like the eib, in a u.s. infrastructure bank, the policies should be determined by congress, and other federal officials. you senators decide what infrastructure is to be built, roads, bridges, high-speed rail, alternative energy, water treatment facilities or whatever. the bank's function is only to determine which projects that are submitted for a loan or guaranty are credit worthy. its function is to make sure the projects that are consequence of the policies you have set on are financially strong. the last point i wish to make a national infrastructure bank to be successful congress must provide additional reforms to transportation policy. the creation of a infrastructure bank should be a manifestation of a deeper, more profound change to our national transportation policy, specifically outcome based performance standards should be established by congress. for example, life cycle costs should be an established criteria when evaluating a major capital project. without it, a true comparison of the benefits

but the eib, in an -- in a u.s. it infrastructure bank, is should be led by congress and other officials. you decide what infrastructures to be built, roads, bridges, high-speed rail, water facilities, or whatever. the bank's function is only to determine which projects that are submitted for a loan or guarantee our credit worthy. its function is to make sure that the projects are a consequence of the policies you have set oand are financially strong. to be successful, congress must provide additional reforms. the creation of an infrastructure back should be a manifestation of a deeper, more profound change to transportation policy. lifecycle costs should be an established criteria in evaluating a major capital projects. without it, a true comparison with the benefits of private investment, public debt financing this not a floor cost of capital analysis. the need for investment in our infrastructure is significantly larger than anyone revenue source. there is a need to design policies to access different funding sou

the infrastructure bank that are proposed around the eib model is a bank that makes loans and guaranteesment. that does not mean that grants cannot continue. but the idea of an infrastructure bank, which could be used to supplement the chairman's particular project is the way of providing air level -- a level of capital, which will attract people like me as an equity provider and commercial banks to come on top of that to fund the project which could not otherwise be funded. you can see the infrastructure bank as an additional source of capital. >> i do see a benefit of having grants in some form, as either part of the infrastructure banker separately through the tiger grant program. i think some projects require a piece of the project to be subsidized or supported with grants. once the project is built, the and the project can support itself. and a lot of cases, it is a matter of where the cost is such that you need to have a portion of it in grants to be able to overcome the overall capital requirements. >> thank you. >> let me build on that. i think it is a key distinction and a keyed