Strategy Page
Download 1.1 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- An AIFA would cause an immediate investment of billions- private investors are on their toes.
- Only federal action solves HALLEMAN ‘11
- A federal investment into a loan guarantees bridges bureaucratic and budget gaps between the states and is the best approach for a NIB
PlanPlan: The United States federal government should establish a national infrastructure bank to substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment through loans and loan guarantees. SolvencyThe NIB’s competitive, inter-modal, multijurisdictional approach is key—only federal action solves Istrate and Puentes 9 (Istrate, Emilia, senior research analyst and associate fellow with the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative specializing in transportation financing, and Puentes, Robert, Senior Fellow and Director of the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, December 2009, “Investing for Success Examining a Federal Capital Budget and a National Infrastructure Bank”, Brookings Institute)FS A properly designed NIB is an attractive alternative for a new type of federal investment policy. In theory, an independent entity, insulated from congressional influence, would be able to select infrastructure projects on a merit basis. The federal investment through this entity would be distributed through criteria-based competition. It would be able to focus on projects neglected in the current system, such as multi-jurisdictional projects of regional or national significance. An NIB may introduce a federal investment process that requires and rewards performance, with clear accountability from both recipients and the federal government. These advantages are described below. Better selection process. At its heart, an NIB is about better selection of infrastructure projects. The bank would lend or grant money on a project basis, after some type of a BCA. In addition, the projects would be of national or regional significance, transcending state and local boundaries. The bank would consider different types of infrastructure projects, breaking down the modal barriers. This would be a giant step from the current federal funding for infrastructure, most of which is disbursed as federal aid transportation grants to states in a siloed manner. Multi-jurisdictional projects are neglected in the current federal investment process in surface transportation, due to the insufficient institutional coordination among state and local governments that are the main decisionmakers in transportation.102 The NIB would provide a mechanism to catalyze local and state government cooperation and could result in higher rates of return compared to the localized infrastructure projects. An NIB would need to articulate a clear set of metropolitan and national impact criteria for project selection. Impact may be assessed based on estimated metropolitan multipliers of the project. This criterion would allow the bank to focus on the outcomes of the projects and not get entangled in sector specific standards. Clear evaluation criteria would go a long way, forcing the applicants, be it states, metros or other entities, to have a baseline of performance. This change, by itself, would be a major improvement for the federal investment process, given that a major share of the federal infrastructure money goes to the states on a formula basis, without performance criteria. Keeping the recipients accountable. An NIB would have more control over the selection and execution of projects than the current transportation grants within broad program structures. It would be able to enforce its selection criteria, make sure that the projects are more in line with its objectives and have oversight of the outcomes of the projects. The new infrastructure entity should require repayment of principal and interest from applicants. This would bring more fiscal discipline and commitment from the recipients to the outcomes of the project. The extensive use of loans by an NIB contributes to the distinction between a bank and another federal agency. The interest rates charged to the state and local recipients of NIB loans might be set to repay slowly the initial injections of federal capital, while still maintaining a sufficient capital base.103 Some experts argue that an NIB would be able to be sustainable and effective only if it is truly a “bank”.104 Correcting the maintenance bias. The mere establishment of an NIB would not correct for the problem of deferred maintenance.105 However, through the selection process, the bank could address the current maintenance bias in the federal investment process. For example, the bank could impose maintenance requirements to recipients including adequately funded maintenance reserve accounts and periodic inspections of asset integrity. Better delivery of infrastructure projects. An NIB could require that projects be delivered with the delivery mechanism offering best-value to the taxpayer and end user. The design-bid-build public finance model has been the most commonly used project delivery method in the transportation sector in the United States.106 Until very recently, there has been little experimentation with other delivery contracting types. Evidence from other federal states, such as Australia, shows that private delivery saves money on infrastructure projects.107 Filling the capital structure of infrastructure projects. Although the United States has the deepest capital markets in the world, they are not always providing the full array of investment capital needed —especially for large infrastructure projects with certain credit profiles.108This has been even more obvious during the current recession, with the disruptions in the capital markets. An NIB could help by providing more flexible subordinate debt for big infrastructure projects. Generally bonds get investment-grade ratings, and have ready market access, only if they are senior obligations with secure repayment sources. For more complicated project financings that go beyond senior debt, there is a need for additional capital, such as equity capital or subordinated debt. However, this market gap is relatively small relatively to federal investment.109 An NIB would build upon the current Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) by providing subordinated debt to public or private entities in leveraging private co-investment.110 An AIFA would cause an immediate investment of billions- private investors are on their toes. Hayley 11 MA Candidate at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism (Andrea, “BUILD Act Holds Promise of Rebuilding America Bipartisan Senate proposal taps private investment”, 6-10-11, Epoch Times http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/build-act-holds-promise-of-rebuilding-america-57495.html) RaPa WASHINGTON—A new bipartisan Senate bill that has won rare backing from both business and labor presents an opportunity to rebuild America’s roads, bridges, ports, sewers, levees, and airports. The Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development, also known as the BUILD Act, proposes a new bank specifically to fund infrastructure projects. Unlike similar proposals out there, namely one on offer by the president, BUILD does not include any offer of grant money. The bank is modeled after the profitable Export-Import Bank model. A $10 billion dollar initial government investment would be used to establish the bank so it can begin leveraging private investment. The bipartisan proposal requests just one-fifth of the appropriation that the president has proposed for funding transportation projects. Projects would be chosen based on their ability to provide a regular revenue stream to ensure the loans get paid back. Ultimately the bank is required to be self-sustaining. Bill co-sponsor Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said she worked with sponsor, Sen. John Kerry, (D-Mass.), to craft the bill in such a way that it offered the greatest chance of success, even in a Congress that is in no mood to spend or invest more money. “It is essential to think outside the box as we work to solve national challenges, particularly in this fiscal crisis,” Hutchison said when the bill was introduced in March. Sens. Kerry and Hutchison spoke of their proposal while attending a forum on Wednesday sponsored by The Atlantic magazine. An audience of over 200 people took in the event, which listed an impressive set of supporters. Economic Growth Engine Sen. Kerry predicts that up to $600 billion in private capital will be unleashed and millions of jobs would be created over the next 10 years. It is essentially a job-creating enterprise, since infrastructure built in America, would be built by Americans. In the last 100 years, U.S. companies have built up first class infrastructure in America and around the world, from the national highway project, to the railway, to air traffic control. “We are builders. It is part of our DNA,” said Sen. Kerry. The bank, which has the support of the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the nation’s biggest union, the AFL-CIO, would be a government-owned entity—but it would operate independently and outside of the purview of any federal agency. Supporters say that the United States needs to create opportunities for quality, stable investments that can bring regular returns. Global pension funds, private equity funds, mutual funds, and sovereign wealth funds are potent investors that require low-risk places to park their cash. Robert Dove, managing director with the American giant asset management firm, the Carlyle Group, says he has a $1.2 billion investment fund that he would love to invest in the United States, but can’t under the current circumstances. “Our nation’s policymakers have to agree that it is essential to access private capital for public infrastructure,” said Dove at the conference. When it comes to infrastructure investment, many businesses are reliant on long-term, low-interest loans or loan guarantees of the kind that only a government sponsored entity can provide. The European Investment Bank (EIB), a similar bank operating in Europe, “makes projects viable that would not otherwise be viable,” Dove said. Making America Competitive Tom Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stood beside labor leader Richard Trumka from the AFL-CIO at the press conference announcing the BUILD Act in March. “A national infrastructure bank is a great place to start securing the funding we need to increase our mobility, create jobs, and enhance our global competitiveness,” Donahue said. Big business and investment firms point out that in today’s global market, the United States is competing with every other country for the trillions of dollars in investment capital known to be sitting on company ledgers right now. The U.K., China, Australia, and Brazil already have attractive infrastructure-focused incentives in place, and in most cases companies find it more attractive to invest there than in America. At the same time, America badly needs the investments. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the country’s infrastructure a D grade. The society predicts that if Congress doesn’t act within five years, the infrastructure deficit—the amount required to get us to a B grade—will top $2.2 trillion. Anyone who drives down pothole-ridden roadways, deals with broken elevators and escalators, or tries to get to an airport, understands the reality of the nation’s state of disrepair. Sen. Kerry is inviting Americans and Congress to consider what the country’s future will look like without the significant investments in infrastructure he says the country needs. “Where are the great infrastructure projects of our generation? What have we built for the future?” he asked. “This is not the future of the United States with the road we are on,” he said, “uh … the path we are on,” realizing the unintentional pun. “It’s hardly a road.” Only federal action solves HALLEMAN ‘11 - Business graduate with analytical and program management experience across a range of transportation and infrastructure issues; Head of Communications & Media Relations at International Road Federation (Brendan, “Establishing a National Infrastructure Bank - examining precedents and potential”, October 2011, http://issuu.com/transportgooru/docs/ibank_memo_-_brenden_halleman) The merits of establishing a National Infrastructure Bank are once again being debated in the wake of President Obama’s speech to a joint session of the 112th United States Congress and the subsequent introduction of the American Jobs Act 1 . A review of the Jobs Act offers a vivid illustration of how far the debate has moved under the Obama Administration. Earlier White House budgets had proposed allocating USD 4 billion as seed funding to a National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund tasked with supporting individual projects as well as “broader activities of significance”. Offering grants, loans and long term loan guarantees to eligible projects, the resulting entity would not have constituted an infrastructure bank in the generally accepted sense of the term. Nor would the Fund have been an autonomous entity, making mere “investment recommendations” to the Secretary of Transportation2 . Despite a number of important alterations, the Jobs Act contains the key provisions of a bipartisan Senate bill introduced in March 20113 establishing an American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA). Endowed with annual infusions of USD 10 billion (rising to USD 20 billion in the third year), the Authority’s main goal is to facilitate economically viable transportation, energy and water infrastructure projects capable of mobilizing significant levels of State and private sector investment. The Authority thus established: is set up as a distinct, self-supporting entity headed by a Board of Directors requiring Senate confirmation offers loans & credit guarantees to large scale projects with anticipated costs in excess of USD 100,000,000 extends eligible recipients to corporations, partnerships, trusts, States and other governmental entities subjects loans to credit risk assessments and investment-grade rating (BBB-/ Baa3 or higher) conditions loans to a full evaluation of project economic, financial, technical and environmental benefits caps Federal loans at 50% of anticipated project costs requires dedicated revenue sources from recipient projects, such as tolls or user fees sets and collects loan fees to cover its administrative and operational costs (with leftover receipts transferred to the Treasury) Particularly striking are the layers of risk assessment contained in the BUILD Act. These translate into a dedicated risk governance structure with the appointment of a Chief Risk Officer and annual external risk audits of AIFA’s project portfolio. At project level, applicants are required to provide a preliminary rating opinion letter and, if the loan or loan guarantee is approved, the Authority’s associated fees are modulated to reflect project risk. Lastly, as a Government-owned corporation, AIFA is explicitly held on the Federal balance sheet and is not able to borrow debt in the capital markets in its own name (although it may reoffer part of its loan book into the capital markets, if deemed in the taxpayers’ interest). Rationale As a percentage of GDP, the United States currently invests 25% less on transportation infrastructure than comparable OECD economies 4 . There is broad agreement that absent a massive and sustained infusion of capital in infrastructure, the backlog of investment in new and existing transportation assets will hurt productivity gains and ripple economy-wide5
Insufficient levels of private sector capital flowing in infrastructure investments. Despite the relatively stable cash flows typically generated by infrastructure assets, less than 10% of investment in transportation infrastructure came from capital markets in 2007 8 . By some estimates 9 , the total equity capital available to invest in global infrastructure stands at over USD 202 billion and investor appetite remains strong in 2011. Federal underwriting may take enough of the risk away for bonds to achieve investment grade rating on complex infrastructure programs, particularly if they protect senior-level equity against first loss positions and offer other creditor-friendly incentives. For instance, the planned bill already includes a “cash sweep” provision earmarking excess project revenues to prepaying the principal at no penalty to the obligor. Convincing evidence across economic sectors that Federal credit assistance stretches public dollars further 10 . The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) already empowers the Department of Transportation to provide credit assistance, such as full-faith-and-credit guarantees as well as fixed rate loans, to qualified surface transportation projects of national and regional significance. It is designed to offer more advantageous terms and fill market gaps by cushioning against revenue risks (such as tolls and user fees) in the ramp up phase of large infrastructure projects. A typical project profile would combine equity investment, investment-grade toll bonds, state gas tax revenues and TIFIA credit assistance to a limit of 33%. TIFIA credit assistance is scored by the Office of Management and Budget at just 10%, representing loan default risk. In theory, a Federal outlay of just USD 33 million could therefore leverage up to USD 1 billion in infrastructure funding 11 . To date, 21 projects have received USD 7.7 billion in credit assistance for USD 29.0 billion in estimated total project cost 12.
SIBs were formally authorized nationwide in 2005 through a provision of the SAFETEA-LU Act 13 to offer preferential credit assistance to eligible and economically viable surface transportation capital projects. A provision of the Act also authorizes multistate Banks, although such cooperative arrangements have yet to be established. SIBs operate primarily as revolving loan funds using initial capitalization (Federal and state matching funds) and ongoing funding (generally a portion of state-levied taxes) to provide subordinated loans whose repayments are recycled into new projects loans. Where bonds are issued by SIBs as collateral to leverage even greater investment capacity, these can be secured by user revenues, general State revenues or backed against a portion of federal highway revenues. As of December 2010, State Infrastructure Banks had entered into 712 loan agreements with a total value of over USD 6.5 billion12. While SAFETEA-LU provided a basic framework for establishing SIBs, each State has tailored the size, structure and focus of its Bank to meet specific policy objectives. The following table14 illustrates the scales of SIBS at the opposite end of the spectrum. These State-driven arrangements warrant a number of observations: The more active SIB States are those that have increased the initial capitalization of their banks through a combination of bonds and sustained State funding. South Carolina’s Transportation Infrastructure Bank receives annual amounts provided by State law that include truck registration fees, vehicle registration fees, one-cent of gas tax equivalent, and a portion of the electric power tax. Significantly, all SIBs have benefited from the ability to recycle loan repayments – including interest and fees – into new infrastructure projects, a facility currently not available to the American Infrastructure Financing Authority under the terms of the BUILD Act. More than 87 percent of all loans from such banks made through 2008 were concentrated in just five States: South Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Texas and Ohio 14 . As a case in point, South Carolina’s Transportation Infrastructure Bank has provided more financial assistance for transportation projects than the other 32 banks combined. Most State banks have issued fewer than ten loans, the vast majority of which fall in the USD 1-10 million size bracket 14 . This suggests that not all States presently have experience, or the ability, to deal with capital markets for large-scale funding. States are, by and large, left to define specific selection criteria for meritorious projects, the SIB’s share of the project as well as the loan fee it will charge. Kansas, Ohio, Georgia, Florida and Virginia have established SIBs without Federal-aid money and are therefore not bound by the same Federal regulations as other banks. California’s Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank extends the scope of eligible projects to include water supply, flood control measures, as well as educational facilities. While adapted to local circumstances, this patchwork of State regulations can also constitute an entry barrier for private equity partners and multistate arrangements. Given the structure of their tax base, SIBs are vulnerable to short term economy swings as well as the longer term inadequacy of current user-based funding mechanisms. SIBs borrow against future State and highway income. Many States are already reporting declining gas tax revenues and, on current projections, the Highway Trust Fund will see a cumulative funding gap of USD 115 billion between 2011 and 2021 18 . It is notable that Arizona’s Highway Extension and Expansion Loan Program is currently no longer taking applications citing “state budget issues”. A federal investment into a loan guarantees bridges bureaucratic and budget gaps between the states and is the best approach for a NIB McConaghy and Perez 11 Ryan McConaghy, Director of the Economic Program, and Jessica Perez, Economic Program Policy Advisor (Ryan, Jessica, “Five Reasons Why BUILD is Better”, The Schwartz Initiative on American Economic Policy, June 2011, http://content.thirdway.org/publications/404/Third_Way_Memo_-_Five_Reasons_Why_BUILD_is_Better.pdf) RaPa Across the country, job-creating infrastructure projects are stalled for lack of investment from cash-strapped federal, state, or local governments. Imagine the progress our country could make and the millions of jobs we could create if we could multiply our money by mobilizing the private sector to improve the nation’s transportation, water, and energy systems. As America struggles to create jobs for the nation’s more than 29 million unemployed or under employed, 1 it’s widely acknowledged that our outdated infrastructure is a drag on the economy. A multi-billion dollar program of infrastructure investment would no doubt create good jobs and increase our competitiveness. But, in an era of budgetary constraints the federal government simply cannot foot the entire bill. The American Society of Civil Engineers projects a five-year deficit of over $973 billion 2 for water and transportation infrastructure alone—equal to 247% of what the federal government spent in those areas from 2005 to 2009. 3 Clearly, in the current fiscal environment it’s unlikely that a more than tripling of direct federal infrastructure investment is on the horizon. At the same time, state and local governments are also facing budget shortfalls that make maintaining—let alone increasing—infrastructure spending a challenge. However, the way most infrastructure is currently funded, private capital is severely underutilized. Only a fraction of the trillions of dollars in sovereign wealth, hedge, and pension funds seeking long-term, stable avenues for investment are being used to rebuild America. Sovereign wealth funds alone have an aggregate value of $4.1 trillion, and are seeking to invest some of those resources in infrastructure development. A number of America’s foreign competitors have actively courted such sources of financing for their own infrastructure upgrades. 4 Despite our need for infrastructure financing, America has not been as aggressive in pursuing such investors. The recently introduced BUILD Act (Building and Upgrading Infrastructure for Long-Term Development Act), a bipartisan bill introduced by Senators Kerry, Hutchison, Warner, and Graham, would change that. By establishing the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA) to make loans and loan guarantees for up to half the cost of major projects in transportation, water, and energy infrastructure, the BUILD Act will create new incentives for investment and provide private capital with a new entryway into the infrastructure market. The AIFA’s improvements on the current Third Way Memo 2 system would make it possible to use private financing to create jobs and close the infrastructure gap without drowning the federal budget in more red ink. This memo lays out five reasons why the BUILD Act would improve our current system of infrastructure funding. Five Reasons Why BUILD is Better 1) It Stretches Dollars by Moving from Grants to Loans Much of federal infrastructure funding is dispensed in the form of direct spending through formula allocations to states and annual appropriations. These are scored as single year federal spending. In any given year, $1 billion in appropriated spending means $1 billion that must be paid for or tacked on to the deficit. For FY2010, this amounted to $52 billion for highway and mass transit grants alone. 5 However, in the current fiscal environment, the federal government is simply incapable of providing enough financing year after year to make the improvements needed to advance our economy. The BUILD Act offers an alternative model by providing loans and loan guarantees rather than direct grants for construction. The difference in terms of impact on the federal budget is stark. Since the loans and guarantees under AIFA are long-term credit vehicles as opposed to year-to-year spending, they score differently. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores against the budget only the subsidy cost (amounts not expected to be recouped through principal, interest, and fee payments) of the loan or guarantee, rather than the entire amount. For example, the Administration estimates a subsidy cost of 20% for direct loans made by its proposed National Infrastructure Bank. 6 At that rate, a $100 million loan would score at a cost to the federal budget of only $20 million. Loan guarantees under the existing Transportation Infrastructure, Finance and Innovation (TIFIA) program have a subsidy rate of 10%, 7 meaning that a $100 million loan guarantee would come at a cost of $10 million. But under AIFA, because loans will be paid back with interest and fees will be charged on guarantees, loan recipients—not the government—will ultimately bear the subsidy cost. Much like the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which has supported more than $400 billion in U.S. exports at no cost to the government, AIFA will generate revenue and become self-sustaining over time. 8 This fact, combined with the dollarstretching capabilities of its credit instruments, means the AIFA will use less taxpayer money to build far more. This is crucial in light of America’s two separate, serious financial challenges: a $2.2 trillion overall infrastructure gap (including aviation, water, energy, rail, roads, bridges, schools, and other systems) 9 that hampers economic growth, and a $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit that has led to calls for cuts across all sectors of government. Not only do these shortfalls have their own negative consequences for the American economy, but each one makes the other harder to address. The BUILD Act will allow our nation to tackle our infrastructure deficiencies without expanding our budget deficit. Third Way Memo 3 2) BUILD Identifies a Potential One Trillion Dollars in Private Investment Under the current direct spending system, federal funding can finance a significant portion of a project and is often accompanied by a state or local government match. For example, the federal government pays 90% of costs for highway interstate bridges, such as the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis that collapsed in 2007. 10 Other examples include the Federal Highway Administration’s High Priority Projects 11 and Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts and Small Starts 12 programs, under which the federal government provides 80% of the funding for selected projects. Estimates, however, place potential global private investment in infrastructure at more than $1 trillion annually, as hedge, pension, and sovereign wealth funds increasingly seek secure, long-term investments. 13 There is no reason why America’s infrastructure should not benefit from this tremendous pool of resources. The BUILD Act creates an avenue by which the U.S. can tap this available capital to upgrade our infrastructure. The AIFA will use credit instruments to attract investment. In fact, the BUILD Act requires that at least half of a project’s cost be financed by non-AIFA funds. By moving private capital off of the sidelines and into American bridges, railroads, and power plants, the AIFA will leverage taxpayer dollars many-times over and cost-efficiently begin to close the nation’s infrastructure gap. In each of its first two years BUILD would be authorized to provide $10 billion in loans and guarantees, with $20 billion authorized per year for years three through nine. It’s been estimated that, depending on the percentage of federal matching capital used, under AIFA, this potential $160 billion in direct assistance could generate between $320 and $640 billion in total investment over the first decade of operations. 14 3) BUILD is Targeted to Big Projects with Economic Merit The most effective catalysts for economic growth and job creation are those projects that go beyond localities to impact entire regions and make nationwide connections. These undertakings, however, are often the most difficult for state and local governments to launch, due to cost and cross-jurisdictional disconnects. For example, the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, which stretches from Virginia to northern Florida, contains some of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the nation and the region is expected to grow 26% by 2030. High-speed rail service connecting these cities could tap the region’s potential and be a major catalyst of commerce, with a projected $30 billion in economic development, and 228,000 jobs. 15 However, the recent elimination of high speed rail funding in the FY11 budget 16 may—literally—keep projects in this, and similar regions, from leaving the station. The AIFA will target just this type of development by financing projects that cost a minimum of $100 million and that have true economic merit—meaning they will create jobs, generate revenue, and have widespread growth effects. By drawing in private capital, and providing coordination across city and state lines, the AIFA will enable significant, strategic improvements that are all too often thwarted by our current system.Third Way Memo 4 The BUILD Act also recognizes the unique value and scale of rural infrastructure. By setting a lower minimum of $25 million for rural projects, the legislation allows for a fair distribution of benefits across all regions of the country. 4) BUILD Takes Politics out of Infrastructure Spending Decisions Project selection has, to this point, been sullied by inefficient and politicized funding allocation. The most recent transportation authorization bill included more than 6,300 earmarks, benefitting individual Congressional districts, but overlooking larger regional and economic needs. 17 The BUILD Act takes politics out of the process and puts project selection in the hands of an independent, bipartisan Board of Directors and CEO appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They will focus on economic benefits rather than parochial interests. And because the AIFA would provide only loans and loan guarantees, only projects that pass the initial market test of attracting private capital would be able to move forward. 5) BUILD Reduces Cost Overruns Another factor that has hampered the effectiveness of infrastructure investment is the prevalence of cost overruns. Estimates have placed cost escalation on transportation projects in North America at almost 25%. 18 By limiting assistance to loans and loan guarantees, the AIFA would inject private sector discipline into supported projects by giving project managers a financial incentive for efficient execution. Since loans and loan guarantees must ultimately be repaid, borrowers will have extra motivation to ensure that construction is completed in a timely and economical manner. Additionally, the BUILD Act provides for strict oversight of the AIFA to ensure that the board operates with integrity and financial prudence. Treasury’s Inspector General would provide initial oversight to the AIFA, with an independent AIFA Inspector General to be created after five years. An independent auditor would review the AIFA’s books, and the AIFA will be required to commission an independent assessment of its risk portfolio. Conclusion Looking into the future, America’s success will hinge in large part on how well our infrastructure supports commerce, travel, and living standards. Other countries realize this and are moving full-steam ahead. And while America cannot lose this race, in today’s budget environment we cannot expect government to be the sole financier of our infrastructure overhaul. The BUILD Act is a novel approach to a vexing problem. It brings in the private sector and modern financing techniques to leverage scarce dollars into abundance. It’s hard to imagine America investing what it needs to win the future without such innovative approaches. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.1 Mb. Share with your friends:
|