tv Public Investment Represenatatives De Lauro amd Reed CSPAN January 19, 2017 5:41pm-6:31pm EST
who said it? it was said by jimmy carter in 1977. fooled you. >> for our complete "american history tv" schedule, go to c-span.org. connecticut democratic congresswoman rosa delauro and thomas reed sat down to discuss the importance of federal infrastructure spending. they also talked about prospects for passing a major infrastructure bill in the new congress. this is about 45 minutes. >> so, i was kind of about to say we saved the best for last but i was afraid i'd get assaulted by the excellent presentations we had before. i was tempted to say that neither congressman delauro or congressman reed need no introduction whatsoever. but i've been haunted by something barney frank said once
when he was introduced somewhere, saying, now barney frank, who needs no introduction. his response was, just once i'd like to hear that introduction that people don't 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. rosa's 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 you're a member of 62 different house caucuses. >> had to join them all. >> you can't 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 we've had a lot of conversations between the state and local governments. and he is the youngest of 12 children. so i figured that's why he's a success in the house of representatives. >> you learn early. >> so we began today talking about physical infrastructure with larry summers and ed glazer. we've 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 low-income kids, to pay off in the future. which is, of course, the definition of investment. but one of the things that's 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, i'd like to have better bridges and heated runways, i'll tell you that story later, i'm not convinced that if you spend another 200 or larry summers says $2 trillion over a decade in infrastructure spending, that we're going to -- it's 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 there's not much trust in government where the money will be well spent? >> first of all, you have to take a look at what we're spending with regard to infrastructure. you know, since 2010, we've 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 we're looking at the need to be able to rebuild, whether it's a water system, whether it's our ports, whether it's roads and bridges. you know, telecommunications. the vast array of public infrastructure. but we are at a moment where i think it's 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 i'm 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 that's 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 it's 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 that's selected by the president, confirmed by the president, there's a nine-member 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, what's the economic benefit? what's its environmental benefit? what's 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 it's 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. >> that's what you think the infrastructure bank accomplishes? >> it's one of its many accomplishments. i'll just leave it here on that
score. it's one of my views that the reason we haven't 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 what's true, and i don't know if tom agrees with me on this, no one likes to give up turf on capitol hill. while we don't 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 that's 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 that's 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 we're all working in tandem together to make sure the infrastructure investment is getting to the right places. one of the concerns that i've had here since i've 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, they've just been drive system, they've 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 decision-making 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 re-election or election, probably wouldn't be re-elected. i think there was one once that was re-elected 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 they're 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 don't 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 they're thinking,
whether it's helpful, a water system that has really lead poisoned -- >> right. >> -- 9,000 -- >> let's talk about user fees things. economists love user fees. economists think we ought to have more congestion pricing on highways. if we can't do it for the existing highways then for the ones in the future. economists think that, gosh, if you can't pay for a rail system on fares, you better be sure it has some externalties or you shouldn't be doing it. is that just completely impracticable? >> i don't think it's impractical, but it's limited in the sense of lot of folks are talking about increasing the gas taxes, which i stand opposed to. it's 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 don't think people -- they throw out increasing the gas tax, but they don't look at the end user, the
actual burden that's 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. we're moving to a more -- a technologically-based system that's 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 that's where some of the folks who are very creative that have a better path for us to explore. >> such as? >> as we've obviously in the short term window we're looking at some of the one-time 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 it's 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 you're crazy, congressman, what are you talking about? but if you look over the horizon, there's a lot of transfer models and industrial development that we're sitting here -- one of the best experiences i ever had was talking to a good family friend of our's 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 didn't 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 that's not going to happen politically, is it? there is the underlying comments and reasons, et cetera, but
let's be realistic here, it's 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 we're 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 don't think they had buses
back then. >> i'm 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 we're 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 top-down. this is not bottom-up. which is one of the reasons why -- i will just say if you've 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, it's $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 there's 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 it's not very high on the priority list. this congress two years, do you think we'll get a major infrastructure -- >> oh, i do. and i guess i take exception a little bit to what reference to paul's 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 we'll get it this year? >> no, i don't. and i just don't. i'll 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 i'm not even sure that infrastructure is on a back burner. i don't think it's 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-elect's 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 you're talking about -- even under the infrastructure bank and under the proposals, even john delanie on the other side had creative ideas on this front. it's 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 -- >> it's about -- it's about leveraging and if you take a
look, there's a european investment bank. that's 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. it's 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, it's important to have some way of setting priorities so it just doesn't end up to be who happens to be -- have made a big campaign contribution. >> absolutely. that's where the public scrutiny and that's 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 couldn't make it. that was unfortunate.
i think there's a question we have about whether all this academic research, whether it's on good stamps, pre-k, 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 i'll -- does it? do people -- do you care about the research? do you even know about it? >> absolutely. i can't attest to all 435 members in the house and 100 members in the senate, each has their own unique -- >> you don't 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 you're traveling home, you'll see us on the airplanes, you'll see us on the trains, you'll 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 you're 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, that's where the studies -- now, i will tell you as a member, anybody who walks into my office and makes an argument for a proposal, i'm going to open up a door because i know there's an 180-degree 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 i'm 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. i've 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 i've 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 greenstein's 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 it's 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, i'll just share a story with you and this is something i learned early on in my life. as you mentioned, i'm 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 she's 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 don't think it's conclusive, but there's strong increasing evidence that investments in low-income kids pay off in the form of healthier, more productive adults. i don't think i'm overstating the academic thing. >> that's the reality. >> i don't 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 we're getting better at using big data from all sorts of sources. do you think that that's -- if i said that in the republican caucus that people would say, yeah, you're right, or would they say you're one of bob greenstein's -- >> 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 that's the argument, if that's the pitch to the republican conference, that's not going to be well received, but if it's -- 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. that's still an open question. i listened to the previous panel at length and i was intrigued by not that. the question was what's it doing? that's sometimes lost in the studies. you need to look at the detail. >> let's 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, i'll just say this very frankly, i'm 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 don't think i say -- i don't say it lightly. i don't 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 -- that's transparency. what are the mandatory programs? social security, medicare, medicaid, pell grants, food stamps. i'm 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 don't 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 you're 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 we're not just going to maintain the status quo because it's in mandatory spending or this is the way we have done things for decades. it's time to bring it out. it's 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 we're providing. >> i can agree on finding common ground on the best return, tom, but what i can't agree with is
why there is no second thought given and there's 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 can't 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, i'm 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 it's not s.n.a.p., if it's 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 wasn't 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 you're spending $3.6 trillion and you think every program of the federal government is 100%
effective and efficient, then you're 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, that's spending. if i buy stock or real estate, that's an investment. but the federal budget doesn't distinguish. so relative to human capital, there's 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 that's the criminal tax rate i'm 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, it's not spending, it's an investment in capital and huge tax. >> let me take a couple questions. betsy? >> i'm betsy, i've been connected with federal governments. i came in with john kennedy which tells you how old i am. >> 46, right? >> 24. >> right. the thing i'm 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 can't spend money on poor kids.
>> those are two good questions. i'm going to refrain them slightly. the first question has to go with something which we've wrestled which, which is have we set up a subject system that discourages us from making investments? because you don't get the scoring credit. there's 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 that's 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. there's real-world effects of these policy decision-making efforts we need to take into consideration and if you just lock into the status quo, i've seen many proposals die on the vine that were creative,
innovative but because of the status quo weren't going anywhere. you now common sense. you go back and talk to people. that's why i always go back and listen and talk to people. doesn't this make sense. you get this return and make this investment. if you don't 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, that's what i saw as policy coming from our governor's office in new york, one of the leading liberal states in country. so the point i'm 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 don't think anyone said dynamic scoring was huey. i think there was discussion about what's 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 short-term 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 -- >> that's 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 it's there. on the other hand, what we're 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. >> mitsy's 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 we've allowed too many people to have the right to veto. that there's so many -- we just overdid it. do you think -- i know that congressman reed probably agrees with that. do you think there's 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 it's -- again, it's all about what the details are in what we're cutting back on. it sounds good, but it often isn't. 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 don't do that in an evenhanded way. there are some programs that get more scrutiny with regard to program integrity than others do, and i'm someone who is supportive of defense appropriations. i come from a defense-dependent
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 it's 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 there's paper or cups there, there's recycling in the back. we'd appreciate if you pick them up.
the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday. c-span will have live coverage of all the day's events and ceremonies. watch live on c-span and c-span.org. and listen live on the free c-span radio app. this weekend on "american history tv" on c-span3, 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 francisco's black cat. and in these bars, they find out that they're not the only ones. that there are lots of people who are atypical sexually. and when the war is over, they don't want to return to their small towns and their small-town closets. many settle, instead, in the cities where they first
experienced some self-acceptance. >> 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 presidential library archivist matthew hansen and national archives' motion picture preservationist christina co-vak on their efforts to preserve franklin d. roosevelt's most important pieces. >> selected the films based on historical frequency of how often they're requested and quality of the footage as well.
>> one-third of englishmen. >> at 8:00 on "the presidency" the gill university history professor gill troy looks at u.s./israeli relations from presidents harry truman to barack obama. >> i told the house of representatives i would commit political suicide if i didn't 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 c-span.org. historian and author michael beschloss sat down with c-span's steve scully to discuss the history and tradition of presidential inaugurations as well as notable inaugural addresses from the past. he talked about how former presidents approached writing their addresses and predicted what president-elect trump would include in his first speech as