Whether there was an introduction needed but haunted by something barney frank said, now barney frank, who needs no introduction. His response was, just once, id like to hear that introduction that people dont think i need. So hes a congressman from my hometown in new haven. She comes from a very strong line of women politicians. Her mom was an alderman and now 103 years old. Been in Congress Since 1991 and before that, on the staff of senator chris dodd and i learned by reading her official bio youre a member of 62 different house caucuses. You cant possibly go to 62 house caucus meetings. No. In Congress Since, i forget. 2010. So he was, before he came to washington, he was the mayor of new york because its relevant with the conversation with state and local governments and youngest of 12 children. I figure thats why hes a success in the house of representatives. You learn early. We began talking about physical infrastructure and talked about economists who study transportation and Water Infrastructure and you heard part of the conversation we had about investments in Human Capital, both the evidence for and the evidence lacking the investments in the programs to low income kids to pay off in the future which is the definition of investments but one thing that haunted us is a lack of confidence that if the federal government spends more money, it will go to the areas where theres the highest return so i know both of you have spoken quite a bit about why you think we ought to spend more on federal Infrastructure Spending, so if one of your constituents says, id like to have better bridges and klicliff winstons heated runways but im not convinced if you spend another 100 days or 200 or larry said 2 trillion over a decade in Infrastructure Spending that were going, its going to go to work with the highest return and whatever happens to be in the committee. What do you say to that constituent who wants some assurance in an era where theres not much trust that will money will be well spent . First of all, i think you have to take a look at what we are spending in regard to infrastructure. I think its 2010, we have seen a real decline in half of 1 in terms of gdp and infrastructure and at a time were looking at the need to be able to rebuild whether its a water system or our ports or tell communications, the vast array of public infrastructure. But we are at a moment where its very exciting. A president elect who talked about one of the goals with infrastructure and a lot to 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. Theres two things critically important. There is a Public Investment, a private investment to infrastructure and the way the legislation is currently kruk d constructed and gone through many it rations 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 with regard to the Infrastructure Bank, theres a board of directors and confirmed by the smenate, a set of critera which to judge the projects. States, regions can apply but the criteria, what is the economic benefit . Whats the environmental benefit . Whats its social benefit . Can it create jobs . Will it grow the economy . Is it a program of national or regional significance . Thats, those are the criteria for making a determination. And the growth economy and a taxpayer, that they want the money to go in the best direction and the great etc. Good and i think we can demonstrate that but i think we have to. Ill leave it here on that. Its one of my views the reason we havent been able to get to an Infrastructure Bank is that, look, my piece of legislation is going to four committees going to transportation and financial and services and i think thats true. I dont know if tom agrees on this, no one likes to give up turf on capitol hill and we dont always assume 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 the direction it needs to go into. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today to talk about these topics and to be joined by my good friend from connecticut. When we talk about infrastructure, i think the initial conversation i have with my constituents and we do town halls across the entire district or across the state or country or listening to people is when we have to agree the investment is worthwhile and investing in infrastructure is something we can come together to 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 dont believe there is and being a former mayor, you need to get the input from the local government and the State Government and you need to make sure were all working in tandem together to make sure that the Infrastructure Investment is getting to the right places. One of the concerns that ive had here since i arrived in 2010 and i do support the earmark ban but there has been a loss of input wean tbetween the branche government. A lot of authority delegated to the president and the president delegated to the state capitals and all of the shenanigans that the earmark banned and was designed to take out of the system, theyve just been driven underground to be perfectly honest with you. They go into the state capital, they go into the 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, a member, a project sponsor and local government, state official can be called out and put out on the local page of the front paper and say, this is a worthwhile infrastructure and the details as it points out, the economic return, the social return. The environmental return. These are why this project makes sense. The more we can work towards that type of system, i think that is is the Infrastructure Bank a way to do that . I think the Public Private partnerships that are subject to complete public disclosure, i think having a system like what we are trying to do with the tariff relief provisions where we redesign the provision where the legislative branch are all part and parcel of the process to relieve the tariff burden with that and go through the public process, web site accessible to go through the process of sponsoring those type of waivers. When you talk to economists, very few have run for election, they probably wouldnt be reelected. I think once was reelected but probably dead, paul douglas. Oh, wonderful. Very good. It was striking me this morning that some of the transportation economists, a few i would suspect not be politically popular. One, we ought to have higher gas tax, user fees. Thats one. Who, there seems to be a mantra among transportation economists which i learned today which is rail bad, bus is good. Bus is a more effective way and more efficient way to get people around and more flexible in rail which has proved 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 had so much infrastructure already 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 . Yes, the folks in flint, michigan, would think its helpful with the water system that has really lead poisoned 9,000. But lets talk about the user fee thing. So 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 to have some externalities or you shouldnt be doing it. Is that completely impractical . I dont think its impractical, but its limited in the sense that a lot of folks are talking about increasing the gas taxes which i stand opposed to. 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 put on another 10 to 18 cents a gallon just to contribute to the highway trust fund. Thats something that i dont think they throw out increasing the gas tax, but they dont look at the extra burden it puts on constituents of my district, for example. 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 be becoming more efficient, were moving to a more technologically based system that will make maybe that Revenue Source obsolete. Weve got to be creative. Weve got to be looking over the horizon, down the road, where i think some of the folks who are more creative have a better path to explore. Such as . Obviously in the shortterm window, were looking at some of the onetime injections with repatriations with tax reform. But then you get into the concept of driverless cars. There was a study that came across my desk, selling the spectrum that it will take to control the models 10, 20 years out. Some people ten years ago would say, thats crazy, thats never going to go anywhere. Youre crazy, congressman, what are you talking about . But if you look over the horizon that theres development, sitting here, one of the best conversations i had, a friend who was 101, god bless your mother, rosa, he said, tom, in my lifetime i asked, what did you enjoy the most in your life . He said, when i was born, i didnt know what a car was. Now i have more power in my phone, he had a cell phone at the time, than i ever imagined i would be capable of doing. So coming up with creative sources of revenue i think we lose sight of in this town in particular. I would just say i think tom made a comment 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 the, you know, comments and reasons, et cetera, but lets be realistic here, its not going to happen politically. So i do think we have to take a look at identifiable Revenue Sources, user fees. Theres there is the there are ways in which you can look at china creatively, financing 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. Thats why, you know, with but also, i believe with regard to the infrastructure, first of all, i think Abraham Lincoln would take real offense about the issue of trains versus buses versus trains, since the Transcontinental Railroad was done, during the civil war i might add. I dont think they had buses back then. But im saying, they had carriages, they were 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, create jobs, and jobs that cannot be outsourced, the way to do this is through rebuilding. And that is a broad spectrum. So again, weve 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 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 five 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 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 indicates its not high on the priority list. This congress, two years, do you think well get a major infrastructure i do. I guess i take exception a little bit to what reference to pauls comments. I know paul, i served with him on the committee with him, Infrastructure Investment i think is something we all agree is needed in america. Obviously weve got health care immediately around the corner, tax reform. But i think they go hand in hand with each other. That is a large opportunity i see on the horizon. Do you think well get it this year . No, i dont. I just dont ill tell you why. First of all, the major focus at the moment, i believed in the issue of infrastructure. Be and 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 ross and know novaro, the president elects team here in dealing with infrastructure, it is all about privatizing infrastructure. It is about tax credits to private contractors, developers. 82 tax credit for a limited amount of infrastructure, of development, which is takes us in the wrong direction. That is not going to happen. So im not i guess i would disagree with that. What i think youre talking about, even under the Infrastructure Bank proposal, even john delaney on the other side has had Creative Ideas on this front. Its about leveraging the public dollar with the private dollar and put ing those together. That private equity and wall street have done historically, looking at international players, things that have happened in Great Britain and hong kong, where you leverage the dollars together, and that could give us an opportunity to stretch out those public dollars. Its about leveraging. If you take a look, theres the European Union investment bank. Thats an Infrastructure Bank. The asians now have an Infrastructure Bank. And instead of and this was a carter administration, you know but i think you said something earlier look, the federal government seems to have no problem raising money. Its extraordinary how much the treasury has been able to raise. At very low interest rates. One can argue about the best way to finance infrastructure. Because it seems to me the most significant point you made is, whenever you think of leveraging, there has to be a way of setting priorities so it doesnt just end up being the thats the public scrutiny. You may have heard the end of the conversation that louise was having with our colleagues. I should tell you that wendell apologized that he couldnt make it. That was unfortunate. I think theres a question that we have about whether all this academic research, whether its on food stamps, prek, the best way to design Financial Aid for college, the way to help kids choose better colleges, whether that actually makes a difference when members of congress think about these issues. And on top of that, well, let me ask you that, and then ill does it . Do you care about the research . Do you even know about it . Oh, 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 those crazy people. We can unite on that. What i find down here, like any organization, 99 of the people are good hardworking men and women. They came here to serve the country. They have an idea of what they want to bring to the table and they do the work. And doing the work means you read the studies. That you actually stay after hours. You stay bring the pile home with you, or when you travel home, youll see us on the airplane, see us on the train, me driving back to new york six hours each way with my staff, who lives in the same town, drives at the same time. Using that time i hope youre not driving and reading the npr papers at the same time. No, but a staff member lives three blocks from my house, and it gives me 12 hours each week, and that is some of the time i dedicate to doing that reading. And that is so important. Those are where the reports the studies. I will tell you, as a member, anybody knows that walks into my office and makes an argument for a proposal, im going to open up the door, because i know theres 180degree position that can be supported by a study that can 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 every weekend when we stand in front of the town halls and say, this is why i have made this decision. This is why im going this direction. I will take constituents, the response i get from that, its 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 could do to make it more useful to members of congress . I thank you for the question. Because ive worked on this for a very, very long time. I think theres su