and stop this. >> what were those conversations like? tell us about them. >> i remember a conversation i had with marjorie taylor greene. she was a freshman. she was very active during the orientation, and she was very upset about what went on and we chatted and i said what can i do? she said how about you go back and put video on social media, and if you have any folks or anybody out there, tell them to stop. she did that. ask you will also hear from democrats pennsylvania and california. january 6, views from the house. sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. >> next, a discussion on infrastructure investment in the developing world. panelists talk about the challenges and opportunities of

global infrastructure development projects. they will also discuss g7's global infrastructure initiative known as the build back better world. the center for strategic and international studies hosts this hour-long event. >> good day everyone, my name is matthew goodman, i am senior vice president -- and i'm delighted to welcome you to the special event on build back better world, addressing the global and for structure challenge. delighted to have you all with us, on behalf of my coworker john hillman, and myself, who direct the economics program, we are delighted to have you here with us. it's going to be a very special hour. i've been at csis for almost 10 years and i can't think of a more high penalty -- high-powered panel that we've

had or that i've had the chance to moderate. i'm looking forward to this and i think you will enjoy it as well. i'm going to introduce the panel in just a second let me set the scene by saying, this is actually infrastructure week, east -- at least at csis. as we all know, there has been some -- i don't want to jinx it, but some progress on capitol hill on a domestic and for structure plan, $1 trillion of spending on it for structure, we have also been here at csis on trilateral cooperation among japan, australia and the united states on trying to move forward in international instructor -- infrastructure initiative of their own. and the g7, the group of seven advanced market democracies, as i think people know, back in june when they met in britain, agreed on something called build

back better world, which was their name for a global infrastructure program which they are going to do together, work on together, and they described it in the white house fact sheet describing the bill back better world initiative as a, quote, values driven high standard in dutch and for partnership led by major democracies to help narrow the $40 trillion plus infrastructure needed in the developing world. and they said they are going to focus in four areas, climate, health and health security, digital technology and gender equity and equality. the initiative is still not defined, but we have enough information about what the motivating factors are and the broad elements of it are trying to an initial assessment, which is part of what we are doing today. i think more broadly we are looking at the u.s. competitive position in the world, commercially, economically and

from a kind of international relations and foreign policy perspective. so that has been an important part of that story as well. so we have, as i say, an absolutely terrific group of -- they are more than experts, they are senior thought leaders on issues around this subject matter today. and i'm going to invite them to join us, now. and they are in alphabetical order, best are charlene -- nice to have her back. brendan, delighted to have him, marcy who is the ceo of calvert, the california -- -- and last

but not least, steve hadley, who is principal at right hadley gaetz emmanuel together, steve and charlene cochaired a task force john and i led a couple of years ago on global infrastructure and designing eight u.s. globally for structure strategy. we are just delighted to have them back with us to talk about that and sort of where we are today. so, i think with that, we are going to do sort of tagteam q&a now. down the line, as it were. i'm going to start with brendan, actually. brendan, you are everywhere in the world. your company. so i'm sort of interested in particular on linking domestic and international story. we are a think tank focused

internationally, but the domestic infrastructure story is really important in and of itself. the question is, how does it link in your mind to the international story? why is it important, and how do you think about it in the global context? >> yes, thanks, matt. first let us remind ourselves why it matters if u.s. companies are competitive in this arena. it really comes back to u.s. leadership. so billions of people around the world, particularly in developing countries, are lacking basic infrastructure from access to clean energy and water to health career is voicer digital connectivity. so the real question is how and through whom are those needs going to be met? and the answer to that will have profound implications for critical u.s. interests. from a foreign policy and national interest perspective as well. it will affect if we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change, whether inequality gaps get smaller or bigger around the world, and whether more countries become more free and

open, for example, as a result of access to digital infrastructure. i would say think a little bit too about, when american companies are engaged abroad they're a force for good and a catalyst for positive change. that's been my experience living and working on the ground around the world. american companies do this kind of work abroad. they promote transparency, responsible construction, environmental labor standards. we hire and train locally, we build local capacity and capability and we advance american values. so as a result, you can imagine there are many governments where real -- who are really eager to work with team u.s.a. but we have to be competitive. there are options out there for these companies. we can get there in part by creating a large, vibrant infrastructure market here domestically in the united states which hopefully is happening right now up on the hill, which is really exciting. this is going to give u.s. companies a whole market and more opportunities where we can prove that we're innovative, we provide cutting edge solutions

and we deliver world class infrastructure that's really the envy of the rest of the world. all of this hones ours capability, creates credibility and confidence in american companies, we can bring potential customers here and show them what's actually been done and built. a perfect example or counterexample is china. the chinese have used their captive home market very effectively to expand rapidly and build up their skills and infrastructure and then they went out and tried to dominate the world's markets. think for a minute about the fact that bechtel is regularly one of the top 10 global contractors measured by revenue up until recent years. there are today no u.s. companies in the top 10 contractors globally and seven of the top 10 firms are chinese state-owned enterprises. so right now the world sees the u.s. and see us falling further behind when it comes to infrastructure. if we can't do large scale infrastructure at

home, how do we expect other countries to be confident we can do it there with them? consider for example, china is currently building 17 nuclear power plants. we're building just one here in the united states. so again, yes, a strong, bipartisan infrastructure plan will definitely provide a boost that helps u.s. companies regain a global footing and compete more effectively abroad. >> thank you, brendan, there's a lot in there we want to come back to, including the china dimension which i should have mentioned was thinly veiled in the build back our world statement, but this was about trying to offer alternatives to the belgian road opportunity. there should be a link below your screen, you are welcome to submit questions, we will take some from the ended -- the discussion. thank you. >> we're going to talk about

what the competition is like for u.s. for now, i want to turn to the ambassador. you cochaired this conference on global infrastructure. one major recommendation, the first recommendation was the u.s. needed to articulate its own positive economic vision. there was a time when u.s. diplomacy was criticizing what others were doing, and maybe not providing positive alternatives. the question is, are we seeing that vision take shape particularly within this announcement of the big back

better partnership? >> it is a pleasure to be here. and to put a plug in for the new book. it is terrific. the topics we will be discussing are eye-popping, so congratulations on that. let me say this, if you will. the u.s. has long supported international development, including the development of infrastructure, starting with the marshall plan, which we are all familiar with. we are the single largest foreign aid donor in the world. it is a lot of money, but a tiny percentage of our budget, which is unfortunate. and what we see generally, we have seen this more recently with other projects, when u.s. money goes in, it is a force multiplier.

private capital will often follow, as with the capital of other countries. the u.s. population continues to support foreign-made, development and infrastructure assistance, largely on a humanitarian basis. the five things have happened that have challenged u.s. leadership in the area. first, the global need for infrastructure is astonishingly high. it is estimated in the next 15 years, as much infrastructure will be built that exists in the world today. that is by no means the finish to the infrastructure need. second of all is china's belt and road initiative, its

grandest of grand strategies on the part of china. it meshes a global need, which is extraordinary, with china status as an exporter of capital. the u.s. and western europe are net importers of capital. china is a net exporter of capital. china is ambitious. these three factors are matched together on what is an astute program on the part of china, even if all projects don't make sense. third, linkages, we are seeing this with countries vying for attention from china, and new linkages mean new relationships that potentially mean end upending of existing relationships one thought were

pretty secure. fourth, the result is myriad u.s. interests are impacted, national security, economic security, the granular things like the development of standards in the technology space and so on. of course this buildout will happen whether we are there or not, over the u.s., it is necessary to maintain leadership , maintain positioning in the world, and if we are to maintain a world conducive to u.s. interests, it is very critical that the uspa player -- that the u.s. be a player in this. we can't replicate what china does. we shouldn't, but we need to be a player in this. the question is, how do we play and with whom?

with whom was answered by the g7 initiative, which is interesting, a positive initiative. there is no question about that. it will focus on climate health, digital and gender equity, which i hope means education, because the u.s. has a comparative advantage in education, as does western europe, and we ought to be deploying that effectively. but how we do this is come to my mind, a good question. it is good to see the g7 working constructively together. there is very little detail here. it is unclear if there is much new money that has been allocated to this venture.

and cannibalizing private capital, of which other speakers are more expert than i, requires a lot of work, and will require multilateral, bilateral, very inventive mechanisms to change the risk/reward structure. infrastructure investments are often risky, even in the best of circumstances, but many of these countries do not present that circumstance, and the question is what is the return expected given the degree of risk? usually the balance falls and it is favorable way. the question would be insurance or mechanisms to rebalance that risk/reward structure. i don't know whether this initiative will ultimately come together to be an effective

response to the infrastructure need, put aside the response to china, the focus of the west ought to be response to the infrastructure need in areas where the u.s. is uniquely situated to provide a response. the areas in the build back better initiative are the areas where the u.s. is uniquely able to provide assistance, as is western europe, technology, health care, education, there is of great western strength, but i will say for my money, i would have liked to have seen the rollout of a vastly accelerated vaccine distribution system and process than anything else, because if one is looking at soft power, leadership, genuine

confidence building measures, particularly confidence in the west, the technology and health care field, there is no better advertisement than vaccines and their efficacy, and it would have been something to see an initiative beyond the one billion doses committed. i think it is a good start, but there has to be a lot of flesh on the bones. >> a lot to follow up on their. steve, you cochaired this task force a couple of years ago, and one other recommendation was the united states work with its allies and partners in this area of infrastructure investment, but more broadly, and that has been a major theme of the biden administration, that we will work with allies and partners on different issues.

do you see that as important, gaining momentum, and what of the challenges that you see? steve: thank you for that. i am grateful to join such a distinguished panel and talk about such an important subject. basically there has been real progress in terms of cooperation between the united states, friends, allies. the first aspect, which is important, and one of the things we talked about in our report is to get a consensus around high standards for quality infrastructure. that it needs to be transparent, not feed corruption, sustainable fiscally, socially, environmentally, and produce resilient infrastructure that benefits the people in which the infrastructure is built. there has been a real progress

getting a consensus among the u.s., friends, allies behind those principles. we saw it at the g20 meeting in japan in june of 2019 where they agreed on a set of principles for infrastructure, and that included china, a good start. there have been efforts to link together countries. india is involved with japan and the eu. the cis coming due have been supportive of this -- cis, something you have been supportive of, this network to try to operationalize g20 principles, establish criteria and certify projects meeting the high standards of quality

infrastructure. this is a good step, progress towards common standards. the second thing we saw coming out of the g7, which is less have common standards, but put our resources in it and start building projects in the developing world that meet those standards. a lot of good rhetoric, framing, reaffirmation of the g7 principles in the statement in this great build back better world phrase, but what that turns out to be will depend. that statement emphasize the importance of mobilizing private capital for success, something marcy can talk about, but let me give you this example, and it comes out of the materials put together. the need is great, and the need

is basically 28 trillion dollars of infrastructure funding through 2040 in asia alone. $26 trillion. the chinese built and rode initiative promises less than $1 trillion, so you have a huge funding gap that will not be filled. the g7 countries provided 113 billion in official development assistance for foreign infrastructure projects. government funding is great to have, but not near what is required. what is required is the private sector. those g7 countries have $110 trillion in private assets, pension funds, insurance funds, sovereign wealth funds. can we get that money off the sidelines into infrastructure projects? in that same time, only 22

billion of that went into infrastructure projects, so you can see the enormous potential. what needs to be done? the projects need to be structured in such a way that they are attracted to the private sector. a lot of people think it will be key to cover the loss, put a small amount of money in the project, not fund the whole thing, a small amount of upfront money, provide some initial expenses, then bring those funds off the sidelines into the infrastructure efforts in developing worlds. if the g7 initiative can accomplish a common strategy to do that, we will have made a real difference for building infrastructure in the developing world. i think -- matthew: i think he

did a good job describing that. i want to turn to marcy, who has experience in the financial world, leading one of the largest pension funds. sometimes when we are talking about investing in global infrastructure, some people say we have infrastructure to invest in at home, what do we have to invest in overseas? can you explain the mission of calpers and explain how it fits into that mission? marcie: yes. thank you, jonathan, great question. a pleasure to be a part of the panel today. calpers is the largest u.s. public pension plan, number 10 globally. we run an asset portfolio of

$470 billion, current valuation as of the end of june, but what calpers does is we have a dual mission, delivering pension benefits to 2 million california public sector workers, and we are the second largest health care purchaser beyond the federal government, 1.6 one million covered. managing that office portfolio, it has to be done efficiently in a risk-aware manner to generate those returns that sustainably pay benefits over a decade, so we are in evergreen fund. we have to think about risk and return, over decades, and over several public-sector lifetimes. our ability to deliver on that is defined by numerous factors. one is delivering on the

expected rate of return. it just went from seven to 6.8 on a risk mitigation policy in effect, a 6.8% return over decades is a pretty difficult challenge for any public pension fund, and most funds discount their liabilities simulate to calpers in the expected rate of return range. even more importantly is that 60% of every pension dollar paid is coming from investment earnings, not contributions, so we think about the affordability of the system, member contributions, and the extent we can have an investment earnings make up a large portion of that pension dollar paid, that is part of our strategy and the goal here at calpers. we think infrastructure aligns well with our long-term liabilities, because being

long-term in nature, we believe there is a good alignment of interests. we have stable income, oriented returns, and the predictable cash shields are important as well, so we believe it is an ideal asset class for pension funds like calpers and frankly any other pension fund u.s. or outside. the infrastructure opportunity for us is larger internationally and domestically right now, so some of the good news from capitol hill will give us another opportunity to look mystically, but most looks are underwriting due diligence, opportunities internationally or globally. most current investments are done in developed countries. on the public equity side, we have exposure nearly all of the markets. we are international, a universal owner. we have moved up the capital structure recently, but we see

investing in global infrastructure not only on its own merits, but as a long-term investor, we have a vested interest in the acceleration of global growth and trade, so we seek the ability to win near-term, while building a substantial foundation to drive long-term returns. as businesses benefit from infrastructure investments, we are hoping to be someone who, asset owners in their financing. that 6.8% return expectation does provide a challenge. the risk/reward was mentioned. we are paying benefits. we are extremely aware of the risk environment in doing this, and in particular developed economies, so i can talk more in

the second question about how we look at developing economies or developing countries differently than the fully developed countries where we are putting that capital into play today. jonathan: great. that's terrific. let's do one more round in a different order and let me remind the audience we have some good questions coming in. we want to take a few of those after we have a chance to question the panel is. let me go back to charlene. her showing your diverse until it by eliminating remarks and insights on infrastructure, embedded heart, you are a trade negotiator. i want to make a connection here , because you have cochaired another couple of efforts, one on how the u.s. can engage in the indo pacific region, a critical region where half the world population, gdp, trade, plus or minus happens, and

obviously in china's backyard is where these infrastructure stories are playing out, but famously the u.s. pulled out of the transpacific partnership, that tip of the spirit of our engagement in that region economically. it does not look like we are going back. the biden administration is lukewarm and not interested in looking at that right now, but is this infrastructure story, build back better world or other things we do, is that a good alternative or partial substitute, something that will help us in the region? amb. barshefsky: it is a wonderful question. the answer is no. i am being a little glib. the answer is no. the infrastructure initiative will not substitute for a robust

, executable, accelerated, as it should be, trade program. so if you think of the infrastructure we are talking about largely, in the report put out by csis, and other reports on belt and road, infrastructure projects are complicated. they are geographic in nature, often country-specific, or customizable, subject to political risks, operational risks, subject to financial risks, as we have been talking about. contract disputes. labor that needs to be upscaled or replaced, in some instances,

which is what china tends to do. there is a shortage of bankable projects at this point, frankly. so this is not a deployable resource and a way you might exploit widgets, for example. in addition, you look at all the initiatives out there, these are consortium projects. of course we have trading partners, trade arrangements, free-trade agreements and so on, but the trade that happens is within each country's control. it is not the case with infrastructure projects where it would be attractive to g7 or g20 countries. no, it is not a substitute for a trade strategy at all. it can, i think, supplement and

activist trade agenda. and so, just think for a minute about icp, which runs through every single one of these infrastructure project announcements, like build back better, u.s.-eu trade and tech counsel, all of the various initiatives, japan, australia, india, all the same countries largely, right? if you look at ict alone, a robust itc plan would enhance trade and hardware, software, and a variety of services apart from software, as well as construction, many, many aspects.

they are complicated to do. it is billions of dollars as you upgrade, 5g, for example, hardware, software, base stations, networks, phones, computers. the upgrade loan is that norma's --enormous proportions, much less wiring most of the world, but that can help supplement the trade agenda. it helps to build partnerships and alliances the way a trade agenda might. it means business that is repeatable, if you think about your trade agenda, the many aspects of itc as recurring revenue, imports, exports as revenue for the company, so there are some supplemental benefits one could get on the trade side from various

infrastructure initiatives. ict is logical, if you will, but it is no substitute, so to play in asia, the u.s. has to have a trade strategy with asia. if you are the asian country, there is no substitute for it. there just isn't. and the u.s. having put together tpp, then walking away from tpp has left an ideal device for robust, sustainable, recurring, and growth-oriented investments and relationships in asia in a way that doesn't give up the territory to china, making countries already in part dependent on china for trade and

finance completely dependent on china for trade and finance, so, like that's where the money is, the global growth we expect in the next decade plus will be from asia. this is really where we have to play on the trade side. it is where we should be playing on the infrastructure side, but one is not a substitute for the other. jonathan: let's dig in into this competition on the infrastructure side. i want to turn to brendan. your company is competing in markets around the world. there was a take among foreign policy people and you ask them what we should be doing and they said we are not in the infrastructure game. we don't do that anymore. it is not true. if you could give us a little bit of color for what that

competition looks like on the ground, and what is the u.s.'s comparative advantage, sales pitch, value proposition? brendan: the punchline, and this is the world i live in, going around the world and trying to pitch a team usa solution. going around the world and trying to pitch in american value proposition around the world, particularly the developing world, and the punchline is, it is not a level playing field. those who have the highest probability of winning and succeeding other companies that are state-backed, state-owned, or that could be aggressively state-sponsored and supported from a commercial diplomacy perspective. every other country you are competing with, they view infrastructure as a strategic instrument of soft power and projecting values abroad.

they support that with aggressive policies. some of them are overt, some subtle. they use their finance corporation equivalence and diplomatic services in a way that is appropriate, ethical, but bring a whole of government approach to promoting the national champions were there national option. in general, competitors are able to offer financing much more quickly, government-backed financing more quickly and with more flexible terms in ways that are more convenient for other national governments than we are. that is despite some really good effort by our colleagues at the dfc, but those institutions are hamstrung. we need people to run them, and then give them flexibility to

operate the way the way other institutions from the u.k. in europe operate. to me, a team usa solution should be of slamdunk, right? we are getting smoked right now, but think about it, we have access to the deepest capital markets in the world. we don't need national champions. we have great companies. the state department was there doing commercial diplomacy, they don't need to pick winners and losers. they need to create a level playing field so american companies can compete for the work and win on a value proposition. when we compete in kenya, we are able to offer infrastructure at a much lower cost than other countries can, but we can't compete with them when it comes to the holo-government support and export/import credit that other countries can bring to the mix. i am with charlene.

we have part of build back better, it is great -- we will never outspend china. that is not a sustainable solution. i would not advocate for that, but can leverage the power of the private sector, particular american private capital markets and firms that have a different value proposition, transparency, anticorruption, american values of free and open access to markets, engaging local people in the sustainable development of their own resources, providing training and employing as many locals as you can and building local capacity so when you are gone, you built not just the project,. that is what team usa is all about. we just need a little bit of help leveling the playing field. matthew: that is great. we should know that there was another task force on a similar issue by the council on foreign relations. brendan is on that commission

ended a terrific report and i recommend that to everybody. so thank you for that. we are getting questions related to all of this. i don't know if it is the same person asking a similar question , but there is a theme emerging. we will come to that in the second. let's try to get two other people back in. marcie, they say they will mobilize private capital and supposedly come to you and said, we want you to go out there and start investing in some of this infrastructure to show this is actually happening in working. what will you say to them or what you need from them to mitigate the risks and establish that risks/reward balance you were talking about earlier. marcie: areas for consideration, if we are talking about investing in developing

infrastructure projects. one, the sovereign risk, political stability, anticorruption practices. that would be an area where calpers needs mitigating policies or investment from our own government to assist private capital investors. second would be transparency. laws, regulations. also, the effectiveness of the judicial system to enforce them. we have currency risk concerns. how do regulatory settings impact private-sector investors and provide us with appropriate protections? i mention management of the currency risk. i think the credibility of counterparties, we have counterparty risks. human capital concerns. if we are running those projects, were not as worried about human capital issues, particularly related to forms of modern slavery, physical safety

of employees. we have had for structured investment where employees on that project have been kidnapped, so these are things from a risk/reward we should be concerned about, the reputational risk for calpers. the other part of this is to be successful. there is stakeholder education and communication that would need to happen. there would need to be significant shareholder activism on this, whether elected officials on capitol hill, which they seem to be struggling with this, and how do they promote these policies and get them past , the how, why, and how do you leverage capital and how do you make that private capital beneficial not only for the sustainability of the project, but for the sustainability in the case of our pension fund infrastructure can't be free. we are expecting a 6.8% return on our money no matter the financing or the deployment modality, but support from g-7

environments and governments is helpful to provide adequate structure for private financing. that first loss position mentioned, that would be something we would be looking for as well. the clearing house, who will clear these projects for originating and vetting those opportunities, the pension fund itself, or will there be assistance through a partnership between the government? some of this has been tried throughout history, but i think we have an opportunity here. calpers once more investment in infrastructure, on the develop side. we are looking at moving capital the way it is allocated from domestic to international, so that is something we just reported to our board and our five-year infrastructure plan, but we have assets where infrastructure is our highest performing sub asset class,

one-year, three-year, and five-year, so we are interested in projects, but that risk/return balance has to be in the right shape for us. jonathan: thinking about how we make the most of this opportunity, this is related to something brendan was talking about, the need for a holo-government approach -- whole-government approach. you know how the process works and doesn't work. if we were to make a list of the u.s. agencies with capabilities related to infrastructure, it is quite long. we have already mentioned some of those already. we mentioned commerce and others. dod has important equities and some of this is well. the transportation department has expertise is well that is relevant. do you think we are organized

from the u.s. government perspective to do this work effectively? brendan: not at all. it was very important what has been said, and therein lies the problem. the chinese have a strategy for global infrastructure, and initiative, a whole of government, whole of society approach, and we don't. we don't have anything close to it. it should not be we need one because china has one, but we have historically led in the developing world and helping the developing world move to a more prosperous and secure future. that is our brand. the first thing that needs to be done is we need to develop a strategy. we talked about it in the report you and matthew worked with charlene and i in this wonderful team we had on, first of all, we need to do an inventory of the

infrastructure projects in the developing world, which are important to us come up geography or because of what the project is about? things like energy, water, information technology, those are critical to us. there are important areas where we have real expertise. first, inventory, prioritize, identify for contractors and others, what projects are really important to the country from a national security and national economic perspective? then let's sit down and figure out, let's get brendan, and the others in a room, and find what it is we need to do to level the playing field for our contractors and incentivize and enable the private sector to take money and put it into infrastructure projects in the developing world? let's fix these problems that

have been identified. we are not doing that. then, third, we need to look at our institutional structure. every time we have had a major crisis, terrorism, pandemics, we have done some reorganization of the government, reorganize the interagency, put in some assets, and developed a strategy for dealing with the problem. that is what we need to do here. we have not done it. if i were in national security advisor, you need somebody empowered by the president to undertake the effort, to develop a strategy, recommend how the government will reorganize itself and organize itself to implement that strategy, how to bring in the private sector. you need someone to do that. we talked about that in our report, pointing to empowering

the president and others for global infrastructure, to give to that person the writ of developing the strategy, solving the problem, then organizing the government and private sector to go after it. that is what is required, and we are not anywhere close to that today. >> this is an organizational challenge, won the u.s. government is not suited to. if you asked me today who is in charge of infrastructure apology, i would not be able to answer that. we need better coordination. let's go to audience questions. there are a lot coming in. i will go to brendan first. there is another theme emerging i want everybody to think about, which is a lot of people are asking the question about what is in it for the recipient countries. things are may be more expensive, will take more time, if there will be assessment of

standards and so forth, or just setting high standards, so what is the incentive for the recipient, the developing countries to take up over frankly a cheap, dirty quick deal from somebody else? that is a question i would like everybody's thoughts on, starting with brendan. does that depend on the u.s. government to pull in private finance for projects you are interested in, or do you look for private financing yourself? could you talk about the relationship to the financial side of the story? brendan: sure. multipart question, i'd love them. i reject the premise of the question, that a team usa solution cost more, takes longer. i don't accept the premise of that. we have proven with a level playing field that on a net value basis, when you think about the lifecycle of an asset,

we have higher-quality infrastructure, more predictably, faster, lower cost, and more inclusively with the local people who should be part of developing their own infrastructure. by the way, because it is an explicit objective, we leave behind a local contracting community, engineers, project managers of the future, who become the ministers of fill-in the blank in those countries. that is part of what we wake up in the morning wanting to do every day around the world. that is the place we start from. that is the value proposition. it is a very different value proposition than some of our international competitors. i would say on the financing side of this, it is a mix of both. some cases, when you are competing against the national champion in the balkans for a project, you have a hose government competing government to government agreements and

solutions that they want wrapped in the flag of different nations with government to government agreements, and if that is the case, we need some level of government support in the seal of good housekeeping and some equity or financing as proof of that seal of good housekeeping in order to be on the field, and then what is the great american company would say is, we are not asking for favors. we are not asking for special treatment. just get us on the field and let us compete and we will win. there are other parts of the world where if you are able to attract private capital, you may not need u.s. government financing, but it is always helpful to have the local u.s. ambassador say this is a trustworthy company. i have seen him work around the world. i am here if you have an issue with the relationship. it helps, but is not a requirement that the u.s. government finance it.

i will stop. jonathan: i would like to turn to charlene, related to something we talked about, setting priorities. we had a discussion with usg and allied officials thinking about this. how do we set more specific priorities geographically, territorially? something i hear is the importance of digital infrastructure. charlene, this is something you are well ahead of them thinking about and underscoring the importance of when we were working on that task force report. how has the pandemic affected your assessment of that? where do you see this fitting among u.s. priorities?

amb. barshefsky: sorry about that. you would think i would remember. the ict sector, digital sector, is obviously critical, the backbone of industry, the backbone of services. it is what creates bid flows, data flows, the backbone of artificial intelligence premise that these systems writ large are crucial. you don't have a future economy if you don't have sufficiently sophisticated infrastructure with respect to the digital economy. the u.s. obviously has a competitive advantage with respect to it, but we don't offer a full suite of services.

we don't offer a full suite of hardware. we don't offer a full suite of software. so those issues, which i think are important to the build back better and other programs, need to be resolved. i mention i would have loved to see vaccines more robustly coming out of build back better, and also the announcement of a business consortium between major u.s., japanese, and european companies who had devised a turnkey project to rollout on digital infrastructure, because no government is building this stuff, so that would have been spectacular and highly competitive and desirable in many countries. covid underscores the importance

of the digital priority in two respects. first of all, the connectivity of everything, right? it is your work, your entertainment, your friend, your tormentor. we all know that it is the acceleration of all of the underlying technologies leading to this explosion in connectivity that is so dramatic and so important, so one lesson out of covid is that trends you thought would take five or 10 years are here now, and if you are not ahead of the game, you are ready the game. the other aspect of covid has to do with china's belt and road initiative. you have extraordinary wealth

lost in the developing world, high debt levels, inability to service debt, not just bri projects, but across the board, and debt and credit that have to be done for so many of these countries, including many of the countries in which china has invested. that will happen over time, and china will pull back on some of the very capital intensive projects for a time, but what that means, given that bri is in the constitution and it is xi jinping's key initiative, china will double down on the digital economy. it is the most cost-effective way to proceed. the returns are great, and you don't need as many chinese on the ground, which has become

controversial in many countries who feel that their job opportunities have been taken. will, it is a different profile altogether, so again, in the face of extraordinary need, we see that china may be exquisitely positioned to pick it even more towards the digital economy. there are many areas where it offers a turnkey solution. it may not be the best solution, it may be the best solution, but they are on the ground and capable of delivering. the only other thing i would add, if i might, which is where thinking about, you have a lot of siloed initiatives going on in the u.s. and other countries, so we have build back better in the united states and our own infrastructure initiatives and a whole re-think of the supply chain.

you have the same thing going on in europe and the same thing going on in japan. if we think about supply chains as a form of infrastructure, they create infrastructure. they are in that sense their own ecosystems, their own transport networks, so on and so forth. there ought to be some thinking about taking a lot of what you might think are disparate initiatives, squeeze them together, squeeze the water out, and see what you have left that is something flexible enough to cover a variety of needs in the west, whether supply chain orientation, assisting developing countries, and working with friends, making new partners, and bringing that altogether in a perhaps more readily executable way. that is something to think

about. and also impacts the digital supply chain. matthew: the john is doing a book on the digital silk road. stay tuned for that. we have reached the end of the hour. we never have enough time for these conversations, but i want to be respectful of our panelists and audience, so i will wrap it up now, unfortunately, but with great thanks to our panel, insightful, rich contribution to this complicated and important subject. we appreciate you joining us. to everyone listening on a hot friday afternoon, at least in washington, we hope you enjoyed this and learn something from it. we will put the video on our website soon and you will be able to watch it again. i would do that to make sure i understood every point being made, and we will continue doing

work. we are working on infrastructure projects here, so stay tuned for more on this important subject matter. thank you all. please come back and join us again. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> sunday, c-span series continues, interviews with those who saw what happened to that day. >> a capital officer said it was necessary to evacuate. that we should take the hood, the hoods under the seat of each seat in the chamber, take them out and be prepared to put them on. so everybody did, and i think

when you pull the little red tag it activates. some people were not wearing them. there had been teargas released in the chamber which is why we were advised to wear them, but there was this noise from all these hoods, the background of the moment, and the pounding and the noise from the mob had become much louder. at some point, someone in the chamber, in the gallery, a member was yelling at the republicans to call trump and have trump call off his mob. there was some yelling back and forth among members in the gallery.

announcer: this week, you will hear from rodney davis and madeleine dean. january 6, views from the house, sunday 10:00 p.m. on c-span. announcer: c-spanshop.org is the online store for c-span with the collection of c-span products. your purchase will support our nonprofit operations and you have time to order the congressional directory with contact information for members of congress and the biden administration. go to c-spanshop.org. announcer: jake lc spoke, leon the house floor after being sworn in. he