-- and shall we say , on the other side, we would probably find, patrick toomey who wants to have amendments to the packages and specifically he wants to strike to delete several of the tax breaks for wind energy and energy conservation. and he is going to insist on offering that amendment as people who support those tax breaks to not want to have that amendment offered. >> your latest article has the headline "republicans press on management, will commitments be allowed to be off to the legislature?" what are some the key amendments to look for this week?

>> the key one would be the toomey. number ofee any amendments that would be related to taxes. you could see things that would make permanent some of the things that would be extended in the package, the package would only extend for two years. people might want permanent andnsions such as research development tax credits. that is something that was passed by the house last week a bipartisan vote. the general convention wisdom is we will see a good debate in the senate this week. it is unclear if there will be an agreement on the amendments. it probably would not be an amendment as an would have to work it out later in negotiations. >> would you think would happen with the house? >> the house is proceeding with its strategy of offering a

single, permanent tax break extension. the next one they are talking an extension of investments by small businesses. something very, very popular in the business community and we might see that when the house returns from their one-week recess next week or by the end of the month. >> you can follow alan ota on twitter. read his work on "cq roll call." thank you for joining us today. timeread something one that stated in the south he was looked at as a hero. we have any kind of crisis people are always looking for somebody that can look up to. you had a person here, who escaped.

he devastated union commerce. people in the free world or the other parts of the world, europe and stuff have not seen commerce back there. no planes, stuff like that. , he he did, raphael semmes captured the imagination of people everywhere. people were causally writing about town. but now, if you were from up north, you hated him. just lay anybody, you would label him if you hated him, the lowest names which they did. he was a very honorable man. and he hated that his name was being used in a way that was not being honorable to him or his family. the united states government and all governments frowned upon this. you are disturbing their ability to fight a war. you are disturbing their commerce. emmes countered by saying

he was not doing anything that had not been done before is specially by the united states in the war of 1812. people, since the government could not pay eb's people, they made them if you will privateer, private individuals who would go out and start commerce or disrupt the british fleet. that is exactly what they did. learn about the life of mobile, alabama overbooked tv. saturday at 5:15 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> several events to tell you about tomorrow stock the senate judiciary committee considers several nominations including 2 to the 11th circuit court of

appeals on c-span three. senate c-span, the homeland security and governmental affairs committee will examine plans for improving the financial management system so that it is ready to be audited in 2017. tomorrow, florida senator marco rubio speaks at the national press club about retirement security. you can see that at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv stations or c-span radio anytime was a there's a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want to, play podcast of her recent shows. , theafterwords

communicators. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce served on a forum on america's aging infrastructure. it began with thomas donohue. began with chamber resident thomas donahue. >> good morning, the national association of manufacturers and the organization for investment and the chamber, we are pleased to kick off what we think will become an annual week of spotlighting the nation's public and for -- infrastructure. in the fall of last year, a man challenge to organizations, the chamber and the council to work

together to raise the profile of the nations infrastructure issues to recruit new ceos and top level voices and to generate more interest among the business community for addressing the challenges we will discuss today and throughout the week. little did i know that a year later, we would be here today with a week packed full of events, national and regional media campaign involving a steering committee that unified business, labor, and think tanks. paul, thank you to your vision, your dedication to maintaining modernizing and expanding our and yourils, rivers, ability to put the chamber and the counsel together for that first meeting, we are here today. please accept my thanks and infrastructure committee's gratitude for the generous sponsorship. we join me in welcoming paul.

[applause] >> thank you. toseemed like an easy idea get this going and get this group together. and the right thing to do. i have the honor today of introducing the first keynote speaker, and tom donahue. a number of years ago, the courting us to join. we had a couple of visits and were deciding what we were going to do and finally, i do not even remember who it was. and so after 45 minutes with tom donahue, i saw exactly why it was great for hntb to be part of the chamber of commerce. i saw everything they were doing

and everything that sit what hntb needed. in influencess and in washington. a manre than that, i saw with a vision for what america could've been, the passion to get it done and backed by an organization that was working to implement his ideas. since becoming president of hntb ,, bill to the chamber into a lobbying and political powerhouse with influence across the globe. chamberom's tenure, the lobbied political experts, legal advocates, communications, and technical experts and have won this is victories. we are aware of all the victories.

an economic and physical challenges, tom has aggressively been with the growth. one of the key issues facing america today. , the tom's leadership chamber has emerged as a political force. of course, that needs to be reckoned with. accolades andose everybody knows what the chamber to kick offlike infrastructure week by introducing tom donahue. [applause] ith. i would like to kick off the week by introducing tom donahue. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i'm pleased to be here. i'm not sure how i feel.

i got back from europe late yesterday. i'm ready willing and able because i'm absolutely committed to the subject that we're going to discuss today and this evening and tomorrow and the next day, and that we're going to advance in every way we can to meet the challenges that we ll face. thank you for your support of what's going on in the infrastructure world. i would like to join janet in welcoming our co-host, and the organization for international investment, n.a.m., and the ouncil on competitiveness. i appreciate working together

with these folks. the highway trust fund is going to run short of money. guaranteedwon't be to get reinforced on time for money they have already spent and we will probably slow down their own commitments. beat tober, projects will interrupted, halted, or never launched in the first place because of the uncertainty over funding. this will weaken an already weak recovery. i am talking about the economic recovery that will contribute to the slow deterioration of our and undermine our global competitiveness and demonstrate to the world that america cannot even get the basic things done anymore. will also cost us a

lot of jobs. while we are trying to create jobs, this will be taking the most important types of jobs away. several members of congress acting with plans that would address our long-term funding issues and we applaud them for their efforts and another is going to be more discussion in town this week on those attempts. others are suggesting that the political reality is that it will have to settle for an infusion of cash into the highway trust fund as a stopgap measure. where are you going to get the cash? it used to be there were ways to do it and i think is tighter now than it was. it may be true that weekend yet an infusion but it is hardly the heart -- a long-term solution we need if we want to maintain a world-class infrastructure system. this is like the movie groundhog day. every few years we wake up and have the same conversation about

over the gassame i tax and the same scramble for money. the only problem in recent years, we have not been doing really well. you do know and i think round numbers in 20 years, since we increase the gas tax. don't get me wrong. money is important. you cannot make that -- if you do not have the cash. that that is all that we have to do to get the infrastructure issues working. if you look at everything that is being discussed in recent days and weeks around the environmental issues, any of somewhat in conflict, not because they are wrong but in what we are trying to do and where we are trying to spend our money. what everyone would agree to is that we need a comprehensive, forward-looking program that nate -- meets the needs of the competitive 21st-century and then embraces innovative

approaches and instills honda benson earns support of the jaded citizenry. whoever built that bridge did not help us, it didn't go anywhere, that we certainly heard a lot about it. today i would like to suggest a plan that might meet that objective, a plan that can get us past the stale and repetitive debates we have engaged in for too long, a plan that will appeal to the american people and our elected officials because it focuses on the benefits of a 21st-century infrastructure system, a plan that will emphasize transparency, accountability, technology, and innovation. it is a plan that relates to the lives of everyday americans and will help drive their enthusiasm for an increased public investment in infrastructure, a plan gold on five pillars.

most plans are built on five something. we decided pillars. the first pillar is enhanced transparency and accountability. but in english, let's get the american people to be confident about what we are doing. americans will never buy into a long-term funding plan until they are confident that their hard earned dollars are going to be spent wisely. for decades they have been fed stories of wasteful or barrel nowhere, bridges to and bringing home the proverbial bacon to win votes. are bad.f those things i told janet today, understand why we took away all of the efforts to build home -- to bring home a deal over a bridge, but maybe if we all got together and would make a professional list had to be done and after everything was done that and funded in permitted, then they

could let the legislative committees and in order of seniority or hood looks, they could hit one of those projects and we would let them say it is bearish. but the bottom line is, we have got to get people to trust what we are going to do. there's got to be a change. we need more transparency and accountability throughout the system especially to explain to people how objects are implemented and paid for. the public has a right to expect more business minded financial participation in infrastructure projects. all new construction and major upgrades should be the subject of a rigorous economic analysis that indicates a strong return on investment or a return of need that the community must take care of. the public has a right to expect once selected projects are subject to a strict management and are done in a timely fashion in a cost-effective way.

often we put so much bureaucracy between the beginning and the conclusion we all forget what we started out to do in the first place. the public has a right to expect that congress keeps the promise and does not diverge the money to some other project. implementing these reforms will not only improve the efficiency of our system, deliver better benefits and keep the costs lower, they will instill the confidence we need to do this on a long-term basis. the second pillar is that streamlining of the regulatory system. the public needs to know once they commit the money, it will be put to work quickly and efficiently for jobs, growth, and opportunity. lawsuits -- lawsuits are fine, not ones that go on for months

and years and years. permitting delays and bureaucracy can not only slow projects, raise their costs, and outright kill them, but they can't discourage private-sector investment and prevent implementation of cost savings innovations. permitting is a good example. a federal permit is almost always necessary to build or upgrade transmission lines, nuclear power plants, ports, airports, chemical facilities, and any other number of projects. the problem is after the permit is filed no one is in charge. there's no one timeline for approval, and parties have up to six years to sue after an agency makes his final decision. give me a break. so from the outset we have -- we are all looking at more of than decade -- have been -- just to break ground, as well as long delays and costs from legal challenges. we have seen exceptions and seen them work.

remember back to the horrific earthquake in san francisco, and what we did there was we got together like this country can and made it work. what we have now? we have the rapid act, working its way through congress. we put someone in charge of the permit and ensuring coordination among agencies and put limits on reviews and legal challenges. it will speed up the development of projects so we can create jobs and growth. efforts to streamline the regulatory process had been part of each of the last three major service transportation acts. some progress has been made, but change has been slow. additional efforts like streamlining that permit system are needed. the third pillar is a more strategic multimodal approach.

we need a seamless national connected system that links all the physical assets and all the transportation modes together. we need intermodal connectors that link railroads to ports, ports the highways, high waist airports, and so on and so forth him a touch of which can be done by the private sector if the public sector is involved in the way it should in a timely basis. this is where many of the greatest bottlenecks in freight transportation occur, on the last mile that connects one mode to another. our transportation and infrastructure planning system operates in silos across this nation and around this town. multiple levels of government and multiple industries that compete with one another.

this lack of coordination raises costs and generates inefficiencies, which means the system remains fragmented and disjointed. if we are to maintain our world-class infrastructure system, we need to break down those silos, talk to one another, and consider the big which are. in short, we need a network, not a patchwork. states have an important role to play, but we can all agree that the federal government must take a leading role in making sure that the infrastructure system introduced to a strong economy, national security, and works in a seamless way. devolving responsibilities to the states as some has suggested means we will lose national connectivity that is essential to moving american goods, economic growth, and global competitiveness. that is a big price to pay. we sure states are actively involved in raising their own money and aggressively going ahead and fixing their own infrastructure, but they know we need a national system.

the fourth pillar is integrating technology into the surface transportation system. our lives revolve around gadgets these days, it seems to be. we expect that information at our fingertips to make decisions on the fly, to adapt to changing situations, and the american people are going to expect that relationships with the infrastructure is no different. it is time to make sure that our concrete, asphalt, steel, air traffic control system, and other infrastructure are smart. they will tell us when they are wearing out and then we can worry about it. this is what americans do. we innovate, create them in caps on the rocks, make the absolute most out of the resources we have. there are some exceptions. one might look at the u.s. infrastructure system. the private sector know-how is already alleviating injection,

congestion, -- helping travelers plan ahead, unlocking good luck at airports, and improving safety. and if using more technology and infrastructure planning construction and maintenance has a potential to be a game changer for the infrastructure system in the 21st century. technology implemented across transportation modes and industries is uneven across governments and often much lower than the pace of technological evolution. the majority of the build system does not yet incorporate these elements. it might not be cost effective to add every new bell and whistle to the every structure, but business should decide on which technologies warrant support, where, how, and who pays for them. i've been talking about all that because i have been trying to

warm up to the fifth pillar, because this is what is about. the fifth pillar is our business plan, is creating a predictable, stable, and growing funding mechanism for infrastructure. here is some old news free. the simplest, most straightforward way to fix the highway trust fund and buy some time to develop a new funding system is to raise the federal gasoline tax, or the user fee. you do not want a user, you do not have to pay for. but if you want to use it, you have to pay for it. truckers are for it, the construction industry is for it, labor is for it, and the chamber is fort. that is one hell of a start. if congress were serious about ensuring money goes to the most essential projects, most motorists would be for it, too. a researcher found out that 58%

of the public would support a gas tax increase if they knew it would be applied to building and maintaining roads, bridges, and transit systems. pretty good. he have watched in six states, three of each flavor, that state taxes he raised with the support of the citizens. voters want to know where the money is going, and that it is going to be used well and not wasted. that is how you get the votes. increasing, the gas tax is going to require some coverage which seems in short supply in washington these days. last and as i said when those six states did it, they thought the current was there. -- they thought the current was there. courage was there.

now we have got to get it here in the capital city. this guy did not fall. their economies did not collapse. both republican and democratic presidents have approved modest gas tax increases, and even ronald reagan had a message on telling the people on the house side. increasing the gas tax is the right answer. it is the one thing we can do in the short order. we've got to do the same thing for our inland waterways. the barge guys support raising the barge diesel tax so that the locks and dams and levees can be replaced and upgraded. if we are going to export american energy and agriculture, which we are doing more and more, we have got to take care of that, as well as stop holding back the money already collected for the harbor maintenance to trust fund. let's keep in mind that public money is only part of the equation. we must increase private investment as well. the private sector is prepared to pump $250 billion in public-private partnerships if

only certain barriers would be removed and if we could demonstrate we knew how to pay back what we acquired. although 33 states have passed legislation allowing p3's, only a handful have taken advantage of it, and only a handful have established offices that can facilitate projects and help navigate legal, financial, and technical complexities. governors and mayors need to embrace p3's as a way of doing business. we need to seize every opportunity to tap every possible source of capital so that that difficult projects and get done and done quickly. this also includes expanding things like tifia private activity bonds and state infrastructure. i listen to that stuff up on the hill all the time and you can do it and it will work, but you

cannot do it until you lay the foundation touches a highway trust fund. today best estimates put the total u.s. spending on p3's at nine percent of the global total, by taking some common sense steps we can drive that number up. let me conclude because you have been patient listening to me. it is clear that the united states need a new path forward on transportation infrastructure. it is time we all push very hard to create a contemporary and innovative infrastructure strategy, one that embraces the private sector and its resources and invites the introduction of desperately needed ideas and drives prosperity rather than holding it back. jobs, opportunity, and growth -- we need them all. a successful plan would prove to

the american people that our elected officials that infrastructure investment is a smart bet for our people, our companies, and our economy. congress and the obama administration have their role to play. they need to own up to the responsibility of implementing a smart, forward-looking, transparent, and accountable infrastructure program with the necessary funding, please underline. the private sector has a role to play in a significant way as well. we need to come up with solutions, we need to craft a plan, and we need to sell it far and wide. today i am pleased to announce that the incoming chairman of the board will help us lead a national roundtable dialogue which will take place in five or six cities on each of the five pillars we discussed today.

it might be more cities and five pillars. we will then transmit a report to the president, the congress, and everyone else that will listen with their principles and recommendations. some have accused me of being an optimist. i cannot help myself. i am irish for the most part. some people think -- well -- [laughter] so i say it is time to start viewing this issue as an opportunity, not only as a challenge. if we are smart, we can set a path that will ensure adequate funding for years to come. we can create jobs and we really need them. we can spur economic growth the country needs. we can promote cooperation among all levels of government and private sector. we can ensure that money is spent wisely on projects with the greatest national and if it. and we can build trust and

confidence in the american people and make clear all of the benefits this investment will bring. the chamber is committed. my colleagues supporting this effort are committed, and we look forward to working with you to get it done. by the way, if you go to every event this week and then just go home and do not do anything, nothing is going to happen. so somebody, all of us have gotten go up and explain it to our representatives that we are so glad to have them and we need the money. or we might not keep them. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, tom. this is straight talk about our transportation problems which is one of the reasons i like to

work at the chamber. please do not be shy. there is a whole other side of the room here. i was unable to construct a new entrance this morning, so you've got to help me out and walk all the way over there. we wanted to start today hearing from tom, but also hearing from leaders of real top-notch business organizations, each with a slightly different mission and approach, but all of which emphasize the concept of competitiveness, which the world economic forum defined as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine a level of productivity of a country, which sounds very serious. that is a pretty big set of policies -- education, trade, tax policy, immigration, foreign policy. i could keep going on if it takes them longer to mike them up. what each of these association ceo's want is the best platform

upon which businesses can succeed and the united states can compete him and to help us big into how infrastructure relates to competitiveness, today we are pleased to welcome cnbc's eamon javers. did i say that right? yes. he has worked at businessweek and politico, appeared as an analyst on all the major broadcast networks, and if you watch "washington week," you'll will often see him on the panel. he is the author of a book you might want to pick up. so i will turn things over to you. thank you, and thank you to our panel. >> thank you very much, and thank you very much for the plug for the book. this is a fascinating time to have this conversation.

i want to introduce the panel. we will have plenty of time for questions. i hope that your questions will be more insightful than mine. i want to get to that as quickly as we can. starting here, you all know tom. thank you for being here. we also have jay timmons, deborah wince-smith, nancy mclernon. thank you all for being here. let me start out with a statistic that i read last week that i thought was fascinating. so much of this conversation focuses on big businesses and what their needs are. that is important, but this is also a conversation about american jobs and the overall economy. the s&p did a study by their chief economist last week and said that there estimates show

that investing $1.3 billion in infrastructure creates 20,000 u.s. jobs and adds $2 billion to real gdp with potentially larger gains over the long term. if we could, starting with jay, give us your thoughts on what infrastructure needs for jobs first and then the broader economy. >> thanks, and it is great to be here with such a diverse group of people. it is great to have tom kick this off as usual. tom gave us some good things to think about and has really presented a challenge as we all know it here. the fact that we are so diverse and that the sponsors are so diverse, is a testament to the fact that we can get something done here. eamon, it is about jobs and manufacturers. it is about competitiveness. if you look at our competitors

around the world and what they are doing good infrastructure, you realize they are not stuck in the 20th century. they are moving forward to the 21st and planning for the 22nd century. that means if we are going to keep up with our competitors we have got to do the same thing here. for manufacturers, it matters in every step of the process, whether it is receiving input for our goods or being able to deliver our products to our customers here in the united states or to customers abroad. you mentioned the statistic for every 1.3 billion invested in infrastructure spending it creates 22,000 jobs. that is a pretty basic figure, and that is borne out. for manufacturers, for every dollar invested in infrastructure spending, results in about 40 cents for manufacturers. when we look at all the different research products that

have been done, studies that have been done, everybody agrees, we've got to do something. i brought with me a little hint here of the studies that have been done in the last five years. this is just five years' worth -- >> have you read all those? >> she has. this is just a sample, not everything that is come out, but a lot of this is from the federal government, states, think tanks and our group here, and the conclusion is all the same. we have a problem and we have got to do something about it. we have partnered with building america's future, one of the sponsors today, and we surveyed manufacturers. john mclaughlin and another will give you more information on this poll. 70% of manufacturers, the people that his country relies on to generate the lifeblood of the economy, 70% of manufacturers think our infrastructure is in

poor or fair shape. 2/3 of manufacturers believe that every single possible funding solution needs to be put on the table for discussion. it does not mean that we are all going to like what the outcome of every one of those potential solutions, but at least we should be talking about it. and we do need a multi-year long-term strategy for transportation so that we are protecting america's mantle of economic leadership. >> this is about jobs, but also politics. i wonder if the politics of this infrastructure conversation have been damaged from your perspective by the obama stimulus, the question of whether or not government spending can create jobs, having become so controversial? does that make your job going out and selling infrastructure investment the congress harder? >> well, we have not increased

the federal fuel tax in 20 years. and the president has been in town for five and change. so we still had a 15-year head start of not doing what we should have done. i do think that you could say because of the crisis we had economically, because -- and the chamber supported the program he put in -- we disagree with a lot of the stuff in it, but america had to do something. the world was watching -- but what we have been saying the whole time, and we have the big sign on our building about jobs, by the way, 20 some thousand jobs worth $1 billion-plus, but i do not think the named names here.

here is a chance to put people to work, save lives, because a lot of -- kills a lot of people, and to our national security and which is why the roads were built in the first place, and run funds into state and federal coffers by people and institutions that are doing this work. and i think it is time to say, ok, enough is enough for my now do it. there may be and we get ready to run out of money halfway through this year it will be a little easier to get their attention. >> deborah, in your streets do you think people are more willing to hear that argument this year than in past years? what is the receptiveness? >> they're willing to hear the

argument, but if you put into the broader context of u.s. global exports and leadership as well as jobs and economy, we could clearly make the case very easily, we have the data, and think group that has tinkered together and i am proud to be with them, has documented our work, not only do we have a federal deficit, we have an infrastructure deficit. the amount we are under investing compared to our peers and competitors is staggering, and we are seeing the impact on that on the competitiveness of our firms. we need to relate this to what we would call at the u.s. council on competitiveness and innovation deficit, because so much of the opportunity and the costs and what we are going to do to really take america into this 21st century infrastructure journey is an innovation journey. when you think of the new material some of the i.t.

systems, the sensors, the whole -- all the things that will enable our firms to be the leaders in the 21st century manufacturing -- just think of the infrastructure opportunities now that relate to the energy transformation. and the discussion right now about the keystone pipeline and all that going on, you think of the old pipes in the ground, but get this one, hopefully it will get approved, is going to be the state-of-the-art. no country in the world will have that. then the high-skilled jobs. i would like to put on the table that the competitiveness agenda for this country is about talent, technology, investment, and infrastructure, but all of that takes us to an innovation economy where we are going to have high-skilled jobs him and this whole infrastructure rebuilding and what it means for america really is freeing all those things together. in many ways, the infrastructure challenge becomes the systems integrator for all the things we

need to do as a nation, and he clearly needs to be bipartisan and it needs to have a book-private art ships. and i want to call out our friend and colleague of all of us at the table, paul, because a lot of his leadership has gotten us here to this infrastructure week. it is a tremendous opportunity for america's future. >> nancy, talk a little bit about the perspective of those companies that are coming here to the united states, looking to do some of this work. what are they looking to do and what are the challenges that your group faces? >> thanks so much, and thank you all for having us on this panel. a distinguished group here. it is very diverse, but it is good to be here to talk about a topic that so many of us agree on, and my company's somewhat different perspective than those we've talked about today. they are not homegrown companies. they have made a deliberate decision to come to the u.s., invest here, insource jobs to

the u.s. it is a good thing for our economy. we did a study that said in sourcing companies over a decade period raise their industry average in almost every relevant economic indicator. they increased gdp by 25%. they pay a 22% premium in terms of wages and compensation to their u.s. workers, over 5.6 million americans. they invest heavily in u.s. r&d, buy locally, and they produce here not only to serve u.s. customers, but to serve the world as well. they produce about 20% of u.s. exports. infrastructure is very important. these companies are very diverse. i represent sony, siemens, basf, nestlé, so they are very diverse.

but the cfo's of our companies in a recent survey said quality of infrastructure is one of the top factors in choosing a location for investment. it is not a coincidence that the quality of the u.s. infrastructure has declined so has our share of cross-border investment. in 2000, the u.s. won 37% of all cross-border investment. in 2012, it is 17%. countries are improving their infrastructure. >> where are those companies going? who are our biggest competitors as a nation in terms of the infrastructure and resources? what are the other options if you're a big global company saying the united states crumbling, i'm going to go to x or y? >> i would jump in and say china is making huge investments.

i have a long way to go. we did a study at the council with deloitte looking at what global ceo's around the world think about manufacturing competitiveness. in terms of infrastructure, the u.s. was ranked number 19 in that. the good news for us in that overall study was talent-driven innovation and a lot of the intellectual assets are in huge places with customers and markets. start start they are having huge problems right now with the world cup. brazil has a very sophisticated strategy with their brazilian international economic development bank. it is being leveraged for infrastructure. obviously, i will let my colleagues speak. clearly, the emerging markets in asia, but also recently in the middle east, another part of the world that is ensuring that they will have a state of the art infrastructure, whether it is reports or goods.

a lot of us have been to singapore and we see how these city states are also becoming magnets for a lot of the production, not necessarily the innovation work. >> and deborah mentioned the p3's. my companies headquartered abroad are familiar with public-private partnerships. england went there about three decades ago. deborah mentioned brazil and chile. >> china. >> oh, china. i am also mentioning chile, who have built a really good private sector with public involvement. the u.s. is not set up as well to accept some of that investment. >> it is interesting. i am going to bring this up because i am an enormous nerd. you watch a company like elon musk's tesla.

elon musk came out with the idea for the hyperloop, an entirely new type of transportation infrastructure that would lower the time between san francisco to l.a. to about 30 minutes. what was fascinating to me is how people said that will never work, you cannot do that in this country, we cannot build anything this big. the politics would be too complicated. the reaction to that idea, whether you think it is crazy or not, was fascinating to me. there seems to be this attitude in the united states that we cannot do the big, new things. and this is the country that invented the big, new thing. as you look at all of this infrastructure investment, to what extent has the united states lost its ability to do those really large, important things?

>> well, if you went out in the street and asked the american people who is the biggest manufacturer in the world, oh, china. really? no, we are. who is the most efficient manufacturer in the world with a few specific exceptions? we are. where are people coming to do more manufacturing? us. there are all sorts of big, new things going on all the time. we have been fracking for 69 years. the ability to do horizontal fracking and all of that kind of stuff has made the cost of energy in the united states compared to europe -- which, by the way, is critical to the united states. europe is our largest import market. look at what we have done to drive the energy here down to a quarter of what it is. look at what we have done -- by

the way, there is one bad thing. we have taken 45% of the jobs out of the manufacturing business. did we get rid of -- supply chain management, now we are a country with people without jobs and we have jobs without people because we need really skilled folks to do this. we are a sophisticated -- we are the most reductive economy in the world. -- the most productive economy in the ruler -- world. a lot of our big ideas are going on right under our nose. but i do absolutely agree that people look at the united states and wonder now, can we do it or will we do it? that is a fundamental issue and that problem is not all about government or people around the world. it is all about our own citizens, who have gotten comfortable, do not like conflict. do not like risk. do not like to work too hard. i think we need to stop and

think with our children and our grandchildren, what are their futures? >> talk about the energy side of this. i read a rarities of good news that the united states could become one of if not the leading oil producer in the world in the coming decades. that is a conversation that i cannot imagine us having 20 years ago. it was very doom and gloom about energy in this country. now the energy picture is changing. how does that change the infrastructure piece and what you are going to do? >> five years ago, we would be hard-pressed to find that cover station, that the united states could become the world leader when it comes to energy production. that to your previous question. what we have been able to accomplish is an example of

those big ideas that the private sector has been producing in this country. i happen to believe that there is no limit to what americans are willing to try to achieve. i want to add one little note. i think it does factor into our ability to maintain this edge or this leadership position on energy production. it is the government role. when we look at complacency and conventional wisdom that america's best days are -- i should not say conventional wisdom, but some would say that america's best days are behind us. that is ridiculous. one of the reasons that that is ridiculous is because, at some point, the american people are

going to rebel against the government that is taxing too much, regulating too much, that is saying that we cannot do things that we could not do in the past. i think energy is a perfect example of that. so what we have been able to achieve on the energy front will allow us to maintain our economic leadership. but it is in doubt as well. you are starting to see new rules coming out on fracking or an effort to centralize the rule-making process. the states are doing a great job when it comes to maintaining public safety and health and ensuring that fracking is done in a responsible manner. we have politics at play when it comes to permitting lng exports. we have got to move past that. i think several people have indicated that this is not just a problem that has occurred, this competitiveness issue is not something that happened in

the last five years. for manufacturers, we have been regulated to death over the last 30 years. that has been in administrations republican and democrat. that is why every one of us up here are talking about regulatory reform, competitiveness. and the importance of regulatory reform when it comes to ensuring a 21st-century infrastructure program. energy is definitely a key. it can lead the way and show us the path forward to breaking through these political barriers in washington. >> i would jump in on that and say that we should be also thinking, and we do, of our regulatory capital cost system as an infrastructure. unfortunately, we have allowed ourselves to be competing globally with other competitors who do not want to compete on that. they want to compete on the

higher value products and services they provide. we are being toppled by that. an example, we are talking about the energy and the potential of being energy weak and, for the first time, being energy strong, which has huge geopolitical security implications. obviously, what is happening in russia and other parts of the world. for every study that has ever been done, says that our product liability laws are a huge, hostile set of behaviors for innovation. and talk about where a lot of the next generation asks us where we put -- we have known examples of companies who will not be put here because of our product. one thing i wanted to say in referencing the fracking and all of that, this gets back to the public-private partnerships and the appropriate role for the government. the actual research and development that enabled horizontal drilling and fracking

really started 30 years ago. with investments in the department of energy. the exciting thing about that is if we look at the next iteration of that, there is work underway in our national laboratories to develop new processes to move into this fracking area, not having to use as much water, not having to use chemicals that give concern to the environmentalists. also, related to energy and manufacturing, to begin to develop synthetic rare earth materials, which will have huge implications for everything we are talking about here, manufacturing, competitiveness, the whole industry. >> i want everyone to start thinking of questions because i know your questions are going to be better than mine. we will go to some q&a as well. >> one last point about energy. in the cfo survey we did of over 100 cfos of foreign-based companies in the united states, energy ranked as one of the most positive reasons that these

companies are investing here, manufacturing here, using the u.s. as an export platform. what was interesting, if we did some cross tags and looked at the energy companies themselves, they are the most pessimistic because they are worried about regulation. they are worried about standardization and rules coming down the road that might interrupt their business plan that they know that they can be successful. so energy is one of our top competitive advantages. the energy companies themselves within my membership are concerned about the future. >> tom, you had a point too. >> i think it is absolutely appropriate to get around to energy, but i want to make one point about energy. there is only one absolutely predictable major crisis facing the united states that we all know is there and nobody wants to talk about. it is the ugly elephant in the room and everybody turns their

back to pretend it is not there. 10 years from now, we will be in a situation where the federal government will have grown its budget from $3.8 trillion to $6 trillion. 66% for entitlements. 15% for interest on the debt. when we get finished, like 22% or the military and everything else that our government does at home and abroad. >> including infrastructure. >> everything has got to be in that. basically, the number gets huge and most of the money goes to two things. that is entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, military entitlements and so on. we were walking around for a long time and the reason we would not look at the elephant is we did not know what to do.

people living longer and longer. by the way, i like that. [laughter] people living longer and longer and the costs are getting greater and greater. what are we going to do? we found some things that we can do to help. 10 years from now, we will, if we do it right, if we do not let people stick their heads in the sand and pretend it is not something we have to deal with, we will develop the american energy system to the point where we can take a big bite out of that entitlement deal. and if we do not, we are really in trouble. >> i have to jump in and say that if you look at two sectors of our economy that do not have productivity, they are the education system and the health-care system. that tells you something right there. that we are not having systems that have productivity growth

and all of that as well. the solution to the entitlements, you can look around the world. a country like israel, very innovative in what they are doing. they decided they were going to increase the age before people could get their social security. >> we are already doing that. >> but we are still working on 1930 models of actuary tables, for the most part. that could immediately have a huge impact if we could get bipartisan agreement to increase that. >> i want to ask you all about congress, bipartisan agreements, and what this particular congress is capable of. i also want to make sure that we have a chance for people to ask westerns. i know we have some folks roaming the halls with microphones. i cannot see all of the folks over there, so if anybody is raising their hand, let me know if there are questions in the back. i do want to get everybody involved here as well. talk a little bit about this congress. everyone seems to be completely pessimistic about it. it is the ability to do anything, even the must-pass

bills, because of the gridlock on capitol hill. listening to you all, or you get the sense that this is a pressing problem, has to be dealt with, crucial for the future of the u.s. economy? what faith do you have that congress can rise to the occasion and do something this year even the gridlock and the political mess that we have seen and given the fact that there is an election coming up? i will put you on the hot seat. >> no problem. the perfect issue for the election coming up, because the public supports modernizing our infrastructure. i am an optimist. i know a lot of people are betting against congress taking any action this year. but the timing of the highway bill running out for right now, these are great issues that i think the public can get behind with strong leadership. >> what is your sense of this congress? is this a congress that can do stuff or is this a congress that will want to get home and

campaign and stay in the trenches? >> on that particular point, i am not as optimistic that they are going to do anything big. i think they will do some incremental things around the margin. i do think that we have a huge opportunity to be setting the stage for the next election. and to make the case that, ultimately, and tom alluded to this and i think jay did as well, we are talking about fundamental security issues as well. you talk about homeland security challenge. something happen, we know this, our transportation, our water. if we do not have water, we are going to have a week before people start dying without water. also presenting this is much more core to national security is very critical. i am not as optimistic. my colleagues are. >> are you still optimistic? >> i am optimistic.

if you look at eight period of time from now until the elections, there are some things we have to do or are getting set to do. everybody talks about lame-duck deals. every now and then, every three decades or something, we will have one that does a lot of stuff. but i really believe that there are three or four things that we will have a shot before they are finished. one is we will get a tax deal done. taking those away would be another huge tax increase on american industry, which would affect jobs. i do believe that we are absolutely crazy if we do not take advantage of having passed an immigration bill out of the senate. going back to do it again might be harder. and do something rational in the house and put it together.

let's get the three or four things we really need there. and we have a lot of heat on that. and we are going to put a lot more. >> you think immigration is doable this year? >> yes. >> really? >> yes. >> you are more optimistic than i am. lex i will give you three reasons. if the republicans do not do it, they should not bother to run a candidate in 2016. i mean, think about that. think about who the voters are. i just did that to get everybody's attention. >> everybody should immediately tweak that, -- tweet that, by the way. i want that to get out there. >> we are a nation without jobs and jobs without people. you need all of these people that we are training in the universities. the best universities in the world and we tell them to go home. when you do that, you send the

work to where the people are. the third reason we need to do this, and i will have another one, the bottom level of work is people who are seasoned workers. people in agriculture, you talked about health care. i will tell you a line of business we know something about. we just did a big thing last week and that is the retired people in nursing homes and retirement homes and all of that. i have been giving a lot of speeches and saying, if you do not want to do this immigration thing, you are going to go to the nursing home and pick up your mother in law and bring her home. >> right. if you do not have a labor force working and generating these entitlements, you do not have the ability to take care of -- >> america could sit down for a minute, put a chalkboard up and say, look, we have five or six things that are really a challenge. he have immigration because we have all of the issues we just talked about. we talked about entitlements,

energy, infrastructure. four or five of those things and put them together and reasonable people can look at it and say, you know, we can do that. all we have to do is decide to do it. if you look at what has gone on in the primaries, where people are now getting focused on trying to elect people of both parties that are going to go to washington and get something done. >> jay, where do you stand? >> for those in the audience who think tom is committed to this, this is a unified position in the business community. i do think that immigration reform does give you an idea of what can be accomplished. i, too, think it will get done this year. i think it will happen in the lame-duck session, the final piece of legislation. >> maybe i think that, too, but i am not -- >> what you think and what you

say -- >> that would be the fallback. >> for manufacturers, immigration reform is imperative. tom mentioned the workforce issue that we are all experiencing. there are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing today. this immigration bill can go a long way towards helping us fill those positions. more importantly than that, the pathway is essential to manufacturers because we work very hard to build communities. if you take our present law that is current to its natural conclusion, we would be ripping apart communities and the fabric of this nation. manufacturers are committed to that. you are also committed to getting things done. we need to see some movement forward on trade. something every president since franklin roosevelt has had. it is essential to increasing our economic footprint on the world.

get to infrastructure and you have a different issue. the issue is if this thing goes belly up in july, even before the september expiration of the current bill -- i used to work for a governor. george allen in virginia. that governor was effective when it came to talking to members of congress about how structured funding was impacting our ability, as a state, to do our jobs. there were 50 governors, but the republicans and democrats were pounding on the doors of congress. when the american people are saying, look, you cannot hold up our state's ability to fix roads, to build new roads, to provide easier ways for us to get to work and back and, by the way, we really do care because we work for a living. we care about getting the goods

that we are producing to our customers. the american people want to send a strong message and i never doubt the ability of congress -- of governors to force congress to get things done. >> let me open it up to questions. we have a lot of people who want to jump in here. let me start to my left and then we will go to my right. right here in the middle. go ahead. if you could give us your name and organization as well. >> i am bob hirschi. i am a consultant. to what extent can you use the internet to try to get people together and get an economic consensus and get the money together to get things done? >> can you use the internet? i also throw into that social media in terms of mobilizing support for what it is you want to do. does that give you an added tool and how do you use that? why don't we start with nancy and work our way down? >> social media, without a doubt, is a very powerful tool. i think that you can absolutely build up -- and we have seen what has happened around the

world -- build up some nice political support for that. we also need political leaders willing to take some risk. we need the ability to -- you know, i raised the issue of public-private partnerships earlier because it is something that foreign-based companies are used to doing. getting more acceptance of that through social media as well. often times, politically, the fact that a foreign company is going to lease the toll road and operate the toll road is used as the reason to defeat the project itself. you know, a spanish company is going to come in and do it. not sure where that spanish company will take the road. >> they are not going to move it home. >> no, but we have seen the success of that before. anyone traveling during their commute on the hot lanes can thank an australian company for partnering with the commonwealth of virginia to do so. total media is a way to get people to understand it better.

we also need government willing to show some better leadership and not just look at what the polls are showing, not just look at what twitter is following. >> think about how fast those hot lanes go in virginia. that partnership works very well. >> we have another question over here. >> i am patrick sable with brookings. just a quick question. this berkeley -- historically, about 27% of infrastructure spending comes from the federal government. what can the federal government do to support those innovations, whether it is public-private partnerships, gas tax increases that we are seeing across the country? what can the state and local leaders do and what can your organizations do to help them push the ball forward? >> look at a project. the federal government can actually put as much as 50% in it.

the state and the local communities would divide up the other 50%. if you are the governor today, then you are the mayor and others in the community involved, you will be nervous on putting your money up on projects that you are not sure that the federal government is going to bring their money. they probably feel, we will get paid sooner or later. in the meantime, we are holding the bag. what are people doing? they are having their own meetings with the governors and local officials and they are saying, we are going to hold up on that. we will fix that bridge next year. it is already starting to happen. when that happens, people are laid off. poor people are not hired. -- or people are not hired. we have to understand that this is a partnership. not only a public-private partnership, but a partnership between levels of government. if one of us, one of the major players takes a walk, something

tells me you are not going to be able to finish the equation. you know more about that than i do. >> i was just going to jump in and add that i do think it goes both ways. we also see a lot of gridlock at the local and state level. for major infrastructure initiatives that would add value not only to these regions, but to the country at large. i was thinking of the example, we hear so much about the new court in charleston, that it is just gridlock over the permitting and things. i do not know if it is an anecdote or true, but if it is true, it is shocking. it is taking longer to get these permits to do the digging and things than it took to build the entire panama canal. we did have a situation where every locality and state could block the national highway system that enables us to go

from coast-to-coast in our transportation. i agree 100% with tom on the investment issue. also, this hermit inc. and this -- permitting and regulation that gets us so far down, that is something that we need. it is really dangerous when you look at the electric grid. that is a case where a country like brazil, again, they have a national grid. of course, we do not and we saw the consequences of that with the devastating storms and things in new york. i think that this is where the governors can also come together and step up and do some big things that would impact the overall nation as well as their state and local issues as well. rex jay, you wanted to jump in? >> one of the things the states can continue to do is innovate. let's assume that we get a bill done before the money runs out this summer.

we are going to be using the old system, the old model. whether we increase the gas tax or not, it is not a long-term, sustainable solution to our problem. you look at virginia. whether you like what they did or you do not like what they did, they were willing to think outside the box. other states are doing the same thing. those ideas need to come to washington to be considered whenever the next bill is accomplished. i am looking forward to camera -- tamara's leadership on this issue. there are a lot of other associations that are part of the dialogue for the future. we need to get over the hump right now and put everything on the able for future years. >> we have a question over here in the back. >> i am covering free transportation, supply chain, trade. i will see if i can wrap three

things into one question. >> you are starting to sound like a white house correspondent. [laughter] >> everyone talks about educating congress about the need for infrastructure. more and more, it seems like most lawmakers get it to -- get it. at the end of the day, it is these other outside political factors that influence things. whether it is a gas tax increase or other funding, how do you get beyond that when you have a lot of movement for smaller government and no tax increases, how do you get to some funding mechanism when the ideologies are set in stone? and then some states are taking on more investment on their own. they do not want to wait for the federal government. some states are advancing some money for port deepening. i guess the whole question of devolution -- is that a

catch-22? the forward-thinking states, they start investing, and that is a good thing. on the other hand, are they sending a message to congress, they are going to do it so they do not have to? >> let's start with the ideology question. how do you deal with the rise of a very anti-spending political ideology on capitol hill? give us some hints on how you tackle that. >> this is all about education, educating the american people to register, to follow their votes with their members of congress, and we do that at the nam. we not only work to educate our 12,000 members and the millions of employees that work for them, but also the general public on these issues. we have an obligation as a business community, as well as

labor and others, to let folks know what is at stake here. it gets very frustrating for manufacturers to have this skepticism coming from certain quarters of congress about a basic function of the united states government, in the way to overcome that is through elections. we have seen some of these primaries take place where more reasonable heads are prevailing. i think there is an awareness now among the american people that extremism is not going to create solutions, that there needs to be two sides working together to get the job done. we are going to continue to work on that, we will continue to register people, to work with other associations like the chamber and our 240 council of manufacturing associations to get the word out. >> the question on states, and whether or not the state picking

up some of the slack from the federal government, what message is that sending to people in washington? >> it is an encouraging message that the american system still works. and i believe that the comments that were made before is that the most powerful politicians in our system are mayors of challenging cities and governors. we will see a lot more of that over time. that simply sends a message to the politicians in washington, if you want to stay as relevant as you want to be, you better work really hard on the part of the system that you have control of. the commerce clause is argued both ways all the time, and i

have a few comments on it, depending on what the issues. >> this is not the only issue where we will see action at the state and local level, and to teach lessons to washington. it can be one among many. i see that happening across the board. if somebody mentions that one of the characteristics of the public is looking for, for those that will vote in 2014 is, will the candidate work with the other side to get past this gridlock? what is disappointing to me is when you go past that topline question in the poll, people want their candidate to work to get to their position, not necessarily just worked actually compromise. definitely from the ground up, which is why we need leadership, to go beyond what people are thinking as a knee-jerk reaction and talking about and show

action in trying to get consensus on important things like infrastructure. >> we are just about out of time, but, deborah, i will give you the last word on this. also on some of these questions that we've been talking about today. where do you think this conversation goes from here? >> i would add on the states, in addition to governors and mayors, it is exciting to think what some of the regional associations of governors are doing, cause increasingly you really cannot talking about states as much as economic regions, and so they how they come together, that is usually cross party lines. in terms of where we should go from here, we have a great coalition that has come together here. we know we have to move out in both the educational arena as well as building this business case for why infrastructure is at the heart of our nation's future competitiveness, job creation, innovation. and i think again the opportunity is now. it is not later. the extent to which we can begin to put together an agenda of the near term, medium term, and long-term things we can do will be very powerful, and national infrastructure week, i hope it

is the first of many. >> terrific. we have now reached a part of it where a producer will be screaming "wrap, wrap" in my ear. thank you very much for talking about this. a fascinating conversation. and thank you all so much for listening to it. [applause] >> all right, ladies and gentlemen. we will take a 15-minute break so you can refill your coffee, water, juice, whatever it is you're doing. these keep an eye on the monitors. we will call you back in 15 minutes to hear from a great panel on international competitiveness. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

thank you all again for coming back. i'm very excited to moderate this panel this morning. down to talk about what do you do in an off event,ure kick my colleague from the national association of manufacturers,

who had to put together that stack of reports, said we some to be asking questions of people who have an the united states has a mature infrastructure, compete withto countries who are starting from almost a blank slate, like we heard this monk on the opening panel. and we know that there are some practices going on globally in strategy, planning that we think we can learn from. for the most part we have countries coming here. worked at the american association of state highway and transportation finishes for five week, and there wasn't a that went by that we didn't have a delegation from somewhere out what and figuring the united states' best practices were, in infrastructure. but i think there are things to be learned from all around the world, and that's why i'm so pleased to have this

distinguished panel today. know, everyone's full program.in your dr. antonioeft, delatha, the minister and principal advisor for economic and financial affairs for the delegation of the european union to the united states, i am told number three representative from the e.u. to the united states. we very much appreciate your here, and hearing a little about this strategy and planning there. judith ritchie is the first transport secretary, here inritish embassy washington. judith has a long history in the u.k. and even as i was googling around on you, written ayou've little history of british transport, so we'll have to find one a little later. with with is balancefour beatty investments,

andoes direct investment operation and management of i from a structure and he'll talk public-private partnerships. and finally on my far left, lent.n i said i wasn't going to try your first name, i'm sorry. to if you want to give it us. okay. >> it's not that hard. >> i should have asked earlier. hoping the, the group which does design, and production of industrial facilities, he's listed this the neitherrer land, canada and the united states and is familiar is alsoctices but looking from a company perspective at how different infrastructure investment ultimately affect their business decisions and operations and what's important. have an en user perspective. so before we get started,

if our team could cue up the video on europe's 10-team program. >> we have a quite diverse range lack ofems, with the good connections, lack of fast

reliable transport. the transport does not deliver what it's expected to do. >> if you want to be competitive, and you want to attract investment, if you want to have logistic centers which to operating, you have have -- >> it's not only words, but it is ought where countries can projects.e real van >> this is the e.u.'s value. link regions, countries, east and west, this can only drive a competitiveness in europe to the benefit of citizens and business. it will not stop at borders, and european transport

policy is all about. > thank you for inviting us. the video i just saw it for the first time, it is another one that i had in mind but it is terrific. it is very good. >> wrong video. >> any how, the transeuropean twork is our approach to statsically planning and implementing as the big infrastructure networks.

earlier this morning, the problem was raised about how in dvanced countries to modernize platforms. in some of our member states this is the case, in other member states, as the vice president just said, the infrastructure in some of our member states, particularly those that joined the eu most recently or more recently, the infrastructure is not as good. besides that, the plans in our states where the initiative there are is that those that are crucial in order to integrate to bring growth. now, the spry chains are -- supply chains are not just to

say global, therefore we need to be able to go as smoothly from one part of the e. university by maybe -- by nland waters on to rail, on to air traffic, and road. so the point is to take the advantage to interconnect countries that also need to interconnect the various modes of transport. and the same applies to other parts because the transeuropean networks are not only tranceport. they are transport, nrnl, and telecommunications. and today we know how important it is. some estimates are that if i am that 10% en, that more house holds are connected

being an increase of 1.5% of g.d.p. and 20 million jobs by 2020. even if we don't take this at face value it is clear that there is a relation between telecommunications and growth. and the same as with energy and growth and also logistics in many cases account for 10-15% of the manufactures. so improvements in logistics really bring down costs, increase competitiveness, create jobs and growth. so this is the ration nal for it. now, why do we do it at this level? because as we said national creates national telecomgrowth and development. national rotesdz and rail companies have had a more

national dimension and the interconnections are in many cases missing. and it is more difficult to find the right -- to put together contracts or authorities from two countries. this is where the e.u. has an advantage and has a role that it wants to play. and this is also important we are told because to have this vision, to have these strategic plans and to have this certainty of where we are going and what the priorities are said, then it is much easier to bring private companies to make the investment. and it is much more easier to persuade taxpayers to put their money into those infrastructures that are more relevant. so to have this pan european plan is important for -- to help investment.

you saw very quickly in the video the map with the -- with nine transeuropean corridors in different colors. so these are sometimes east-west or north-south corridors that enable as i said to benefit from the various modes of transport and to be able to go from one place to the other and also to connect to the global airports or to he ports or to the sea-motorways that enable us to reduce costs. not only if reducing costs and growth are important, we are also putting a lot of emphasis on sustainability. we are building these, we are having the vision for the infrastructures for the future and the future must certainly take account of growth and competitiveness but also in

sustainability. this is why we are putting emphasis on these transmodal links to rail traffic so that passenger range both and freight traffic can be done through rail, which is more effective and more environmentally friendly. trying to take advantage of the modernizations needed in much of our platforms to come -- account for more energy efficiency. and also for a company, these platforms see innovations in traffic management systems. so these nine deep corridor ports for european transports re matched with two main traffic management systems for

traffic. or air so this is the history. now, the second point where it is important to have this vision and strategic plans is then we can put our money where our mouth is. and clearly the eu is not capable nor has the role to finance all that but it can sit the help in financing missing links that may not be profitable in some cases or may not have the political support in some countries where the taxpayers care more about their own confines rather than linking with other parts of the e.u. or the world. so this is where there is a value added to have the e u. plugging in some money to

capitalize the investment, both public and private. and i say that the role as a catalyst and the financial instruments also as a catalyst because they not only provide the money and the security but they also provide the label and the signal of leadership and political support to those specific priorities. so we have corridors across the e.u. that we consider priority ones. we have set priorities within them. we are pushing for the development of work plans so that we match the vision with the realization. and we also found out that, as i said earlier, very often money is not the only problem. and sometimes it is not even the problem. very often the problem is more to overcome some of the

administrative hurdles to put together the various authorities concerned, which is if it is difficult in the single country it is much more difficult where authorities from more than one country are involved. so this is why at some point we found that it was useful to appoint what we call the corridor coordinators. so it is one person with a team that is kind of the chairman of the corridor and whose role is acilitating this interaction between the authorities of the concern usually in various countries but also to facilitate and to show, as i said, the signal to private investors that there are public support that this is -- that and is both a strategy

some plans behind it. nd to make sure that again the authorities concerned make up the work plans that are consistent, the investments, again, the time plans are consistent with each other so that there are no or fewer delays and that things -- that implementation is much smoother. so i would just go quickly to he other side of the -- of our involvement, which is financial ly. as i said, we tried to put our money where our words are and where our vision is, and we have developed together with financial institutions a tool kit of grants, loans, guarantees, and credit enhancement instruments structures so as to support and to facilitate to catalyze the

financing by, again, public and private partners. so what are these instruments? first, we have matching grants from the e.u. budget for projects in less advanced regions. clearly, the budgets from these countries are less capable of building some of these infrastructures. and there are -- our regional plans strurkttral plans provide structures that match the public investment in the priorities, in the priority links. moreover, even outside the -- even in countries or member states that are not so -- less advanced, we also have financing, as i said, initially for missing links to catalyze the investments across borders.

and in this respect we work very closely with the european investment bank. the european investment bank lent $6.4 billion for strategic transport project, -- sorry, euros, ergy projects, and for oil and renewable energy generation projects. so all of that is a big contribution to financing. and the long-term loans, the good conditions are adequate for this type of project. moreover, again, in cooperation between the e.u. budget and the european investment bank we have put together instruments for structure finance, what we call project loans, again to provide some comfort to private investors so that the first

risk is covered by the e.u. budget and the european investment bank. and together with the assessment by the european investment bank. so that provides comfort and signals to other private investors so as particularly long-term investors. plans, investment funds, so they come into this type of project. so besides the european investment bank, we also cooperate with the european bank for construction and development whose activity is more in water and urban transport. and we also in that -- that has proven important particularly in some of the less advanced countries. with the european investment bank -- and sometimes with development eral banks and development banks, we support the preparation of projects. ecause again what many tell us

is that the quality of project is isn't always good. so we work with the project promoters and authorities so as to bring a project closer or make them more amenable for private financing. d i mentioned the e.u. but there is also some seed financing for projects that links the e.u. with the neighboring countries. so there are facilities financed by the e.u. that connect the e.u. countries and corridors and networks to the countries of our neighborhood so as to again enlarge -- it goes both ways. it enables those countries to benefit from e.u. growth and also for us to access -- to have access to other parts of the world. our se are in a nutshell

approach to infrastructure. is it a good practice? the ct, if we compared group report lately, well, the european infrastructures are not ideal but they've done fairly well compared to the u.s. or to other parts of the world. also, i mentioned earlier that one of the objectives of the transeuropean networks and the infrastructure support is to help integrate the e.u. d in this respect, we also work, we see that for instance in hundred garry between 2009- 2011, the e.u. transfers to hung gri with matching funds with the hundred garian sector amounts for 90% of growth

capital. so therefore it really delivers the public investment so -- in infrastructure. so hs really helpful. having said that, i -- it is fair to say that there are outstandle challenging. and a clear one is the still poorly interkex connected networks. the crisis that we are living today in ukraine and russia clearly affects importantly some of our member states. and this is because in the past there was not enough effort in integrating, in interconnecting the energy systems and energy grids of our member states. and therefore it is now -- it is now receiving much more emphasis so that we can work towards energy security. >> much of the same or some of the same could be said for

telecom networks. they are still very much nationally based and interconnections are not yet sufficiently good. there are some still some bottlenecks in road transfer, in rail transport for instance the systems are not yet standardized so the management systems in one country need not speak to other countries. not to speak about the gauge, the rail truck engaged at these different -- in some of our member states. this is due to historical and conversations. finally, we -- an outstanding challenge is the scarcity of public funds in some of our member states as a consequence of the high indebtness of these countries

and of the crisis. so all these challenges we are trying to overcome and the new plans are indeed conducive to doing that in a comprehensive ay and in a strategic one. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviting me to speak at the kickoff event of the infrastructure week. i'll talk a bit about the british experience, the background, what led us to private finance initiative which is a ppc. some of the lessons we've learned and the structures that we have within the e.u.-k. government and to support that with our plans going forward. so looking back to the late 70s, early 80's, we had huge

underinvestment in our infrastructure, huge backlog of maintenance required. and so had recession public sector deficit. i'm sure that sounds familiar. so margaret thatcher launched an innovation program which included privatization of our rail reas but also the private finance initiative, which is the most commonly used p 3 in the u.k. i'll explain a bit about that in a moment. but traditional procurement had led to massive budget overruns and delays. an example is the scotish parliament which was budgetted to cost 67 million, in fact it cost 725 million. a hospital wing budgetted for 60 million cost us 209 million.

so clearly something had to change. so the private finance initialtive in the u.k. is a procurement of the service on a long-term basis which is capital investment partially by the private sector, financed by bank loans, corporate banks. the private sector designs, builds, finances, maintains, and operates that asset and the public sector pays for it with either annual unitry charge of 20-30 year period or pay concessions. now, the advantages of the p.f.i. were that the public sector gets a reliable long-term service. but equally the private sector gets long-term payments from public sector.

there's a risk transfer and -- which minimizes the cost of taxpayers. our highways agency that manages the strategic road network in the u.k. estimates that they have made 15% value ney savings by using p-3 projects. the public sector got high quality assets on time and on budget. hugely important. many . has funded projects and we've seen those numbers of projects, 85% of projects are finished on time and on budget compared to just in 2005 and only 45%. so that's a huge increase. it's worth pointing out that most u.k. infrastructure is actually funded by the private

sector. so water, communications, airports are funded purely by the private sector. lessons that we've learned from nearly 20 years of p.f.i. is that it works well when there's a long-term predictable need. the project has to be large enough to justify the expense of procurement costs. there has to be a competitive bidding market and importantly policy stability from national governments. we made mistakes when we were building new hospital wings, new hospitals when our national health policy was in flux and that impacted on those projects. the public, we also learned there needs to be public sector governance and the skills associated with that, within

government. but we've also -- we also know that private sector is better at doing this than the public sector brings in better technology and innovation. and its focus is now not just on the ribbon cutting. it focuses on the maintenance of the highway for the 20, 30 -year time of the contract. so when it's handed back to the public sector and industrious, this is not privatization, the asset returns to the public sector, it's returned in very good condition. p.f.i. doesn't work well when the project is undergoing significant change or if the project, as i referred to before, is too small. and conversely, i think, if the project is too large. or if the project is too complicated. or if there's potential for it becoming obsolete. p-3 in 't tend to use

telecommunications and that sort of thing. the government has had tostep back from this, though. it can't sort of have huge control and detail and tell the private sector exactly step by step how it should do things. and also, to be honest, some decisions were made for expediency and the p-3 model wasn't the right model for that particular project. o we've learned from the p.f.i. model over the 15-20 years. but we did review it in 2012 and we have now nishyavet the second phase, what we call private finance ii. and we had to do that because

of the economic climate we found ourselves, the credit crunch. banks were no longer lending because they were having to recapitalize. so the result of the review is we have maintained the core principals of the private finance initiative. so it's the risk transfer to the private sector, it's over long term 20-30 years. but as i say, we've had to adapt to the economic realities so we've had looked at diverse -- wider sources of funding which includes pension funds, insurance funds, the government has set up a guarantee scheme f $67 billion which is intended to kickstart those projects which may not have happened precisely because of the credit, that credit crunch. we've also listened to complaints from the industry about the length of time it took to procure.

so the maximum procurement time should be 18 months. we have standardized contracts. and more transparency. there were suspicions that the private sector was making too much money on some of the projects. so there's much wider transparency. within this, the u.k. government has a structure so we have an organization called infrastructure u.k., which is based in our treasury. it is the organization that pushes the momentum on private financing. it provides any legislation changes, any structural changes. on top of that there's a government ministerial team that is chaired by our chief secretary of the treasury and includes other ministers from

the relevant department who are really sort of holding the feet to the fire about sort of our projects on track and what are the problems. within every relevant department, my own department, department of transport, has a finance unit and they were the ones that bring the sector xpertise to the process. we've also got local partnerships because after all 75% of p-3's are delivered at the local level. so that is a joint venture between our national treasury and the local government association, and that helps provide training to develop that expertise at the local level. and we also have a national investment plan to strategic engagement forum. it's a bit of a mouthful but it's about national government having the forum to speak to

investors and other stakeholders when -- so when the national infrastructure plan is developed both sides have an understanding of each other's position. i mentioned the national infrastructure plan. we have found that it is hugely important to have a national plan. the first one was published in 2010, it was fairly high-level plan. every subsequent year we've had an update, a refresh of that. so the latest one was published in november last year. it's a long-term cross-cutting strategic approach to planning, funding, financing, and delivery of our national infrastructure. it identifies a pipeline of iority projects, 40 programs 2020. at 631 billion to and the breakdown of that is

about 20% of those projects will be entirely publicly funded, about 20% of them will be p-3 funded and the rest 60% will be privately financed. as well as that document in march, we published a finance update. now, this was in response to investors in the industry wanting more clarity about the investment opportunity within that pipeline and how the government -- which of those projects the government saw publicly financing, for instance railway line that is going to go from london to birmingham, a huge project, very complex, to the other projects which potentially private investment could be involved in. the results we've seen is that p-3 is increasing. $76 billion per

annumb and that's increased from 70 billion from 2005-2010. and there have been a whole host of projects. my friends, one such project was the widening of our -- around london all the tall motorways. 63 miles. it's -- the contract was signed in 2009, it goes to 3e9 and that is a design -- 2039. and that is a design, build, financing, maintenance of that project. and i'm sure nigel can probably give you a bit more information on that. i think the conclusion is that we in the u.k. and the u.s. and certainly other developed countries share the same challenges. part of the work that we have been doing here in the u.s. is that we have set