set of people. yet we are banning we are bannie terms, the words across government. what is the proper caliber issue? >> the proper calibration is if a local or state government wants to do something on d.e.i., they want to set up a commission or have a new mission, have at it, that's fine. the federal government has every right to say we are not going to measure you or fund you or cancel you on that. >> but that is exactly what they are saying they are doing. if you receive federal funding. >> the supreme court saying in education you cannot do that. it is a very clear case. >> that's a different thing, that is at a level of hiring. i have talked to proper -- private corporation to have set we are dropping the terms d.e.i.. >> that is their choice. >> that is not their choice because they fear that federal contracts are in jeopardy. >> you think companies are

dropping d.e.i. programs because they will lose federal contracts? >> absolutely. >> i would argue that is their choice. has anyone said if you keep d.e.i., you can't work for the government? that has never been said. >> there is no d.e.i. in the government anymore. >> if disney wants to have a d.e.i. program, they can. you will not have a contract with the government. >> it certainly is out there. i have talked to senior executives in government, and universities by the way. there are d.e.i. programs at universities so that universities can accommodate the diverse populations of students, faculty, staff and others if they got in a way that builds a sense of community. >> i'm not apologizing for this administration, i'm just saying if folks want to do something at a local level, they should be able to do it.

if the federal government does not want to fund into it, they have every right to say that. should people be excluded because they have it? no, and i would challenge anyone who says that. >> let me ask you another topic, for you to offer your advice to the president on. i'm really interested in this and this is on climate change. the federal government as we heard, walking away from some of the research, the paris climate accords whatever you think of that. but also, telling people to go through their language in government agencies and remove references to some of these things. there are pages that are now down from noa and other agencies where they do this research. i went to the new hampshire department of environmental sciences homepage and here is what it says. research indicates that the concentration of greenhouse gases has seen unprecedented

increase is primarily due to combustion of fossil fuels and urbanization of natural areas adding more heat trapping gases to the atmosphere causing global temperatures to increase, causing changes to the earth climatic systems, and -- resulting in more extreme weather conditions. that is on your website. >> that is on a unh study. i don't agree with it. >> but you haven't taken it off your website. >> because i disagree with it it shouldn't be on the website? >> you see what is happening at noa and other places where this research is being done? having your conversation with the president, what should the federal government be doing and saying about climate change? >> just generally speaking, the climate is changing, it is not the end of the world, it is not the catastrophe that folks have made it out to be. i spent my career doing this. i was the environmental

engineer. i went to m.i.t. let's take a step back. in 1986 when al gore went to the floor of the u.s. senate and if he said based on information in the early 2000's, half of florida will be underwater. that guy said that. we spent billions of dollars based on that nonsense. do you know how much the coastline of florida has changed? very little. >> there is sunny day flooding and sea level rises. >> how much is sealevel rise? >> not feet. >> two and a half millimeters per year. >> ok. >> officials are arguing we should spend billions of dollars we haven't lost any coastline over 40 years. al gore told us that population increases were going to make the earth barren by 2010 and it's not true. >> if you have a home on the coastline on -- or where the wildfires are and you try to buy

homeowners insurance or flood insurance, you can barely afford it. >> only in california. >> no. in a lot of seaside communities. >> everyone in the houses in new hampshire have good insurance. >> you are not in the bullseye. go to florida where the prices have gone up. >> you think the coastline is eroding in florida faster than new hampshire? >> actuaries at insurance companies have calculated the risks and they are charging for it. maybe they are price gouging. >> would you agree that the message driven by an extreme left on climate change in the 80's, 90's and 2000's, a lot of it has not come to fruition? >> you would have to tell me what message you are talking about. >> al gore said that half of florida would be underwater. >> extreme weather has increased. droughts and wildfires and heat have hit new records. extinctions are taking place in record numbers. ice loss is dramatic. >> i would argue the extreme

weather piece. florida had fewer hurricanes in the last 10 years than in the previous 50. >> what about the weather in tennessee, north carolina, the wildfires in california? there is now attributional science that connects these things. you can't say -- >> and the trillions of dollars that this planet has spent on it has made things better but not so much at the cost of other important things we should have been funding and prioritizing. >> we don't need to get into an argument about how serious it is. the question is -- >> but it is the fear mongering. >> and the fear mongering is wrong and the left has driven some of that. many of them say that we need to reframe this differently, fair enough. what i'm asking about is where do we go now because this administration seems to be saying or has said, the president has said it is a hoax

and this is a drill baby drill administration. >> climate change isn't a hoax but the green new deal is a disaster. a $10 trillion disaster. >> what is the green new deal? >> funding places like -- that go bankrupt within a couple of years. the giant solar project in arizona was funded 10 years ago that has now been completely shut down because the economics don't work. in new hampshire we designed -- i love the idea of offshore wind. i went gangbusters on designing and planning for offshore wind which i thought would be great. the cost doesn't make any sense. therefore we are not going to do it because it raises energy prices. the majority of green new deal and climate change initiatives, you see it on your energy bill. who gets hurt by the energy bill? most of us can handle it but an elderly couple on a fixed income can't and when their bill goes from $120 to $170, it is almost unpayable. why is it that if i'm bringing

hydropower from canada, if the plants are too big it is not considered renewable? don't tell me they are not gaming the system with massively high prices. do you know how much money environmental consultants make extending the stuff out, doing these studies? i'm not going to call it a scam but it is insanely expensive and the government doesn't pay, you do, your grandparents do, low income families have to pay it on their energy bill. you always have to say we are going to address climate change but let's do it through the lens of the ratepayer, those that have to pay the bill. that's it. understand there is give and take and the cost is a very serious issue and you have a country that is $36 trillion in debt. >> i want to say this before we move on. yes the cost is an issue and the country is in debt but let's think about how much taxpayer money over the years has gone to fossil fuel companies and let them drill and to support their

businesses and to appreciate the amount of money they put in. so when you talk about government money going in and let's say something else. if we are going to transition to another energy infrastructure, it's going to take massive amounts of time, money, investment, innovation. that's happening. some of it is owned by china because the chinese government is investing like crazy in solar panels and battery technologies. >> coal plants. >> yes, coal plants. >> 50 a year. >> i'm talking about the future and how competitor -- competitive america is going to be. >> do you think china cares about the climate of this planet? >> we should do this again just to talk about this but i want to go to something else which is congress and the republican party. in the world of checks and

balances, what role should congress have? >> a huge role. the role of congress, the presidency and the judiciary are key. a former president said this to me and he was spot on. the next president it is all about money and gerrymandering and he said governor, chill out. he said assholes come and go but america's institutions are strong. >> was he talking about anyone in particular? >> yeah. he had a thick texas accent. he said remember, this is the only country in the free world where our parliament, our congress is elected completely separate from the executive.

in most countries, parliament picks the prime minister. we don't. we keep our president completely separate from the legislative branch and we are one of the only places that does that for the purpose of checks and balances. we keep our judicial separate. folks get nominated or not based on politics, of course that happens in both sides and that is why the pendulum goes back and forth. the fact that we have that checks and balances and no other country has. the institutions are strong. we went through a civil war toward this country apart, but congress, the presidency, the judicial branch, federalism, the states having ultimate say in what happens, that stood strong. world war i, world war ii, we went through the civil rights movement where we saw america's greatest leaders and voices literally assassinated in front of our eyes. jfk, rfk, martin luther king jr.. people said the american experiment is over.

we had a right to panic. we stood strong and we came back from it. we went through 9/11. we went through a pandemic. the institutions fundamentally are there and sound. i would argue that we have other things that are infecting those institutions. like we need campaign finance reform, we need term limits, we should probably vote for anyone who doesn't agree with those two things. i think gerrymandering is a really hard one to put back in the bottle but that is one of the fundamental problems we have within congress. at its core, sometimes democrats run congress and sometimes republicans run it. it is a really good thing. it means at the end of the day, we swing back and forth, and if you want to get something done you have to cross the aisle. i think we have lost some of that but i believe our institutions are very sound, very strong and they will carry the day ultimately. we are going to go through some pain like we are right now.

paying off $36 trillion in debt is going to be really hard. there is no easy way to do it but you cannot ignore it. these buffoons have been ignoring it and you should be really angry about it. you want to dislike trump, i don't care, i'm not apologizing for them. but we were talking about this earlier. if barack obama was doing what trump was doing, and let's say he brought in george soros. as a republican, we would be thinking what is he doing? i'm trying my best -- >> so why are you saying that with elon musk? -- aren't you saying that with elon musk? >> i'm trying to take the personality out of it. i'm trying to look at what the purpose is of what they are doing. they are not doing it because they don't like democrats. democrats should say we have to cut something. today they put up that tweet where obama had a great speech at the beginning of his first

term were he said we are going to get rid of departments, we are going to be efficient, we are going to get this thing under control because our finances are out of control. they all talked a good game. these were smart people but they didn't have the congress and the right pieces in place to fulfill on it. someone has to pay. this is all about dollars and cents. don't get emotional. it is hard not to because we all take it personally. massive programs in my own state. there could be a lot of layoffs in new hampshire but at the end of the day if we don't get our finances under control -- this excerpt -- that is how the experiment ends. not because of congress and the presidency but because we ignore the cost of all of this. how much do we pay in interest this year? our budget right now is about $6.5 trillion. one trillion of dollars -- $1

trillion of that is just interest. in seven or eight years, 1.8 trillion dollars in interest. can you imagine what we could fund with medicare and medicaid and all of these other programs if we had just been smarter with our dollars 20 years ago? that is fundamentally what these guys are doing. we have to get our fiscal house in order today or in like eight years, what happens to social security? it goes bankrupt. medicare goes bankrupt. the interest rate goes to $1.8 trillion. our spending is still rising year-over-year. $36 trillion in total debt. this is a massive car crash of finances. they are trying to get some control over it, trying to do it hard and fast and they are saying congress, you better get your act together. i know it's not pleasant. why doesn't this happen in the states? we all have to live by --

>> i want to ask a question for the audience. the students in the room, how many of you think you may not have social security or it may not be around when you retire? >> that sucks. that sucks, that's awful. you should have social security when you retire. >> which means there have to be very hard decisions, but i'm going to come back to it because one of them was made by your dad and the president. they said we are going to raise taxes and there are going to be some surprises. i want to get to some audience questions but i want to ask you about the republican party and the changes in the party and where it stands. this administration has turned republican orthodoxy on its head. >> traditional. i am classic reagan republican. >> tariffs. reagan talked about immigration in glowing terms.

ethan, we talked to ethan earlier. a political science major. also happens to be the vice president of student government. he had an observation about people changing their policies and positions. let's roll that video. [video clip] >> changing their positions so quickly. with usaid, a lot of republicans have been tweeting about how important the program was just last year and how this year it is apparently fraudulent and full of scams and disrupting the american taxpayer dollar. >> whether it is usaid or anything else, what about what it means to be republican? >> to deal with the usaid thing, i think a lot of folks didn't know what they really did. they saw a couple of the key programs that are very beneficial and will likely stay under the department of state. they are opening their eyes to all of the programs that are

there that they didn't realize were there. there is so much spending and if you went through the list you would say i don't think we need to do that. there are a lot of things we do internationally on health. i think a lot of that will come back into play. they put the ebola money back in and the aids money back in and things like that. the get out the vote in somalia? we can fund that but maybe not the highest and best use for that $26 million. we didn't realize the stuff was in there because it was a because i government agency that did not have to report every line item. they are not changing position, they are becoming aware that some things need to be realigned. the question on the republican party changing positions, let's understand that donald trump is a lifelong democrat, he was until he was a republican. >> he was pro-choice. >> i am a pro-choice republican. he was a pro-choice democrat and now he is a pro-life republican.

i'm never going to try to explain why people change their positions. you have to be true to your values. i don't mind if people change their position, just explain it. i've changed my position on a few things. maybe i wanted this and then i cut back or maybe i had an idea and then i realized it is going to affect these older communities in a negative way so i will pull back. it's not so much changing position but maybe we need to be more measured about how we go about it, may be more strategic. i'm not going to justify congress. you want to talk changing positions? how about a democrat party that in 2009 one hillary clinton stood up and said if you are illegal and commit a crime, you are out of this country? never would have said defund the police, never would have set some of these extreme things and all of a sudden 15 years later, they are talking about defunding the police, open borders, everyone gets to stay. don't say the republicans are somehow guilty of changing

positions when the democrats, i would argue this, someone came to me in the media and said why do you think the country has gotten more conservative to let trump win? the country is not more conservative, the country is right where it's always been. trump won the race to be sure, handily, but it was really more of a loss by the democrats. there are democrats, working-class americans that were lifelong democrats that said we are done with this party, we are done being told -- i knew trump was going to win six months ago and it wasn't because i just hoped it, it's because i saw two key numbers no one wanted to talk about. he was step really going to get more african-american voters and more latino voters than any republican in history. came over. -- game over. if you do that and translate to what happens in places like atlanta, philadelphia, detroit,

you saw were all of swing states were going to go. the mainstream media didn't want to look at it and i said don't look at the national numbers. look at the subtext. the subtext of a conversation is working-class americans said to the democrat party, we are still the same hard-working americans but you have left us. i would argue and i think the proof is this election that democrat party changed their priorities, philosophy and far more than the republicans have. trump is trump, i get it, but in terms of a party and where are they now? the democrat party, it'll fix itself, it'll figure out who their leader is, what their priorities are. they are not getting there very quickly. why are trump's numbers going up? because americans say we might not like the guy, we might not like his style or approach but somebody in washington is finally doing something. >> just one correction. his numbers are fairly stable at

about 49%. the number that has gone up is the disapproval number in aggregate pulling, up about four points in three weeks. >> i'm reporting what cnn said which was that he had the highest net positive approval, maybe 10 days ago. his numbers are strong. >> not trying to nitpick because the numbers are very stable. >> if six months ago you saw what trump was going to do in his first month, would you believe he had such strong approval? you would say the whole world is going to go against him. >> there was an interesting piece in the wall street journal talking to swing voters and some are very much still with trump. a couple people they found said if i had known he was going to do this i would have voted for harris. i think this is worth watching over the next six months because it could be dynamic. i want to go to the audience questions. we've got something that came in

. if you would like to, raise your hand and we will get a microphone to you. i have a question from our president, who could not be here. she said, you have universities that have been in the spotlight of debates over higher education. as a governor, what are the benefits of having strong research universities in your state? your state as a governor. >> theoretically a lot of the research that comes out of universities, there are other businesses that will tie-in. we did a lot of research on bio regenerative medicine, growing hearts and lungs from your own dna. manchester, new hampshire is the heart of that in america and we are building a new factory, private industries to literally grow hearts, lungs and amazing things. that comes out of being near the research and that sort of thing. >> research money that comes from where? >> from the federal government,

sure. >> so if you were talking to trump, might you talk about that too? >> trump doesn't say -- this is where i think he has really missed the mark. he did not message this right. when we sign a contract with someone to do a federal contract, the contract says you can take 8% to 12% for overhead and profit. it is a limit to make sure no contractor in america can milk the system. it is supposed to limit that. the nih grants for every million dollars that goes in on average, only half a million gets put to the r&d. the other half goes to overhead and salaries. what they have said is you can have the nih grants but only 15% should go to overhead and salaries. shouldn't 800 $50,000 go to the r&d? that is what it should be. it is not designed to keep your staff employed, it is designed

for research into new medicine and technology. >> you have to keep the lights on. >> and 15% is enough. >> says who? >> all of the other contractors with the government that take the same amount. why should universities get 50%? >> a university -- he does not run laboratories. >> they have employees and lights to keep on. >> to they have laboratories to the extent that the research is being done? >> the 850 thousand dollars goes to the laboratory. it goes to the research, it does not go to the salaries. 15% goes. it is still more generous than the average government contract. all the nih changes are putting money to the research, not to the staff. >> the move to 15%, turned off the lights, made this research not possible. is that the outcome that you should want because you're a fiscal hawk?

>> if the move to 15% has that result, then congress can come back and revisit the rules. but the nih has just thrown out all of the other federal government rules and said we will play by our own rules and universities can spend as they want on staff. you can't. should we let everyone spend 50% on overhead? why are universities treated differently? everyone has to play by the same rules. if you want to change the rules, go to congress. make it 20% or 30%. but there is a process to do that. >> but arbitrarily this decision came down. >> it is not arbitrary because they are saying everyone plays by the same rules. >> it was arbitrary to go from whatever it was -- some of these contracts are negotiated at different levels. from whatever it was down to 15%, it actually stopped some of this research. >> that is not arbitrary. they are saying 15% is what is

defined in the rules and now you have to play by the same rules. >> after funding grants have been approved, so it is violating the contract. >> i agree with that. if funding grants have been approved, they should honor that. but the goal is to put the money in the research, not in the staff. why would anyone complain with that? the university might not like it but it is putting in the research to make this country better. >> we can invite people up to argue, is that staff is necessary to support the research. >> lee universities are using students for half of their staff -- let's remember universities are using students for half of their staff. i would argue that universities have cheaper staff than everyone else. maybe they should pay all of her students as much as they pay the experts. >> that'll help keep tuition down. >> don't get started with that.

universities have abused you guys in terms of tuition over the past 25 years. why has university tuition going up at three times the rate of inflation since 2000? no one has ever asked that question and gotten a straight answer. i no lie. government took over the loan process. everyone was able to get a loan, so there was -- so we kept building and building. who get screwed? you guys did. why does this university go up three times the inflation rate of any other business in america? explain that. ask your president. i've got kids getting ready to go to college and i am pretty piston about it -- i am pretty pissed about it. >> what people pay doesn't cost the -- doesn't cover the cost of the education to run. >> i would argue you have to restructure. at unh we set we are going to

cut up the fat and try to restructure our university staff contracts and make sure that we are getting what we pay for and if we have to cut a couple basket weaving classes we are going to do that. >> come on now. >> i don't think there are basket weavers here, but we are going to align -- i made sure we aligned our degrees with the workforce need as opposed to just what the university wanted to do, to make the process more efficient. unh had frozen tuition for eight years. >> in-state or for everyone? >> everybody. i don't know if you guys can say the same thing. it is really hard and you had to make some tough decisions but at the end of the day, you guys and your families have to pay. 27812, that is what my wife and i had to pay every single month.

we went to harvard and m.i.t. and we got off lucky compared to you guys. you are going to be paying the student loans forever, and it's wrong. when they say they are going to get rid of your student loans, right? that just makes the cost of the universities go up higher. there is no incentives for universities to drop the amount if they think the federal government is just going to pay off your loans. my biggest argument is this. you guys should be mad. i am mad as a parent. you guys should demand and ask these questions. i don't mean to throw gw under the bus. nyu, well over $100,000 a year. it was $20,000 a year 20 years ago. >> inflation does not measure the cost of running an

institution like this, the same thing with health care. >> why should this institution be different than a dairy queen or a business? >> we are not doing what dairy queen does which is make ice cream. >> but they have costs like you do. >> no they don't. let's go to other questions on the floor. do we have a microphone someplace? is 10 minutes ok everybody? ok. >> i'm from your state governor, and i'm curious to know -- you disagree a lot about government funding for certain local projects. to what extent should state government or federal government pay into local communities to stimulate economic growth. in my immunity, we have a boat ramp that has been broken for years and years. our select board has failed to fix it. linda tanner and concord and

your budget has failed to fix it, the state government has failed to fix it. to what extent does the buck stop and you stop the bleeding and stop the hurt? >> i literally know the boat ramp you are talking about. i'll disagree on one thing. we put the money into fix it. the locals couldn't decide how to do it. some wanted a boat ramp here, some wanted to rebuild the ramp here, some thought disturbing this boat ramp would affect the -- the funding was all there. we did a grant program, i'm going to make up him number, about 52 cities took advantage of the local grant program to rebuild boat ramps. they just couldn't get their act together and i'm not blaming them but there was a local battle issue going on. a lot of folks didn't want that boat ramp because they didn't want tourists from outside coming in because if he rebuild it, the public test has -- has

to have access to it. rich guys on the lake didn't want to have public access. i'm all for giving grants and we do that all the time, but the locals have to figure out how to do it and i think it is funny that you came from there because it is a great town but they could never quite figure it out. i did a program where we in local theaters. we rebuilt all of the local theaters during covid because we were basically open during covid. we had good guidelines and rules and invested our dollars into cities and towns. i think it is a hugely important effort. my key argument to what is happening in washington right now, federalism. washington is not in charge of the government, the states are. 50 states are and they should have the final say. if the government wants to give grants an opportunity, great. give it to california and let california do what they want. environment, infrastructure, education, whatever. it wasn't designed to be

everybody is the same. this isn't a democracy. it is a republic. democracy is the act of voting but a republic is where the states should have local control. i had republicans try to pass a bill after covid that said if you local school board does x y or z, the state will tell them they can't do that. it was mostly tearing apart these local liberal school boards. i said you can't do that. local control is paramount because that is where parents get involved. as soon as the state takes over and tells you you're doing it wrong, that is when the system breaks down. the best thing you can do is let locals fail. what i mean is this. it's like your kids. you learn by making mistakes, not by your parents quote, fixing everything their way. this is how you become better

and stronger and how the checks and balances work. sometimes if a local district does something, who knows best for what is in that local school? the governor or the parents and teachers? and then the voters? give them the control. sometimes it works, sometimes it won't. if something doesn't work, they can change faster at a local level. i'm all for giving those grants, pushing the cash down and letting them have control. some of them will do great, some won't. up here you have to have certain rules and regulations but new hampshire is fundamentally different for lots of little reasons. it's ok to let locals make mistakes because that is where the empowerment happens. the key to all of this is letting the individual have the control. government is not here to solve your problems. but to create opportunity. >> one of the interesting arguments around this is that

when you have local control like this, you can end up with very unequal outcomes. >> that's ok. >> unless you live in the state and say i'm a low income person or this person and over -- >> and you go to town meetings and vote on your taxes and change the funding scheme. >> you be able to change or not change locally. it's a very interesting philosophical conversation about what responsibility society has to address inequality. states rights, obviously was the argument that propelled slavery for years. >> slavery was around a long time before states rights. states rights cap that around longer. >> that is my point. we now have a patchwork of access to reproductive care based on state decisions. you can end up creating unequal, very unequal outcomes. >> but that's ok.

unequal is ok. there are fundamental human rights and all this sort of thing. government is here, for health and safety. beyond that you should question why government is involved. beyond that you should question why bigger government is involved. >> let me get back to another question. we have a very interesting one from lyle greenfield, an author who wrote a book called uniting the states of america, and i know him and we were talking and he said i have some questions and i said fire away. he made reference to the last guest we had which was governor spencer cox of utah. lyle asks, -- healthy conflict for a better policy wrote, there is an exhausted majority of americans who are discouraged by the ugliness of our politics today, the device of ness

undermines our success as a nation and undermines relationships with friends and family. we don't have to agree on every issue but we have to find a way to disagree better. since an initiative was put in play that you are aware of, have you seen any difference in the way your colleagues interact with each other or congress? >> i wouldn't say i have seen it be different since it was put in place, but all 50 governors pretty much, we are not like congress. i call kathy hochul and ask her for ideas. i pump at any number of governors. pritzker and i disagree on everything, but during covid, he and i were throwing ideas back and forth. he had some good ideas. governors work together very well. we disagree better all the time and i go back to what i started with. the more local you keep empowerment and the decisions, the better along everyone gets because i have to fight those

issues with my neighbor and i fight on the issue, not the personality. the more you go national, it becomes personality driven. i don't like trump or elon and therefore i don't like what they are doing. i don't like obama or whatever, so i don't like what they are doing. you have to have the courage and the empathy to take the personality out of the situation and say what are we getting at? i think obama did some really good things. i think biden was a very nice guy. horrible president. but a very sweet guy. i worked very hard to separate that out. i think at a local level, we do it and i think nationally, everyone wants to talk about national politics but there is no sense of accountability to that. >> let's go to another question on the floor. sarah, i will let you find somebody. >> one of the questions is, you keep talking about how

separating the person and what they believe. when you look back to january 6 and those types of things, how are you able to separate those actions from the actual person because i think about people who are so gung ho and so supportive of january 6, i can't associate myself with them because -- you talk about how separating that, how do you separate that from the person? >> before you answer that, can i ask one quick thing? let's tee up the next question. >> let's use january 6 as an example. a terrible day. the president had a lot to do in inciting that. i'm not even thinking about the personalities involved. i know that it was wrong and bad and a mistake. completely inappropriate.

i would just focus myself on the issue. maybe i'm a little different because i'm a governor. i have a responsibility, 220 cities and towns, all the people. i don't know your situation, i don't know your family's background, your business's problem. i'm not here to solve your problems. but what i can do is create as many doors as opera -- many doors of opportunity as possible. you find the door that fits you and your need and your family's need. too often, government says i'm going to do one-size-fits-all and education is a great example. you have to fit in this box. for 90% of the kids that's fine. for 2% it could be disasters. let those families have a little flexibility. i'm not trying to say i'm knuckling to consider your personality. i'm trying to say i know nothing about your story and it could be

tragic, it could have twists and turns. i don't know why you believe -- sometimes when i get an apolitical argument and i'm not buying it, i will say tell me more, i'm not there yet. explain to me why you are there. the more i know about your background, will now i have an apathetic understanding -- i have an empathetic understanding. i disagree what we should do but -- and by the way, i am a very flawed human being. i'm not perfect but i really try hard to enter these conversations with an empathetic ear. i believe a rising tide floats all those and we can get to that place of better disagreeing. >> do you have ethan fitzgerald? where are you? there you are. >> i welcome disagreement.

i disagree with my friends all the time whether it is just in personal interactions or policy. i think disagreement is a natural part of life and how you respond to it is important. i always try to listen and see the core issue when coming at something because when you bring in names like donald trump or joe biden or kamala harris, when you stick to those names and bigger ideas, it is kind of hard to have conversations where you feel like let's have a conversation about what is going wrong in the economy right now when you focus on those. at least in my conversations i have seen that you can make progress. >> the only problem with ethan is he is a political science degree. >> leave us with a roadmap. leave us with your sense of how we navigate what is an incredibly difficult time. >> i'm going to leave you -- how many palooka science degrees? how many want to go into public service?

here is the roadmap for you. i could talk globally but i want to talk more specific. the best public servants are those who don't run for office right away. you've got to have some real-world experience and i mean that very sincerely. i'm not saying -- work for a nonprofit, learn those soft skills. the soft skills of learning office politics, as insane as it can drive you is really important for the bigger issues in terms of how to build teams, approach challenges, learn how to lose because you will lose a lot in public service. you will not get what you want. you could be a social worker fighting hard for an abused kid and that judges sent them back with the abusive dad and it's when it drive you crazy. it will break your heart. it will. but if you just give up at that point because you haven't built soft skills in life, it is important to get a real job in some form. don't just jump into politics. i think i do the political thing

pretty well because i was an environmental engineer and then i bought and ran a business and i had 800 employees. my job was to make sure everyone of my employees could bring home a paycheck. when god doesn't give you snow and you have 800 employees depending on that paycheck but no one came to ski. >> back to climate change again. just saying. >> 150 inches of snow this year. you learn those types of struggles are really important to be the best you can be when it comes to public service. public service is wonderful but it is not a career. it is service. i've seen a lot of folks in public service burn out too hard, too fast. i did a little but to my family. it is brutal to families. it is noble, you should all do it that there is a path and a strategy to be long-term successful.

if you do that, a couple things happen. those polarizing individuals sometimes just jump into politics without really understanding what it's all about or what the bigger picture is. that is the best roadmap i want to leave people with in terms of getting along, disagreeing better. it's about making sure your personal path is the path that you want and you are setting yourself up for that long-term success. if we all do that i believe we can get there. it doesn't mean you're going to agree. i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, other than to have a strong cynicism of government. you should not by what we are shoveling. i mean that sincerely. that is why democracy isn't eroding. democracy is so strong because you have the final say. ultimately it is the voters that have the final say every single time. you might not get what you want, but the voters have the final say every time and that institution in itself, while it

might be as polarizing as it's ever been, it is actually as strong as it's ever been because the number of people that vote keep going up. participate in primaries. the more that participate in primaries, the less extreme it will get. don't get discouraged, set yourself up for long-term success. build a lot of soft skills to incorporate in your community. >> do you want to run for president someday? >> no. i did my eight years. >> are you done with politics? >> i might. i might do the media thing. i will public to the media thing to scratch the political itch. we will see how long that lasts. i don't feel the need to be the guy in charge. i worked with the biden administration and the trump administration. it was in my state's interest to do so.

i called the balls and strikes like i saw them. >> i want to thank you for your time. if you have a question, i'm sorry we could not come tomorrow on the floor. >> fascinating is the word. >> let me tell you what. it is hard to get a republican to come and speak publicly. >> i see why, i'm just getting. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> democracy. it isn't just an idea. it is a process, shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a

select few with guarding its basic principles. it is where debates unfold, decisions are made in the nation's course is charted. democracy in real-time. this is your government at work. this is c-span, giving you your democracy unfiltered. this afternoon, veterans affairs department officials and others will testify on electronic health record modernization efforts for the house veterans affairs subcommittee on technology modernization. watch live today at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now our free online video app or c-span.org. >> looking to contact your members of congress? c-span is making it easy for you with our 2025 congressional directory. get essential contact information for government officials in one place.

this compact guide contains contact information for every house and senate member. contact information on congressional committees, the president cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. the directory costs $32 95 cents plus shipping and handling and every purchase helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to preorder your copy today. >> becky pringle is the president of the national education association all natiol teachers. in about two hours, the senate health education and labor committee will hold a vote on whether to advance linda mcmahon's nomination. how would you vote? guest: i would vote no. host: why? guest: had the opportunity to be

in the hearing and i wanted to go so i can listen to her answers and she did nothing to a teachers and educators who work in the schools every day that she would protect them from the cuts that the trump administration is proposing and would do nothing for the most vulnerable citizens in the schools and 95% of them go to public schools and she would do nothing to protect their civil rights. all of those specific jobs that the federal government and education plays. i would say to you that it left a chilling effect on educators all around this country, scrambling about what they could and could not teach and whether the school lose funding because they were teaching it and thinking about how they would have to have even more gaps to

make up for gaps that we already have. i love the hearing not having confidence that she was qualified for the job and certainly that she would take care the most vulnerable kids. host: you talk about the because donald trump wants to make in the area and even talked about eliminate the department of education. in some of those hearings, linda mcmahon answering those questions, --[video clip] >> requiring the secretary of education to develop a plan for downsizing the department of education and work with congress to eliminate entirely yes or no, do you agree that since the department was created by congress it would need an act of congress to actually close the department of education? >> certainly president trump understands we would work with congress and we would like to do this right and make sure that we are presenting a plan that i

think senators could get on board with an congress could get on board with that would have a better functioning department of education but certainly does require congressional action. >> and in terms of the plans to downsize, what would be the components of that plan that would not require congressional approval? >> i do believe, senator, that there are treatment of education by statutes and those departments would have to pay particular attention to what long before, there was department of education, we fulfilled the programs of our educational system. other agencies or parts of the apartment of education could better serve its students and parents on the local level. and really all for the president's mission which is to return education to the states. i believe as he does that the best education is closest to the

child. >> if the department's downsize, would states and localities receive federal funding they currently receive? >> yes. it is not his goal to defund but to have it operate more efficiently. host: becky pringle, play out what you think would happen if the department of education is downsized and the ways they were discussing there. guest: we know that every level of government has a responsibility in the education of students, federal, state and localities as well. school boards, all of them play a role. if the u.s. department of education was downsized, we know there are vital services students wouldn't get. i was talking to a parent from virginia who was concerned because they depend on the services that the department of education provides for her student with special needs and

we know that the federal government, funding from the federal government supplies over 420,000 jobs so we don't get the jobs aren't there that class sizes are going to balloon and the one on one attention that students need won't be there in it will affect the most vulnerable students from those living in poverty, those with disabilities. host: in terms of what they department of education does, does the department of education get to tell individuals and districts what they should and shouldn't teach? guest: they don't. it is left up to the school districts who together with parents, educators, some school districts involve the students in making those determinations themselves. the federal government's role which was established really at the end of the civil rights legislation of the late 60's so

that it would play the job of ensuring every student has access and opportunity. we were linda mcmahon talking about going back to a time when the most a time when the students with disabilities didn't have access. there was a time when we didn't provide the additional resources. it was a time when and we don't want to go back to that. parents and educators across this country is not what they need, they needed more resources, not less. host: becky pringle is the president of the national education association. here are the phone lines, democrats (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002, and for teachers, (202) 748-8003 is the number. we will look for your calls in

this 45 minutes. brandon is a first out of venice florida, republican alina. good morning. -- republican line. good morning. caller: do not find it an issue that we are spending so much money on education and we are still ranked at the spot that we are? guest: there is a lot of conversation about the ranking of the u.s. and what we don't dig into is the reality that the scores that they are using and talking about do what they really have always done. they tell us that the students who have more resources do better. we as a country have to do better. you know that the federal government promised that it would fund special education at an amount of 40% and we haven't even gotten close to that, not even halfway goes to that. we know that in other countries,

they actually address the issues of equity and access to first so that they make sure those students who are coming to their schools are coming to their schools ready to learn and whatever gaps they may have because of social economic status, schools and the systems surrounding them are there to try to fill those gaps. host: on spending and numbers come in 2024 school year, the federal budget for the department of educati 220 $3 billion. there were 49 milliontudents in pre-k thrgh2 in this country last year, 3 million full-time equivalent teachers. the public school per student expenditures was $15,591 per student. each one of those 49 million sten. as for the national center for education statistics. in terms of where you think the budget is going, what can teachers and parents expect in a

2025-2026? guest: >> i have first-hand knowledge of the kinds of caps and what educators are saying is we need every social system in this country to make sure that this country helps to close those gaps so when the kiddos come to us for me, i'm focus on teaching them the laws of motion. are not focused on having that weight as a teacher on that

middle school or who has the responsibility of taking care of her younger kids like i did with sade. those kinds of issues that we need counselors, if we had these cuts, we know that if we have these quotes, we would have the mental health professionals. if we have these quotes, we won't have the afterschool programs that our students need to not just be ready to learn but to grow and to thrive. that is what i hear from educators all over the country. the very worried about their students not having what they need and the educators not having what they need to me those individual needs of our students. host: and this is russell. good morning. you are on with a key pringle. caller: hi, i want to thank becky pringle for taking the time to speak with everyone on c-span today. i have a question and stephen. senator ed markey last week asked linda mcmahon to commit to not cutting federal spending

to public schools. then asked her if she could commit to not using federal funding cut to the "from public schools to be used for tax bricks -- tax breaks for the respect house that not concerning for every saturday, republic in, democrat party, this should be a damning statement or a non-answer. i guess my question is, how is this not concerning for every senator both democrat and republican? thank you. guest: it should be concerning and it was senator markey who probably had the best line in the hearing where he called dose the department of gutting education. the color was exactly right. we are all concerned because linda mcmahon would not make that commitment that she does, but not quite fighting our kids. host: this is karen, a teacher in an stanco ohio. good mng