 

of Salisbury. This project’s cost is $400 million, and the North 

Carolina Department of Transportation is exploring funding options. If any Federal funds are directed for the bridges under current Federal law, the project becomes a Federal priority, and the 

State must finance the balance of the cost. Due to North Carolina’s 

method of distributing transportation dollars and the expense of 

the new bridges, this action would wipe out the funding slated for 

other transportation projects in that area of the State. I understand the rationale of packaging Federal dollars with a Federal priority. We should, however, consider methods that provide States 

more flexibility. 

Another very important project is the proposed North Carolina 

International Terminal in Brunswick County. This new port would 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 

not only be valuable to North Carolina, but also to the Nation as 

a whole. As we have already heard this morning, our West Coast 

ports continue to operate at close to maximum capacity. Vessels are 

increasingly being rerouted to access ports along the eastern seaboard. North Carolina’s proposed deepwater port could give shippers another valuable alternative as projected volumes of international trade double over the next 20 years, not to mention the 

host of new U.S. jobs that would support this facility. 

Now, this is incredible to me, what I am about to tell you. To 

date, the North Carolina Port Authority has received considerable 

interest from various private investors for the proposed terminal. 

The Port Authority is ready to move forward with a $200,000 reconnaissance study. They have been ready. It has the resources 

necessary to fund this federally required study. Unfortunately, 

these funds cannot be utilized. Under current law, only Federal 

dollars can be utilized for the Army Corps of Engineers to perform 

a study. I am all too aware of this situation because over the past 

couple of years, I have made this project a top priority in the appropriations process. But due to continuing resolutions and budget 

restraints, this project has remained unfunded. 

In May, I personally met with John Paul Woodley, the Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to see what the Army Corps 

of Engineers could do to resolve this situation. Unfortunately, Mr. 

Woodley told me that without a Federal funding commitment specifically designated for this reconnaissance study of $200,000, the 

Corps is not in a position to move forward on its own. 

To my utter amazement, what we have here is a potentially 

multi-billion-dollar project of regional and national importance that 

is being held hostage at the moment by an appropriations process 

for a relatively small amount of money. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, our goal should be to have the best 

transportation infrastructure in the world. To reach that goal, we 

must remove the unnecessary hurdles currently in place that prevent projects from being completed in an acceptable length of time. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to make these comments. This has been a very frustrating situation for me, and I 

think we should add this to our consideration of these important 

topics. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. To all our witnesses, 

welcome. It is good to see each of you. Thanks for coming. Thank 

you for your stewardship and the examples you set not just for 

other mayors, but one of you is from a city that has as many people 

as my State of Delaware, so setting some good examples for States 

and I think for those of us in the Federal Government, too. 

I have a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman, but I would 

just like to speak off of that statement. 

I think I was intrigued by—the idea of the infrastructure bank 

I think is one that I heard you talk about during the Presidential 

campaign. I am not sure. But I—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

Chairman DODD. I talked about a lot of things during that campaign. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, but a lot of good ideas, I think this might 

have been one of them. But Senator George Voinovich of Ohio and 

I introduced legislation calling for the—well, let me just back up 

before I say that. 

A number of years ago, about 4 years ago, we passed a major— 

every 5 or 6 years we pass a major transportation bill, as you may 

recall. We included in that measure 4 or 5 years ago the creation 

of a commission that said let’s look at transportation infrastructure 

in this country. Let’s look at our roads, highways, bridges, and so 

forth, and see what our needs are. And we asked for a commission 

of very good people to come back and report to us what is the scope 

of the need, give us some sense of what the priorities should be, 

and tell us how you think we should pay for it. And they did that. 

They looked across the country. They tried to figure out what our 

needs are in different modes of transportation, and they came back 

to us within the last 6 months and said this is it and this is how 

we think you ought to pay for it. 

You have heard the term ‘‘dead on arrival’’? Unfortunately, their 

recommendations were dead on arrival. They called for actually 

making us pay for stuff that we wanted to have, not just borrow 

money, not just issue debt but actually have to pay for things—pay 

for it out of the—when we go pull up to the gas station. They called 

for an extra nickel a gallon for gas taxes, for motor fuel taxes over 

the next 10 years or so. They called for looking at other ways to 

raise fees that we would have to pay for the services that we want 

to—the infrastructure we wanted to build and the services we 

wanted to use. 

So that happened about over the last 4 or 5 years, and the results came to us. I am sorry to say that not much has happened 

from their efforts, and it is too bad. 

Last year, the month or so before the bridge—we saw the bridge 

in Minneapolis that collapsed. About a month or so before that, 

Senator George Voinovich and I introduced legislation that called 

for creating a different kind of infrastructure commission. We are 

pretty good about creating commissions around here. Maybe you 

are, too, in your cities. But we had a little different idea here. What 

we wanted to do was to create an infrastructure commission not 

just looking at transportation, not just looking at roads, highways, 

and bridges, but also to look at rail, to look at water, waste water 

treatment, to consider dams and levees, to look across the country 

to see what the needs are, to come back to us to try to quantify 

those needs, and to say these will be our priorities, and this is how 

we would suggest that you pay for those—not just the transportation fees but the broader pieces. 

Well, the week that the bridge collapsed in Minnesota, the bill 

passed the Senate just like that. The bill went over to the House, 

was introduced in the House that same week, and it still is awaiting action over in the House. 

What we suggested was a commission, eight people in all—two 

appointed by the Majority Leader here, one by the Minority Leader 

here in the Senate; two appointed by the Speaker, one by the Republican Leader in the House; and two by the President. You would 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 

have an eight-member commission, and the eight of them would decide who the Chairman would be. They were tasked with spending 

about the next year and a half to come back and give the new 

President and the new Congress a road map, if you will, for moving 

forward on infrastructure. 

That is not the same idea as Senator Dodd’s proposal, but I think 

much like that SAFETEA–LU commission, it was a good idea, and 

I think this is not—what our Chairman has come up with and 

what Senator Hagel has come up with is also a good idea. 

At the end, though, we have got to figure out how to pay for this 

stuff. Nobody wants to. And in my State, as a former Governor, I 

know you have to—in Delaware, we had a balanced budget requirement. If we wanted to do things, we had to pay for it. And obviously in your cities the same is the case. We have got to figure out 

how to pay for these things, and that is the toughest part of all. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Martinez, any quick comments? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MEL MARTINEZ 

Senator MARTINEZ. Yes, sir, just real quickly. You know, we in 

the State of Florida, a high-growth State, and, Mayor, your eloquent comments. As a high-growth State, we also are a donor State 

when it comes to the Highway Trust Fund. You know, we do not— 

we send more money to the Federal Government than we get back. 

And that is a continuing problem for our State as we have increasing infrastructure needs. 

But I want to mention in addition to our transportation needs, 

we are very obvious and clear. We also have a need in Florida for 

mass transit. We are making small attempts at that. But with the 

price of gas what it is today, Floridians really have very few alternatives to just getting in an automobile and driving. We need to 

look at mass transit as a future mode, and obviously our airports 

continue to grow and expand. And that is a continuing area of concern. 

One area where I think we really are going to be facing a tremendous challenge in the future is the issue of water. Florida is 

going to have serious water problems, and, of course, the wonderful 

St. John’s River, which flows right through Jacksonville, is going 

to increasingly become a source that we are going to turn to for 

water. Surface water is much more expensive to treat, and the 

whole processing of that is going to take Floridians much more to 

pay for water that they would consume. 

So these are all serious problems, and, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

tell you, and Senator Hagel, that I am very intrigued by your proposal. I think we need to be looking at creative ways. I think private financing also for infrastructure and public-private partnerships, which has been tried in some places, I think has a lot of 

merit, particularly in the transportation arena. And I hope that as 

we look to your proposal that perhaps facilitating public-private 

partnerships might be part of the issue that we address as well. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. 

Senator Menendez. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me welcome all the mayors, and I thank them not only for their testimony 

and their service. Having been a mayor, I think it is the toughest 

job in America and the one where you are on the front lines and 

everybody—maybe not in some of the bigger cities, but everybody 

knows how to get a hold of the mayor. Everybody knows who the 

mayor is, and everybody thinks the mayor can do everything. So 

having been there for 6 years, I think it is an incredibly challenging job. 

On the specific issue, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have studies that say we need $1.5 trillion over the next 5 years just to deal 

with bringing existing infrastructure up to some of the most significant and important standards we have. That is not about creating 

new infrastructure. And so it gives you a dimension of the challenge, and certainly municipalities, both large and small, do not 

have the wherewithal to do a lot of that. 

Second, at a time of $4 a gallon gas, you know, this mass transit 

that Senator Martinez just talked about, and others, is incredibly 

important. In my home State of New Jersey, we have seen a 5-percent increase in the first 3 months, and we already have a pretty 

robust mass transit operation. But it is not just places like that. 

In North Carolina, in Charlotte, they have a 34-percent increase in 

ridership in what is a new rail line. 

So this is pretty geographically diverse, and as people are consistently challenged with the choices between a gallon in their tank 

and a gallon of milk, they are going to be looking to mass transit. 

But that has got to be effective, efficient, and affordable at the end 

of the day, as well as it has positive environmental consequences 

for us as well. 

And, finally, the reason that I have joined with you, Mr. Chairman, in supporting your legislation, you know, I look at this in 

multi-dimensions. You know, the infrastructure investments are 

that—investments. And that is why I appreciate the way the legislation is structured that you and Senator Hagel put together, because it looks at it in the context of investments and makes investment decisions wisely. 

The reality is that, you know, a report in the Atlantic talked 

about congestion of our roadways, of our railways, of our ports and 

airports costing our economy $78 billion in 2005. That is the last 

time we had that study. 

Now, imagine if we unlock the potential of that investment in a 

way that has a great return on the dollar. Half of those costs were 

in the Nation’s ten largest metropolitan areas, including the area 

around my home State of New Jersey. You know, we share with 

New York the port of New York and New Jersey, the mega port 

of the East Coast, 225,000 jobs, $25 billion of economic activity, but 

at a time in which we have closed military water ports on the East 

and West Coasts, those ports now are also about forward deployment of military equipment for our men and women abroad. So it 

has a security dimension. 

And the last point I want to make is that at the same time that 

we look at this in terms of economy, creating jobs, as well as quality of our environment, I would point out that in a post-September 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

11th world, infrastructure investment in transportation is also 

about security. On that fateful day on September 11th, the reality 

is that when the bridges and tunnels were largely closed for that 

period of time, a large number of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans 

got out of downtown Manhattan by an alternative method of ferries, which is a relatively new—you know, a decade or so that has 

started back in the New York-New Jersey area, and we see in 

many parts of the country. Inter-city travel on that day was only 

available through Amtrak. 

And so the reality is that in a post-September 11th world, we 

have to look at infrastructure investments, yes, about the economy, 

yes, about creating jobs, yes, about improving our collective environment, but I would urge that we look at it also in the context 

of having the security necessary to create alternative means of 

transportation, alternative access, and a whole new dimension that 

we did not think of before. All of these come to roost, and that is 

why I appreciate the legislation and the testimony of the mayors, 

and hopefully in the next Congress we can have a Congress that 

understands that these are investments that the longer we put off, 

the more it costs, and the more consequential it is to us in all of 

these specters. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator, very much. And having 

the perspective of a number of our colleagues who have been mayors I think helps a great deal, and the last of our colleagues is the 

newest on this Committee—— 

Senator MENENDEZ. And, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I just want 

to say to Mayor Bloomberg, we welcome your mom to come back 

any time to have a visit at Dickinson and to the State. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DODD. That warmth between New York and New Jersey just is flowing here. 

Senator Corker, former mayor of Chattanooga. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOB CORKER 

Senator CORKER. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I just 

want to say to the witnesses, it is rare that I make opening comments out of respect for the witnesses. I typically want to hear 

more from you. The opening this time has taken so long, I am 

afraid I am going to miss the questioning portion, so let me just 

say very briefly I really respect what all of you have done, and I 

know that each of you are term-limited and will be moving on to 

other things. And I sincerely hope, even though we are of various 

differing parties, that each of you ends up continuing in the public 

arena in some form or fashion because I think you have provided 

exemplary service, and I really thank you for that. 

No. 2, I hope that Mayor Bloomberg at some point laced into answers to other Senators if I am not here the comment about 

spreading the pain. If you could maybe educate us as to which 

types of infrastructure projects in your opinion ought to be those 

where pain is spread and the others where just local citizens ought 

to participate, I think that would be quite edifying. And then to 

Mayor Franklin, who is my friend, and I think I was the first public official to visit her when she was first sworn in, we have had 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

a really low-level discussion between our States that has almost 

been beneath the dignity of our citizens regarding a water issue. 

And I know that Mayor Franklin has done extraordinary work in 

building infrastructure and doing those things that are not glamorous to build the city into the future. The State is building $100 billion worth of roadways, the State 

that she is a part of, and yet there is a no-brainer, easy solution 

to the water issues that face Atlanta and face the State, and it is 

the desalination plant down at Savannah running up I–16 that 

would benefit the State. 

I say that—and, fortunately, Mayor Franklin has not dignified 

some of this low-level discussion that has taken place, but I hope 

in your comments someplace, if I am not here, you will address 

specifically that issue, but also just the issue of the role that States 

need to play. We are having a Federal discussion. There are some 

planning issues that mayors and States—there is a piece there that 

we are not discussing today that is so important, especially around 

big urban areas where the State is so affected. 

So those are somewhat questions and not opening comments. Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for indulging. I hope I am here when it 

comes time, but thank you for having this hearing. And I want to 

say that Senator Martinez and I were mentioning earlier that we 

are squandering so many opportunities right now as a country. We 

are presiding over a period of time, I think, when we are going to 

be remembered during this period of time for not doing those 

things we should have done that generations before us did. And 

whether this bank is the appropriate focus on infrastructure or 

whether some other solution, I do thank you for having these distinguished witnesses, and for you and Chuck Hagel bringing forward this subject in this manner. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you, Senator, very, very much. And 

I appreciate the patience of our witnesses as well, but my colleagues care deeply about the issue, and obviously hear from their 

own mayors across the country. And I appreciated very much the 

comments about the proposal that Senator Hagel and I have put 

forward. There is nothing etched in marble or concrete about that. 

They are just ideas on how you finance and how your prioritize in 

an intelligent way the major national and regional needs of our 

country and financing. I was looking at the number of China the 

other day. They will invest on a yearly basis close to $1 trillion in 

infrastructure every year. That is their plan, $920 billion a year. 

I listened to Chuck last year, earlier last year, talking about just 

what they have done as a major economic competitor in the 21st 

century on roads and mass transit systems, harbors and the like. 

So aside from what we obviously need to do, the realities are of the 

21st century you do not grow economically without making these 

investments, one way or the other. And draining it out of an appropriate process is not going to work. All of us know that. We are 

going to go from $2 to $3 trillion in sovereign wealth funds to 

maybe $12 to $14 trillion in the next 6 or 7 years. Sovereign wealth 

funds become, I think, a tremendous opportunity for us to invest 

some of those dollars, or attract them in some of these areas. 

So, Mayor Bloomberg, why don’t you start and pick up on Senator Corker’s very good question. The one specific question I had 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

is you made some wonderful suggestions encouraging cities about 

providing incentives to manage infrastructure issues that I thought 

were rather worthwhile, and maybe you would pick up on his questions and the one on the incentive idea as well and tell us how you 

think we can contribute to that. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Well, Senator, I think that if things go between 

States, clearly Federal issue—it does not have to be only Federal 

money, but the Federal Government can justify doing that. If it is 

to bring commerce to this country, all the major airports, those particularly that deal with tourism and business people from around 

the world, they are bringing the lifeblood that we need, the economics and the additions to our culture. If you take a look at energy independence, this country is going in the other direction, so, 

clearly, Federal money spent on promoting alternative energy 

sources and the kind of jobs we need for the future. 

Where I do not think it is appropriate is to protect jobs from industries that the marketplace is saying are not going to be around, 

holding the waves from coming in, the tides from coming in is just 

not doable, and it is certainly not good economics. I do not think 

a lot of the small pork barrel things—which we are as guilty as 

anybody. We ask for money for things that are totally local, and 

why the Federal Government does it, I don’t know. They shouldn’t 

be doing it, although we will continue to ask as long as they are 

giving it out. You know, our Senators have the obligation to bring 

home the bacon, like everybody else does. But the Federal Government, it seems to me, the Senate should get together and say together we are not going to do it anymore. We will all swear and 

the leadership will enforce a focus on sitting back, saying what national priorities are, and then saying, Does this particular item fit 

in? 

There is the political reality that everybody has got to get something, and I understand that. On the other hand, there are certain 

projects that have a nationwide impact. And if you take a look, at 

what Senator Dodd said, at what is being done overseas, we really 

are falling behind. Companies are failing to locate here, partially 

because of our immigration policies which are keeping them from 

bringing their employees in and out. 

I can just tell you, my company, we are having more and more 

of our international meetings outside the United States because 

our employees just don’t want to go through Customs and Immigration here. They just don’t want to do it. You should go to Vancouver 

and see how Silicon Valley companies are all opening offices there 

for the best and the brightest from around the world that can get 

working papers in Canada, cannot get working papers here. That 

is—I have described it as a case of national suicide, and I think 

that is understating the damage that we are doing to ourselves. 

In terms of Chris’ question, there is never any accountability. 

There is never any you said you were going to do it for this price, 

then you have got to deliver it. And you have got to assure us if 

you don’t deliver on schedule and on budget, then you are not going 

to get any other monies. If you tied the next grant to performance 

on the last grant, you would get a much different focus on 

deliverables. And in the private sector, you have to do that. The 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

stockholders or the marketplace makes you do that, and if you 

don’t, there is a very big penalty, including going out of business. 

Chairman DODD. One last question before I turn to Senator Shelby. On the rail issues, we talk about mass transit moving people, 

obviously. There has been an advertisement on television recently, 

and I will just tell you what it says. And no one has contradicted 

it, but you move one ton of goods 500 miles on rail for the cost of 

one gallon of gasoline. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Very efficient. 

Chairman DODD. Or something like that, in that range. Let’s assume for a second it is true. How are we prepared—I mean, Mayor 

Peyton, you were talking about this. Obviously, Atlanta is a hub 

rail. Kansas City has been, of course, historically. And, of course, 

we know about New York. To what extent do we have the capacity 

either to expand or to acquire, if you will, rights of way and so 

forth to begin to start—first of all, just forget the congestion issues. 

I mean, that number of 500,000 additional trucks on the highway. 

But the idea of just reducing the kind of congestion and cost. If you 

can move—if it is close to that number, then it seems to me it is 

in our Internet to try and expand the opportunity more of utilizing 

that mode of transportation. Can we do this, or is it totally unrealistic? Have we gone beyond the point, the tipping point, when you 

can actually take advantage of rights of way and the like to expand 

the opportunity of rail—not for necessarily mass transit purposes 

but for moving commercial goods? 

Mr. PEYTON. I will start, and, of course, I will let others finish. 

But as we look at the emergence of our port, we are looking at 

hosting between 8,000 to 10,000 containers a day, and trying to get 

those containers on the interstate system is a big challenge. We 

think that the rail solution obviously is not only cheaper from infrastructure investment and wear and tear on the road system, 

particularly the Federal road system, but from an energy perspective as well. 

So the biggest barrier is capital dollars. We as a city do not have 

the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to build the kind of 

intermodal facility that allows these containers to move to the rail 

system in an expeditious way. Probably our most hopeful remedy 

on rail is to divert about 20 percent of the containers onto rail. And 

I think the more successful ports probably can boast about a 20- 

percent diversion. Without that capital investment of the rail yards 

near the terminal, it is hard to overcome. 

So then we have to rely—we fall back on the interstate system, 

and now the question is with the three major interstate systems 

that we benefit from, can they handle it? Today they don’t have the 

capacity to handle it, not to mention the road systems around the 

interstates that allow us to feed into the Federal system really are 

not designed to handle it in addition. So I think the challenge is 

the capital, the huge capital investment. 

And let me just piggyback on what Mayor Bloomberg said. I 

think the challenge is that we see a lot of piecemeal work being 

done. 

Chairman DODD. Yes. 

Mr. PEYTON. Of course, our congressional leaders are very proud 

to bring home something to our community. But in the absence of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

a bigger plan, with measurables, with a matrix, I don’t think we 

are making a difference. There are certainly a lot of projects that 

we are glad to see, but I would rather see a national strategic focus 

on what is going to move this economy and what is to our strategic 

advantage, and it really needs to be all about the economy. 

And so that focus, I think, is really what is desperately needed. 

Chairman DODD. Well, that is what we are trying to do with this 

bill, and, again, there is no pride of authorship or the funding 

schemes, but as I say, we are never going to do this out of the normal just, you know, finding a project and getting some funding out 

of the Appropriations Committee and going through the process. It 

has got to be a far more creative and expansive idea of attracting 

capital, private and otherwise, to come into this, where you can 

offer people some decent rates of return on that investment as a 

way of generating the kind of resources necessary. And then, of 

course, as you pointed out, and all of you have, this idea of stepping back with a bigger idea here and understanding there needs 

to be a strategic plan and thinking where you are talking about national projects. None of us have to be informed about how we have 

grown over the years, whether it was the point Mayor Bloomberg 

made with the Federal Highway System in the 1950s, going back 

to the 19th century, the canal system, the Erie Canal system, the 

Panama Canal, the electrification of rural America during the Depression. A lot of these things just made huge differences not only 

at the moment but, of course, in terms of economic expansion. 

I wonder if either—Shirley, do you want to comment on this? 

Ms. FRANKLIN. I would just add on the rail that for a city like 

Atlanta, an intermodal approach is important, both for the movement of passenger as well as cargo. Our airport does both cargo 

and passenger. We talk mostly about passenger, but a good bit of 

the growth has been international cargo and the relationship of the 

airport to the Savannah port and the ports along the eastern seaboard. 

So while we have capacity today, as that area continues to grow, 

we have got to maintain that system, and not only expand it, but 

maintain the rail system. And for me, the significance of this bill, 

in addition to getting funds, is the flexibility that seems to be built 

into it that allows for a multiple modal approach. 

Chairman DODD. Right. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. And not just transportation but water as related 

to transportation, storm water as related to transportation, et 

cetera, et cetera. 

Chairman DODD. And the human side of this, the air traffic control idea. That is not necessarily building of physical plant, but the 

idea of capacity through the human infrastructure investment 

needs that you have to do in order to accommodate growth as well. 

Mayor, any quick comments? Obviously, the mid-part of the 

country, and rail is a critical issue. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Well, for us we have two major multimodal facilities under construction right now, and we are positioned, I 

think, to deal well with that. We are taking advantage because we 

are on I–35 north-south. We have this North American Trade Corridor, and we are actually taking advantage through Kansas City 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

Southern of ports on the coast of Mexico and bringing trains up 

through. 

So for us, the rail thing is something we are pretty much, I 

would say, on top of. But there are other comments that I wanted 

to—you know, when we look at the bridge collapse in Minnesota, 

several of you have sort of touched on this, but what we are witnessing is, in addition to that big obvious collapse, we are having 

a quiet collapse of prosperity. You know, Mayor Bloomberg’s words, 

‘‘national suicide,’’ you know, when Senator Menendez talked about 

security, there isn’t any greater threat to the security of my children and my grandchildren than the decline in productivity that 

comes from being—what did Senator Hagel say?—last in industrial 

nations in investment in infrastructure. This is bizarre. 

The main thing—obviously, we need a lot more money, but the 

beauty of the bill that you have is that we also clearly, obviously, 

again, as these mayors and you have said, we need a different 

strategy for investing. We need a different system. We do not 

have—the Federal Government is like the only government I am 

aware of that does not have a capital budget. It does not have a 

capital budgeting process. It treats everything as if it were an operating expense. That does not make any sense, and that is what has 

contributed to the situation that we find ourselves in. 

So your bill does, you know, the trick of trying to come up with 

a better way of funding, allocating. I mean, you make reference in 

the bill to the FDIC. What I kept thinking of was the Federal Reserve Bank. You know, it is the same kind of a non-politicized system for managing our money economy. We need a non-politicized 

system for managing our infrastructure. 

Chairman DODD. Thanks very, very much. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Senator Dodd. 

What kind of infrastructure investments are you currently making? I will ask the panel this. And how are you paying for these 

projects? And how heavily do you rely on Federal resources and 

State sources, or perhaps private sources? Is it a combination? 

What are you doing, Mayor? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. In New York, because the city is so big, the 

Federal monies tend to be a relatively small percentage, and we export dollars to the State. I think the Senator from Florida talked 

about how they are exporting dollars to the Federal Government, 

and we complain about that as well. But New York is the economic 

engine of New York State, and so we pay for a vast preponderance 

of our projects ourselves. We do tend to go to the capital markets. 

I have argued we should pay as you go, but the reality is if you 

are going to build a school that is going to last 30 or 40 years, it 

is not a bad fiscal policy to finance that over 30 or 40 years. In fact, 

it probably is going to last longer than the debt is outstanding. 

The danger is that we rush to build things that we really do not 

need because they are politically popular. We have exactly the 

same pressures in local government that you have at the Federal 

level, and we are not unmindful of that. The difference, I think, is 

that these three mayors—and I hope I do as well—stand up and 

say no, we are not going to do that because we are not going to 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

have the money to pay the interest down the road, the debt service, 

or it is a project that is not as important as other things. 

The great infrastructure investments that we have to do is our 

school system. Great infrastructure investments we have to do is 

water and transportation. Great infrastructure things we have to 

do is to make sure that we can keep our streets clean and safe and 

our cultural institutions growing. And I thought Mayor Funkhouser 

said it very well. There are enormous risks in the world, but we 

always want to go and worry about those rather than the risk that 

is facing us every day and that is destroying us. This country is 

throwing away its heritage by not making investments, by not 

opening its borders, by not address the issues of how we are going 

to pay for medical care and who is going to get it. 

I understand the political lift. I would suggest if any of you want 

to close fire houses, put a smoking ban in, and raise property taxes, 

and then do a parade on Staten Island, you can join me. But today, 

all of those things are popular, so what do I know? 

Senator SHELBY. We are talking about long-term investments, is 

what we are really talking about. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. Mayor Franklin. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. At the airport, Senator, there are significant Federal funds. There are passenger fees for example. The biggest single resource is actually parking fees at our airport. So it is a combination. Concession fees; an enterprise fund, and a variety of 

sources—— 

Senator SHELBY. So a great deal of your infrastructure is financed privately, isn’t it? 

Ms. FRANKLIN. At the airport that is true. Water and sewer 

maintenance and replacement costs are different. This was a problem that the city basically ignored for several decades. We have a 

sales tax, a 1-cent sales tax. 

Senator SHELBY. You ignore at your peril, though, don’t you, if 

you—— 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Well, you do. You do ignore it at your peril. And 

in addition, you pay a lot more for it when you wait 40 years to 

do it. That is the point that we are all making about the investment. But in that case, 95 percent of the money is local money, 

ratepayers and a sales tax; $6 million of $2.5 billion came from the 

Federal Government. So most of our money is local ratepayers for 

water and sewer. For bridges, some of that money comes from the 

Federal Government. Very little of it comes from the city of Atlanta. But, indeed, in the case of bridges, unlike roads, where we 

fund a lot more of it. 

So it is a combination depending on the type of infrastructure. 

But the bottom line is the cost is greater than our city can bear 

long term. And we fool ourselves to think that we can just do water 

and sewer now. In our case, CSOs, combined sewer overflows, 

sewer separation, and drinking water upgrades, we have not even 

started on storm water. That is down the road in 2012, 2014, which 

is one of the reasons I was so anxious to testify. We need the Federal assistance because our rates will be too high to raise then. 

Senator SHELBY. Mayor Peyton, similar—— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

Mr. PEYTON. Yes, well, you know, I think outside of the interstate system and enhancements at our port, you see very little Federal money. And I think what we have—we have come to the realization that if we want to see improvement in infrastructure, we 

have to do it locally, and that means passing a half-cent sales tax, 

which we did in 2000; passing a storm water fee, which is public 

infrastructure, primarily for leaking and failing septic tanks, that 

was done last year. We have kind of come to the conclusion that 

if we are going to improve our city and invest in it, we cannot depend on a reliable source with Federal grants or even State grants. 

The $2.2 billion we raised with our half-cent sales tax went primarily to State and Federal roads. Our congestion was so bad, 

those were the major arteries that were clogged. We could not wait 

any longer because our quality of life and economy was starting to 

suffer. 

So local initiatives are funding the bills. I think really there 

should be more Federal or State. 

Senator SHELBY. Mayor, quickly. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. The first thing I would say is that, you know, 

we have not as a city—while we are spending a lot of money relative to our residents’ income, we have not spent it as wisely as 

we should have. We have spent it on operating funds more than 

capital investment. And one of the things that I ran on as mayor— 

I have only been in office about a year—is I was very clear to folks 

we are going to push money from the operating budget to the capital budget, and I am going to be real popular when I do some of 

the things that Mayor Bloomberg was talking about. You know, I 

have already had the protests at City Hall and so forth about, you 

know, what I want to do. 

Looking at where we have spent money, we spent a ton of money 

on our airport recently, and as you point out, a lot of that is private. And we did get a lot of Federal assistance there. We spent 

a lot of our own money in property taxes primarily, upgrading our 

schools. We are spending a lot of our money on these intermodal 

facilities. We spend a lot of money on our streets. We are just starting to build a new bridge, the Kit Bond Bridge across the Missouri 

River. That is a huge project. We are getting a lot of help on that. 

Senator SHELBY. I bet you got a lot of help from Senator Bond, 

didn’t you? 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Yes, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. He is good at that. 

Chairman DODD. Is that the same Kit Bond—— 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. We are very happy—we are very proud of Senator Bond. Senator Bond is an icon for us, and we are glad to have 

him. 

Senator SHELBY. He is good. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. But overall, our investment in infrastructure, 

a relatively small amount of it is Federal money. Like Mayor 

Franklin, I am about to embark on a major sewer project, and I 

am hoping for Federal help. But we have no idea what it might be. 

And then, finally, on transit, we are going to do a major transit 

thing, and we are assuming we are going to get about a 50-percent 

Federal match on that. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

Senator SHELBY. Quickly, what is the single biggest impediment 

to the establishment of a public-private partnership for the financing of major infrastructure investments? The single largest impediment. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Well, I mean, I can tell you water and sewer, the 

biggest—the single impediment was the size of the need and the 

lack of revenue. In other words, we had to create the revenue by 

raising the rates and then passing a sales tax. We could probably 

get a private sector partner—— 

Senator SHELBY. Create the funding stream to—— 

Ms. FRANKLIN. We had to create the funding stream. So creating 

the funding stream was the single biggest hurdle. 

My predecessor, in fact, signed the agreements and had much of 

the planning done for the program. The problem was there was no 

funding mechanism. So I spent about 2 years putting together a 

funding formula, and I would say today, 5 years later, that it is the 

single hardest thing I have done politically. Yesterday, the day before, 3 weeks ago, when I am in community meetings, people complain to me about the cost of the infrastructure improvements. 

Someone mentioned that we are term-limited, and in some ways, 

that is a good thing, because it gives me an opportunity to step way 

out on a limb to do something that is so unpopular. But if I had 

a Federal partner, the second biggest question I guess behind why 

are the rates so high is why doesn’t the Federal Government help 

us more. 

Senator SHELBY. Mayor. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. The funding source is a particular thorn in our 

side. We came up with one called ‘‘congestion pricing,’’ and in all 

fairness to the Federal Government, they did offer us $354 million 

to pay for all of the equipment, install it, get it going. It would 

have also generated half a billion dollars in revenue every year. 

And the legislature walked away from it. So nothing is easy, but 

I think down the road that kind of thing, whether it is congestion 

pricing or tolling bridges or something, we are going to have to 

have a dedicated funding source that is not authorized by a legislature every year because without that, nobody is going to lend you 

money long term. You have got to obligate the future taxpayers 

and future governments to be able to do that. And then you have 

got to be able to allow the private investors to operate it as a business. If your strategy is going to be we have to protect special interest groups, whether it is people that work there or something 

else, nobody is going to make those kinds of investments. They 

want to be able to deal with the marketplace. It is tough enough 

doing that if you are constrained by the fact that you cannot reduce 

your size of your workforce or you cannot pay them competitively 

with how you can get other employees. You may decide you want 

to do that for a societal point of view, but you just are not going 

to get private money to do it. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator Shelby, very much. 

I know Mayor Bloomberg has a plane he has to catch back to the 

city. We appreciate very much the time you spent, almost 2 hours 

with us this morning, so we are very grateful to you. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. Thank you. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, and work will be continuing on 

this, and we thank you very much for being here. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Mayor Bloomberg, as you leave, why did your 

legislature come out against the congestion pricing approach? 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. I am going to have to deal with them tomorrow, 

I guess, so let me phrase it this way. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Maybe I should ask this question for the record 

and you can respond in 2 days. 

Mr. BLOOMBERG. One house of the legislature refused to—they 

set a procedure to look at and craft the legislation, which the 

agreement we had was if we went through it, they would bring it 

to a vote, and we assumed it would pass. We complied with every 

single thing they asked for, and then I cannot answer your question because they never brought it to a vote. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Well, one of the—go ahead. Thank 

you. Thank you so much for joining us. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. 

Senator CARPER. As the mayor leaves, I have got to share with 

people what I think is a wonderful story. There is maybe a little 

bit of humor here. 

Eli Broad is a fellow who has been very much involved in this 

country in education reform. Some of you know him. He is from 

California. And he hosted, really sponsored an evaluation, sort of 

a competition, if you will, among large urban school districts. And 

among the urban school districts that competed was New York 

City. And within the last 16 months or so, here in Washington a 

number of the top urban school districts were invited in, and one 

of them was recognized for being the best urban school district in 

the country. And it is, ironically, probably the toughest urban 

school district in the country, is New York City. And they were 

honored as the best by the Broad Foundation. I will never forget, 

Mayor Bloomberg spoke and was receiving the award on behalf of 

New York City. He talked about how smart the kids were in our 

schools today, and he recalled his job in school. He said, ‘‘My job 

in school was to make it possible for other kids to be in the top half 

of the class.’’ I just thought that was one of the most self-deprecating, funny things I had heard a mayor or somebody of that stature say. I have quoted him many, many times. It was refreshing 

to hear him then, and today, and to hear all of you. I describe myself sometimes as a recovering Governor, and I yearn for the days 

when I actually get stuff done, and I just applaud each of you for 

having the courage to work hard and to take on some tough jobs 

and to get things done. 

I want to go back to SAFETEA–LU, the major transportation bill 

we passed about 4 years ago. And I said earlier that we created an 

infrastructure commission, and we said to them to go out and look 

at our transportation needs across the country and figure out what 

we ought to do and how we ought to pay for it. And one of the 

things they came back with was a nickel increase in the gas tax 

over about 9, 10 years, so it would be about a half a dollar over 

that period of time. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

They also suggested that we consider privatizing some of our 

roadways, allowing private companies to come in and buy them, 

and presumably toll those roads and improve them accordingly. 

They called for additional tolling of roads. They called for congestion—charging people more money for greater congestion. 

Of those ideas, do any of those register with you? I do not want 

to put you on record as favoring a nickel increase in the gas 

tax—— 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Well, I will go on record. Georgia has one of the 

lowest gas taxes, and really to tie this to an earlier question, which 

is how do you—one of the problems that we have in Atlanta in the 

metro area is that we, too, had a gas tax—a transportation tax that 

couldn’t make it out of our General Assembly. 

If, in fact, this were an incentive, this bank had incentive funds, 

we might have been able to get the three votes that we missed in 

getting that out, because there would have been some incentive 

from the Federal Government. So, I mean, there is no question that 

a gas tax—our Governor recently waived the State gas tax during 

the summer, which, in my opinion, is going in the opposite direction. 

Senator CARPER. I concur. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. So we do have a whole series of problems in relating to our General Assembly around these very issues of funding 

infrastructure. The gas tax is one we certainly—I would certainly 

support in Georgia. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Any other thoughts on 

transportation needs? 

Mr. PEYTON. You know, tolling I think can be a viable source. We 

are working on an outer beltway in our county that will be supported primarily by tolls. And I think it is probably the ideal user 

fee. 

The notion of a gas tax in this environment, I think, would be 

a very, very tough sell. I would not want to advocate it. But certainly, if we can find ways to capture costs of those that are using 

the roads primarily, it is viable. 

It is interesting, the technology, I think, has made tolling a lot 

more attractive. One of the biggest barriers to it was the congestion 

it would create. But now you see, around Orlando and others that 

have really done a lot of tolling, they can drive through nearly at 

the speed limit and be registered. 

So I would think that is a viable alternative. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. 

Mayor Funkhouser, let me just say, Mayor, before you answer, 

I love your name. I can just imagine a big billboard in Kansas City 

saying ‘‘Funkhouser, Mayor.’’ What a great name. 

It reminds me of a 1970s funk group or something, Parliament 

or whatever. It is great. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. We have capitalized a lot on it. 

Senator CARPER. I bet you have. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. I never thought my name would be an asset, 

or my size, or the way I look. But all of it was, in the campaign. 

Senator CARPER. Any campaign slogans you want to share with 

us, as an aside here? 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Google it sometime. You will find more than 

enough. 

With regard to the proposals that you mentioned, we obviously 

need to do all of those things. I mean, we obviously need to do significant gas tax increases. And the folks who think that that is not 

very smart, just wait 2 weeks and you get the equivalent at the 

pump that you are paying anyhow. But it is going to some foreign 

company, some foreign government, or to one of the major companies here. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just interrupt you just for a second. This 

commission, the SAFETEA–LU Commission recommended a nickel 

increase in the gas tax over 9 or 10 years, 50 cents in all I think. 

And the price of gasoline has gone up that much, I think, this year. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Oh, easily. I read most of that report that they 

put out. 

Senator CARPER. Did you? 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. I thought it is, again, the question is what is 

politically practical? I do not know. I am not a very good politician. 

Senator CARPER. You must be pretty good. You picked the right 

name. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. No, rational thought, rational action. We have 

to do what makes—and most citizens cannot—you can sit down 

and explain this. I talk to citizens at these town hall meetings once 

or twice a month and just stand there and take questions and talk 

to them about this sort of stuff. And they get it. They understand 

it is an investment and it is pay me now or pay me later. 

I mean, we are trying to get a one-half cent sales tax increase 

as a region to support transit. And if you do the math, for one of 

the families in our wealthier communities that would cost them 

about $250 a year. If they reduced—if they have got two or three 

cars and they take one of those cars and they drive it 10 percent 

less, they save more than that $250. So if you are a family with 

a husband, a wife, and a couple of teenagers and one of the teenagers can take the bus or the train to school instead of driving, you 

have saved more than you are going to pay in the tax. 

The math works and citizens get it. 

Senator CARPER. We have got one son who goes to school up in 

Boston and he does not use a car. He used to use the transit, uses 

transit going back and forth, the train and so forth. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked earlier, you said I think it is—I am not 

sure on these numbers, but you said I think I have heard that moving a ton of freight by rail is about $500. We had a hearing before 

the Commerce Committee this week and a guy was there from the 

American Association of Railroads. In his testimony he said it is 

436. 

Chairman DODD. 436 miles, I apologize. 

Senator CARPER. No, no, no, no, it is close enough. But if you actually think about it, that is basically moving a ton of freight by 

rail from Washington, D.C. to Washington on one gallon of diesel 

fuel. 

Chairman DODD. The cost of one gallon of gas. 

Senator CARPER. I have been riding the train this week, not just 

between Wilmington and D.C., but also from Wilmington to Philadelphia, Philadelphia to New York, and New York back to WilVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:24 Apr 02, 2010 Jkt 050406 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A406.XXX A406

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

mington. I noticed, even in midday trains, the trains were full. In 

a couple of cases like standing room only. 

The House yesterday passed their Amtrak reauthorization bill, 

which calls for creating—similar to what Frank Lautenberg and 

Trent Lott and others and I have proposed here and has passed the 

Senate. But they have proposed that we use the Federal Government as a little bit of a different partner in intercity rail support 

and try to do it in a way that involves the States—invites the 

States to participate and freight rail owners. 

You know, when you are out of the Northeast corridor, the 

folks—it is not Amtrak’s track anymore. They are on the freight 

railroad tracks. 

When I was Governor, we wanted to do a highway project, it was 

80/20, 80 percent Federal/20 percent local. If it was a transit 

project, it was 50 percent local/50 percent Federal. But if I wanted 

to do an intercity rail project in my State that made more sense 

than either of those, it was 100 percent local/zero Federal. 

What we propose to do is to change that in our legislation. And 

that is, I think, something that kind of works with what you and 

Senator Hagel are working on, too. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. And again, our thanks to all of you for being 

here, for your jobs. 

Chairman DODD. I just have a couple of quick questions for you. 

One, I want to pick up the point, Mayor Funkhouser, you talked 

about. I read David McCullough’s biography of Harry Truman. Was 

he State auditor? He was State—— 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. He was the county judge, which is basically 

the chief executive of the county. 

Chairman DODD. Was that when he went back—I loved the chapter when he goes out because there were a lot of dirt roads in his 

day. And he went out and sold the idea of paving the roads. But 

he went out from community to community, day after day, day 

after day, making the case to people in clear, rational terms about 

why it would benefit the community for doing that. And they, of 

course, bought into it. 

But he made the point it is labor intensive work, this stuff. You 

have got to just put the time and effort in. So it was a wonderful 

example of Missouri politics. It is exactly what you are—— 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. Plain speaking. 

Chairman DODD. Plain speaking. 

I wanted to pick up—I have got a number of members here that 

come from rural states and I think there is a danger that people 

see this as an urban issue. And obviously, there is a lot of attention 

on the urban issues that we can talk about. But Jon Tester from 

Montana, for instance. 

I was curious. I wonder if you might comment, if you could, I 

know you have given it some thought, in terms of how this benefit—it is not just the areas we are talking about, we are talking 

about national projects and regional projects—and for the record, 

what this could mean to a broader constituency beyond those immediately affected by this. 

Mr. FUNKHOUSER. You know, goods are going to—rural folks buy 

goods the same as everybody else. And a lot of those goods are 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

going to come from overseas. And they are going to come through 

these ports and they are going to come on the trucks and they are 

going to come on the railways. And they are going to cost more, 

they are going to take longer, they are going to be more difficult 

to get in. And that is going to cost rural folks, just like everybody 

else. 

At the same time, rural folks, many of them are farmers or miners. And their goods, timber, what supports their economy has to 

be shipped out. And they are going to have difficulty doing that. 

There is not any question that we are all interconnected. Everybody is dependent on everybody else in the United States. All of 

this stuff vitally affects all of us. 

Chairman DODD. Mayor Peyton, any comment on that? 

Mr. PEYTON. Yes, I will just give you the example that we have. 

Our port is growing because there is a major shift in goods from 

the West Coast to the East Coast, due primarily to congestion on 

the West Coast and a perception that there is a labor unfriendly 

environment. 

So with the widening of the Panama Canal, these goods are coming to Jacksonville because we have three interstates to reach 

these exact areas that we are describing, I–75, I–95, I–10. We are 

actually west—the most western city on the East Coast, so we are 

easier to get to the Midwest through the interstate network. 

So I would say this shift is an economics shift that is allowing 

a lower cost providing company to bring goods to these areas more 

efficiently, more effectively. 

Chairman DODD. Shirley, any thought on that? Georgia, a lot of 

rural areas in Georgia. 

Ms. FRANKLIN. Well, agriculture is a big industry in Georgia. So 

the movement of goods, I think, is an important one. Certainly the 

movement of—as has been described—from foreign ports or other 

ports into and out of our airport and our port. 

But I would also say that the issues of climate and climate 

change affect everyone. So to the extent that you have heavier concentrations of carbon emissions in a city like Atlanta, that is not 

on the coast, where we do not get the winds that my colleague 

might get, the bottom line is that pollution goes out beyond the city 

of Atlanta. And it affects—so if we are creating more and more air 

pollution, that is a problem. If we are creating water pollution, our 

river, the river that serves Atlanta for drinking water purposes and 

that we use for wastewater purposes, as well, flows up and down 

the State of Georgia on the Alabama border. 

So what we do, what happens in the river really affects Alabama, 

Georgia, rural and urban. So that would be two examples. 

Chairman DODD. Very, very good. Listen, you have been great, 

and your patience here in all of this. 

I am going to leave the record open here for a few days because 

members may have some additional questions. 

I was speaking with Senator Hagel as he was leaving and I obviously talked with Senator Shelby about this. But my intention 

would be to try to mark this bill up in July. We have got housing 

issues to move along and I cannot predict what is going to happen. 

Obviously, we have got only a few weeks left around here. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

But I think the fact we have had a diversity of political opinion 

at this table, as we have when we have had other hearings. And 

I think you have heard, just around the table here, this is an issue 

that transcends any of that. 

And I have got the benefit of having a number of colleagues on 

this committee who have been mayors. There is no greater advantage, since you come at the end of the food chain, as we all know, 

in the game of national politics. 

So my intention would be to try and move this bill along. I know 

there are a number of similar proposals. My former chief of staff, 

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, the Congresswoman from New 

Haven, has got a very good proposal in the House on infrastructure, as do several other members. Jim Oberstar, the Chairman of 

the Transportation Committee over there, has some decent ideas, 

as well. 

So we are going to try and incorporate some of these. But we 

need, as you pointed out, strategic national thinking on this question. This is not a time for small bore politics here, where the continuation of an existing system where we fund the little projects 

around the country—some of which I do not underestimate—are 

important. But in terms of having a national strategy to get us 

back on our feed again, it is never going to happen unless we do 

this. 

Education, and this, energy policy, and health care are the four 

issues that I identify as a way you can start to get this country 

moving in the right direction. And we can start by doing it quickly, 

in my view. 

So I thank you immensely. I cannot begin to tell you how valuable it is to have you here. It is wonderful to have the technical 

people. We had a great hearing with technical people who came. 

And they are invaluable in giving us their data and assessment 

about how this works. But to have mayors who deal with this every 

single day and wrestle with these tough political choices just adds 

tremendously to the quality of the debate and discussion. 

So I am deeply appreciative of the time that you have taken to 

be here, to share your thoughts. And we will stay in touch with 

you. And additional thoughts and ideas we welcome to this committee. 

So I thank you all very, very much. 

The Committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements supplied for the record follow:] 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 50406A.027
38 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 50406A.028
39 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 50406A.001
40 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 50406A.002
41 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 50406A.003
42 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 50406A.004
43 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 50406A.005
44 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 50406A.006
45 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 50406A.007
46 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 50406A.008
47 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 50406A.009
48 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 50406A.010
49 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 50406A.011
50 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 50406A.012
51 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 50406A.013
52 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 50406A.014
53 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 50406A.015
54 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 50406A.016
55 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 50406A.017
56 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 50406A.018
57 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 50406A.019
58 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 50406A.020
59 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 50406A.021
60 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 50406A.022
61 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 50406A.023
62 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 50406A.024
63 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 50406A.025
64 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127/150 here 50406A.026