s about what has changed and what has stayed the same. we know what has remained the same in part is incumbent rate so it is not like a whole lot of members are losing left and right. but having spoken -- worked with someone who lost, i will tell you that affect on other senators was in measurable. it was not that they were feeling the primary challenge immediately but it was because now they knew someone very well who had lost a primary. so, it is not so much you are going to lose the election it is that you know someone who lost the election that motivates you to act in certain ways. it does not necessarily have to reflect the percentages, the empirical does not matter as much as knowing someone who went through it and that will change and alter behaviors in the ways you suggest. >> you partially answered your

own question. there is pressure on the side of the hill. you can suggest that members see the causal link going in the other direction, the reason i get elected is because i have a war chest. and that is one way to combat it. >> it is the sign of the times when the word primaries becomes ever. "i might get primary did." -- pimrimaried." before they are freshmen, they sign a leadership pact. why? because members are getting dubbed a certain amount depending on their role on the committee's and so on. this is increasing pressures for raising more and more money. >> one more implication of the nationalization of congressional election that john referred to is that it is harder for members

and income when they vote for members in the apposite party. when you look at it over time, it is a fairly unremarked upon trend. what grew substantially into the 50's and 60's is basically down to what it was before the increase. there is still a small income and see advantage but it is much smaller they are in it used to be. it is not true just for governors. it does not mean you need to spend four hours a day on the phone fundraising which is what they told freshmen members to do after the 2012 election, maybe that is not rational allocation of time, but i think in and environment which is nationalized and the apparent advantage has become reduced

you can see perhaps why there is some internal pressure at least four members themselves to go out and fund raise. >> coming, right there. >> thanks very much. my name is jim. i served in the house for 10 years. all of what you said in the last 10 minutes, especially, you may win the primary but you might have to spend a lot of member -- money every six years or every two years. now you have to raise much more money ban used to have to to protect that. that has changed a lot about you spend your time, how often you go back and it has a huge impact on how your day is scheduled and that has really changed a lot. especially now, companies can spend millions to unseat you and that has changed everything. i think it is most unfortunate but that is my personal open you in. >> that is like what they said

earlier about the legislative role and the representational role. if you have to spend more time doing that, there's only a certain amount of time in the day there will be less time on oversight or something like that. >> fill wallach from brookings. i may be obtuse here, but can you talk a little bit more, what do you mean when you say representational? a combination of constituent service and, sort of, feeling like you are there to the constituents who want you to be there, that when i think about representation it is sort of representation to what end and what context. so, i guess i would just be curious to know, you know, how that compares in taking the long view. what representation looked like 100 years ago or 50 years ago and what you think has changed now. if you think there is some basic

change of expectations from constituents about what it means to be a representative. >> right. yes. a very good question. i want to make sure everybody recalls that i said representing -- representational lawmaking and the other are not opposite. they feed act and forth and into each other. what we have meant very interested in at crs, myself and two other political scientists we have written a number of crs reports on social media and how members communicate via social media. we have seen a disruptive change and represent tatian all functions since the -- in representational function since the advent of the internet and e-mail. before, members receiving a lot of constituent feedback by

telephone or snail mail, which was manageable because you had a staff assistant and legislative correspondents and assistance led by the legislative or that what he answer that mail and it was all self-contained. now you have thousands and thousands of and thousands of e-mails coming in on a weekly basis that you have to sort through, process. one of the most interesting changes, by electronic communication, particularly with the advent of social media and we have been thinking about this at crs and otherwise. who you represent. who you represent, and someone wrote a really seminal article about a decade ago about representational models. one representational model that she talked about but she did not put a lot of emphasis on was

this idea of surrogate representation. what happens when you are representing someone who did not vote for you but you represent a cause or in issue. we see through social media that embers interact with people on social media or get feedback from people on social media let's put it that way, or their staff gets feedback and there is no way of knowing if these are people they actually represent in their state or their district. it enables members of congress not to have to serve in the times that john was talking about as proverbially called back-benchers. people that are rank-and-file members. there are not committee they are not leaders. your representational function is right much focus on your district and your state will stop now, that is not necessarily the case. you can't build a national following for yourself if you are adept in the new ways of

representation. it may go well beyond the district or the state. to me, that is very interesting. that is a large-scale change and has a large impact on the road for the functioning of congress and we are just at the asp. -- just at the cusp. we could have a whole different thing at the end of 10 years. >> as we measure members twitter feeds even, this is amazing stuff. [laughter] >> your book is entitled "the evolving congress," on the day of the british elections, maybe you can put it into perspective in a representational way, the

u.s. congress is by far more constituent-oriented and has resources that any other organization in the world pills by comparison. years ago, a conference we did with the brits who were excited that their constituency was about 1/10 the size of ours that they now had a second staffer. this was thought to be the permanent campaign. so, this is, you know, we talk about staff but maybe you can just put a little bit of perspective about the bulk of the constituent service or staff is dedicated to this thing comparatively. >> i am not a comparative vest, but in a personal office, a member that may have a committee staff depending on what his or her situation is, if they are a ranking member or a subcommittee

chair, in a personal office everyone in a personal office, everyone, every single person, i think, there could be exceptions but i think this is a safe distinction to make, everyone in the office is somewhat involved. that is taking in feedback related to a member's policymaking decisions, about whether he or she is going to cosponsor legislation or vote this where that way or make particular decisions one way or other, but it is also taking feedback about what local concerns are, and how national issues affect the locality. that is the other thing, how national issues affect the locality. which is very important and that is the blurring of the line. >> it you can look at it, the policy world, the national policy. out of the right idc the

conditions of the district or state and so they are all right-i've. -- right- eyed. other things, depending on their position, might be more national. >> i think i would encourage us to even put -- the defense of the eye analogy is going to get me in trouble. this is part and parcel about the politics. how will these votes be perceived? how will i justify my vote at home? what do the leaders want? they are never separated. right? that is why the purple office is part and parcel about keeping in touch with member

districts. >> still looking for questions. you had one before so i had you in my queue. >> i have already put the coffee cup so you do not kick them. with the cartoons, the issue of partisanship. i wonder if the extent to which is different in the ideological sense. ideology abstract things like state rights, have long been economic interest, of civil rights, protecting from feudalism and so on. now, one gets the feeling particularly in the house, there are members who do believe in a crusade for smaller government as an abstract, -- as an abstract concept. so, a portion that no longer believes in fast food at mcdonald's.

firstly, does the increase in and abstract ideology effect the function? >> i think there are two constants. i was thinking about this last night. what are the constants in member behavior? the first has to be the desire for reelection given to us by david mayhew. second, i would put second to that, is that members actually believe in this stuff. i mean, it is not fiction. it is true. i would not just segment that to anyone with a particular ideology. the ideology over more liberal activist ideology. it is a more generalized statement. i think the chapter i have on here or on senate armed services, i think i make that

point in their in this virgin, which is, i have a great quote from someone they actually believe in helping servicemembers. they believe in making sure we have a strong national defense. this is something they wake up in the morning and they think about. and so, it is not fiction. in particular, i like that personally. this is me speaking as a non- employee. that is why i like working for congress. he can is whether or not you agree with a particular member or staffer or whoever you're working with, the passion that people bring to the job. the particular belief is set aside. the and with which they want to get something done. people come to the hilt not for the glamour, not for the high salaries, but people come to the hill because they wake up every

morning and they think they could get something done that actually helps the country. that is the second thing that motivates members of congress behind the motivation for reelection. panel member: at the end of the day, so many people in this room who interact regularly with members of staff and all that, why did they go through that unless they believed in it? i am large we only hear this all day every day. my enlarge evil would not do what they have to do to be there and go through what they have to go through money raising and everything else unless they had some larger exception to that. most of them left or right really believe in something or they would not do it. panel member: it strikes me that one of the differences that

republicans confront is that there are conservative movement forces in broader policy that were not there in quite the same way and you can chase modern conservative movement to goldwater and the tax revolt but i think there are institutions outside of congress now whose job it is to police what numbers do in terms of overall, is government having a girl or a smaller? grover norquist, americans for tax reform, there are a lot of act as we could put in that category. in the era of the 50's, 60's, there was more interest group activity around abstract ideas and that is a different context for members is a combination of politics and policy.

>> they use the term ideologue which means on, unbending, and so on. they are against everything in the congress and unwilling to even bend to compromise on a hill because that is a dirty word in itself -- compromise. those are two things, i do not know how you pin down the ideology. panelist: i am almost tempted to call on people. i want to make sure i am not missing anyone who wants to chime in. let me ask a broad question. and get some final thoughts. john, you may want to follow up. i want to talk about john haskell's earlier point. many of us look at this through

a framework that the party system has changed dramatically. the party system is more polarized. we have had that in past times, but all of the political beliefs were not in one party or another, they were across one party. people worry that we are stuck. that it is a tough time. we are not going to get out of this. you gave a hint there is a new path. a thought the party system has changed. i will throw it open to all of you, are we in this era with polarized political parties where therefore congress is in a tough mind? or, are there are hints of where congress maybe going or the party system maybe changing where we move out of the paradigm we are all talking about. john haskell: i -- dawn: i think

we have the lowest approval ratings and so on. i think public opinion does influence and pressure members into new ways of doing things or just doing things, so that is what i would contribute. >> the political balance sheet might not the all about the tight majority because they are not as tight as they were certainly i mentioned this before and if you think of it as purely political, which is how they do it, mcconnell will not be in the majority in 2017 unless things are done to benefit and if you think of it in particular political terms

think change. i think the politics are a little tiny bit different now than they were before. the republicans are getting, in the house, used to a situation where, unlike with speaker he seemed to be able to reinforce some lockstep. speaker boehner does not seem to be as good as that. that is not criticism of his ability to lead, it is the nature of the coalition and it might open up opportunity for cross-party agreement and i think we've already seen some of that in this congress. sarah: my hunch is there is more variation, even with the polarized congress, we will see more. there is a way up on jamming the

works and the unified party control does not last that long because the majority party tends to overreach. i think there is ample room forcing more change along the way. we might say, this time it is different that i think we might overestimate that will stop >> do you want to comment on that or do you want to ask the last question? >> i am not as optimistic, i guess. it ended strikes me that we are seeing the variation we are seeing. i think it is small baby steps. right? the broader, you know, ideological parts. difficult to overcome. it strikes me that, sort of channeling, you know, francis lee here as well, we are not moving towards a less

competitive system anytime soon. in terms of the percentage of americans that identify with republicans and democrats. obviously, the senate is very much in play. the white house is in play. 50-50 right now, back of the envelope will stop i don't know. that to me suggests that, you know, control of government is at stake. really hard at stake. hard to take tangible steps, steps that would really actually suggest a different congress that might register with the public as a different congress. >> you do not have to answer this question, but you can't say last words to bring us to the end. we are all encouraging you to buy this book, see the movie great will stop but, would you like to say a last word about the enterprise to ring us to the end?

>> i have been involved with a lot of research projects over my career as a political scientist. this has been great for me to work with john and all the authors the panelists and experts who in addition to their regular duties want to emphasize that in addition to answering the request to come in for members of congress and their staff, in addition to that, they found the time outside of regular work hours, in weekends and evenings, to write these very insightful chapters. i think it is -- i am very proud to be part of the institution of the congressional research service at the library of congress, also a terrific institution. we are really happy every day coming to work to help serve members of congress with the goal of and in warmed national legislature.

as long as we continue to be funded, as long as congress was is to be there and help them, we will keep showing up for work and producing, hopefully more documents like the one we produced for the evolving congress. >> thank you all and thank you for the audience for being here. [applause] >> up next, a look at the u.s. infrastructure needs. we will hear from secretary fox. on washington journal, a discussion on enters center -- intercity poverty. >> fcc chairman tom wheeler will testify about his agency's budget request. he is expected to be asked about net neutrality rules. and the subcommittee hearing is

live this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. christened this weekend, the city's tour partnered with the literary life of fort lauderdale, florida. chris this cultural tourism. they said set up their villages along the way, along the 10:00 a.m. and trail. the book -- tammy image rail. seminoles by the road. they were getting food. a weekly allotment and getting sometimes soy machines. and they also sometimes get fabric. it behooved the people to supply them with frederick. visit little boy's -- with

fabric. -- this is a little boy's o utfit. it's not a design made today. the designs were bigger in the 1920's and sometimes they were not used any longer than that particular decade. chris the thing about the bermuda triangle, there all kinds of things that have happened. a regular navigation mission training mission. they would take off from the base and they would go east, out towards the bahamas. they would drop bombs on that and continue on another 70 miles or so and then take a turn north and go 100 miles and make a turn back west towards fort lauderdale. they never came back.

>> they send out a big rescue planes looking for them. the next day they started a five-day search. they never found anything. >> watch all of our events saturday at 5:30 p.m. on c-span 2's book tv. >> >> next, a conversation on u.s. infrastructure investment needs. with transportation -- we will hear from transportation secretary foxx and siemens ceo eric spiegel. bloomberg government hosted this panel. >> good morning, everybody. my name is josh eastright and i head the government affairs business here at bloomberg government. i had the agency here. -- i had the agency here.

this is the kickoff of infrastructure week. those of you joining us online please feel free to keep engaging with us throughout the day on twitter. our mission here at bloomberg government is all about giving washington decision-makers the tools they need to do their jobs better. with dozens of bills already introduced a around structure issues, certainly this is a topic our customers want to know about. this is impacting everyone in this room and across the country. that's why we're hosting several events in partnership with our friends building americans future. we are proud to be hosting today's event with the entire steering committee for infrastructure week. i find myself thinking about london. you might ask why.

it is because i live there full-time and part-time for the last 18 years. the huge and sustained infrastructure investment that i witnessed their first-hand is nothing short of amazing particularly in such a short time. in that time, i watched things like the heathrow express get built. i can tell you that is much better than in new york heading to laguardia or jfk. i watched the building of the london overground and the crossrail which will literally revolutionized the way people get from east to west across the city of london. i have watched the renovations of nearly every major train station across the city. it goes to show that one city in 15 years, when there is political will and sustained investment, we can make progress. today we are focused on u.s. infrastructure in we have a great panel set up. we will be hearing from ceos, members of labor and business,

infrastructure experts and of course shortly from secretary anthony foxx who is joining us for the second time in two weeks to talk about infrastructure. welcome back, mr. secretary. of course, later, we will be hearing from amtrak's biggest fan, vice president joe biden. before i hand this over to fill medically -- phil mattingly, i would like to ask joe timmons to introduce our first speaker. thank you for joining us, i hope you get the chance -- i get the chance to meet many of you today. jay, it is all yours. j mattingly: thank you for that kind introduction in for bringing us together this morning to officially kick off a week where we aim to draw attention to a crisis. to motivate lawmakers to act and

to galvanize supportja for infrastructure thaty manufactures and all americans need to compete in the global economy and secure our economy for the future i want to give a special shout out to secretary anthony foxx not only for being with us today but for continuing to relentlessly fight for our nations infrastructure challenges. this guy never stops and manufacturers are grateful for his leadership. it is also great to be joined by three leaders to consistently want to start making how we move commerce a priority again. governor ed rendell, my good

friend eric spiegel, the president and ceo of siemens america. and paul your row seat. -- and paul yarossi. tomorrow lunge her in ceo of schnitzer steel -- tamara is the president of the u.s. department of congress or in of directors. traditional and nontraditional allies as well, locust on the broad competitiveness implications of infrastructure investment. the nam is proud to lead this effort with our partners. the afl-cio. the u.s. chamber of commerce. the brookings institution policy program. the american society of civil engineer and holding america's

future. over the last few years, infrastructure we cast transformed from a handful of events led by a small group of organizations to a nationwide initiative. this week, more than 80 affiliate organizations will host more than 40 events from alaska to washington, d.c. and everywhere in between. scores of mayors and legislatures are raising this with their members. the service sector is bringing their story to our nation's leadership and we will hear from our highest elect did and federal agency officials throughout the week on federal actions to repair and modernize our aging infrastructure. ladies and gentlemen, the timing could not be more appropriate. 20 days. 20 days. that is all that separates us

from a highway shutdown unless congress extends federal highway and other transit program funding. another short-term extension would be the you at this the 33rd time in just six years that congress failed. failed when faced with the need for a new transportation measure. not just highways, but taking decisive action to build our future. i think we can all agree that this is simply unacceptable. it is unworthy of our country, a country that was created on infrastructure systems that empower us to achieve the greatness -- the greatest. of prosperity in history. congress will likely come up with temporary patchwork yet again, but we must insist on more. our elected officials have a choice. do we want america to be yesterday's story? or do we want it to be

tomorrow's? we need a well-funded multi-year service -- surface transportation authorization and we need it now. that is why your voices are absolutely essential to educate lawmakers to build momentum and to move us forward. beyond just the measures of today, but move us forward for solutions for a better tomorrow. whether it is an engineer at a plant in baton rouge, a welder on a shop or in peoria, or a researcher in a lab in pittsburgh, the more than 12 million men and women who make a living in many factoring, and indeed, all americans, are counting on this progress. i know secretary foxx is counting on that as well and he is strongly committed to a writing our ports and runways and restoring our roads and railways, to rebuild america. secretary foxx has impressed

both republicans and democrats with his tenacity for improving our nation's transportation system and it is a distinct pleasure to welcome me him here today. ladies and gentlemen, i give you the american director of transportation, anthony foxx. anthony foxx: it is great to be here at the beginning of transportation week i want to thank jay timmons and the entire group here for hosting this incredible week. a week that brings together entities as diverse as the u.s. chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers as well as the afl-cio, nonprofits like build america's future and brookings

into the american society of civil engineers. they are all incredible partners to what we do. i was thinking about what i might say today, how i would try to talk about this subject with perhaps a fresh lens. into then, this morning, i was watching es e.on and -- i was watching espn and i saw in a basket ballgame yesterday the clock was running down and lebron james got a shot with less than a second left. he nailed it all stop the team one. everybody was excited -- he nailed it. the team one. everybody was excited except the folks in chicago. we have a clock that is running out. we have 20 days left. guys i wish we had the equivalent of lebron james when it comes to taking the kind of

courageous stands that need to be taken to move this country's infrastructure forward. but alas, he plays basketball and he is not in congress. you know, the challenges we face in infrastructure are real, they are unassailable from the standpoint of the facts that we know. we know that, for instance, the american society of civil engineers has found that surface trance per tatian -- surface transportation investment needs to grow by $20 million by 2020. we've recently completed a draft study called "beyond traffic" that we are not investing enough to keep our infrastructure together. in fact, we cited we are still falling $11 million-$20 million

short of maintaining the infrastructure we already have. it would be one thing if we were a static country and we just had those needs. you consider the fact that over the next 20 years we will have 70 million more people competing for the same road space, the same transit space, the same rail space. the problems will get harder. the congestion will get worse. if we do not do something dramatic and do it quickly. we already know, for example that instead of investing more we have six states that have announced they are pulling back almost $2 billion in projects. states like tennessee, georgia delaware arkansas -- there are a few others. so, at the very time the country needs to be growing, we are

pulling back. and, i have to tell you that as a former mayor, there is an even deeper level of pulling back that you are seeing that is indivisible. you cannot want to private. but, let me tell you how lays out. you have a big multi-your project that will transform your city or your state. it is going to cost multiple billion dollars to do. the money has to come in over several years. you have got a plan that you have to get through in environmental process. it you have to spend, in some cases, tens of millions, in some cases hundreds of millions to get through that first phase. let me tell you that those big transformative projects, they are not being done. they are not being planned. and so, we are not even in a

position today to turn on the light switch and go big as a country week as we have been through 32 short-term extensions over the last six years. so much uncertainty at the federal level that it is crippling our system. now, i did not come here to kick off infrastructure week to sound dire or dour, a better word. i came to sound committed and focused on these solutions. the president and i have introduced a solution. it is called the grow america act. it is a six-year bill. the size of it is 478 ilion dollars. it would transform our nation's infrastructure. it is a bill that would what $317 billion in our highway system over six years.

a 29% increase. $150 billion in our transit systems, a 76% increase. and, it would also include rail. intercity passenger rail as part of the trust fund so that we can build america's surface system one year, one brick, one piece of steel, one train at a time and keep it moving for multiple years. well it you say, well that sounds good but how are you going to pay for? here's how we pay for. we a ford through tax reform. taxing untaxed corporate earnings overseas. about 1-2 trillion dollars of those proceeds is sitting over there right now. apply a 14% tax rate and that generates the amount of money we need to go forward. we have an idea. it is on the table. the way we pay for it, the way

we suggest, is not very different from republican ideas you have seen come up including chairman camps proposal last year that was put forward and is in active conversation about how to move forward. and yet while we continue to work on this long-term approach we are 20 days away from running out not only running out of the last extension, but running out of our ability as a department to use the little bit of money we do have to support our nation's infrastructure. this is worse than last summer in that respect he comes of this extension goes without being pushed forward and some way, we will not have the ability to spend the dollars we do have to support this nation's infrastructure. it is that serious. so let me just say this, at the end of the day, i think while we are all here -- why we are all

here is because we recognize this is not a rational argument or rational debate we are having. we know we have big infrastructure and maintenance needs. we know we have the need to go big as a country. it is not the acts that are in the way. it is the result. so, we come together here to really try to rally the country. to understand that we have a future in this country that we can't build and choose for ourselves and we have a defunct future that will be far worse. if i were to suggest to you that two or three things without to focus on. number one, focus on growing the amount of investment we are making in our infrastructure. i hear people saying, let's get the highway trust fund stabilize. but i just told you that just stabilizing the highway trust fund is not in outcome.

it is a mass problem and it does not address the maintenance problems we have, does not address the needs we have to expand and build new infrastructure. in so, we need a vision that points towards substantial growth. not flat-funding. not funding for inflation. funding that actually moves the dial forward. secondly we need to kick about policy changes that give our country national goals again. if we are going to ask the american people to put more money and infrastructure we need to show them something different. something better. or example, we need national goals again. we need to have a national freight strategy that is actually funded. that will happen us move -- that will help us move forward better than we do today. we need to have the ability for these large growing mega-regions across the country to make some of the transportation decisions

they need to make on their own. our proposal provides for that. we need to streamline our permitting system so we get projects done faster. and, it can be done without jeopardizing the environment and also getting us better results and better outcomes at a lower cost. these ideas are found in the grow america act. they are ideas that can move america forward. i say to you, let's not just let this conversation be about getting financing stabilize. let's make it also about the policies that support the dollars so that the american people get the kind of system they use are. i sail the time, my job, my whole job is to make sure america's infrastructure is as good as the american people. if we all do that, we're going to make this country great. thank you so much.

[applause] >> secretary foxx. now i would like to welcome the worst panel up. the president of siemens usa and governor rendell, i think everybody knows. my take away from the comments is labor on james will soon be running for the 11th district seat in ohio and will need a position on tni immediately, at which point he will change the world. but jumping off a little bit on the secretary's comments, a lot of people in this room do not disagree about what is needed and do not is agree from a headline from one of the events a couple days ago that the current state of play is embarrassing in terms of the u.s. infrastructure as it stands. on this panel, with the three

distinguished gentleman to my left, we will get into that and have questions from the audience at the last 20 minutes. i want to put them on the spot early because one of the goals here is to talk about the future. some optimism in the midst of all this pessimism. if you could quickly, what is one policy technology thing that you are seeing in your business or in your travels on a regular aces that is most exciting to you when it comes to change or the future. evernote, i will start with you. governor rendell: [indiscernible]

>> the one thing that is happening then i think is very important is that when you bring transportation down to the local level, it gets funded all the time. i do not remember the exact number but 60% of ellet-making was passed -- ballots-making was passed at the state level. that is with the understanding that a national type of infrastructure funding is needed. this national system is needed and that is what is exciting to me. >> i think the important thing

to me is that cities get it. we have a large manufacturing days. when i go out and visit mayors in cities, they get the fact that they need more better mobility. whether it is light rail or buses or whatever. they are finding ways to get the money and they also understand the need for a more intelligent infrastructure. smarter billings, smarter buildings, smarter -- we need to get more of that action at the state level as you are saying and more at the federal level. i think the cities get it, and to me that is where the action is. >> we will get down to the cities, but i want to start with federal. governor, the joint study today showing on the city level so like city will stop -- salt lake city.

the case studies are there. the statistics appear to be there. what is the gap when it comes to the federal side of things that you guys are saying? governor rendell: norquist has paralyzed this town. everyone thinks the problem is partisanship. the problem is no one has any courage. they are afraid to raise their hand. if we had a federal ballot on raising the gas tax, it would pass with 135 votes in the house and 85 votes in the senate. but we do not have a secret vote. it takes pushing the button, raising hand, going online. good god, my first year as governor i raised the first tax increase in pennsylvania's history and i got reelected by 51% margin in a decidedly purple state will stop if you give

something to people in return for raising their revenue, they will support you. they will support you. and it is proven. the fact that you just quoted. it is actually 74% in the last election of the ballot initiatives approved. the difference? the ballot initiatives are key to specific projects. we are raising the sales tax in charleston one half a penny so we can revitalize the port of charleston. it passed overwhelmingly because people understand their economy is linked to the port. but the gas goes into the big hole of government and we demonize government so badly that the public does not really get it entirely and no one has the best of both. host: you told me before, when we are 20 days out from the cliff, that is when you find yourself in washington. what is the response you get from lawmakers?

>>: i want to say it is better but it is hard to find someone who knows how to do it other than the way we have been doing it. we have been debating changing funding for transportation. probably for more than five years. we have not come up with a better way. so, just what the governor said. it is going to take urge but it is time to use that courage and do it. i just want to say something about your original question quickly. part of the real issue with the federal bill is a lack of knowledge of what it really is. what we are really talking about. i find that a lot. government wants to talk about that, let's put it right on the table. if you take the program back to

the states,the federal program pays about 52% of all surface transportation. back up to the states, it's 52% of their program. the other thing is how much it costs. pick a number. if you have 25 and you drive 20,000 miles, it's going to cost you $150 a year for $.15 gas tax increase. i'm not going to say that's a small amount of money to a lot of people. but when you think about jobs and what it could do for this country, for less than three dollars a week, it's not the huge drain on the economy that we hear about all the time. >> if the point is, people trust that their money is being

utilized, why not? aren't we all now saying it's more -- >> you devolve the states and give them decidedly who has the best money. maybe these states would do it. but it's not what devolution is. it we've learned that in social programs and we've learned that across the board. just recently, it did not work 50 years ago. net national system of highways we are a nation. we have to be tied together. >> you work for an international company.

is there a quantifiable impact on your business the way the u.s. is currently operating? i mean, compared to, perhaps other places. >> it definitely protects investment decisions. when a company looks at making investments, you will be close to the big markets. you want to have skilled labor. you want to take a look at paces -- places where you can drive innovation. not just removing products around the country but also for x wording. that's when we start to find real flaws in the u.s. economy. when i talk to people on the hill, i talk about infrastructure which is why we recently did a study that you mentioned for the economic

development research group. hundreds of millions of dollars of growth. looking at the university of louisville and kentucky. the infrastructure is really a growth story. so over time, you will recoup the money from them. the focus here really is on spending as opposed to growth. >> places where your company is looking and where localities are making the investments in trying new things, perhaps. that you are close to a process of and clearly how they have set

themselves up from a local level? >> when we start to think about putting new manufacturing we spent a lot of time in the state in the city. they had an old, retired rail spur. we spent time with them saying that this plan is built for the u.s. market and built as a global export market. we need to have that rail spur reconnected. oftentimes we have roads then need to be rebuilt and revamped. the same thing in kansas where we build big wind facilities. we needed road ramps. before you commit to making an investment, it's not just about tax breaks and it's not just about the labor pulled. it's really about can i get the infrastructure i need to learn the business?

i talk to other global companies . on the margin, we are investment because of our infrastructure. >> talk to me about what it's like to be in that position as you are competing to get folks like siemens into your state. >> you are exactly right. i took apart and put aside money for economic development. if the company needed a rail spur attached to one of the short lines, it would cost $4 million in the state would pay the $4 million. bingo. the biggest real estate developer in the country wanted to go to life center in butler county. we built the access road for $10 million.

it is key to economic development. our sagging infrastructure is killing us. they are deepening the panel mocon now so the supertankers from asia can come through. they don't want to unload in california. they want to come through the canal, unload their goods in the northeast. 12 major northeast ports. of our 12 major ports, only to our sufficient to take those. so for the time being, those little ships will dislodge their cargo in canada. and invests tens of thousands of longshoremen jobs and trucker jobs. what do longshoremen jobs and trucker jobs have in common? they are high-paying middle-class jobs. they are's -- they are between

$70,000 and $90,000 a year jobs. all the politicians talk about those jobs but they don't do anything to spur middle-class jobs. if i wanted to revive the american economy and create wage growth, i would put $200 billion a year in addition to what we're spending now in the revitalization program. the electric grid, broadband you name it. repairing the american infrastructure for 10 years. that would create somewhere between 4 million and 5 million well-paying middle-class for the next decade. we ought to be doing that. >> as we move forward and think

about the infrastructure, there are numbers out there like a backlog of $3.6 trillion and a big funding gap. i think one thing we need to do is be a lot more strategic about how we use the money. there is a tendency to peanut butter the money across all locations and states. where you have an opportunity to get investment, private investment, it's going to create jobs and help the local city. that is where the money ought to be put. they come in with a specific investment. i don't know if i will have that money and if i can do that. i think if we are more strategic about how we do this, we probably need a little bit less money and a little more bang for their buck.

>> is there something out there right now? >> one thing that is out there we're looking at the rift loans. that is a big opportunity for places were you have mobility projects. all aboard florida is privately owned and operated and will bring a higher speed. i did not say high-speed. higher speed rail. in the next phase of that the owners and operators will be looking for some kind of rough loan. a lot of money sitting there, we

need to come up with the sensible projects to be able to track that money. >> what is the actual on the ground impact going close to cliff? can you see it in your business planning? and in your time in office? >> it makes it difficult at plan any long-term project. the money we get, it's impossible to do any long-term planning because you need a consistent funding stream. there's no question about that. when you did the water resources bill, the reason we don't dredge those ports as quickly as we should is there's something called a harbor maintenance trust fund. congress borrowed half of the trust fund to patch holes in the

deficit. and the resources bill reduces that each year until it phases out in 2025. all the money is used for dredging and all those things that are necessary for harbors. the one that allowed an integrated approach and planning, it was enormously successful. it allowed for projects of a larger scope and was a new public-private partnership. we did two projects with six other states. we improved rail freight to magically -- dramatically. in the companies put up about 40% of the money. >> map 21 which was passed

almost three years ago now had a policy reform. would you think about fix it first, we have to have a safe infrastructure. the national system was planned. it's a good time to look at how we are running our freight plan to accommodate was new in the world. in the container ships are door as much as they are port to port. and they have to be able to go port to port to run their businesses. i'm with the governor. hate saying it going to halifax or to redistribute. it doesn't make sense to anybody because we don't have the port

facilities to make it work in deepwater and be ill to get the project off the court. not that we don't love canada. there are so many things to be positive about. and what we can do, there are safety issues that are coming out one after another. we start with collision avoidance systems, intelligent highways. even as much is that, we can make great environmental strides. and with the robust bill, we can start to do with those issues, too. there will be a lot of benefits.

by opportunity to go to college was because my grandfather had a construction jobs when he came to this country and it moved him into the middle class. a construction job manufacturing job cuts through the entire cross-section of the american workers. it from unskilled laborer to advanced degree engineer. everybody gets a job and it has upward growth. very few jobs have that potential that you can go in as an unskilled laborer. many consumers who can consume. >> from the corporate planning side, going cliff to cliff, is there a noticeable intangible impact? >> we have invested over 25 billion in the u.s. over the

last decade. they are typically investments that take two or three years in planning and another depending on how big the project is. they are not something you're going to decide on and build in six months. you got to know what will be out there over the next five or six years. unfortunately, a lot of it was built in the 19th century. not even the 20th. in these to be maintained and repaired. and so those were spending money to upgrade. another part of infrastructure investment that people don't think about. on average, it's over 27 years old. as you mentioned, we are looking

at digital technology around street automation, parking automation, highway automation. the digital economy is coming very quickly. the manufacturing is changing dramatically. you know all of those need to be upgraded to be competitive going forward. there are issues long-term that we need to address. >> want to open it up for questions. but there is way too much agreement here. governor, is it something corporate america wanted when you were in office on the infrastructure side of things that was completely untenable to you that you thought was shortsighted and might continue today?

the oa seem very in lockstep on this. what do you disagree with these gentlemen on? >> you have the chamber of commerce. it those are two organizations that can't agree that today is monday. this is an area where there is universal agreement. we all know this needs to be done. do it. the only problem i ever had with corporations and corporate interests are, in most cases, exactly the same. the only problem i had with corporations is tax breaks. whether we call them expenditures are loopholes we had a corporate income tax and it was the second highest in the country.

we get all sorts of complaints by the chamber. i said, how can you complain about the corporate net income tax when three out of four of you don't pay a dime on it. and income tax on corporations federal tax. what do you think the effective tax rate they pay is? i will give you two tickets to the next championship game. a few paid zero. but what do think the effective rate is? 17%. a sit of the top of the world it would put us right in the world of taxation.

>> the governor will be taking those tickets. >> we have 16 minutes left. you guys are a lot smarter than i am. introduce yourself at the start and fire away. >> jeff corey with the design build institute of america. talking about completing projects faster. i wondered what your thoughts were on project delivery. a lot of focus on the financing. what about delivering messages with design build? >> one thing we only touched on was the return of investment that comes from investing in our infrastructure, no matter what kind of infrastructure.

and when we look at projects i've been doing a lot of design build. it comes down to what is the best method for delivery. you will see it as more and more part of how projects are delivered. but it doesn't work for every job. >> to find the most cost effective and quality effective ways to do things, the design bill is one of those things. one thing we started to do in pennsylvania is packaging the contracts. packaging 27 bridges in one geographic area. 27 bridges is more a tractor to accompany them one bridge. it's incumbent to use all the new technologies in the way we procure services for infrastructure.

>> how do you get companies that are not direct beneficiaries of these programs? companies that are totally dependent on transportation for their model but are not terribly engaged in this debate? how do we get these folks involved? what do you suggest for those of us in the transportation world? we see this same -- we see each other a lot. how do we get more faces out here that also believe america needs to invest in infrastructure?

>> mcdonald's probably gets all of their things shipped to them. the cost of shipping, the time it takes. we need a federal capital budget because as long as infrastructure is in the regular budget, you will always be third or fourth. people like mcdonald's get it because they get the cost of a pothole is a broken axle. it is somewhat low on the party system. we want consumers who can consume. mcdonnell's benefits and everybody benefits from we have a thriving economy.

if the u.s. department of transportation is right, we have a billion dollars from the stimulus. a healthy america and economy trickles down to everybody. >> sophisticated investors understand the modern infrastructure. for example, salt lake in louisville kentucky can put

together a case around those benefits. people don't understand how much investment will be driven along that line. you talk about the amount of investment that would occur around that, it kind of dwarfs. whether its high-speed or light rail or whatever, take a look at the revenue from tickets minus the cost. it will be very difficult to justify. our studies show that cities connected grow at 2.7 times what the city is not connected to the rail. people fight to make sure that they are connected to these lines. companies don't yet understand things like the value of light rail.

they don't really understand the details of that. state governments understand a lot. some cities more than others. a lot of people don't understand the magnitude of the difference if you have modern infrastructure and world-class mobility. >> just to add to that, i would put any transportation projects return on investment. i would not fear most any transportation project. commuter rail, light rail transit, they don't survive without having the ability to bring people in even though it

may cost a little more. somebody has to fill all those tall buildings. the return on investment is significant. still, the return is here. the national association of manufacturers is here. they are not one of the usual suspects. a lot of people surrounding infrastructure week who are uses of the transportation system and who benefit from them that are starting to have a voice right now. >> and along those lines, it wouldn't be an event if i didn't have a shameless plug. to break out of the bubble, that

is a way to reach out on social if you are a social media person or are attempting to be one on this day. that will definitely let people know where you are. >> you talked about the need for sophisticated investment and better communications. i think on the public side we are unsophisticated and not communicating well. i think it can be a double-edged sword. there's a great return on investment. i pay taxes for a new subway system. a great new transit stop that would be great for me.

i want to get my money's worth. i go there and the landlord says well, this is the average rate you would pay anywhere else you were next to the station so you need to pay a premium rent. so i had to pay a second time to use the infrastructure of already paid for in my taxes by paying a higher rent to the landlord. that infrastructure can bite us in the but that way. the development we want to locate near the infrastructure ends up moving away because land prices go up. the land price goes up because the infrastructure has. but that value ends up as a windfall for the people lucky enough to own land next to the station. we tax the middle class to enrich the affluent people you're the highway and we wonder

why people are not enthusiastic. >> i suggest moving 10 blocks away and taking the bus to the station. but seriously, you make a good point. don't give the right argument to the american people. no one likes to pay more in taxes. but the right argument is, you are paying a tremendous cost by in action. -- inaction. the average driver that drives 12,000 miles a year's ben's $818 more because we have an inadequate infrastructure. i had a friend -- it was almost

from sea to shining sea because of the terrible winter we had. he blew out three tires. any idea what three tire replacements on a mercedes costs? he can handle the tax increase for another decade. just for the cost of inaction. till people a cost of doing nothing is higher than the cost of doing something. host: time for maybe two more. panelist: i think it is a good point you made, the value goes up, but that is one of the mechanisms you need to count in terms of funding these projects. the value to the average consumer is hopefully the rail, you have access to the rail.

and the congestion goes down. in places like london, where we put in congestion pricing and more transportation, they see traffic volume down by 20%. congestion down by 26% over the last three years using technology and mobility. and a better environment. that increases the quality of life for everybody in the market. that is the windfall for the average consumer. >> good morning. i am tonya saunders. i represent one of the largest rail operators in the world. the reason i am standing, to underscore what the gentleman said, in addition to the taxes we look at, what are the alternatives for moving large

numbers of people in terms of the increase of families and people in the cities and suburbs? you're looking at 14 or 12 lanes of highway if you are expecting to accommodate that in the future. four rail, whether it is high-speed or moving freight off of the rail system that we have onto a cheaper railway. if you could maybe comment on long-term investment in doing some of these additional things. panelist: you could not be more right. in the northeast corridor, it is estimated by 2030, we will have 40% more cars on the road. think about i-95 40% more cars on the road. it is a frightening, horrific thought process. the airports, thanksgiving day travel, it is predicted by 2030

thanksgiving day travel will occur twice a week because of airport congestion. you are not spending enough money on airports. think about that. panelist: two things you mentioned -- i forget the exact numbers, but light rail travel is worth two or three lanes of highway. at some point, we are running out of lanes coming into town. we need more mobility. intercity transportation in this country is extremely weak relative to developed countries. forget high-speed. just higher speed. to your point, it fills up airports, highways. we are running out of space to go. you will have to bite the bullet and make a bigger investment. host: we have about 22nd. -- 20 seconds.

>> i'm with homeland security. one of the things we have not heard about this, we have heard investment politics, is the nature of security. whether homeland security is in cyber or transportation or rail or whatever. is that a failure of media political voices, a failure of the administration, to build a connection between what we are talking about in infrastructure and the nature of security? the interstate highway system was built because eisenhower needed to move troops east or west, north and south. i do not hear anything about security. is there a reason behind that? panelist: we have talked a lot about how infrastructure plays

an important role in resilient disasters. first responders, evacuation. there has been a lot more talk about security from the standpoint of how you can secure around the city. i have not heard a lot more outside of that. but if you look at new york, the george washington bridge is a key link. there is no other way except for the long way around. that has been a problem since world war ii. we have not fixed that yet. panelist: it was a problem at election time. [laughter] host: i get it. i think we will end on that. i do not want a fistfight of any kind. but i want to thank our panelists.

great panel. obviously, a great day in general for us. a big name coming up in a couple panels. i want to introduce one of our senior congressional reporters at bloomberg news. she will be interviewing a harvard university professor. thank you all very much. [applause]

host: not only is she a best-selling author, she is releasing her book "move: putting america's infrastructure in the lead." the book explains with compelling details many of the costs and social justice impacts of our outdated infrastructure. i want to get to some of those. first of all, can you give us a brief synopsis of where we are and how we are faring versus other countries? panelist: there is one indicator in the transportation and infrastructure area in which the u.s. is number one. that is number of available airline seats.

that is because we have made it cheap and we like to fly. americans like to fly. europeans will take the train. that is one reason we do not have a good enough rail system in america. otherwise, we are way down on the international indicators. my friend rodney slater, who was here today, former secretary went to japan recent the for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the bullet train in japan that regularly reaches speeds of 200 miles per hour and has only been an average of 32 seconds off schedule in any year. 50th anniversary. we have some anniversaries here too. the 100th anniversary of overhead wiring on our train systems. we are celebrating ancient infrastructure. in chicago, there are water pipes made out of hollowed out

logs that date back to the 19th century. we need to modernize. not just for maintenance. maintenance is not a vision. people just want to sell it and move on, which is why we abandon many parts of cities that are incredibly appealing and attractive because millennials do not want cars. that gets me to the gas tax. the gas tax is such an important part of the debate. of course, i favor after -- having the funding to do repairs, but the gas tax is an outmoded concept. you should tax anything that moves if we want to pay for something we care about, but one of the reasons the highway trust fund is losing money is fewer people are owning cars. cars are getting higher mileage. electric cars are on the horizon. and user fees, technology

permits us to charge user fees, pay-as-you-go. we have so many new ways to think about old issues. we are falling behind in part because of how we are thinking about the issues. we have the technology and can do it. it is a question of will. host: i want to break it down a little bit, starting with cost. i was struck by the number, $70 billion per year in time wasted in traffic jams. panelist: that is the cost. productivity, this is an area of big business. moving goods are important. but the average american wastes about 38 hours per year unnecessarily in traffic congestion. that adds up to a huge amount of productivity. delays and canceled flights also have huge consequences for the

economy. will we, -- why we cannot do anything about cancellations because of the weather, we can help people get their faster. host: another big price tag in terms of health, you say about $15 billion. panelist: goes on the consequences we can measure from pollution, breathing bad air. the health consequences for people who live near highways higher risks of certain diseases. this is the harvard school of public health that puts the number on it. that it is higher. think about traffic fatalities, bicycle fatalities. the more bicycles on the road, the fewer fatalities. we do not have a culture -- we have a car-centric culture stuck in the 1950's.

we justify every national expenditure on defense grounds. going back to the transcontinental railroad, which was not a glorious day. it was highly contentious politically. national security dictated if you have the whole continent you have to put settlements there. how are they going to get back and forth without trains? everything we have done has been on defense grounds. we do not do that anymore. we need to define this as a mobility issue, economic growth issue. how do we get where we need to go in a seamless, connected way? nobody cares which mode of transportation they are taking as long as it will get them there. there are people that have to take four or five, even though their smartphone could connect them. host: something we do not always think about because it does not have a price tag, but the social justice impact.

you had an anecdote about a man from detroit who has to walk five miles to work every day. this is a man in a low income communities who wants to pull himself up, but in order to do so, he needs to go to a different part of the city to go to that job every day. but there are not bus connections, certainly not a subway system. can you speak about the social justice impact? panelist: that five miles is a little like abraham lincoln. we are going back to the 19th century. people cannot work if they do not have access to jobs. transit access is not available in poor communities in the same rate at affluent communities. even bike sharing in chicago is not as available in low income communities. even if they had credit cards and could get into those stations. i did a little correlation of cities with the highest scores

for public transportation and the cities with the greatest chance of moving one generation to the next from lowest to highest income levels. it is an amazing correlation. the top 10 out of 20 overlap. those cities have great public transportation. even the ones with great public transit, like chicago get good marks but are 57 for being able to get to a job within 45 minutes. if people cannot get to jobs, i know we are going to get great jobs if we invest in infrastructure, but if people cannot get there we will end up with inner cities ready to explode because people are hopeless. the jobs are not there. they cannot get the discounters

who do not put stores in low income communities. they cannot carry groceries on the subway or bus. we have to put those in the equation. we are lucky that -- i am from massachusetts. tip o'neill added funding for public transportation to the highway cutbacks. now, it also funds about 16% of it. it also funds mass transit. but we need more of it and every city wants it. our survey of business leaders at harvard business school, the highest item that got the most support for investment in infrastructure was public transportation. that was from people who do not necessarily use it themselves unless they commute from westchester into new york city. host: and yet, before we came in here, you said there is a need for a grassroots movement.

where is not going to come from? i want to ask you about a statement you make in your book about the difference between our philosophy about government and other countries moving ahead on infrastructure. panelist: by "grassroots," i am talking about this regional thing we kept hearing about. if you do not get regional coalitions who agree on strategic priorities, nothing will happen. for example, here is one that took 20 years. in houston, there was -- voters voted for light rail in houston. because the neighborhoods were not involved, though the business community loved it, it took 20 years before there was support for light rail in houston. it is amazing how long these things take without a coalition

or involving the public. i was motivated to write "move" to integrate things people know about but are talked about in isolation. one picture together that affects every constituency. that could make a huge difference. people are elected every two years. if they do not think they will be reelected because support from constituencies for investments they do not have the courage to make, where do politicians get courage? some of them are not born with it, but some of them get it because of the big constituencies behind it. those had to be multi-stakeholder constituencies. host: let's talk about some of the things we are doing right. you cite a number of examples. miami, chicago, can you talk

about what is going on in those cities that we should be looking at? panelist: i am in love with the board of miami tunnel. the port of miami tunnel is part of the plan to accommodate the larger shift, so it has huge implications for the port and commerce. it has huge implications for being able to get rid of traffic congestion in miami and develop miami for residential use and pedestrians and bicycles. the tunnel is a great example because it is like these long-term -- it was a 30 year dream of a young civil engineer fortunately became the secretary of transportation under governor bush. it was then killed by the next secretary of trans rotation or she tried to kill it. it had to come back. it was a public-private

partnership whose underwriter was lehman brothers. the financial crash took care of that. everything that could have gone wrong went wrong except one it was approved, it came in on time. and under budget. the community was involved, girl scouts have to name the tunnel harriett after harriet tubman. they had a job fairs in every language you could imagine. the construction jobs were temporary. the real jobs are the ones being created because of activity in the port and less than a year later, 80% of those 18 wheeler trucks have been diverted from downtown miami directly to the interstate. they can carry more cargo faster. it will be good for everybody. of course, less congestion and pollution in downtown miami.

i call it the wind temple win -- quintuple win. well done, miami. host: by talking about the emerging net of smart growth -- vehicles give us an overview of where we are going. panelist: if we are going to have a vision of our mobility jerk, it has to involve technology. tech entrepreneurs have to be at the table. which one of you started a company to make a flying car? we have one in massachusetts that has 100 orders. it is expensive, but we need tech entrepreneurs. right now, we do not have a framework for smartphone related apps to find parking, which seems simple. that is going to take cars off

the street because a lot of the congestion and pollution is from cars driving around looking for parking. once we have sensor-embedded roads, i say we should not just re-pair, we should reinvent. but you have a new road, why aren't cen -- sensors going into it? some of the investors and all of that are foreign competitors. daimler bought up the winner of an innovation contest, ridescout, that will help you connect. we have the assets in the u.s.. we have to refurbish and modernize. we do not connect them. to want to be able to use the barcode on your smart phone and check your luggage like they can in hong kong.

check them to your final destination and get on them and keep waving your barcode and have the information about schedules. we must think in a visionary way about connected mobility systems. that will help us. inequality is the word du jour for political candidates, but if we could create jobs and stop is to time -- wasted time there is a lot we could do if we thought about this in a systematic and visionary way and mobilized leaders not just in washington. when i say grassroots, i'm in chicago, kansas city, denver. denver, only 6% of the people do not commute by car's, but they put in light rail. host: thank you so much for joining us, rosabeth kanter.

[applause] >> i am peter cook with bloomberg television. i will be moderating the next panel. we heard in the last panel that some agencies cannot agree today is monday. but on this issue, they are in lockstep. we have cameron lundgridge ceo of switzer steel industries. there will be opening remarks and we will sit on stage for a q and a session. we had a coin flip, and richard

gets to go first. come on up rich. [applause] panelist: i do not know if a coin toss is a win or loss. i am rich trumpkin president of the cio. talk is cheap in washington dc. we hear a lot of noise but little action. instead, congress lurches from self-inflicted crisis to self-inflicted crisis, engaging in debates and wasting precious time with political posturing. it makes you wonder what the real priorities are. let me give you an american priority. one shared by working people and business leaders everywhere. i am talking about public

investment in america's infrastructure. roads, bridges, pipelines, waterways. ports, electrical grids, internet and phone lines and drinking water. these investments benefit everybody. those investments create jobs. those investments build america. if you want to spend money to make money, build infrastructure. build bridges. expand ports and modernize railways. safe roads and transit systems can get workers to work and home everyday. companies get manufacturing goods to market. all of our infrastructure system needs attention. the most immediate concern is the highway and transit trust fund.

once again, it is about to expire. we do not need another temporary extension. it has been extended 30 times in seven years. i have to tell you, that is no way to do business. we need a permanent funding source. states have been forced to postpone and cancel necessary construction. this is becoming another self-inflicted crisis. i am not talking about a pretend crisis. one out of nine ridges in america is structurally deficient. that is from the american society of civil engineers. a bridge collapse is a real crisis. failing to pay for infrastructure is dangerous and irresponsible and we can and must do better. america needs a reliable, long-term funding source now.

the highway and transit trust fund should be a top priority, not political jockeying, not trying to get the best soundbite. it is so basic. we have put forward funding sources, explained how the trust fund strengthens our community with good jobs and create opportunities for economic growth. the trust fund improves america's quality-of-life and makes us competitive in the global age. we all bear the cost of inaction. every year, every single person in america spends almost 38 hours and almost $1000 in wasted fuel while we idle in traffic. at that together, it is $120 billion a year wasted. it buys is nothing.

raising the fuel tax would cost less and get something for it. here is another cost of congressional inaction. if we fail to invest in infrastructure in a way -- big way, by 2020, there will be a $300,000 per year drop in personal disposable income per household. think about that. taken away from each household. business and working people joined together again today for the kickoff of infrastructure week. to tell congress this simple message -- build america, create jobs, do it now, do your job. thank you. [applause]

panelist: good morning. thank you, peter, for hosting us. i would like to thank rich for partnership on an issue that unites the business and labor communities as well as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. rich's right to call for a long-term extension of the highway trust fund and he is joined by scores of public sector leaders doing the same. there are other looming priorities to contend with as well, including reauthorization of the faa, full funding of the water and resources development legislation, and progress on the rapid act, a sweeping bill to streamline permitting processes.

these priorities are essential to maintaining, modernizing, and expanding the physical platform of our economy and must be swiftly addressed and adequately funded. each of these priorities has been perennially the set by short-term funding challenges. while this might suggest our challenges cannot be resolved in a meaningful way or a sustainable way, that is just not true. among our country's difficult challenges, this one is self-imposed. we can easily fix it if we had the will to do so. there is growing support from leaders of all sectors of the economy and both sides of the aisle. there are funding solutions to choose from, whether that is a modest user fee increase private investment, low-cost

lending through federal programs or other financing mechanisms. there is a willing and able workforce ready to rebuild the country. there are strong incentives of immediate job growth creation. the time is right to push our leaders to take action. then we must move on. we must move the conversation forward and expand our thinking. for so long, the focus has been on maintaining and expanding infrastructure. those are important goals we must continue to achieve, but they must not be the limit of our aspirations. we must begin a dialogue about how to make infrastructure part of a national strategy for durable economic growth greater global engagement, and stronger competitiveness. other leading economies are not only having those kinds of conversations, they are making plans and implementing them.

competitors like china are not thinking about how to patch the next pothole. they are thinking about how to build the next supply chain. many of us in business particularly companies like mine that operate in a global market we have been watching china's infrastructure move with great interest. beijing is looking comprehensively at how to help companies compete. they are pulling every lever to make that happen. the chinese have ambitious plans to rebuild the silk road on land and sea to create direct trade and transportation routes to europe. the initiative, dubbed one belt one road is the centerpiece of development strategy. by building infrastructure along the proposed route, china just

promised $46 billion in infrastructure aid and allows them to benefit in several ways. it allows them to meet the region's infrastructure needs. in the course of its development, chinese companies and workers have ascended the learning curve. they are in a strong position to build these pipelines and ports. it would create robust avenues for getting chinese goods and services including a huge domestic oversupply into regional markets. these activities would support china's twin goals of stimulating their slowing domestic economy and helping homegrown companies compete in the region. if you add it all up, the strategy that helped china wields greater influence across the asian continent, including

financial integration and trade liberalization. and again, infrastructure is the foundation of these expensive goals. how do you pay for it? to help pay for it, the chinese have established a $15 billion asian infrastructure investment fund, a bank with 57 members including germany, the u.k., and italy. there are plans to expand it to $100. china led efforts to create the new bank and a silk road fund to promote infrastructure investment. however one feels about these efforts, it is hard to deny the seriousness of china's plans. why am i talking about chinese infrastructure development at a summit about u.s. infrastructure development? because competitiveness has long

been a talking point in the infrastructure debate in the united states, but it cannot just be a talking point. the competition is very real and so are the implications for u.s. businesses and manufacturers as they were to operate at home and compete in global markets. we need to broaden our thinking, elevate our ambitions and figure out how to pay for critical investments over the long-term. business partners in government and labor should expand the conversation and drive it forward. let's not just ask how we are going to pay for our system for the next snow -- six months for six years. let's ask what we want our system to do to advance our country's best interests. how can it be a strategic assets that strengthens our competitiveness? you will be confronted by major infrastructure question and

trends in the coming years. everything from competitiveness to technology and all its implications. let's be ready to respond to them or better yet lead the discussion and help move transportation and infrastructure policy forward. thank you very much. i look forward to our discussion. thank you. [applause] host: go ahead and sit in the middle. richard, if you could join us on the end. he will chat a little bit. then it is time to open it up to questions from the audience. thank you for being here. a whole host of issues where the chamber and afl-cio do not see eye to eye. i just saw mr. trumka and mr. donahue talking about trade. but