talking about it someone is talking about it. i will give you one example that the harris-walz campaign published their economic campaign. what struck me is that there are seven images of the candidates interacting with voters and not a singleit's impossible to imagt the other way around. a publication that did not singly future woman. i'm not suggesting it was deliberate but it's indicative of the fact that the democrats are so duggan -- dug in has being seen as the party of women. they have somehow made it impossible to talk about. the truth is these issues about boys in school, men's mental health, employment, these have been really worrying for years if not decades. i think it is time to wake up

and i think it's time to throw out the zero-sum. it is time to say we can think two things at once. if they are real problems in society and they're not being addressed they can turn into grievances. grievances can be weaponized. if we don't with these real problems for boys and men to turn into grievances, we must acknowledge and address them. it is the failure to acknowledge and address them i believe that has created this real difficult situation we are in now. the solution is to just straight for the address them. they are real and parents are seeing it. wives and sisters are seeing it. they do not want us to take it off the gas for women and girls. they just want us to pay attention to boys and men as well. host: we have a minute until the next event starts. daniel, independent. caller: good morning. good morning, richard.

when i heard the preview of your upcoming discussion i wasn't sure i was going to tune in. i was glad i did. i was an early -- a stay-at-home dad starting in 1985 with her firstborn while my spouse finished her graduate education. are you there? host: we are. we are running short on time so i went to get to your question. caller: i want to compliment you. culture has a lot to do. as a male who took on a domestic role for 13 years straight and worked full-time in a much more physically taxing job for a good portion of my career it is interesting seeing maleness through different prisms. i want to complement you on the

institute and the discussion. host: richard, final 60 seconds for you. guest: thank you. i'm glad you said i was a stay-at-home dad myself or a while. i will say i felt like as much of a provider during that period as other periods of my life because i was providing love care to my family and security to my wife as she was able to work. that is why we should have paid leave or adapt. thank you for that -- paid leave her dads. thank you for that. masculinity being straining or cramping is getting in the way. there are challenges for men for sure. there are also huge opportunities. if we can help ourselves through this difficult situation and readjust to the modern world there are opportunities for us to do things our parents could never have dreamt of doing. for example, more time with our kids. dads are so important. i'm delighted you could have that time as i was with my kids. it's a whole new world. let's end on a positive note. there are huge opportunities for

men to expand the role. host: the american institute for boys and men. richard reeves is the president of the institute. appreciate your time on the washington journal. guest: thanks, jon. host: we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we will bring you over to the atlantic council, a discussion underway on the future of international financial institutions. live coverage here on c-span. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> he is uniquely qualified to speak about the future of these institutions. he served as a member of the white house counsel of economic advisors and chief economist at the cea. his research has focused on exchange rate policy, capital flows and reserve holdings. it is no surprise in his speeches on international economics, including last year's annual meeting in marrakech and his speech on china's imbalances have become important markers of u.s. policy. no pressure for today, mr.

undersecretary. following his remarks, he will join the conversation with the chief economist, greg iff. first, mr. undersecretary, the floor is yours. [applause] undersec. shambaugh: thank you for your kind introduction and to the atlantic council for having me here today. as just mentioned, and 10 days we will have the entire international financial policymaking apparatus to send on washington for the world bank imf annual meetings. gatherings like these are on opportunity, a good reminder of various other times these types of policy makers have come together for a big cause. while economic policy can be a contentious space at times, allow me to start with something we can all agree on. it's important to remember your anniversary.

the anniversary i would like to remember today is of a particular gathering of previous ministers and financial policymakers. the anniversary of britain woulds -- brentonwoods. delegates represent 44 countries met at the mount washington hotel in bretton woods new hampshire to hash out the future of the global economy. this was a markedly bold. world war ii had another year to go. the nazis were in paris. yet, even as they were squarely focused on winning the war, the delegates understood without planning, without reimagining the global economy and the international system they wrist losing the peace. i would like to reflect on the importance of the institutions, the imf and world bank. how important they are to u.s. economic security. how they have lifted up the global economy and support american strength and prosperity since their founding and how they stepped up through crises of the past four years and how

we see their role driving growth and prosperity in the years to come. when u.s. policymakers created the institutions there was an altruistic motive to be sure. helping ensure robust global growth would be good for billions of people. that is still true. global growth has been the greatest anti-party program ever. as the world economy grew 250% in the last four decades, extreme poverty rates fell from over 40% of the population 210%. -- to hundred 10%. -- under 10%. by helping fight crises it would help generate a more stable world. the hope was to get help prevent the economic collapse that came in the decades after world war i that many believe contributed to the rise of fascism and the start of world war ii. a strong and stable global economy was seen as essential to a strong u.s. economy. the u.s. economy is the largest

in the world. it is broad and diverse and can provide many of its own needs, energy and food to mystically. even the u.s. economy is not an island. time and again the decades since bretton woods corroborated this intuition about the importance of the global economy for u.s. growth. it has tracked for gdp closely in the macroeconomic pattern reflects an existential imperative for u.s. businesses with significant exposure to global growth. this includes our largest firms with as much as 40% of all s&p 500 firms revenue derived from foreign markets in recent years. workers at these firms benefit from this exposure. jobs in export interest trees are shown to pay a -- industries are shown to pay a wage premium as high as 40%. it is not just trade or foreign investment that depends on what happens in the world.

our own investment levels are affected by global growth. they are strong -- is strong empirical evidence of follows and accelerator model, which is increases in investment depend on increases in the rate of economic growth. to the extent that u.s. firms depend on the rest of the world for much of the revenues, their investment levels will depend on what they see as potential growth abroad. the evidence does this affect of global growth on investment dynamics is significant. the u.s. is roughly 16% of the global economy in ppp terms. more at market exchange rates and contributed about 0.4 percentage points to real gdp growth in 2023. strength of the u.s. economy was an upside surprise last year. it helped drive global growth going forward. even in that circumstance we comprise less than 1/7 of total growth. i think about a quarter growth at market exchange rates. in addition over the next half-century the u.n. estimates virtually all population growth

will occur in countries that are currently low or middle income countries. it's essential the global economy generate jobs and incomes where people are living. we have come to understand viscerally how crises that begin by threatening economies overseas ultimately impact american workers, families and businesses. with covid-19, a viral break across the globe led to the sharpest drop in gdp since the great depression. it left many economy smaller than they would have been on their precrisis growth trends. particularly when compounded by the effects of russia's unlawful war against ukraine on global food and energy prices. without a strong rebound in growth we can simply be left poor going forward. it is essential we have institutions that are able to help deal with the global economy rebound one a slowdown strikes. obviously, global financial markets are linked as well. a shock and british bond market or yen borrowing or the failure

of the swiss bank have all reverberated through global markets in the last two years. financial crises with major global impacts have on nearly every continent over the last four decades at one time or another. while the global economy shows resilience, it also faces numerous challenges. there are geopolitical risks, changing demographics and slope productivity growth in many countries. the united states has seen productivity growth rebound, even slightly above its pre-covid rates. that is an atypical experience across richer countries. the biden-harrison ministers and has placed an emphasis on trying to recover from the covid recession rapidly, generating a return to prerecession trends faster than in previous recessions, and faster than other major economies. it has also emphasized growth over the medium-term. secretary yellen has referred to this policymaking is modern supply-side economics. focusing on ways in which

proactive government policy can boost long-run growth through investments, including in labor supply, human capital, public infrastructure, r&d and sustainability. the world also faces a challenge coming from china's current economic model. having a very large economy with such a high savings rate can because of spillovers unless the savings. china has been directing large sums towards investment and manufacturing despite already being over 30% of global manufacturing. there appears to be a lack of domestic demand driving growth, potentially leading to a reliance on exports for growth. a very large economy going above the global growth rate based on exports is both unlikely to succeed and likely to cause spill over to others. by focusing on manufacturing, market tools and subsidies, despite the outsized role, this means china may be close on what has been a typical development path to many other economy --

countries. low-cost manufacturing is the next stage of their development. by channeling the savings to particular sectors this increases the likelihood of overcapacity of spillovers throughout the countries. it is critical for use all the tools we have to combat forces that might be pushing the economy towards slower growth. global economic growth and stability are essential to our economic security and the bretton woods institutions played an important role supporting these since their inception. the imf has earned the moniker of the world's financial firefighter. stepping into offer financing and policy advice to countries in times of economic crises. it's easy to look back and debate the front's successes -- fund's successes or missteps but there would be a vacuum and its absence. if it did not exist, we will wind up reading something very similar to it right now. it is worth recognizing how an

institution charged with maintaining exchange rates has evolved to respond to generation defining event. beyond these global shocks the fund has stepped into help individual member countries at pivotal times as they emerge from conflict or look to respond to economic downturns and instability or other shocks. similarly, the world bank initially established to support postwar reconstruction has evolved to become an essential partner for countries. his international bank construction and development is a key provider of financing and policy advice and technical assistance to middle income countries across the globe. ida is the largest source of critical financing and grants for low-income countries, including those affected by fragility and conflict. often working complementary with the imf, the world bank is a key purveyor of policy advice and technical assistance to help reduce poverty and advance sustainable and inclusive development. world bank funding and support is translated into material

quality-of-life improvements for billions of people across the globe with just those projects currently underway the bank yielding improved educational jobs outcomes for 280 million people, stronger food and nutrition security for 156 million, and more inclusive access to electricity for 100 million to name a few of the effects. their advice is likely just as important. the finance minister said to me, i need the financing. it is the most important thing. i need to know where to spend the money and how to grow. although they are not officially bretton woods institutions, the regional development banks primarily founded in the 1950's and 1960's have become critical sister institutions of the world bank and imf, complement and deepening the impact of the bretton woods systems. the importance of the ifi to u.s. interests and economy continues today. there are those who suggested the u.s. withdraw from these institutions. this will be a step backwards for our economic security. without u.s. leadership at the

ifi's we would weaken the institutions. we cannot afford to do that. considering how they sprung into action during the two crises that have defined the global economy in the past four years, covid-19 and russia's criminal were on ukraine. without the urgent work of the ifi's and responding to the pandemic and preparing for future ones, i'm certain the outcomes of covid-19 pandemic would have been much more terrible and the economic aftershocks even worse. the world bank made over 275 billion dollars in new commitments between mid-2024, with more than half of those going to the poorest countries in the form of highly concessional loans or grants. as part of the effort the bank made available $10 billion specifically for the purpose of getting vaccines to those who needed them. the urgent work of the world bank also drew attention to the need to establish a permanent body that could respond to the world's health crises the way

financial authorities responded global financial crises. with our partners in italy and indonesia and elsewhere we entered that call by the pandemic fund. today it has approved over $450 million in funding to more than 40 countries. the imf's poverty reduction and growth trust, which lends to the world's poorest has provided over $30 billion and zero interest rate loans to 50 countries over the past four years alone. this funding helps stabilize vulnerable countries as a global economy was grinding to a halt due to the pandemic and as inflation and adjust rates despite following russia's invasion of ukraine. the prgt nature as other creditors withdrew from the developing world and private creditors pulled out, the imf was it helpful to financing pressures for developing economies would have been much worse after the extra nearing financing support of the ifi's since the pandemic. from 2020 to 20 the support accounted for nearly 60% of the

net debt inflows to developing economies. earlier this year, congress authorized us to land the prgt at little cost to taxpayers to help this critical work continue in the years ahead. the imf innovated in the last four years, creating the resilience and sustainability trust to help countries deal with payment shocks from long-term challenges such as climate change and the pandemic preparedness. we are encouraged the imf, world bank and who announced principles of cooperation for supporting country are sf programs for pandemic preparedness. we look forward to them operationalizing these quickly. the imf created a temporary food shock window in the wake of russia's invasion of ukraine and subsequent spike in food insecurity around the globe. these institutions play an essential role that world governments on their own cannot fill in a timely way. another essential innovation of these institutions in the last

four years has come from the evolution agenda to make the world's leading providers of development, finance bigger and better. in just two years there has been substantial progress. the world bank has declared a new mission eliminating a stream poverty and boosting share prosperity on a livable planet. mdb's have been hard at work every form to incentives and operations and financial capacity. the g20 recently estimated reforms already identified could enable over $350 billion more in additional lending over the next decade across the mdb system. there's much to be done, particularly in creating institutional incentives for realizing the banks updated missions and improving prevention preparedness and response, dressing fragility and conflict and boosting private capital mobilization among other priorities.

another important change in the international financial architecture is in the form of a new way of handling debt restructuring. a common framework launched by the g20 in november of 2020 is intended to be a method to bring together creditors across a range of official bilateral and other creditors to finalize debt restructuring for low income countries. the process has been frustratingly slow, especially at the start. extensive efforts have continued to work on the technical details of the debt restructurings to make the process more transparent and swift. from our perspective it would be helpful to have even more exquisite -- timelines and procedures and debt service suspension during negotiations to avoid having delays lead to growing burdens. the world bank and imf played important role in anchoring the process with their sustainability analysis as well as with providing crucial financial support to countries going through a restructuring.

as noted above, there are many risks to global growth going forward as countries look to chart paths. it will be important for the world bank and imf to provide critical advice to countries about how they can navigate the near-term but also how they can take steps they need to boost their long-run potential. the imf and world bank will also need to provide policy surveillance and advice to address spillover from china's economic policies. an urgent issue with the treasury department have been working with our partners to address is the financing challenges faced by low and middle income countries. we see this work is being urgent. there are pressing need for investment in these countries to support sustainable development. recently funds have been flowing out of and not towards far too many countries. low income countries average annual spending his jump from 20 billion between 2010 and 2020 two around six $2 billion today. -- $60 billion today. as some face possible repayments, they and the global debt architecture may be put

under significant strength. that's what we think it's critical for the international community to establish new pathway to sustainable growth, a process for managing liquidity pressures as they arise. to be clear, if a country needs to restructure its debt, it should. but for the countries that are struggling under temporary financing challenges but for whom debt is sustainable over time, we are working with partners in the international financial institutions to find a better path. if you're a country committed to sustainable development and willing to engage with the imf and mdb's two unlock financing alongside significant reforms, there needs to be a financing package from bilateral and multilateral and private sources to bridge liquidity needs in a way that is supportive of your sustainable long-run development. some creditors may provide present value neutral repo filings. others may provide liquidity support. we can also use many tools in the mdb's for the bilateral

developing financial institutions to incur the -- encourage the private sector to stay on sustainable terms. that's important for countries to step up with their financing by mobilizing thomistic resources as well. this is where the world bank and imf can help in important ways with technical assistance and technical assistance coming from many countries, including treasury's office of technical assistance. it will require innovation at the ifi's. it's encouraging these institutions have been thinking through these topics lately and putting up papers and blog post on the ideas. the meetings represent a real opportunity to make concrete progress. it's important for countries to have a better understanding of the tools that exist to help them through liquidity challenges, essentially a decision tree that lets countries and creditors understand what is available to countries under different conditions. the ifi's need to design programs in ways that avoid having temporary fiscal adjustments lead to permanent harm due to cuts in

important investments. they need to be clear about what investments need to be protected and they need to be confident the international financial system will step up and provide the required funding. it's important for the imf to emphasize when financing is needed from creditors to smooth through a temporary financing challenge, even when debt is sustainable. creditors need to do their part, but in today's complex sovereign debt landscape the imf plays a critical role of guide and sometimes referee and air traffic controller. the world bank, other mdb's and imf need to use their new financing headroom to aggressively but responsibly support countries. the responsibly will also fall to shareholders of these institutions to support them. many countries, including the united states, need to finalize domestic passage of the 16th general review of quotas that was the laugh resources on a more durable footing. the imf and shareholders must also come together to return the prgt subsidy account to a self

sustaining model and utilizing the earned income of the imf about what is needed for precautionary balances present a real opportunity to make sure low income countries have access to critical financing when they need it. at the world bank, countries need to follow through on commitments to boost the concessional lending capacity of the bank. this fall, a crucial task is securing a robust and impactful replenishment of ida, the financing arm for low income countries. the challenges of the last few years have put tremendous pressure on ida's borrowers. they have scaled up disbursements by over 70% over the last four years and providing nearly $20 billion in financing flows in the last couple of years. it will take both donors stepping up and financial creativity to optimize the balance sheet and make sure we can deliver on this important goal. the united states benefits immensely from growth abroad. we have an array of tools we use from usaid's support and

programs to investments to the money challenge corporation's large grants to state department gauge meant and technical assistance from treasury and other agencies that help propel the growth. please multilateral settings like the g7 and the g20 to work with other countries to navigate crises and support policies that drive growth over time. we also help propel world economic growth through our trade and investment, relationships with other countries and pursuing strong economic policies in the united states as well. the institutions created 80 years ago at the meeting in the mountains of new hampshire remain essential to the mission of seeing living standards rise around the world. these institutions cost the united states very little in budgetary terms, especially relative to spending on defense or other global spending. yet they deliver immense value to the united states and the world. one reason they are still so relevant is there constant reinvention or evolution of

these institutions. they made important strides in the last four years and now we need to continue to challenge them and ourselves to create a better international financial architecture going forward. thank you. [applause] greg: thank you very much for coming and for those remarks. incredibly helpful. thank you everybody for coming here. before i start we will be -- they will be an opportunity to ask questions later on. if you go to askac.org, there is a place to file questions and i can see them here and we will see we can find some time to get to them. let me start with the basic question. is the 80th anniversary of the imf and world bank. not everybody thinks they are a

great idea. project 2025, which represent some of the views of people associated with former president donald trump has called for the u.s. to withdraw from the imf. they say it's an organization that lends to countries whose policies are immutable to ours. advice is raise taxes. what is the key to the organizations? why is it important we be part of these organizations? undersec. shambaugh: answer that question and thanks for having this conversation. i will just say as an official, i will not comment on anything near electoral politics. i will say to the extent over the last few decades we do occasionally see people, whether columnist or think tanks or politicians say we don't need these organizations anymore and we are better off without them. i would say i think the evidence suggests that is entirely inaccurate. if you look, as i noted, that crisis after crisis there is simply no way the united states

can suddenly on the fly marshall a bunch of other countries to help us respond to these crises. you need these institutions to do what they are doing. the other thing is across a whole range of countries around the world where we would like to see the countries doing well, like to see them having robust and good growth that is good for them obviously and good for us in terms of our exports, good for us in terms of reducing immigration in some cases where you don't want people fleeing their country at panic because of a crisis or things like that. i think it is clear having organizations that can go and work in countries to support them with money on the one hand but crucially with advice and conditions on the other to drive them towards better growth. you look at the imf. no one else can do with a do in terms of on the one hand providing money but on the other hand policy advice and direction to bring countries in the direction they are. without ida i don't think we can

imagine how much worse off the poorest countries would be, that the world bank lending to keep countries -- key countries we would struggle. it is not just that they are essential to the world. they give us an incredible tool in american foreign policy and economic policy that we have key leadership roles in these institutions. we are the largest shareholder. we can help make sure they are driving the global economy in a way we think makes sense. from my perspective they really are the essential institutions we have to work with. greg: there have been times on the u.s. and treasury have disagreed. how do they resolve them? undersec. shambaugh: i don't think any multilateral setting comes out your way all the time. i want to be clear. i'm not saying we agree with everything the imf world bank has ever done. i think there are times we are relatively pointed in our comments around that. i think a year ago i gave a

speech at the end of a were i was trying to push the imf on a number of things. the assistant secretary give a speech pickup of weeks ago that was encouraging the imf in a particular direction. secretary yellen laid out the call for mdb evolution because we needed to see them change. and do something different i don't want to say these are perfect places. on the other hand i think what we do try to challenge them and in particular when we challenge them along with ourselves we are able to help drive change. the mdb evolution process is a great example. we marshaled allies and brought them together and pushed at the board and pushed with management. our dave long is a terrific president and taken of this charge and has -- rj bong has

done a terrific -- is a terrific president and taken charge of this. greg: as you say in your remarks the world has changed in the last 80 years. he was conceived to help the exchange rates, limit international capital flows and he was there to essentially police balance of payments and someone. we get into the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's. a lot of the job was helping countries developing work through debt crises. as recently as 2009 with respect to greece they had that role. is that -- has that changed? are the debt crises of old like the debt crisis of today? do they have to adjust their approach to recognize that fact? undersec. shambaugh: i think they do and i think they are to some extent. one of the biggest differences, the creditors are different. they created a club.

it was kind of easy. the imf could call the paris club and say we need to work this out. the creditor landscape is more complicated now. china is a major lender but not just china. there is india, saudi arabia, other countries. the landscape is more complicated. private credit plays a huge role . i think there was a realization we needed a better way to do that and that's what it's intended to be. it's been frustratingly slow. there has been a lot of work to try to improve it. sequentially the countries that have entered or recently have been moving through faster and that's important to keep improving. what we have argued in the speech is there needs to be something beyond that. we cannot look at financing challenges or issues with debt strictly from a restructuring debt crisis perspective. we have to think about the fact

that for a wide swath of countries the net flows are negative. poor countries are sending more money out then is coming in. any economist will tell you that is backwards. that does not make sense to us. we need to try to take steps that will shift that. what we are seeing is countries who barred money five or eight years ago, assuming they could refinance as they do, they find whether it is bilateral creditors, sometimes china for the private sector through bonds not interested in re-extending credit necessarily. that is a problem. this is what we called for changes on. resid by nolan senate president ruto called attention to the nairobi-washington vision. the world bank and imf are recognizing this and this is a real opportunity for them to put forward how they are thinking about this. they talked about a three pillar approach to change how we deal with this.

greg: i want to drill down on common framework. the journalistic narrative has been a division between china and the rest of the g20 on how to approach this. probably because of their financing system. they are not simply going through concessional money facilities. some are commercial banks. at times i have taken the view that if they were to take a haircut, the world bank should as well. talk about how -- the unusual nature of china's creditor positioned on the katy net. what progress have you made -- complicating that. what progress have you made try to resolve that? that is one of the reasons why common framework has been slower than folks hope to make progress. undersec. shambaugh: it is fair to say china figure out how it wanted to approach that restructuring was something that took some time to work through. i think when we try to be fair, especially when i talked to the

terrific longtime civil servants at the treasury department, they talk about how when we were first going through debt restructuring it took time to figure out procedurally how to do it and things of that. we have gone through that. we largely got out of the business of extending loans to poor countries. we do grants now. we have loaned very little money to sub-saharan africa in the last five years but i think we have done through grants almost $70 billion to those countries. we think it would be better if more countries were doing it in that way. on the other hand, with regards to china, china's initial view was we are taking haircuts and everyone else should, too. this is somewhere were dialogue did help. they said back in the 1980's and 1990's you did thing where the mdb's took haircuts, why can't we do that? to be clear, when that happens we took 100% haircuts. we wrote everything off. do you want to do that first? no

. it took some work. this is why it's different. the mdb's are not just collect the money back. the net flows are always positive. it is new grandson new money to keep the countries alive. it's a different business model where they are taking a haircut. they are lending at a loss to begin with. working through that with the chinese helped us get to a place where they could see what type of terms that could cut deals on. a lot was technical stuff around what is it me to have comparable treatment across creditors when you make different kinds of loans. this is somewhere where technical details of working through the details actually did matter. what we are hoping is we can continue to improve on that. greg: let's stick with the china question. this is something you have been given time and thought and travel to. you want to china last month and repeated some of the concerns secretary yellen made.

effectively their industrial policies and excess production or having severe negative spillovers to the rest of the world. how serious is the problem? does it impair the admin attrition's efforts to -- administration's efforts to revive manufacturing in certain sectors? undersec. shambaugh: there's a real risk of spillover. not just us but across the world. that is one reason you have seen the concerns and policy responses not just from us but from a whole range of countries, whether it is europe talking about countervailing duties on electric vehicles. you have seen india talk about solar panels. brazil. turkey. there's lots of countries that are taking action because they are worried about what china's policies are doing. our concern is they have this huge amount of savings. there was a stretch of time they ran surpluses when they were a smaller country. there was a lot of pressure on them that was not ok.

they did quit running them for a while and channeled the money into the property sector and infrastructure. both have effectively played out. what we are seeing is massive channeling of money towards manufacturing. they are already 30% of global manufacturing. you can't grow at a massive right when you start from 30% of the world without displacing not just us but lots of countries. i think that is a conversation we have been trying to have. one of the things going back to when i was there in february, when secretary yellen was there in april she pushed very hard on the notion that you have agency. it is your policy choices. if we take action it will be defensive. you need to recognize that and not view it as anti-china if a bunch of countries are doing this. we are not ganging up on you. we are responding to something you are doing. greg: you saw the stemless measures the chinese authorities have mentioned in the monetary field but also in the fiscal field. what is your impression of it so

far? will discuss some ways to resolving the concerns you have? undersec. shambaugh: thus far i'm encouraged by some of the statement about intent. going back to july, the politburo came out with a statement saying we need more to mystic demand. this is benoit coeure point. we need more domestic demand. finally in the last 30 weeks -- three weeks they started a whole group of announcements to try to drive growth. as you noted, it's been more on the monetary side and not as much on the fiscal. they probably need more direct actions to lift domestic man with fiscal policy in a temporary sense but also in a more structural sense. trying to shift more money to household and consumption and not excessively rely on exports and investment. greg: heavy rather work of michael pettis? -- have you read the work of michael pettis?

he came out with a report and i was privileged to hear him presented a week ago. he said, "global surpluses and deficits have to sum to zero." you cannot talk about it in isolation from other countries like china. "in the current global trading system the purpose of export is not to maximize the value of imports but to externalize the consequences of suppressed domestic demand." are you familiar with this theory? undersec. shambaugh: i'm familiar with michael's work. i did read that but i don't know if i thought about as much but that a particular. i don't know if the word purpose. the impact of exports maybe. i think his point i have always agreed with and something that a number of economists -- i'm an international macroeconomists.

i come from the same direction as michael to say that at the end of the day we often talk about trade. it is the fun of it macro imbalances that are driving things -- fundamental macroimbalances that are driving things. this been an incredibly high savings rate and low levels of household consumption. when china was a small economy and growing 30 years ago, maybe that has spillovers to the world but they are smaller. china is not small anymore. it is the second largest economy in the world, a really important economy to the globe. when it has policy shifts they affect everybody else, in particular if it doesn't have a enough to mystic demand. that is where i find myself in line with the types of things michael has talked about. it is important to see major economies driving up demand internally or relying on some deals for that demand. greg: let's talk about how the imf sees it.

the research staff led by their research chief economist wrote the contribution of the chinese savings shock to the u.s. deficit is small. so is the effect of the u.s. shock to china stimulus. external surpluses and deficits in the u.s. and china are mostly homegrown. undersec. shambaugh: i think the fundamental point your own macro in balances drive your external imbalances is true. where we have tried to make an emphasis is what we have been concerned with. secretary yellen tried to drive this home. you can have concerns about the macro imbalance. what we have seen in china is directing the excess savings towards a particular sector. you get even bigger spillovers. if you say you are going to flood the world with products in a narrow set of sectors, manufacturing writ large but especially some part, if your firms are being supported in

ways they can lose money for five years on end, my firms can't. my firms all go out of business. to get these huge spillovers to other countries. i think that is where, yes, our own domestic policies have a big impact on current account imbalances. what they mean and how they get channeled can have a lot to do with domestic policies. i think china's subsidies and their nonmarket policies and practices have really had big impacts on the u.s. and other countries. greg: i will push you on part of the discussion, the imf specifically. the imf was founded to police balance payments of different countries. it's a different world of free capital flow and effectively change rates so the mission changes. there is a thought that that has -- they have grown a lot. they have lost sight of that. brett on the council formulations made this critique. when he looks at china it

basically says -- his view is that -- you know the joke it is mostly fiscal. they dwelt to northerly fiscal balance and not on external imbalance. they look at china. their advice is ease monetary policy and titan fiscal policy. even though the external consequence of such a company desk nomination is clear. it will aggravate -- such a combination is clear. it will aggravate the spillover effects. address specifically -- greg: has the imf lost sight of its core mission? undersec. shambaugh: i don't know if it has lost sight of its mission. in some countries in crisis they are going in and it is mostly fiscal for those countries. in the surveillance role, especially of major economies, keeping a clear focus on external imbalances and what is driving the external imbalances is a key role of the imf and i would like to see even more

attention there. i would say in the imf's article iv where the evaluate economies, on china they did not put a big business on china's industrial policy and nonmarket policies and practices and said these are having big spillovers. i think that was important. that's important for that to come from the imf. we can say it but it came from the imf. what i would like to see them pay more attention to is the aggregate external balance. in part because during covid the china and balance got much lower. it made them say the current account surplus is less than 3% all is well. i think we are seeing risks of them relying on export-led growth in a way that for a large country could have big spillovers. that does require more attention. greg: would you like to see external sustainability becomes a more important part of the imf's monitoring framework? undersec. shambaugh: he needs to be an important part.

the fund has an annual external balance surveillance report. i think trying to make sure that is really focused on with the big countries are doing to the rest of the world would be important. greg: i will quote from a blog post. a nonresident senior fellow at the linda council -- atlantic council. "the imf is either climate nor develop an institution, nor a fund for geopolitically convenient bailouts." what is your reaction to that? undersec. shambaugh: i think a year ago i did a speech about the imf and i certainly had some lines that the imf needs to stick to its core mission. i don't think that means it has nothing to do with climate. i believe very strongly that climate has serious macro and financial impacts. it makes sense the imf is thinking about it. in particular, countries trying

to adjust to climate has big macro impact for them. it becomes macro critical and therefore the imf needs to deal with that in that way. it is why they created the resilience and sustainability trust. when you hear people say things like that what they are worried about his the imf is my detritus stack itself up with a maximum number of climate scientists and program people. i agree, that is not what you need the imf to do. they need to focus on the macro side of this. i think in the last year or so they have done important work of partners with the world bank the kind of figure out how we divide this up. the world bank should be doing the program and the climate evaluation site. the imf need to think about the implications and they can work together. they are across the street but sometimes that seems large. lately they have tried to narrow the gap. greg: there's a question here. this person asks -- is there

room for coronation with other countries that are also concerned about the surgeon chinese exports? -- surge in chinese exports? is there a case to be a more coordinated way? undersec. shambaugh: it has not been entirely ad hoc. we all talk. the g7 get-together come the g20 get together. i meet with lots of people from lots of countries. not surprisingly, how are china's policy spilling over towards you as major topic of conversation. there are challenges sometimes because every country has different tools, trade tools and different laws and how to apply them. we might not do exactly the same thing in executive same way. as we are talking about what we need, and i think what is crucial as we are talking to china and a similar way to find them. this is what we are talking

about. when they hear it -- they hear us. one of the great things about having janet yellen as my boss is of very highly economist -- respected economist and they take her seriously. she can meet with the premier of china and talk to him directly on these issues. it is helpful as they are also hearing from other countries. greg: it is certainly one of the policy responses in the u.s. and other countries. prior to this year's concerns is taking measures to try to impose tariffs, provide domestic subsidies for countries we think are important. this has been met by the imf and others with concerns it is leading and breaking on the global world trading system. they talked about jew fragmentation. migrating to the geo clinical ally blocks. this is damaging to the welfare of the world, especially the

poorest countries. is economic fragmentation a problem? undersec. shambaugh: when they describe it as a theoretical risk i have no problem with that. sure, lots of things are theoretical risks. we should be worried about all the ones that could be big. i don't think there's a great amount of evidence this is driving things a lot. i don't think there is evidence back to the poorest countries. what you see his attempts by the united states to diversify its trading relationships. secretary on talked about friend-shoring. we have lots of friends. this does not mean a handful of countries. it is a lot of countries. we are talking about diversification. it is not bad to see production locate out of china. i think that's a part of natural economics. china is getting richer.

it is not the last stop on the production chain anymore. the same happened with japan. instead of exported to us they were doing a lot of the work and exporting to the newly industrialized countries of asia to do the last turn of the screw. you can see the trading relationship shift in some ways. i don't think we should over interpret that. i think both united states and china had it in statement to put together, we talk about a lot. we are not interested in decoupling our economies. i think decoupling would be bad for the world economy. i'm happy to agree with that statement. it would be bad for the world economy. it would also be entirely impractical. we are not trying to do that but we are trying to say we thinking critical industries we are not comfortable importing 100% of what we need from one country, especially when sometimes it is like one province and one court in one country. i think we have learned both from geopolitical shocks and

supply chain issues during covid that is not a variable structure structured supply chain. you would like to see more diversification. i don't think it is bad for the rest of the world. greg: what are the u.s. peyote for the 16th quarter review? capital subscription. there's is a consensus they need more capital. there's been an inability to come to a consensus on how the capitals provided and allocated. bring us up-to-date on where that stance. undersec. shambaugh: we got to an agreement on this to do a proportional increase in capital. we will go up by 15%. all of us. we will have the same shares. i think that was a hard fought battle to get to but i think everyone realizes it's important to put the imf on a more durable financial footing. the imf is relying on tools like

borrowing arrangements mother countries or things like that that we thought it would be useful to get away from a get back to pure capital. that has been agreed. the u.s. congress needs to pass to mastic law that says we are bringing this into force. a lot of other countries need to do it also. it's a crucial thing. the deal that was cut is a good thing for us. it preserves our role at the imf which is the leading shareholder in a critical role. we really should pass that as soon as we can. greg: a question from michael, university of morocco. let's look at the global south. can you respond to resentment about underrepresentation in the ifi decision-making process? undersec. shambaugh: i think the ifi landscape is a broad one and i think it is hard to sum it up into one situation. there are some ifi's that have

leaders from one country and others mother countries. people are talking about the bretton woods institutions, we tried to take a lot of steps to make sure there is representation. one of the things the u.s. champion year ago and annual meetings and taking steps to finalize is to have a 25th board chair. there were only 24. we thought there needed to be one more because we thought sub-saharan africa needed more representation. we pushed with the allies including africa to say let's get another seat at the board for sub-saharan africa. i think we are trying to listen were countries are saying they need things and try to adjust. greg: i feel like i spent too much time on the imf another world bank. you talked about multilateral development banks could unlock resources.

one of the priorities of the new president was to find ways to look at the banks and accurate --equity ratios. how much further do we have to go? undersec. shambaugh: it is not just the world bank. it is the system as a whole. there was a report called the capital adequacy framework report to push on these ideas. we have been pushing that through the evolution process. if i recall, the bank has unlocked about $70 billion so far. this is measured over 10 years of lending with another $70 billion. they are not necessarily passing them yet. other banks have done more. the system as a whole has about $350 billion that it has or is

unlocking. they are making great process. that evolvement bank turned out when he looked at their balance sheet have a lot of room to be more ambitious and up to around $100 billion of that $350 billion. it's in the process of doing so. one part of this is unlock the balance sheet. the next part is you have to use it. that is the second step, making sure these institutions are no bull enough and operations models our work -- nimble enough and operations models work to get the money to countries who need it. greg: you can't expect to escape without a question about the dollar. president trump the future the dollar would end if vice president harris is elected. how do you see the role of the dollar and the long-term reserve currency question? how do you view the international role of the dollar? are you concerned it is

exceeding its role to other currencies? undersec. shambaugh: i'm not counting -- commenting on the first part. what i would say is i think the role of the dollar has always been under question. people wonder is this change going to mean something to the dollar? what we know is that at the end of the day is a combination of financial markets being liquid and deep and well-run, the role of law, legal and regulatory framework and governance structures of the financial institutions. those of the fund middle things that support the role of the dollar. they make the dollar's role good for us. we have a natural interest in maintaining it but makes a good for other countries. you have strong anti-money laundering and counterfeiting and terrorism rules in place. strong transparency rules in place that make the system work better. i think people wonder any

there's a geopolitical or economic shift what is that mean for the dollar. i don't think i am seeing the dollar under siege in any way or anything like that. i see the dollar maintaining the very important role in the global economy that benefits us and others. greg: is the dollar to strong? undersec. shambaugh: i can't answer. you would have to ask my boss. greg: when we get her up here i would ask that. excellent insights and answers. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [crowd talking]

>> coming up, vice president of nominee governor tim walz will be it is his third solo visit to the state since joining the harris-walls ticket following stops last month. we will have live coverage when this gets underway here on c-span. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> these are the headlines central florida residents are waking up to from the tampa bay times. at least 16 are dead after storms make landfall. milton's misery. also this morning from the sarasota herald review, landfall, trail of destruction but the tampa area over the storm surge. yesterday president biden was updating americans about the federal response. this is what the president had to say. >> we assess pressing needs.

thank you for your professionalism, your dedication. this is a whole of government effort. the department of housing and urban development. as directed, fema has opened disaster recovery centers right away so there is one stop where residents can go to learn about the support they might need. 3 million people are without power. power line workers have come to restore power across the state.

in addition, they have authorized florida power and light to fly large drones before other manned aircraft can get up into the sky to quickly assess damage on the ground so ground crews can restore power as quickly as possible. the coast guard and army corps of engineers are assessing how fast they can reopen the port of tampa to get basic goods flowing into the area again quickly. >> that was president biden on the federal response to the hurricane. yesterday, former president donald trump was in detroit. he praised the response by the republican governors. >> before we begin, i want to send our love to everyone affected by the hurricane. as you know, it was a rough night. who would have thought? a lot of things happening at one time.

that has just ripped through florida and also the people of north carolina, georgia, alabama , south carolina, florida again, and tennessee for what they went through with hurricane helene. we had quite a combination. i would like to congratulate the governors of florida ron desantis, governor brian kemp of georgia, henry mcmaster in south carolina, they have done a fantastic job. the federal government on the other hand has not done what you are supposed to be doing with respect to north carolina, they have let those people suffer unjustly, unjustly. we are praying for all of those who lost a house or much more importantly a precious loved one. and there were many, actually many, many in georgia and north carolina. >> former president donald trump in detroit yesterday.

this morning, we are asking you about your experience with government during a natural disaster. we want to hear from those impacted by helene and milton. also any natural disaster in your lifetime. has it been state, local, the federal government most helpful to you? we want to hear your stories. we will start in birmingham, alabama. frank, good morning. >> good morning. i want to appreciate you tackling this subject. last year, we had a calamity where selma, alabama was devastated. president biden came and he bragged about $5 million that he

gave. selma needed almost $1 billion to deal. it was so ironic that one of the buildings had started to get moss on it, block mold all over that building. no one addressed that and it was stunning to see that and for him to even brag about $5 million for selma. all of these people always come to selma and spend time crossing the bridge. now, the problem with me with that that a lot of them had made reservations for hotels to come down there, so they put people out of the hotels that the government was paying for, people who had paid for the rooms when those people came. >> you are talking about federal

emergency workers staying at those hotels? >> right, no, it was persons who made reservations months previous to coming. and they would not give up their room. they took a majority of those people and put them in this big center and if you pull up the video you find that they had a big fight that broke out i thought that was one of the most discouraging. i looked at some of the things that were going on with biden and trump and fighting over who is not doing what. there is always only so much you can do right this second when it happens, but this again was

after the damage and if you go to selma now, you still see what the government did not address in selma. >> good morning, your experience with government during natural disasters. >> good morning. i'm a volunteer vietnam that. what i want to say is we have had a lot of forest fires in north carolina. we have had to leave our homes a couple of times. you can see what happens when a

forest fire happens. i have seen this multiple times. by the way, you are my favorite. i've been watching c-span for years. i don't know if you are a democrat or a republican. >> tell me about the forest fire. >> what happens is it is folks coming up and down the corridor. , when somebody is suffering these disasters.

i don't know if it was a controlled burn or not. i spent about an hour last night watching trump and i watched the obama speech, he ran down trump for half an hour. i used to be a democrat. i helped president get elected. i registered hundreds of people and raised $55,000. the next time he ran, i didn't raise a dime because he didn't do a thing he promised to do. he attacked our liberties. >> stick around, our next segment we will have a political roundtable to talk about the campaign season. you mentioned paradise, california, the wildfire essentially wiping paradise off the map.

a sign of paradise five years on thinking the first responders. >> we did have flooding from the rains. i think the government did the best they could under the circumstances. with all these disasters that come along, it is hard to be everywhere at one place. but also these maga people and donald trump need to stop perpetuating these lies at the expense of the misery that the people in florida are going through with these hurricanes

that have happened in a two week period. these maggot people need to stop -- maga people need to stop. stop perpetuating these lies. the people down in florida do not need this. they need the government to step up and help them out. donald trump, you maga people, i hope you are hearing me, stop your lies. >> governor ron desantis in florida talking yesterday on cnbc about the recovery efforts, the state efforts. >> there was some praise that came your way from president biden who said that you had spoken, then it was this brouhaha over vice president harris apparently reaching out and may be not taking the call and this whole thing,

accusations this had become politicized. could you speak to what happened? >> i'm working with the president of the united states. i'm working with the director of fema. i'm marshaling my state assets. we have been doing this nonstop for two weeks between helene and this. if there is anything i can leverage to benefit my people, i'm going to do it. the fact of the matter is they put out a story -- i didn't even know she was trying to reach me, but she has no role in this process. i have been dealing with the storms in florida under trump and biden, neither ever politicized it. all the storms i've dealt with under this administration, she has never called in florida, she has never offered any support. she is trying to inject herself into this because of her political campaign. as the governor leading this, i don't have time for those games. >> that was ron desantis.

back to your phone calls. we are asking about your experience during natural disasters. this is in edinburg, texas. good morning. >> good morning, sir. i would just like to say that i went through ike in texas. years back, i remember bush and cheney, the water in the astrodome. >> try one more time. we are having trouble hearing you on your line. >> during bush and cheney. >> i apologize, we go to john in new york. >> thanks for taking my call. in new york, we had a nor'easter and a ton of rain, maybe about

10, 12 inches on the roof, then we had a warm spell and then we had serious rainfall of maybe four or five inches. >> are you talking about superstorm sandy? >> i'm talking about a nor'easter in new york. i had good experiences, but it was the new york state that came to my aid. i had some mold and i was able to get a humidifier to help clean up the basement. i had to clean out a bunch of clothing and furniture from my house. i have had experience from that. one thing that bothers me with the hurricane thing is all of a sudden the media is trying to restore faith with biden. he was vacationing on the beach and kamala harris was out there having fundraisers and they didn't respond or have any kind

of conferences on tv to tell the people what they were going to do and stay calm and everything. it took 10 days before they responded on the news media. don't interrupt me. anytime anybody rips into trump, you don't interrupt them. but if you have criticism about that, you are accused of misinformation, disinformation. we always have a right to our opinion. donald trump has a right to his opinion. if it is an opinion from a republican -- >> do you want to come back to the storm? >> yes. down here, i feel bad for those people, florida they got hit hard too and there is death down

there, god bless those families. that devastation in appalachia with the hurricane going that far north without much rain and the devastation that it took, i have never seen anything like it. >> we go to florida. mark, good morning. >> good morning. i have one around daytona. both were hit in the eye of helene actually. my power is out in daytona beach right now. i've lived in florida 50 years. i have a lot of experience with hurricanes. the federal government really has limited involvement with people during any administration

, most of everything is taken care by either private insurance or by local government. you can get the blue roof put on your home and that is a fema program and people take advantage of that. >> explained with a blue roof is for folks who haven't gone through the hurricane. >> ok, the blue roof, if your home is damaged, somebody will come out, i haven't ever had it done, but somebody will come out and place a roof to present moisture intrusion. there is no cost to you. these people call back and forth and there fighting each other over which administration and i see limited national government

involvement. it is just sad, what we go through and then we have to fight about it. this is a devastating experience , living without power. i called you and my phone is about to go out of batteries. >> we are going to leave washington journal, but you can find this online and we take you live to michigan where governor tim walz will be asked speaking. introductions underway. >> i'm a lifelong michigander. i'm a proud member of the uaw. [applause] growing up, my mother had a saying. she taught me that love is a verb, it is an action word. when you love something, you fight for it and protect it. macomb county, i love the uaw and i love unions. this union has guaranteed me good wages and steady work,

everything i need to raise my three beautiful children. that is why i'm here today because the best action we can take for the uaw and all working-class people across the country is to take kamala harris and tim walz to the white house this november. [applause] they are running in this race to help families like mine. they will bring down costs, cut taxes for the middle class, and make it easier for people to buy a home. they will keep investing in the auto industry and create more union jobs, just like kamala harris has done as vice president. but donald trump isn't thinking about families like mine. he's a billionaire and a scab who has no respect for workers and the auto industry. during his first term, factories closed and michigan auto jobs were shipped overseas. he tried to undermine unions and make it harder to organize. his project 2025 agenda would be so much worse.

if he wins, trump will sell out workers again, giving another tax cut to the richest people in america on the backs of working families. and he will be in labor unions, got overtime protections, and opt out of minimum wage. if he gets reelected, his economic plan will raise costs for the middle class $4000 a year. that is not what i want for my union members and it is not the world i want for my children. so for the next 26 days, i will be fighting for kamala harris and tim walz and i hope you do the same. [applause] now, friends, it is my honor and privilege to welcome a lifelong midwesterner, a teacher and a veteran, and a dedicated public servant, your next vice president, please welcome governor tim walz! [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ gov. walz: good morning! well, thank you for the kind introduction. i have to tell you, it is a privilege to be introduced by a uaw member, so thank you. [applause] a few thank you's. the incredible mayor, thank you. thank you for the warm invitation. congresswoman haley stevens, thank you. we know how important it is to have friends. i will tell you, it will be much better when the house of representatives has democrats having the gavel, so let's send them to the congress. [applause] and again, a privilege, i had a

chance to serve with your incredible center. jeffrey stabenow is the pit of me of what a public servant looks like. [applause] and once again, she needs more company. you need to send and have our next senator. [applause] and this is one i know you well know it, but i'm bringing this from the rest of the country that knows it. you have got a hell of a governor in gretchen whitmer. [applause] and to the folks here at macomb county community college, thank you for building the future and the skills necessary to move folks into the middle class. we are grateful you hosted. before we get started, i just want to say i know you are all thinking about it, our hearts going out to the communities across the southeast that have been devastated by helene and milton.

vice president harris and president biden watching developments closely, working with states, local governments, and the governors to stand with the people of the region every step of the way until the recovery and rebuilding is done because that is what americans do at a time of crisis. [applause] so thank you. all right. you might know i'm from minnesota, but i say this with a pure and true heart, how great is it to see the tigers play in baseball in october? [applause] look, just one more reason detroit is a great city. so that is what we know. [applause] here's the deal. from the iron range to motor city, our states are united by the spirit of creation. the dignity and pride of working people stretches across this country and that is exactly what i'm here to talk about today. kamala harris and i have a plan to build american industrial

strength powered by american workers and i promise you when vice president harris and i are elected, we will have your backs just like i had our backs -- you had our backs every step of the way. [applause] this is a defining in the american economic story. people came here to michigan from across the nation and across the world for a shot at a better future for their families. in the process, they built the engine that built this country. vice president harris understands that. she grew up in a middle-class family, understands that manufacturing jobs are a ticket to the middle class and they don't require a higher degree many times and they don't require student debt. we are making sure everything made in america. kamala harris has helped restore this resurgence, she invested in working people as vice president and today there are more factories getting billed, more

auto and construction jobs and more american energy being produced than any day when donald trump was president. [applause] she is proud to be part of the most prolabor administration in american history. unafraid to walk picket lines and demanding better pay and better working conditions. she walked those lines with uaw workers. [applause] and she fought side-by-side to save those pensions for over one million union members. [applause] because you see it and you know she knows it, she understands unions and working people are the backbone of this country. as governor of minnesota, i had the privilege of signing one of the biggest packages of pro-worker policies in history into law and now minnesota is one of the best dates for workers in the country.

that is our vision for every state across the country. donald trump and jd vance have a different view of things. just yesterday, donald trump was in detroit and he said our whole country will end up being detroit. you are going to have a mess on your hands. [booing] look, that is not unexpected for him, that is exactly what he is going to do, tear down america. if you would have ever spent any time in the midwest, we know detroit is experiencing an american comeback and renaissance. [applause] look, i'm a twins fan and you whipped our ass. we know you are there. cities growing, factories opening up. but those guys, all they know about manufacturing is manufacturing bullshit every

time they show up. [applause] look, this guy has spent his life, trump has spent his life talking a big game, but he has been an absolute disaster for working people, one of the biggest losers of manufacturing jobs of any president in history. under trump, we saw 280,000 michigan jobs gone, 30,000 of those manufacturing jobs gone. nearly 9000 auto industry jobs gone. trump's presidency was an endless string of broken promises. he actually came here when he first ran and he promised you under a trump presidency, you won't lose a single plant. technically, it wasn't a lie because he lost six of them. [laughter] as they fact-check me, i got it right. he lost six of them. he lost the gm transmission

plant. i'm not telling you anything you don't know. he repeatedly turned his back on union workers and encouraged automakers to move manufacturing out of michigan and go to antiunion states to pay workers less. there is a reason why the uaw members endorsed kamala harris and your president and many of your members called him exactly what he was, a scab. [applause] we all get it. he promised you he would stop the off shoring of jobs, but he cut taxes for corporations that during his presidency shipped 200,000 jobs overseas. he awarded 425 billion dollars in federal contracts to companies that were off shoring those jobs. some of you are thinking, he gave your tax dollars to companies who sent your jobs abroad. that is donald trump. as a result of his trade wars,

his disastrous mismanagement of covid, at the end of his presidency, he had wiped out more than half of the manufacturing jobs that had been created in the decade before he came in. he was asleep at the wheel while china sees the advantage and he says we should let china dominate the auto industry. but it is no surprise he is all talk when it comes to being tough on china. we just found out his trump branded bibles, yeah, they are printed in china. this dude even outsourced god to china. [laughter] just so we know. again, i'm going to try to be generous here. [laughter] i don't blame him. he didn't notice the made in china sticker because they put it inside, a place he has never looked in the bible. [laughter] [cheering] look, while trump was abandoning

american manufacturers, vice president harris was overseeing the creation of over 400,000 jobs right here in michigan. [applause] 20,000 manufacturing jobs and more than 250,000 new auto jobs across this country. while trump lost six of those plants, more than 20 have been opened under kamala harris' leadership. look, we'll talk about this and i get it, some of those plants are going to produce electric vehicles i'm a car guy. you get a little skeptical about this, it is the future. here is my take, it should just be your choice. we need to make those choices affordable and available to those people. nobody is mandating anything to you. if you want to drive a 1979 international harvester scout that is sweet as hell like i do, knock yourself out and drive it. [laughter] but this is about the future of

the auto industry. she wants to make sure ev's are made here by united auto workers and let people buy them. [applause] look, we've got to make tv's, we've got to make internal combustion, hybrids along with the batteries and chips so the auto industry stays competitive and can keep the jobs right here in michigan. [applause] that is exactly what the administration did by encouraging gm to reinvest in the lansing grand river plan. vice president harris cast the deciding vote to make sure that the half a billion dollar investment in michigan would happen. that plant itself saved 650 jobs and created 50 new ones by that investment. those are good uaw jobs. [applause] but donald trump and jd vance

can't be satisfied with that. jd vance said if he and trump were elected, they would maybe cancel those grants shutting that plant down. he said not to worry about it because those jobs are just table scraps, table scraps. tell that to 650 families who feed those -- their families with those table scraps jobs. [applause] we've got to talk to our neighbors. these guys don't give a damn about michigan workers, they care about their billionaire friends like elon musk. [booing] look, this is the guy, this is the guy, they caught him on tape, elon musk and donald trump talking, they were lasky -- laughing about the idea of firing striking workers. elon musk is building his new auto plant in mexico. he's going to build it in mexico and he's going to get his parts from china. so this is the guy that wants to be our economic czar, the guy

who wants to fire workers and bust unions, a guy who wants to take auto manufacturing to mexico and source it with chinese made parts. you talk to your neighbors and friends and tell me if anybody in michigan thinks that's a good idea. because it sure the hell isn't a good idea. look, but it is not enough. you talk to folks, tell them who donald trump is, tell them his policies. but we've got to give them something to vote for. we've got to tell them what we stand for and we -- what we want to vote for. let me tell you what vice president harris and i will do. we are going to create an america forward strategy for manufacturing, the bipartisan infrastructure law, chips act, science act, inflation reduction act creating all kinds of new opportunities, ones that empower american workers, revitalizes communities, leads us to industries of the future and keep out-innovating and

out-competing the rest of the world. you build the future and this gives us the opportunity to do it. [cheering] and look, industry is telling us and president harris will do it. we need to release the full potential of american history, cut red tape so we can build faster. we will create new america forward tax credits, create more jobs and strategic and -- industries. these tax credits will reward companies that guarantee the worker's right to organize. [applause] pretty frustrating to see your tax dollars go to companies that bust unions instead of giving them to that. we will make sure they go to companies that work together to grow america. [applause] and many in this room know and i see this as a teacher and as a father of a young son

encouraging him to get into the trades, eliminating unnecessary degree requirements, increasing skill development over half a million federal jobs because we believe like all of you do, if you have the skills to do the job, you should damn sure be able to get the job whether you have a degree or not. [applause] look, setting a goal of doubling the number of apprenticeships and other trading opportunities that lead straight into good paying union jobs by the end of the first term is the goal to get done. kamala harris has said, she will sign legislation to make it easier to form a union. we will reform tax laws making it easier for businesses to let workers share company success and we will never let other countries like china undermine those investments with unfair trade practices. [applause]

look, that include supporting american-made products and steering all the federal tax dollars toward firms that commit to producing here at home hiring union labor, hiring american workers. [applause] so, there it is, that is our plan. if they ask you what are they going to do? there is a track record of vice president harris and myself of making it happen. what happens is the middle-class class rises, people start to thrive. that is the goal. i want to be clear, i have also said donald trump doesn't have a plan. he has concepts of a plan at times. he does have a plan. it is called project 2025. [booing] google this and find the stuff that is in there. there are things about privatizing the national weather service for weather forecasting.

look, it is worse than that. they pretend like we don't really know what that is and haven't heard of project 2025. senator vance said he knows nothing about it even though he wrote the forward to the architect's book. i'm pretty sure i world remember who it was if i wrote the forward to somebody's book. i coached football a lot of years. if you are going to take the time to draw up a playbook, you are damn sure going to run the place. project 2025 is a nightmare. it would repeal the bipartisan infrastructure law, the inflation reduction act. that would threaten hundreds of thousands of new manufacturing jobs including those in michigan, the ones that jd vance said, those 650 jobs were table scraps. good paying union jobs and those are table scraps. he would establish a national sales tax on everything and the estimate says it would cost each and every one of you $4000.

he said those tariffs trump will pay for that china will pay, trumps tariffs, you are going to pay them. that is the way it always works. and there again, you heard it, that idea of a plan or whatever, he absolutely tried his entire time in office to repeal the affordable care act, the thing that protects hundreds of thousands of americans to get affordable health care. and he talked about a ponzi scheme, this guy have all the schemes he had, the one that he went after was social security and medicare. things that we pay into. that is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised. we pay into it. it might not be a big deal for him if you are sitting in mar-a-lago with $1 billion, but it is a big deal for my 90-year-old mom. that is the choice we are up against. folks, in this election, we have a chance to turn a page. a new generation of leadership with kamala harris. [applause]

a new way forward from the chaos and the nonsense and the ridiculousness of donald trump. it is a privilege to do it. we have 25 days to work together to make a difference for the next 40 years, to revitalize american manufacturing, to take our lead, to put the middle class at the center, not the billionaires, to ratchet down the name calling and just honest to god not having to listen to this guy again for the next four years. [cheering] [applause] i'm talking to a group of folks on how to work and know what a hard days work looks like, so i know we are asking a lot, but we've got 25 days. this is all gas, no breaks, sleep when you are dead type of attitude. someone said, you are taking this way too seriously. you look like hell, man. i will look like hell for 25 days if it means putting kamala

harris in the white house, americans first. you know she says that, you've done it, you have been on the picket lines, you helped build america on this, you know better than anybody, when we fight together, we win. when we vote, we win. when we fight, we win! thank you, let's get this done! [cheering] [applause] ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> more live coverage coming up shortly here on c-span. former members of congress will discuss bipartisanship and public service. hosted by nyu.

we will have that live when it gets underway scheduled in about 20 minutes at noon eastern. later this afternoon, former president donald trump will hold a campaign rally in aurora, colorado, with remarks on immigration and crime. we will have tt re on c-span. you can watch on c-span now or online at c-span.org. ♪ >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2 exploring the people and events that tell the american story. supreme court justice neil gorsuch and his former law clerk talk about america's founding ideals of american democracy, liberty, and equality. then the congressional gold medal ceremony. some of their achievements helping to calculate the apollo 11 omission.

at 7:00 p.m. eastern, watch historic presidential elections exploring what made these elections historic. the issues of different eras and the lasting impact on the nation. this week, the election of 1948 in a major upset, harry truman defeated governor dewey in 1948 to win a full term in the white house. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a history professor on southeast native american tribes during the 18th century and the impact of colonialism, the american revolution, and the emergence of the united states. at 9:30 eastern, looking at how eleanor roosevelt used film and television from the early 1930's to the 1950's to promote her political and social causes. exploring the american story. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on yourrogram guide or watch online anytime at

c-span.org/history. >> weeknights this month, we are showing encore presentations of american history tv's 1 exploring the impact and legacy of some of the most significant house and senatenvestigations. tonight, highlighting into whether communists that infiltrae government. the investigation led to the censure of senator joseph mccarthy. watch tonight at 10:00 p.m. easter c-spapan now, or online at c-span.org. >> joining us now on washington journal is the president of the american institute for boys and men and author of the 2022 book "of boys and men: why the modern mail is struggling, why it matters, and what to do about it." in what way is the modern male

struggling? >> the key thing here is there are a series of different ways in which you can talk about this in ways which may or may not be related. if we start with education, we see there is now a big gender gap with boys and men following a long way behind in school and college. parents will probably recognize this and see high school through college, there is a big gap. on college campuses, we now see a 60-40 split between female and male students for one good reason, a lot more women are going to college, but a bad reason, fewer men are going to college. we have a bigger gap today than we did in the 1970's when it was the other way around. in some ways, we have created new inequality. it is hard to think about boys and men being behind in that way. we know there are a number of health care issues that affect women and girls, but there are a

number that increasingly affect boys and men. there is a huge rise in suicide seen among young men recently and drug poisoning. 40,000 men a year the u.s. is losing as a result of the mental health crisis. those are just two examples from education and health where there are reasons to be concerned about what is happening to boys and men. we could get into a decline in labor force participation among men without college degrees so there is a class dimension to this too. host: what is the mission of the american institute for boys and men? guest: we are a new think tank. i don't know how that will go down with your audience. there are many think tanks. but we are the only dedicated research nonpartisan organization focused on the challenges of boys and men and promoting effective solutions to help boys and men to flourish. very much in a research-based way, nonpartisan, but also non-zero-sum weight, if i can

put it that way. one of the problems with the debate is it is often incorrectly framed as somehow against the interest of women and girls, that you somehow have to choose between the two. it is our strong belief at the american institute for boys and men that we have to ride together. the problem with the current debate is it is often portrayed more as a gender war than rise together moment. that is one of the things we are determined to move past. host: how is the institute funded? guest: we have a range of funders, foundations, etc. one of the most public supporters has been melinda gates who is funding a huge amount of work on gender equality. i think most people point to the donations she has given to women's organizations. that is still the bulk of the giving to be sure. she gave almost $1 billion not

long ago. $20 million came to me in my role as the president of the institute for american boys and men. then we have a series of other research-based foundations across the spectrum supporting our work. we are still a small organization. we are only a year old. we are growing rapidly. we are expanding the space for the conversation but i think needs to happen on all levels about what has happened to our boys. i am the father of three boys, men now, and having a conversation about how we create a society good for boys and girls is taking place. it is taking place around family dinner tables, school boards, right up to the white house. i am pleased by the fact we are having more sensible conversation about this because for too long the debate has been dominated by more reactionary voices. now, we are seeing that change. there is a broader spectrum of

people saying it is ok to care about boys and men. in fact, we have to care about boys and men if we want a forcing society. host: front page story today. you were recently quoted about this issue saying it is striking how much of the debate and performance of the election has been about competing views about masculinity and manhood. what did you mean by that? guest: it is great irony that in an election that was expected to be about women, even before kamala harris was the head of the democratic ticket, became more of a debate about what is happening to boys and men in different performances of masculinity. that means this is a real issue. that we are having a discussion

sometimes between the lines about what it means to be a man, are men having problems or arm in the problem? we are seeing a gender divide among younger voters where you are seeing young women being much more likely on the dems' side and men less so and moving slightly to the right. there is a dynamic developing where the dems are positioning themselves as a women's party and not really talking about boys and men or their issues at all, at least not publicly. the republicans are doubling down on trying to get as many men's votes as possible in part by trying to create an impression and having a performance. to think about the rnc with hulk hogan ripping up the shirt. it is a policy message that guys are welcome here. they are trying to signal that

we like guys and we would love your votes. on the other side, the democrats are doubling down on trying to turn out women's votes. we are in danger of having something akin to a women's party and a men's party. most would agree we have to rise together and men and women both have to do well. host: on monday on this program, we talked about the latest harvard youth poll. if you dig into the findings, he some numbers about the share of young men who talk about their political ideology. by and large, young people in general say that they are moderates. 25-20 nine-year-olds, 48% say they are moderate. 18-24-year-old 48% say they are moderate. it is different when it comes to the other half of young voters. 27% of 25-29-year-olds identify as liberal to 21% who say that they are conservative.

the youngest voters, 18-20 4, 20 2% say they are liberal. 26% say they are conservative. the youngest voters are turning right. why? guest: if you look at those numbers by gender, you could see that that is more of the trendy -- trend among young men, in line with our conversation a moment ago. as far as young men are concerned, there are a couple of things going on. if you look at the countercultural moment, there has been a lot of attention to the issues around women. obviously, particularly post-2016, the women's march, the #metoo movement, post dobbs there has been a huge focus on women's reproductive rights, donald trump's behavior. so this issue of gender and the role of men, and really a rise since 20 of terms like toxic masculinity, which didn't really

exist in everyday language before that. young men are reacting against that, somewhat. the new counterculture is actually to be conservative because young people are typically not conservative. they tend to be more liberal and left, especially if your parents are liberal, the counterculture move is to be conservative. it is in some ways understandable for many of those young men. i think a lot of young men feel like the left abruptly doesn't -- left broadly doesn't have a strong message to boys and men and if it does it is framed as a negative one. it is less i think of a stampede to the right. if you look at the polls it is hard to see a shift in views on policy and you don't see much of a shift against the idea of gender equality. it is more of a sense of young men feeling not seen and heard on the left and seen and heard more on the right.

it's more of a cultural thing. host: if you had your way on education or workforce issues, what would you be proposing to fix the problems you talked about at the beginning of the interview? guest: i would definitely try to do something about the cratering share of male teachers in our school. in tim walz, we have the first career public school teacher running for such high office. he would be the first career schoolteacher to have such high office. he talks a lot about his role as a high school coach. when tim walz was a teacher, 33% of k-12 teachers were male. now it is 23% and falling. in high school, it has fallen by 12 percentage points. that is bad generally because representation really matters. we want all of our students to feel represented in the

teachers, but particularly for boys. seeing role models just not in the classroom, but also about the after school coach. it's about boys seeing flesh and blood role models.they may have that through their fathers, though not all boys do. it is striking to me that when we have the underrepresentation of women in certain professions like stem or politics, we rightly draw attention to that and work on it, but the share of men in our classrooms is not meriting any attention at all or platforms to try to reverse that trend. quickly, to give boys the option to start later because there is a developmental gap. schools, especially those serving more affluent populations do give the option for boys to have another year of pre-k. even more than that vocational training. the decline in apprenticeships

during high school or career and technical education and technical high schools has been bad generally but particularly bad for boys and men who tend to benefit more from the hands-on learning style. host: the phone lines are split as usual. republicans, democrats, independents. billy in missouri, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, guys. how are you? host: doing well. what is your question or comment? caller: i heard richard bring up the point a minute ago. it's interesting to me because i've been thinking about this for a long time. i think many schools should have curriculums in school where boys learn how to talk to girls, and girls learn to talk to boys, and there is a socialization aspect

and a class on how to talk to each other. here's the thing. everyone is always on their tablets, computers, or whatever and they are never talking to each other. it is either through text, email, or whatever. if they learned how to actually socialize with each other -- because the socialization in and out of school is being totally taken out. nobody even says hi to each other when they are passing by each other. host: let richard reeves jump in on the socialization and loneliness, an issue we heard a lot about during covid with young people, young men in particular. guest: thank you for the question. i think the relational skills are hugely important. we published work at the institute recently showing a decline in dating in high

school. that's difficult to think about because most are quite glad we saw a decline in teen pregnancy and teenagers are less likely to have sex early but that doesn't mean a decline in dating is a good thing. a class where you learn to talk to boys and girls, used to be called recess. you have seen a move to get phones out of classrooms. sometimes they let children have their phones back during recess. all they want to their phones. an inverse consequence of those policies. i do think that a class, finding environments where boys and girls can learn the skills that will be necessary in life, especially romantic life, is important. at the moment that has been delayed. we are seeing people struggling to know how to interact with each other. one more thing, for all of the good news about the #metoo movement and emphasis on consent and so on, which is generally very good, my experience as a

father, we give boys and young men a list of don'ts. don't do this, don't do that, don't presume. a lot of young men say i know all of the things i'm not supposed to do or say but i don't know what the new rules are. i don't know what i should do. young women too, they find young men uncertain about how to conduct themselves. this is something we will have to face as a society with more grace towards each other, even as we continue to push this message about consent and harassment. what we don't want is for our boys to run to the basement because they are so afraid of getting it wrong. host: what is the dad deficit? guest: the result in huge changes in society meaning it's no longer the case that dads will be the breadwinner and provider. in a sense bound to the family through their traditional economic role.

40% of women are breadwinners. that is amazing news, but for men the role is less clear. we are seeing a rise in the number of kids without a strong relationship with their fathers. that has leveled out, a trend that we saw in recent decades. it's not getting worse today. if anything, it might be getting a little better. if parents separate you often see after a few years the kids lose touch with their fathers. the evidence is clear that fathers are very important to their kids' development, perhaps especially in adolescence. for girls as well. having a good relationship with your father generally, but especially during the critical teen years, seems to be protected for mental health, education, for both boys and girls. i'm worried that between the message from the conservative right which is, you have to be married here that's only true now for college-educated americans that kids are born

inside marriage. most out of college-educated parents are out of -- between the two, dads really matter, but they don't have to be married to be good dads. i'm afraid that the message about the value of fatherhood has been somewhat lost. we are apparently the only institute, the american institute for girls and men, who submitted the idea to the bipartisan senate that they should be paid leave for dads. dedicated that dad leave. there is a suspicion about giving a paid leave just for dads. if dads matter, why wouldn't we do that? host: jill in columbia, maryland. line for democrats. caller: my observation is males, boys and men, are struggling with the fact that they now have to compete with women who are

half of the population and with other groups that they never had to compete with before. that's part of all of this. women don't have to have babies all the time and stay in the kitchen barefoot. in afghanistan the first thing they do when they take over, the males put the women in burqas and send them in the house. i think that the men and boys in this country can learn how to compete with the rest of us. just a struggle like we have to. women, we go out there and we have to struggle because all of the bosses are male until we get promoted over them. you're just not used to it. get stronger, manned up so to speak, learn to compete with the whole population and not just among yourselves. whiteman only had to compete against each other. they didn't even have to compete against other groups. that is my observation you can get used to it, just work harder. guest: i think that my board

will be happy with the admission that i should work harder. i take your question very seriously. you mentioned race a couple of times in your question. a lot of our focus is on black boys and men. we see the biggest gender gap between black boys and girls and men and women. in college there twice as many black women in college than black men. that intersection of race and gender really does play out strongly. i think it's pretty clear that on many dimensions we should be more focused on black boys and men. the broad point is captured in your, get over it, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, type of messaging. of course there is a responsibility for men to adjust to the new world. certainly not to harken back to a world where we didn't have to compete against women. i will say, actually, 50% of the

managers in the u.s. now are women. that's a huge progress. we haven't completed the progress, but it is nonetheless extraordinary progress that we've made.in a recent survey men and women asked if they wanted a female or male boss, most men were not that worried whether they had a male or female boss. women were much more likely to want female bosses. the problem with that analysis is that it's very individualized. if this group is struggling it must be because of them so they should buck up and get themselves together. it is interesting because we've learned from the women's movement that that's not enough. sure women should ask for a pay raise, be more assertive, skills, etc., but there are structural challenges facing women such as how does the labor market and education system work? we've gone past the point where if we only stayed women, it's up to you and instead look at the structures of the education

system and labor market and we see that there is a structural problem rather than an individual problem. that motivates my work. i don't think the only reason that men are doing well in education isn't because they are trying hard enough, the system isn't designed for them. we should change the system and not point the finger at them. the lesson is rather than blaming the individual we should sometimes look at structures. host: the caller used the term man up. taylor swift, one of the biggest female icons, biggest stars in the world, she has a lyric in one of her famous songs that said, if i were a man i would be the man. what do you take from that lyric from a female icon? one of the popular songs that she has? guest: she is drawing attention to the fact that there is an implied idea of masculinity in the dominant position, the man. my sense of what she is doing is pointing out that that is a very

male idea of a dominant position. it comes back to jill's question. it is interesting that you hear that from the left and right, that men should get over themselves. they might say man up. i think that is a profoundly un -empathetic phrase and we wouldn't use that for other groups. when i see the staggering rise in male suicide and drug poisonings, etc., i don't think saying to those men to man is not -- to man up is not an appropriate response than to any other group. i being a man you're supposed to be invulnerable and get over yourself and not struggle and not have to come to terms with a changed world or struggle with your own mental health, etc. that is a really dangerous message. you get it a lot from reactionary figures.i

find it interesting politically that some of the most conservative figures in this space, someone like jordan peterson who is a canadian psychologist who became well-known, they actually demonstrate extraordinary empathy for the plight of young men and understand what is going on with empathy. other people on the others are eye rolling, man up. they would probably be reluctant to say that the other groups. if you're struggling it should only be your fault. that is not a helpful message. host: patricia in camden, new jersey. caller: good morning, america. i call into c-span and i want you to know who i am so when i call. i mostly call about health care issues. i'm 68 and i'm an inner-city girl. i do want to speak to the mail and their struggle, but there is another elephant in the room. the small area of where i come

from, in camden, new jersey, across the bridge from philadelphia, i think, and we never talk about it, even on c-span, hollywood, the music industry, the leaders, the politicians. all of this x-rated immorality that we see on cable, on regular tv >> we are going to leave this to hear from former members of congress on bipartisanship, hosted by nyu here on c-span. >> hello, everybody. i am a professor of politics and public policy here at nyu.

i see some students in the audience. good to see you. i would like to welcome you to today's event. you have joined us here at nyu's kimball center. today we are joined by four distinguished former members of congress, two republicans and two democrats. we will talk about bipartisanship. our conversation is very much aligned with our core mission at nyu which was inspired by a former indiana congressman and nyu president. the goal is to provide a forum or civil conversation on politics and public policy. our event today is in

coordination with the former members of congress association, it engages former senators and representatives are completely bipartisan basis in democracy strengthening programs across the globe. the goal of today's panel is not to debate republican and democratic policy, there is plenty of that. we aim for a friendly discussion about how the political landscape has changed since your time in office. we will talk about issues with upcoming elections. each of our panelists has had a long and distinguished career. an interest in time i will be brief and -- in introducing you. she served as a republican representative in congress, representing alabama's second

congressional district from 2011-2021. she received her bachelor's degree in music at nyu in 1998. she received a jd from -- welcome back to nyu. to her left is a congressman who represented new york's 14th congressional district for nearly 20 years. he served in the house democratic leadership for six years, first as vice chair and then chairman of the caucus. he served in the new york state assembly. welcome. to his left is a congresswoman who represented part of california's central orange county from 1997-2017.

she received a degree in economics from chapman college. she described herself as growing up as a shy, quiet girl, which is surprising given the conversation i just had with you. she credits the government with much of her success in public life. we have a congressman who served as a republican one representing pennsylvania's sixth congressional district from 2015-2019. he served on the chester county board of commissions. he graduated from the villanova college of law. welcome, everybody. i am looking forward to our conversation. a couple questions about

congress, generally. you all have an unusual and valuable perspective on these things. i would say we live in an era where the power of the presidency is in a sense vis-a-vis congress. is this a good thing? how can congress assert its authority in this particular era? >> i believe it is a terrible thing. the people closest from the federal government to you -- every two years, if you get angry about something -- this is incredibly important. how much money do we take out of your wallet and what do we spend it on. the most important place is the congress and house of

representatives. when we cede our power to the administration -- they are in cahoots with each other to stay in power so they cede their power of checks and balances, which i saw on both sides when the same party held everything. you do not get as good as government. >> other takes on that question? congress's eating authority -- congress ceding its authority. >> they would give us authority

to the secretary to make a determination of as opposed to -- there are a lot of smart people in congress drilling down on a particular issue and laying out what the guardrails will be for a rule or regulation. it is always best when the authorizer's are doing their job in sending a very clear message to their constituents and those who have to live by these rules, congress is taking the time to write them rather than leaving that to the executive branch. >> it will put emphasis on what congress enacts. played a much bigger role in terms of what played out.

that will be more cumbersome for congress. throughout history, it has been back and forth. between the congress and the presidency. during lincoln was the most severe in terms of the president having almost total power because of the functionality of the country at the time. within the parties themselves and the inability, not being able to do the day-to-day things a majority needs to do. actually relying upon the minority to get monday and things done, contribute resolutions on getting budgets

passed. that is not just with this congress. it was also one paul ryan and john boehner were speakers. >> i think what everyone said adequately represents why we are where we are. if congress wanted to reduce the powers, congress would function better. it would have legislation that was more prescriptive. the reason congress has ceded so much to the presidency is it has chosen to. ok, you figure this out. joe has a unique perspective. members of congress say, you know what? we just passed a huge bill, let's let leadership figure it out. . rank-and-file looks to leadership at the end of

congress in a spending bill and just pack as much stuff in as possible. congress is choosing to operate this way. >> that is the vote no, hope yes caucus. i sat on the armed services committee. we drilled pretty far down into policy. it is one of the few committees where you could say we told them what to do. ok, secretary, do this. what color shoelaces will the shoes of our army people be? we got way down. in the 20 years i was in the congress, of the money that the congress actually has direct ability to move, anywhere between 53% and 83% of the money

were in defense, intelligence and homeland security. it was an all intents and purposes the money committee. this is an unknown fact with congress being dysfunctional. the armed services committee will put into law the national authorization act that they have done for the past 60-plus years. >> we generally only do one bill a year in that committee. little baby bills here or there but we are the one committee that functions with one bill where we put everything for the military in there. what kind of medicine, how much we are going to pay them, who we are going to promote, spouses of

military being treated. everything you can imagine in running a department of defense which has everything in it, it is passed in that one bill and for 65 years it is the one bill that each and every year has been passed by congress. >> the other management challenge for the house is some of the folks always saying no, which prevents bills from passing, are ones that get the most attention. they get booked on television. if you are in leadership like joe was, we know the republican leadership well, 80% of your time is spent dealing with 10 or 15 members, they will figure out a way to say no no matter what you do because they will get on tv and they will say they are the ones who made the bill better. cable-television life that.

it makes for good copy. it makes it terribly challenging to get pieces of legislation to the finish line. >> that is a bill that is passed annually to fund our nation's defense activities. this year, it passed with the votes of the folks in the middle in both parties and against the no votes of the extremes in both parties. what is going on there? i think of all four of you being more or less in the middle compared to some of your former colleagues. why do we have those dynamics with some of those votes when you have extreme republicans and extreme democrats agreeing to disagree? >> being pragmatic for not being

conservative or liberal, it is the idea that you know you will not get everything that you want , but she will try to get the most that you can on behalf of the people you represent in our country. everyone of us on this stage are pragmatic individuals who want to do right by the people who sent us to represent them. i have often wondered -- i have never taken the time to do it -- scorecards, that drives a lot of it, by the way. the scorecards are created by people who have never put their name on a ballot or never step foot in your district so they do not know why you are voting a certain way. i have often wondered why the extreme and each party, on both sides of the aisle, oftentimes vote together. it would probably make a good

campaign ad. >> people think it goes like this what it actually goes like this. as crazy as it is, bernie sanders -- they have similar voting records in some respects. from my experience -- i remember watching outside of the balcony of the capitol, primarily driven by the affordable care act. and obamacare and the negotiations going on to radically change the health care delivery system in the country. folks were angry. we did town halls, street events, people were vocal, in the queens and in the bronx.

people got elected to congress and were affiliated with that movement. and eventually turned into the freedom caucus. a reaction on the democrat side, the data trump was elected, i knew there would be a visceral reaction to that, especially in a district like mine which is very democratic. the only change you can make is in the primary. not to put -- the movement to the left was in response to trump and the freedom caucus. the freedom caucus has incredible power.

they actually do. they have undermined speakers, they have ousted speakers. it is not the case on the democratic side. i agree with what you were saying before about folks taking credit. there are showmen and showwomen and folks who actually get things done. the extremes are more with the showpeople rather than legislating. you have to get along with the colleagues on your own site first. -- on your own side first. you can make contact with the other side. >> it is like 90-10.

to your initial question, it is when you are in the majority, being slightly oppositional to your own party when you can leverage the most. i would say when democrats -- in the first two years of the biden presidency, the woman who runs the progressive caucus from washington, she held out. i do not believe speaker pelosi was pleased with her for quite some time. you can be really effective being in oppositional figure within your own party if you can present yourself as being ideologically pure. why did you get a bill passed with 70% on each side? ultimately 70% on each side views 80% of what i want and 20% of what i don't as a victory. >> i think i spent more time in

the congress in any of my colleagues here and also came in earlier than they did. i saw a much more functional congress or house of representatives than they did. i came in after newt gingrich had already been speaker for two years. the democrats had controlled for 40 years. they went over the top. you had a revolution go on and newt gingrich came in. one way that newt gingrich got in was what i call the politics of personal destruction. that is name calling on people, you do not go back to your district. a lot of this stuff started to happen, which is what we see all the time. i come in and he has been doing that. even then, when i came in, we

would start a bill in the middle. in the house, you have to get 218 votes. 50% plus one of the 435 members. if you have ever seen the house of representatives, the state of the union, we sit like this. the republican sit on that side of the aisle, the right side. the democrats sit on the left side of the aisle. that is how you get "of the aisle." the more liberal you are, the more to the left, you sit there. people click like you all clique in college. in the middle, you had when i was, a blue dog, a conservative

on the democratic side. we would generally start a bill this way and then you would negotiate out to pick up the additional votes you needed to get the 218. that is usually the way we passed bills. now, a bill starts on the extreme here or the extreme there and they try to pick up their own. that is why they are getting nowhere. that is why the power lies in the real extremists, because that is how bills -- at least from what i can see -- is how bills are done in the house of representatives. >> before this event started, we were all hanging out and these

four get along like old chums. i sat there like a political nerd and watched it all happen. let's turn to elections. we are in the middle of a presidential election cycle. i wanted to ask you all, what is it like to run for election or reelection to congress during a presidential cycle? it seems like you are overshadowed. how do you get attention or make news when all the attention is on the presidential race? >> i speak similarly to you, both of our races were determined in our primaries. my old district does not exist anymore. at the time i was there, the real battle was in the primary. my first election was a general election but it was during midterms.

i did not have that struggle. it gives democrats who get to congress but it was not during a presidential year. in 2012, i was a surrogate for the mitt romney campaign. i had the time away from congress because my race was pretty much determined. >> you both had more competitive races. >> i am from orange county, california, which is where ronald reagan said great republicans go to live before they died. it is a republican area, the red part of california. we send six members to the house of representatives, according to

population. up until me, it had been six republican white males. extreme. the list goes on. [laughter] when i won, i won by 984 votes. i was a latino, one of the youngest women to ever go to congress. i was a democrat and i was a woman. when i got to the house, they refused to accept my election, to tell you the truth, and they investigated my election for 15 months in the congress. the number 2 democrat for many years set of my election, it is the worst "welcome to the house of representatives" in the

history. >> the congress, the house has to approve. >> it is a club. it is a club. you have to win an election, you knock on the door, they opened it up and you show them your paperwork and they say they will think about it. >> if you win you get in, but there was controversy. >> it was january 7, it was my birthday. we all stand up to get sworn in. the 435 all of us stand up and be put up our hands and we all get sworn in today. that day, a republican takes the microphone and said we had a problem with loretta sanchez.

that is a type of thing that goes on. how does the presidential election affect you? that year, it affected me really well because i was able to convince hillary clinton's brother -- i was not on the radar screen, i was not supposed to win, i told you all the reasons why. i gave him a call and said i can win this election and asked him if he would send bill clinton into campaign for me. he put me over the top and i won by 984 votes. they can make a big difference for someone like me but it can also be the kiss of death for someone like me. if you are in a race and the president is doing things people do not like, especially on an off year election, it can kill

you. or a person in a competitive district, it is a big deal -- how the president campaigns, where the money is flowing and how things are going. >> if you are in a district, when i first ran, the top of the ticket was a gubernatorial race. the democrat won my district by a lot. how am i getting a voter who will vote for a democratic governor, whether independent, dissatisfied republican or moderate democrat, how do i get them to vote for me? how my different? fast forward to 2024, i am in the district and running for reelection were kamala harris will win the district by four or five points, some are republicans, some are independents, i am probably not getting any democrats. one of my doing to differentiate from the top of the ticket?

you take the wind at your back with a presidential candidate on your side and then you differentiate your brand from the top of the ticket so you get a kamala harris or democratic voter to vote for you based on where you are on gun safety or environmental issues or some local issues. whatever the case may be. they are looking at you and not seeing joe crowley is a democrat member of congress i will vote for, joe crowley, the guy who fixed my bridge, he is not just focused on politics, he is focused on me. the question is a very good one. it is different -- way different -- running in a presidential cycle as a swing district candidate than an off year, especially when you have a highly polarized political environment like we do now. >> i want to hear from ryan and

loretta because they had more competitive races in november. the last time a republican won new york was ronald reagan. it has been a long time. he did not have to worry about that in queens or the bronx. what i was getting in the presidential election year was the freedom to help fellow democrats around the country. what added to my ability was i could do that. having the safer seat gave me the opportunity to help other democrats around the country, raising money for them and helping them to get elected. i would try not to -- as much as

ryan and joe have in common, i would not want to get to know him to closely. -- too closely. they would try to get friendly with me. that is part of the nature of the politics. the real problem in our politics today is there are fewer and fewer and fewer seats like their seats. there are not many competitive races. there are a handful in new york, california, there are about 60 overall out of 435. if you are asking me the greatest problem with this functionality, the extremes are rewarded in primaries and not so much during general elections. >> so much so that in october of 2016, when i sent out a press

release saying donald trump was unfit to be president, the woman i had beaten in the primary started putting up billboards to run as a write-in candidate and i won in the general with less than 50% of the vote. federal courts have redrawn a district, mostly my old district, which went from -- we have a competitive general election in alabama for the first time since 2010. >> one other quick point to flip this around, there are challenges, if you are joe crowley or martha roby and you are in a certain district -- if a bipartisan infrastructure bill , a democrat bill, comes out and you get 15 republicans and i am in the house, i am voting for the thing and i am going home.

it is bipartisan. i'm showing i the aisle. if you are martha, if you are going to go back to an r plus-20 district, you will have a primary problem. the challenge in a heavily partisan district is it is very difficult if you are in a heavily partisan district for your leadership to vote at all against your party or with the other side. that is the other challenge to bipartisan. the makeup of the districts. the more highly partisan it gets , the more difficult it is to cross the aisle. >> i learned about that even before i got to congress. i won that election. when you get sworn into the house, you get two tickets when

it is your first time. you get tickets for people to see you get sworn in. i needed 14. if you are a returning member, you get one ticket. if you are a new member, you need two. i got two, i needed to find 12. we will have to make friends real fast. someone told me the people who have been there for a long time usually do not have someone up there so start calling around. this is even before you get sworn in. i call this guy, a republican from orange county, a really, really nice guy, he said of course i will help you, you may have your ticket and i will help you when i am in the congress. as long as it is for orange county and america, we will work together.

when election time comes, i will use every effort to oust you. that is how i learned how it works. >> i think we have questions from our audience. we have folks with mics if you are interested in posing a question, raise your hand and we will come to you. do not be shy. go ahead. >> thank you all for coming. my question is, to what extent and how big of a role does money and specifically raising money play in the actual inter-workings of congress? not necessarily the election itself. to be a committee chairman or chairwoman you have to raise a lot of money. what exactly is the role of money not to get to converse but when you are in the congress itself? >> i could talk a lot about this. very few people have the stature

or status to be able to raise money nationally in an influence of $3-$5 per person. that is a phenomenon of the internet and social media. the big part of the game was raising money. how do you raise enough money to get your message out? in a big city like new york, queens and the bronx, i did not do television until my last primary. i spent $2.5 million on it. i was not used to that. the need to raise money was more about showing you had enough and the bank that you were better off than the opponent. the other responsibilities come from within the house itself.

republican conference, democratic caucus. there is a sense of camaraderie within both entities that you have to do your part to help with the majority or sustain the majority. what you have -- it has always been close -- a super majority that can be taken or lost very quickly. i was in the majority for four years out of 20. i helped get us to the promised land in 2018. i did my part. i raised and contributed $650,000 at that point. there is no question money has been an issue. not only myself but these folks

-- they would be woken up in the morning, have breakfast. she had to work until well past 9:00 at night because it was three hours behind in california. she was raising money sometimes into the early evenings. i would say to you, i had to do that. the only people i knew who gave me money for the people who gave me their money -- their actual money. my neighbor gave me $150. if someone down the block gave me $2500, i knew that person. you have to get as much money as you can to help your party as much as you can. >> i would say, too, to answer your question, the first

question a member gets when they go to leadership and say i want to be on the appropriations committee, the first question is, are you up on your dues? whatever your allocation is to raise for the national republican congressional committee. the amount you are required is weighted by your seniority and what committees you sit on. my dues went through the roof and i had to spend a lot of time raising money for the next cycle. >> i am one of those members who likes to raise money. "money" is playing in the background. i knew everybody. i knew the names of their kids. i knew everybody.

i was at one point the number 2 raiser for the democrats after nancy pelosi. the republicans would not let me end, there was a big stink, everybody loves me, i became a big money raiser. before you guys came, at least on the democrat side, there was not, you are an appropriate or, you have to give us a much money. it was like whoever gave, gave. nancy said, loretta, honey, i need $100,000 today. but i am not on this committee. i am not on this. why don't you ask charlie? she said, honey, because you

have it and you can raise it and we need it. there goes my $100,000 to nancy that day. when they started putting in dues, i loved it. i was not a chairman of any committee so they had to put in lots of money. but still, nancy would call and say, loretta, i would say, yes, nancy, she said i need $250,000 by tonight. when your leader because you and you've got it and she knows you have it, you have to give it. that is just the name of the game. i always had a good committee assignment. armed services. it was golden. >> we are probably due for a book to come out on the different types of donors. there are the pac dollars, an

internet donation dollars, i go on hanity, say some crazy stuff and five or six weeks later i say something else that is crazy and get money from the same 5000 people. and this is the big 1 -- there are 10-20 people on each side of the aisle, the hedge fund guys and gals that are worth billions that will write you $500,000, $1 million checks and you spread it out to your various members. those donors are difficult to get a hold of. you have to do something to get their retention or be in leadership. there is an entire ecosystem of donors where to get to them requires different strategies. what motivates them is often different. what you use their money for, that is different, too, but that book is yet to be written

because the book on fundraising has been rewritten over the last three or four years. some people raise money to get reelected. some people raise money to get other people elected. you also have to raise money to get on the committee of your choice. there is a lot more to it than meets the initial eye. >> i think -- the emphasis in terms of individuals and what we had to do really changed. the campaign system in our country is broken. the campaign finance system is broken. especially the 501c4's. elon musk is spending hundreds of millions of dollars right now and we do not even know where he is doing it. >> and citizens united. >> citizens united, too.

giving corporations more rights. if i give $1 to martha roby and her campaign, that is public. the corporate dollars, no one knows where they are being spent. that is what is broken with our system. it did not happen back in the day. >> do we have another question from the audience? >> thank you so much for joining us here at nyu. there is certainly a lot of polarization currently in our political environment and i wanted to ask our two republicans on the stage, we see in this polarized era certain courageous republicans like adam kissinger and liz cheney defying

and even condemning the maga extremists, leading the january 6 investigations, i wanted to ask you two, what do you make of this, a republican trying to alleviate the polarization and going so far as to, like, risk of their own seats and leaving their seats in congress, and do you see yourselves -- what do you make of liz cheney and adam kissinger and so on? >> as an original never trumper, i have a unique view. i was in a certain district, when i came out against trump in '16, my primary opponent got

33,000 write-in votes, which caused me to dip below 50%. in '18, i had the most difficult raise over 10 years because of my position on trump. if you google me, you will see he endorsed me. it was not because i asked. anyway, it comes at great personal cost. the career path you are on, i cannot speak for adam and liz, they are two of my friends. adam and i got elected at the same time and we keep in touch regularly. it takes a lot of courage to stand up to your own party.

being granted by permission by people in leadership to do some awful things. i have mad respect for anyone from either party who is willing to stand up against their party because it is about our country before it is about our party. >> i would just say this -- no matter what your personal opinion is of trump, half of this country is going to vote for him. whether it is 49% -- it is very close. he probably will not win the popular vote. there are a lot of republicans who separate things he has said and done from things he stands for or the fact he is not kamala

harris. there are a lot of republicans who might send a do not like this or do not like that, but i really do not subscribe to her brand of progressive politics. you cannot support kamala harris without looking at donald trump as the world's savior. in terms of adam and liz, i know them both, i like them both. the main thing to be perfectly blunt with you is there safety. political violence is not just if you speak out against trump. it could be if you speak out in favor of trump. that is the real problem with our politics. the translation from opposing a candidate or supporting a candidate to being an enemy of the state or worthy of

someone's violent acts against you. that is a discussion for another day but i have to be honest -- there are members of congress who worry me about their safety and whether they will be able to go home and see their kids if they vote a certain way. that is not what this republic was founded upon. this republic was founded upon going to washington and voting on the interests of your citizens and then one day coming back home and living your life free of harassment. that is the real challenge of our times. >> i would like to think if i was in those positions i would do the same thing -- i would like to think that. i don't know. i was not in those positions. they have been incredible and focused -- adam did not run for reelection. he saw the writing on the wall that he would lose the primary.

she pushed the envelope. in the republican party -- not every district, it depends on the individual there -- if you go against donald trump, you are going to have a primary and you will probably lose. someone will take the seat -- it will not be you. >> i made it. >> they decided you had enough. i do not know if i have actually met donald trump. i never liked him. i was on one phone -- hold on

one second. pick up the phone. i just never liked that guy. i was right about him. some of them have no respect for the constitution and no respect for the laws. i give a lot of respect to people that are doing that now. it is not easy. you probably had this -- i only had one threat against me in my 20 years of congress. someone called me around christmas time. that was the only time. every member of congress today is a target.

>> one more question from the audience. >> thank you for coming today. there are issues that are generally popular among the american people, whether democratic or republican. one of the issues that comes to mind is expansive public health care. the progressive said the reason why the issues are not being engaged with, even though they are generally popular, is money in politics. what would you say to that? >> i would have to look at the polling. expecting public health care, expanding public health care, there are so many people who do not like the aca and had such a hard time passing that. there are a lot of people who want universal health care,

there are a lot of people who have it, it is called medicare. people would say don't vote for that aca, do not vote for the obamacare, i want to keep my medicare. i said medicare is like obamacare. >> we leave the coverage from nyu. the house is about to gavel in for what we believed to be a brief session. you are watching live coverage on c-span. the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] snow. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.