[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: INNOVATIVE FINANCING AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST ======================================================================= (110-7) HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ FEBRUARY 13, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 34-778 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon DON YOUNG, Alaska JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland CORRINE BROWN, Florida VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan BOB FILNER, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, JERRY MORAN, Kansas California GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JULIA CARSON, Indiana JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine Virginia BRIAN HIGGINS, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TED POE, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California CONNIE MACK, Florida NICK LAMPSON, Texas JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HEATH SHULER, North Carolina CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania VERN BUCHANAN, Florida JOHN J. HALL, New York STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California (ii) SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania GARY G. MILLER, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JULIA CARSON, Indiana HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Carolina MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Virginia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania TED POE, Texas JERRY MCNERNEY, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington BOB FILNER, California CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Louisiana BRIAN BAIRD, Washington JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan DORIS O. MATSUI, California THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio VERN BUCHANAN, Florida BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa JOHN L. MICA, Florida HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi TESTIMONY Page Busalacchi, Hon. Frank, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Secretary, Madison, Wisconsin.................................. 4 Duvall, Hon. Tyler, U.S. Department of Transportation, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C........... 4 Enright, Dennis, NW Financial Group, Principal, Jersey City, New Jersey......................................................... 32 Hedlund, Karen, Esq., Nossaman, Gunther, Knox & Elliott LLP, Partner, Arlington, Virginia................................... 32 Poole, Robert, Reason Foundation, Director of Transportation Studies, Los Angeles, California............................... 32 Sawers, Alistair, RBC Capital Markets, Transportation and Project Finance Specialist, San Franscisco, California......... 32 Wilson, Frank, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, President and CEO, Houston, Texas....................... 4 PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER OF CONGRESS Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., of California......................... 116 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Busalacchi, Hon. Frank.......................................... 53 Duvall, Hon. Tyler.............................................. 65 Enright, Dennis................................................. 82 Hedlund, Karen.................................................. 108 Poole, Robert................................................... 118 Sawers, Alistair................................................ 126 Wilson, Frank................................................... 133 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Duvall, Hon. Tyler, U.S. Department of Transportation, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, Washington, D.C., responses to questions from Rep. Napolitano.................... 78 Enright, Dennis, NW Financial Group, Principal, Jersey City, New Jersey: The Chicago Skyway Sale, An Analytical Review, May 1, 2006..... 90 Indiana Toll Road vs. Chicago Skyway, An Analytical Review of Two Public/Private Partnerships, November 1, 2006............ 98 ADDITION TO THE RECORD Securities and Financial Markets Association, statement.......... 136 (vi) [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.011 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: INNOVATIVE FINANCING AND PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST ---------- Tuesday, February 13, 2007 House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter A. DeFazio [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee will come to order. This is a hearing of the Highways amd Transit Subcommittee on Public Private Partnerships: Innovative Financing and Protecting the Public Interest. This is hopefully the first in a series of many hearings, as I mentioned at the last hearing. We have challenges before us. We have an annual deficit in this Country in terms of meeting our transportation infrastructure needs both for maintenance of the existing system and enhancements to that system to mitigate congestion and better move our citizens and our freight and bolster the economy. Confronted with these sort of twin problems, that is, the need for more investment and the over-dependence upon the gas tax, which has not been increased since 1991, is leading to the point where we may not even have full funding for the last transportation bill, let alone a new transportation bill for the 21st century. So what I intend to do with these hearings is explore that deficit, the causes of it and the potential ways to fill that gap. In particular, today we are focusing on private-public partnerships. Some would say this is a panacea, it will somehow supplant or eclipse the many tens of billions of dollars raised and spent from Federal gas taxes and State gas taxes. It won't. It can be an adjunct to that if properly used. And as I expressed in the last hearing, I have real doubts about the conversion of existing infrastructure, essentially the modernization, the sale or long-term lease of that and what the benefits might be and how, if you are going to do that, you properly protect both the public interest and you assure that we aren't fragmenting the national transportation system. Then, secondly, we provided pilots in SAFETEA-LU where you could, with addition of capacity, undertake some pilot tolling projects. And, again, I am somewhat dubious about that but open to discussion. And then the third would be greenfields and the construction of new projects, again, with private-public partnerships, providing equity protection of the public interest. There are a lot of questions regarding how one protects both the integrity of the national transportation system, how one protects the public interest and still involves private capital in these projects. And I am hopeful that these hearings will provide guidelines either for legislation or some guidance to the States so that some of them in a rush to move forward, for whatever reason, don't basically get taken to the cleaners, which I think we have seen in a couple of the previous agreements, Indiana and Chicago most notably. So this Subcommittee does not have all the answers, but we are looking for good information from testimony. I hope to have lively discussion among the panelists. I prefer if the panelists didn't just read their testimony. I have read all the testimony that was submitted, and was submitted in a timely basis. I have read all of it, and I assume the other members of the Subcommittee have. So what would be most useful would be if you summarize and make cogent points and/or respond to other people who are on the panel or anticipate other panelists and some of their major arguments, because we can all read and you can't read more quickly than you can talk; most people can't anyway. So with that, I would recognize the Ranking Republican, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee, for his opening remarks. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I share many of the same concerns that you just expressed about the need to protect the public interest when a State or local government enters into a public-private partnership. I particularly think we need to look very closely at whether or not some State officials might try to get all the money in some sort of up-front way, or most of the money up-front, so that officials 25 or 30 or 50 years from now might be left holding the bag. I also have already heard a lot of concern expressed about foreign ownership of our infrastructure. I think we need to look into whether we need to put some limitations on that to American ownership or perhaps even prohibiting the sale, years down the road, to foreign companies. This is a fast-moving development, as we were told in a briefing last week by the GAO, and there is a lot of interest in it. Tennessee, my home State, has no toll roads and has for many years adopted a pay-as-you-go philosophy of spending no more than comes into the State highway fund, and, frankly, if I was to advocate a toll road in Tennessee, it would be one of the most unpopular things that I could possibly do. This does not mean that toll roads do not have a place, though, particularly in States where the people have grown accustomed to that. It is important, I think, to remember, though, that public- private partnerships are much more than just toll roads. Some are contractual agreements for all kinds of things, really, and many of the innovative procurement models of public-private partnerships, such as design-build and design-build to operate and maintain projects have a proven track record of saving time and money and of being operated more efficiently. I am also concerned about possible sweetheart deals for private companies. When we first started seeing the private sector take over many government operations, it was done because it saved a lot of money and because the private sector could perform almost anything in a more economical, more efficient way than the government could. However, in recent years we have been seeing that some very large corporations have been hiring so many retired Federal employees or retired admirals and generals and they have been getting sweetheart deals with just ridiculous profits in them, so that we have to see at times whether some of these are good deals for the people or not. Some are and some, unfortunately, now, are not. I guess we need to point out that we in this Country are fairly new at the business of private sector financing for infrastructure investment. I think we will get better at managing these types of innovative financing tools with time and experience. But I thank you for holding this hearing, it is a very important topic, and I will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his succinct and cogent remarks. Does the gentleman, Mr. Petri, wish to be recognized? Mr. Petri. Well, I just--I don't know if this is the time to do it. I am here to introduce a panel member. Mr. DeFazio. Well, you can do it now, because I believe there-------- Are there other opening statements that people intend to make? Members obviously can submit statements for the record. [No response.] Mr. DeFazio. Since there are no other opening statements, I would be happy to recognize you, and then I will make the formal introduction after you make the personal introduction. Mr. Petri. Well, thank you. I just wanted to, on behalf of my colleague, Steve Kagen, who is also from Wisconsin, a member of the full Committee, welcome our Secretary of Transportation, Frank Busalacchi, who has a distinguished career in public service in Wisconsin. He comes from the Milwaukee area, where he had for a number of years various leadership positions with the local 200 of the Teamsters Union. He has led an agency with a budget of roughly $2 billion and 3,600 or so employees. He has been recognized and is now--and I think that is why he is here today--a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Review Study Commission that is going to be making recommendations on a whole variety of ways of trying to maintain and improve our national surface transportation policy. I just want to welcome him and thank him for the effort that he is putting in to help us. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for those remarks and that introduction. The formal introduction will be that on the first panel is the Honorable Tyler Duvall, U.S. Department of Transportation Assistant Secretary of Transportation Policy; the Honorable Frank Busalacchi, Wisconsin Department of Transportation and, as mentioned, a member of the Commission; and Mr. Frank Wilson, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas, President and CEO. With that, I would first recognize Mr. Duvall for his opening statement. Mr. Duvall. TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TYLER DUVALL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; THE HONORABLE FRANK BUSALACCHI, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SECRETARY, MADISON, WISCONSIN; AND FRANK WILSON, METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HOUSTON, TEXAS Mr. Duvall. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan, and members of the Subcommittee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about one of the most important trends in transportation: public-private partnerships. Under the leadership of Secretary Peters, and Secretary Mineta before her, USDOT has made the expansion of public- private partnerships a key component in our ongoing congestion initiative, which we believe is one of the largest public interest failures we face in surface transportation, along with the high number of highway fatalities that continue to plague us. Based on a recent internal survey, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that approximately 50 percent or more of States either currently have laws in place or are considering legislation to expand public-private partnerships. This growing State level interest I think tracks closely with congressional interest in promoting PPPs in all of the most recent surface transportation bills dating back to ISTEA. In addition, executive orders by President Clinton and former President Bush have further asked agencies to reduce barriers to these arrangements. There has been a great deal of discussion, obviously, about the two transactions, one in Chicago and one in Indiana, but I think it is really important that we bear in mind that the opportunities for PPPs extend well beyond long-term lease agreements and certainly well beyond toll roads. The basic opportunity is for the public sector to allocate various project risks to the private sector that may be in a better position to manage and reduce those risks, and the ability to shift various risks to private operators increases the public sector's ability to manage a large number of projects while also reducing strains on government budgets and the taxpayer. Creative risk-sharing arrangements are possible whether or not the facility at issue generates revenues to pay for its own costs. The willingness of public authorities to go beyond traditional procurement approaches has been driven largely by several trends. First, as the Chairman noted, taxes that fund transportation activities are being increasingly absorbed by rising costs, the need to dedicate ever more resources to system preservation and maintenance, an increased fuel economy and flattening VMT trends. If anything, these trends are expected to continue in the future. Deteriorating highway system performance has reached crisis levels in many parts of the country. The cost of wasted time and fuel for travelers is five times the level it was in 1982, and the economic costs are much higher if you add in uncertainty and lost productivity costs. Despite the strong policy arguments historically in favor of a user pay system, a mix of political and administrative complexities have pushed the United States towards a surface transportation financial model that is currently dependent on fees that have little or an indirect relationship to costs. Technology breakthroughs in recent years, however, have really reduced barriers, and a substantial change in public opinion with respect to that has followed. Currently, we estimate that the majority of projects over $500 million in the United States will be financed using some toll revenues. Coincident with these trends, it is very important that we understand global economic patterns. Basically, huge increases in global economic growth and changing demographics have really created massive pools of savings around the globe that have driven down long-term interest rates and increased the attractiveness of medium-risk and medium-return infrastructure assets in energy, telecommunications, and transportation sectors. The certainty of the U.S. legal system and our strong economic growth prospects are critical factors in why the U.S. is such an attractive investment destination. Any analysis of the policy merits or pitfalls of public- private partnerships must be contrasted to how we are doing now, not an idealized of how we are doing. It is critical that we identify the public policy failures and ask the question: Do public-private partnerships respond to those failures? I think increasingly the answer is yes, they do respond. They are not the answer, but they are a vital tool, we think, going forward. Despite these opportunities--and obviously the purpose of this hearing is to talk about the pressing public policy issues that are presented--in my written statement I identified several risks. I think the most important of these risks are monopoly pricing risks. In addition, we have corruption risks, thin market risks, system distortion lists, as the Chairman notes, financial exposure risks, and inexperience risks on behalf of the public sector. The single-most important public interest concern with the transactions that took place in Indiana and Chicago is the inherent tension that is created when governments view the leasing of existing transportation assets as a potential income source. While these transactions can provide large public benefits if properly structured, it is also true that contractual terms that offer substantial pricing power and protection from competition can increase the discounted present value of the revenue stream associated with an asset. Other critical assumptions go into asset valuations, such as traffic growth projections, the ability to control costs, and the cost of long-term borrowing. However, there is little question that pricing flexibility in a potentially constrained market will be a major driver of facility value. As a result, it is imperative that public agencies gain some understanding of a facility cost and risk profile, as well as the degree to which pricing will be constrained by competing facilities or the threat of competing facilities. Every facility has different economic characteristics, and State and local governments are strongly encouraged to analyze these characteristics not just from an individual facility perspective, but also from a network perspective, as the Chairman noted. Specific contract provisions that limit the prospect of competition will increase the up-front lease value, but may run counter to the public interest if such a provision is not commensurate with the risk being borne by the private sector. The emerging trend in this area appears to be the inclusion of either no protection at all for the private sector or limited protections. Public agencies implementing PPP programs are strongly encouraged to run open and transparent processes, to seek input from third parties, and to consult regularly with their legislators and other relevant elected officials. We welcome review by advocates of various kinds of these public sector concerns, and we will all need to be sensitive to cases in which important public sector concerns may not be adequately protected. I appreciate your attention to my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Duvall. Mr. Busalacchi. Mr. Busalacchi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to have this opportunity to comment on protecting the public interest in public-private partnerships, or P3s. I am also a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. The National Commission is working to construct a new 50-year vision for our Nation's transportation system. We are in the midst of our deliberations, and my comments do not represent the views of the Commission. What has been made clear to me at the Commission hearings and by the communities back home is that we have a lot of needs. In Wisconsin, our annual unmet needs are in excess of $500 million for highways alone. If we factor in transit, inner city, and freight rail improvements, the needs increase. This Nation's interstate system is at the end of its useful life. It cannot be repaired. It must be reconstructed and, in some areas, expanded. Where will we find the funding? Some suggest that P3s can replace what has traditionally been a Federal responsibility. I disagree. Let me first clarify that P3s come in many forms, and the private sector is a valued partner to Federal, State, and local governments. My focus today is on the deals where a private sector organization leases a highway. The private sector partner is responsible for operating the roadway and they collect the toll and other payments to gain a return on the investments. Let me share four concerns that I have. First, the public interest is different from the private interest, and, in this case, it will be extremely difficult to assure a win-win situation. In Wisconsin, the DOT partners with private sector to design and construct highways. We have done so for years. But the public sector is the one held accountable for setting priorities, financing, and managing the highway. Can we responsibly delegate some or all of that public sector accountability to the private sector? If we can, how do we integrate the needs of the private sector into what has traditionally been a public sector system? Some argue P3s will harness the power of the market for the good of the public. But we come to the table with very different interests. Do States have enough information to get the best possible deal for the public? From what I have seen, we do not. The private sector's legal responsibility to its shareholders is to make money. Profit is their purpose. Our responsibility is to ensure that we make wise choices for our citizens. No contract, no matter how effective, can eliminate risk. We simply do not know enough to price or manage such long-term risks. Second, the public has significant concerns with P3 deals. The public sector needs better tools to evaluate the deals and share the evaluations with the public. People don't seem to like these deals. Citizens tell us they don't think the P3 approach is in their best interest. We need better information to consider the long-and short-term costs and benefits associated with these approaches to projects. We need to show the public what they will pay with gas tax, compared to what they will pay with private sector tolling. With this information, we could all make better decisions. P3s will likely not generate a predictable revenue stream to replace the current Federal share. In the 1950's, the Federal Government envisioned a national transportation system and funded it. States, in turn, built a first-class system. If the Federal Government had not paid the lion's share of the construction costs for the system, it would not have been built. States cannot create or fulfill the kind of vision on their own, nor can the private sector. The Federal Government should continue to pay its share of at least 45 percent of the Nation's highway system. At National Commission hearings, witnesses tell us the Federal Government's share should increase. Fourth, there should be considerable problems--there will be considerable problems with integrating private sector financing with public sector policy goals. Congress needs to consider many issues. Will States that do not toll be left behind, with no Federal partner? How will private sector partners be integrated into current planning process? Are Federal tax expenditures for private sector projects preferable to Federal revenue increases for public sector projects? The Committee also asked that I comment on USDOT's model legislation designed to give States the authority to enter into P3 agreements. Based on our review of the legislation, it poses no restrictions and creates no public protections. States will need to take care of the public interest in the deals they craft with the private sector. The model legislation protects the private sector's proprietary information. In Wisconsin, these provisions conflict strongly with strongly held values about openness and competition that support a robust and competitive bidding process. The model legislation requires State DOTs to review unsolicited proposals within a certain time frame. P3 bidders are highly sophisticated consortiums represented by large banks and investment firms. We design and construct roads; we are not experts in high finance and investment contracting. For States to negotiate on a level playing field, we need to hire investment finance advisors that will make every project cost more. The Committee will make critical choices that determine the outcome of the debate on P3s. We do not believe P3s are ready for prime time. In a supplement to my written testimony, I included a list of policy questions that provide a starting point for the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to the policy discussions that lay ahead. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Busalacchi, appreciate it. Excellent testimony. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan, and members of the Committee. First, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be with you today for this important discussion of the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I represent Houston Metro, which is a fully integrated multi-modal transportation system serving the fourth largest city in the Country. This city is growing at the rate of 3,000 people a week. That is 3,000 a week. This has put our transportation system under immense pressure. And, because of that, we are forced to seek all legitimate alternatives to funding the improvements and expansion of the system. Given the inability to project adequate funding going forward, all options for us are on the table for discussion and utilization. My comments today are derived from my experience in working both the public and private sector. I have experienced a challenge of infrastructure delivery both as an owner and as a contractor, and have participated in 12 design-build, design-build-operate-maintain in public- private partnerships nationally and internationally, with a combined construction value of over $10 billion in seven States and two countries. I say this not as a summary of my resume, but more to support an observation, and that observation is this: public-private partnerships do work universally and they do work well; however, they are not the silver bullet solution for every infrastructure project. I have learned that the most successfully structured public-private partnerships are created by necessity, not by ideology, and at the core of every partnership is a clear understanding of control, accountability, and risk. Simply put, the public agency controls policy; the private company controls performance. Each is clearly accountable for the respective roles under the commercial terms and conditions of a contract and each shares a project risk which they are uniquely able and equipped to identify, to mitigate, and control. I am able to report that the public interest can be protected in public-private partnerships. Good government and good business are not mutually exclusive. In our discussions later this morning, I would be happy to review a six-point checklist of criteria that are used to judge when public- private partnerships offer the most benefit in comparison to the traditional design-bid-build methods of project delivery. Where appropriately applied, public-private partnerships will deliver remarkable advantages and benefits, starting with a single point of contact and accountability, which provides clear focus and discipline in managing and making decisions on projects; reduce public agency staff and soft costs. These soft costs can generally run as much as 35 percent of the cost of a major infrastructure project, so it represents an incredible area of economy. There is closer cooperation and collaboration between designers and builders to improve constructibility and lower risk. There is a conversion of ideas on approach to a job so there are no surprises; what the designer designs, the builder can build. Cost of project delivery can be cut as much as 20 percent on major infrastructure projects using a partnership approach, and project schedules can be cut as much as 40 percent. So a project that might take seven years could be implemented in less than four. The key factor in public-private partnerships which can be overstated is that it minimizes change orders, claims, and litigation, which are project killers for traditionally implemented infrastructure projects. Quality is often built in, since the designer and builder is responsible for the operating and performance and quality risk on infrastructure projects. Private firms are enablers that can mobilize capital markets, as appropriate, and add new source of income. This income may range between three and ten percent. Not an overwhelming large amount of money, but, in addition to the cost savings, it most often is what--is a deciding factor in the financing capability of a project. And, finally, I would say the risk of profile due to the single point of accountability and enhanced integration of all the elements of work offer a more efficient method of financing, and this is because the different players--whether they be architects, engineers, contractors, material suppliers, or the owner itself--do not have to add financial premiums to the project to make sure that the have a viable outcome. I would be happy to explore any and all of these issues during our discussions, and, again, I want to thank you for the privilege of joining you today. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses for remaining within the time; that will give us a lot of opportunity for questions, which hopefully will be more interesting than testimony. I will lead off with the questions. Mr. Duvall, I want to thank you for sort of personalizing your testimony. I saw two references, one to Oregon, on our early discussion on tolling versus fuel tax. And just perhaps to edify you a little bit, we did actually have two toll projects in Oregon; they were both public and the tolls went away when the projects were paid for. There was no continuing profit from those projects. Those were two bridges over the Columbia River to our neighboring Washington State. So we have some experience with tolling, but we don't believe it should be for-profit tolling. Secondly, Washington, I was more interested in that. I mean, Washington actually--you have a recent poll, but recent history sort of belies the poll. Washington actually, unlike the Federal Government, increased its gas tax by a nickel in 2003 and nine and a half cents in 2005, and a number of increases in registration, title fees, etc. It was referred to the ballot and it was upheld on the ballot. So I think the real poll of the people of Washington State is they were willing to pay fourteen and a half cents more per gallon in gas tax, so there is not the resistance that you are pointing to, which comes to your charge. You are Assistant Secretary of Transportation Policy. What have you or the Administration done to augment or update the Federal investment? We all admit that not having raised the gas tax since 1991 isn't meeting it. This Committee unanimously, in a bipartisan way, recommended an increase in the gas tax in the last highway bill; it was rejected by the Republican leadership and by the White House. So what are you proposing, what have you proposed to increase Federal investment, since you are here to advocate for private investment? Mr. Duvall. Thank you, Chairman. Obviously, the last highway bill public transportation legislation was the single largest increase in--representing the largest-------- Mr. DeFazio. Right. But I am talking about the--you have said in your testimony that we don't have enough money. There is agreement, bipartisan agreement. We don't have enough investment. What is the Administration proposing? What are you proposing, other than private partnerships, to enhance the investment in the Federal infrastructure? Are you proposing anything at all to increase that investment? Mr. Duvall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, the discussion over future Federal funding is one that needs to take place in the next two years between the Administration and the Committee. Mr. DeFazio. No, but I mean what has the Department recommended or what are they recommending, what are you studying other than the Commission's work? Mr. Duvall. I mean, the Commission is obviously going to be a major driver, I think, of the policy recommendations of the-- ------ Mr. DeFazio. So right now your bottom line is the one thing you are bringing us is public-private partnerships. Now, let's go to your proposed working draft. Now, I find it kind of--you raise--you laid out here today, and I thought very well, some of the pitfalls and the potential problems with private-public partnerships, but I don't find any of that reflected in the guidance to the States here or on your website materials in the guidance to the States. You did a good job here today, but it seems like there was a sales job last Thursday at the White House and today we are hearing something else, which is there are real problems here: monopoly rents are a problem, there are a number of other potential issues and pitfalls. It seems that it would be instructive for the Department to have a chart which lays out pro-con, good-bad, pitfalls, prior experience. I don't see any of that. Are you developing some of that real experience, as opposed to something like this model legislation? Mr. Duvall. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think that is something the Department is currently working on, and we need to be much more aggressive about articulating what the risks are. I will say that the legislation is intended to be a broad authorizing statute. We have opened it up for public comments-- ------ Mr. DeFazio. Sure. When could we expect seeing some sort of enumeration of the risks posted up on your website linked to the model legislation? Mr. Duvall. Well, there actually are things on the website. Mr. DeFazio. Well, I have reviewed it. I don't find it anywhere near as cogent as your testimony today, which perhaps was designed for a skeptical audience. Now, let me go to another inherent conflict I see here. You are a national transportation official. Do you find any conflict, as Mr. Busalacchi points out, between maximization of profits, particularly where you have in here--very puzzling to me--that you would recommend to States that they should have to accept unsolicited proposals outside their planning process and they would have to evaluate them within a certain number of days and go forward. Now, that seems to me overly prejudiced toward an investor who comes along and wants to cherry-pick something out of a State and submit it. Why would we mandate to the States that outside of their incredibly involved planning process, which has to meet with Federal law, would we require that they accept any out-of-the- air private proposal from a foreign firm or domestic firm, anybody who wanders in the door who is qualified--i.e., they have a pile of money--and have to process it within so many days, when they actually already have a plan on the books? Mr. Duvall. Right. To be clear, we are obviously not mandating States do anything. These are provisions borrowed from existing law. The State of Virginia probably has the most comprehensive public-private partnership legislation. It is precisely their willingness to take unsolicited proposals that several of the most important capacity expansions-------- Mr. DeFazio. But don't you find that conflicts with the idea of orderly planning? Let me read to you from the law. I am certain you are familiar with it; you are a lawyer and you are a Federal official, and not a private advocate or a State official here. Under U.S. Code, Section 135: ``Each State shall develop a State-wide transportation plan, State-wide transportation improvement plan for all areas of the State subject to Section 134''--I will skip ahead here--``that will function as an intermodal transportation system for the State and an integral part of an intermodal transportation system to the United States.'' Don't you find, in particular, this kind of cherry-picking and the whole private profit versus public interest issue that Mr. Busalacchi has raised, don't you see some conflict here? Don't you feel a need for balance? I know your background is in business and law, and I am certain you will go back to that when your job is done here, but right now you are charged with the public trust to forward a system that meets public needs in an integrated way, nationally and within States, not stopping at State borders, not within a State, something cherry-picked out. I just see an incredible conflict between what--I don't care if Virginia has that or not. For a Federal official to tell States, as a policy, as a model, they should say they will take unsolicited proposals outside our States, outside our plans and, hey, there go our profit centers for the next 99 years where we could have had a public return. Mr. Duvall. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, any proposal from the private sector would have to be--that was accepted would have to be incorporated into the State-wide plan; Federal law requires that. Mr. DeFazio. Well, but you didn't give that in the model legislation. You didn't say it has to be in accordance with, incorporated in, or meet the requirements of the Federal law here, you just say they have to accept these things. Mr. Duvall. Actually, it does refer that it has got to be compliant with Federal law. The legislation specifically says that. I think it is very important to think about the possibilities. I mean, we are a little pessimistic about the opportunities for innovation here. The private sector has a very strong interest in looking at what is not working in the current network and making proposals to-------- Mr. DeFazio. Right. What is not working is in some places people aren't making money on it. Mr. Busalacchi, would you care to comment on this line of questioning, because I think you have raised these concerns? Mr. Busalacchi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I mean, this is all about money. I mean, if anybody thinks it is anything other than money is wrong. I mean, the Indiana toll road, after the 10 years is up, for 65 years there is not going to be any revenue. Whatever the-------- Mr. DeFazio. So you are saying, therefore, this current governor gets some cash up-front, which may or may not equal the value of this particular agreement, particularly with a non-compete and other clauses, but you are saying future governors couldn't revisit it? They have lost that revenue stream? Mr. Busalacchi. I don't know how they do, Mr. Chairman. They have entered into a 75 year contract. The Skyway entered into a 99 year contract. How do they turn their back on that? The revenue is gone. Mr. DeFazio. But these things are so much more efficient than the way they were operated before, aren't they, except---- ---- Mr. Busalacchi. I don't-------- Mr. DeFazio. As I remember the proposal from MIG, it said, ``no significant cost savings envisioned.'' So what was this about? Mr. Busalacchi. Well, I mean, I really don't know. This is part of the unanswered questions, and this is why, Mr. Chairman, there has to be debate. This is a very important thing that is going on in transportation in this Country. In my view, my personal view is this is not the panacea. And I know that there are probably other DOT secretaries that disagree with me, but, for example, in the State of Wisconsin, we don't have tolls. We don't want tolls. Our governor doesn't want them and they are not going to be there. So where do we stand as the Federal Government shifts itself toward this policy? You know, where do we end up? Do we end up out in the cold? That is why, you know, we are asking these questions, that is why I am asking these questions. There needs to be a national debate on this, because the amount of money that the 3Ps are going to raise is very, very small compared to the overall needs that the Country has, and I am worried that this is a diversion. That is what this is. Let's not worry about the real problem, which is these huge needs that we have; let's talk about P3s, because they will raise this money and they will raise the funds for these needs over here. And, you know, that is something that the Commission is grappling with, Mr. Chairman. We have huge needs in this Country. The last transportation bill came nowhere near to funding those needs. That is the seriousness of what is going on here, and that is what we need to talk about. Mr. DeFazio. Well, thank you, Mr. Busalacchi. My time has expired, but I do want to say you ended up where I started, which was asking Mr. Duvall of any plans by the Administration to enhance funding in the Federal system, and the answer, by absence of an answer, was no, they are offering us public- private partnerships, and you are underlying the same thing. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you this. You heard me mention it last week. We had a briefing by the GAO in which they said this was a very fast moving development in transportation circles around the Country, and Mr. Busalacchi just mentioned this, they called it a very important development. We have heard a lot about the Indiana road and the Chicago Skyway. Do you know of many other States or local governments that are considering these types of public-private partnerships at this point? Mr. Duvall. Yes. I think there is a series of interests across the Country ranging from new capacity, which the State of Texas basically, I think programmatically, has declared that virtually all major new capacity in the State will be done through some public-private model; obviously, the Commonwealth of Virginia. In terms of long-term leases, you know, there has been a lot of press coverage of the State of New Jersey and the Governor of Pennsylvania's interest in exploring the valuations of those two facilities. There is a limited number of existing toll roads in the United States, so I do not view that trend as necessarily the be-all and end-all to solving our transportation problems, despite some characterizations to the contrary. I think what is important is can the structures of these transactions protect the public interest, as the Chairman has outlined, and I think there are risks and there are opportunities, and, if you structure them correctly, these transactions can protect the public interest and you can free up public resources to make high return investments in other areas. Mr. Duncan. You say there is a limited number of toll roads. I have never heard a figure on that. Do you know how many toll roads there are? Mr. Duvall. How many toll roads? No. I can get you the exact number, but obviously it is predominantly the Northeast and Florida. Florida, for example, has not built a non-toll road, a free road, I think, since the early 1980's, so they have got a massive network of toll roads in Florida; and the Northeast obviously has a lot of grandfathered toll facilities; and then there are pockets of toll roads throughout the Midwest. Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you. You have come forward with this model legislation and I wasn't clear. You told the Chairman you put some things about risk up on your website or something. Have you--there is some concern about State or local governments not having the expertise to enter into these deals, these high finance deals and so forth. Have you come forward with any guidance to State or local governments? Have you sent out some reports or suggestions in ways to handle these things, or have you set up any meetings with State and local transportation officials or are you considering doing things like that? Mr. Duvall. In terms of formal guidance by the Department, we have not sent out formal guidance. I think we have had many, many conversations in which we have talked to State and local officials that are interested in this topic about the need for understanding what you are getting into. And I agree with both of you that there is a clear risk that State agencies are not currently equipped to deal with complex financial questions. I think that is solved, however. Obviously, Commissioner Busalacchi mentioned the need to procure outside advice. I think it is interesting to note that the two transactions in Chicago and Indiana, actually, they had extensive internal financial expertise that was used to contract with outside entities to give them additional financial advice. But you are a hundred percent correct that this is an issue that State governments are going to need to deal with directly in coming months, and we would be happy to think about ways to improve our communications on that front. Mr. Duncan. Well, I am not saying they couldn't develop the expertise, but I think this is certainly an area that you should look into, because, as I said in my opening statement, I think there is some legitimate concern over whether a governor may or might be attempted to take--might be tempted to take some big money on the front end and leave officials holding the bag a few years down the road. Mr. Busalacchi, you say in your testimony it is not clear that the deal in Indiana would happen if it were being considered today. The last news report I saw, half the citizens polled in New Jersey think the P3 approach to the turnpike is not in their best interest. Why do you say that? What led you to that conclusion, that the Indiana deal would not come about if it was being done today? Mr. Busalacchi. Well, I think the public outcry, Mr. Chairman, is that they are very much against what happened in Indiana. I think the governor's poll show that. We are hearing the same thing coming out of New Jersey. And, of course, we hear it in our own State. I travel through the State extensively talking about this because, as I had said earlier, you know, we are facing basically the same situation that the entire Nation is facing: we have these astronomical needs and how we are going to fund them. And, you know, you touched on a real good point about the complexity of these deals. In my department, we could not handle these complex legal issues in our department. We have got good lawyers, but there is no way they could handle this. We would have to go on the outside and we would have to spend an awful lot of money to get this done. That would have to be approved by the governor and maybe even the legislator. Mr. Duncan. Has the State of Wisconsin had or have you had some particular difficulty with public-private partnerships on some of your projects that you could give us some examples of? Mr. Busalacchi. We have very little experience as far as transportation goes. I have had personal experience with public-private partnerships. I mean, we built Miller Park. That was a public-private partnership, one that I am very proud of. There are situations where this can work, but I think that we are just moving way, way too quickly and we are forgetting about the real problem here. The real problem is what is going on with the needs in this Country. You know, we get into the transportation bill and we get into this trap of talking about dollars. We have got to talk about needs. And that is what I am afraid is happening here, we are talking about dollars again. Let's go back and talk about what needs to get done. We are falling far behind. Tyler is right, our global economy is going to get affected here. I am concerned about congestion just like USDOT is. It is going to hurt us. Mr Duncan. All right, I have already run over my time, but, Mr. Wilson, I understand that you were in New Jersey for a while, is that correct? Mr. Wilson. That is correct. Busalacchi that half the people in New Jersey are upset with the way the turnpike partnership is working out? Mr. Wilson. I think there is a disturbing confusion between--maybe it is semantics, maybe not--what is called a public-private partnership and what in other terms is just called tolling of free lanes. There are emotional issues; there are economic issues; there are political issues. If you are going to convert a toll road and sell it, those are economic and political. If you are going to toll a free lane, those are economic and political. Not to be confused with a delivery method, which is public-private in terms of delivering any form of infrastructure. So, when I was in New Jersey, we formulated a piece of legislation that did much the same as what this Federal regulation is calling for, but, Mr. Chairman, we made it part of the planning process. The notion was that the planning process, as it exists in States--through the metropolitan planning organizations, State Departments of Transportation, local government involved in the cooperating, continuing development of transportation plans--does not capture all the wisdom in the world. And when the private sector can bring a good idea forward, it needs to be vetted through that process. So the legislation we adopted or the legislature adopted on the basis of experimental endeavor--seven projects were qualified--those encouraged ideas to come forward and then went through this planning process and accepted or rejected. Just because a project or proposal is offered doesn't mean it has to be accepted if it is inherently flawed. So in New Jersey and elsewhere, I would say the difference is what are we really attempting to do. As I said, the disturbing part about this is public-private partnerships whereas where they might work gets a bad reputation, when really what we are talking about is an economic or public policy to toll free roads or to sell roads. And I don't believe that they are synonymous and necessarily have to be discussed in those terms. Mr. Duncan. Let me ask one last question. You have been a State and local transportation official for some time now. You know, we found in here that mainly because of all of our environmental rules and regulations and so forth, that all these highway projects take an average of about 10 years to complete, so you have to look way into the future. What do you see if you had to look 10 or 25 years from now? What do you see for the future? Do you think that this is a trend that is really going to take off and explode, that most of our major transportation projects, say, 25 years from now are going to be public-private partnerships? Mr. Wilson. Let me give you a startling fact that I had the misfortune of discovering when Commissioner of Transportation of the State of New Jersey. The average project there took seven years from the beginning in the conceptual planning stage to the notice to proceed. That is not the completion of construction, that is just where construction began. Seven years. Mr. Duncan. Right. Mr. Wilson. That is not the startling part; we kind of expected that. The startling part was that the average size of a project was $5 million. What I am here to illustrate in response to your remarks is that the process we used, implemented for structure projects here, is inordinately expensive and wasteful. Mr. Duncan. Right. Mr. Wilson. And so we who come before Congress and local legislatures asking you for more money should be sent back and asked to ring out the inefficiencies in our delivery processes, because more money just goes to more waste. So what we need to be looking for is a more efficient, more effective way of delivering this more money. This is not a speech against additional gas tax or additional revenues in the trust fund at the Federal or local level, but it is a plea to allow folks like ourselves, practitioners in this business, to embrace any delivery method that gives us the leverage to implement projects in a much more affordable way. I mentioned in my statement here that typically you can expect between 18 and 20 percent cost reduction on a project. What is the difference between 20 percent cost reduction and 20 percent more revenue in a fund? So that is what we are looking to accomplish with this notion of public-private partnerships. Mr. Duncan. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Just in noting we did adopt some significant modifications to the review process and the environmental process in SAFETEA-LU--I don't believe they have been fully implemented as yet by the Department of Transportation--which should help with that time problem. And, of course, whether it is public or private, it has to go through the same process, so that is not going to save time. DOT needs to fully implement the provision we provided. Mr. Altmire was first on our side, from Pennsylvania, perhaps the home of the next great public-private partnership. Mr. Altmire. No questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. All right, then the second person--I am doing questions in order of arrival on our side--Mr. Shuler. Mr. Shuler. I pass. Mr. DeFazio. All right. Find some Democrat. Mr. Lipinski, any questions? Home of the first great public-private partnership of the recent round. Mr. Lipinski. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for doing it in this manner. I was expecting you to go with seniority, so I wasn't quite prepared to go yet, but I am always ready. Mr. Wilson, you were talking about your cutting costs 18, 20 percent. How much did you say time was cut? Mr. Wilson. About 40 percent. Mr. Lipinski. About 40 percent. Now, are you saying that there just are always inefficiencies when a government entity does these projects? I mean, the suggestion is that things are just done so poorly if it is being run through a government entity that you sort of need to take it away from them because they just add time, add wasteful spending. I mean, is that what the suggestion is? Well, where is all this time and money saved coming from? Mr. Wilson. I don't think--having lived on both sides, private and public, I don't think there is any question that the discipline to begin and end a project is much more intense on the private side. I am not going to say it is a dirty word, but there is a profit motive to moving a project. That does not say that you sacrifice quality or utility. You build those into your contracts and make the private enterprise responsible for those as well, and you do that through a variety of ways. One is longer warranties or concessions where they are responsible for the operation, performance, and quality of a job. But I will say this-------- Mr. Lipinski. Are those things not done by public entities? Mr. Wilson. Pardon me? Mr. Lipinski. Are those not done by government entities, governments? Mr. Wilson. Is what not done? Mr. Lipinski. Putting those kind of incentives in. Mr. Wilson. Yes, I was going to get to the other point that I wanted to make, is why there are inefficiencies. Mr. Lipinski. OK. Mr. Wilson. Typically, on a large infrastructure project, you have the owners, engineers, architects, then you have the builders, the material suppliers, the construction managers, the quality control, quality assurance agents, the owner staff itself; and all those are disconnects in a project. All those are inefficiencies in a major infrastructure project, besides the abundant of cost or redundant cost. To manage all those interfaces is incredibly difficult and complex, and when you have an owner that has a different motive than a builder, you tend to run into trouble. And our industry, unfortunately, is replete with examples of where that has consumed large chunks of money and taken long, long periods of time, in some cases a lot of mortality on projects. When you consolidate the responsibility to deliver the product and integrate the design, the construction, and the operation, you tend to get a much more efficient package of services delivered. That drives the schedules down because the interfaces are managed by one entity, not multiple entities. So the inherent advantage of a public-private partnership is not necessarily in generating new income or magical financing techniques, it is to bring discipline and focus to the effort of delivering the infrastructure project on a respectable budget, on a respectable schedule, not sacrificing quality. So therein is why the public entity, as good as it is, needs to stretch and invite the private sector in. There are some things that the private sector cannot do and only government can do, and those are policy-related issues, environmental clearance, funding--not financing, but funding, utility coordination, approvals, permits, real estate acquisition. All those are legitimate functions of government where the private sector doesn't belong. But once you have decided what your project is and you have got a good scope, it is time to let those who have that focus and discipline to deliver that product and then stand behind it and warrant it over a long period of time. Mr. Lipinski. I want to ask Mr. Busalacchi is there anything that you would want to add to that or any comments you have on that? Mr. Busalacchi. Well, I would just like to say this, and, again, I can't speak for any other State, but I do know, in the four-plus years that I have been the Secretary in Wisconsin, we have changed dramatically how we deliver projects. We are delivering projects that are much large now because of the needs, and in delivery of those projects we have found that us managing the project is the only way to go. I don't particularly want to do a big project and let the private sector control the project. We have a large--one of the largest projects going in the Country right now in the heart of Downtown Milwaukee, and that project could have been ripe for cost overruns and you name it, and that project is on time and it is on budget. It is a $810 million job. So I don't necessarily agree with when you turn this stuff over to the private sector, that they are going to do it better. I don't believe they can do it better. I believe there has to be involvement. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer. I just don't believe we can just take this responsibility and hand it off to a contractor and say, OK, do it and we are going to trust you. I just don't believe that that is what we have to do. We have to hold their feet to the fire, and we are doing that in our State. I can't speak for anybody else. Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mr. Petri? Mr. Petri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I have a question for the whole panel. I am thinking about this and the question in my mind is what is it uniquely and in a superior way the private people bring to this process. The Federal Government is more efficient than anyone else at borrowing money, it borrows it all over the world. So the argument that there are pools of money out there that could be used for American infrastructure through public-private partnerships, well, it could be, couldn't it, that the Treasury could borrow money and we could have a transportation financing bank the way we do hundreds of banks, going back to the New Deal and before, in agriculture and rural development and 101 other ways. This would get rid of the need for investment bankers and specialized fees and all this kind of thing. It would be a place that States or municipalities--probably States--would go to get approval and funding if we didn't want to use gas tax revenue anymore. If we thought there is excess capital in the world and the government could borrow the money and loan it out, somehow or another, or even absorb the cost at the Federal level as its contribution and give it interest-free to the States, rather than let the private people get involved? So could you discuss that? Is there some reason we have to structure this in such a way that each State is supposed to deal, or municipality, in the case of Chicago, with private people? It seems to be dangerous with cherry-picking of fees, complexity, using money up front that mortgages a State's credit and one thing or another that could be avoided, by just setting up some kind of financing bank and letting the Treasurer borrow the money and then having in-house experts manage it with the State and local people. Mr. Duvall. Congressman Petri, it is a great question, and I think one of your panelists in the later session is going to get into this question about the cost of capital in public and private sectors, and it is obvious that, certainly at the Federal level, you can achieve very low at capital, and, obviously at the State and local levels, you have taxes and borrowing, which is significantly cheaper than taxable borrowing. I think that actually misses, though, the point about who bears the risk, and I think, obviously, to the extent you are doing government borrowing, you are putting taxpayers--and one of the reasons that government borrowing is cheaper is because you have got--you know, you are putting the general taxpayer at risk. And I think one of the ideas here is to really shift large amounts of financial risk to entities that want to bear it. Aand can bear it, and that drives--in response to Congressman Lipinski's questions--innovations and performance incentives that simply--it is not in any way a dig at government or government's inability to do things--it is just that simply the rewards for performance and innovation cannot be replicated perfectly in a public model. And I think the point of the contracting mechanism and why it is so powerful is that the public sector can really unleash fairly serious performance requirements in connection with these contracts. So you are correct that the cost of capital through pure government borrowing can be lower, but it is much more complicated, and ultimately the question is who is bearing risk of failure and costs of failure and then, obviously, who is bearing the upside for success is the policy issue you all are confronting here. Mr. Busalacchi. Congressman Petri, I think the point that you are bringing up is really one of the reasons why I am here today. I think there needs to be more debate about this topic. I am not here saying don't do it. All I am saying is that I think there may be other options here for us to accomplish our goal, and that is one suggestion that you have. But I really don't see that coming out of USDOT, I just see one solution here, and that is what concerns me, and the fact that we are forgetting about this massive problem that we have with needs. So I think that you are absolutely right, and what we need to do is we need to have more debate about this. I am not saying debate it for 10 years. We can't wait that long; the Country can't wait that long. But I think we need to talk a little bit more about this to find out this to find out really what is going on, because, by my testimony today, I can tell you I am not convinced. Not by any means of the imagination am I convinced. Mr. Wilson. Congressman, may I just add one observation on this element of risk? You asked what was uniquely attractive with the private sector involvement in these kinds of programs, and let me say that it may not be unique, but it certainly is a different perspective when you consider the notion of ownership and who has the ownership risk in the program. Typically, the public entity is the owner. And after the project is designed and built and is operational, they bear massive risks in terms of quality and performance of the facility. Through this partnership arrangement, you can effectively transfer that risk for any period of time to the private enterprise, and that becomes an attractive option for a public entity in the sense that it does not have to buy and own the facility in order to get beneficial use of the facility. You can get the performance specified in your contract, you can get the reliability specified, or you don't make payments. In other words, what you are using is the productive capacity and performance of the investment, but you don't have to have ``ownership'' of it, you don't have to hold the deed to get public benefit from it. You leave the risk of that performance with the private entity that designed it and built it, and has to stand behind its long-term performance. You can judge for yourself, locally, what long-term is; in some facilities it may be no longer than five to seven years when you have gone through the infant mortality stage of a project, or it may be a longer period of time because they are doing a good and adequate job. If not, then you take it back in your contract you have the ability to buy back, take back the facility, or own the facility at some future date. But I think it is the important--there are too many examples in our industry where infrastructure built was left to an owner that had to come in afterwards, make repairs they didn't expect. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Hopefully we can keep the answers more brief so we can get to more members. I would observe that in a project that has been operating for 50 years, there is not a lot of risk; there is a lot known. Taking greenfields, it is a different issue. And there is very little to distinguish what is going on here between assuming and operating existing--and monetizing existing assets-- Pennsylvania Turnpike, Indiana Toll Road, New Jersey Turnpike-- or building a new project. Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for participating this morning and the members for their participation. And the gentleman from Tennessee, thank you for your leadership in the past in aviation and in water resources, and now lending your skills to highways. It has been always a pleasure working with you. And Mr. DeFazio, for yeoman service in the course of SAFETEA-LU. We spent an enormous amount of time. I think I saw more of him at times than I did of my wife. [Laughter.] Mr. Oberstar. I have a number of problems with this public- private partnership idea. In this no tax atmosphere where governors, legislators, the chambers of commerce paint halos around their head, pose for holy pictures, and saying no taxes, no new taxes. And then they turn around and say, but we are going to toll this and impose a fee for that. The word toll is spelled t-a-x. That is all it is. Don't try to sugarcoat it or disguise it in something else, and don't try to something the public. Secretary Busalacchi, I want to compliment you on the splendid leadership you have exercised on the Milwaukee Interchange. That $800-plus million project has been languishing for over two decades, and I spent enough hours snarled in its mess, visiting two daughters who graduated from Marquette, to know the job that you undertook and tackled with great aplomb and with great skill. I have been back to Milwaukee several times in the course of the construction, simply flying in to visit my grandchildren down in Kenosha, and also for events in Milwaukee. So you have really done a superb job. And you are absolutely right, the role of the public sector is to oversee. Now, this idea of public-private partnerships, if we want to go to something that the European countries use, that is a different--that will be a sea tide change in the way we do transportation. The idea of a warranted system, a warranted construction program, where the national government says we want a four lane road, we want it to go 50 miles, and we want it to last 75 years, and you build it and you guarantee it, contractor. We don't do that. We in the United States, in the AASHTO manual, specify to States we are building a 20-mile roadway. It is like a three layered chocolate cake, the frosting will consist of this amount of bakers sugar and this amount of chocolate, and there will be so much cake flour in it and so many eggs and all the rest of the ingredients. We spell them out and then we watch over the contractor to see that they perform the job to those specifications, and we don't hold them accountable except for fraud and corruption. They are two very different ways of doing projects. And it would take a sea tide change of processing, of management of law and implementation of law to move to the European system, and that is what the public-private partnership idea does; it is a siren's song, frankly, of a quick fix way to put a lot of money out and build a lot of roadways. But I want to tell you that if we had started with the interstate system with each State doing its own design, designing its own program with public-private partnerships, we would not have a national integrated highway system. To his great credit, Dwight Eisenhower didn't throw his hands up and say, oh my God, no taxes, build it with some incantations and chants. No. Although his secretary of treasury did propose funding it with--funding the interstate highway system by bonds floated on the stock market. Humphreys had been a private sector financier. The Congress said no. This Committee said no. My predecessor, John Blatnik, over in that corner, was one of the five coauthors of the interstate highway system legislation, and they said we are going to impose a user fee, call it a gas tax. Eisenhower signed it and it passed in 1956. It came back in 1957. It was four cents. It came back and said this isn't going to be enough, we need another cent. It passed on a voice vote in the House. I don't think you can pass the prayer on a voice vote in the House anymore. But there was consensus in this Country, there was political will to do things. That is what this takes, is some kind of political will. And to say that our former chairman, Don Young, went to the White House, went to the House Republican Conference to advocate for a $375 billion bill that the Transportation Department recommended, consequence of TEA-21. Study the needs, come back and report it, which they did. We took that bill, we introduced it in October of 2003. Gasoline was selling at $1.34 a gallon. Oh my God, the White House threw their hands up, the House Republican Conference threw their hands up, said we can't do this. And where did gas go within a year? It doubled. All that money went overseas to OPEC. Take the five cents, invest it in America. Those jobs are built with American labor, American goods, American steel, American cement and aggregate and asphalt. That is just baloney. We do it right, meet those needs, we have got enough. But we need the political will to do it. And I heard Mr. Wilson talk about the project delivery. Chairman Young asked me to work on this matter of project streamlining, and so with 32 pages of legislative language we did it. But now I ask Mr. Duvall what have you done? It is 18 months since the bill was enacted. Where are your regulations? Mr. Duvall. I mean, obviously, there are a series of regulations in connection with the 6002 process. We put out proposed rules. We obviously greatly appreciate the flexibility you have given the Department to accelerate that, and we will work harder to get them out faster, but-------- Mr. Oberstar. It is 18 months. Where have you been? Mr. Duvall, I mean, granted, it took me six months to work this out, but I have worked it out with every interested group, Associated General Contractors, ARTBA, AASHTO, Sierra Club, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and go on all the other interest groups, every one of them. I spent hours of my time on this thing. And you have been on this thing for 18 months. Get the regulations done. At least come up and talk with us if you have got a problem. But we are not going to tolerate these projects--we have got the money, but it has taken us seven years to do it because the project approval process is too complicated. Baloney. Mr. Duvall. I agree, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Oberstar. Get the message? Mr. Duvall. Well, I agree that we have got to work much harder to get the regulations out in a timely fashion. It has been a high priority. As you note, the 6002 regulations, there is a myriad of other regulations, obviously, the Department is putting out in connection with the bill, some of which have been very timely, others have not. And we have got to do a better job to make sure-------- Mr. Oberstar. I want to tell you the Seattle monorail project, which unfortunately failed for other reasons, projected 44 months of project approvals. They used this process and did it in 40 weeks. Mr. Duvall. It is a very important--I think that one of the problems we have got is that the environmental process has obviously become the mechanism to have the public discourse---- ---- Mr. Oberstar. It is not just environmental. Mr. Duvall. Right. Mr. Oberstar. Don't blame it all on the environment. Mr. Duvall. No, no. Mr. Oberstar. There are lots of other issues. Mr. Duvall. That is actually what I was saying, is that it has become the mechanism to debate the project, and whether to move forward, and it is an important policy-------- Mr. DeFazio. I think that the Chairman is making a great point, and I think that the Subcommittee will request a briefing on the status of the implementation of the streamlining. We would think that this Administration would be particularly interested in putting that forward, and perhaps if they spent more time on that rather than developing model legislation for a minor portion of the problem, which is public-private partnerships, we would have the streamlining in place and we wouldn't have to include that as part of this debate. I thank the-------- Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is message delivery, not project delivery here. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mrs. Drake. Mrs. Drake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize for missing the bulk of the meeting, and I am sure you have covered this in detail. I only have one very simple question for you. I am from Virginia. Virginia, I think, has used public-private partnerships very well, and I wondered, from your perspective of looking at the Nation and you look at States that do use it, States that don't use public-private partnerships, if you can draw the conclusion of are States like Virginia--I think in Virginia we would say we are in a better position because we have used public-private partnerships, but, looking around the Nation, would that be a fair assessment? And the other comment that I would make is what I have seen from it too, because we have unsolicited proposals, is that there are proposals coming forward on various plans that really generate public debate, debate within the general assembly, and get us looking at transportation a little bit differently and what things might be out there. So I apologize if you have already covered that in great detail. Mr. Duvall. No, thank you, Congresswoman. I did mention the Commonwealth's activities, and there is little question that the Commonwealth has been a leader in exploring these partnerships and has the most comprehensive authorizing legislation that was a substantial public debate with the governor and with the State legislature in Virginia, and continues to--the State legislature continues to provide strong oversight over the implementation of that broad authorizing legislation. But there is little question that Virginia' s willingness to negotiate and enter into discussions has given them a tremendous opportunity to improve their transportation systems, both in the Hampton Roads region and up here in Northern Virginia. The three major projects that are proceeding--actually, there are more than that, but the ones that are getting a lot of attention are all going to involve some public-private partnership arrangements, and it is unsolicited proposals, in fact, that came forward, particularly with the Beltway widening here in Washington, D.C., that came up with the creative approach to take a fewer number of houses than the State had considered and really stimulated, as you said, a public debate. If you have told me 10 years ago that the State of Virginia would have been in a position to proceed with a widening of the Capital Beltway without enormous public negative reaction, I would have said that there is no way. But what happened is the private entity working with the government developed a very streamlined and rational approach to the expansion that I think has gained widespread public approval from all the members of Congress, from the constituents in the region, and it is moving forward at an aggressive pace at this point. But you are right. I mean, I think that the template that Virginia has used--and, again, I think it is clearly in the public interest how Virginia has implemented it--is a really impressive model that other States--in fact, it is what other States have looked at in the U.S. Mrs. Drake. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. Mrs. Napolitano. Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been listening with great interest to the testimony that has been given, and coming from a State which has undertaken private-public partnerships in the past, it is really an interesting scenario to hear that now the DOT Federal is wanting to make--fling the door open, if you will, not even talking specifically on the 91 Freeway in Los Angeles that began as a 3P and, unfortunately, did not continue in that vein. But one of the concerns I have is, Secretary Duvall, has DOT sought information input, comments, held meetings with the States Departments of Transportation folks to receive input as to how they perceive this could work or not work, and any of the areas that you have outlined that they feel might require further comment or further input to be able to become more effective? Mr. Duvall. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, we have absolutely sought advice and input, and, in fact, it is safe to say that the States, at the DOT level, are really screaming for additional flexibility in this area to really pursue arrangements that current State law and legal mechanisms do not allow them to consider. You are 100 percent correct that the experience with SR-91, while receiving a lot of negative attention, has actually been very vital to this national debate, and I agree with Commissioner Busalacchi that we do need a national debate about this topic. Mrs. Napolitano. OK, but can you determine, can you maybe quantify in terms of the bigger States are for it, the smaller States are against it, or something to that effect? Because, in essence, the larger States have already done the partnerships in some form or another. The smaller States are beginning to want to because of the expansion need, but do they know the pitfalls that the larger States have become embroiled in and have found information that could help them determine whether or not that is the way to go? Mr. Duvall. Yes. The small, mid-size, and large States--I would not characterize all large States, though, as having done this. There are actually still a very few number of large States that have pursued this approach to expanding and managing existing capacity. I think what is safe to say is there is a significant degree of learning that has already taken place among the career officials at State DOTs in the past five to ten years and I am actually fairly well amazed at how much they do know already about the risks, even in States that have not done a single transaction. AASHTO has been a great forum for discussion. There have been numerous conferences in which this has been discussed and debated, and I am constantly amazed, frankly, of how much people already know about the risks. And SR-91, you are right, has been a poster child that has actually helped us in many ways carve out what the policy issues are with non-compete provisions. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I was one of the ones that voted against it, and partly because it was built on public land and somebody was going to take private benefit from it, and we knew that it did not have all the questions answered nor coverage of where the infrastructure maintenance was going to come from and for how long. There were a lot of things that were not covered. Do you have any way of being able to--and I have heard some of the discussion that on your website you have some information--to be able to help those that are seeking information as to whether or not they can make informed decisions or be able to be referred to those cities or States that could assist them in being able to protect their public interest? Essentially, in 91, the non-compete clause, California has a great need for expansion, yet we could not expand because of that clause in that 91 contract, and that hurt our whole area. In fact, they are still suffering from that; it has not expanded. And I am sorry, but others are going to have to make sure that they look at the non-compete clause, because if they are able to expand, they can't by law. Mr. Duvall. Right. I think you will have a panelist later discuss non-compete clauses in potentially more detail, but I think it is safe to say that the state of the practice has evolved to the point where they are either not included or sufficiently weakened relative to what was included in that transaction. As far as expanding outreach, I think it is important, and I think I basically committed to the Chairman today to develop some written materials related to the risks, and we will do that. But I think it is clear, though, that we have been engaging in a longstanding discussion with States who want--who have asked us these questions, who are inquiring. We have done a lot of conferences, a lot of outreach to States; we have developed, obviously, model legislation, but we have also done a significant number of reports. There is a lot of expertise that does not reside in our Department, however, and I think this is a longer term issue for us, as well as the States. Mrs. Napolitano. Well, my time has run out, Mr. Chair, but I will submit some questions. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. I think that was a particularly important question. Mr. Busalacchi, would you like to respond to that? Mr. Busalacchi. Yes. I would just like to say something, Mr. Chairman, in talking about Virginia. And this is why I think we have got to get out there and we have got to have this debate, and I really appreciate what you are doing here today. It is our understanding that Virginia is having real problems raising revenues to get highway projects done, and that is why--and, you know, I understand what Mr. Duvall is saying, but that is why we have to get out there and we have to look at these 3Ps and see if they really are this panacea that everybody seems to think they are. I don't think they are. Our legislature doesn't think they are. We are facing, in Wisconsin, opposition to this program. People don't like the idea that their roads may be owned by foreigners. Forgive me for saying it, but that is really--that is part of the problem, and-------- Mr. DeFazio. You will be on Lou Dobbs tonight, Mr. Busalacchi, I guarantee it. [Laughter.] Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for that. But I think, Mr. Duvall, Mrs. Napolitano made a great point here, which is I would really like to see--I mean, you are saying you have had these conversations. I have heard from DOTs, a lot of them across the Country, and they are talking about the hard sell they are getting from their regional Federal officials on 3Ps, they are not saying, gee, they gave us a great list of the pitfalls or problems. You said the practice has evolved, you haven't said your guidance or your advice to the States has evolved to say, hey, look out for non- competes. You don't have to look very far back in history to find non-competes, i.e., the Indiana Toll Road, that's a big one with 10 miles each side non-compete or other projects. It is not like this is some ancient historic artifact or there aren't maybe some private companies out there trying to get some gullible State DOT to sign off on a non-compete. And I have not seen specific guidance from the Fed saying, hey, this is a big problem, look what happened in California, look at the problems it is creating elsewhere, look at the potential problems. Just one last question. I pointed out, when we had the financiers in here and Macquarie, good company. I said, there are two ways to meet a congestion standard, aren't there? One is increase capacity, the other is to price people off your asset. And in Indiana, if they priced people off the asset, there is a 10-mile non-compete on either side of that. So you are dumping the traffic into an area where you can't--just like what happened in California. And this was just signed by Mr. Daniels six months ago. So it isn't a historic artifact. Where is the advice? Mr. Duvall. Well, Mr. Chairman, again, as I said, we will definitely put out some guidance document related to risk. Mr. DeFazio. I appreciate that. That would be great. I have got to go on to another-------- Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Microphone. Mr. Cohen. Push my button and clear my throat. I guess this is for the panel, and I am a little confused on the whole issue, but if you get into these public-private partnerships, does this change the process of determining priorities and where these roads are built? Where you build roads determines the value of property, and does this give the private sector the ability to choose where these roads would be built, whether there would be off-ramps, etc., and have different issues concerning the land that is pertinent to the road or near the road, and the value that might have? Have those factors been considered or is that an appropriate issue? Mr. Duvall. Congressman Cohen, obviously, any project that advances has got to be agreed to by the government officials that are administering the program in accordance with Federal planning requirements. So I am not sure if that answers your question, but there is no way a private project can move forward without full consent and understanding of the officials administering the program. So if it doesn't fit within their transportation plan and proposal, it can't move forward. I think it is important to note, increasingly, we are seeing, obviously, resources not being allocated towards projects that are really producing the highest returns, and there have been a number of economic studies in recent years that really point to this failure. And one of the reasons we have been excited from a policy standpoint about this idea is we think it will actually free up resources to make what may or may not be considered a low-return investment, but that is still in the public interest, but allocate some of the risk of high-return projects and get resources flowing faster to projects that produce high economic returns. That is the idea, and we are seeing some of it being played out here in Virginia and in Texas. We have a long way to go before that is implemented nationwide, though. Mr. Cohen. When the private sector gets involved, they make their money by the tolls, is that correct; they invest in the roads and then they get the return on tolls? Mr. Duvall. It depends on the arrangement. Obviously, the State of Florida is pursuing what is called an availability payment model, where the State sets aside a set of resources and then has the private entities bid on effectively a maximum ceiling, and if the lowest bid effectively wins and they get a concession for those public resources, however they are generated. That is a model that is used in Europe. So as I said in my opening statement, it is not confined to revenue- generating projects, this concept of risk sharing. Yes, you are correct that the ones that are getting the most media attention are toll road projects, though. Mr. Cohen. Is there ever an issue concerning the toll roads? You have got to have law enforcement there to police, I presume, and if there is a wreck which ties up traffic, you have got to clear it. Is there ever a discussion about utilizing the public's abilities to clear up road and who gets priorities, and if there is any problems there? Mr. Duvall. No. All the agreements provide for full access to law enforcement officials. They also actually--several of them fund the activities of the law enforcement officials as a part of the contract. I also think it is important to talk about the performance requirements that States can impose on private entities to not only--to clear incidents, to move traffic faster, to deploy electronic tolling, to create reversible lanes. All those can be required as part of the agreement. They are in the inherent interest of the private entity because throughput maximization is a good idea if you are trying to generate a high return, but it is also something the public officials can require as a part of the performance. And a breach of the agreement--I think this is an important topic of further conversation--but a breach of the agreement means that the facility, if it is material, can revert back to public hands, and any payments that have been made to date do not go back to the private sector. So the public sector--and you have got very good lawyers that now are expert at doing this and can greatly protect themselves in connection with these issues. Mr. Cohen. But does it ever skew the public resources? Has there ever been a situation where you have got maybe political influence and they put a priority on this toll road to go and clear up this accident so that the traffic flow on that road is better and it helps--as distinguished from a public road? Any time you get this private-public distinction and you have got public resources necessary for operation, you have got the possibility that there will be influence used politically to have those public resources used to help the private entrepreneur. And the road-building industry, I don't know about the Country, but in Tennessee we have had a couple of scandals through the people that build roads; I mean, they have kind of got a tendency to get together and decide what the best price would be and do that. That doesn't work real well. Mr. Duvall. Right. Mr. Cohen. So if they kind of get together on that, might they not get together on saying, you know, clear my road first? Mr. Duvall. Right. Clear risk of those kind of side backroom deals taking place, I think it just a risk that the public officials have got to be aware of and make sure that there is open transparency to what is being negotiated. As I said, obviously, the private sector is increasingly a tool to finance some of these public services, which, as you said, presents some conflict questions. I just think it has got to be managed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Cohen. There was a road I got on one time going from L.A. down to Laguna, and it was a toll road. Was that a public- private partnerships? OK. Mr. Duvall. The 91, is that the one you are talking about? Mrs. Napolitano. That is the one by Irvine, over in that area. Mr. Duvall. I think so, yes. OCTA? I don't know. Mr. Cohen. Whatever. Thank you. Mr. Duvall. All right, thanks. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Baird. Mr. Baird. I thank the Chairman and our witnesses. Mr. Duvall, is it your opinion that it is in the United States' best interest to have a domestic fabrication capacity for steel and other infrastructure needs? Mr. Duvall. Yes, I believe it is in the Country's interest to have capacity to do that. Mr. Baird. Is it your understanding that part of the reason for the Buy America Act provisions in Federal law are to help preserve that domestic fabrication capacity and ensure that Federal tax dollars are spent to help maintain the capacity and employ American workers? Mr. Duvall. That is my understanding, yes. Mr. Baird. Is it your or the Administration's position that private partnerships or privately funded transportation projects should be exempt from Buy America provisions, even if they become, in some fashion, part of the broader Federal highway system? Mr. Duvall. I think the question of application of all Federal requirements, including Buy America, depends obviously on the nature of the Federal involvement in the partnership to begin with. So if there is Federal funding participation, if there are other Federal elements of participation, the requirements should attach with that participation. To the extent the Federal Government is not involved in funding, approving, or otherwise providing oversight to a project, the requirements would not attach. Mr. Baird. Do you see any potential problems if expansion of public-private partnerships were to continue and possibly evade, thereby, Buy America provisions? In terms of the potential to maintain our domestic infrastructure. Mr. Duvall. Again, to the extent the Federal funds are flowing, the requirements have to be satisfied, so I don't see that risk. Mr. Baird. Let me give you an example. There is a bridge in Tacoma, Washington being built, the new lane on the Tacoma Narrows span. It is being built with Korean steel. It is a tolled project And not far away are some of the best steel fabricators in the United States of America. They happen to be in my district. Not a bit, or very, very little of that new span is being made domestically, and at some point, if we continue this, we are going to lose our domestic steel fabrication capacity. And one of my concerns about this public- private partnership issue is that we are going to lose that capacity, and when an earthquake comes or an international conflict comes, we are going to be beholden to foreign manufacturers and foreign fabricators. Do you have any concern at all about that? Mr. Duvall. I mean, again, I am not an expert on that business, but I think to the extent the Federal Government's interest--and I actually have not been intimately involved in the day-to-day negotiations of that contract, so I can't speak to the terms there--but clearly the Federal Government has expressed, through the Congress, a clear interest in ensuring the Buy America provisions are enforced, and I don't see the public-private partnership trend as a threat to that in any way, actually. Mr. Baird. Really? In no way at all? Mr. Duvall. I don't see it as a threat, no. Mr. Baird. I would ask you to look into that a little and get back to me. Mr. Duvall. OK. Mr. Baird. It just seems to me that if increasing numbers of Federal transportation projects are built with private money and thereby evade Buy America provisions, there will be less market for domestic fabricators and construction people, and that declining market would seem to possibly imperil their financial viability and thereby, importantly, the security of this Country. And I would encourage you to look seriously, as you seem to be an advocate of public-private partnerships. Let me throw out an idea that I have kicked around and welcome the comments of the panelists. First of all, it is my understanding that Macquarie gets a significant portion of their funds from retirement funds from Australian citizens. Is that an accurate understanding? Mr. Duvall. Yes. Mr. Baird. That is accurate. Mr. Duvall. Yes. Mr. Baird. It is paradoxical to me that we are going to have American citizens driving on roads paid for by foreign retirees and our tolls are going to go to those foreign retirees. That strikes me as funny. We have, in this Country, dual problems: one, an infrastructure deficit that exceeds about $1.6 trillion dollars, according to engineers; and, two, a big question about where we put the Social Security trust funds. Those trust funds, as you know, are declining over the next number of years. Many of us have said they should be put into a lockbox. No one knows quite where that lockbox would be stored; it is apparently stored as a payday loan operation that funds the general fund to hide the cost of the deficit. Let me throw this out there and see any response you have got. What about putting the Social Security trust funds, over the next 10 years, while we have still got a surplus in those trust funds, into an infrastructure bank that would fund infrastructure, create jobs, and that would be paid back on some timetable to ensure that the baby boomers and others receive benefits? Mr. Duvall. I will get really far afield of my responsibilities to comment on that question directly. I will say, however, that the prospect of long-term money, U.S. long- term money, entering into the infrastructure equation in the U.S. is a huge opportunity and it is already happening. CalPERS--my written statement notes--is becoming a major intermodal freight investor in the Midwest. The three major unions in the United States, the Operating Engineers, the Teamsters, and one other--I can't remember the third--are investing actually in Macquarie. Fifty-two percent of Macquarie is U.S. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners is owned by U.S. investors. And I think you are absolutely right, the Canadian Pension Fund, the equivalent of the Canadian social security, has dedicated 10 percent of their fund, I believe to infrastructure. So, yes, I think you are onto a major point here, which is that we have got a lot of long-term capital in the U.S. that could be really aggressively, I think, deployed to improve our infrastructure, if we get the policy framework right. And I think that--to me, that is the big challenge for this Committee, is how do we get the policy framework right to tap into that. But you are right. Mr. Baird. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I ask if the others want to comment? Mr. DeFazio. Certainly. Go ahead. Mr. Busalacchi. Well, I just would, you know, again, as I had said earlier, you are raising some really good points, and I think that is what comes out of the debate that we have with this, because, you know, you are right about the materials. You are absolutely right on the mark. And we--this is all about making money, and if they can get the steel cheaper and they can get the concrete cheaper, they are going to get it cheaper. And if they can get it overseas, you can bet they are going to bring it over here if they control the job. And that is what we have got to be careful about. Insofar as having our own pension funds, you know, in this Country doing this investing, you know, sure, if that is what they want to do, but some of these pension funds are prohibited from entering into these things. So that is another area that you really have to--that you really would have to look at domestically. But you are raising some good points and it is something that--that is why this Committee needs to really closely watch what is going on with this. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman from Washington State. We are going to--this Committee is going to hold a hearing this spring on the Buy America provisions, and I expect we will fully investigate. And I think these are excellent questions you are raising. The other question you are raising about social security, just for reference sake, I believe it would be like $1.2 trillion that is going to be borrowed and spent of so-called social security surplus over the next decade. Now, just imagine, here is a country of 16 million people, Australia, and a major funder of infrastructure in a Country of nearly 300 million people. Kind of odd, isn't it? Mr. Baird. It is actually, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I believe it is about $1.2 trillion over the next five years. Mr. DeFazio. Oh, it is five, I am sorry, five years. Right, during the budget, yes. Member of the Budget Committee, I stand corrected. Mr. Baird. But the point being there is money there, and we could invest it, create jobs, build an infrastructure, comply with domestic laws, and I sure think the American taxpayers would rather be paying into their own retirement fund, if they are paying a toll, rather than the Australian retirement fund. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for that provocative line of thought, and I would like to work with him on that. I want to thank the panel for sitting and providing good testimony and answers, and your obligations are completed. We now have a vote on the rule, probably a five minute vote, so hopefully we will reconvene--how many votes? I am sorry, four votes. I am really sorry about this for the next panel. There apparently are four votes. I would expect--I am not sure how many of those are fifteens. Just the first? And the others are all fives or suspensions. OK. So we would expect it would take a minimum of about half an hour. I won't set a time certain, but we will convene as soon as possible after the last vote, which will probably be about five after or ten after twelve. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. DeFazio. The Committee will come to order. It took longer than we thought, but that is the way things are around here. I appreciate the next panel being patient, and we will proceed immediately. We expect no more votes for the immediate future, so I guess--I don't have the witness list in front of me, but we will just go from left to right. Ms. Hedlund, why don't you begin? Thank you. TESTIMONY OF KAREN HEDLUND, ESQ., NOSSAMAN, GUNTHER, KNOX & ELLIOTT LLP, PARTNER, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA; DENNIS ENRIGHT, NW FINANCIAL GROUP, PRINCIPAL, JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY; ALISTAIR SAWERS, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, TRANSPORTATION AND PROJECT FINANCE SPECIALIST, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA; AND ROBERT POOLE, REASON FOUNDATION, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA Ms. Hedlund. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Duncan, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me back. Today, I am going to try to address certain public policy issues that arise in PPP transactions and how these are resolved through statutory and contract requirements. My firm has had the privilege of advising on PPPs in over 15 States, and our advice is frequently sought on PPP legislation, which I know is of an interest to this Committee. I do live here, but I probably spend more time in the State capitals than I do in this one, and I am going to try to bring you that perspective. The authorizing legislation in many States I think reflects real thoughtfulness about the proper processes that need to be used to implement PPPs and to protect the public interest. And public agencies also have at their disposal a wealth of contract provisions that are accepted the world to ensure that private partners keep their end of the bargain and do not take unfair advantage of the public in operating public use facilities. As of today, over 24 States have adopted some form of PPP legislation and, as with other governmental activities, such laws vary greatly from State to State in scope and in detail. What the States do have in common in their approach to PPPs is that they view them as but one tool in the toolbox, not as a panacea. Even if the gas tax were raised, I think we would find PPPs being used to continue to advance important mobility projects for which traditional sources of funding are lacking. In my written statement, I tried to answer some of the hot button issues related to public-private partnerships that this Committee and others have raised. How can you--how can the integrity of the procurement process be maintained by achieving transparency for the public? How should the term of a PPP be determined, should it be 35 years, should it be 99 years? How can increases in user fees be limited? How can unreasonable private operator profits be controlled? Are there reasonable approaches to this issue of competitive facilities? How do we assure long-term performance? And what is the private operator defaults or becomes bankrupt? Most legislation will either resolve these issues or require that they be addressed in resulting agreements on a case-by-case basis, so let me address just a couple of these. To avoid sweetheart deals, State laws provide for competition. Choosing solicited procurements over unsolicited procurements now seems to be the trend, and the State of Oregon is choosing solicited procurements; the State of Georgia has gone from a statute that only permitted unsolicited procurements to add solicited procurements. As to the appropriate term of the agreement, most State laws do provide from kind of maximum term, but the term of any particular agreement should be established with regard to the financial feasibility of the project. Projects with a weak revenue stream may require a longer term to allow the private operator to be able to achieve its targeted rate of return, and that was the reason for the very long term in Pocahontas. Projects with lower revenue risk can have relatively shorter terms. The decision on how much and how fast user fees should be permitted to rise is a public sector decision involving significant policy considerations. The final decisions can be implemented through contract terms specifying maximum annual toll rate adjustments, which can be tied to an appropriate index. The maximum profits that a private entity can secure is controlled through the use of other contractual devices such as requiring the private entity, if its rate of return exceeds a specific percentage, excess revenues be returned to the sponsoring agency. As to this issue of non-compete agreements, there was actually only one project actually built in the United States in the last 20 years that prohibited non-safety related improvements on adjoining free lanes, that was the SR-91. Safety improvements were permitted. But the market has evolved dramatically from that in the last 16 years. Instead, agreements typically now provide for, if at all, possible compensation to be paid to the private operator if, and only if, the construction of facilities that are not included in the region's long-term revenue unconstrained plan actually result in a proven reduction in a project's revenue. So there is no bar to the public sector to building additional facilities. Under certain circumstances, unlikely to happen, there might be compensation that has to be paid. As to long-term performance, you will hear Dr. Poole, I am sure, argue, as he has in the past, that the private entity is highly motivated to maintain the facility in order to protect its investment and keep its customers, but we don't have to rely on economic theory. Instead, detailed performance requirements have become standard in these transactions. Finally, if the operator defaults and goes bankrupt because traffic fails to meet its original projections, the State may terminate the contract and step back in and operate the road. In addition, most public agencies retain the right to terminate a contract for convenience when they deem it in the public interest or as a result of changed circumstances or a change in public policy. There are other issues that arise only in the context of leasing existing assets. The States, I think, are approaching this issue with a great deal of caution and after a lot of study. If they determine to go forward, I think the governors of New Jersey and Pennsylvania will probably seek specific authorizing legislation that is no doubt going to address issues such as the proper use of the proceeds and the tradeoff to be made between the term and asset value and protecting existing employees. In conclusion, I would observe that developments in public- private partnerships are just the kind of experiments that Justice Brandeis said in 1935 are one of the happy incidents of the Federal system. Properly executed, these experiments of individual States are providing new funding to meet mobility and safety challenges that hopefully will serve the social and economic needs of the entire Country. I look forward to your questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Mr. Enright. Mr. Enright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me to speak. In listening to the prior panel, there seemed to be a lot-- in the questions that followed, there seemed to be a lot of confusion between public-private partnerships as a concept and monetization of assets as a concept, and that the rubric between them has crossed. And there is a long history of very successful public-private partnerships in the U.S., but until the Chicago Skyway P3 transaction, success was measured largely by a reduction in cost to the users and shorter terms of 5 to 30 years. In the P3 asset sales like Chicago and Indiana, they actually produced higher cost to users, not lower, and longer terms of 75 to 99 years. That is a significant difference in the definition of public-private partnership. The key question, though, is can the public sector get more value from self-help financing approaches, using traditional toll road type of financing. There is much talk about worldwide privatization experience, it is not new in the United States. Non-U.S. experience actually is driven by credit concerns around the world. Most of the toll road privatizations around the world are actually in third world countries, although there are quite a few in Europe and Australia, and in those markets they cannot possibly provide the governmental funding to build the road, and private capital is an important source of funding. They also have no market for U.S. style governmental enterprise finance pretty much around the world. The U.S. is almost unique in that regard, using revenue bonds as a funding source. And low-cost public funding through tax-exempt bonds is not available in the rest of the world. In contrast, the U.S. experience has seen success in P3s when there is significant technology, revenue demand, or efficiency challenges. In the U.S., we have a large network of high-quality public employees with extensive experience in the implementation of large public works projects and, therefore, are better able to match the private sector efficiency. One U.S. P3 success story, which has been around for 20 or 30 years now, are waste energy plants. The key to success in this sector was the sharing of risk between public and private sectors. And I have spelled that out a little bit more in my written testimony. In the transportation sector, roads, anyway, there is little technology risk to share. The only real risk is production of future revenues to pay for the cost of the road, and that has always been an acceptable risk to the public entities that fund toll roads. The U.S. has a proven track record of using revenue-backed governmental bonds for enterprise finance. The U.S. public mission in toll roads has been one of providing mobility through affordable tolls, designed only to fund the needs of the road. U.S. toll roads authorities have not been maximizing the bottom line with inflation-adjusted increases, since they were never considered. They have been driven by a public policy mandate that treasured minimizing tolls. Along comes Chicago. In Chicago, which was a groundbreaking transaction for the transportation sector, it was really the first time the P3 mandate was utilized to increase cost to users in a major way, and that revenue stream was then monetized. So what Chicago really proved was that capital markets would accept a long-term projection of revenue increases based upon economic indices as a basis of financing. Then it was Indiana. They also used monetization of future toll roads, and it is a Statewide roadway. This raised a bunch of new public policy issues. This is a 150-mile stretch of road, not a bridge like Chicago. It is a key link in the interstate highway system, and it is probably the State's most important economic development tool. In the future, as they pursue economic development, they will need to negotiate with the new owner of the road and return profit to the private sector. The cost of capital to the private sector historically and in the future is likely to be 60 percent more than the public dollar, and the private sector has considerable leverage and sophistication in negotiations that really doesn't exist on the public side, as you heard some of the earlier speakers indicate. And remember, the lease is not up for renewal anytime soon, so who has the leverage? So what convinced the governmental leaders in these two States, two situations, to do these deals? It was really the pitch. And the pitch was that they were going to be able to monetize future growth today. This pitch is made by the private participants most likely to benefit. Well, surprise. The private sector is not willing to overpay for toll road assets. Chicago and Indiana actually prove that. They can't. The credit discipline in the capital markets, particularly for transactions of this size, limits how much they can do in debt, and that debt limitation then requires additional equity capital to make it up, and equity capital is more expensive. The combination of those two costs of capital drives the valuation. And the valuations in Chicago and Indiana are no greater than the amount of dollars that could have been generated by a public finance option. Public capital is about 60 to 70 percent lower than the private option, and the public solution can deliver greater value or require a significantly lower tolls to get the same dollars. So the bonus of public ownership is really a public ownership dividend: they get to keep the future cash flows the private sector is not paying for. How can the public interest be protected? Independent evaluations, public agency monetizations without taxpayer risk, capturing the public ownership dividend through future revenue share ownership, and, if private, if you decide that it should be private, you need more sophisticated procurement. You need to evaluate in a combination of factors, including the length of the deal, limits on the return to the investors, risk- sharing parameters for unforeseen events, and the price offered. In the international world, P3 deals rarely exceed 30 years, and many are much shorter, even for to-be-built projects. Some allow for termination of the concession when the equity returns have been achieved and return the revenue- producing asset to the public sector. Chicago and Indiana transactions are so exciting because, like Columbus, they found a new world: dollars today based upon a future revenue monopoly. However, there is little risk. If higher toll increases reduce traffic, then increases on free route--it increases traffic on free routes and makes time advantage on the toll route even more valuable. Are these platinum card highways? So the lessons learned from the public sector point of view are: one, there is no need to sell assets and surrender control; two, because publicly-funded monetization is relatively available without taxpayer risk; three, until higher valuations arrive, if ever, the public option should be the preferred option; four, for existing toll road assets, there is little reason to pursue the P3 option; five, capture the public ownership dividend of future cash flows; six, to-be-built roads, private sector may be more appropriate since there is more inherent risk. In summary--and I am sorry I went over my limit--the key concerns are: the transportation system integrity, you know, rich roads, poor roads types of problem--the private sector is only going to want to do the rich roads; you are going to be stuck with the poor roads--capturing future cash flows; cost of capital evaluations; the actual toll regime imposed, meaning the formulas for increases; and the term and lengths of the monetization. I hope I have provided some insight into potential protections for the public sector, and thank you for inviting me to speak. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Enright. Mr. Sawers. Mr. Sawers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to run through some of the more European experience. You can tell by the foreign accent that I have obvious reason for having foreign experience, but I have worked for over three years in the U.S. as well, so I have a certain amount of insight in both jurisdictions. I would like to make a distinction between public-private partnerships and privatization. Privatization is much more where markets and price mechanism defines the service provided. With PPP, the public sector is set there to define what is required to meet the public needs and remains the client throughout the long-term. This speaks quite clearly to how the public interest can be monitored in the PPP version. In general, more international PPPs in the highway and transit sectors are focused on greenfield projects rather than brownfield ones. As we have been discussing, in the U.S. there have been much more brownfield activity. These have varied from the O&M style, the old such as Chicago Skyway, which has been discussed, but they also include refurbishment style deals such as the Missouri bridge's replacement PPP and also enhancement- focused PPPs such as the I-495 managed lanes. So picking on brownfield as being a sort of single homogenous type of project is risky, and in terms of defining the public interest, they all have slightly different characteristics. In my written evidence I went into some detail describing how public interest and, thus, the public sector objectives have been defined in international PPP programs. In summary, the sort of key points have been to a move to define output or performance specifications. These reflect the user's needs and the broader policy objectives such as minority employment or congestion relief or encouraging innovation. The other issue that has been very much a key focus in the U.K. is value for money, and this has been where a concept that has been applied to not just taking the initial low bid view of a bid coming from the private sector, whether it is just pure construction, but also taking into account all the risks and the whole life costs of the project. Additional account has been taken to the benefits and the need for protection for public sector workers, though this has been much more an issue on health care PPPs, which are not really a feature here, rather than transportation. And then the final issue has been as much of perception as anything else, which is that PPP companies, being private, are making an unreasonable profit, especially from user fees, but also in the case of availability payment deals, which Tyler touched on, also from the refinancings of the project debt, which I know the Chairman has an issue with. The process of defining and entering into a PPP contract established some quite significant protections in the public interest inherently. The U.S. Treasury made some significant effort to study and evaluate these at one point. Their initial experience was that large amounts of the benefit of PPP came from reductions in change orders, as a previous witness mentioned, and the process of writing the PPP contracts required much better project definition than the traditional design bid-build model. Also, equity investors in the project, who typically include the construction and operating companies, stand to lose all of their investment and are strongly incentivized to remedy problems. Similarly, debt provided to the project has only one form of security, that is, the PPP contract, and typically they hold 80 to 90 percent of the deal, so they are very strongly incentivized to police that contract and reflect any of those terms in the main contract in their subcontracts and do the government's job for it. A study by the U.K. Treasury in 2003 found these protections resulted in something like 89 percent of projects being delivered on time, contrasting with previous research, which has shown that 70 percent of all non-PPP projects were delivered late. So that is quite a significant difference. Another frequently quoted example is the bankruptcy of U.K. PPP construction firm Jarvis in 2005. All of its deals were completed at no additional costs to the public sector, and, while there were some delays, that was quite a result. And the other famous or infamous example is the Eurotunnel, which did not come back on to either country's balance sheet. The problem of excessive returns has been addressed by revenue share triggers, which trigger either high levels of return or high levels of absolute revenue, or by, as just mentioned, termination of the concession when a cumulative return reaches a predefined target level. And that was Delford Crossing on the beltway around London. In most cases, however, toll or fare restrictions are the main focus, and the market is sort of the key focus there. Also, the majority of international projects are availability payment deals, or shadow toll deals, which are inherently capped. And that also speaks to why they are generally around 30 years, rather than 50 or 75 years, because you are just getting a straight payment from the government. Quite often, these include additional incentive payments to address public sector policy objectives such as safety payments for reductions in accidents--and that is the case in Norway, Portugal, and some of the U.K. deals--also, there have been terms that have been put into PPP contracts to reflect refinancing and make sure that the benefits of refinancing have been shared with the government side. And, again, that has mainly been on availability deals, but that is where the government is obviously paying the up-front payment, so it has a right to the refinancing benefit. And also several jurisdictions--and I think this was touched on by a previous witness--undertake value for money analysis and compare their PPP project with an equivalent conventional method of procurement, either called the public sector comparison or a shadow bid, so they justify the difference between PPP and the traditional way of doing it. Another thing which I think has been a reoccurring theme that lots of people have touched on is sharing best practice. Several countries have set up public entities to promote sharing best practice. An example is Partnerships BC in British Columbia, partners between Victoria and Australia. These authorities either do efforts to standardized contracts, reduce bid costs, or to share knowledge and to advise people procuring projects to make sure that the private sector does not have the advantage of better information. In conclusion, it should be noted that many of these protections can increase risks, costs, and complexity of the project and drive down the overall value coming from the private sector. Thus, it is a tradeoff between the cheapest price and the risk to the public sector. I look forward to your questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Sawers. Mr. Poole. Mr. Poole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I am Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Studies at Reason Foundation. I have been researching PPP toll roads actually since the late 1980's, starting with California's pilot program for toll road concessions. The past two years, as the previous speakers have just said, the global capital markets had discovered the U.S. highway sector. This comes about at an opportune time, just as we are really realizing the magnitude of the gap between the needs for highway investment and what available funding sources will produce. And so, to help close that gap, States are turning increasingly to tolling and PPPs. The newest form is the long-term concession, which is going to be the focus of my remarks. In exchange for a long-term contractual agreement the toll road company will design, finance, build, operate, market and rebuild a new or existing toll road, and it is the same basic concept, the same basic agreement form whether it is an existing road that is being leased or a new one being built, although there are obviously differences in risks involved. This idea actually goes back to the 18th and 19th Centuries when private companies under State franchises built toll roads, turnpikes in Europe, in England particularly, and in the United States. And it was revived in a modern form in the 1990's in Virginia and California, but it has really taken off, as I said, in the past two years between leases of some existing toll roads and something like $25 billion worth of private sector projects in various stages of negotiation for new toll road capacity in about six States. This model has over 40 years experience in Europe and nearly 20 years of use in Australia, and that is why companies from overseas have been among the pioneers of bringing the ideas to America. Now some will argue that we don't really need this concept of long-term toll concessions because State toll agencies can do all the things that we need if we want toll roads, but my research suggests there are six advantages that the private sector concessions model brings. Number one, access to new sources of capital. Toll road companies can tap pension funds and other long-term investors who don't buy tax exempt toll revenue bonds. It is a different pool of capital and a potentially much larger one. S and P estimates that up to $150 billion was raised just last year to invest in infrastructure projects. Number two, larger sums for toll projects. I am familiar with lots of studies, feasibility studies for toll roads, and many toll road projects don't pencil out using conventional toll finance with 30 year revenue bonds, but some of the same projects will work out under 50 or 60 year concession agreements because of the differences in the financing model. The long term really makes a big difference. Number three is shifting risk from taxpayers to investors, and previous witnesses have mentioned that. Large transportation projects worldwide are notorious for cost overruns and for having over-optimistic forecasts of traffic and revenue. In concession agreements, in exchange for the long term, the private sector will accept and take on construction risk and traffic and revenue risk. These are huge advantages. Number four has not been mentioned so far, multi-State potential. In the goods movement area where we are doing a lot of work, a lot of important projects are multi-State projects from a shipping origin to a distribution point in other States. State toll agencies can't operate across State lines, but private companies under concession agreements can and are particularly well suited to this. Number five is a more businesslike approach. We do have some businesslike toll agencies, but many of them are very bureaucratic and not really operating as businesses with customer service as their number one consideration. The sixth point that I think is very, very important is major innovations. Toll road companies are more likely to think outside the box and come up with innovative approaches to solving difficult problems, for example, traffic congestion. It was a private company in California under California's original concession program that came up with variable pricing as a means of managing traffic flows. This is what has made HOT lanes possible in America. No public agency was willing to take the risk of introducing variable tolling. The private sector did. In France, a private toll company solved a 30 year impasse over a missing link on the Paris ring road by building it as a tunnel underneath Versailles instead of trying to cut the town in two. Now because these concessions are very new, there are a lot of misconceptions, and I have addressed them at some length in my written testimony. None of these deals involve selling roads. They are all leases. They are all governed by the concession agreements. I have actually read the Chicago and Indiana concession agreements hundreds of pages long, and they really do have a lot of important provisions for protecting the public interest. It is clear, foreign companies have been in the lead so far because they have the expertise. They have the track record. We don't have a private sector toll road industry in the United States although we are starting to get there. We are starting to see joint ventures between U.S. and global companies. So I am confident that we will have a domestic industry probably within the next five years. There is also a lot of U.S. capital being raised today to invest in these kinds of projects. Eminent domain: this power is never delegated to the private sector. It is always one of the things that the public sector uses on behalf of a PPP project. Uncontrolled tolls: all the concession agreements provide some controls over either the rate of annual increase or the rate of return that can be earned in a project. Up front payments, that obviously has been discussed. There is a big tradeoff between how much money a State will get up front versus sharing revenues over the life of the project. I frankly am urging, I am recommending to State DOTs that they go for the revenue sharing option. I think that is both better for public policy and will be a more sustainable model long term. It also gives the public sector partner a real stake in the success of the project which I think is an important long-term consideration. Finally, the question, could a public toll agency raise just as much money? Frankly, I doubt it. Nobody has figured out how a public agency can give investors 50 years of certainty that there can be annual increases of toll rates. Until somebody figures that out, the capital markets will not raise the same amount of money for a public sector agency as they will for a private concession. To sum up, I think it is actually very fortunate for America's highway users that the capital markets including pension funds have discovered the U.S. highway market just as we realize how enormous the gap between needs and revenues is. So I think it is going to take, as we know, hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild the Interstates, to expand capacity where needed. But we now have a new source for a considerable chunk of that investment. The challenge, of course, is to develop the right public policy framework to be sure the public interest is protected along the way. Thanks very much, and I look forward to your questions. Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I first recognize the gentleman from Tennessee. Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a series of appointments, and I appreciate your letting me go first. For the record, I need to ask unanimous consent that the record be held open for 30 days for the submission of written statements or follow-up questions to the witnesses. I have had that request from some on our side. Mr. DeFazio. Without objection. Mr. Duncan. Now I have known of Mr. Poole's work for several years, and he has done a lot of good work. I especially like the revenue sharing suggestion, Mr. Poole, keeping the public sector involved instead of taking all the money up front. Mr. Enright had, I thought, some pretty interesting testimony, and I underlined these sentences. He said, the combination of credit discipline imposed by the lending community and the high cost of equity has assured that the valuation utilized by these private buyers is no greater than the amount of dollars that could have been generated by the public agencies undertaking the monetization financing on their own. As a matter of fact, the cost of capital in today's markets for public financing is only 60 to 70 percent of the cost of a private monetization, and therefore can either deliver greater delivery or require significantly lower toll increases. What do you think about those two sentences? Mr. Poole. Well, I think on paper you can make a comparison of that sort and show mathematically that you could get equivalent amounts of money and also that some ways of defining the average cost of capital, the public sector will clearly come out lower. The question is: Could you actually realize that in practice? In my written testimony I say a little bit more than I said in the oral. I think what the markets are reacting to in these concession agreements is the legal certainty of being able to raise tolls every year over a long-term period. With the public sector, the history of tolling by public sector agencies is that it will go for a long, long time with flat rate tolls even though inflation keeps rising and the costs of running things and maintaining things and repairing things keeps going up, but their revenues don't. Then they get to a crisis point and have to do a big toll increase that is very painful to the users. I think there is a very interesting tradeoff and probably better for the users to have steady annual predictable inflation-related increases in the toll rates, but in turn, that predictability is indeed what seems to be driving the higher valuations that the private sector deals are getting. I don't think, I cannot imagine a way to commit future legislators, legislatures and governors over a 50 year period to make sure that tolls can be increased by a public agency. I just don't know a way to do that. So that is why I think you are always in practice going to see a big difference in what a private concession deal can raise versus what a public toll agency can raise. Mr. Duncan. Anything you want to add, Mr. Enright? Mr. Enright. I would strongly disagree with Mr. Poole's reasoning there. I have been in the public finance business for over 30 years, and I did not undertake those statements without doing significant analysis and also talking with many bankers at large banks as to their view of this issue. There is no question that the capital is available at lower cost by doing a public deal. As a matter of fact, in doing normal toll road financings, there is an expectation that they have to meet an ongoing requirement to provide revenue to pay the debt service. Nothing would be different if you did a monetization deal. The only difference is that the proceeds would not be going directly into that roadway. They would be going for what other, whatever public purpose they are going for. But there is no question that that can be done in the capital markets, and I have researched it quite thoroughly. Mr. Duncan. All right. Ms. Hedlund, the staff tells me that there has been a lot of negative publicity about the Indiana deal and the Chicago Skyway. Why do you think that is and what lessons do you think that they have learned about what they have gotten into or what they have done? Ms. Hedlund. Well, let me first say that I didn't work on either of those transactions, so everything I know about them is pretty much what I have read in the newspaper. Mr. Duncan. Right. Ms. Hedlund. I don't think the Chicago deal has gotten a lot of negative publicity in Chicago. It is an unusual transaction. It was not a core asset of the City. The City had been trying to get rid of it for years. Mr. Duncan. I did see George Will wrote a column last week, criticizing the Chicago deal. Did you see that? Ms. Hedlund. Yes, I did. Yes, I did, but the value in the Chicago Skyway is something that arose only recently when a couple of casinos were built at the south end of the lake. That is a road that was built to take southsiders to the steel mills. The steel mills aren't there anymore. It now takes people to casinos. You know it was the first deal. It was certainly the one that got a tremendous amount of attraction, particularly because it drew a bid that was well in excess of even what Goldman Sachs, who was advising the City, expected. Indiana, I know has been very, very controversial, and I can assure that I am certain the other governors that are looking at similar kinds of monetization are looking at that transaction and seeing if there are ways of improving on it. Mr. Duncan. I am sure you are familiar with the term, shadow tolling? Ms. Hedlund. Yes. Mr. Duncan. Is that something that is starting to be used in place or what can you tell us about it? Ms. Hedlund. The concept is used in Great Britain. There was a similar transaction done in Massachusetts on Highway 203 that was structured around a long-term lease payment, and the State assured the contractors that they would make certain payments to them over a period of time. The Miami Port Tunnel which is in the middle of a procurement has availability payments. So it is something that is being examined. You do have to have a stream of revenues. It may be a public stream of revenues, but you have to have some kind of stream of revenues to compensate the private party for providing the availability of that project over the long term. Mr. Duncan. Mr. Poole, you mentioned that Standard and Poor's said that $150 billion or almost $150 billion in private capital was raised for infrastructure projects last year alone. How much of that was in the U.S.? Something else, is that a big jump over, say, five years ago? Mr. Poole. I don't know for sure the answer to either of those questions, Mr. Duncan. I suspect that a significant fraction of that was in the U.S. I know Goldman Sachs just announced they have raised $6.5 billion. Mr. Duncan. You said that. Mr. Poole. I believe that was almost all in the United States. Carlyle Group has a fund that I think is almost all U.S. money. I think Merrill Lynch has a fund. The trend in the last few years, I mean really, literally in the last year, is for major new U.S. money, capital, to be raised in these kinds of investment funds because of the overseas funds--the Australian pension funds discovering that there is a market here for toll roads and that we have a secure legal framework as opposed to lots of third world places where the deal might be overturned after you have built the road and taken away from you. The U.S. is a very, potentially, very, very attractive market, huge needs, stable rule of law and a willingness of people to do some large scale projects. So I think we are going to see a big trend, a further trend toward U.S. capital going to this. As I mentioned in the written testimony, I predict within five years, we will see purely U.S. toll road companies if this trend continues competing with the Macquaries and the Cintras from overseas. We are already seeing a lot of joint ventures, U.S. and foreign companies trading on the U.S. firm's knowledge of the local market, the overseas company's actual hands-on experience running, owning and operating toll roads for 15, 20 years and so forth. It is a market very much that is in transition to a much more domestic one. Mr. Duncan. But you see a lot of interest developing, though. Mr. Poole. Very definitely, I mean I speak at conferences every month, and increasingly there are conferences in New York with investor type people. I think the movement of U.S. pension funds, as Tyler Duvall mentioned, into this field is a sea change. It is a huge, huge development, I mean if there are enough projects. I don't think there is going to be any question there will be enough funding to do them if they lend themselves to this sort of funding. Mr. Duncan. I apologize. I have been told two different ways to pronounce your name. Mr. Sawers. Sawers. Mr. Duncan. Let me ask you this. What is the European experience? I am told by the staff that there are several major highway projects in Europe or different places around the world where they have started out as a public-private partnership, but they have reverted back to total public ownership or something. Is this something? Is this growing in Europe? Mr. Sawers. No. This is very much definitely spreading through the European countries. It kind of started in France and Spain and the U.K. as the three core countries that started this. Some of them are public-private partnerships because they had operating companies, but they have actually gone increasingly towards more of the PPP model. In terms of reversion, there have been a couple of toll roads that have reverted to the public ownership, but they have been because of expiry of contracts. In Spain, actually they have been going for 30 years. So several of them were returned to the public side and actually relet with additional investment. Mr. Duncan. They came to public ownership, but then they started a new public-private partnership. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Sawers. That is what I am saying. The only country that has had particular trouble is Portugal which had this shadow toll system, and they couldn't afford to pay their shadow tolls because their budgetary issues changed and the government changes. Actually, they were seeking to convert their shadow tolls to real tolls which is obviously riskier. Mr. Duncan. Well, I appreciate all your testimony. I can tell you there is a lot of interest in this. We have a difficult time when our hearings get interrupted by four votes, but nobody can control that. I thank each of you for being here, and I turn it back to the Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his thoughtful questions and understand he has other commitments and appreciate the time he invested today. We will have more opportunities to invest time. Ms. Hedlund, if I could refer to something in your testimony that I find somewhat disturbing, and I think part of what has occurred in Indiana and elsewhere is that if you follow the model legislation proposed by the Administration, States would attempt to get around public disclosure, freedom of information and other things and basically declare these agreements proprietary at the outset. In your testimony, you say, following actual execution of the contract, almost all agencies release to the public the contracts themselves--wow--the proposals and relevant information, excepting only proprietary data such as financial statements of private companies. Isn't that a little late for the public when a governor has just given an asset away in the case of Mr. Daniels for 75 years? The public gets to evaluate it after it is executed. What good does that do since it is irrevocable? Wouldn't we want to do that beforehand, before it is actually executed? Ms. Hedlund. With respect to Indiana, I believe he did put the entire contract in front of the legislature. I do know in the case of Chicago, the contract was printed in the proceedings of the city council for all of them to look at well in advance of the time they took the vote. Mr. DeFazio. Then why would you say this? Why wouldn't you say that in fact most agencies actually release all the details and they are approved and vetted in public? I have been approached by analysts who say, well, now that I have analyzed Indiana, given the constraints in it, it actually was undersold. That wasn't anywhere near the price you should have gotten with the non-competes and all the other restrictions in it, since it wasn't reviewed publicly and people didn't have an opportunity to comment on it other than the legislature which was bullied into it very quickly. Why would you say this? I am just puzzled. Ms. Hedlund. I may have not expressed it correctly, and I was really trying to get at a different point. With the old traditional design-bid-build method of procurement, the State puts out the RFP, puts out the entire design, the bids come in and they are made public immediately upon the bids coming in. You have a more complicated situation with a public-private partnership, and the evaluation process takes a longer period of time. I am talking about a competitive procurement here. We can talk about negotiated procurements separately. But in a competitive procurement, it is important that during the evaluation process, that the proposals, not that they be kept from the public--the public has an interest in knowing what those proposals are--they need to keep the proposals private from the other proposers, just to maintain the integrity of the proposal process itself. Those proposals, the RFP, the contracts are all made. In a competitive process, the proposed contract terms are made public before the proposals come in. Mr. DeFazio. OK, well, I think then perhaps we are in more agreement than the phrasing would have led me to believe. I believe the public interest is best served if the public, before an irrevocable 50 or 75 or 99 year contract is entered into, has full opportunity to review it and that others who might be interested, who bring more expertise to the issue, could also have an opportunity to review it so people would be fully aware of what was being entered into. Ms. Hedlund. I think my State clients would agree with you 100 percent. Mr. DeFazio. OK, that is good. Mr. Poole, I think we have some grounds for agreement, that if you are going to do these sorts of things, you should do revenue sharing. I would agree there. You talk about the markets reacting. I would say the markets are reacting to what they see here as a really sweet deal. In the case of Macquarie, they only put 10 percent into Indiana. Now couldn't the State of Indiana have borrowed under a general obligation bond, $380 million, and then gone out and financed the rest of the project the way Macquarie did because they only put 10 percent in? Mr. Poole. Well, it is conceivable that they could have. On the other hand, the team that actually, the Macquarie team, I think it is Macquarie-Cintra that won the bidding, has taken on risks even though it is not the same as initial construction risk. Over 75 years, they are contractually committed to maintain at least level of service C on some segments and level of service D on other segments. Mr. DeFazio. Right, on level of service, as I said earlier and as an economist you would know, that there are two ways to manage demand in case of congestion or level of service. You would say, OK, we are going to expand the roadway. Mr. Poole. Which is what the concession agreement requires them to do to maintain those levels of service Mr. DeFazio. Yes. But what if I raise the tolls regularly and I just artificially depress demand, people will be diverted into the 10 mile non-compete area on either side, how do you measure that? Mr. Poole. Well, I mean those are tradeoffs definitely. Mr. DeFazio. Yes, those are big tradeoffs. Mr. Poole. They are tradeoffs. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Mr. Poole. I mean I think the non-compete provisions are modest and reasonable. Mr. DeFazio. Unless you live within 10 miles on either side of that asset. Mr. Poole. They allow local, high speed-------- Mr. DeFazio. The people of Indiana don't seem to think so. When you say the caps or ceilings, I guess I hope we don't have to argue semantics. Have you seen the evaluation and would you question it? There are two evaluations that strike me. Mr. Poole. Right. Mr. DeFazio. One is applying these ceilings or caps, which I would call floors, and hopefully we don't have this much of a semantic disagreement, but we might because I would look at them as floors because is it no less than 2 percent GPD or CPI. Now that sounds to me like a floor. It will never be less than 2 percent. Next year, the economy tanks. The Bush Administration attacks Iran. Oil goes to $200 a barrel. We see a great depression in this Country. We have negative growth for 10 years, and you get 2 percent a year on your tolls. Now wouldn't you call that a floor, not a ceiling? Mr. Poole. No, I wouldn't for the following reason. I actually know people who do toll road-------- Mr. DeFazio. We have gone through a period of devaluation and adding 2 percent a year to the toll isn't a floor? Mr. Poole. They will only charge the 2 percent more if people are willing to pay it. If you have a recession, it is quite-------- Mr. DeFazio. Right, if people are willing to pay it to access the asset. Mr. Poole. In a time of recession, it is quite possible that traffic will fall off. Mr. DeFazio. Yes, but just remember the premise. Oil has gone to $200 a barrel. One of the big factors becomes distance and fuel economy. That is the straightest route, so Macquarie just keeps jacking up the tolls even though the rest of the economy is in a depression. They can do that. Mr. Poole. That is not how. That is not what you do in a traffic and revenue study. You have to look at what is the optimum toll to maximize revenue. It is not the highest conceivable. Mr. DeFazio. Right, I know what an economist can argue. But let us look at it this way. Let us go back to what I assume you have seen. There are two numbers that really stick in my mind. The first is if we applied the ceiling, which I call a floor, to the Holland Tunnel, today's toll could be as high as $165 or $185.13 per car. Obviously, people wouldn't pay that. Mr. Poole. That is right. Mr. DeFazio. But they might pay $10. Mr. Poole. They might. Mr. DeFazio. Right now it is only $6. So we are not optimizing the asset. Mr. Poole. I think a lot of environmentalists would say that would be a very good thing. Mr. DeFazio. Well, I don't happen to agree with that particular sentiment of an environmentalist. Now if we applied to the Indiana toll road from 1985, the ceiling, which I call a floor, they could charge commercial vehicles $38.19, those poor truck drivers, as opposed to $14.60, and cars $12.16 as opposed to $4.65. Again, it seems to me to leave an awful lot of latitude. How can we call that a ceiling? It is not a ceiling. Mr. Poole. Mr. Chairman, we had an actual experiment with that a couple of years ago. The Ohio Turnpike which is the continuation of the Indiana toll road, attempted a large one time toll increase, and their truck traffic diverted in massive numbers to parallel State highways. This was a big problem, understandably so, and so the Ohio Turnpike Administration basically decided this was terrible for them. They were losing money. They were not getting the revenue increase they thought. They actually lowered significantly the truck tolls to win back the trucking traffic. Mr. DeFazio. That is great. Mr. Poole. The point is they cannot charge whatever they feel like. Mr. DeFazio. No, they can't, but they can certainly extort a little bit more than they are extorting today with this sort of monopoly situation. It could be more incremental like the frog in the hot water as we turn the heat up to see at what point are they going to jump, again, if you did so as constructed. If that is true, I guess I would wonder why is Governor Daniels taking some of the money which is supposed to be spent on capital projects and either with that or maybe he is diverting State general revenues. I am not sure which, but he is actually subsidizing the toll, as I understand, for a five year period because they legislated an increase but they didn't want it to hit them all at once because people would be mad. Governor Daniels is already at 19 percent in the polls, and he doesn't want to go to zero. So he says, oh, let us keep the tolls down. Do you know what this sounds like to me? I am sure you probably supported this too. Energy deregulation in California, I was one of the earliest and most frequent opponents of energy deregulation. California borrowed money to keep the rates down for a short period of time so the frogs wouldn't jump out of the hot water and think this was a really sweet deal before the whole Western United States collapsed on top of the scandal. I am looking at kind of the same thing here in Indiana. They could raise the toll. They are going to raise the toll, but the state is going to subsidize the toll to keep the toll down in the short term. Do you think that is good public policy? Mr. Poole. I think it is normal politics, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DeFazio. Well, that is politics, but I thought we were going to get policy. Mr. Enright, would you care? I am really puzzled here. You are saying public entities can raise this money. He says they can't. You say they can. Where is the dissonance here? Mr. Enright. I don't know Mr. Poole's resume in finance, but I do know I have 30 years and I have talked to bankers at virtually every major U.S. investment bank or commercial bank who participates in this type of financing, and they all agree that the money can be raised. As to the issue of new pools of capital, it is nice that pension funds are interested in infrastructure assets, and certainly if the public sector wants to pay the cost of taxable financing, they can sell bonds to pension funds. Toll roads already do taxable financing occasionally and do sell to pension funds. So the availability of capital shouldn't drive the public policy decision, in my view. The capital is available in the tax exempt sector, if the proceeds are used in accordance with tax law, and if not, they are available in the taxable sector to the toll roads as well without equity. They can finance 100 percent financing. They always have financed 100 percent financing. Mr. Chairman, going back to your example of couldn't the State of Indiana raise general obligation bonds, they wouldn't have even needed to do that. Revenue bonds supported solely by the revenues of a toll road are a highly acceptable and high quality revenue bond in the industry. Mr. DeFazio. But what about what Mr. Poole says, that the investors won't accept the risk because the government might not raise the tolls and choose to default instead? I guess that is what he is saying. Mr. Enright. The basis structure of any toll road financing in the U.S. requires the entity that is running the toll road to raise tolls in an amount necessary to meet its loan covenants, typically a debt service coverage ratio of anywhere from 1.2 to 1.5 percent depending upon how they structure their documents. Mr. DeFazio. That is enforceable on a public entity? Mr. Enright. Absolutely, it is absolutely enforceable, and the same thing is true for water systems, sewer systems. Anything that is rate-oriented, that is enforceable, parking authorities. They all have rate covenants, and they are required in their documents to raise the rates. The other point to distinguish from whether the legislature and the governors have to raise the rates, they don't. It is the toll road authority who raises the rates which is, in theory anyway, an independent authority. The problem is that they have been pressured to not raise the rates for the public good. But if you want to monetize the future revenues, then you have to surrender the freedom to raise the tolls. Whether you do it with public sector or you do it with private sector, whatever administration makes that decision to give up the control of tolls does it on the date the agreement is signed. It is a massive future toll increase for the rate payers, whether it is public or private. You can monetize that future toll increase and get the cash today if you wish. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Poole, that was, I thought, one of your arguments that I asked the staff to refute and they couldn't, but I think it has been. Do you agree with Mr. Enright's characterization that there would be a rate covenant and that it could be issued either by a public entity or a private entity? Mr. Poole. No. I think that could be done in principle. I think we will have an opportunity to observe over the next few years. Mr. Enright has basically issued a challenge. I think any public sector toll agency is free and their governor is free to try to implement that, and we will see if anybody does. My prediction is that none of them will. Mr. DeFazio. Well, Mr. Daniels has implemented that for 75 years. Mr. Poole. Exactly. Mr. DeFazio. Of course, he is at 20 percent in the polls. That is unfortunate, but he did implement it. Got it done. Mr. Poole. I think when Governor Rendell implements his, he will not be at 20 percent in the polls. He has bipartisan support in his legislature, and they will include revenue sharing in their deal. Mr. DeFazio. Revenue sharing would certainly be an improvement. I guess my question, and perhaps Mr. Sawers could address this, but other panel members could. Why wouldn't we adopt something more along the lines of the British model where the terms are generally limited? They have also gone to this non-tolling version, but let us just leave aside whether you want to call it availability payment or shadow tolling because we don't want to strain people here. Let us look at the fact that basically their agreements are generally a term of up to about 30 years. Many of these are greenfields. They are not assuming existing assets. Somehow the investors are making money. The control reverts back to the public in 30 years or even less if the equity investment plus profit is made back with unanticipated revenues before then. Is that a fair characterization? Mr. Sawers. More or less, but not quite, I think the issue about the 30 year term is where it has been an availability payment, so the government is paying the money. It is basically paying back like a lease payment effectively with a whole bunch of performance tweaks to it for the construction of a greenfield asset. Brownfields, there have been deals where, for example, a major city, Birmingham, is putting out its road network for highways maintenance, so contracting for a fixed price for highways maintenance for 15, 20 years but including quite a lot of major refurbishment and capital investment. It is that style of deal, but there aren't any toll road deals which are done on 30 years. Toll road deals tend to be longer because there is more risk, and that is the key, the risk. I would say that is the difference between the project finance market, as we call it, and the municipal market, the risk and who bears the risk. You may say that on an existing O and M deal like Chicago Skyway, there isn't much risk there. Well, yes, that is your view, and therefore you are probably even better off doing your own bonds. But if it was a greenfield deal, you would be transferring a lot of risk to the private sector for that difference. Mr. DeFazio. I think there is room for agreement there, and I have consistently said from the beginning, I can see more likely public purposes and objectives being met by well crafted agreements in the greenfield area as opposed to monetization of existing assets. I guess my question would be to both Mr. Enright and/or Mr. Poole. It seems to me that in the case of the monetization of, say, the Indiana Toll Road, that there must be a profit involved. There is. Obviously, there are tax advantages. That has to do with the term. There is only 10 percent equity in it. That is true. We have already established the State could have done the same thing. They could have done it with a GO bond which Goldman Sachs says and you are saying. They could do it without a GO bond with the rate covenants. I guess the question is: What is the total cost over here versus what I would look at as the cost of the State in whatever tax relief they are giving? Has anyone calculated what the public is foregoing, the opportunity costs, the revenues, the taxes foregone and all that versus had they done this themselves, operated it efficiently and used the profits or kept the tolls down one way or the other as they chose? Has anyone done that kind of analysis, total cost analysis over the term and/or profit? Yes, go ahead. Mr. Enright. We have done that analysis. The difference that occurs is in order to finance the asset, the asset acquisition if you will in the case of the Chicago-Indiana deal, again they have to live within the discipline of the credit community and that discipline will allow them to only indicate so much they can finance in the deal, regardless of the pure net present value of expected cash flows. They are going to be limited by that. After the Chicago deal, which actually did a lot of things in their refinancing structure that people thought weren't even possible, the bond rating agencies changed the rules and tightened up a lot of the requirements, so you can't have an assumption of galloping high toll increases forever and traffic increases forever to finance your deal. The net realizable value of the deal is significantly less than the actual present value of the cash flows over time. That difference, that delta between what you get up front and what the actual cash flows are going to be is a large amount. If it is owned by the public sector, you capture all of that. You get what we call the public ownership dividend by capturing that and getting all the cash flows. Certainly revenue sharing is a way to get them, but you have now given up part of the cash flows you could otherwise capture. On existing asset deals, that just doesn't seem to make sense. Mr. DeFazio. In a revenue sharing, you would capture part of that premium back but obviously not all of it or there wouldn't be a profit motivation. Mr. Enright. Correct. On to be built deals, on what are called greenfield deals, I mean yes, OK, there is risk involved--there is no question about that--but perhaps the public sector doesn't want to take that risk although traditionally in the U.S., they have been willing to. There have been a few failures on toll roads over the years, but pretty few. They can do that. They can share that risk if they want. But on existing asset deals, there are pretty well established traffic flows. You kind of know what you can do in toll increases. There could be limits practically. But in the real world, do you care whether you get half the traffic at double the toll or the expected traffic at the toll? You don't care. It is revenue. Mr. DeFazio. Right. Mr. Enright. I think the more you increase a toll, the more valuable your road is. Mr. DeFazio. If you look at the Macquarie Infrastructure Group disclosure which is very candid and well written--it is a good company--over the long term, revenue growth is expected to be substantially driven by toll growth rather than traffic growth. Mr. Enright. Our analysis would indicate that to be true. Mr. DeFazio. Which means to some extent, since we all know that our traffic projections according to the Federal Government are like this, we must be driving some of that traffic somewhere else because of the tolls. Mr. Enright. In the Chicago case, it would drive it on to roads not the responsibility of the City of Chicago. So the State of Illinois would have to pick up the tab for that. Mr. DeFazio. It also says no significant cost savings are envisioned, so that doesn't go to the argument that they are so much more efficient in the private sector. Mr. Poole, would you care to comment on what he just said? Mr. Poole. I think, again, there clearly are tradeoffs involved. There is risk in a 75 year deal even with an existing facility. There are risks involved in adding the necessary capacity to meet the level of service requirements which are spelled out in the concession agreement. So you are not getting nothing in exchange for the private sector taking that risk and making the profits. You are getting something because you are transferring the risk of future expansions, changes in technology, changes in business conditions. One of the criticisms of the long term is don't know if people are even going to be driving cars in 75 years. They are taking that risk. Mr. DeFazio. No, absolutely. I understand that, but again we would say there is considerably less risk. I have been told by the staff that we have to clear out for another hearing which I am sure is equally interesting and substantive. One thing you said, Mr. Poole, I do want to say I hope that Governor Rendell is entering into this carefully. As you said bipartisan, bipartisan doesn't matter. It was unanimously adopted that they would have energy deregulation in California, unanimously by the legislature. Of course, you can talk to ex- Governor Davis about that and others. Bipartisanship is no indication of the wisdom or the protection of the public interest in a particular deal. My understanding with Governor Rendell is that he is saying he doesn't raise the gas tax so he would rather have an invisible tax which is a toll and would rather lock it in with a contract over a long period of time, and then he can say, well, gee, maybe I will do what Mitch Daniels did until I am out of office. He will subsidize the tolls. Then when he gets out of office, he will say, well, gee, who could have known? In any case, I think these are incredibly complicated things that need to be approached deliberately. I don't want to see them abused because I think it is a useful tool. It is not going to solve our infrastructure problems, but if we get some bad deals, a few more Indianas, public sentiment is going to demand the Federal Government step in and put an end to this stuff. They have got to be approached carefully. I appreciate the dialogue we had here today. I thank the witnesses for their generous granting of time. As was stated earlier, the record will be held open for 30 days. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 34778.098