Watching the bitter debate in Washington, D.C., over raising the debt ceiling, it seems there is nothing Republicans and Democrats can agree on when it comes to getting the nation’s fiscal house in order.

But there is one area where Republicans and Democrats can agree, even traditional foes like the trade unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — infrastructure investment.

Once the debt-ceiling debacle is over, Congress should consider different options for an infrastructure bank. One plan would initially target income-producing projects such as toll roads, utility work and port upgrades. The idea is to leverage $10 billion to an estimated $640 billion worth of infrastructure projects over the next decade.

Few people would argue that America’s infrastructure is in desperate need of upgrading. Many bridges, roads and ports are falling into a depressing state of disrepair. The electrical grid in the United States has also been showing signs of age and strain. This degradation hurts economic efficiency and elevates dangers.

At the same time as America’s infrastructure is crumbling, nations across Europe, Asia and South America have been investing heavily in their infrastructure, in many cases building new rather than renovating assets that are 50 or 60 years old. This trend means that America’s aging infrastructure will become a significant disadvantage when it comes to global competition and trade.

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass. and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, are the sponsors of legislation that would fund a $10 billion infrastructure bank and leverage that through public-private partnerships, common in other countries.

Another approach comes from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who is reported to be considering some form of tax holiday on the $1 trillion of corporate profits being held in foreign countries by U.S. multinational companies. The idea would be to offer a lower tax rate on those funds if they are returned to the U.S. and taxed, then use that additional tax revenue to fund a larger infrastructure bank, perhaps $30 billion. Other proposals would create an even larger infrastructure bank, with up to $500 billion being spent over a decade.

Even at that level, the job would be challenging. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers released a report saying that $1.6 trillion would need to be spent in five years to bring the U.S. infrastructure up to a good condition.

The World Economic Forum ranked the U.S. infrastructure sixth just a decade ago. Today, the U.S. ranks 23rd. Not good in a global economy.

Another benefit of infrastructure spending would be job creation. Though focused in concrete, steel and engineering, massive infrastructure spending would undoubtedly create jobs. And with more jobs there would be more people paying taxes and fewer people drawing on unemployment benefits, giving the U.S. economy a much-needed boost. And this boost would improve the debt situation by growing the economy so that debt is reduced as a percentage of gross domestic product.

One big problem that any infrastructure bank proposal must address is politics, meaning construction projects must be chosen by some sort of nonpartisan panel rather than members of Congress. The public became suspicious of infrastructure spending after hearing stories about bridges to nowhere, fancy airports for small towns in the district of a powerful member of Congress and fancy high-capacity highways built in the sparsely populated district of the head of a congressional transportation committee.

Any infrastructure bank must ensure that politics is removed and projects are funded based on need and cost-benefit studies.

There are important reasons for creating an infrastructure bank for the United States — with job creation to grow out of the recession and global competitiveness topping the list. And, the idea has the additional benefit of being a rare idea that both parties can support.