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

50–392 2010

S. HRG. 110–972 

THE CONDITION OF OUR NATION’S 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPOSALS FOR NEEDED 

IMPROVEMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO 

LEVERAGE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 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 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD 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 

DAWN RATLIFF, Chief Clerk 

SHELVIN SIMMONS, IT Director 

JIM CROWELL, Editor 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 

Page 

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

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of: 

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

Senator Menendez ............................................................................................ 4 

Senator Hagel ................................................................................................... 5 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 7 

Senator Corker .................................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

David G. Mongan, President, American Society of Civil Engineers .................... 10 

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

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Johnson ........................................................................................ 101 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 102 

Felix G. Rohatyn, Trustee, Center for Strategic and International Studies ...... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Johnson ........................................................................................ 103 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 104 

Tracy Wolstencroft, Managing Director and Head, Public Sector and Infrastructure Banking, Goldman, Sachs and Company .......................................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Johnson ........................................................................................ 105 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 106 

Ron Blackwell, Chief Economist, American Federation of Labor and Congress 

of Industrial Organizations (AFL–CIO) ............................................................. 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Janet F. Kavinoky, Director, Transportation Infrastructure, and Executive 

Director, Americans for Transportation Mobility, U.S. Chamber of Commerce ..................................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

Response to written questions of: 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 107 

Senator Johnson ........................................................................................ 108 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Marc H. Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League, 

Inc. ......................................................................................................................... 110 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE CONDITION OF OUR NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPOSALS FOR NEEDED 

IMPROVEMENTS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 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, and let me 

begin by thanking our witnesses for being here this morning on a 

subject matter that is gaining more and more interest every single 

day because of the obvious issues here. 

What I am going to do is take a few minutes for an opening 

statement, turn to my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator 

Shelby, for any opening comments he may have, as well as, of 

course, Chuck Hagel, who has been instrumental and tremendously 

helpful on this subject matter. Jack Reed is here as well, and anyone else who has short opening statements. Then we will get to our 

witnesses and have a good conversation this morning about an 

issue that is one of those areas which is developing strong bipartisan support, one of those things you do not see with great frequency around here, but the idea of doing something in the area 

of infrastructure seems to be moving in that direction. 

We gather here this morning to examine the issue of paramount 

importance: the condition of our Nation’s infrastructure and proposals for needed improvements to it. I believe this is an urgent 

priority for our Nation for two fundamental reasons: first, because 

the safety and health of all Americans is directly and adversely affected by the deterioration of our roads, bridges, mass transit, 

drinking water, wastewater removal, and other vital components of 

our national structure. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 

approximately 14,000 Americans die each year at least in part because our roads and bridges are crumbling before our very eyes. 

Congestion on our roads causes tons of carbon dioxide and other 

pollutants to be pumped into the atmosphere day after day. These 

emissions compromise the health of children and adults and contribute to global warming, which poses immense risks to the future 

of all humans. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Tens of millions of Americans receive drinking water in their 

homes every day from pipes over 100 years old. I would just point 

out as an aside here that the leading stories in this city over the 

last several days have been the quality of the drinking water in 

this city. There have been serious issues raised about it. People are 

now talking about buying bottled water here in the Nation’s capital 

because of the contaminants allegedly which are in our drinking 

water here. 

As I said, some of the pipes in our cities literally were built in 

the 19th century. Here in our Nation’s capital, in Georgetown, one 

of the most exclusive areas in this city in terms of residential cost, 

wastewater is still conveyed through wooden sewage pipes that 

were built in the 19th century. That is the sewage system here in 

the Nation’s capital, in Georgetown. 

In the city of Milwaukee, over 400,000 people were sickened several years ago with flu-like symptoms caused by a strain of bacteria in the municipal drinking water system. The bacteria strain 

was eventually linked to inadequate treatment of the drinking 

water in that city. 

If Americans needed any more proof of the health and safety 

risks they face from our crumbling infrastructure, they got it on 

August 1 of last year, when a major transportation artery in Minneapolis abruptly collapsed without warning, causing the deaths of 

13 people and injuring 100 more. 

The second reason why renewing our Nation’s infrastructure is 

of utmost importance is that our national prosperity is at stake if 

we do not act. From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the 

present, a Nation’s ability to grow and prosper has always relied 

upon its ability to effectively move people, goods, and information. 

Ask any American today how we are doing in achieving this objective, and chances are the response would be the same: We can do 

better. 

When the average American spends 51.5 hours a year in traffic 

congestion, we can do better. When you have 33 percent of all 

urban and rural roads in poor, mediocre, or fair condition, obviously I think we can all do much better than that. And when the 

United States invests less than 2 percent of its gross domestic 

product on infrastructure, while countries like China and India invest between 7 and 12 percent, we can do far better than that. 

There is no question in my mind then that our Nation’s infrastructure needs are enormous and immediate. The question for us 

as policymakers is this: How do we meet these needs? Clearly, the 

status quo is not in and of itself sufficient. 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 is just maintenance and repair. That is not 

doing anything new. That is just maintaining and repairing the existing infrastructure, $1.6 trillion. That translates into $320 billion 

a year just to upgrade existing structures to serve the needs of our 

Nation. At this moment in history, when we are contending with 

the prospect of significant long-term budget deficits, we must explore other creative and fiscally responsible ideas by which to fund 

our Nation’s infrastructure needs. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
3 

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and I have offered one such 

idea: a national infrastructure bank which would establish a 

unique and powerful public-private partnership using limited Federal resources. It would leverage the significant resources and innovation of the private sector. It would tap the private sector’s financial and intellectual power to meet our Nation’s largest and most 

critical structural needs. 

I note that, as today’s witnesses demonstrate, support for this 

initiative spans the ideological spectrum, which, in my view, speaks 

to its promise. Some might say that our legislation is too expensive 

or that we cannot afford to implement such a policy. I would say, 

as many of our witnesses will this morning, we cannot afford not 

to implement it given these costs today at $1.6 trillion, as I will ask 

our witnesses at some point what projected costs would be 5 and 

10 years from now if we failed to act at all. 

The budget resolution on the Senate floor this week establishes 

a reserve fund for the specific purpose of meeting our infrastructure needs, and I want to commend Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, 

the Chair and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, for establishing that fund. It is evidence of a growing consensus in the 

U.S. Congress and the country that complacency can no longer substitute for action in this area. 

So let us be clear. The cost of leading this challenge will be great. 

It is not insignificant at all. But the cost of failing to meet in our 

view is even greater, far greater. From the Erie Canal to the interstate highway system, every generation of Americans has answered 

the call to build a safe, stronger, and more prosperous America. 

Our time to do the same has come for this generation, and that 

time is short, and for the sake of our Nation’s future, we cannot 

fail, in my view. 

I appreciate the willingness of our witnesses this morning to 

share their insights with the Committee today, and we look forward to your testimony. 

With that, let me turn to my Congress from Alabama. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today we are discussing, as the Chairman has pointed out, a 

very important issue confronting our Nation: infrastructure development. Infrastructure needs across the Nation are vast and vary 

from community to community. Our roads, bridges, airports, public 

transportation, and water and sewer systems are aging, and communities are outgrowing the capacity of existing structures, in 

some cases creating potentially dangerous public health situations. 

Some have estimated the cost to address our aging national infrastructure to be about $1.6 trillion over 5 years, or $320 billion 

a year. By any measure, this would require a sizable commitment 

of Government resources. The demand on the Federal budget is not 

expected to contract in the coming years. It is clear that we must 

find a way to balance our significant infrastructure needs without 

other demands on our Federal, State, and local budgets. Therefore, 

I believe, as Chairman Dodd has pointed out, it is important that 

we continue to develop and pursue alternative ways of financing 

our infrastructure needs. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
4 

There are many ideas about how to do this, some of which will 

be discussed here today. I expect that as we continue to examine 

these ideas, others will emerge as well. Nevertheless, I believe we 

can all agree that this is a matter that we must address in a 

thoughtful and comprehensive way that considers the needs of 

rural and urban communities alike. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hagel. Excuse me. I am sorry. Senator Menendez. Then 

we will go to Senator Hagel. Bob. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing on the tremendous infrastructure challenges we face, and I think this is a critical conversation to be had, 

and I am proud to be a cosponsor of your legislation. 

The reality is that when we talk about infrastructure, we are not 

just talking about roads and bridges; we are talking about 

strengthening our communities, bolstering our economy, and making investments for the future of our Nation. 

When our Nation’s infrastructure is weak or crumbling, we are 

not talking about hypothetical effects. The impact is tangible. 

When infrastructure is neglected or less than sturdy, we see the effects in our neighborhoods on subway cars or as we travel down the 

highway. And, sadly, as we all learned recently, when a bridge 

crumbles, the result is not just cracked concrete. It is communities 

that are torn apart and lives that are lost. 

And it should not take a tragic loss of life in Minnesota to make 

us realize that we already have needed investments that continue 

to slip from our list of national priorities. As the American Society 

of Civil Engineers has noted and reminds us, 25 percent of our Nation’s bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. This includes over 2,000 bridges in my home State of New Jersey. And when our infrastructure is hanging in the balance, so is 

our economy. According to a recent article in The Atlantic by Bruce 

Katz and Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution, congestion 

of our roadways, railways, ports, and airports cost our economy $78 

billion in 2005. Half of these costs were in the Nation’s largest ten 

municipal areas, including the regions surrounding Philadelphia 

and New York City in my home State of New Jersey. This just 

shows how important it is that we not only provide the funding to 

meet our needs but that we target funding to the areas of greatest 

need and to the areas that will do most to boost our flagging economy. 

And, finally, my State of New Jersey is just one prime example 

for the potential of economic growth that can be spurred by dedicated national efforts to finance infrastructure projects. The Northern New Jersey Port and Railyard System is an economic engine 

for the entire region. Some $150 billion in goods passes in and out 

of the ports of New York and New Jersey each year. Port commerce 

in New Jersey is responsible for more than 230,000 jobs throughout 

the region. But this economic engine cannot run by itself. In order 

to meet projected increases in the volume of cargo, it will require 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
5 

billions of dollars of investment to better connect our domestic markets to the port. 

To help prepare our region for the challenges ahead, I have worked to secure over $80 million for something we call the Liberty 

Corridor Project, which is truly a multi-modal, multi-faceted project 

that merges commerce, rail cargo, innovation, and economic 

growth. The corridor not only clears critical choke points in our 

cargo rail system and makes critical railroad improvements, but it 

solidifies the region’s place as a thriving economic center. None of 

this is possible without capital, without the vision to invest now for 

the future, and without seeing that each piece of the puzzle comes 

together to create a bigger plan. And we are looking at how we go 

beyond that. We are looking at a new passenger train tunnel across 

the Hudson River along with the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey, looking at how we connect in a time in which our regional context and regional approaches are so critical to unlocking 

the economic potential. 

So these are just some dimensions of the challenge ahead, and, 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you to move it forward. 

Chairman DODD. I thank the Senator very much, and I thank 

you for cosponsoring the bill as well. It is a big help to us. 

To my co-author in this effort, Senator Chuck Hagel. Thank you, 

Chuck. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL 

Senator HAGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I wish to also 

thank our witnesses for their time and efforts this morning. There 

are those who are here this morning, like John Hamry from CSIS, 

and others who, as you know, Mr. Chairman, had a lot to do with 

helping shape and frame the legislation that we have introduced, 

and to all of you who were so helpful and involved, we thank you 

very much. 

In 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower said, ‘‘The uniting forces 

of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements of the very name we bear—United States. Without them, we 

would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.’’ 

We will hear from our witnesses today about the state of our Nation’s infrastructure. Maintaining and upgrading our infrastructure 

to a 21st century standard is a national project that our political 

system needs to embrace for the competitiveness, safety, and unity 

of the Nation. 

The Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure Bank legislation is not 

the entire solution, but it can be a part of the solution. We are in 

need of new, creative 21st century solutions. The Federal Government does not and will not have the resources to appropriate the 

required funding necessary to meet our future national infrastructure needs. That has been well documented in study after study. 

The legislation that we are considering this morning could provide the foundation for this 21st century framework to capitalize on 

our national infrastructure. The Infrastructure Bank, a public entity similar in nature to the Municipal Assistance Corporation that 

one of our witnesses, Ambassador Rohatyn, led in New York City 

in the 1970s and 1980s, would have the ability to leverage private 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
6 

capital to supplement the current levels of public spending. A public entity that can focus private sector investment onto public infrastructure could help provide the necessary investment for 21st century infrastructure in America. 

Our global competitors are investing astounding amounts of capital into their infrastructure projects, and these countries have all 

recognized the need for private investment to supplement public financing for their infrastructure projects. One example: In 2005, 

public-private partnerships in the United Kingdom totaled almost 

$60 billion. That represents almost 20 percent of total infrastructure spending in the United Kingdom. 

As Eisenhower recognized when he authorized the building of the 

interstate highway system, the United States must now recognize 

that the building and maintenance of our infrastructure is a critically important national priority. This legislation that we will discuss this morning can help our country make the needed new, longterm investments in infrastructure. 

And I might add, Mr. Chairman, in a further commentary on 

your statement regarding the water system in Washington, D.C., 

we met yesterday with the Governor of Pennsylvania, and he went 

into some rather considerable detail on what he is facing in the 

State of Pennsylvania regarding infrastructure needs, basic infrastructure needs, over 100 years old. I do not think we need to go 

much beyond the local news here in Washington, in addition to the 

water system, as to the problems that we are seeing evolve regarding the transportation system in Northern Virginia. It was noted 

over the last couple of days that there is no money in the budget, 

will not be money available in the budgets of the States of Virginia 

and Maryland for these big projects. We surely do not have it at 

the Federal Government level. So what happens? Those critically 

important projects, just transportation, will be left on the drawing 

board. That will cut directly into our competitive position in the 

world. 

So I think this is as big an issue, Mr. Chairman, that we will 

face. Certainly the next President in his or her administration is 

going to have to deal with this. And I am, again, thankful that we 

have not just witnesses but those who would come forward and 

help us deal with this issue because it affects every American. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

I want to particularly thank Senator Hagel. This was working 

with Felix Rohatyn and Warren Rudman, Bob Kerrey, CSIS, and 

I also want to recognize John Hamry in the audience as well over 

the last couple of years. I know that I was telling the story yesterday that last August we had finished up the work and were trying 

to decide when to announce this effort of ours. And I made a strong 

case to Senator Hagel that we probably ought to wait until September, that no one followed any news in August. Indeed, we had 

put in this strong effort and to have a press conference in August 

just was not going to get any attention on the subject matter. But 

Senator Hagel, as is the case, was persuasive and said we ought 

to do it in August, so we did it. We had a press conference together 

and announced this bill of ours. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

Besides Senator Hagel and me, I think there were two other people who showed up to hear this brilliant idea that we had worked 

on for 2 years at 10 o’clock in the morning. By 5 o’clock in the 

afternoon, Senator Hagel and I were on almost every TV screen in 

America because tragically, at 4 o’clock, the bridge in Minneapolis 

went down. And once again, people’s interest in this subject matter 

piqued, but as we have learned historically, it is usually out of 

tragedy that subject matters like this gather public attention and 

then fade once again as other issues dominate the news. 

And so I want to thank him for his efforts. It has been just terrific to work with him, and I am going to say this privately to him, 

but we are all going to regret your departure from this body when 

you move on. But you have been great to work with, and I hope 

we can get something done in this Congress that will bear your 

name because it deserves it. You have been a great asset in this 

effort. 

Senator Carper. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for pulling this 

together on what we all agree is an important issue. Thank you all 

for joining us today and for your testimony and responses to our 

questions. 

As we all know, we are facing worsening congestion in our roads 

and in our sky, in addition to limited capacity on our rail lines. 

Meanwhile, both the use and demand for freight and passenger rail 

are growing, and I for one think that is a good thing. Amtrak ridership was up some 15 percent, revenues were up some 15 percent 

in the first quarter of this fiscal year. It is clear to me that American people want more transit options and want better transit infrastructure in both urban and in rural areas, too. 

We need to find ways to strengthen our current public works programs and also to fully meet our Federal commitments to States 

for infrastructure construction and repairs. 

Focusing effective investments in our transportation infrastructure is not only good for travelers, but I think it is good for our 

economy. The administration has estimated that roughly 48,000 

jobs are created for every billion dollars of transportation infrastructure investments—48,000 jobs. Last March, Senator Voinovich 

and I introduced the National Infrastructure Improvement Act. 

This legislation would create a commission, a blue-ribbon commission—something we are pretty good at doing around here, but this 

is one that will actually do some good—a blue-ribbon commission 

to examine the state of infrastructure throughout our country, including rail and including roads and bridges, but not trying to replicate the work that was done on another commission created out 

of SAFETEA–LU, but beyond that, but to tell us to look at flood 

control structures, water, wastewater, too, bridges and levees, too. 

The commission would then make recommendations to the next 

Congress and to the next President about how to maintain our current infrastructure needs while meeting future needs and safety requirements. The idea is to prioritize what our infrastructure needs 

are and also to suggest how we might pay for them. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

It is my hope that the analysis and the recommendations of this 

Commission would improve collaboration among Federal, State, 

and local governments, while allowing us to pinpoint infrastructure 

needs and priorities. The tragedy in Minneapolis, which the Chairman just alluded to, last year underscored the urgent need for such 

a commission and the reinvestment in our infrastructure nationwide. Our legislation has passed the Senate; it is pending in the 

House. 

As I have often said, if a job is worth doing, it is worth paying 

for. I firmly believe that it is essential that all stakeholders in 

these matters come together and try to form some kind of consensus, not only what our long-term goals might be, but also how 

to get there and how we should pay for it. 

As we all know, these are not simple issues. The state of our infrastructure significantly impacts the quality of our environment, 

the growth of our economy, and our daily quality of life. Given 

these high stakes, we must take bold and innovative actions to 

bring our transportation, our housing, our energy, and telecommunications sectors into the 21st century while it is still the 

21st century. 

I am grateful for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, we have to hear 

today from our witnesses, and I look forward to their testimony. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Corker. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOB CORKER 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Senator Hagel 

for bringing for this legislation. In my short tenure here in the Senate, I have noticed that we have a tendency to focus on the ‘‘urgent’’ instead of the ‘‘important’’ in many cases, and I appreciate 

both of you bringing attention to this. I look forward, as usual, to 

listening to these wonderful panelists. And I will not say anymore. 

I will wait to listen to them. 

Thank you so much. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very much. I will leave the 

record open, by the way, for other members who come for any opening statements they would care to make this morning. And just let 

me state that all statements and supporting documentation from 

members as well as witnesses will be included in the record as 

well. 

Let me briefly introduce our very good panel here this morning. 

David Mongan is the President of the American Society of Civil Engineers, has 35 years of experience as a civil engineer; past Chair 

of the Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services. He received a Bachelor’s degree (1971) and Master of Science degree (1976) in Civil Engineering from the University of Maryland and a Master’s in Business Administration (1981) 

from Loyola College of Baltimore, Maryland. He received the Civil 

Engineer of the Year Award in 1998 from the ASCE Maryland Section and the Engineer of the Year Award in 1999 from the Engineering Society of Baltimore. 

Felix Rohatyn is no stranger to this Committee. He has been before us on numerous occasions, and truth in advertising, he is a 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 

very good friend of mine, a good friend of Chuck Hagel’s, as he is 

of many members, Democrats and Republicans, in the Congress 

and elsewhere. He is currently Vice Chairman of Lehman Brothers, 

previously served as the Ambassador to France. Prior to his appointment, Felix was Managing Director of Lazard Freres and became a partner in 1961. Probably best known—for many things, 

but not the least of which was his negotiations, which he led, enabling New York City to resolve its financial crisis in the late 1970s 

when he was Chairman of the Municipal Assistance Corporation. 

And Felix has been tireless in his concern about this subject matter, and we thank you immensely for your service to our country 

in numerous capacities at the local, State, and national level. So, 

Felix, it is an honor to have you before the Committee this morning 

as well. 

Tracy Wolstencroft is a partner of Goldman Sachs, a member of 

the firm-wide Partnership Committee, the Investment Banking Operating Committee, and currently head of the Public Sector and Infrastructure Banking Group. His responsibilities at Goldman Sachs 

have included extensive senior management positions in the United 

States, Latin America, Japan, and China; a member of the Council 

on Foreign Relations, a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Geographic Society, the Nature Conservancy, and New York 

State Board, and he is also a member of the Board of Directors of 

the International Rescue Committee, and, Tracy, we thank you for 

your work in this area as well. 

Ron Blackwell is the Chief Economist of the American Federation 

of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the AFL–CIO, 

where he coordinates the economic agenda. The federation represents the AFL–CIO on corporate and economic issues affecting 

American workers and union strategies. From 1996 to 2004, Ron 

was Director of the AFL–CIO Corporate Affairs Department. Before 

joining the labor movement, Ron was the academic dean in the 

Seminar College of the New York School of Social Research in New 

York, where he taught economics, politics, and philosophy. He 

serves on the Board of Directors of the Industrial Relations Research Association, the Research Advisory Council of the Economic 

Policy Institute, and the Board of Manufacturing and Engineering 

Design of the National Academies. I should point out, Ron—and we 

thank you for being here—I know that John Sweeney had hoped 

to be here this morning as well, along with Tom Donohue, I might 

add, of the Chamber of Commerce, but we are pleased to have you 

and have your background and experience as well. 

Janet Kavinoky is the Director of Transportation Infrastructure 

in the Congressional and Public Affairs Division of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In this capacity, she serves as the Chamber’s 

senior lobbyist and policy expert on all transportation infrastructure ideas. In addition, she is the Executive Director of the Americans for Transportation Mobility, a national business-labor-construction industry coalition that unifies transportation stakeholders 

to support increased Federal investment in interconnected multimodal transportation systems. 

And with that, I thank all of you for joining us this morning. We 

will begin with you, Mr. Mongan, and your testimony. Again, I will 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
10 

ask you to try and keep it to around 5 to 7 minutes, if you can, 

so we can get to the questions. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. MONGAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 

SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

Mr. MONGAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

good morning. I am David Mongan, current president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and I am pleased to appear before 

you today to testify for ASCE on the condition of the Nation’s infrastructure and proposals for needed improvements. 

ASCE concluded in our 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure that the Nation’s infrastructure deserved an overall 

grade of D. 

We said then that America’s aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the economy and quality of life in every State, city, 

and town in the Nation. We estimated that it would take an investment of $1.6 trillion by 2010 to bring the Nation’s aging, existing 

infrastructure into good working order. 

Nothing approaching that level of investment has been made. We 

continue to underinvest in infrastructure at the national level. The 

total of all Federal spending for infrastructure as a percentage of 

our gross domestic product has steadily declined. 

The American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials concluded that total spending on America’s roads and highways should be about $155 billion each year to improve transportation infrastructure conditions nationally. The Federal investment 

in 2008 totaled approximately $41 billion, barely a third of the investment needed. 

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that America’s investment in surface transportation infrastructure by all levels of government equaled about 1.5 percent of gross domestic product. In comparison, the Chinese Government invested an estimated 

2.5 percent of GDP in highway construction alone in 2001. 

In 2007, the Department of Transportation reported that the cost 

to maintain only the Nation’s highways would require an annual 

investment of almost $80 billion in 2004 dollars by all levels of government. 

Even at this level, however, congestion would worsen, according 

to the report, because it would finance too little new highway capacity. 

The DOT report, however, may understate the need. The American Road and Transportation Builders believe that Federal highway spending in the next surface transportation bill would have to 

start at $54.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 and grow to $61.5 billion 

by fiscal year 2015 to maintain the physical condition and operating performance. 

In January, the Environmental Protection Agency reported that 

we must invest at least $202 billion to prevent combined sewer and 

sanitary sewer overflows at the Nation’s 16,000 publicly owned 

wastewater treatment works. In 2002, the EPA estimated that the 

projected gap in what 23 spend on treatment systems and what is 

needed will be between $330 billion and $450 billion by 2019. This 

investment ‘‘gap’’ in drinking water systems is equally stark: approximately $100 billion over 20 years. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
11 

The Corps of Engineers operates and maintains 240 locks at 195 

locations along 12,000 miles of inland waterways. The average lock 

is 53 years old. Locks have a 50-year service life. It costs about 

$600 million to replace a lock. If we were to replace those that definitely need to be replaced, that are beyond their life, we would 

need to spend $72 billion. Simply to rehabilitate the other half 

would cost another $30 billion. That is more than $100 billion to 

invest to bring our antiquated waterway system into the 21st century. 

At the current spending rate, the budget in the administration’s 

fiscal year 2009 of $180 million annually, it would take the Corps 

20 years simply to fund all of the inland waterways projects authorized in the WRDA 2007. 

The National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, your S. 1926, 

would begin to address a problem that is rapidly approaching crisis 

levels—the physical deterioration of the Nation’s infrastructure. 

The establishment of a National Infrastructure Bank. that would 

be an independent body to evaluate and finance capacity-building 

infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national importance is essential. We believe this bank of 2007, this act of 2007 

is essential to beginning the long-term effort to maintain and replace the economically vital infrastructure systems across the Nation. 

ASCE supports the establishment of a Federal multi-year capital 

budget for public works infrastructure construction and rehabilitation. This budget would be similar to those used by State and local 

governments. The capital budget must be separated from non-capital Federal expenditures. The current budgeting process at the 

Federal level has a short-term, 1- to 2-year, focus. Infrastructure, 

by its very nature, is long term. 

Let me say a few words about the use of public-private partnerships in funding U.S. infrastructure. 

Public-private partnerships are contractual relationships between 

public and private sectors in infrastructure development. They 

have been practiced worldwide in both developed and developing 

countries with multiple objectives including promoting infrastructure development, reducing costs, increasing construction and operation efficiencies, and improving service quality by incorporating 

private sector knowledge, expertise, and capital. 

There are barriers to public-private partnerships: social; unfavorable economic and commercial conditions; procurement framework; 

lack of mature financing technologies; and others. But although 

those partnerships appear to provide some help for financially 

strapped communities to provide basic infrastructure, they do come 

at a price. The Government Accountability Office cautioned in February that these partnerships may be useful in boosting highway 

investments but that they are not a panacea 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my testimony, and I 

would be pleased to answer any of the Committee’s questions. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very, very much. I appreciate 

your work and your effort in this regard, and you have highlighted 

very, very well some of the growing costs you were talking about. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
12 

Felix, it is a pleasure to have you with us, and once again, 

thanks for coming down. I know you have got a touch of that flu 

a little bit. 

STATEMENT OF FELIX G. ROHATYN, TRUSTEE, CENTER FOR 

STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

Mr. ROHATYN. I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to say hello to Senator Shelby, whom I had the pleasure of seeing often, but not often enough, when I was stationed in Paris and 

he was coming back and forth dealing with intelligence matters. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHATYN. Glad to see you again, Senator. 

I do not really know where to start because, you know, I have 

been living with this issue for a long time, as you have, and when 

you really look at the reality of where we are, it is really so awesome, but you do not really know where to start because there are 

so many things that really have to be done. But we might as well 

face them. 

I would like to talk about a couple of things that have been mentioned here which people do not pay very much attention to because they sound technical but they are very important. I am talking about the need for a capital budget in the United States. We 

cannot go on having an accounting system for the total world, for 

our business, et cetera, except for our Government, which treats investment the way—as an expense and, therefore, skews the whole 

budget process by telling people that we are spending money when, 

in effect, we are investing money. And when we actually do not invest and call it something else, we are equally at risk. 

The bank that we are talking about was modeled on a number 

of institutions of a similar type that exist in the world. One is the 

European Investment Bank, which finances European infrastructure and, in particular, the high-speed rail network, which is the 

envy of the world. When you can go from Paris to London in 2 

hours and not even realize you are in a train, you do two things: 

You transport people in comfort, and at the same time, you take 

a lot of pressure off the air system because it is better to go by 

train than to wait at the airport. So you have offsetting things 

which I think are worth talking about. 

The other thing is I think there has to be a little more confidence 

in Government in order to accomplish anything, and especially 

something as large as infrastructure. I think one of the reasons 

that we are so far behind on infrastructure is that we have managed as a national pastime to turn Government into some kind of 

joke and, therefore, to think that whatever Government touches is 

gone. And I do not think you can invest for 30, 40, 50 years, as we 

are going to have to do in this matter, unless people begin to trust 

and have some faith in Government’s ability to at least be a partner of the private sector in terms of this kind of thing. 

And the importance of it, I can give you a small example. When 

we were dealing with New York City’s bankruptcy and we were 

close to a solution. we needed some money from President Ford— 

not a lot, maybe a billion dollars. And we were raising $20, $25, 

$30 billion as a package from the labor unions, from the banks, and 

to some extent from the city. And we could not move anybody until 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
13 

President Ford finally relented and gave us a credit line of about 

$1 billion seasonally, which in terms of what we were doing was 

a pittance. But as soon as the Federal role was spelled out and was 

involved, everybody came in—the unions, the banks, the institutions—and we were able to, A, avoid bankruptcy and with the result that speaks for itself, and show that Government on some of 

these issues has to be present. It cannot take a pass on this. 

I think I would just like to also look at one or two other things. 

The worst category in my friend’s balance sheet about the United 

States is school construction, which has a D. Now, we are a country 

that says we are a country that says we are going to teach the 

kids, we are not going to leave anybody behind, education is our 

biggest priority. But we are letting these kids study in buildings 

that have leaky roofs, where the cafeteria is almost floating away, 

where nobody pays any attention, and nobody talks about school 

construction. And yet I think that would be one of the things that 

I would certainly push as having a priority in terms of investments 

that can be made nationally. 

Now, I know the issue of keeping education and all of the related 

things separate from Government, but I think building decent 

schools where the roofs are waterproof is not a luxury that we 

should be ashamed of, but something we should really go after. 

I am a refugee. I came to this country in 1942, and I read a lot 

of American history because I came from a place where there was 

no history, or the history that existed was pretty bad. And I became fascinated to see what American Presidents did in terms of 

investing in the country, beginning with Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase, following with Lincoln and the intercontinental 

railroad. And even going to things that do not appear to be hard 

assets, but at least as important, like the GI Bill of Rights, which 

educated this country and which housed it, actually with mortgages 

that were not re-settable, like some of our present models. 

So I come to plead for the inclusion, the intelligent inclusion of 

Government. The Chinese are spending money hand over fist. They 

are building 80 airports in the next 10 years. They are building nuclear power. They are building 200,000 kilometers of rural roads 

over there. And we cannot compete with that unless we have a national effort and we devote the assets, but at the same time we are 

careful of the management of this bank, which will be very delicate 

issues: the earmarks, which have become a symbol of American 

budgeting, which I think is something we can well do without, in 

my view, and the money that will have to be put in, but it will 

clearly have to be put in by a partnership of business, labor, and 

Government. 

And I was delighted to read the statement of my colleague here 

from Goldman Sachs with respect to a possible role for the private 

sector and the size of the potential commitments. 

So I thank you, Senator, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, Senator 

Shelby, and my old friend, who is unfortunately leaving all of us, 

but hopefully he will not be too far away from us, Mr. Hagel. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. Felix, thank you for 

your comments this morning. In the prepared statement, which I 

urge my colleagues to look at, Felix explains, I think very clearly, 

exactly how the financial arrangement could work, at least under 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

this idea, which is in a paragraph or so I think very succinctly describes how you leverage resources here to work for us. I appreciate 

your inclusion of that and your general comments this morning 

about the value of the investments that have been made historically on infrastructure. 

I was telling a group of students the other day down on the front 

steps of the Capitol, as all of us from time to time meet with students from our State, that all during the conduct of the Civil War, 

Abraham Lincoln insisted that the work on the Nation’s capital 

continue. And so even as troops were gathered on the other side 

of the Potomac threatening the city, the work went on. And the importance of investing in the infrastructure with the symbols of us 

were tremendously important as well, beyond just the jobs that 

were created or the work that needed to get done. And, of course, 

the intercontinental railroad, we were actually spending money investing in that railroad while we were also investing in the needs 

of the military and the Civil War. The case was made to him over 

and over again to stop that spending, but he insisted it go forward 

all during that crisis. And there are wonderful examples of that 

throughout history. So, Felix, we thank you for your historical perspective as well. 

Mr. ROHATYN. If I could just quickly, since you mentioned the financials of the bank—— 

Chairman DODD. Yes, please. 

Mr. ROHATYN. I sort of neglected to even mention it. I think— 

and we used the number of $60 billion as the original capital of the 

bank. But, obviously, the $60 billion is only the beginning of an investment program, and I think we think—and I am sure my colleagues agree with that—that this bank with a capital of $60 billion could be leveraged on a 3:1 basis very safely—very safely. That 

would give you another $180 billion to put on the top of the $60 

billion, which is $240 billion. Then when you begin the partnership 

with the private sector, which will only be allowed in if they take 

a share of the investment, you can get to very important numbers 

very soon in a very safe way. And then at that point, the issue of 

management and being careful of the management and having it 

picked correctly, et cetera, becomes paramount. 

But it is not an unimaginable thing to structure the finance of 

this bank, especially when you begin to think of all of this as an 

investment and not as an expenditure. 

Chairman DODD. That is great. 

Tracy, thank you for being with us. 

STATEMENT OF TRACY WOLSTENCROFT, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HEAD, PUBLIC SECTOR AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BANKING, GOLDMAN, SACHS AND COMPANY 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, Members 

of the Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. My name is Tracy Wolstencroft. I am a 

Managing Director at Goldman Sachs and head of its Public Sector 

and Infrastructure business. I am pleased to share with you my 

perspective on the condition of the Nation’s infrastructure and the 

proposals for needed improvements. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 

During my 22 years at Goldman Sachs, I have had the opportunity to live and work in markets around the world, and I have 

seen the commitment that other countries, as has been mentioned 

here this morning, have made to infrastructure. In mature industrial countries such as the United States, it is all too easy to take 

for granted our physical infrastructure. Today, the infrastructure 

investment deficit in the United States is among the largest in the 

world—estimated in the findings of the Dodd-Hagel bill at approximately $4 trillion over the next 20 years, and that is just for transit, water, highway, and housing alone. 

Closing this deficit will not be easy, and it will not happen quickly. Governments at every level must play a major role in providing 

revenue streams and financing capacity—as in many ways they already do. For example, the Federal Government provides $40 to 50 

billion each year for transportation, funded largely by the 18-centsper-gallon gas tax. State and local governments primarily finance 

their needs through the tax-exempt bond market, a market that 

has currently $2 trillion dollars of outstanding obligations. But 

closing the infrastructure deficit will require tapping all available 

sources of capital: tax-exempt debt, Federal Government financing 

tools, and private sector funds as well. 

Take, for example, the Capital Beltway. The Capital Beltway is 

less than 10 miles from where we are this morning. Every day 

more than 100,000 drivers use the Beltway, totaling approximately 

20 million hours per year—often in slow-moving or bumper-tobumper traffic. This congestion harms the region’s economy, its environment, and its quality of life. But in December, the Commonwealth of Virginia finalized an agreement with a private consortium to construct two additional lanes in each direction along a 14- 

mile segment, together with other significant improvements, including two High Occupancy Toll, or HOT, lanes. This massive construction effort will create more than 4,000 jobs each of the next 

5 years, providing a much-needed economic stimulus. Additionally, this almost $2 billion project—like many others— 

could not have been financed through one source alone. In this 

case, the Commonwealth of Virginia is providing more than $400 

million in grants; the Federal Government through the U.S. Department of Transportation is facilitating financing of about $600 

million; there is an additional $600 million coming from the taxexempt municipal bond market; and the private joint venture of 

Fluor Corporation and Transurban Group is contributing $350 million of capital. 

This is just one example of why we at Goldman Sachs believe 

that, where appropriate, partnerships with the private sector can 

play an important role in supplementing taxpayer dollars. The 

Capital Beltway also illustrates the power of using market-based 

mechanisms supported by new technology such as open-road tolling 

and dynamic pricing to generate funding. Tolls paid to use the optional HOT lanes will provide the revenue stream necessary to 

build and maintain the improvements. As States grapple with fiscal pressures, it will in some cases be not only appropriate, but also 

necessary to rely on all of these capital tools. 

Already, an increasing number of States are following the lead 

of nations such as the U.K. and Canada, as has been referenced in 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
16 

earlier comments, in leveraging user fees such as tolls or water 

charges to support tax-exempt and private financings, much as the 

utility industry charges fees to help finance new, clean power 

plants. When it comes to generating the revenues needed to pay for 

the massive up-front costs of infrastructure, there is no free lunch. 

This Nation needs the political will to make revenue decisions that 

may be unpopular, including in some instances instituting or increasing user fees such as tolls. And if governments are able to 

identify those revenues, they will be able to tap into huge pools of 

private capital, possibly leveraging State and local pension funds 

such as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or 

CalPERS, which recently announced a pilot $2.5 billion allocation 

to infrastructure to ‘‘take advantage of major investment opportunities in the construction of roads, bridges, airports, utilities, water 

systems, and other projects.’’ 

As we explore creative ways for the private and public sectors to 

work together, so too there should be more innovation within the 

public sector. It is clear to me that initiatives along the lines of a 

federally sponsored bank such as that proposed in the Dodd-Hagel 

National Infrastructure Bank Act could act as an important catalyst. In addition to the tangible benefits of the Dodd-Hagel approach, I believe this bill also provides an important statement 

that our national leaders recognize the urgency of our infrastructure deficit and are prepared to make the issue a national priority. 

I conclude by thanking Chairman Dodd, Senator Shelby, Senator 

Hagel, and Members of the Committee not only for inviting me to 

testify but. more importantly, for taking this progressive step toward helping the United States and its infrastructure deficit. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. Excellent testimony. 

Ron, thank you for being with us this morning. 

STATEMENT OF RON BLACKWELL, CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS (AFL–CIO) 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you, Senator Dodd, Ranking Member 

Shelby, and other Senators, for inviting us here to present the 

views of the AFL–CIO and the American labor movement on this 

very municipality issue. 

The American economy is the most productive economy in his- tory. It generates nearly $14 trillion in product and income. But 

key to our Nation’s success and prosperity has been and I hope will 

continue to be the commitment, the productivity of American workers but also the world-class infrastructure that we have built over 

American history, as has been mentioned. 

Unfortunately, our infrastructure is deteriorating, as Mr. Mongan mentioned, and the figure of $1.6 trillion of unmet need 

over a 5-year period is impressive, particularly when you consider 

the infrastructure systems we will need if we are going to successfully meet the fierce competition in a 21st century global economy. 

As we meet today, however, we face an economic crisis that poses 

a number of serious and interrelated challenges. We must recover 

from the recession that now seems to be underway. We must find 

a more sustainable growth path for the economy other than assetbased inflation. We have to find a way to rebuild the global comVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
17 

petitiveness of our country. And we have to find a way to more 

broadly share the prosperity that our country enjoys. 

In different ways, the rebuilding of our Nation’s infrastructure 

plays a crucial role in addressing each of these challenges, and we 

recommend to you to think about the work of this Committee in 

that context. 

A bursting housing bubble last summer and the resulting crisis 

in the U.S. subprime mortgage market have triggered a full-blown 

credit crisis, which is now dragging the American economy into a 

recession and slowing world growth. 

The Federal Reserve has responded promptly. The Congress has passed a stimulus package of $168 billion. And while these steps 

are welcome, we do not believe they will be sufficient to avert a recession, and, more importantly, they do not address the long-run 

challenges economically of our country that got us into this mess 

to begin with. 

The AFL–CIO supports a second fiscal stimulus package that includes measures like extended unemployment and expansion of the 

food stamp program and money to States and localities to keep 

them from cutting their budgets to provide important services. But 

we also think there is a role here for putting forward some of the 

important infrastructure programs that we have, particularly in 

the area of rebuilding our country’s schools. Seventy-five percent of 

our schools are in a dilapidated condition. I graduated from one 

such school in Alabama many, many years ago. But there is no excuse, as Felix pointed out, for us to have schools that are not up 

to top quality if we are asking our children to get an education, and 

that is one of the principal resources of this country. 

But we also have deteriorating highways and bridges that are in 

the condition that we saw in Minnesota. For those projects that we 

can move really quickly, we need to be moving on them. This is 

spending money that is good for the economy, but it is also spending money on things that are important for our development. 

The second challenge we face is to get our economic growth path 

on something other than asset inflation. Since the 1990s with equities, and since the 2000s with housing, we have been living on borrowed money. The only thing that is moving in this economy is 

debt-financed consumer spending. We are borrowing money from 

the central banks of our trading partners—in this case, some of the 

poorest countries in the world, ironically—in order to buy things in 

order to consume. We have to turn the driver for this economy 

away from consumption spending and away from debt-financed 

consumption spending. And I believe in public investment, but, of 

course, the key to that, of course, is sound macro policy, careful coordination of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury to focus on 

maximizing growth and consistent with reasonable price stability. 

But I think there is an important role here for public investment, 

and if the public investment is well planned and well timed, then, 

of course, it crowds in private investment and, therefore, complements it over the course of the business cycle. And, again, it is 

adding into—more importantly, it is adding into the productive capacity of the country long term. And the third thing about we have 

to focus—and this is perhaps most important—we have to focus on 

a world-class infrastructure if we have a hope of dealing with the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
18 

competitive challenges this country is going to face. We are now 

borrowing $800 billion a year to pay for the things that we no 

longer produce but we still consume. 

Nobody believes that is sustainable. Sooner or later, we are going 

to have to find a way to produce more of the value equivalent of 

what we consume, or we will be forced one way or another to consume less. I do not think the American people find that an acceptable course for the future of American history. I think we have to 

find a way to improve our competitiveness, and I think one of the 

keys to that is investing in the public infrastructure that the country has relied on historically to date to allow us to be—for economic 

activity and firms in the United States to be productive going into 

the future. 

And, fourth, we have to restore some balance between workers 

and their employers in order for our prosperity to be more fairly 

shared. I think the fundamental thing there is we have got to have 

a minimum wage that is at least one-half of the average wage in 

the private sector, and we have to have an Employee Free Choice 

Act which allows workers to organize and bargain collectively for 

their share of economic growth. But I think here, too, public investment plays a very important point, and projects that are run on 

this kind of basis can generate enormous numbers of very good 

jobs. I think the Department of Transportation, as was mentioned, 

has estimated that each $1 billion of public investment generates 

almost 48,000 new jobs. If the DOT is right and Mr. Mongan is 

right, then if we just met our existing needs through this mechanism, we would be generating something like 15 million jobs that 

we do not have now over the course of the next 5 years. 

America’s workers are the most productive workers in the world. 

We are now working longer hours than workers in any other country, longer even than Japan that used to be famous in this regard. 

But, we believe, provided a world-class infrastructure and working 

with companies that share our commitment to the country, we believe that there is no reason why we cannot build a strong and 

internationally competitive American economy in the United States 

into the indefinite future. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present the views of the 

AFL–CIO. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Kavinoky. 

STATEMENT OF JANET F. KAVINOKY, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICANS FOR TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

regarding the condition of our Nation’s infrastructure and the proposals for needed improvements. My name is Janet Kavinoky. I am 

the Director of Transportation Infrastructure at the Chamber, as 

well as the Executive Director of the Americans for Transportation 

Mobility Coalition. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
19 

Today, my remarks are going to focus on the needs of the transportation system, but we know that from interstate highways to information superhighways, from airports and water ports to wastewater systems, from rail lines to transmission lines and power 

plants, our infrastructure is in crisis, and it is evident that now is 

the time to build a robust, thoughtful, and comprehensive plan for 

our world-class 21st century infrastructure. 

We have to face this fundamental fact as a Nation: We are a 

growing people with a growing country and an aging infrastructure. We have to fix what we have, and then if we want more capacity, we have got to buy it. No one is giving roads or rails or runways away for free. We are going to have to find and invest more 

public dollars in our infrastructure. And there is no single answer 

to the question of how do we pay for it, and that is good, because 

it means we have options. But all of the options have to be on the 

table. 

Yes, this means that, along with other things we are going to 

talk about today, we are going to have to consider an increase in 

the Federal fuels user fees, especially for highways and transit. 

This could take the form of a straightforward increase in a fee that 

hasn’t been raised in 15 years—as long as the proceeds are appropriately dedicated. But this Nation cannot afford to rule out any 

funding sources. 

In highways and transit alone, many reports have quantified the 

significant gap between needs and available resources. And my 

other panelists here today have focused on many other areas with 

tremendous needs. 

We also know that all across infrastructure categories, simple inflation has eroded the purchasing power of available revenue 

sources, and measured up to construction cost inflation, the purchasing power is even less. The cost of materials used to fix pavements has increased 33 percent in the past 3 years. Steel, oil, and 

concrete are all more expensive, and many structures have reached 

the end of their useful design lives. 

So the Chamber commends Senators Dodd and Hagel and others 

for their commitment to considering financing tools that broaden 

our views of how the Federal Government contributes to infrastructure investment. 

While the Chamber will continue to fight for adequate systemic 

Federal funding to address our Nation’s enormous needs, there is 

a need for additional options to supplement, not supplant, traditional revenue sources and funding approaches. We agree with Senator Dodd that the Federal Government is not doing enough to address important national and regional transportation issues from a 

systemic perspective. 

The National Infrastructure Bank would create an independent 

entity tasked with evaluating and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial national and regional significance. 

In contrast, Section 1301 of SAFETEA–LU is really the first programmatic effort to address highways and transit projects of national and regional significance, and, unfortunately, inadequate 

funding diluted its impact and congressional earmarking of the entire program distorted its intent. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 

The National Infrastructure Bank Act would support projects 

with clear national benefits and complex State, local, and private 

institutional and financing challenges that require Federal assistance through a process outside of earmarking practices. By emphasizing infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment 

of at least $75 million and evaluating projects based on factors 

such as economic impact, reduction in traffic congestion, and environmental benefits, this legislation would do much to ensure that 

projects are targeted and that planning is as comprehensive as possible. 

The Nation’s infrastructure is the backbone of the U.S. economy. 

It is the physical platform of the U.S. economy, and the needs are 

staggering. And it is clear that chronic underinvestment is a major 

contributing factor to the problems across all modes of transportation. However, the public must trust and have confidence that 

programs will deliver real solutions to real problems; otherwise, 

they are not going to support increased investment. 

So the Chamber looks forward to returning to this Committee to 

discuss the next surface transportation authorization bill and the 

future of highway and transportation policy programs and funding, 

because this country’s current approach to delivering infrastructure 

is not set up for today’s robust economy or the economy of the future. 

For our part, the Chamber is engaging the business community 

on infrastructure issues through our Let’s Rebuild America Initiative and through the Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition. We are waging battle in the media to make infrastructure a 

core national economic priority. We are educating and engaging the 

public, identifying regulations that get in the way of private investment, and speaking out on the need for increased public investment. 

All transportation and infrastructure stakeholders have started 

coming to the table—public leaders, the private sector, and all 

modes, all industries, builders, carriers, users, and shippers alike. 

We are going to put an end to the intramural squabbles that have 

divided stakeholders. We have rolled up our sleeves and we have 

started to work. We are looking forward to working with you to 

rally around and unite the country around the urgent and compelling mission to rebuild America. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today, and 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thank you very, very much, and I thank 

all of you again for excellent testimony here this morning. And I 

will keep an eye on the clock here, too, for 6 or 7 minutes for each 

of us here, and since there are only about five or six of us here, 

we will be able to do this sort of informally. 

Let me begin by asking a question. I do not know whether you 

have the answer in front of you or not, but to put this in perspective, I think we all understand. We have talked about the $1.6 trillion being fundamentally for maintenance and repair of the existing structures. There is nothing in that number, at least that I am 

aware of, that talks about any new investments here, talking 

about, Felix, what you raised, the issue of the high-speed rail systems between London and Paris, Brussels and Paris, for instance. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 

Today, people would not think of taking a flight given the efficiencies of being able to travel by rail in terms of efficiency of time. 

But how has this number changed, if at all? Today we are talk- ing about $1.6 trillion, putting aside the need for new investment. 

What was the number 5 years ago? And what would be the projected number for failure to act 5 years from now? Just looking at 

that maintenance number, to put this in some—give people some 

idea of how that number has changed and will change if we do not 

act. Any ideas at all? Tracy, I do not know, I look to you or Felix 

as—— 

Mr. ROHATYN. My recollection—— 

Chairman DODD. Do you want to turn that microphone on, Felix? 

Mr. ROHATYN. I am sorry. My recollection is that over the years, 

as I was speaking from time to time to the U.S. Conference of Mayors—and they usually use the Society of Civil Engineers as their 

guidebooks—the deficit was increasing by about $200 billion every 

couple of years, something like that. 

Chairman DODD. Yes. Do you have that? 

Mr. MONGAN. When we did our report card in 2001, we estimated that the cost would be $1.3 trillion, and understand that about 40- 

plus percent of that is already being spent at all levels of government. So this is a total number, not just all new money but to supplement. So we need to be up to 1.3. We are now saying $1.6 trillion over 5 years, so you can see we have increased some $300 billion just in our estimate from 2001 to 2005. And I would say that 

when we do the report card next year and issue it in 2009, that 

number is going to approach well over $2 trillion. 

Again, it is not all new money; about 40 percent is already there 

in State, local, and Federal budgets. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Mr. Chairman, I might just add, just breaking down that number into a smaller project, but still a large one, 

if you look at what Denver is doing right now with their rapid transit initiatives, when that initiative was initially proposed, it was 

2004, and they estimated a cost of $4.7 billion. Today, that is over 

$6 billion for all the inflation that goes with construction costs. So 

Denver is faced with a real practical example of increasing costs 

and now how do you fund that gap. In their case, they are going 

to take it from all different pools of capital, whether it be from the 

State, whether it be from the Federal Government, who is offering 

a grant, particularly because of the transient nature of what they 

are investing in. 

There is also a potential for a private investor, and then there 

is pay-as-you-go on the back of sales tax that the community will 

incur. It is a small example in the trillions of dollars, but it is a 

very, I think, relevant example in terms of how that cost has 

moved. Within 3 years, it has gone up substantially. 

Chairman DODD. Ron, did you have anything to add? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. We do not have an independent estimate, but 

I would caution you against using simple extrapolations of historical trends, because we are entering a global labor market, and as 

Felix mentioned, in China, India, the former Soviet Union, they are 

building enormous capacity. So we are facing extremely fierce competitive conditions. You think of, for example, broadband where we 

are way down in the field in terms of our broadband technology, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
22 

both coverage and the speed of the technology that we have in this 

country, or what we are going to need with energy independence 

or what we will need with environmental sustainability. 

I just think it is going to be a qualitatively more serious advance, 

and when we have—even with the demand that we have, as I was 

suggesting, it is a demand which could be 15 million jobs a year, 

we have unemployment in the building trades that is double what 

it is for people overall. But we do not have enough construction 

personnel to produce at that level at this point in time, because I 

think you have a qualitatively different demand for our country. 

Chairman DODD. So it is not just a matter of what costs were 4 

or 5 years ago and what costs are today, but you are going to add 

this element of global competition and so forth that is going to exacerbate those numbers beyond that. 

The number I have bandied about over the years when people 

have said what is the job production out of this, the number that 

comes back to me is somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 to 

50,000 jobs per billion dollars on average of investment in ‘‘infrastructure.’’ Is that a number—is that correct or roughly correct? Or 

is it unfair to try and draw those conclusions about employment? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. That is the DOT estimate. I would assume 

this—it sounds high to me, frankly, but it does vary a lot over what 

kind of investment you are putting it into. 

Chairman DODD. Yes. Janet, do you have a comment? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Mr. Chairman, that number of 47,500 jobs is actually jobs supported per billion dollars of investment, so it is direct, indirect, and induced. There is a real need, actually, for the 

basic economic research to update that kind of information and 

productivity information, because that number was first created in 

1996 and has not been updated since then. 

Chairman DODD. Who does that? Who would be the—— 

Ms. KAVINOKY. The Federal Highway Administration sponsored 

the original research, and it was only Federal highway construction 

dollars. It certainly does not take into account the potential jobs 

created and supported through other forms of infrastructure investment. 

Chairman DODD. Let me ask you, I have looked at this, and we 

have been talking about the stimulus package and the one that we 

just enacted, and there have been some legitimate issues about 

how effective that stimulus package can be, and I suspect you may 

hear from my colleague from Tennessee his views on this. And I 

share some of them as well about the effect of all of this. But the 

issue was raised, in fact, in an op-ed piece in the New York Times 

by Stephen Roach, suggesting that investing in infrastructure could 

be an effective strategy in dealing with the current economic slowdown. Not that that ought to be the sole reason for it but, nonetheless, as an added benefit from all of this, and he said, ‘‘Fiscal initiatives should be directed at laying the groundwork for future 

growth, especially by upgrading our Nation’s antiquated highways, 

bridges, and ports.’’ 

We have all talked about the importance of this for long-term 

economic growth, and I think everyone agrees with that. I would 

be interested in any quick response and whether or not you think 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
23 

there is any short-term benefit to such a series of ideas we are 

talking about here. Does anyone want to comment? Yes, Felix. 

Mr. ROHATYN. One of the arguments usually made against infrastructure as a solution to economic downturns is that it takes too 

long to get going. I am not sure that now there is not so much stuff 

that is sort of in the drawers and ready to go if we had this kind 

of a plan that you could get—that you could gear up I think a lot 

more rapidly today than you might have 5, 6 years ago. And I certainly think that is worth including in your thinking, mostly because I personally am very pessimistic about the economy and, 

therefore, I think that we are facing a potentially very difficult 

downside to this recession that we have refused to admit we were 

in. And I think one of the things that might be helpful, both psychologically and practically, is putting on the table as many of 

these programs as possible in terms of quick-acting infrastructure 

like redoing some road—you know, things that are not terribly sophisticated, but doing it and creating a little management structure that will facilitate that. 

Chairman DODD. Comments, Ron. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. I would only add to that—and I mentioned it in 

my testimony—I think school repair is a good candidate. 

Chairman DODD. I agree. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. But I would also point out that if it is properly 

done, this is a much more stimulative measure than tax decreases, 

for example, which may or may not be spent and which may or 

may not be spent for goods that generate a stimulus in the American economy. 

Chairman DODD. I point out here that the staff has just told me here that over $2 billion worth of transit projects have been identified and are ready to go within 6 months, according to the American Public Transit Association, so your point, Felix, that there is 

an existing backlog here that would not require a tremendous 

amount of time. 

I noted here and I was listening, Ron, to your testimony talking 

about the energy costs, and we were just doing some numbers. I 

mentioned in my statement that there is in excess of 51 hours of 

travel time on our existing road system of sitting in congestion that 

consumers spend. That translates on a yearly basis to delays of 4.2 

billion lost work hours, I might point out, 2.9 billion gallons of 

wasted fuel, and about $78 billion in congestion costs combined. We 

borrow $1 billion every day to buy foreign oil; 59 percent of the oil 

that we use is consumed in transportation costs. So you begin to 

think about transportation needs, diversifying, thinking about it 

holistically in a way. I mean, if we ended up having—I am not 

going to advocate this too loudly because I need it often enough, 

but if we had fewer shuttle flights going to New York from Washington, maybe more people would use the Acela and mass transit 

systems. And we do not—it is always a competition where you compete and end up not utilizing structures or finance them and subsidize them effectively enough. And it occurs to me here just in energy costs alone how infrastructure could make a huge inroad both 

in the consumption as well as the related problems associated with 

the burning of fossil fuels, just to make the point. 

Let me turn to Senator Shelby. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
24 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Chairman Dodd. 

Felix, good to have you here before the Committee again. You 

have been here in many capacities as an investment banker, as adviser to the President and so forth. I believe myself that you were 

probably one of the hardest working Ambassadors we have ever 

had, and I have seen a lot of Ambassadors. When you were Ambassador to France, because I met with you a number of times, you 

were traveling all over France. You were seeing how we could do 

business in France, what we needed to do and so forth. You know 

a lot about infrastructure, but more than that, you and Tracy know 

a lot about investments. You are investment bankers, basically. 

I have no illusion about us passing taxes, more taxes, as what 

some people advocate right now, for our infrastructure needs. I do 

not think that Congress is going to move to do this because if you 

would add that to the cost of energy today, as oil has passed $100 

a barrel, and probably going up, so forth, I do not know what we 

will do. 

We all need—you are absolutely right, all of you, about infrastructure. Some of it needs rehabbing, and as we continue to grow 

with 300 million people, we are going to need new infrastructure. 

We are going to need new sewers, water plants, schools, highways, 

rail—you name it. And the question is: How do we get there? How 

can we afford it? Well, some people believe that financing is about 

leveraging, taking some money and leveraging it. And the toll 

roads, for example, we are looking—in my State of Alabama, the 

Governor had the Secretary of Transportation down recently about 

looking at two or three projects as possible toll roads that would 

be quicker, faster, and so forth, taking some money and leveraging 

it. 

But I think we have got to look at every avenue of how do we 

finance this, because we are going to have to have it or we are 

going to fall behind down the road. I think you point that out. 

So how do we leverage the money that we get, that we have? 

How do we attract investment into our infrastructure? Because if 

you have got a good project, you can get it financed. It will be financed. And look at the money in the world. Where is a lot of our 

money going to be? Senator Dodd alluded to it. We are importing, 

I have been told, about 65 percent of our oil. At the rate we are 

going, we will be importing 80 percent of our oil. We are exporting 

our wealth. We are creating great sums of wealth, sovereign wealth 

in countries. They are looking for a place to invest it. Why couldn’t 

we leverage some of that for our infrastructure needs? Because we 

will still be in control of the infrastructure. It will be in our country, and if they could get a decent return off of it, how do we do 

that, Felix? You and Tracy. 

Mr. ROHATYN. Well, Senator, I think you should be an investment banker, clearly, but I think—— 

Senator SHELBY. I would like to work with you. 

Mr. ROHATYN. I would be delighted. 

Senator SHELBY. You would not hire me, though. You would not 

hire me. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROHATYN. I personally think that one of the things we are 

going to do sooner or later is to go borrow $1 trillion from the ChiVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
25 

nese, because that is where the money is, just as we are going with 

these wealth funds to have the Arab countries and people make the 

investment. But nothing comes free, and the big advantage of infrastructure over marketable investment is that you cannot take it 

with you. So that if you have investors from countries that turn out 

to be not too friendly, they are not going to walk away with the 

infrastructure because it is very hard to move. 

But ultimately I do think that we are going to have to have much 

closer cooperation with the NATO countries, with Europe, with 

China, with Japan on the financial level, and that our central 

banks ought to work together, or at least cooperate with each other 

so that we don’t see part of Europe increasing interest rates while 

we reduce interest rates. 

Now, that is a whole other subject, but clearly the money is not 

where we are at this point, so we have to try to get it back as 

peacefully as possible and as economically as possible. And that 

can cover a lot of possibilities. 

Senator SHELBY. Tracy, how do we leverage some money, some 

public money, to build infrastructure that we cannot afford today 

but would be good investments—— 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Well, Senator Shelby, I—— 

Senator SHELBY [continuing]. But that we must afford? 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. I think one of our core takeaways from 

thinking about this is that we need to look to multiple sources of 

capital and think about ways to leverage any one component of it. 

One comment I would just add to Felix’s remarks is that the pension funds, in particular, are looking for long-term assets to offset 

their long-term liabilities. And when they look at infrastructure, 

why does CalPERS decide to allocate, albeit a small percentage, 

but a small percentage which is a large number $2.5 billion—why 

do they do that? Because they know if they invest in infrastructure 

there will be an inflation-protected mechanism embedded in that 

infrastructure investment. And that is very comforting to them for 

the comments the gentleman to my left has said about how these 

costs are moving. 

So one point of leverage is all that private capital that is out 

there, whether directly or indirectly, that is interested in taking a 

long-term asset into their books to offset long-term liabilities. 

The other point of leverage—— 

Senator SHELBY. Quality assets, too. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. And quality assets, too. This infrastructure 

is not going anywhere. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, this would not be a subprime asset. This 

would be a quality asset, right? 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. I do not know if I should say, ‘‘No comment,’’ but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SHELBY. Well, you can answer any way you want to. 

Chairman DODD. Don’t go there, though. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, I think we need to go there because what 

we—— 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. I will stick to infrastructure. 

Senator SHELBY. If we had invested in America what we have invested in the subprime, all the institution, people, in our infraVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
26 

structure, it would probably be a higher quality investment, and we 

would have created a heck of a lot more jobs, wouldn’t we, Ron? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. That is absolutely right. 

Senator SHELBY. Go ahead. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. The only other part of leverage I would say 

is the actual projects themselves need to make sense, and one of 

the things that can be leveraged are the revenue streams that can 

come off of these assets. And there is a balance of what is the revenue stream and what is the political will to make that revenue 

stream happen. 

Senator SHELBY. David. 

Mr. MONGAN. If I could just add, there are a third of the States 

that by statute do not even allow public-private partnerships for 

transportation. So from our perspective, one of the things that has 

to happen is that we have got to correct that problem with those 

States to even allow—— 

Senator SHELBY. Statutorily, sure. 

Mr. MONGAN [continuing]. This financing mechanism to be put in 

place. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, I hope that my State of Alabama moves 

down that way fast. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you very much, and those are very good 

questions. And one of the things in our bill, of course, is we talk 

about regional and national infrastructure needs and not so much 

the local ones, so that we are talking about large projects here, 

minimum projects of $75 million or more, I think is the number we 

have in our bill, to get beyond what would be local issues that 

ought to be resolved locally, entirely, but more the larger ones that 

we have in mind here. 

Senator Menendez. 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all 

of the testimony of the witnesses. I think there is basically the 

proposition here that the longer it takes, the more it costs; the 

more it costs, the greater the deficit at the end of the day. And that 

does not include the deficit in the global competition context. So 

there is a whole continuum of challenges here, and it only grows 

bigger. 

I want to take off—I did not intend to, but having listened to 

Senator Shelby’s questions and having a little experience of what 

is going on in my home State of New Jersey, talk about political 

will. The reality is how we describe this. Senator Shelby says that 

the Congress does not have an appetite for any taxes to fund this, 

and I appreciate that. But it is how what we call, how we describe 

it. Certainly products that need to get to the market that take 

longer to get there, that have higher fuel costs, that is an indirect 

tax. We may not call it a tax, but ultimately it is a tax to the consumer. 

Similarly, if we are going to use the capital assets of the Nation’s 

roadways, for example, to go to the private marketplace and seek 

to capitalize on it or monetize on it, at the end of the day beyond 

the opportunities to have long-term stability in some of those investments, as you described, Mr. Wolstencroft, is also a desire for 

a rate of return, and that rate of return is not going to be, you 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
27 

know, simply the collection of existing toll revenues without some 

increases in them. 

Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Well, I would say that there are two rates 

of return on which this political will gets balanced. There is the 

economic rate of return on one side of the equation, and there is 

the social rate of return on the other. And one of the aspects, as 

you referenced in your own home State, that is being debated right 

now is if New Jersey were to do something, if there were the political will or political comfort to increase tolls with respect to the 

New Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway and that increased tolls were to be leveraged, what would that money be used 

for? And the comfort with which the citizens of New Jersey take 

from where would that money be spent, and in that case primarily 

on infrastructure-related projects, not the least of which could be 

the ARC tunnel underneath the Hudson River, then I think they 

can see that there is a return for them for which they are asked 

to pay an increase in their tolls. And then the financial return 

comes from that increased revenue stream, how much more capital 

can be leveraged against it. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And that is a raging debate right now because even though the connection has been made between the investment of where those revenues would go, it largely would be for 

infrastructure and also to pay down a degree of debt, which, therefore, creates greater opportunities and annual revenue flows to be 

able to deal with less interest on debt. And yet we do not quite 

have a public who looks at it in that context. 

So as we deal with the broader challenge, Mr. Chairman, that is 

why I particularly appreciate your bill, because while I think we 

should look at these opportunities, at the same time I recognize 

that notwithstanding political will, sometimes you just—I think 

part of our challenge is to get the public on board to understand 

that it is both short- and long-term investment in our country. And 

that is why I like the Chairman’s bill because he talks about— 

along with Senator Hagel, they talk about this in a way that I 

think is important, which is in the context of investment, not just 

simply repairs and what-not but investment, and looking how that 

investment yields returns, financially, socially, employment, economically—I think there are many different dimensions, and I 

think we need to pursue that. 

Speaking about rates of return, one of the things I am concerned 

about is I saw this Brookings Institution report, and it said something along the lines that our transportation dollar has declined 

from 20 percent of rate of return 30 years ago to as little as 1 percent today. Do we agree with that? Has anybody seen that report? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Yes, sir, I have seen that report, and, in fact, 

there have been a couple of others recently, including a report by 

Sir Rod Eddington in the U.K. that talk about the varying rates 

of return on different investments. 

I think part of the reason you see that kind of decline—and I am 

not sure that if numerically that is correct—is because at one point 

we were building new capacity and we were actually adding infrastructure very broadly, and today we are talking about replacing 

it or rebuilding it. So when you are replacing something, you are 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

not going to get that great a boost in productivity. But if you are 

talking about expanding capacity, which has to be part of this 

equation in infrastructure broadly, then you are going to see some 

real benefit. 

Senator MENENDEZ. And that is why I am concerned about how 

the analysis goes. I think the rate of return is greater than that, 

and particularly the way the Chairman’s bill is, I think it has a variety of factors to be factored in that improves the effective rate of 

return, and it is something that merits a lot of our consideration. 

For example, a hundred of our Nation’s metropolitan areas generate 75 percent of our economic output—75 percent of our economic output. They handle 75 percent of the sea cargo of our Nation and 80 percent of the air traffic. And yet nearly all of those 

metropolitan areas are experiencing increased congestion on the 

roads, in the skies, and on the rails. And so I look at your own testimony and see that you speak about how in the mega port of the 

East Coast, the port of New York and New Jersey, where most of 

that operation happens on the New Jersey side—I used to represent that specifically in the House, am privileged to represent it 

all now as the totality of the State. You say that that is going to 

triple in volume by 2020. We agree. But the problem is in order to 

achieve the benefit of that, you have to have the infrastructure 

nexus to make it work and to compete against Canadian ports and 

others, foreign ports that ultimately have huge investments—the 

Port Huron tunnel, the rail connections, natural deepwater ports, 

what we have to be dredging. 

So these are, I believe, critical elements of how we have to talk 

about these issues, because certainly we recognize—you know, one 

of our initiatives is to create something we call the Liberty Corridor 

under the National Corridor Program. And it is using transportation dollars, Mr. Chairman, in a way that would leverage far beyond. It is to create a corridor in the country—it is already underway—that goes from idea to marketplace and does everything in 

between. So you do research and development, design, manufacture, export promotion, and the export through a world-class seaport and airport and, therefore, bring all of the synergies using 

transportation dollars as the nexus to create the corridor. But looking beyond, how else do you create a multiplier factor to add to the 

economic benefit? 

And so I think when we look at this whole nature of infrastructure, I think there are many ways to consider the multiplier factor 

here and to promote it as part of the equation as to how we value 

these things. And we certainly look forward to working with many 

of you on that opportunity as well as with the Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. That is a great point, and that is exactly what 

we are trying to do here as well. There is an ad on television—and 

I am going to presume it is accurate because all ads on television 

are accurate, as we know. But the one that suggests that—it is one 

of the train cargo companies that points out that they can carry 

one ton of cargo 430 miles for the cost of one gallon of gasoline. It 

puts a very—and I have checked with some people, and they tell 

me that is a fairly accurate statement. But just that idea that one 

ton of cargo traveling 430 miles at the cost of one gallon of gasoline 

exactly makes your point in the sense of the synergies here of lookVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 

ing at where the benefits, economic benefits, social benefits, environmental benefits, all of the issues that you want to be calculating 

when you think about these issues of alternative ideas that assist 

in delivering our goods and services and competing in a global marketplace. 

Senator Hagel. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you, and to our witnesses, thank you 

again for your informed testimony. I want to make a general comment and then ask a question specifically focused on some of the 

testimony that you have given this morning as it relates to European and Asian nations as to how they are approaching their infrastructure and investing and forming effective public-private partnerships. But let me make this observation. 

As I have listened to the five of you this morning, and I read 

your testimony this morning—the testimony was available—and as 

Senator Dodd and I and others have been involved with this over 

the last year and studying it, with the assistance of Felix and John 

Hamry and Warren Rudman and others, it has become clear to me 

that the larger context of what we are dealing with is going to have 

to be factored into how we approach these 21st century challenges 

requiring a 21st century frame of reference. 

What I mean by that is that we are hostage here to a narrowness 

of channelized policies. That is what earmarks are. And the national interest somehow gets sidetracked because who is looking 

out for the national interest? Well, we are supposed to be, but it 

does not always work out that way. 

All of these dynamics are woven into one fabric. Felix noted relationships with our European allies. You specifically noted NATO. 

Well, of course, it affects our investment. It affects our tax structures. And we cannot come at this just in an isolated frame of reference of this is infrastructure and everything else does not count 

or there is on peripheral vision here. 

And I think that is the larger challenge that we have. Obviously, 

we have to focus on the things that Chris and I are trying to do 

in this bill, incentivize and break down these barriers, for example, 

as was noted by David a few minutes ago, States. Most States do 

not allow any kind of public-private partnership investment funding. There is an area. The relationships between States and the 

Federal Government, a myriad of studies that have to go into everything before we can do anything. We cannot site a nuclear 

power plant in this country, essentially, because we just keep getting it tied up in court, and it goes on and on. And I am not minimizing the seriousness of siting of a nuclear power plant that citizens have every right to challenge these things. But until we break 

through this narrowness and come at this in a much larger frame 

of reference, then what we are trying to attempt to do here is going 

to be trivialized and minimized. 

Now, I know that is beyond the ability of this Committee to deal 

with that and all of you, but, nonetheless, to me at least, it is an 

important frame of reference to bring to this as we then start to 

work our way through how we have to proceed and harness the resources that are available. Certainly I think this country represents the most creative thinking of any nation maybe in the history of man over the last 200 years. It is a Nation of laws. It has 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
30 

the right structure. It has great wealth. It has got the biggest and, 

probably most importantly, the most flexible economy in the world. 

I would not trade our position in the world with any country, but 

I think we are losing sight here of how we harness that for the 

greater interest. Talk about schools. I mean, my goodness, we are 

undermining the very foundation of one of the reasons we are a 

great country—public education. 

So I know you know these things, and so this leads me to this 

question, and I would start with Tracy’s and Felix’s answers, and 

anyone obviously who would like to join in on this and respond, I 

would appreciate it. 

How has the U.K. made this work? How have some of these European nations made this work? The Chinese are different, I recognize that. That is a different system, and I am not advocating that 

system. But certainly with the free states of Europe, they have 

made something work here, and they are continuing to make it 

work. And where could those parallels be in what we are doing or 

should there be or how do they make it work? And what can we 

learn from that? We will start with you, Felix. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHATYN. Well, Senator, I think—I wish I could answer that. 

That is a very, very difficult question. I think the structure of most 

of these countries is so different from ours—Germany, with a lender; the U.K., which operates quite differently; France, which is kind 

of frozen with their union-business relationship and the Government. 

So what they have, I think, traded off in many ways is a rather 

freer economy in exchange for more security. So you have rather 

heavy social service systems and a social safety net that goes very 

far in exchange for a rather rigid relationship between business 

and labor, probably more rigid than anything we would think 

about. 

But as I was thinking when you were talking about the big infrastructure projects that are coming up here and that are going to 

require big investments, that at that point maybe you do have to 

sit down with labor as well as business in order to strike some kind 

of understanding about the rules of the game and who are the winners, and hopefully without losers. 

So, ultimately, that is what we did in New York City. We sat the 

unions down with the bankers at the table and the Governor and 

the mayor, and we negotiated sacrifice and benefit, and tried to 

kind of stabilize the two as much as possible. 

I think maybe that is something we ought to look at at some 

point. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you. 

Tracy. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Senator Hagel, I think part of—there are 

several things that intersect here, one in the U.K. and then separately with respect to Asia. If you go back to the U.K., it was in 

the mid-1990s that they basically took a close look at how much 

they had been spending on infrastructure over the previous couple 

of decades. They realized they needed to spend more, and they did 

not have the capital to do it at the Federal level, if you will, at the 

public sector level. And so what they looked for are ways that they 

could, together with the private sector, combine forces. And at this 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
31 

point, there is the private finance initiative, or PFI, as they call it 

in the U.K., which document roughly 700 projects well over $100 

billion that have been done in the intervening years, a lot of that 

with respect to schools and hospitals as well as transportation systems. 

In part, they embraced the private sector because they saw it 

was an opportunity to get capital, and they did not have at that 

time the capital at their own Federal level equivalent or in the 

markets. 

Second, it was an opportunity for them, if you will, to share business risk, both with respect to the operating of the asset on an ongoing basis, but also the startup of that project. And quite simply, 

the U.K. I think would say today that if they had not embraced 

this, the schools, some of the schools they have and hospitals they 

have, they just would not have been built because the business risk 

of building them at the time was, if you will, more comfortably 

borne in the private sector as well as the capital being sourced 

from that. 

China is a different—as you referenced, totally different. You 

mentioned President Eisenhower in the beginning. I would argue 

that China is going through a period right now not that dissimilar 

to what we went through as a country post-World War II as they 

are building their infrastructure, whether that be roads, whether 

that be airports, in order to support a growing economy. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you. 

David. 

Mr. MONGAN. The environmental climate in the U.K. and France 

and other countries is very different than the environmental climate that we have in the United States. If we tried to build the 

interstate highway system today, we simply could not do it under 

our current climate or it would have taken, you know, a hundred 

years to do it. 

I think we need to have the environmental community at the 

table also, along with business and Government, because we need 

to have their buy-in and we need to recognize that they have an 

important role in this process, and they should not be co-opted out 

of it. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you. 

Ron. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. No country is a model for any other country, but 

I believe that every country can learn something from the experience of every other country. The observation I would make is that 

those—China to Denmark, as different as they are from one another, they have two things in common to distinguish themselves 

from us, and that is important for this Committee. One of those is 

they have a national economic strategy, and the second ball is they 

have an investment strategy. And the two things are closely combined. 

We have a school in Washington that believes that we cut taxes 

and hope for the best. We have another school that says we balance 

budgets and hope for the best. I would argue that looking at the 

competitive world that I see, neither one of those schools, or put 

them together, are going to get us down the road. To Mr. 

Menendez’s point, we are consuming every ounce of family income 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
32 

in this country, on average. And we are borrowing it from our trading partners. How is that going to get us down the road? We have 

enormous advantages from where we stand, but we cannot stand 

still and expect the world to line up and allow us to borrow at the 

level that we are currently borrowing from the world. We have got 

to invest money. And if we are going to invest money, we are going 

to have to use many sources for that money, private and public. 

But you are going to have to use some public money from where 

we are right now. 

But to get over the political hurdle, we are going to have to convince the American people that we are actually investing it, not 

simply spending it for a favorite project back home that we call investment, but something that can be certified in a credible way as 

contributing to our country’s capacity to pull its weight in the 

world and exercise its role of economic leadership that only the 

United States can continue to play. 

But I think it starts with a strategy beyond where we are now, 

and it centers on the need to invest the resources that we need to 

maintain the prosperity of our country. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you. 

Janet, did you have anything? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. You know, let me just mention, I think that my 

colleague here is absolutely right. When you look at the headlines 

from other countries that have come up, even from Mexico, for example, from India, from China, their national governments are 

making strong statements about the importance of infrastructure 

to their country, and they are following up those statements with 

real commitments of dollars. 

We have been calling for in the transportation community and in 

the business community for years now a new vision for transportation, for example. But if you look over the last 30 years, there 

are a lot of really great vision statements that have been written, 

and they have been followed up by just hollow holes of no real action. So we do have to make a commitment in this country. We do 

have to say all of the funding and financing strategies are on the 

table. And I am proud to say that infrastructure is one of the 

places where the labor community and the business community 

work together. We sit down every month in the context of our coalition between the Chamber and three labor unions to talk about 

what we are doing on infrastructure, because we all know it is 

about the economy and it is about jobs. And that is one place where 

we can really come together. 

Senator HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DODD. Thank you, Chuck, and that was a great question, and great answers to it as well. Before I turn to Bob Corker 

here, this is what—as someone who has been sitting here with 

Chuck and others for years here, we just do not deal with big ideas. 

It has been a lot of small bore politics for so long, and this is an 

idea that is not new. It has been kicking around forever. And the 

difference is with Felix and John and others over the last couple 

of years, pulling these ideas together, we have got an idea—it is 

not the only one. I should have made note at the outset of these 

comments, Ron Wyden and John Thune have a bill in on a bonding 

idea with transportation, which is not antithetical to this idea at 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

all. In fact, it complements what we are talking about here, and 

I want to commend them for it. This is not the only idea, but it 

is one way to galvanize, I think, attention. 

Chuck said something yesterday in a meeting we had with Ed 

Rendell and representatives of Mayor Bloomberg and Governor 

Schwarzenegger, and that was that what we are trying to do here 

is create a structure—I ought to let Chuck articulate this, but we 

are not going to try and micromanage this thing, but we want to 

put in place a structure here that would allow us to then begin to 

deal with this. And whether you are talking about $60 billion or 

$20 billion or $80 billion, we mention those numbers because of 

what we think we can generate, really put out an idea. The more 

important part of what we are talking about is creating a structure 

that would allow us to begin to deal with this issue on a national 

basis here with the full recognition that we are not going to do this 

through the appropriations process. Just forget about it. It is stupid 

to keep talking about it in that sense here. This is going to require 

private capital to come in. There is great wealth out there that we 

need to attract to bring into this system. And how do you do it in 

a way that allows us to prioritize what these projects ought to be, 

that are national in scope, that deal exactly with the underlying 

economic problems we face? 

So the strategies in economic policies really need to be at the 

forefront. This creates at least an architecture by which you can 

deal with that. And that is the value of this idea more than anything else. And every day we wait on creating an architecture for 

this delays our ability to deal with these questions. So this is creating an architecture more than anything else, and I do not know 

if I am reflecting your views correctly enough, Chuck, but I thought 

it was a very good point you made. More than anything else, that 

is what we are interested in. We are not going to debate and argue 

about dollars here. Too often we get into that argument, and then 

we miss the larger picture, and that is, building the structures that 

will then allow us to be able to do this, so whatever level we determine we are capable of doing at any given moment. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I think the 

two of you have actually done a great service bringing this forward. 

It is a privilege to be a Member of this Committee, especially postIowa. I want to tell you, we have had some awesome topics to discuss here over the last several months, and I really do appreciate 

the focus of this hearing and the ones we have had in the past. 

Because of the batting order in this Committee, I have a chance 

to sort of hear most all the questions and many of the comments 

that are made by our panelists before I ever say anything. And I 

want to say to all of you, I think you have made excellent testimony, intelligent testimony. I know that some of your comments 

have been laced with little political comments that I think have 

been helpful, too. I know the comment about the earmarks is a 

good one. I can tell you as a new Member of the Senate, what we 

do with earmarks is tremendously irresponsible. There is no way 

that we can have any kind of continuum of infrastructure investment that makes sense as long as we do that. And I certainly hope 

that somehow or another we will have the will within this body to 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 

stop that as soon as possible or cause it to be coherent, which it 

absolutely is not. 

I know the Chairman mentioned the stimulus package, and I will 

not pile on any more about that. I am sure that there is a lot of 

infrastructure that could have been built with what we discussed 

earlier. 

I do want to mention one comment before I move to this bill. 

Ron, you made a great testimony. I know you mentioned the Freedom of Choice Act. I was not sure how that played into infrastructure exactly, but since you did bring up sort of a non sequitur, I 

did want to say that I was down in Colombia a couple weekends 

ago meeting with the President down there, who has done an outstanding job. I was hoping John Sweeney would be here, although 

I thought your testimony was outstanding. I do hope that somehow 

or another you all will quit leveraging the House on the Colombia 

Free Trade Agreement. I know that you mentioned the fact that we 

have a trade imbalance. This is an opportunity for us to manufacture and ship goods into our country tariff-free, and it is an embarrassment to our country that that bill is being held hostage. And 

I know that you all are planning a big roll on that, and I hope that 

somehow or another we will solve that problem. It is a tragedy to 

have such a great ally in Colombia and for us to be acting the way 

we are. So, please, with a smile on my face—I was a union cardcarrying member when I started my career and have tremendous 

regard for your organization. 

But on to the bill, I know that the Chairman mentioned that this 

is an architecture bill, and I would like to understand the merits 

of this actual arrangement. Is it because it is off balance sheet? Is 

it because of some of the procedures that Chuck Hagel just mentioned that keep us from being able to move ahead as quickly as 

possible? Is it because of the planning that would cause a bill like 

this to—I am talking about this specific bill. We all agree, and I 

think it is wonderful that labor and business and Government is 

coming together on this infrastructure piece. It is something that 

is important. But the bill itself, what is it about this particular bill 

that we think would actually increase investment? And if one of 

you could actually walk through a deal, take a billion dollar investment and sort of walk through the mechanics of how it works. 

Much of these hearings is about informing us, but it is also about 

informing the public. And if you could walk through an example, 

I think that would be outstanding. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. I will try to answer your question. The first 

overall comment with regard to your comments, Mr. Chairman, on 

the bill and infrastructure in general is that the way we would 

react to it, the way I would react to it, is that you are taking something where we have been playing defense and now saying let’s 

have an offensive strategy here with respect to the investment in 

infrastructure for all the reasons that have been characterized this 

morning. 

To us, one of the great aspects of this bill was it says there are 

multiple pools of capital out there that need to be relied on, and 

to take your question, I will go back to what I referenced at one 

point with respect to Denver RTD, which started off with a $4.8 

billion estimated cost of financing for what is a 120-mile rail netVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
35 

work for the broader Denver area, you know, up to Boulder and all 

the surrounding areas, both light rail as well as heavy rail. And 

when they went to the people of the Denver community, they said 

it is going to cost $4.8 billion, this is what we need from you. By 

the time they could actually start to build the network, that cost, 

for reasons related to inflation, as Ron and others have commented 

on, is now in excess of $6 billion. 

So the first question is: Where do we get the money? And if they 

did not have multiple places to actually get that money from their 

constituents directly, from the State, from the Federal Government 

in the form of grants coming out of the Department of Transportation, and from the private sector, they would not be able to be 

moving forward as they are right now with respect to that project. 

And the nature of infrastructure investing almost by definition is 

a large number—I mentioned the Capital Beltway earlier, a $2.5 

billion project—and there is a role the Government can play, and 

this bill contemplates this, which is not only to give capital but to 

promote innovation with respect to the stated infrastructure 

project, whether that be related to congestion pricing or that be to 

environmental. There is nothing wrong—you could argue that good 

infrastructure policy is good environmental policy for the reasons 

that we described this morning, and this bill is one component of— 

provides one component of where capital could come from inside 

the Federal Government. But I think it purposely says it is not the 

only place that is needed. 

Senator CORKER. Go ahead, Ron. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. I would just like to comment on what is attractive about this bill. from our point of view especially, is not only 

that it allows access to resources that would not otherwise be appropriate, but it does provide a single point of view from which all 

potential investment needs and projects can be evaluated across 

function and at different geographical levels and make decisions 

about it and hopefully have monitoring capability to follow these 

projects through to make sure they are adding the value we need, 

because I think that is essential to—these are big expensive items. 

We have to make sure that we get the biggest bang for the buck. 

We do not want to tax anybody any more than we have to. We do 

not want to tax anybody any less than we have to. But we have 

to make sure that if we spend the money that we are getting something out of it. And I think right now this structure does not exist 

in the Federal Government. There is no such perspective. 

While I am making this kind of comment, I would strongly associate myself with the initial point which Mr. Rohatyn mentioned, 

which is that we have to have a capital account in the Federal 

budget. You could not run a business without a capital account. 

You could not run a union without a capital account. But we are 

trying to run the Federal Government without a capital account, 

and I just don’t understand how we, you know, get down the road. 

But it seems to me this is—what is so exciting about this project 

is it establishes some point of view and a framework for thinking 

about these big expenditures which our country has to make, and 

if it is done right, it will give the credibility that the Government 

now does not have when it says that we need to spend X amount 

of dollars. And hard-pressed working families are saying, ‘‘I do not 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
36 

trust the Government to do that.’’ This would be an instrument 

that would guide Government policy and give the American people 

and the American voters some confidence that the Government is 

trying to do the right thing. 

Senator CORKER. Would one of you just walk through—take a $1 

billion investment in a bridge, and explain to me how a deal—I 

know it is going to—each deal is going to have different components, but how would it actually work? At the end of the day, 

somebody has got to pay the investment back, and it is not unlike, 

it seems to me, funding a project with, you know, Treasury debt 

that, you know, somebody from China is funding anyways. But explain to me how a deal—how it additionally leverages money and 

causes the project to move along economically and in a better fashion? Maybe Ron or the Ambassador—not Ron, but Tracy or the Ambassador might be best at doing that. 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Well, there are two important aspects to the actual financing of, let’s say, a $1 billion—whether it be a bridge 

or road, which is, first of all, what are the—what is the revenue 

stream coming off that infrastructure asset? And is it robust 

enough to allow for capital to be invested in that project knowing 

that they will earn some return or a return, whether that be capital in the form of a public-private partnership or that be capital 

in the form of Federal or State or other money? 

But at the end of the day, that capital has to get paid back, and 

if that project, if that asset does not have an underlying revenue 

stream, an underlying cash-flow—— 

Senator CORKER. Through tolls or—— 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Tolls, so there would be, I think, an easy 

conceptual mechanism. 

Senator CORKER. What would be another mechanism to generate the revenue to pay Goldman back if he invested $200 million into 

a $1 billion bridge project? 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Well, tolls would certainly represent the 

most easily identifiable stream with respect to infrastructure assets 

as we are seeing this, for example, in the Pennsylvania Turnpike 

where a public-private partnership is being contemplated. It is certainly being seen with respect to what New Jersey is going through 

with the whole concept of a public benefit corp, which will, in effect, own the New Jersey public road system, the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State. And as you can see, as Senator Menendez references, there is quite a debate going on with respect to 

what will that revenue stream look like, what will that toll look 

like, and how will citizens become comfortable with it. 

But the whole—one important takeaway is the whole investment 

interest in infrastructure assets is in part derived from a notion 

that that revenue stream will move as inflation does. And, therefore, an investor in that infrastructure asset will be inflation protected, if you will, with respect to the return. And that is in part 

why you see private equity expressing an interest or you see pension funds who are in some ways investing in private equity or by 

themselves interested in these assets. 

Senator CORKER. What is—— 

Senator HAGEL. May I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? In answer 

to your question, tax credit bonds are also one of the mechanisms 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
37 

and incentives that would be used here, too, and this gets into, of 

course, Felix and Tracy’s business. But many of these large financiers and investment institutions could use some flexibility in 

these tax credit bonds to apply where they have large debt obligations and so on, which gets into pretty high level finance, and that 

would be one of the options here as to why—to answer your question, why would something like this be attractive to a large investment firm. And you two may want to pick up on that in any way 

you would like, or leave it as it is. But that is an important part 

of the flexibility of what we would be talking about here, too. 

Senator CORKER. Which that would be created by additional legislation to create some flexibility there, or is there—— 

Senator HAGEL. Well, it is in the bill. It is in the bill itself that 

gives this bank, this infrastructure bank—of course, it is backed— 

it is essentially similar to a GSE, guaranteed by the U.S. Government. We are not changing hands here. We would put together the 

bank under the leadership of five directors. We would put together 

the financing package, the structure of that package and the incentives that the investment or the investors would receive. But it is 

all laid out in the bill itself, Bob, and we would be glad to sit down 

with you and go over it. 

Senator CORKER. So the bank would actually have the ability to, 

if you will, award Federal tax revenues that otherwise would be 

generated by not having tax credit bonds to cause this to work. 

And I am sure there would be some ceiling and floor on their ability to do that. 

Senator HAGEL. It gives the bank the flexibility to make decisions within a framework and a context of what it is legally able 

to do and what it can operate within, what framework it can operate within to make those kinds of arrangements. And there is a 

long list of flexible deals, so there is not one rigid formula that is 

used to attract that investment. 

Chairman DODD. Although we cap it at $60 billion. 

Senator HAGEL. Yes, the overall cap. But these are numbers, too, 

as the Chairman would note, when we first put it together, this is 

just a bill right now. The testimony, I suspect, this morning that 

we heard may well alter some of this, too. I mean, if people come 

back, colleagues, with suggestions—— 

Chairman DODD. We ought to raise that $60 billion. You know, the $60 billion is the point at which you begin to leverage on outside capital. The value of that number relates to what does it leverage. 

Senator HAGEL. Well, Felix addressed that, too. And, by the way, 

as you know, the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee in 

the House, Mr. Frank, is a cosponsor of this bill. So he is going to 

have some input on this, and I would hope that he will have some 

hearings soon as well. But this is just like any bill, Bob, in its initial pages and frameworks and—— 

Chairman DODD. It is $100 billion less than the stimulus package. 

Senator CORKER. Well, you know, I am not going to have any 

more fun with you on that. I think we—— 

[Laughter.] 

But I appreciate your continuing to bring it up because it—— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Senator Corker, I think there is—just to answer your question from a different dimension, there is also what 

is called availability-based payments, which is another way—apart 

from tolling, which is also used. The Port of Miami tunnel would 

be an example of this, where the Port of Miami, not that dissimilar 

to what Southern California did with an asset called the Alameda 

Corridor years ago, said how do we get traffic out of the ports into 

the country quicker, or how do we get it so that it is not going 

through the city of Los Angeles or how do we get it so it is not 

going through the city of Miami. In this particular case, Miami 

said, Where are we going to get the money to do this? And, importantly, where are we going to get someone who is prepared to take 

the risk to build this tunnel. In this particular case, they were able 

to find a French construction firm, Bouygues, who was prepared to 

do it, together with capital coming from Babcock & Brown, to say 

we will deliver this tunnel to you, and if we deliver it to you on 

the dimensions that we and you agree to—i.e., the public and private partnership—then the payment that we will ask from you is 

X. And so that is a case where the city or the State—it is really 

no typical infrastructure deal—would say we will pay you X, that 

is worth it to us, that is a good deal. And I think that raises another aspect of these infrastructure transactions. Clearly, the public-private—Felix referenced—no one is taking these hard assets 

away from us. They are investing in them. But an important asset 

that goes into the—in terms of what you get from the private sector 

is not only capital, but you are allowed to engage into a contract, 

and that contract can be a tremendous value in terms of laying out 

for you, well, what is going to happen to that asset over time, what 

will be the investment, what will be the capital expenditure that 

is ongoing. The Indiana Toll Road would be a perfect example of 

that where the initial proceeds were just under $4 billion, but the 

capital that is prepared to invest by the private sector in that road 

over time is hundreds of millions of dollars. And when that publicprivate partnership is entered into, you know that as part of the 

deal. 

So part of this is making sure that both sides, but certainly the 

public sector gets a good deal. 

Senator CORKER. Go ahead, Ron. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Just in this way, Tracy earlier mentioned a difference between the social return and the economic return. I am 

not sure exactly what he meant, but I would say that you need to 

think about the private return versus the public return when you 

think about public-private partnerships, because it seems to me 

that might be one of the factors that affects what is appropriate for 

the private partnerships. For example, the most successful public 

investment that I know of is the GI Bill, and the GI Bill educated 

these young men and women coming back from the Second World 

War. They were enormously more productive because of that. They 

earned enormously more income as a result of that. And they paid 

a tax return that was a very handsome return, as big as any I 

know, from that program. 

That was not a private opportunity. That was just a pure public 

return. But it came back through the increased economic output of 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 

those people, and it even came back and accrued to the Government, which basically financed that deal through public channels. 

It may well be the case when you are looking at large projects 

that some are appropriate for private finance, and others that are 

very important for the Nation may be suitable only for public finance. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I know we are pressing up 

against everybody’s lunch schedule. If I could ask just one more 

brief—— 

Chairman DODD. Certainly. 

Senator CORKER. On the issue of inflation and the fact that the 

private sector investment over time has great benefit to the private 

sector investor because of the inflation aspect down the road, who 

generally sets the terms? In other words, if you invested X in a toll 

road, you know, you are one-off. I mean, it is just an investment 

that you have made. Who typically makes the decisions about the 

tolls increasing, if you will, and, therefore, your percentage of the 

take, if you will, increasing? How is that normally set up? 

Mr. WOLSTENCROFT. Well, there are a number of constituencies 

that are part of that. Certainly inside the very States where that 

infrastructure asset is either going to be built or exists and now 

there is need for investment in that infrastructure, toll roads being 

a perfect example, New Jersey is right in the middle of this, where, 

if you will, that amount of toll increase is right now being debated 

as Governor Corzine goes from one town to another explaining why 

toll increases are necessary, and very specifically how the revenue 

stream that will result from that can be capitalized in a way that 

that money can then be used to invest in infrastructure for New 

Jersey, either transportation or otherwise. But it is set by the people, if you will, and then there is the private sector who ultimately 

decides is that a rate of increase, inflation or otherwise, that they 

can be comfortable with. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. You all have 

made excellent testimony. This hearing could not be more timely, 

and I thank you for bringing it forward. 

Chairman DODD. Well, thanks very, very much, and let me underscore the point about capital budgeting. I remember 20 years 

ago testifying before the House committees on a capital budget, and 

we talk about this every Congress or two, and nothing much happens. But I want to associate myself with the remarks of colleagues 

and others who have suggested that this is insane that we have 

gone as long as we have without a capital budget in this country 

and the problems associated with that. 

Let me also mention on the earmark issue, I know the word has 

become a pejorative, but it is important to understand what it is. 

It is a reflection of exactly the absence of what we should be doing 

and what this bill tries to do. Most of the members that we serve 

with are not corrupt individuals trying to steal Federal money. I 

mean, what you are getting is a primal scream in many communities about infrastructure needs. And so whether it is building a 

hospital or a school or a road that needs help or whatever, these 

are not bad ideas, necessarily. And the fact that the system is so 

collapsed here that we do not have a process whereby we authorize 

and appropriate that comes forward, but deal with these monoVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:49 Mar 12, 2010 Jkt 050392 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A392.XXX A392

dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
40 

lithic, huge continuing resolutions and the like, that things get 

thrown on them. It is a failure of the system to actually deal with 

this intelligently in many ways. 

That is not to say there are not wasteful programs that end up 

in earmarks, but an awful lot of them are decent ideas coming from 

local communities with legitimate needs that they have out there, 

and our system has collapsed to such a degree that we do not deal 

with it. And so you end up with people who are in a position, people who sit on the Appropriations Committee, to have an upper 

hand when it comes to getting those things included. So we are not 

making intelligent decisions about prioritizing where the needs 

ought to be. It ended up going—if you happen to sit in the right 

position, you get it, but I think it is important to keep that in 

mind. Why has this happened? Earmarks, where did they come 

from and what has occurred around here that has caused this explosion of this particular phenomenon that is occurring. And I 

think it is important to step back and understand that as well. 

And, last, I want to just raise something again. Chuck brought 

this up a bit, I think, in some of your responses, and we do not include this in our legislation. But the issue of how we fast-track— 

we are talking about national and regional infrastructure needs, 

and obviously a lot of what we are talking about here has huge social implications. I was just looking at some numbers here. A third 

of all flights as a result of infrastructure needs were canceled or 

delayed last July because of infrastructure, human, air traffic control, lack of people on the ground. Thirty-five hundred of our dams 

are unsafe in the country—3,500 we are told. Traffic on our roads 

has gone up 40 percent in the last 7 or 8 years, and our capacity 

has only increased by less than 2 percent. So you are having a 

massive demand, and we are not keeping pace with it all. 

I do not know if any of you have been on Route 95 in Connecticut, but if you are coming out of New York heading up to Boston on a Friday, or almost any day, it is a traffic jam, and you are 

sitting there. You can sit there literally for hours. And you talk 

about fuel loss, environmental impact, hours lost of work, all of the 

social implications as a result of a system that has just become totally incapable of dealing with the capacity that has increased it 

all. 

So aside from the cost of having alternative systems that move 

people and what price you pay for that, the social benefits to our 

country, or whatever word you want, social benefits, cultural benefits, other environmental benefits, all I think can be at least ameliorated by dealing with these issues as well, which are critically 

important. But how we deal with the regulatory process in a way 

that would allow for things to move forward—and that is not to exclude people from the table. But you are going to have a problem 

getting that private investment if, in fact, it looks as though it is 

impossible to come to conclusions or that things can be so stopped 

or slowed to such a degree that it does not get done. 

So we need to be thinking as well about how you deal with these 

issues in a way that will allow these large regional or national 

projects to go forward, considering the legitimate issues that we 

ought to weigh, but not becoming such an encumbrance that it 

makes it impossible for these to go forward. And that is an element 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
41 

here that we really have not tried to incorporate in this bill, but 

one that is going to have to be a part of our consideration as you 

go forward. 

The last point I wanted to make, I do not know how many of you 

have ever read David McCullough’s biography of Harry Truman, 

but one of the great chapters in that book is that period in Truman’s life—I forget what the title was in Missouri, Road Commissioner or Secretary of Transportation, whatever it was. But he 

went out, and they were literally dealing with just thousands of 

miles of dirt roads. And he went out and literally went town to 

town, not unlike what Jon Corzine is doing—a former Member of 

this Committee, I might point out—in New Jersey. But he went 

out, and if people know where their dollars are going, the big problem you have, I think, with taxpayers, they see their taxes being 

raised, and where does it go? What am I getting for this? And I 

think if we are—in this area here, if people can see the correlation 

between whatever that fee may be or toll may be, then actually 

how their lives are improved dramatically, economic opportunities 

increase, jobs are produced, the country benefits. People are not 

stupid. You show that correlation and it is real enough to them, as 

Truman proved back with a very resistant constituency, obviously, 

to any increase in their taxes, but was able to demonstrate the economic benefit to that State because he went out and sold the idea 

and it worked. In a sense, that becomes the job of those of us who 

sit on this side of a dais as well. 

The easy answer is to demagogue on these issues and only talk 

about the one-dimensional aspect here without talking about the 

multi-dimensional aspects of what our country can do for our citizenry in this generation by improving the infrastructure needs of 

our Nation. And that is really what Chuck and I are trying to 

achieve here, by creating that structure and that architecture that 

allows us then to begin to answer these questions without relying 

on an earmark system that is going to be the alternative in the absence of a national agenda that identifies this problem and provides the means by which we can solve it. 

So any concluding comments any of you want to make here, by 

the way, on this, our panel? 

[No response.] 

Chairman DODD. Well, you have been great. Great witnesses. 

Felix, we thank you. You have been a champion of this idea. John 

Hamry behind you, sitting here, deserves special recognition as 

well for dedicating the CSIS resources to this. 

Mr. ROHATYN. What about you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator 

Hagel, who have been carrying the ball on this? 

Chairman DODD. Well, we are plugging away here, and I am 

going to sign up Bob Corker. He is going to be a major supporter 

of this bill, I just know it. I can feel it coming. 

Senator CORKER. I love the idea of it. The capital budgeting, the 

planning, every aspect of it I really do like, and I hope that actually as part of this bill we will have a moratorium on earmarks so 

we can actually move ahead in an intelligent manner. But I appreciate your comments. 

Thank you. 

Chairman DODD. This Committee will stand adjourned. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
42 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Prepared statements, responses to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
43 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 50392A.001
44 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 50392A.002
45 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 50392A.003
46 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 50392A.004
47 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 50392A.005
48 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 116 50392A.006
49 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 117 50392A.007
50 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 118 50392A.008
51 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 119 50392A.009
52 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 120 50392A.010
53 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 121 50392A.011
54 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 122 50392A.012
55 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 123 50392A.013
56 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 124 50392A.014
57 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 125 50392A.015
58 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 126 50392A.016
59 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 127 50392A.017
60 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 128 50392A.018
61 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 129 50392A.019
62 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 130 50392A.020
63 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 131 50392A.021
64 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 132 50392A.022
65 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 133 50392A.023
66 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 134 50392A.024
67 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 135 50392A.025
68 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 136 50392A.026
69 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 50392A.027
70 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 50392A.028
71 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 50392A.029
72 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 50392A.030
73 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 50392A.031
74 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 142 50392A.032
75 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 143 50392A.033
76 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 144 50392A.034
77 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 145 50392A.035
78 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 146 50392A.036
79 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 147 50392A.037
80 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 148 50392A.038
81 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 149 50392A.039
82 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 150 50392A.040
83 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 151 50392A.041
84 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 152 50392A.042
85 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 153 50392A.043
86 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 154 50392A.044
87 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 155 50392A.045
88 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 156 50392A.046
89 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 157 50392A.047
90 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 158 50392A.048
91 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 159 50392A.049
92 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 160 50392A.050
93 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 161 50392A.051
94 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 162 50392A.052
95 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 163 50392A.053
96 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 164 50392A.054
97 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 165 50392A.055
98 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 166 50392A.056
99 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 167 50392A.057
100 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 168 50392A.058
101 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

FROM DAVID G. MONGAN 

Under S. 1926 the minimum threshold for a project to be eligible 

for assistance appears to be $75 million and there is a preference 

for projects that can attract private interest leveraging. In South 

Dakota, however, a $20 million project is a big project, and with 

around 10 people per square mile, my state does not have the traffic densities that are needed for viable highway toll projects. Yet 

there are important infrastructure needs in South Dakota that will 

serve national and regional interests. S. 1926 represents a thoughtful approach to helping meet infrastructure needs but, as noted, it 

seems that projects in a state like mine have been more or less left 

out. I’m optimistic that this can be rectified without changing the 

basic approach of the bill. So, I am looking at developing language 

to add to the bill with some type of alternate criteria for projects 

in low population density states, which I may define as a state with 

a population density of 25 or fewer persons per square mile. I have 

the following questions regarding alternate criteria for projects in 

a low population density state: 

ASCE believes that the bill could be amended to allow a federal 

dollar threshold for Bank-funded projects to be set on a sliding 

scale based on population to account for different types of projects 

in states with different infrastructure needs. There need not be a 

fixed dollar amount for each type of infrastructure or for each 

project within a given infrastructure category across all states 

without regard for local needs or resources. The key to the allocation of funds is found in the ratings system that directs Bank funds 

toward projects of regional or national significance, that improve 

the environment, or that promote economic growth. 

Q.1a. Assuming a highway project threshold in such states in the 

range of $15–20 million, what thresholds would you suggest for the 

other types of eligible projects (water, etc.), or should the thresholds all be the same? 

A.1a. The threshold for wastewater and drinking-water infrastructure could be in the range of $3 million to $5 million, depending 

upon immediate watershed needs and the size of the population 

served. Some projects now receive only $500,000 or $1 million from 

EPA grants, but ASCE believes these sums do not begin to close 

the national investment gap. 

Q.1b. If one were to set an even lower dollar threshold for projects 

on Indian Reservations, what might that be? 

A.1b. The threshold should remain the same for projects designed 

to serve similar populations (i.e., rural communities) with similar 

infrastructure needs, regardless of whether they are located within 

Tribal lands. 

Q.1c. Congestion reduction is not an appropriate evaluation criteria for projects in a state like mine. And, as noted, we don’t have 

the population or traffic densities to make leveraging very practical. Assuming that congestion reduction and leveraging were 

made not applicable to review of projects in a low population density state, are there any other criteria in S. 1926 that you would 

recommend be made inapplicable to review of projects from a low 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
102 

population density state, in order to ensure that projects from such 

a state would have as fair a chance of approval as projects from 

elsewhere? 

A.1c. A possibly useful metric for highway construction projects 

could employ vehicle miles traveled per 100,000 residents in order 

to establish a national formula on a sliding scale for the distribution of Bank funds. This would shift the focus from pure population 

measures. 

Q.2. What other suggestions do you have for enhancing infrastructure investment in a low population density state? 

A.2. ASCE is currently supporting the creation of a federal water 

infrastructure trust fund that could distribute money through the 

State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) programs established under the 

Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed 

legislation (as yet not introduced in Congress) would provide assistance to rural and small publicly owned utilities in planning, developing, and obtaining financing for eligible projects. 

In addition, ASCE supports enactment of the Dam Rehabilitation 

and Repair Act (S. 2238), which authorizes the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency to spend $200 million over five years to upgrade high-hazard dams. Although these dams are rated as hazardous solely due to their proximity to populated areas, the funding 

itself is not allocated based on state population. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM DAVID G. MONGAN 

Q.1. As I understand it, under S. 1926, a project is ineligible unless 

it involves a Federal commitment of at least $75 million. In a rural 

state, $20 million is a big project and $50 million is a very big 

project. In rural states, projects can be much less expensive than 

$75 million and still be regionally or nationally significant. To 

avoid excluding projects in large tracts of America from eligibility 

under the bill, I would consider setting a separate, lower dollar 

threshold for projects in a low population density state. I don’t see 

any reason why such an approach would adversely impact the basic 

thrust of the bill. Do you? 

A.1. ASCE believes that the bill could be amended to allow a federal dollar threshold for Bank-funded projects to be set on a sliding 

scale based on population to account for different types of projects 

in states with different infrastructure needs. There need not be a 

fixed dollar amount for each type of infrastructure or for each 

project within a given infrastructure category across all states 

without regard for local needs or resources. The key to the allocation of funds is found in the ratings system that directs Bank funds 

toward projects of regional or national significance, that improve 

the environment, or that promote economic growth. 

Q.2. I believe that infrastructure legislation should be responsive 

to the needs of all the states and must distribute funds, both for 

highways and transit uses, in a way that recognizes the national 

interest in and across rural states, not just in more populated 

states. I don’t see a clear prospect that this could be the case under 

S. 1926 absent a change in the project dollar threshold as indicated 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
103 

above. What are other changes to that bill, perhaps as part of a set 

of provisions for projects in low population density states, that 

would help ensure that projects in low population density states 

have as reasonable a chance of obtaining approval as projects from 

more densely populated states and areas? 

A.2. The bill could be amended to provide for varying Bank allocations based on population, as is the case with current federal gasoline tax distributions to the states. The goal is to provide equal access to financial assistance to all areas of the country within the 

infrastructure categories covered by the Act. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

FROM FELIX G. ROHATYN 

Q.1. Under S. 1926 the minimum threshold for a project to be eligi- ble for assistance appears to be $75 million and there is a preference for projects that can attract private interest leveraging. In 

South Dakota, however, a $20 million project is a big project, and 

with around 10 people per square mile, my state does not have the 

traffic densities that are needed for viable highway toll projects. 

Yet there are important infrastructure needs in South Dakota that 

will serve national and regional interests. S. 1926 represents a 

thoughtful approach to helping meet infrastructure needs but, as 

noted, it seems that projects in a state like mine have been more 

or less left out. I’m optimistic that this can be rectified without 

changing the basic approach of the bill. So, I am looking at developing language to add to the bill with some type of alternate criteria for projects in low population density states, which I may define as a state with a population density of 25 or fewer persons per 

square mile. I have the following questions regarding alternate criteria for projects in a low population density state: 

Q.1.a. Assuming a highway project threshold in such states in the 

range of $15–$20 million, what thresholds would you suggest for 

the other types of eligible projects (water, etc.), or should the 

thresholds all be the same? 

A.1.a. As I noted in responding to Senator Crapo’s concerns, I fully 

agree with him and Senator Johnson that the national infrastructure bank must fund projects in low-population states and regions. 

Regarding the first part of Senator Johnson’s question, I believe 

that dollar thresholds for all projects should be the same in order 

to achieve the best possible allocation of federal investment dollars. 

But if this creates a potential bias in favor of big projects with only 

limited non-local benefits, I would suggest that projects be accepted 

for review if they are of a certain dollar size or are represented to 

have national (non-local) benefits in excess of a certain level. 

Q.1.b. If one were to set an even lower dollar threshold for projects 

on Indian Reservations, what might that be? 

A.1.b. Projects on Indian Reservations should be subject to the 

same threshold and criteria. If Congress were to seek subsidies for 

these projects, they should be separately accounted for and appropriated, preferably as part of the application for Bank assistance. 

Q.1.c. Congestion reduction is not an appropriate evaluation criteria for projects in a state like mine. And, as noted, we don’t have 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
104 

the population or traffic densities to make leveraging very practical. Assuming that congestion reduction and leveraging were 

made not applicable to review of projects in a low population density state, are there any other criteria in S. 1926 that you would 

recommend be made inapplicable to review of projects from a low 

population density state, in order to ensure that projects from such 

a state would have as fair a chance of approval as projects from 

elsewhere? 

A.1.c. It is probably the case that projects in low-density areas— 

for example, rural highway segments—do not alleviate congestion 

to the extent that urban projects may, but they are more likely to 

ease commercial traffic for out-of-state users. That is, a highway in 

a rural area benefits non-local people more than projects in an 

urban area. I think this is a leveling factor in the allocation of investment dollars. 

Q.2. What other suggestions do you have for enhancing infrastructure investment in a low population density state? 

A.2. I also would favor block grants to states for projects of smaller 

scope than those of interest to the Bank. Moreover, states could 

create their own financial institutions analogous to the Bank for 

local needs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM FELIX G. ROHATYN 

Q.1. As I understand it, under S. 1926, a project is ineligible unless 

it involves a Federal commitment of at least $75 million. In a rural 

state, $20 million is a big project and $50 million is a very big 

project. In rural states, projects can be much less expensive than 

$75 million and still be regionally or nationally significant. To 

avoid excluding projects in large tracts of America from eligibility 

under the bill, I would consider setting a separate, lower dollar 

threshold for projects in a low population density state. I don’t see 

any reason why such an approach would adversely impact the basic 

thrust of the bill. Do you? 

A.1. I completely agree with Senator Crapo that the national infrastructure bank should not exclude projects in low population states. 

I would suggest, however, that rather than set up different rules 

based on population density, we develop a formula that establishes 

a threshold federal commitment or purported federal benefits over 

a different threshold. This would account for the likelihood that, for 

example, interstate highway improvements in low-density areas 

would have proportionately greater non-local benefits than comparable projects in major urban areas. I also would favor a population-based block grant to states for projects below these thresholds, which also would help states with relatively smaller projects. 

Q.2. I believe that infrastructure legislation should be responsive 

to the needs of all the states and must distribute funds, both for 

highways and transit uses, in a way that recognizes the national 

interest in and across rural states, not just in more populated 

states. I don’t see a clear prospect that this could be the case under 

S. 1926 absent a change in the project dollar threshold as indicated 

above. What are other changes to that bill, perhaps as part of a set 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
105 

of provisions for projects in low population density states, that 

would help ensure that projects in low population density states 

have as reasonable a chance of obtaining approval as projects from 

more densely populated states and areas? 

A.2. My answer to the first question applies here as well. In addition, I would note that in contrast to low-density states, high-density states will have greater capability to support projects locally. 

For that reason, I would hesitate to create specific carve-outs for 

states in different situations at this point. The point of the proposal 

is to invest federal dollars in the best possible manner, and it is 

not clear to me that, given the changes I proposed in answering 

Senator Crapo’s first question, low-density states would be at a severe disadvantage in terms of unmet needs. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

FROM TRACY WOLSTENCROFT 

Under S.1926 the minimum threshold for a project to be eligible for assistance appears to be $75 million and there is a preference 

for projects that can attract private interest leveraging. In South 

Dakota, however, a $20 million project is a big project, and with 

around 10 people per square mile, my state does not have the traffic densities that are needed for viable highway toll projects. Yet 

there are important infrastructure heeds in South Dakota that will 

serve national and regional interests. S. 1926 represents a thoughtful approach to helping meet infrastructure needs but, as noted, it 

seems that projects in a state like mine have been more or less left 

out. I’m optimistic that this can be rectified without changing the 

basic approach of the bill. So I am looking at developing language 

to add to the bill with some type of alternate criteria for projects 

in low population density states, which I may define as a state with 

a population density of 25 or fewer persons per square mile. I have 

the following questions regarding alternate criteria for projects In 

a low population density state: 

Q.1.a. Assuming a highway project threshold in such states in the range of $15–$20 million, what thresholds would you suggest for 

the other types of eligible projects (water, etc.), or should the 

thresholds all be the same? 

A.1.a. I believe the setting of minimum thresholds is a policy decision best left to the Congress. In the interest of simplicity; a single 

minimum threshold may be advisable. 

Q.1.b. If one were to set an even lower dollar threshold for projects 

on Indian Reservations, what might that be? 

A.1.b. I have no specific expertise to add on the appropriate threshold for projects on Indian Reservations. 

Q.1.c. Congestion reduction is not an appropriate evaluation criteria for projects in a state like mine. And as noted, we don’t have 

the population or traffic densities to make leveraging very practical. Assuming that congestion reduction and leveraging were 

made not applicable to review of projects in a low population density state, are there any other criteria in S. 1926 that you would 

recommend be made inapplicable to review of projects from a low 

population density state, in order to ensure that projects from such 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
106 

a state would have as fair a chance of approval as projects from 

elsewhere? 

A.1.c. Congestion reduction is just one of a series of criteria outlined in S. 1926, many of which should apply equally to projects in 

low population density states—including for example the promotion 

of economic growth, environmental improvement, and mobility improvements. 

Q.2. What other suggestions do you have for enhancing infrastructure investment in a low population density state? 

A.2. The key task for enhancing infrastructure investment in a low 

population density state—as with any state—is to identify funding 

sources to pay for this investment Although the National Infrastructure Bank may provide federal financing support (e.g., loans 

with low interest rates), ultimately any project must be paid for (or 

loans must be repaid with) a funding source such as state tax revenues or user fees such as tolls. In addition, as you know Federal 

law permits the establishment of State Infrastructure Banks to enable the creation of revolving loan funds capitalized by Federal 

grants. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM TRACY WOLSTENCROFT 

Q.1. As I understand it, under S. 1926, a project is ineligible unless 

it involves a Federal commitment of at least $75 million. In a rural 

state, $20 million is a big project and $50 million is a very big 

project. In rural states, projects can be much less expensive than 

$75 million and still be regionally or nationally significant. To 

avoid excluding projects in large tracts of America from eligibility 

under the bill, I would consider setting a separate, lower dollar 

threshold for projects in a low population density state. I don’t see 

any reason why such an approach would adversely impact the basic 

thrust of the bill. Do you? 

A.1. The criteria in S. 1928 establish that the definition of ‘‘qualified infrastructure projects’’ should be limited to those projects of 

‘‘regional or national significance,’’ as this will help to ensure that 

federal support is directed to projects that will have the greatest 

impact on the various public policy objectives defined in the legislation. I defer to the Congress to define the appropriate dollar 

threshold, and to decide whether or not to set different minimum 

thresholds for different types of states (e.g., by population density). 

Q.2. I believe that infrastructure legislation should be responsive 

to the needs of all states and must distribute funds, both for highways and transit uses, in a way that recognizes the national interest in and across rural states, not just in more populated states. 

I don’t see a clear prospect that this could be the case under S. 

1926 absent a change in the project dollar threshold as indicated 

above. What are other changes to that bill, perhaps as part of a set 

of provisions for projects in low population density states, that 

would help ensure that projects in low population density states 

have as reasonable a chance of obtaining approval as projects from 

more densely populated states and areas? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
107 

A.2. I would defer to the Congress on the policy decision of whether 

or not to support smaller projects in low population density states. 

Should the Congress decide to do so, one option would be the provision of technical assistance to help in securing alternative financing sources. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CRAPO 

FROM JANET F. KAVINOKY 

Q.1. As I understand it, under S. 1926, a project is ineligible unless 

it involves a Federal commitment of at least $75 million. In a rural 

state, $20 million is a big project and $50 million is a very big 

project. In rural states, projects can be much less expensive than 

$75 million and still be regionally or nationally significant. To 

avoid excluding projects in large tracts of America from eligibility 

under the bill, I would consider setting a separate, lower dollar 

threshold for projects in a low population density state. I don’t see 

any reason why such an approach would adversely impact the basic 

thrust of the bill. Do you? 

A.1. The Chamber recognizes that that the absolute size of a 

project is not always related to its national or regional significance. 

For example, the Federal Aid Highway Program allows states with 

varying budgets to classify certain projects as large-scale, although 

they may cost significantly different amounts. 

If the goal of S. 1926 is to make assistance available to any 

project of regional or national significance, the Chamber supports 

alternative criteria beyond dollar amount to determine the project’s 

significance and eligibility for a financing commitment from a national infrastructure bank. For example, if a state is the entity requesting financing assistance in the form of direct loans, letters of 

credit or loan guarantees, the size of a project relative to the state’s 

budget, or the potential economic impact of the project relative to 

the state’s economic footprint could be taken into account. 

Q.2. I believe that infrastructure legislation should be responsive 

to the needs of all the states and must distribute funds, both for 

highways and transit uses, in a way that recognizes the national 

interest in and across rural states, not just in more populated 

states. I don’t see a clear prospect that this could be the case under 

S. 1926 absent a change in the project dollar threshold as indicated 

above. What are other changes to that bill, perhaps as part of a set 

of provisions for projects in low population density states, that 

would help ensure that projects in low population density states 

have as reasonable a chance of obtaining approval as projects from 

more densely populated states and areas? 

A.2. The Chamber recognizes that this is a common dilemma in national legislation. There are a wide variety of quantitative and 

qualitative criteria that could be taken into account beyond a 

project dollar threshold. Examples include a quantitative cost-percapita measure and a qualitative assessment of the importance of 

the project to the regional and national economy. An effective costbenefit analysis would need to be relative to size, population 

served, and a host of other factors. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

However, the Chamber believes that a national infrastructure 

bank should be a financial institution that is explicitly chartered 

with providing financing to large projects of regional and national 

significance; by definition, financing implies the need for projects 

that can generate revenue streams to repay lenders or provide returns to equity holders. Therefore, it would meet only certain infrastructure needs and should not be considered a substitute for direct, user-fee based Federal funding through highway and transit 

authorization bills. A national infrastructure bank is only one of 

the tools that could be used to meet transportation and other infrastructure needs. Given the purpose of S. 1926, it is reasonable to 

assume that many projects in low-population density states will not 

meet the requirements of national or regional significance, no matter how flexible the criteria is. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR JOHNSON 

FROM JANET F. KAVINOKY 

Q.1. Under S. 1926 the minimum threshold for a project to be eligible for assistance appears to be $75 million and there is a preference for projects that can attract private interest leveraging. In 

South Dakota, however, a $20 million project is a big project, and 

with around 10 people per square mile, my state does not have the 

traffic densities that are needed for viable highway toll projects. 

Yet there are important infrastructure needs in South Dakota that 

will serve national and regional interests. S. 1926 represents a 

thoughtful approach to helping meet infrastructure needs but, as 

noted, it seems that projects in a state like mine have been more 

or less left out. I’m optimistic that this can be rectified without 

changing the basic approach of the bill. So, I am looking at developing language to add to the bill with some type of alternate criteria for projects in low population density states, which I may define as a state with a population density of 25 or fewer persons per 

square mile. I have the following questions regarding alternate criteria for projects in a low population density state: Assuming a 

highway project threshold in such states in the range of $15–20 

million, what thresholds would you suggest for the other types of 

eligible projects (water, etc.), or should the thresholds all be the 

same? 

A.1. The costs of different types of infrastructure projects are likely 

to vary, and the Chamber believes that setting different thresholds 

for various types of infrastructure is reasonable. The Chamber does 

not have the type of data to sufficiently advise you on specific 

thresholds, but recommends you consult with the American Society 

of Civil Engineers, a group that is well versed in all kinds of infrastructure, and would have the expertise and figures to assist you 

in determining such numbers. 

Projects that are regionally or nationally significant but cannot 

generate sufficient revenue streams to be considered for project financing can—and should—be addressed in traditional infrastructure authorization bills. 

Q.2. If one were to set an even lower dollar threshold for projects 

on Indian Reservations, what might that be? 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 

A.2. The purpose of the infrastructure bank is to take feasible 

projects that can draw private capital, and serve as a lender of last 

resort. This bank is not designed to replace the Federal Aid Highway Program, to be a federal grant program, or to spread money 

broadly around the country. Rather, it is designed so that critical 

projects of national and regional significance have sufficient funding to be completed. The Chamber believes that concerns over 

projects on Indian Reservations are better suited to be addressed 

in the next surface transportation authorization. 

Q.3. Congestion reduction is not an appropriate evaluation criteria 

for projects in a state like mine. And, as noted, we don’t have the 

population or traffic densities to make leveraging very practical. 

Assuming that congestion reduction and leveraging were made not 

applicable to review of projects in a low population density state, 

are there any other criteria in S. 1926 that you would recommend 

be made inapplicable to review of projects from a low population 

density state, in order to ensure that projects from such a state 

would have as fair a chance of approval as projects from elsewhere? 

A.3. Without changing the fundamental purpose of the bill and significantly altering the role of the federal government, some projects 

will remain ineligible for funding from the bank. However, there 

are projects outside of congestion reduction that may match the intent of the legislation. The Chamber believes that the role of the 

federal government is to ensure that national needs are met and 

to follow its constitutional obligation to protect interstate commerce. For example, projects enhancing the connectivity of major 

economic regions to one another and connecting less populated 

areas to economic centers are certainly in the national interest. 

Furthermore, the federal government bears a significant part of the 

responsibility to ensure that legacy assets, such as the Interstate 

Highway System, are maintained and improved and to maximize 

utilization of existing networks. Any of these projects may fit the 

criteria for a project of regional or national significance. 

Q.4. What other suggestions do you have for enhancing infrastructure investment in a low population density state? 

A.4. Every funding option and financing strategy must be on the 

table in order to provide the needed infrastructure in any state. 

Perhaps the single most important issue at all levels of government 

is fiscal stability: identifying stable revenue streams for direct payas-you-go investment or those that can be leveraged for project financing. In addition, speeding project delivery times and removing 

barriers to investment will also expand the opportunity to maintain, modernize and expand infrastructure. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARING
110 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 50392A.059
111 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 50392A.060
112 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 50392A.061
113 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 50392A.062
114 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 50392A.063
115 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 50392A.064
116 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 50392A.065
117 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 50392A.066
118 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 50392A.067
119 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 50392A.068
120 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 50392A.069
121 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 50392A.070
122 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 50392A.071
123 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 50392A.072
124 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 50392A.073
125 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 50392A.074
126 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 50392A.075
127 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 50392A.076
128 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 50392A.077
129 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 50392A.078
130 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 50392A.079
131 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 50392A.080
132 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 50392A.081
133 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 50392A.082
134 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 50392A.083
135 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 50392A.084
136 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 50392A.085
137 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 50392A.086
138 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 50392A.087
139 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 50392A.088
140 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 50392A.089
141 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 50392A.090
142 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213/300 here 50392A.091