5 of all hispanics done by an nbc poll. i understand that you may file a lawsuit against the law. it seems they are not .hallenging the laws for th it is shorter than the health care bill which was 2000 pages. i'll give you my copy of it if you like to have a copy. do you have an opinion as to whether it is constitutional? >> i have not been briefed yet. i'm sure they will put that in front of me at a meeting. >> i have gone through it.

it is pretty simple. it takes the federal law and makes it a state statute. it implements the requirement that the subsection of this law. do you see a differee in the constitionality of a statute of the application of the statute? >> there is a potential for challenging a lock on its base in challenging a lot as it .pplies pitt >> when you think you have an

opinion on whether the law is constitutional? >> i've used this term may not produaa lot. i think relatively soon. there has been much discussion about the review. the department of justice and homeland security is involved in this treaty. i would expect our view of the ball will be dealt with relatively soon. >> you have concerns about the statute. you haven't even read the law. it seems like you and not make a judgment about whether it violates civil rights statutes if you have not read the law. can you help me out here a little bit how you can make a judgment call on that they have not read the law >> what i said i have not made up my mind. i've only made the comments that i have made on theasis on

things i've been able to glean by newspaper accounts. i have not reached any conclusions i am not in a position to say when i have not had a chance to interact with the people. >> it is a federal law that helpsmplement federal immigration statutes. they had the authority to enforce that she. deeply that constitutes? i believe that is constitutional. the folks in arizona seem to me like folks in texas.

the federal government --it is their job to secure the borders. we secured them to -- third world countries secure the borders better than we do. acting for political reasons. we do not secure the border. this is not the first administration that has not secure the border. i hope it is the last. the law it seems should be enforc and it the federal farm at perform its role, ariz. when not need to take these measures. other state talking about the same thing. we would not have to have these measures if the government was in the job. >> today think it is a constitutional quest? >> the time has expired.

>> we have to have a comprehensive look at this. we have to secure our borders. we have to deal with the millions of people who are here in an undocumented way. this is a national issue. it requires a national response not necessarily comic even understand the frustration people fear, but not during the state by state. -- doing this state-by-state. this requires our national government working with the state to come up with a solution, a comprehensive solution. >> california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you so much. i have concerns about the civil rights act about the arizona law. i believe it is unconionable

for our citizens to have to live in fear about forms of identification everywhere they go. it is something people would expect from a cold war country. i know you said you are looking into a review of this lot of you make a final decision. if you decide not to challenge the law, do you intend to monitor the implementation? >> i think we would do that in an case. i do not know exactly what we are going to do with regard to our preview of the law, but with regard to the law and any other law that exists, we will constantly be monitoring it to see if there are civil rights violations and concerns that it generated by the implementation of the law. >> there are also three bosses

that have been filed, -- lawsuits that have been filed. they claimed it was illegal because it [unintelligible] two police officers are suing because it would hinder police investigation and by late the 14th amendment. -- violated the 14th amendment. >> our review is under way. exactly what procedural step we are going to take we have not yet decided. i will need to interact with our team who is looking at the law as it has been conducting this review. we will decide what action we are going to take it any. >> another troubling aspect is that it requires law enforcement to confirm with federal authorities the legal status of anyone that is arrested regardless of the pins. it would take days of the

department of homeland security to honor such a request. if the police decide not to press charges, when it violates the rights of due process if the person were held without charges? do you believe the federal government can realistically respond to all such inquiries? >> that is an interesting question. we are working with apartments -- our partners. that is one question we are trying to deal with. what is the impact of this statue? what is the potential impact of the statute on the feder government that the federal government would be able to bring their? -- there? that is a part of the mix that we will consider in determining what have we will take. >> in 1996, the office of legal

counsel concluded the state and local police lacked authority to obtain individual solely on the suspicion of being in the country illegally. in 2002, they issued a memorandum concluding that several laws and not prevent them from arresting aliens on the basis of civil deport ability. >> i have not read it yet. as we go through our review, one thing that has to be taken into account is the 2002 opinions that you referenced. this is all a part of what our review team is looking at. >> why would you keep that 2002 opinion in forced while it is

under review? >> i do not think that we cld take up an extended time to decide what action we are going to take. we need to understand the statute in its totality and the impact it will have and take into account what policy the federal government has put in place. there is a wide variety of things that go into the determination. i want to make sure we take a comprehensive look before we make a consequential decision. >> ok. turning toward another issue that these doj had some action on is the active negation against the civil-rights

violation. what is the status of that investigation? >> that is under review. i cannot say an awful lot about that. it is under preeti. they have decided not to cooperate with the investigation. that makes our task a little more difficult. it is a matter under way. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes the defects thank you. -- five minutes. >> thank you. he announced that muhammed would be tried in a speedy trial in new york some of us were kind of stunned because of the dcovery that this offered a terrorist and their ability to penetrate

much of our intelligence gathering and the potential of them having a platform before the world, a recruiting mechanism. it seemed like a terrorists interim. dreamnk -- terrorist's produce think i. ihink it is so we could show that the american system was superior. that seems like an honorable commitment. then the administration said if they are not somehow convicted the we will let them go. in an interview with in this scene news -- nbc news, obama declared that mohammed will be convicted and executed. then bore the senate, and you stated "failure is not an option."

i do not know how that undermined our system if we hope that. you and mr. obama must know that he and his co-conspirators are awarded the presumption of innocence and our courts . does the department believe they can defend assertions that the statement have painted a civilian jury or commission to such a degree as to deny them the presumption of innocence? >> maybe i can clear this up when i said the year is not an option, that is not a predicon. [unintelligible] it is a way in which a coach talks to the players about winning the game. that is what i was saying. >> i will give you that. the notion that obama said that he will be convicted and executed.

that is a notio they have said many times. does that undermine our system and afford attorneys the oppounity to say the you tainted the jury pool and we are not afforded the presumption of innocence? >> we uld have an extensive law they would have to go through. the jury pool and not be able to give them a fair trial is belied by the fact that we have done this in the past with high- profile terrorism cases in the bush administration. we have cases that are underway

right now in new york after being handled in an inappropriate way. i think we have done in the past. we can do it in the future. i dn't think anything anyone has said has tainted our ability or impacted negatively our ability. >> he will be convict and executed. you do not think that is suggesting there may not a presumption of innocence? >> from my perspective, i think the lawyers who will try the case our experience. the evidence that we have is good. i am hopeful that we will have a good outcome. it does not mean that i think the ability to say the trial was fair is -- >> respectfully, i doothing you are going to into the question. i think he put a judge in the impossible position of doing what is right for the country or breaking rules of the judge.

the administration is too quick to say this person was water boarded. you have a plethora of options to undermine the trial. everyone knows that. >let me shift gears. you stated that if 9/11 mastermind was brought to the u.s. for a trial and were acquitted that "there are other mechanisms we might have to employ like immigration laws with the possibility of detaining him." were you referring to the patriot act section 236a which allowsor the indefinite detention of detainees? >> i do not -- i am not sure about t particular section. the loss of four allow us to

detain -- laws of war allow us to detain those whore at war with the united states. we have habeas corpus rights. there is the possibility that he cod be detained under the law of war. >> what certification is your beckham plan to protecthe safety of america in the cannot rely on a detention law? what is the plan here if those things felt? >-- fail? >> i have confidence in our ability to trthe case fairly and effectively and to get a good result. there are the laws of war. with regard to mahomet, there are other charges that could be

brght before him. >> i guess time will tell. thank you. >> the time has expired. i am delighted to yield to the new member of this committee from florida. >> thank you. i am delighted to have the portunity. thank you for being i wanted to spend a minute about terrorism and trying terrorists on the prevention, part to go lead the terrace screening data base which i understand is comprised of individuals who are expected -- suspected of constituting relati to terrorism. . .

if you could speak to the government's determination that someone may be too dangerous to board a plane, but not too dangerous to purchase an assault rifle and specifically to clarify the current position on halting gun sales to suspected terrorists. >> decision to want to work with congress with regard to that question about access the people on the terrorist watch list have to obtaining weapons betta i think we have to keep in mind that the fbi as notified when someone on the terror watch list tries to obtain a weapon. there are law enforcement equities could do that is why

that is something that is valuable to us. account the law enforcement equities we have, the law enforcement realities that we now have, we would want to work with congress to talk about the issue -- the very real issue that you have raised. >> attorney general holder,n order to balance these law enforcement inequities, wouldn't it be possible to both prevent those weapons, those assault rifles in particular from being sold to that suspected terrorist while at the same time still deriving thbenefit of these equities and notifying the f.b.i.? >> i don't wan to get into too much with regard to techniques and how the f.b.i. uses actions by certain people on terrorist watch lists and what that leads to, but it is part of the conversation that i think we

should have in dealing with a very real issue. i don't mean to denigrate the issue that you have raised, but the very real issue that you have raised. that is something i think we should work together and try to resolve. >> i appreciate that. i would point out as we try to prevent all forms of terrorism that the terrorists in mumbai that killed 173 people, dozens of those murdered and injured were murdered or injured with an ak-47 and it doe seem, and i appreciate your willingness to work with us, but if we have an opportunity to keep those sorts of weapons inarticular out of the hands of wood-be terrorists, it would be, therefore, possible for us to prevent tragedies of that magnitude from occurring here in this country. and i look forward to having the opportunity to work together to make that so. >> please do not take what i said as disagreeing with your last statement.

there are a variety of things that we need to do and can appropriately do. i just, as i said, would want to make sure that in looking at this question, looking at this problem, that we surfaced all of the law enforcement equities that we have and deal with the very real problem, the very real concern that you have identified, especially in the last statement that you made. >> i appreciate that, general, i hope we have the opportunity to do that soon. thank you, i yield back that time. >> the gentleman yields back his time. it gives me great pleasure again to yield to another distinguished new member of e committee from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. my first question is with regard to drug enforcement administration and marijuana policy building off what my colleague asked earlier. i certainly applaud and get with warm welcome one of the states tha has mical marijuana law and regulates the sale of marijuana.

the memo describing the d.a.'s anu.s. attorneys, i would like you to describe the process of whether individuals are in "clear and unambiguous" compliance with state law. how is that determined? >> people get -- i get tired of hearing this, but it is true. it's done on a case-by-case basis. we look at the state laws and what the restrictions are, what the -- how the law is, how the law is constructed and there are a number of factors in that memo that are guides. is marijuana being sold consistent with state law? are as, are people, are firearms somehow associated with the sale? the are a variety of factors that are contained within the memo that went out from the deputy attorney general that the united states attorneys and

assistant united states attorneys e supposed to apply, supposed to consider when trying to make a determination about whether or not federal resources are going to be used to go after somebody who is dealing in marijuana. >> i would certainly encourage that the question of whether or not it's consistent with state law certainly be left to state enforcement actions. in particular, i brought to your concern in a letter of february 23 requesting t clarificatioof your policies regarding medical marijuana withegard to several statements that were made by one of your agents in colorado, jeffrey sweeten, along the lines of as quoted in the paper. "the time is coming when we go into the dispensary, find out what the profit is and we seize the building and arrest everybody. they're violating federal law." i would ask what steps you mit take to make sure that the spirit of the enforcement mechanisms that you outlined to me in the answer to your previous questions are not

contradicted by the statements of agents that, in fact, then strike fear into legitimate businesses in the eyes of our states? >> it's incumbent upon me as attorney general to make sure that what we have set out as policy is being followed by all of the components within the department of justice. and to t extent that somebody at the d.e.a., somebody at, some assistant united states attorney is not following that policy, it is my responsibility to make sure that the policy is clear, that the policy is disseminated, and that people act in conformity with the policies that we have determined. >> do you believe, do you agree that statements that could be reasonably taken as threatening to businesses that are legal in our state are, in fact, category to your stated policy? >> well, again, if the entity is, in fact, operating consistent with state law and is not -- does not have any of

those factors involved that are contained in that deputy attorney general memo and given, again, the limited resources that we have in our determination to focus on major trafficicers, that would be inconsistent with what the policy as we have set it out. >> den graces, i'm worried about denying immigrants' accesso federal judicial review in light of the arizona law when they will be dragged into state courts in a fashion when the ultimate responsibility and authority regarding immigration is supposed to be that of the federal government. are we worried about arizona courts effectively trying to enforce federal immigration laws? >> that's one of the primary concerns that we have. whether or not the impact of the arizona statute preempts or is -- whether it improperly interferes with what is ultimately a federal responsibility, whether or not

federal law preempts the arizona statute. that is one of the things that we are looking at. >> finally, there is a significant backlog in our immigration courts. i would like you to briefly outline the steps that you're taking toestore fairness and efficiency to immigration courts which have been identified by several studies as a need of reformsnd additional financial resources? >> we have been engaged this fiscal year and next fiscal year in hiring a substantial number of immigration judges, which is one of the problems that we have. we simply need more people to process these cases. we have also engaged in, i think, training to make sure that the people who serve as judges and who are part of the system are conducting themselves appropriately. we have a new chief judge who i think is doing a good job in the training component and we're trying to make sure that he and the people in the system have all of the tools that they need so that our responsibility

with regard to immigration is done in an appropriate way. >> thank you, and i yield back. >> the gentleman has yielded back. general, i believe that we are better as a nation for having a u.s. department of justice, and i think we are better as a nation to have aawyer who represents the american people. i think it is important as i closeo try to give y an opportunity to clarify aew points that may still be somewhat unclear. one is an inquiry that i would appreciate if you would respond in writing within the parameters of that investigation, that is, of course, regarding the hairs county jail when which is located in hairs count texas, there has been an inquiry and a comment of what federal funds

under the d.o.j. could be helpful to local jurisdictions with jail overcrowding problems, impacting mental health issues and the health and security of the incarcerated persons. if i could have that in writing, i would apprecie it. i would like to pursue, to be clear on the record, there are overlapping jurisdictions between the department of justice and homeland security. let me just focus on what the administration is for and what it is against, what position it's taken. has the administration, department of justice, taken any position to be against strong border security, both at the northern and southern border of the united states? >> not at all. we understand the primary responsibility for protecting our borders is a national responsibility, it's one that this administration takes very seriously. it is one component that w think has to be taken seriously as part of the comprehensive view of immigration reform.

>> and if this congress was to undertake what we call a comprehensive immigration reform on the issue of benefits, falls under the judiciary committee, does the administration hold that that reform is mutually exclusive in being strong on its position on securing the borders, both northern and southern border? >> if one looks at the totality of this problem, there are a lot of moving pieces but there is not necessarily tension between them. how we deal with people who are here and undocumted, the whole question of what benefits people have and should have, should not have. the maintenance of strong borders along our southern frontier, our northern frontier as well, those are all things that have to be a part of this solution and the resolution of that big problem does not necessarily mean that there is a tension between the component

parts. >> so fixing, for example, the opportunity for a child not born but raised in the uted states to attend college, for example, which is a problem plaguing a lot of nonstatus immiants is not mutually exclusive if that was to occur, if congress was to move from the administration's position on securing the borders? >> well, yeah. we can certainly secure the borders. then the whole question of how we deal with people who are here illegally and putting them on a pathway to citizenship which is what we had talked abt, which has been talked about i guess in previous congresses. these are all of the kinds of things that we need to discuss. >> following up and on the arizona law and it is my understanding and i think you have made it clear, but i think it's important is there is nothing in your testimony that suggests that you would not read this bill, but presently you have tasked your staff to do a thorough review of this legislation at this point. is that my understanding? >> yeah, i'm old enough now that i don't read things too far in advance and then forget

them before i need to know them. i ultimately will -- believe me, the statute will be read. i will understand it. i will read all of the reports that the review team puts for me. i will meet with that review team and on the basis of all of that will make an informed decision. >> we would not want the record to reflect that america's lawyer did not read either legislation we wrote or legislation that was relevant that was written by any state, but pursuing that question, i focused on federal preearnings and i think my -- preelse, i think my colleagues have probed that, but in terms of the assessment of the ste law, i want to raise in terms of the arizona law, the question of potential racial profiling. i say it in this sense. you don't have jurisdiction over the census, but there are reports suggesting that states like, and there are members of the larger bodies of states, albeit they are unique states,

california, new york, arizona, and texas among others have been impacted negativel by a lot of, should i say, reflectionon immigration in terms of the count. that truly impacts an authority embedded in the constitution and certainly designates to the department of commer to count everybody. it does not put qualifications on who gets counted. on the question of racial profiling, if your team is reviewing this and if you read this law and there is grounds for seeing that this broadly without basis racial profiles, i think one of our members indicated that you might be stopped for a traffic, that is a legal contact, or you might have someone knock on your door trying to solicit funds for the local police department. i don't know if that's a legal contact or not. but if you find that there is a racial profiler which is under

the jurisdin of the justice department, for example, if you find there is racial profiling going forward on pakistani americans, obviously, the pakistani americans or pakistanis have been in the news. i tell you that the community is frightened. what is the position of the department of justice on unfair racial profiling within your jurisdiction? >> well, i mean, i think that first and foremost, people have to uerstand that racial profiling is not good law enforcement. and we should understand that those who want to do this nation harm understand or are trying to take advantage of the possibility of racial profiling. what you see is their desire to come up with people who have clean skins, people who d not fit profiles, people who do not come certain countries, people who come from the united states. people who do not look like what you would expect a terrorist to look like. those are the people they are trying to recruit. if we restrict ourselves to

profiling, we will b handing a tool to those who seek to do this nation harm. so that is certainly in that context. but racial profiling just more generally is never good law enforcemen it has all kind of collateral negative impacts that drive wedges between law enforcement and certain communities. there is no od basis. i have ner seen a good basis for racial profiling. >> and as your staff reviews in particular the arizona law, i would imagine without predicting all of they review, that's certainly an element as you review the arizona law as it reviews the stopping and arresting individuals with sur names and other aspects of that law? >> i think we'll look at the law as it is written, look at the law as it is applied, potentially applied in trying to make our decision about whether or not we should take any action with regard to it.

>> let me also, thank you, just follow up and put into the record some language that i paraphrased dealing with the clayton act section seven. the act seeks to cap prohibiting particular types of conduct not deemed in the best interest of a competitive market if there is ever a question of a competitive market, i think one that we are attempting to have competitive is the aviation industry. as i read the law, and i would like you to correct me if i'm incorrect, it seems as if submissions dealing with aviation mergers is presented to the.o.j., but there is notice given to the f.t.c. if you would either correct that or suggest that it is. if you would give the procedure, if that is the case, as to whether or not the f.t.c. is, in fact, just notified and the d.o.j. takes lead or my question will be whether the d.o.j. would take the lead.

the second question would be -- and i just want this to be further confirmed -- have you sent or the justice department sent a december 2010 deadline for your review of this present merger in particularhat i have mentioned, and that is continental airlines and united. and if you speak just from the law, clayton action section 7 or any aspects of antitrust law is obviously appropriate, is the question of pricing and pricencrease, are those variables that will be under the eye and scrutiny of the department of justice. and lastly, i would ask, and this is a pointed question. i want to pay tribute to chairman conyers who developed an antitrust task force under his initial leadership of this committee showing how important it is that a vigorous review taking into consideration

president theodor roosevelt's initial thought on this process of c glom rats recognizing that we are a capitalistic society. i understand one of his otes is that we have to save capitalism from the capital lists. chairman conyers thought the antitrust was extremely important. we had a task force that we ultimately merged into one of our subcommittees. the question that i know pose that i think someone has asked on another approach whether the is any politics that would play in any decision that you would make on, really, any matters, but in this instance, for example, that one of the parties involved happens to be housed in illinois. all of these comments that are going around and, again, i said to you that one of the c.e.o.'s said this was a done deal. this will be done by -- we see no problem in its completion.

i yield to the general. >> well the justice department has primary responsibility for the assessment of the continental-united mergerant whether it has an anti-competitive impact. there is no deadline as to how long it will take us to do that. we will do the job as best we can and use the amount of time that we need. i can assure you that political considerations will not be a part of that process. as i said, we have an antitrust division that i think has been revitalized it by the woman who heads it. she has been appropriately aggressive in looking at mergers and will do so with regard to this one. i'm confident that we will give this a good, thorough, vigorous look, and make a decision on the basis of that examination. >> let me close very quickly.

i know that you have been very gracious. just give me these last two points that i wish to clarify. and that is a question of national security. and i started out by saying that you have traversed a lot of land fields, a lot of mines, and i believe deliberation is key to being an american and as well the lawyer for america. there is a lot of talk about the initial decision for cleedcleed -- khalid shake mohammed and i complimte the d.o.j. for its declaration and its studiousness. i would like you to clarify that and i would say this, comments made by a president and commander and chief who is also a citizen among many comments that have been made.

the president has the right to make comments because he has the first amendment right of freedom of speech. my understanding is that lawyers go into courtrooms many times around america, in this instance, u.s. attorneys against all kinds of comments being made in the general forum. but that does not take the place of a vigorous prosecutorial presentation, as i understand it. so if you would comment and clarify, again, with the times square bomber whose family members came and encouraged that individual to participate fully, and i think you said there are so many bombers. let me finish the sentence and i'll clarify it. th came and asked him to fully participate and to give answers and that individual was initially questioned under

civilian justice miranda rights and, of course, that was the christmas day bomber, yet the times square bomber likewise provided additional enhanced information. give us your sense that that does not undermine the justice system in this country and the ability to defend the american people against terrorism and doesot show weakness as it relates to national surity. >> the only thing i can point you to is the facts and the history which has shown that the giving of miranda warnings has not had a negative impact on our ability to get information from people charged with terrorist offenses. one can look at the terrorist in detroit, shahzad here in the times square bomber, headley, the person in chicago, all of whom were given their miranda rights and nevertheless decided

to continue talking and sharing information, sharing intelligence with us. there is not a tension -- there is a misconception that people have that the giving of miranda warnings necessarily means that someone is going to stop talking. that is inconsistent with the facts. the facts in the cases that i have just mentioned and certainly what i think you see through the criminal justice system, the determination that peopleake as to whether or not they are going to continue to talk or talk at all to law enforcement is not determined solely by miranda warnings. there is a lot more that goes into it. the rapaport that interrogators are able to make with him they are questioning, the strength of the evidence of the case that we can bring, i actually think that we also have to consider the reality that once a person is given miranda warnings and if that person decides he wants to take

advantage of them and get a lawyer involved in the process, that frequently a defense attorney looking at the facts that are arrayed against his client frequently becomes an advocate on behalf to try to convince that person to cooperate with the government in the hope that a sentence would be lessened so that even where miranda warnings have that at least initial impact of stopping an information flow, it does not necessarily mean that that flow of information is forever stopped. i think that one thing that i would really want to clear up is this whole notion that the giving of miranda warnings necessarily means that people stop talking. that is inconsistent with the facts. >> one final question to you and it's something both of us have spoken about, and i think it's very close to your personal beliefs. chairman scott has worked very closely on this whole issue of

juvenile crime, juvenile justice, and we have managed with his leadership, i believe, to pass this committee something called the promise gram. looking at best practices of juvenile justice, you have a section that deals specifically with the issues dealing with juveniles. if we look at our history over the last two decades, w really have done poorly. we had two 16-year-olds, among others, shot and the killed at a 3-year-old's birthday party in new york. tens upon tens of juveniles have been murdered in chicago. the lacrosse murder at my alma mater, university of virginia, and down in houston, a fine college student at a party shot dead without anyopes of survival. what is the focus of the department as relates to juvenile violence and also the access of juveniles to guns and how can we work together as a

committee and the department of juste and the admistration on this ongoing sickness and violence? >> well, i don't know if you remember that in chicago late last year, there was an incident where a young man was taped, was killed by a gang of young people, a board hit him over the head, the secretary of education and i went out to chicago to assess what had happened there and to deal, just to get a better understanding of what was going on in chica with regard to youth violen. that has led to an effort, very soon the administration is about to announce with regard to how we're going to deal with this issue of proposals that we have, this issue of youth violence in a select number of cities where we're going to try a variety of different things

and see what actually works. when we deal with a problem of youth violence, i think too often we think of it in a microcosm and we don't understand what we're talking abou in essence, is the future of our nation. and kids who can't go to school and feel safe,on't learn as well, children who are exposed to violence, it h negative impacts on their lives as they get older. so we want to try to deal with this problem, exposure to violence, violence itself as what we like to say to be not tough on crime, but to be smart when it comes to crime and to come up with solutions that will prevent youth violence to the extent that we can, but then deal with the impact of people who are either victims of violence, youth violence, or who witness violence. that is also something that has an impact on young people and impacts them as they mature.

>> guns and juveniles? >> obviously, very large problem. the prevalence of guns in certain communities, the possession of guns by juveniles and the way in which they use them is a primary concern. disproportionate number of these unfortunate homicides happenecause too many young people have too easy access to guns. we have to deal with that. >> let me thank you very much for your openness and your integrity and honesty during these hearings. let me as well thank chairman conyers for convening this hearing and for the leadership he has given on any number of these issues that we have addressed throughout this hearing. this will conclude our questioning. i will add that there wl be

potentially, potentially, a number of hearings on some of the questions that members have asked, some having to do with the antitrust question and mergers. i would hope that the justice department would receive the transcripts of those hearings as they might be very helpful in the deliberation for those particular issues. i acknowledge that the general is nodding yes on those comments. i would like to thank you, attorney general holder, again for being with us today. without objection, members will have a number of five legislative days to submit any additional written questions for you which we will forward and ask that your answer be forwarded to us as promptlys you can and that they be made part of the record. without objection, the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of other additional materials including those from the department of justice and i noted for the record that you

indicated you had responded to a number of members including the chair's questions by writing and we appreciate that. i believe the hearing has been a useful contribution to our efforts to help insure that the nation's premiere law enforcement agency is dedicated to being a shining example, not only in how effectively it pursues its cases, but equally in how it respects the questions that we hold particularly near and dear and that is the fundamental question of freedom that is a hallmark of american democracy. today i believe we made one more step toward promoting democracy in this nation and protecting the constitution as it should be. general holder, thank you for your presence here today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> elena kagan was on capitol hill again today when she continued her visits with senators. among the senators, judiciary committee members arlen specter and charles schumer and massachusetts republican scott brown. this is about 15 minutes.

there are about four new yorkers with opinion said the city. t think there is an equal protection of the law? >> thank you, guys. >> thank you. have a good day. >> hello, again.

>> we can go sit over here. do you want to sit here? there were no yankee fans. people say, how can they be from brooklyn in the yankee fan? they better and i was 6 burda -- they left when i was 6. [inaudible] i will tell you one story that relates.

in 1967, they moved into here. there is a guy on my floor. i called him up. i will give the difference. i am working my way through. >> thank you. >> the first inning the cardinals left.

>> you are going the wrong direction. think you want to go up. a supreme court justice is able to combine municipalities. that is a rare combination produced mind -- combination. but they are where in that ivory tower. they do not quite appreciate the practical consequences of their decisions on government and people. i have no doubt that elena kagan will understand that and understand it instinctively. it is in her bones. people forget about what kind. people ask what kind of

practical experience to has. she ran a business of 160 -- $150 million. 500 people. it is a legal factory. she ran it. there were so many factions and egos. she moved into a smooth business by gained in stature while she was there. my daughter was at yale law school. she hopes elena kagan is higher because she is taking the faculty and moving them to harvard. she is the right kind of experience that experience and practical. i think this is a welcome addition. i believe that she is a moderate.

i did to help choose moderation. i do not like it too far right or too far left. i also believe just knowing her and seeing the strength of personality that she would need -- meet a criteria that the president has laid out. she is very likely to be one of four votes and not one of a 45 votes. >> republicans are making comparisons with they oppose their positions from last time. years are also different in a different direction. >> what my problem with harriet miers was that she did not have legal action. when i sat with their and as your questions that i thought

anyone would be a nominee could answer, she did not quite know the answers. that is not elena kagan's problem at all. i always like practical experience. if you had to pick some practical experience that would help the be a good supreme court justice running a law -- a large law schools probably a good one. you have to meet a budget. you have to bring people together. you see the practical effects of your decisions. >> center session brought up that if she is confirmed, there will be for new yorkers on a court. he said, that is a bit too much. your reaction? >> it is the quality of people. that should be the numbers 1 criteria, not where you come from. we do think we have a lot of high quality people. >> i talked about some of the

issues. they were thoughtful. >> what do you think? >> we mainly talked about just to she was, where she comes from, and the judicial theory of being a justice. i think she is balanced on executive power. >> can you talk about the dispute on the funding levels for new york? finish with the supreme court, everybody? >> did you discuss the nominees and threaded the judiciary committee? did she criticize any current members? >> she did not that is something that i have stood for a long time. i told that if you ask him is

the sky blue in the second not answer that because the case make him before him a kiss -- she had to answer the questions directly without jeopardize in her position as a judge for them -- a judge. i think she understood that.

..

will tell the need for investment in our infrastructure supporting rhodes waste water drinking water energy and research. competitiveness and our global economy depends on a reliable and consistent infrastructure. sometimes the funding for such improvements can get bogged down particularly if the project might involve multiple jurisdictions. recently i was at a hearing in hartford connecticut to discuss a new high-speed rail project involving western massachusetts connecticut and vermont. the transportation secretary, our good friend and former congressman braley lahood complimented on getting everyone on thesame page and working together that is too often the problem with the projects no one can think beyond their borders and we will hear today of a great need for focus on projects of regional and national significance. the chinese proverb teaches that

one generation plants the tree and another gets the shade. now would be a good time to lay the groundwork for infrastructure iprovement. with bridges crumbling and boiling water we've received the message america's infrastructure is desperately in need of support. what we now recognize my friend for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman neal for convening today's hearing on the infrastructure bank. as we are all aware the need for additional highway spending continues to grow at the same time the viability o the current highway trust fund financing structure is according to the congressional research service and i quote in a precarious position, and of quote. i think that is a rather generous description even without taking int account the large spending increases in the current reauthorization proposal. last summer the subcommittee with the leadership of chairman neal met to consider long-term financing options for the

highway trust fund. i found the hearing extremely interesting and informative. looking for what the testimony of witnesses on the panels today as we discussed another potential menace to fix the nation's infrastructure needs. as we proceed it's important to keep in mind the national infrastructure bank or any other financing method that we look at for that matter is not free. it would be presumably we would need to be capitalizing this initially. to that extent, it wa used to disperse the total subsidies such as grants or tax centives rather than revolving loans it would also need an ongoing revenue stream. this would result ultimately in higher taxes, user fees or deficit spending going forward. federal guarantee borrowing and lending could place taxpayers on the hook should it fail. we have unfortunate already been down this road in another area of government with fnnie mae and freddie mac.

my comments, chairman neal are not meant to put a damper on the discussion but i think we should proceed with our eyes as wide open as possible and recognize additional spending doesn't come without cost do the line. thank you and thinyou to the witnesses for being here today. i look forward to the testimony. >> thank you. now let me welcome our distinguished experts on the first panel. first we welcome representative rosa delauro from connecticut who filed legislation to create a national infrastructure bank and next we welcome representative peter defazio wizards as chairman of highway and transit subcommittee of the house transportation and infrastructure committee. we are also pleased to have representative dan lipinski of illinois who serves on three subcommittees of the house transportation committee and as the chairman of the research science education subcommittee for science and technology committee. next we will welcome governor ed rendell of the commonwealth of pennsylvania, governor rendell is the co-chair of building america's future. and finally we will hear from

the mayor antonio of los angeles. i will refer to them of the year. we should that alumni association. we look for to the testimony today and thank you for your participion. without objection and the other members wishing to insert statements as a part of the record may do so. all written staements written proposed by the witnesses will be inserted into the record as well. i recognize congresswoman rosa delauro for her opening statement. -- before mr. chairman and ranking member. the members of the subcommittee, and number of the including mr. blumenauer, who have been strong proponents of infrastructure over the years. this is a timely hitting and i appreciate the opportunity to testify about my proposal. it's a proposal along with representatives keith allyson come steve israel and anthony wiener and yes, it is about to create a national infrastructure

bank, and i would also say i'm honored to be on this panel with people who are such strong components of smart infrastructure investment with peter defazio, dan lipinski, mayor rendell and we've shared the podium and stage often times and the mayor villaraigosa. infrastructure crisis are all around. in 2003 the northeast perienced a major widespread black out. we will never forget the broken levee after hurricane katrina were the major i35 bridge collapse in minneapolis. just this month we endured a catastrophic pipe break that shut off water for 2 million people. as human costs there are heavy economic costs. lost opportunities for job creation and economic growth we need to remain competitive in the 21st century. china puts 9% of its gdp infrastructure. indy 500 of 5% and rising. here we spent less than 2% of gdp.

down from the time when we spent 8%. these other nations are investing in 21st century infrastructure while wheat too often are shoring up old legacy systems. we know we need to invest in our infrastructure to move from recovery to long-term economic growth. yet the 2.2 trillion question is how to pay for that. that is how much the american society sibylline shares estimate we need to spend over the next five years just to bring the infrastructure up to an adequate condition. repsentatives of the san impleader and i introduce a back as an important way to supplement other federal programs such as the surface transportation reauthorization which cannot make up for this investment deficit alone. and for stricter bank will be about leverage private dollars for married based projects across the country. the bank would be an independent government owned corporation modeled after the european

investment bank which has been successfully investing in european transportation, energy and telecommunications projects for over 50 years. in 2008, the european investment banks lent $81 billion to finance projects and have a target of $112 billion last year. our proposed bank would be managed by a five member board of directors with public and private sector experience pointed to a six year term by the president with advice and consent of the senate the board would be essential function to issue 30 plus year federal bonds and use proceeds from their issuance to offer loans and loan guarantees to transportation, environmental, energy and telecommunications projects. the board under the direction of the treasury secretary would buy and sell infrastructure loans and securities creating a secondary market for u.s. infrastructure development and increasing investment in these

sectors. under the board would be a ne member executive committee headed by an executive director including chief compliance officer, chief financial ofcer, chief asset and liability management officer, chief loan origination officer, chief operations officer, chief riss officer, chief treasury officer and general counsel. the executive cmittee would handle the day-to-day operations and have finance infrastructure experts that would recommend projects to the board. i am aware of the concern about past experience of other entities. the bank would also have a five member risk-management committee headed by chief riss officer to create financial credit and operational risk-management guidelines and in short diversification of lending activities by both the region and infrastructure. finally, the bank would have a five member audit committee headed by the compliance officer which would work with outside auditors providing activities for the bank as a whole the

banquet objectively review projects, provide financing for those with clear economic environmental and social benefits. criteria for this merit based project selection might include a transportation project ability to reduce surface or air traffic congestion. a water project public health benefit, and energy products ability to reduce carbon emissions, or a telecommunications project emphas on deploying broadband to the ruble and the disadvantaged communities. the bank proposes to capitalized like other demint banks that the united states has helped fund such as the world bank. it would include $25 billion in peaden capital through 5 billion annual appropriations. an additional $225 billion would be available at the call of the treasury secretary to meet the bank's obligation if necessary

with a conservative leverage ratio of 2.5:one. this is what the bank does. the bank would ptentially issue up to $625 biion in bonds. i emphasize the bank that we are proposing would need to be self sustaining, meaning loans would need to be repaid including through users or other mechanisms and a good example of a strong candidate projectas the mayor villaraigosa will tell you is the los angeles plan to expand the l.a. real system using revenue from a half cent sales-tax increase approved by the voter. as the mayor said here before and government loans would enable the completion of the project in ten years and instead of 30, perhaps even at lower cost. again, rug to the to the subcommittee faces challenges identifying revenue stream to make badly needed investment in infrastructure projects across the country. i believe in national infrastructure bank has the

potential to channel private dollars from pension funds, sovereign 12, insurance companies and the like to create the u.s. infrastructure development market that can help meet that need. calpers spaight 700 million infrastructure commitments and is looking to make more. and so doing has the following path pension funds and australia, canada and europe. so the money is out there. even despite the downturn. we need to make sure that gets put back to work for america. our proposal has been endorsed by mayor bloomberg, the concept of the proposal has been endorsed by mayor bloomberg, governor rendell and schwarzenegger build aerica's future as well as the national governors' association, by the civil engineers, the u.s. chamber, by labour organizations that have support from across the spectrum of business and labor and has been co-sponsored

by about 56 of our colleagues including members of this panel. bye supplementin existing federal programs, this bank could provide crucial revenue to the infrastructure projects that will improve our lives, lead to job creation and long-term economic growth. the kind of growth amerca needs to remain competitive in the future. final comment. this nation was built on a brick, mortar and fiber optics with a vision even in difficult economic times and if these kind of efforts, the transcontinental railroad, the road system are all built with public investment which created enormous economic growth in the nation and we need to begin. i think the committee very much for asking me to be here. >> thank you. i'm glad you mentioned the transcontinental railroad. that was a man of massachusetts who met lincoln bluffs on the

web. the german recognizes mr. defazio. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member for holding this which as i understand is the third hearing on the need for additional funding for infrastructure in the u.s.. i am not going to reiterate or bore you with the statistics on the incredible state of disrepair of our current infrastructure. but the gentlelady that spoke before me, ms. rosa delauro has spoken with great passion and i endorse the idea that she's put forward. there is tremendous merit in having this as a part of the solution of a well constructed and for stricter bank could meet the needs of state and local jurisdiction across the country in rebuilding or building out

new infrastructure and assisting them in getting their reasonable and flexible financing and i believe it can be constructed in such a way as to protect the taxpayers of the united states would be providing the guarantee particularly with the collapse or the difficulties in the bond market today. it's very expensive to go forward with public infrastructure projects in the existing commercial market without some guarantees i would certainly recommend the committee looking at the experience of the buy america law bond and the unbelievable demand that's out there and the amount of work accomplished. and as she said also, this would provide a tool for this in place today to the mayor villaraigosa of los angeles would be moving forward with the most ambitious construction of transit proects

for heavily congested urban area in memory. it would be not only tens of thousands of people to work indirectly in construction and engineering. it would stimulate our manufacturing sector with orders for made in america unlike real and streetcars and transit and a host of things and were this to be replicated across the country i would be a tremendous benefit. so i recommend it to you on those terms and the unique thing about los angeles in is case is the of a revenue stream so what they are looking for is a way to leverage that and complete the product more quickly rather than spending the revenue stream overtime and an infrastructure and would be unique and helpful in that matter. but i can't leave without saying this isn't a solution to the

huge problems we have an infrastructure into the united states of america. if we just look at transportation 160,000 bridges on the federal system in the ether of replacement or substantial repair. 60 billion-dollar backlog in the legacy transit system for capital and investment. some 40% of the road surface in poor or fair condition causing accidents wasted fuel causing costs to motorists and truckers for repair to the vehicles. it is a disinvestment doesn't come without extraordary cost. the lost time for those engaged commercial movement of freight on the system, the detour, that hurts american business and our competitors and we must invest. so, we have to do more than an

infrastructure bank. the infrastructure bank will work well with projects that will have a revenue stream. we will not told the entire interstate system in the united states of america and fall of the 160,000 bridges we need a separate and dedicated source of revenue to undertake the projects. there is no transit system in the world tht makes money. if you don't have an externals or additional way of paying for the bond as does los angeles with its sales tax increment which is extraordinary in the environment that got past, the most transit systems would not be able to bail themselves. so i would redirect and direct the committee's attentin to the need for additional taxes and i will use the word taxes or fees because there is a huge cost and not making these investments. the committee has held hearings

on this and i think the idea which has the most from a non-scientific assessment talking to people and members of congress is taxing oil by the barrel for every dollar of tax we would raise 24 billion dollars over the term of the transportation bill. when you raise the tax on a barrel oil it is possible opec will ve to eat some of it or bp or exxonmobil. bp rought back $50 billion worth of stock in the last couple of years. they could not necessarily pass on the tax on a barrel of oil directly to the consumers on like a retail tax at the pump. and the speculators and others are engaged. so the cost could be spread. but the benefits would be phenomenal. so i would urge the committee to

continueto consider that option. the other id would be to index the gas tax since 1993 we've lost 40% of the purchasing power of the federal gas tax. gas tax hasn't been increased and if we were to index it for future construction cost inflation, get estimates from the cbo and then use that to finance a ten year bonds we could get somewhere between 40 to $60 billion of the highway trust fund and i would also recommend that to the committee. so i would recommend an infrastructure bank and recommend other sources of funding. we are going to need everything we can to bring together to begin to rebuild our legacy systems and build a 21st century infrastructure the united states of america to make us more competitive, more healthy and more fuel efficient. i think the committee for its attention to this matter. >> thank you, mr. defazio.

the chair wil now recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. lipinski. >> thank you, german neal. ranking member, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this morning's hearg. given the enormous need for infrastructure investment across the nation, i commend you for considering new ways to bridge the existing gap of the funding for the products critical to the nation's future. and i want to commend ms. rosa delauro for her proposal for infrastructure bank's. i know that there are different ways to structure such a bank including questions about funding and eligibility. eligibility for which entities will be eligible to participate in the bank and what projects will be eligible. i want to focus mostly on the of eligibility and as chairman neal said it's good to have different ideas, going to put out a lot of ideas about what may be eligible

and why you would be good. before i begin my want to emphasize the innovative proposals such as this should be viewed as a potential piece of a comprehensive solution for providing adequate levels of funding for infrastructure projects. if this were the only step we took we would still fall far short of the investment the nation needs. one of theinfrastructure banks play a role moving projects forward many major critical projects may never be able to generate the revenue needed to ray the loan. this is a plan that must be considered instructor and financing mechanisms infrastructure links considering the extent to which the bank could fulfil the nation's infrastructure need. chairman neal said the american society of civilengineers said we need to invest $2.2 trillion over the next five years to bring the state of the country public infrastructure a pretty good condition. in order to begin their resting

the surface transportation infrastructure needs the house subcommittee on highways and transit shared by mr. fauzi yo passed the blueprint of the transportation authorization act last june. in july chairman jim oberstar and mr. defazio to supply in the subcommittee regarding potential mechanisms to fund the $500 billion legislation. today we are still challenging the mechanisms we can agree upon. america needs us to get that answered. the sooner, the better. because a multi year bill which is already overdue is the best way to put people back to work quickly while making the long term investment the country so badly needs. but even when we complete this bill we will still have much work to do just on surface transportation. that is one reason why considering options like the national infrastructure bank is selling for hm.

to fund infrastructure state or local governments often ned bonds which carried with them higher costs because overhead and risk. if they can even get these. infrastructure from states saves another infrastructure developer would get financing options that could allow projects to be built at lower-cost. but the need to invest in infrastructure spans far beyond surface transportation. aviation, drinking water and waste water, energy communication infrastructure all the areas where the infrastructure investment is needed. we may even want to consider it infrastructure banks for financing projects such as exploration of components of the next-generation air transportation system, next-gen, are positive train controls, ptc that would increase the safety and efficiency. finally, as the chairman of subcommittee on the research and

science education and science and technology committee i want to raise infrastructure needs for research. e 2005 survey of the science engineering research facilities found academic institutions were $3.5 billion in the renovations. a heari in the meeting with academic leaders in on the country, i ve consistently heard these gotten much worse during this concession. this under investment means we are spending billions f research dollarand efficiently. but even worse it means we are in danger of losing the position as the worldwide leader of science innovation to the countries such as china. the america competes fact that we are considering on the house floor will help address some of this issue. but certainly there will be ore that needs to be done with infrastructure. and infrastructure bank can help the problem. especially when it comes to the infrastructure. we are at a point where advancement of computing power

networks are revolutionizing data intensive fields like medicine and ecology. we need to be making investments that go beyond the current generation of broadband deployment and build the infrastructure we need for the remote education, collaboration and data analysis. i encourage the committee to also consider the projects as target's for infrastructure bank if we want to be successful in the increasingly competitive global economy. thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. >> thank you, mr. lipinski. at this time i would like to join yield to the gentle lady from pennsylvania ms. schwartz for the next witness. sprick this will be a short introduction of the why of known governor randol a long time so i could go on a. let me just say that i am very pleased governor windel is here not only on behalf of the commonwealth of pennsylvania. he hasbeen a governor that has led the commonwealth on economic development nd has been in the forefront of both the state and

national the really the kind of infrastructure using the were broadly that leads to economic diplomat and will lead us to the economic competitiveness we want as a state and a nation. he speaks today not only on behalf of pennsylvania but on behalf of the governors and the joint, i'm going to ensure its worldwide as the co-chair of building america's future which he is the co-chair and has been a leading place in the need to make the kind of investment in our infrastructure across the country to enable us to be the growing international economy we need to be. so i welcome governor rendell to the ways and means committee and revenue committee and look forward to his testimony. >> governor rendell is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and ranking member. let me also, i would be remiss if i didn't think you for the passage of house bill 4849. congresswoman shorts talks about

economic to go ahead. 4849 was extraordinarily important. private activity bonds and new market tax credit have been used to great advantage economically in pennsylvania and your bill protecting from the amt was extraordinarily important. secondarily, build america's bond we need to extend what has been an extraordinarily successful program. >> with all due modesty let me take credit for those provisions. [laughter] >> pennsylvania went to market in december and so $900 million backed by building america bonds has 3.1% interest the lowest the commonwealth has sold general-obligation bonds since the 1960's to it in part due to the good debt rating but in part due to the building america bond program. it's an extra night program and ought to be extded and the senate ought to move quickly to about 4849. it's a pleasure to be here today to talk about the infrastructure bank and we do support the

concept embodied in the build americs future supports the concept embodied in the congressman rose of the laura's bill that's a good framework. let me say i want to repeat the question of need. you heard those. let me begin by saying infrastructure isn't a panacea. congressman defazio is absolutely right. it's rt of the broader problem. and we as a country have got to come to grs with the broad problem. we need in my judgment a decae-long infrastructure of finalization program which will do much good for us in terms of a substantive need a transportation and all other parts of the infrastructure. but more importantly is the single best job creator that this congress can do for the american people it's also the single best thing to bolster flagging american manufacturing and ladies and gentlemen if we don't do something about american manufacturing soon there isn'tgoing t be any american manufacturing.

let me give you a few statistics from pennsylvania. we were pleased to receive a letter from congressman oberstar saying pennsylvania is the second best state of the union spending its transportation funds. we've got $1.2 billion under contract. 99.7% o the money given to us under the stimulus. and you talk about small business -- and i know the committ is interted in small business. of the 1.2 billion let me give a brief idea of what the impact is on small business. $993,000,000.2 prime contractors, under contract. 67% of that went to businesses with less than 100 employees. 230 million went to subcontractors. 87% of the contracts went to businesses with less than 100 employees. we have a tendency to think of manufacturing construction activities as big business activities.

they are not. the best remedy for all business, the best remedy for the american economy is a significant infrastructure revitalization program. and by the way, the american people agree building america's future took a toll and found 94% of americans think infrastructure is important. 81% of americans are willing to pay additional taxes if we change the way we allocate transportation and infrastructure dollars. and we took a second poll very recently. we employed frank luntz because we didn't want anybody to think that we were cooking the books so we employed frank luntz and 61% of republican and democratic alike believe the federal gas tax is the next translation to read and they are willing to accept that. 61% of americans. let me just give you an ea what this does for american manufacturing. we did atudy in pennsylvania

of the increase in manufacturing orders and i think congressman schwartz goes about this to read the first ten months of the stimulus there were 4300 additional tons of steel ordered. of 43 increase. over the previous year when there was no stimulus to read 3.5 million tons of asphalt, 44% increase in the asphalt that was ordered. 440,000 cubic yards of concrete. 50% increase in the concrete that was ordered the year before. so if you want to get the economy going and do something to bolster the american manufacturing let's do this. what part does the infrastructure play? and important because you can bring additional funds into the mix. private investmt is leading for a vehicle to invest in infrastructure. the infrastructure bank can be the perfect entity to leverage

private funding. the man who saved new york, the finance your that saved new york sent me a letter to give to the kennedy talking about how important it is and how we can leverage private investment. he believes there are foreign funds would invest the american infrastructure and he's going to france next week to meet with several foreign funds about the very subject. we do need to capitalize it and spend some government money on the and for stricter bank. but the infrastructure bank can have tools that will help without spending one federal dollar. credit enhancement, loan guarantees. those things are important. they will work without the expenditure of a single federal dollars in most cases. not in all cases but in '95, '96, '97, '98% of the cases. i do believe as congresswoman rosa the lauras that we have to catalyze the bank. her figure is right. i would double that and to 50 billion. the bank has to have its own

bondng capacity. ytd de banque because there really is no vehicle in the kuran transportation system for funding multistate prjects of national significance. we have in the short time because of arra the tiger brands and tiger gransta into consideration funding some projects power multistate. pennsylvania was on two projects funded for the rail freight that have a stake six and five states respect to the freer to do a high-speed national rail system we can do it state-by-state because you ve to have one consistent method witter it is maglev or other high speed and can only be financed through a thing like this. the public will support it because the bank will be transparent. will be merit based. there will be product review and st-benefit analysis and experts making the judgment. this congress lose its power?

of course not. in this bill you can set allocation formulas between waste water and water, between transportation. you can set the criteria the bank must consider and rank projects on a. there can be congressional oversight of what the bank does and ranking member tiberi is right about the loss of federal dollars. but if you eiv, european investment bank, when you have he private sector involved, namely ensure the projects invested are good products, sound projects and are not going to be felt. there are ways of doing this and of protecting the federal dollars. but can bring all of this together in such a way that we can help, absolutely help just by allowing us to use the treasury interest rate as opposed to normal interest rates. that will help make projects doable that previously were not dole. that doesn't cost the federal government any money in fact we

get a rate of return so the banks capabilities are i think with the bank can do for us is very difficult to understand. it's necessary. we have got to move quickly to get this done. but again, i reiterate what congressman defazio says. let's get together and figure out a long-term way to finance the infrastructure needs of this country. the american people would support it. as congresswoman schwartz has said we've done it in pennsylvania to a great degree. and people are supporting it. t's one of the reasons pennsylvania probably has the most robust economy, not a good economy but the most robust economy of any large industrial >> thank you. i invited congressman the sarah to introduce the next guest. he was busy at a leadership meeting but indicated to me that he should be described as a good guy. [laughter] neyer villaraigosa.

>> thank you, chairman neal. a great pronunciation by the way. a ranking member tiberi and members of e subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. it's indeed an honor to be here with america's preeminent advocates for and infrastructure investment here in the united states and your leadership supports an interest in transportation infrastructure are crucial to the future of the country. and yourocus on leveraging federal invement comes at the right time. i don't have to tell you american cities continue to grow and as we grow we are struggling with congestion and burdens our economy and increases the cost of goods movement and affects the mental and physical house to veto health of the community. the same time we are facing staggering unemployment. in los angeles, the unemployed in every case at 14%.

in the construction trades that number is about 35%. we believe it is a way to address oth issues head-on through an innovative federal and local partnership. now i don't have to tell any of you as you have visited my city you know it is famous for being the car capital of the world. this also makes us the most congested city with some of the worst air quality in the country. though we are doing something about investing in carpooling, synchronizing traffic signals and most importantly investing in public transportation. our current transit program cludes the construction of 12 major new lines over the next 30 years. we will double the system in that time. however overall goal was to connect the communities where we live with a major job centers of the region. building these projects will create 166,000 high-quality construction jobs. 2800 permanent operating and maintenance jobs. it will take 570,000 pounds of

pollutants out of the air each year, save 10 million gallons of gas per yea and increase transit board by 77 million. it will secure our energy future by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. we can pursue such an aggressive and far reaching transit program because of the measure. the measure was approved overwhelmingly by 68% of te voters on a bipartisan basis. one among every demographic group and every part of the company in the midst of an economic recession. we were able to make the case this isn't just a tax it was investment on the future, an investment in the creation of jobs and the public house and moving the goods and people in the second largest city in the united states of america. measure r is a 30 year

transportation sales tax but it's also the third transportation sales tax approved by the voters. measure or a loan will generate $40 billion of ew revenue to cover the three local sales taxes generate almost $2 billion in your money that we are investing in transportation infrastructure. now, we have a unique opportunity to build transit projects sooner and create the jobs and capture the environmental benefits in the future. we want to build our transit project in ten years instead of 30. we call our exhilarated plant fi 3010 initiative. it is 100% consistent with consensus transit program adopted locally and approved by the voters. it accelerates the tait program, acelerating the transit program will save billions of dollars, reducing the cost from 17.5 billion to 13.7 because by accelerating these projects in the tenure

period instead of the out years we are reducing the increased cost in construction that we project over time it would cost. we also believe it would cut costs even further by taking at vantage of markets. currently because of the unemployed and a rate in the construction industry because of the down market we are seeing that in the city 20% reduction and that the state it's even higher. at the metropolitan authorities in the middle between us. it's between 20 to 30% -- 27% reduction in cost because of the down market. we also think we can to get a vantage of the public-private partnerships for design and constructi. right now we are working to identify funding strategy to build the projects even sooner the feasibility of existing federal programs such as tiger

grants but there is insufficient capacity current to accommodate the 3010 and a shift. we also follow with great interest and unequivocal support recent proposals for establishing the national infrastructure backed by representative rosa delauro and senator crist dog and i noticed you mentioned the folks have gotten behind it add me to that because it is one of the many tools we need right now to make the kind of investments of infrastructure that will have the economic benefits online. likewise we've noed the president's fiscal 2011 budget proposal to establish a national infrastructure innovation and fince fund designed to assist jor investments of national regional significance. each of these programs would substantially expand federal lending capacity beyond the existence of the levels. we support in the approach that can provide lendable funds of the same rate of a flexible terms as the existing tpia

program. we also believe there is a special opportunity through in infrastructure precourt fondital allocate new congressional the authorized tax preferred bonding authorities for transit investments much as the denver schools. we ought to do itfor transportation as well. together an expanded tipia stifel critical demand targeted specified tax credit bond program for the transit investments of the national significance would make 3010 possible. the specified new tax credit bond program could be administered by an infrastructure bank. one to end with this. i was the speaker of the california state assembly i guess now a little more than a decade ago. when i was the speaker it was actually a time when california had some money. but everybodycame with their hand out. and i would say to the mayors and i would say to the local officials to come to me if it is such a great idea, how much

money are you putting up? and what we did it through those exercises is we expanded and leverage with the state was willing to do by encouraging and incentivizing the local jurisdictions to invest their own money as well. when you look at what we are doing here we are not only are doing for the infrastructure investments that have been made on the federal level. we are seeing is a template for the future at a time of spiralling deficit and stored debt that mr. tiberi, ranking member tiberi talked about. that is in those times we have got to encourage local governments to put their own money. we have done that. this i believe on the vice president of the u.s. conference of mayors i am suggesting for my colleagues this is a template. we know that local bonds, local taxes are preferable to the

electorate. they trust local coverage higher degree than the to the state or the federal government. and to the extent that we can encourage the locality to make these kind of investments, this kind of partnership with the federal government will only leverage the kind of resources that all of the speakers have spoken to that we need if we want to compete with china and compete with europe in terms of the kind of infrastructure investments we need to make. and so i would humbly ask you to consider all of these things as you address the issue of whether or not we need a national infrastructure bank and as has beenmentioned other tools to make these kind of investment. thank you. >> if i could add quickly that is the duty of the bill america bond. federal government guarantees one-third of the interest-rate payments with state and local government have to put up the rest. so it is something where we

leverage all of the governmental funding together. >> thank you, governor. there are airports across the country rht now that are expanding exponentially because the built america bonds. it was weld met by mayors, governors and people of a variety of political opinion. governor, let me raise this question because i think the mall that you have poken to is entirely pertinent. i'm curious as to you how you got your bloomberg and schwarzenegger to form the coalition. what have you seen at the local level cost you to take this and what impact on jobs do you foresee as we move forward to fund infrastructure but emphasizing the fact that you have a i believe republican governor and independent mayor and a democratic governor as well to put the coalition together? >> back at the beginning of 2008 when we formed the coalition i was looking for other public officials who had potentially put their money where their

mouth was and governor schwartz and maker had gotten a significant bond issue passed by the california infrastructure and mayor bloomberg probably has done more for the new york city infrastructure than the last five or six before him. so we reached out to them and was a unique coalition because of the political affiliation of the three, one independent, one republican and one democrat and we thought alike that this is an imperative. this is not a question of should we. the answer is we have to so we built the coalition and its our long-term goal to convince the country to do just what the congress and defazio said to make amajor and significant investment in doing this and i'm not surprised that people of los angeles even in these difficult times voted to increase their taxes to fund what they viewed as an important and for structure development. the american people are way ahead of us and way aead of the

politicians, state, local and federal. they understand the need. infrastructure is something they can touch and feel and se. they can experience. if you give someone back one hour of their life by getting them out of control and to and from work what is the value of that? it is significant. so i think tat our ability to act if we act forthrightly and courageously portability to solve the problems exists. we have to be innovative and creative and the infrastructure bank is a model for doing that but we can get there. i just think it is a question of whether we have the political will and i think this is easier in terms of public perception than anybody thinks. we have senator inhofe who is one of the more conservative embers of the united states senate said when i appeared before his committee where he is the ranking member he said he believes infrastructure spending is the second most important thing the federal government

should spend money on behind the fence. and i believe we can fashion a bipartisan coalition to invest in our country's infrastruure to build jobs. you know the statistics better than i do. 25,000 jobs for $1 billion of infrastructure spending. even if that is 50% and weighted it is still 12,500 great paying jobs and i know people have a tendency to prove through construction jobs as temporary but if we id a tenure revitalization program those are not temporary jobs. they become the foundation of the america revitalized ecnomy. >> thankmr. chairman toave one comment to that becausei think the governor talked earlier on about american manufacturing. one of the things that happened to this great country is we don't build anything anymore. we consume. and we have sensible building in the technology to other

countries. and in that respect, this effort of the kind of jobs that can get created and in addition to the longerm construction jobs and revitalizing and laying the foundation for economic growth you are looking at new technologies whether you are looking at environmental infrastructure, energy and for stricter, telecommunications, water, it is a vast new system of a technological breakthrough that once again could put the united states on the forefront of the cutting edge of technology recapturing what our past history has been in this area. that creates a new and different jobs and opens it up so we need to be quite frankly thinking out of the box in the way that the past others have and watching

this nation grow and become economically prosperous and creating a middle class of people who can sustain themselves economically for themselves and their kids and into the future. today, we are looking at only short-termmeasures and that is what we need the short term measures and the combination of what my colleagues he been talking about with regard to supplementing what already exist with an infrastructure bank to put us on a path to a plan for the future and once again revitalizing the technological base of manufacturing base and again, this long-term sustainable growth and prosperity. >> we thank the gentlelady. i alerted we will have seven votes on the floor and those will be the final votes of the daso i would ask indulgence of the committee as we proceed to the questions along. mr. mayer, your experience with asking the voters to raise the

sales tax is fairly unique and certainly courageous and the reminder there is an element of american public life that is faithful to every ground breaking for been cutting and faithful to opposing every expenditure tell us how you did. >> we went out linked to go to every part of the county as you know i represent a city of 4 million. i county 10.5 million. we got a bipartisan support for the measure. we made sure that the projects were identified the people would vote on that represented the need of the entire region. i think the fact frankly that we have as much people were bought into this for those reasons as well and then finally we said to

them there would be some oversight about how we spend the money bause the concern is we are going to tax and how do they get killed and how we make sure they get built so there is an oversight committee that looks at that will oversee how we spend this money. >> thank you. but i recognize mr. tiberi. >> thank you. just a question for the governor and the mayor. over the last year we have heard from -- let me back up. we have heard over the last year that we need more revenue with respect to transportation infrastructure and with respect to the highway trust fund. during the last year we heard from secretary lahood and we heard from president obama that now is not time to raise the gas tax. mr. governor, mr. mayor, do you agree with the president and of all, why not?

>> i am not speaking for build america's future right now because that is an issue that like many your wresing with but in my n and, for my own part i think the federal gas tax should be increased, number one. number two, we will submit both poles to the committee. the american people believe it is indexed for inflation. 61% you can hardly get 61% of amerans to agree on anything these days. 61% believe it is in the inflation. i told the would be an additional seven or eight tenths right now if it had been indexed for inflation. i think the public understands infrastructure spending is investment. the mayor used the term investment and i got into a little bit of a disagreement with representative pence on fox about investment. the american people understand no business grows without investing in its own future and the understand that for this coury. of this country will stay

competitive we have to invest in the future and the future growth and the thing that pele understand most is investment infrastructure because as i said they can see , they experience it, it improves their quality-oflife. they are safer on it and it makes us economically competitive. so the answer in my udgment is guess we ought to do a and index it to inflation. the congressman says we ought to bond of the index. that is not a bad idea. there's a lot of good ideas. it is going to take a little courage. but the american people get it. above and beyond what we in te government seem to understand. >> i unequivocally report an increase ithe gas tax. this is something tt has had bipartisan support for generations and if we are going to -- if america is going to continue to maintain the highways and bridges and infrastructure its crucial.

but one thing i want to make clear with respect to hat we are proposing locally this actually leverage is all of that. what we are seeing is that the cities and the county's, we are creating a template for cities ancounties to put up their own money as well to make all of these investments which frankly have been laid low for a cple of decades to leverage them even further so that we can catch up with china an europe so i think it's important for us to raise the tax to do the reauthorization of also to create an infrastructure bank and also to create opportunities for localities to put in their own money and lverage those efforts as well. >> and i would add just real quickly the surface

transportation reform and policy and revenue commission stated first of all although the mayor is right of local and state should be more. we do 75% of the overall transportation infrastructure state and local. that's number one. number two, all told state, local and federal, $80 billion that goes into transportation infrastructure. approximately 80 billion on a yearly basis. the surface tnsportation subcommittee said that needs to go look to 225 billion. we are doing about 40% of what we need to do. they made specific funding recommendations i think there were 13 or 14 specific funding recommendations. some of which were hardly cause a ripple so the answer is yes we need to do that. state and federal have to give it to. >> one more question before my time runs out. i'm from ohio and i drive on your rhodes and they're very good roads. thank you. with respect to a stimulus bill, to mention i spoke on mond to a group of transportation

engineers and construction folks in central ohio and they said the need of the stimulus bill was a failure because it wasn't enough infrastructure. number one, do you agree and number two, would you think it would be wise for congress to look at the time spent stimulus funds and redirect the transportation infrastructure? >> absolutely. i think we should have doubled or tripled the amount of and for stricter spending in the original stimulus. interestingly, senator boxer and senator inhofe tried to run the bill in the senate to do that and they got defeated. absolutely. and secondly, i would support that the more we can do for infrastructure the better it is for the country and the better it is for our economy and for american manufacturing. >> i would agree 100%. thank you. >> thank you, mr. tiberi. what i recognize the gentleman from california mr. thompson. >> thank you to all the panel members for being here and i agree with much of your testimony today. governor, if you are right.

we need to make these investments. i think it is an importance. but right now it is an interesting time and the poll numbers that you gave are equally as interesting. i think we would have a hard time passing the gas tax increase in the democratic delegation. i would think we would have a hard time passing it in the pennsylvania democratic delegation. people are finally becoming aware of the debt and problems coming about as a result of that while i think one way to deal with it is to make these investments we need an infrastructure. i just think the polls may not be as telling as we would like to think. and i would be interested in your comments. and mayor rendell, good to see you. i'm interested to know if you are able to ge expanded

financing and the ability to leverage on the local dollars for transportation numbers were impressive. when you are doing is outstanding work and i wouldn't have expected anything less from you. but what out transportation versus water infrastructure? argues thinking about using some of that new leverage fund to expand your border infrastructure? you know well the serious problems we have with the very scarce resource and some of the problems that is causing both economically, pot holes from the polis perspective and the political perspective up and down our state. i would like to know what your thoughts or on tha >> first o all, thank you. with respect to -- i think we are crrently talking about transportation and infrastructure obviously is a

much larger issue than just transportation and wer in for stricter is critical. i supported the governor's water bond package. i did not because it was perfect and i didn't want to let it get in the way. >>ou are from southern california and i from northern california. >> one of the things we are doing to address the water infrastructure needs doesn't cost a lot of money as we are engaging a great deal of conservation. we are using the sam amount of water today in l.a. that we did 31 years ago when we had 1.5 million people. i have reduced the ability to water the lawn for two days a week. not for a popular in southern california but necessary. what i said is we live in a desert and there is no question the kind of programs we are talking about here ould apply to water infrastructure, to the

other, you know, important needs we have and i am very supportive of them. >> let me say that, congressman, before you got here, congresswoman rosa delauro mengin her bill includes more than transportation. we think the infrastructure bank should include more than this transportation therefore it shouldn't be in the u.s. it should be a freestanding or if you have to put it somewhere on the treasury. number two, again, the polls are interesting and i will get them over to you to the chairman, but the polls are very clear the people to support additional funding but they want reform with it. they want more transparency. they want more accountability. they want a cost-benefit analysis. they want some discipline on how we stand at the performance measures and that is why i think the bank fits perfectly into what the national mood is.

we do want to spend more money to feed the people get infrastructure spending. i agree with you about your political analysis but i think respectfully your colleagues are wrong because if we don't do the gas tax by the way the gas tax is part of the pzle as everyo sit here but if we don't do the gas tax what are we going to do? are we going to let the american infrastructure slid further into disrepair? one of the points the mayor made is bsolutely true. the longer that we wait the more expensive it gets with of the brief exception of the last year an a half, construction prices were rising in pennsylvania at. the american society of engineers announced as we have a $2.2 trillion for stricter deficit just to repair and maintain what wehave. five years ago it was 1.6 trillion. the longer we wait the more expensive it is going to get and what is the alternative? what is the alternative?

give the american people some credit. i think we need to do that. they understand that if you buy a 24,000-dollacar it is going to run better than if you buy a 2004 car from the used car lot. they understand you get what you pay for it infrastructure is no different. what they want to see is the funding go for the right project is not based on political clout and i say that respectfully. .. entire political establishment was opposed to it. they did not think that we could pass with a 2/3 vote a

half-penny sales tax in the middle of the recession. we did a lot of focus groups and figured out exactly what the governor said. they wanted to see transparency. they wanted to see oversight. they wanted local control. so it was a local component to it. they supported public/private partnership. they said they would encourage that. to the extent that we worked hard and figured out what do people want? everybody wanted infrastructure. but how do they want it delivered? at least majority of elected officials that vote temperature and republican supported this -- democrat and republican supported this tax increase. lie mr. blumenauer who is a longtime advocate on this issue. welcome. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your continued effort at focusing on how we are

going to rebud and renew america because nothing is more important to restore the economy, revitalize our community and protect the planet that oureffort to rebuild and renew america. i appreciate congresswoman delauro's championing this focus on an infrastructure bank, a critical tool in my colleague from oregon, putting it in a context that it is just one tool, and a panel i think has laid forth the casehat i hope we caget into every american home. we have gone 15 years without a super tax. we have no mechanism for broader infrastructure similar to the highway trust fund, and the highway trust fund where we have not increased the gas tax since 1993 is in deficit for the first time in history, and it faces a 400 billion-dollar deficit between now and 2015, making

mr. defazio and mr. oberstar's problem with reauthorization critical. and on top of it, as the vernor mentioned, we have a $2.3 trillion infrastructure deficit overall and it is growing. today's hearing on the infrastructure bank is a critical tool to solve the infrastructure challenges. i am hopeful that there are ways that we can engage and leave this into the solution. it is a good way to stretch resources, to have public private partnership that everything still hinges on resources. we need to capitalize the bank. i would hope the subcommittee ll consider n revenue sooner rather than later. i appreciate mr. thomson's notion about people's attitude right now but there is no reason that we have to raise a gas tax this year or next year.

as long as we establish a revenue tax going forward within the 10 year budget score, we can leverage it. we can borrow against it. we can put some in an infrastructure bank. we can take advantage of this unparalleled low interest rate environment and the best or worst bidding climate in probably two generations. i would hope that we think about dealing with this prospectively, make sure that it wouldn't kick in, that revenues wouldn't kick in until after the economy has bounced back, but i would hope that this committee start exercising its role to help realize the vision that has put here. and while we are considering new revenues, new flexibility, the infrastructure bank is a part of

it that existing bonding mechanisms that have been referenced, there is a lot o tools that can be advantaged, that can stretch, and i hope that we are able to think about how we do that, to be able to actually save the federal government money. one of the problems is that our budget horizon is one year. the federal government doesn't know how to calculate the value of present value accounting. so that some of the things that happen with the infrastructure banks, some of the achievements -- mayor villaraigosa, i am just fascinated on how much you would save the federal government, because many of these projects are on the hook for 50% federal funding, and if it takes 30 years, the increase in

inflation, and interest, in a worse budget or a bidding climate, the federal government will bon for more of a hook than would be required to help you jumpstart 3010. i would wonder if any of the panelists would care to comment on our ability to be able to use the savings, to be able to finance, to capitalize an infrastructure bank or to be able to make 3010 a reality. >> the whole notion of the 3010 initiative is that. we will save as an example about $4.5 billion by accelerating from 30 to 10 years alone on construction, not to mention

what we could save because of the down market for construction bids. not to mention the more innovative private public partnership that could also drive down costs here. we have seen the design bill as an example. we reduce costs 20 some odd percent. >> mr. mayor, the bell has gone off and i don't want to take any more time because i know some of my other colleagues might be able to get him before a 15 minute boat that will take 20 minutes but let me just say i would like to work with each of you to identify the savings, which i think are actually your consrvative and see up there some way that we can route them back into be able to accomplish at least part of the capitalization. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. blumenauer. i do believe we can accomplish our goal if we limit our questions but i would like to recognize at this time the gentleman from kentucky.

>> thank your. chairman. before i answer the question i would like to yield briefly to my colleague from new york. >> for the purposes of setting the record straight i think it is important, regardless of the position our friends on the panel, just to make the record straight for observation purposes th last time this congress took action on a gas tax was in 2007. by colleagues on the other side would have raised the gas tax by $800 million. the house leadership is not for most movement on a gas tax. i just want to make that observation clear, that not a single democrat supported that motion to recommit. my colleagues on the other side propose that back in 2007 for the purposes of clearing the record on that. thank you. >> i think there has been a lot of discussion about infrastructu as a job creator and economic stimulus and so forth and whether or not the

recovery act was adequate in that regard. i am curious to hear from the governor and the mayor as to whether the cost of not making these investments was part of the public debate, and if you both could maybe talk about that aspect of selling the idea of additional revenues for infrastructure, whether that is important to do or whether it is positive. scare tactics sometimes work. >> well, you want to tread lightly on sca tactics. pennsylvania has the highest number of structurally deficient bridges in the country, congressman. we are at abou5600. when i took over as governor, we were at 6000, triple the state fuing from 252 over $750 million a year that we put it on bridges, to spend another

half billion dollars on top of it. after one year we actually had gone up in the number of structurally deficient bridges, notwithstanding all of that because their bridges are so old. are bridges average more than the life expectancy of what a bridge to b&h. we are starting tomake a dent in it. again, people do understand the cost to their lives. the biggest factor in these is congestion. if you can people find that they sit in cars idling and wasting gasoline in wasting their time, if you can give them back a half-hour going to work and in a half-hour coming back from work, that is an hour they can spend with their kids. there is no price tag they wouldn't pay for that. there is no price tag they wouldn't pay. it is not a question of scaring, although it is very important. we had a pure that supported i-95. an inspector saw a crack in it's about half the size of my hands

ight now, and i-95 were shut for three days, 180,000 cars a day over that bridge, and we buttressed the bridge but to just repair the bridges in the city of philadelphia, for i-95 is $4.5 billion price tag. the state doesn't have the money, the city doesn't have the money. we had better get on the stick and i think people do get it. i undersnd the reluctance to do anything that is revenue enhancement, but people get it more than y of us think and i think california is a perfect example of. >> congestion also drove a lot of this debate, and so did public quality, job creation but more than anything, the fact that it was war transparent and that it was locally driven probably was what got us over the threshold. we had just passed a state bonds for transportation, and a number

of other things. and then, because of the state's budget, they use the money for the budget instead of for transportation, so there was a lot of locally, a lot of anger about, hey we just passed that and it didn't work so the fact that it was local, and locally controlled had a lot to do with the success is while. >> i yield back now so we can expedite the discussion. thank you mr. chairman. >> i would like o recognize the gentlelady from them so they need, ms. schwartz. >> thank you mr. chairman for doing this hearing and i want to thank congressman delauro too for her vision for the fture and her passion for these issues. this is one of the most important. we are all impatient to create jobs and make the right kinds of decisions for the near near-term, but this really is speaking about the investment into the future as well as jobs right now and the combination is

exemely important. certainly to my area, to my state into the nation. the issue i wa to raise and i don't know if he will have time for answers on this, is as we do infrastructure and my question comes from senator delauro and i want to ask governor rendell as well, i am concerned because we have tried to move infrastructure projects quickly. the shovel-ready investment act, we actually been said we really can change these problems to be attentive to what many of us are concerned about and that is issues of flooding and drainage, green infrastructure, of course light rail. the way we build roads and bridges and all other and the structure can either be done attentive to complete streets-- th notions of the way we actually build our streets and build communies and reduce flooding. my area, governor rendell knows this, major issues in terms of both the interest in building it

differently and and the need to in terms of not having been spending millions of dollars on repairs, but also, we also have a lot of state roads and our state and not local. and we have a plan in philadelphia for green works to do ings differently and then bend pen that comes in and builds a road the way they did 10 years ago. what abo this infrastructure bank? it would either create requiremes or incentives are a relationship between building infrastructure and the concerns we have about, i am not just talking about carbon emissions which is a big issue but it is also about stable communities and major concerns that they have together. not to say that is roads and we do differently and break up all this as bold waldman do it differently. that is my question. how can we build a san? >> i will say that, as you craft

the infrastructure's bank statute, as you craft the statute you have the ability to put in criteria that have to be applied and followed in the evaluation system and the sustainability thng, the carbon emission thing that you talked about congresswoman, those are things you can absolutely build and to the criteria. remember, infrastructure banks can have far more applications for projects that you have the money to do. the criterion ranking system are important and you can do that but i know senator boxer also shares your concern. she wants to do the exact same thing. >> if i could? actually my subcommittee is going to be holding a hearing on this very topic next month. there is something that is called, has a horrible name, it is called sensitive designed for lack of a better name but i call it practical design or appropriate design and i intend to include language in the

authorization bill which could provide a template for correction to the infrastructure bank, but that would be up the road in drafting map. >> we need a plan. we need to move forward on this. instead of dealing with the way in which we stovepipe all of these projects, that also addresses the issue the governor and the mayor had been talking about in getting people to accept their participation in this effort as well. we have nothing to show them at the moment that is a plan. we can develop the criteria, the regulation. what does that mean in terms of being environmentally sound? what is the result of that? we have got to get out of our view that is donin the committee. this committee does this, this committee does that. that should not be the blueprint for moving forward in this

direction. that is primarily at the core of a national infrastructure bank is about, and we can build it, design it and do what it needs to do. i would make one point to you, that we should have included additional funding for infrastructure in the economic recovery program. there wasn't the appetite to be able to do that, in order to get it passed, but as well, our short-term efforts, which we need to do, cannot get in the way of the long-term view of how this can sustain us over the future, and ife don't utilize the criteria, new regulations, sustainability, all of that we know, a green bank, a green effort on this, then we really are not moving in the right

direction. >> i look forward to working with you. this can't be a separate discussion. it has to be a part of wt the federal regulations are in whether we incentivize this are required to something we have to work together on. these are the criteria. that is the intent. >> thank you gentlelady. a brief statement from mr. t. barry. >> thank you mr. chairman. just to set the record straight, i'm not sure what he was talking about in terms of setting the record straight. as advocates of the gas tax increase, the motion to recommit was not-- and i hope to have more debate on that later. >> let m recognize my friend, mr. larsen. >> i want to thank chairman neal and raking member to barry. this is extraordinarily important panel. i want to commend the governor and the mayor for your participation. i wholeheartedly support the efforts of my colleagues ad

especially the efforts of ms. fazio as it relates to making sure we have a transportation infrastructure system that is needed now. but my colleague from connecticut has long been a proponent of what i think is game-changing collation, visiary, and if you could congresswoman delauro underscore for us again the importance and how you achieve through private sector itiatives and pensions and greater participation in general to leverage not just government funds but to take the private sector in order to have buy-in across the country. i think in your remarks you alluded to the fact that love, american-- america has to get back to making things and a 10 year plan is the governor pointed out her bites us an opportunity not just for

short-term employment but a long-term visionary employment. >> thank you and i appreciate my colleagues commented by thank you or your support of thes efforts. the fact of the matter is, and governor rendell mentioned this, he spoke with the ambassador who was supportive of this effort. the ambassador not only turned new york around, but his whole experience about eating investment. he goes to france, he calls and says we have people there who want to make an investment now. much of the investment of u.s. investors is going going to oversee infrastructure efforts. we need to bring that here. bring it home. make it profitable for thm to be able to invest in u.s. enterprises, with a return on that investment. we have pension funds. calpers is ready to do this effort. you have got sovereign wealth

funds and some will say are you going to privatize their infrastructure? no, we want to get the private capital into this market so that we can do to multistate projects, and do the regional projects to get us where we are going. there is money that is available. we have not been making it possible for those investments to be made in the united states and i would just say in order to do that, you need to have an independent agency, one that is under the treasury which can go to the capital market and have projects besides these investors know they will get a return on investment and are willing to put millions of dollars into this effort so that we can grow. that is what is at the core of this effort. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentlelady for her pasion and for all the effort she has put into this legislion. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to thank are

distinguished panel for testimony and comments today. we now have a vote on the house floor which may take up to an hou we will convene on onclusion of the last vote and again, if there is no substitute for the knowledge we have extended today. the committee stands in recess. [inaudible conversations] >> in a few moments secretary of state clinton and afghan president karzai speak at the u.s. institute