When he was introduced somewhere, saying, now barney frank, who needs no introduction. His response was, just once id like to hear that introduction that people dont think i need. Rosa delauro is a congresswoman from my hometown in new haven. She comes from a very strong line of women politicians. Her mom was an alderman in new haven and is now 103 years old. Rosas been in Congress Since 1991. And before that, she was on the staff of senator chris dodd. I learned by reading her official bio that youre a member of 62 different house caucuses. Had to join them all. You cant possibly go to 62 house caucus meetings. No. Tom reed comes from the Finger Lakes Region of new york. Has been in Congress Since, i forgot 2010. Somewhat less service than rosa delauro. He was, though, before he came to washington, he was the mayor of corning, new york, which is relevant because weve had a lot of conversations between the state and local governments. And he is the youngest of 12 children. So i figured thats why hes a success in the house of representatives. You learn early. So we began today talking about physical infrastructure with Larry Summers and ed glazer. Weve had conversations with economists who studied transportation, and water infrastructure. You heard part of the conversation we had about investments in human capital, both the evidence for and the evidence that is lacking in investments, in education, or transfer of programs to lowincome kids, to pay off in the future. Which is, of course, the definition of investment. But one of the things thats haunted us all day long is, i think a lack of confidence that if the federal government spends more money, that it will go to those areas where there is the highest return. So i know both of you have spoken quite a bit over the years about why you think we ought to spend more on federal Infrastructure Spending. So if an american, if one of your constituents says, look, id like to have better bridges and heated runways, ill tell you that story later, im not convinced that if you spend another 200 or Larry Summers says 2 trillion over a decade in Infrastructure Spending, that were going to its going to go to where it gets the highest return as opposed to whatever the member of the senate happens to be in that particular appropriation subcommittee. What do you say to that constituent who wants that assurance where theres not much trust in government where the money will be well spent . First of all, you have to take a look at what were spending with regard to infrastructure. You know, since 2010, weve seen a real decline in, what is it, a half of one percent in terms of gdp, in terms of Public Investment in infrastructure. At a time when were looking at the need to be able to rebuild, whether its a water system, whether its our ports, whether its roads and bridges. You know, telecommunications. The vast array of public infrastructure. But we are at a moment where i think its very exciting. We have a president elect who has talked about one of his goals as being infrastructure. Lots of talk about that. During the campaign. And im going to get to the answer to your question by talking about the vehicles that are out there. And i will speak about one of them which i have really championed for a very, very long time, and thats an Infrastructure Bank. Where you are looking at Public Private partnerships. There are two things critically important. There is a Public Investment, a private investment in infrastructure, and the way that the legislation is currently, construction, and its gone through many iterations over the years, is that the Infrastructure Bank gets you out from under the whole political process of members making a determination as to where that money should go. And that with regard to the Infrastructure Bank, there is a board of directors thats selected by the president , confirmed by the president , theres a ninemember executive committee that has a set of criteria with which to judge the projects. And city, private entity, state, regions can apply, but the criteria, whats the economic benefit . Whats its environmental benefit . Whats its social benefit . Can it create jobs . Will it grow the economy . Is it a program of national or regional significance . Those are the criteria for making a determination, rather than rosa delauro going in and saying, you know, who i can talk to, what i can talk about, this is what my district needs, but its not overall in terms of where the, you know, a growth economy and a preserving, like you pointed out, the Taxpayer Sentiment that they want the money to go in the best direction and with the greatest good and the greatest economic benefit. So i think we can demonstrate that. But i think we do have to you have to insulate the decision from the political process. You have to do that. Thats what you think the Infrastructure Bank accomplishes . Its one of its many accomplishments. Ill just leave it here on that score. Its one of my views that the reason we havent been able to get to an Infrastructure Bank is that, look, my piece of legislation is going to four committees. It goes to transportation, it goes to ways and means, it goes to financial services, a goes to energy and commerce. You know, i think whats true, and i dont know if tom agrees with me on this, no one likes to give up turf on capitol hill. While we dont subsume Everything Else particularly in transportation and infrastructure, we build on what they do. People are reluctant to give up that turf, and to see it move. But thats a direction that it needs to go into. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today to talk about these topics and to be joined my good friend from connecticut. Pleasure to be on the panel here with you, rosa. When we talk about infrastructure, i think the initial conversation i have with my constituents, and we do town halls across the district, or across the state or across the country, listening to people, we have to agree the investment is worthwhile. That investing in infrastructure is something we can all come together and say, good roads, good water systems, good sewer systems, they lead to a productive environment, they lead to a productive economy where we can grow the economy and make those investments that i think we all agree that thats a priority of an investment. So the question you ask is, is there a role for the federal government in that process. I believe there is. Being a former mayor, you know, that is something where you need to get the input from the local government. You need to get the input from the state government. And you need to make sure were all working in tandem together to make sure the Infrastructure Investment is getting to the right places. One of the concerns that ive had here since ive arrived in 2010, and i do support the earmarked ban. But there has been a loss of the input between the branches of government that i have observed. And what i mean by that is, a lot of authority has been delegated to the president , and then the president delegates it to our state capitals, and all the shenanigans that the bans were designed to take out of the system, theyve just been drive system, theyve been driven under ground to be perfectly honest with you, go into the state capitals and administrative side of the ledger and i believe more sunshine, the more spotlight you can put on the decisionmaking to the issue of Infrastructure Banks or Public Private partnerships, i call it the front page of the newspaper test. The more sunshine where a member, where a project sponsor, local government, state official, can be called out or put on the front page of the local paper and say, this is a worthwhile investment in infrastructure, this is the details as rosa points out, the economic return, the social return, the environmental return. These are why this project makes sense. The more we can work toward that type of system i think that is the Infrastructure Bank a way to do it . Or do you have a better way to do it . I think the Infrastructure Bank, Public Private partnerships subject to complete public disclosure, having a system like what we are trying to do with the miscellaneous tariff bills. I serve on the ways means committee. The tariff relief provisions where we redesign the system to where the administration, the legislative branch are all part and parcel of that process, to waive thaez those tariffs, to waive the tariff burdens associated with that. You have to go through this website accessible where you go through the process of sponsoring those types of waivers. When you talk to economists who very few of them have ever run for reelection or election, probably wouldnt be reelected. I think there was one once that was reelected but he is probably dead, paul douglas. How wonderful. Paul douglas. Very good, rosa. Yes. So it was striking to me this morning that some of the transportation economists had very strong views on things that i suspect will be not politically popular. One was, you know, we ought to have higher gas tax, we ought to have user fees. That was one. Two, there seems to be a mantra among transportation economist which i learned today which is rail bad, bus is good. The idea that buses are more effective way to more efficient way to get people around and theyre more flexible than rail which has proved very costly and the third one was that, you know, when you think about it, the places we ought to be investing money are the places that are crowded so that more people can move there. So there ought to be this was asserted this morning, less money for detroit and st. Louis because they already have so much infrastructure that they dont even turn on the traffic lights at night and more money for seattle and san francisco. So my question to you is, is this sort of advice helpful . Ask the folks in flint, michigan, what theyre thinking, whether its helpful, a water system that has really lead poisoned right. 9,000 lets talk about user fees things. Economists love user fees. Economists think we ought to have more congestion pricing on highways. If we cant do it for the existing highways then for the ones in the future. Economists think that, gosh, if you cant pay for a rail system on fares, you better be sure it has some externalties or you shouldnt be doing it. Is that just completely impracticable . I dont think its impractical, but its limited in the sense of lot of folks are talking about increasing the gas taxes, which i stand opposed to. Its a very regressive tax especially representing a rural area of new york. I will tell you, it is very difficult for folks to fill up their gas tank and ask them to put on another 10 to 18 cents a gallon just to contribute to the highway trust fund. That is something that i dont think people they throw out increasing the gas tax, but they dont look at the end user, the actual burden thats putting in a sense on constituents of my district, for example. And so the conversation i would also ask is, user fees in the sense of a gas tax, that has a finite window. Everyone is projecting that gas mileage usage is going down. Cars are becoming more efficient. Were moving to a more a technologicallybased system thats going to make maybe that Revenue Source obsolete, so we got to be creatcreative, goal t looking over the horizon and down the road and thats where some of the folks who are very creative that have a better path for us to explore. Such as . As weve obviously in the short term window were looking at some of the onetime injections with repatriation and tax reform and i think that has a lot of bipartisan support and then you get into the whole concept of driverless cars. There was a study coming across my desk selling the spectrum its going to take in order to control the transportation models 10, 20 years out. I mean, these things, some people ten years ago would say youre crazy, congressman, what are you talking about . But if you look over the horizon, theres a lot of transfer models and Industrial Development that were sitting here one of the best experiences i ever had was talking to a good family friend of ours who lived to be 101. God bless your mother, rosa. And he said, tom, in my lifetime, i would ask him, what was the thing you enjoyed most about your life . He said when i was born, i didnt know what a car was. Now i got more power in my phone and he had a cell phone at the time that i never imagined i would be capable of doing. So being able to place our policy looking down the road and coming up with creative sources of revenue i think is something that we lose sight of in this town in particular. I would just say i think tom made the comments about the gas tax and i, too, am opposed. I think in a very practical measure thats not going to happen politically, is it . There is the underlying comments and reasons, et cetera, but lets be realistic here, its not going to happen politically. So that i think we do have to take a look at identifiable Revenue Sources as user fees. There is the there are ways in which you can look at trying to creatively finance these efforts. We are not without talent and without ideas in a way to try to move forward if were serious about moving forward in this way. But also i believe with regard to infrastructure, first of all, i think Abraham Lincoln would take real offense about the issue of trains versus buses versus trains since the trance Continental Railroad was done and during the civil war i might add i dont think they had buses back then. Im just saying maybe carriages were in the best way to deal with it, but it certainly changed the face of the nation and was an economic driver which is what the infrastructure is all about. If were serious about wanting to grow this economy, to create jobs and jobs that cannot be outsourced, the way to do this is through rebuilding. That is a broad spectrum. So, again, we got many, many the will i view this as topdown. This is not bottomup. Which is one of the reasons why i will just say if youve got to have a Public Investment in this effort, as well as a private investment, and what we do, what i do with the Infrastructure Bank is, yeah, its 5 billion a year for 5 years to capitalize the bank. There needs to be a serious view as to what is within the realm of public responsibility when it comes to moving the economy. Let me ask you one quick question on this before i turn to human capital. So theres been a lot of talk about infrastructure, as you pointed out, congressman delauro, there was a lot of talk during the campaign. Speaker ryan seems to indicate its not very high on the priority list. This congress two years, do you think well get a major infrastructure oh, i do. And i guess i take exception a little bit to what reference to pauls comments. I know paul, serving on the committee with him. Serving on the speaker. Infrastructure investment is something we all agree sneis ned in america. Obviously we have health care, immediately around the corner. We have tax reform, tax reform and Infrastructure Spending will go hand in hand with each other and that is a large opportunity i sigh see on the horizon. Do you agree well get it this year . No, i dont. And i just dont. Ill tell you why, first of all, the major focus at the moment look, i believe in the issue of infrastructure in Public Private. That means Public Investment and private investment. The focus on repealing the Affordable Care act at the moment i think is driving an agenda and so im not even sure that infrastructure is on a back burner. I dont think its on a burner. It will be on a burner, which is unfortunate. And if you take a look at the proposal that was made by the ross and navarro, the president elects team here in dealing with infrastructure, it is all about tax credits to private contractors, developers, 82 tax credit for a limited amount of infrastructure, development, which is takes us in the wrong direction. That is not going to happen. I guess i would disagree with that. I thought you might. And what i think youre talking about even under the Infrastructure Bank and under the proposals, even john delanie on the other side had Creative Ideas on this front. Its about leveraging that public dollar with the private dollar and putting those together and using techniques that private equity and wall street have done historically, looking at international players, things that have happened and Great Britain as well as hong kong where you leverage those dollars together and that could give us an opportunity to stretch out those public dollars. Let me its about its about leveraging and if you take a look, theres a European Investment bank. Thats an Infrastructure Bank. The asians now have an Infrastructure Bank and instead of this was coverage administration, you know. But i think you said something earlier which is important. Look, the federal government seems to have no problem raising money. Its kind of extraordinary how much the treasury has been able to raise very low interest rates, so one can argue about the best way to finance infrastructure, but it seemed to me the most significant point you made was that whatever you think of leveraging, its important to have some way of setting priorities so it just doesnt end up to be who happens to be have made a big campaign contribution. Absolutely. Thats where the public scrutiny and thats where the sunshine i think is the best let me turn to human capital. You may have heard the end of the conversation that Louis Shriner was having with our colleagues. I should tell you that wendell apologizes he couldnt make it. That was unfortunate. I think theres a question we have about whether all this Academic Research, whether its on good stamps, prek, the best way to design Financial Aid for college, the way to help kids choose better colleges, whether any of that actually makes difference when members of congress think about these issues, and on top of that, what well, let me ask you that then ill does it . Do people do you care about the research . Do you even know about it . Absolutely. I cant attest to all 435 members in the house and 100 members in the senate, each has their own unique you dont have to take responsibility for the rest of the crazy people. Or the senate. Or the senate, god forbid. We can unite on that. What i find on here, like any organization, 99 of the people are good, hardworking men and women. They came here to serve the country. They do the work. Doing the work means you read the studies. You actually stay after hours. You stay, bring the pile home with you, when youre traveling home, youll see us on the airplanes, youll see us on the trains, youll see me driving back to new york six hours each and every way with my staffer who lives in the some town, drives at the same time. I hope youre not driving and reading the nbr papers at the same time. No, but my chief of staff lives with his family three blocks from the house. Gives me 12 hours each week, that is some of the time i dedicate to doing that reading. That is so important. Those are where the reports, thats where the studies now, i will tell you as a member, anybody who walks into my office and makes an argument for a proposal, im going to open up a door because i know theres an 180degree position that could be supported by a study, that could be supported by some type of official position and i will tell you all we have to do as members is hopefully do the work and make an informed decision and be able to stand in front of our constituents like i do when i go back every weekend if front of the town halls we conduct all the time. Say this is why i have made this decision, this is why im going this direction. I will tell you constituents the response i get from that is very positive. You think the research makes a difference . I do. Ive thought that for a very, very long time. What do you think scholars and universities and think tanks could do to make it more useful to members of congress . I thank you for the question because ive worked on this a very, very long time. I think that there is such synergy that can be developed through Academic Research and Public Policy thinkers. I got engaged very, very early on with something called the tobin project at harvard, which brought together academics and at the time she was in academia, that was elizabeth warren. When i first met elizabeth. And we started to talk about actually in my living room because i hold Public Policy gatherings and david you have been to them, as she predicted what was going to happen with the Housing Market and she talked about the Consumer Finance protection board. But the point being is i think you the various think tanks that are out there, you know, from my point of view with a cap, roosevelt institute, epi, a whole variety of other agencies, bob greensteins group for budget policies, priorities. This is all information and data that is important to inform Public Policy initiatives that i think that we ought to be engaged in. We ought to look at both sides. We ought to understand both sides of the issue, but i think its foolish for us to and for some members to ashoe research and scientific knowledge. I think we have an obligation and a responsibility to move on the best information policy possible in terms of developing Public Policy initiatives. If i could, ill just share a story with you and this is something i learned early on in my life. As you mentioned, im the youngest of 12. My father passed when i was 2 and my mother was a single mother raising the rest there were six of us left in the household. And my father was a military man. And in the first eight births, my mom was told by her doctors that she should have a cigarette while shes pregnant, that the scientific studies that the doctors were articulating to her at those times said that was the best thing to do to relax. Strike up a pal mall. Does that make sense to us today . And that story i share because it made sense to me now in the sense of there are studies out there that could potentially be classified like that 20, 30, 40 years from now. So a good healthy dose of cynicism is good. The old trust but verify was something that was engrained in me from early on and being the youngest, i am proud to say she stopped smoking. Yes, of course. And one has to also ask is this study funded by cigarette makers or by an independent group . This was the military doctor. But i think we had a lot of conversation today about there seems to be an evolving body of research. I dont think its conclusive, but theres strong increasing evidence that investments in lowincome kids pay off in the form of healthier, more productive adults. I dont think im overstating the academic thing. Thats the reality. I dont know what the statistic is. We know more than we did a decade ago because we had more exposure to some of these programs and were Getting Better at using big data from all sorts of sources. Do you think that thats if i said that in the Republican Caucus that people would say, yeah, youre right, or would they say youre one of bob greensteins no. I think what they would say is what i will say to you now is making that investment, is it the cash injection and therefore more cash guarantees a better outcome . If thats the argument, if thats the pitch to the republican conference, thats not going to be well received, but if its we can invest in this and it has shown to move the needle this much further this being a particular program. This being a particular program and what the investment does, not just giving cash, what it does to move the needle. Thats still an open question. I listened to the Previous Panel at length and i was intrigued by not that. The question was whats it doing . Thats sometimes lost in the studies. You need to look at the detail. Lets take a few there is such ample data and information about the programs that encompass the social safety net. Housing assistance, food stamps, child tax credit, eitc by the way, in so many of those instances, those were bipartisan measures, historically bipartisan measures. And they have proven, this institution, i think it was brookings that said that the social safety net programs lifted about a third of recipients out of poverty. Out of poverty. We have gotten census data which now shows us that again the social safety net programs, 38 Million People including 8 million kids lifted out of poverty. And tom, ill just say this very frankly, im not saying it to you, but all we see at the moment, whether it is the supplemental, the s. N. A. P. Program, food stamps, if you will, housing assistance, medicaid, et cetera, the view is that these are programs that we should be undoing and that there is a really there is a formidable challenge. I mean, i think greenstein said it in an article. I believe that poor and working families are in grave harm over the next several years and i dont think i say i dont say it lightly. I dont say it as a political gotcha. I say it with someone who for the last 26 years have focused time and attention in these areas. The notion the first day of this session, the move in the rules package to take mandatory programs and to make them discretionary programs will just give you thats transparency. What are the mandatory programs . Social security, medicare, medicaid, pell grants, food stamps. Im on the appropriations committee. We do not have enough discretionary funding today to fund the programs that are there and we are behind the curve as a result of sequestration. So dont tell me that the data is there. We can choose to understand it and act on it or we can ignore it. Congressman . The issue that youre raising, rosa, is a very legitimate issue in the sense that from our perspective, from my perspective, making the investment is one side of the equation. When you have 20 trillion worth of debt, when you have a budget deficit that all economists, all Academic Studies will tell you is not sustainable on this path. So why not bring more of that mandatory spending, why not bring more of that into the sun light . Why not put more sunshine on it to make sure the precious hardworking taxpayer dollars are going to the highest and best potential return in our communities and across the country. That is what a fiscal conservative, such as myself, when we have this conversation with you, we are willing to make that investment, but we have to make sure that were not just going to maintain the status quo because its in mandatory spending or this is the way we have done things for decades. Its time to bring it out. Its time to bring it into the sunshine and where we can find Common Ground, i can assure you folks like rosa and myself who are committed to having the dialogue, we can find the Common Ground on the best programs that offer the highest return on the investment were providing. I can agree on finding Common Ground on the best return, tom, but what i cant agree with is why there is no Second Thought given and theres thought being given now to eliminating the estate tax. That is less than 1 of the nation. First of all, the number now is up to 10 million in an exemption and now we want to eliminate it, cutting off revenue, but we have now had 17 hearings in the Agriculture Committee on where the abuse is in the s. N. A. P. Program and they cant find it. They cannot find it. It has about 3 error rate where you can go to other programs across the federal spectrum and find such an increase in error rates. It is such a dichotomy. Look, of what should constitute looking at and who ought to be helping, im saying, to pay the bill. What i would ask and this is how members who are willing and sincerely committed to finding the Common Ground. Where would you suggest we look to find that inefficient wasteful program that you identified . If its not s. N. A. P. , if its not food stamps, is it earned Income Tax Program . Which i would just offer that as a question to get the dialogue going. Why do you not speak to me about a tax breaks . Why do you not talk to me about tax breaks for the wealthiest people in the nation . And it wasnt discussed in the last panel, but senator did put out a piece on where the ryan budget would go in terms of beneficiaries and where the tax cuts would go. Let me just i want to go congressman, i just want to so the premise of your thing is there must be some waste and inefficiency in these programs. I would think there is. If youre spending 3. 6 trillion and you think every program of the federal government is 100 effective and efficient, then youre not living in the real world. I want to take a few questions, if there are any. Gentleman there in the blue shirt. I am frank baldwin. One of the things about the Program Federal budget, if i personally buy a case of beer, thats spending. If i buy stock or real estate, thats an investment. But the federal budget doesnt distinguish. So relative to human capital, theres kind of the new thing is talk about income share agreements and the backup Boiler Program at purdue, you can pay 3 to 10 of your future earnings for 5 to 10 years. The federal government is actually taking 25 of my earnings for the rest of my life because thats the criminal tax rate im paying because i have a college degree, so that to me is an awesome investment for the treasury but that is not reflected in the budget scoring. How do you distinguish education the investment in education, its not spending, its an investment in capital and huge tax. Let me take a couple questions. Betsy . Im betsy, ive been connected with federal governments. I came in with john kennedy which tells you how old i am. 46, right . 24. Right. The thing im aware of is the rigidity of big institutions and if you want to make them, i mean, i was at d. O. D. When we started shifting from paper to i. T. We ended up at the navy having 1,661 Different Software programs because of regulations. Somebody has to start looking at these crazy regulations and how we change that to improve the system rather than just saying, you cant spend money on poor kids. Those are two good questions. Im going to refrain them slightly. The first question has to go with something which weve wrestled which, which is have we set up a subject system that discourages us from making investments . Because you dont get the scoring credit. Theres some tax cuts which probably do pay off in the future, maybe not as many as some of the proponents say. Some spending programs that do pay off in the future but probably not as much as proponents say. Is there something about the way we do our budgeting thats leading us to be too focused on the short term and not enough in the long term, do you think . I totally agree with that. Being a relatively new member of congress, it is amazing to me when you just had a static score, i heard the debate of the prior panel that dynamic scoring is a bunch of huey as some people are arguing. Theres realworld effects of these policy decisionmaking efforts we need to take into consideration and if you just lock into the status quo, ive seen many proposals die on the vine that were creative, innovative but because of the status quo werent going anywhere. You now common sense. You go back and talk to people. Thats why i always go back and listen and talk to people. Doesnt this make sense. You get this return and make this investment. If you dont believe that tax cuts lead to economic growth, then every governor in the United States of america is on the wrong path because every governor is putting out Economic Development proposals that reduce the local property tax burden, that reduce the sales tax burdens. As a mayor, thats what i saw as policy coming from our Governors Office in new york, one of the leading liberal states in country. So the point im trying to make is status scoring budget process does limit good policy discussion often around here. Because everyone is scared of the does that apply to spending as well as revenues . Oh. Oh. Just to defend i dont think anyone said dynamic scoring was huey. I think there was discussion about whats the appropriate way to use it given the current state of the art . But, anyway. Do you think is there something you can do to make us less shortterm oriented other than having the house run for election every six years instead of every two . Never going to happen. Look, you know, one of the efforts in the Affordable Care act, those of us who were strong proponents of the Affordable Care act, when we had the whole debate about t Preventative Care, which we could not get scored, you know, Preventative Care was not being there. So that, i mean thats a great example. Honestly, we were saving money by that regard, but we could never never allow that to move forward which i found to be backwards. Great example. Because its there. On the other hand, what were not doing is to taking a look at the beneficiaries of those tax cuts. Who wins . Who loses . And by, again, research and studies out there demonstrate that who have been the beneficiaries of these tax cuts and that they have led to income inequality, an issue that we talk about a lot, but, you know, where you have to put some of the blame. Mitsys question raises something that came up in our earlier discussion much earlier in the morning about whether one of the problems we have with Infrastructure Spending is it just takes too long to get things done and the reason is because weve allowed too many people to have the right to veto. That theres so many we just overdid it. Do you think i know that congressman reed probably agrees with that. Do you think theres something to that . Or is that just huey, to quote the congressman . That too many people too much regulation is slowing down our Infrastructure Spending and too many people can say no. And so always is the devil is in the details. You tell me which of the regulations you want to roll back. You tell me where you want to go with this. And then we can have a conversation about this. It is not just that Regulatory Reform writ large is the answer to our prayers here. That is not the case. Not your prayers, anyway. So its again, its all about what the details are in what were cutting back on. It sounds good, but it often isnt. By the way, can i just Say Something . Please. When we applied Program Integrity, this is a term in the fed, that Program Integrity across the board, we dont do that in an evenhanded way. There are some programs that get more scrutiny with regard to Program Integrity than others do, and im someone who is supportive of defense appropriations. I come from a defensedependent state, but i would apply program s integrity across the board at our programs to find out, in fact, which of those that are working and which of those that are not working. We have to make efficient use of our infrastructure here at brookings, which means ending on time so the room can be prepared for an event later today. I want to i want to thank, of course, the congressman for coming down here to talk. I think its always reassuring when members of koccongress com because they look much better up close individually than you do as a group. And i also want to particularly thank my colleagues, carrie, ol staff who helped make this possible and there are a number of other people at brookings. Finally, this morning, look at your feet f theres paper or cups there, theres recycling in the back. Wed appreciate if you pick them up. Thank you all for coming and it was a very productive day. [ background conversation ] [ background conversation ] the president ial inauguration of donald trump is friday. Cspan will have live coverage of all the days events and ceremonies. Watch live on cspan and cspan. Org. And listen live on the free cspan radio app. This weekend on American History tv on cspan3, saturday night at 9 00 eastern, Santa Clara University professor nancy unger looks at the role of gay bars in American History. Many closeted gays go to their first gay bar. For example, san franciscos black cat. And in these bars, they find out that theyre not the only ones. That there are lots of people who are atypical sexually. And when the war is over, they dont want to return to their small towns and their smalltown closets. Many settle, instead, in the cities where they first experienced some selfacceptance. And then at 10 30, government policymakers and officials talk about the 1991 nunn lugar act, storing, dismantling and destroying soviet nuclear and chemical weapons. What we found is that to the russians, the nuclear complex was not an inheritance from hell. To them, it was the means for the revival of a great russia. Sunday evening at 6 00, on american artifacts, fdr president ial Library ArchivistMatthew Hansen and National ArchivesMotion Picture preservationist christina covak on their efforts to preserve franklin d. Roosevelts most important pieces. Selected the films based on historical frequency of how often theyre requested and quality of the footage as well. Onethird of englishmen. At 8 00 on the presidency the Gill University history professor gill troy looks at u. S. israeli relations from president s harry truman to barack obama. I told the house of representatives i would commit political suicide if i didnt support the state of israel. Is the audience participation part of our program . Who said it . It was said, jimmy carter in 1977. Fooled you. For our complete American History tv schedule go to cspan. Org. Historian and author Michael Beschloss sat down with cspans steve scully to discuss the history and tradition of president ial inaugurations as well as notable inaugural addresses from the past. He talked about how former president s approached writing their addresses and predicted what president elect trump would include in his first speech as