>> TAKING AIM AT MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AND YOUR PENSION FUND.

AND DOES THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE • NEED MORE PEOPLE?

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT WE HAVE NINA MOORE FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, TY SEIDULE FROM HAMILTON COLLEGE, SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY AND CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY.

AFTER THE KIDNAPPING OF FOUR AMERICANS IN MEXICO AND THE MURDER OF TWO OF THEM, CALLS HAVE BEEN GROWING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO CRACK DOWN ON DRUG CARTELS.

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM HAS INTRODUCED A BILL DESIGNATING THE MEXICAN CARTELS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

A BILL IN THE HOUSE WOULD GRANT AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE MILITARY FORCE.

THE FENTANYL COMING INTO THE COUNTRY HAS KILLED TENS OF THOUSANDS, AT LEAST.

SHOULD THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GO DOWN THIS ROAD AND USE THE MILITARY TO GO AFTER DRUG CARTELS IN MEXICO?

>> NO.

>> CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT?

[LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ALLY OF OURS THAT HAS A VERY LONG MEMORY.

IN THE 1840s, A LITTLE HISTORY HERE, WHETHER WE NEED IT OR NOT, IN THE 1840s WE WENT TO WAR IN A WAR OF CONQUEST AGAINST MENTION DOUGH WHERE WE TOOK 512,000 SQUARE FILES, 55% OF MEXICAN TERRITORY.

AND IN 1916, WE INVADED AGAIN, JOHN JAY PEHSHING IN THE MEXICAN EXPEDITION.

WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE AND IT ALWAYS COMES TO NO GOOD.

IF YOU THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM NOW ON THE BORDER, WAIT UNTIL THERE IS MILITARY FORCE.

WHAT IS THE MEXICAN REACTION GOING TO BE?

OPEN THE BORDER?

NO LONGER HELP US ON THE BORDER.

IT'S NOT WHO WE ARE AS AMERICANS.

AT LEAST FROM THIS FORMER SOLDIER, IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.

THE OTHER PART TO REMEMBER, THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY'RE SUPPLYING IT.

IT IS OUR DEMAND.

BEE WANT THE DRUGS, ALWAYS HAVE.

SO UNTIL WE FIX OURSELVES, THE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO IS GO THERE AND INVADE.

>> WE CAN'T FIX THAT BECAUSE WE NEVER HAVE.

THE QUOTE ON QUOTE WAR ON DRUGS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 50 YEARS NOW.

>> THE WAR ON DRUGS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 50 YEARS BUT WE HAVE NOT FOCUSED AS MUCH ATTENTION ON INTERDICTION AS WE SHOULD.

AND I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, TY, THAT THERE ARE SOME PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO THE FACT THAT MEXICO IS A SOVEREIGN, INDEPENDENT COUNTRY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE ABOUT THE FENTANYL THAT'S CROSSING OVER THE MEXICAN BORDER INTO THE U.S. FENTANYL IS KILLING 300 AMERICANS A DAY.

THIS IS THE WORST DRUG CRISIS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

AND IF OUR POLITICIANS OR REPRESENTATIVES ARE NOT GOING TO SECURE THE BORDER EITHER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T OR THEY WON'T, THEN MAYBE THE BETTER COURSE OF ACTION IS TO ASK MEXICO NICELY IF IT WANTS MILITARY AID OR FINANCIAL SUPPORT BECAUSE OTHERWISE, FOR ME, THE LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THIS IS TO SEND MILITARY AID TO CHINA WITHOUT CHINA INVITING US BECAUSE CHINA IS WHERE THE MAIN INGREDIENTS FOR THE FLAL THAT'S SENT TO MEXICO FOR THE FENTANYL THAT'S SENT TO MEXICO, THE MATERIALS ARE MADE THERE AND I DON'T SEE US DOING THAT.

>> IF 300 PEOPLE A DAY ARE DYING FROM THIS.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOING AFTER THAT LAB THAT'S MAKING THAT OR GOING AFTER A BOMB MAKING LAB IN A CAVE IN AFGHANISTAN?

>> LET'S GO BACK TO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

>> THEY DIDN'T BOMB US.

>> UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE YOU KNOW, MORE RECENT HISTORY, ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, WE KIND OF DID SOMETHING SIMILAR.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WAS BASICALLY ONE CARTEL THAT MONOPOLIZED THE ILLEGAL DRUG MARKET.

THE U.S.

PUT PRESSURE ON MEXICO TO CRACKDOWN ON THAT ILLEGAL DRUG TRADE.

WHAT HAPPENED AS A RESULT IS THAT MARKET BECAME MORE FRACTURED AND YOU GOT AN EMERGENCE OF RIVAL CARTELS THAT EMERGED.

NORMALLY I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THIS PRO-COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IT INCREASES EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION AND DECREASES PRICES BUT OF COURSE IN THE ILLEGAL DRUG MARKET, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU DON'T WANT.

ADD THE PHYSICAL REAL VIOLENCE THAT COMES ALONG WITH THAT.

AND SO IN OTHER WORDS, OUR PREVIOUS EFFORTS TO CRACKDOWN ON THESE CARTELS HAVE BEEN COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

WE SHOULD LEARN OUR LESSONS FROM THAT AND OF COURSE WE SHOULDN'T BE TAKING MILITARY ACTION AGAINST OUR NEIGHBOR AND OUR SECOND BIGGEST TRADING PARTNER.

>> I WAS SORT OF CURIOUS ABOUT SOME OF THE DOMESTIC POLITICS OF THIS, TOO, HOW A TRAGEDY OF KIDNAPPING AND MURDER OF AMERICANS ESCALATED SO QUICKLY INTO A CALL FOR SENDING MILITARY TROOPS TO MEXICO.

AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF ME THINKS IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WILL SEIZE ON ANY CHANCE THEY CAN TO CONNECT THE BORDER WITH CRIMINALITY.

AND PERHAPS MORE TO THE POINT, TO CONNECT SOME OF THE MIGRANTS THAT ARE SEEKING ASYLUM IN THE UNITED STATES, TO THE ILLICIT DRUG TRADE AND SMUGGLING, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.

MOST OF THE DRUGS THAT ARE COMING OVER THE BORDER ARE COMING ON HUGE TRACTOR-TRAILERS AT BORDER CHECKPOINTS.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRYING TO CROSS INTO THE UNITED STATES IN BETWEEN BORDERS.

AND ARE NOT BEING DONE BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SEEKING ASYLUM.

IN FACT, THOSE PEOPLE ARE FLEEING DRUG VIOLENCE AND CARTELS AND GANG VIOLENCE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

SO THEY'RE AS MUCH THE VICTIMS AS ANYONE.

BUT THE REPUBLICANS REALLY NEED TO CONNECT THIS IMMIGRATION WITH CRIMINALITY.

AND I THINK-- >> THERE IS A FAIRNESS TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THERE.

WHERE THE VIOLENCE IS COMING FROM IS REALLY TWO THINGS.

THE U.S. DEMAND FOR ILLICIT GOODS AND SERVICES.

AS LONG AS WE ARE DEMANDING DRUGS, WE ARE DOING DRUGS IN THE U.S., THAT'S YO' EIGHTING VIOLENCE IN MEXICO.

-- THAT'S CREATING VIOLENCE IN MEXICO BUT THE OTHER IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS REAL.

PART OF OUR MISMANAGED IMMIGRATION SYSTEM IS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS.

THERE ARE REPORTS THAT THE ABDUCTIONS THAT HAPPENED THIS LAST WEEK OCCURRED BECAUSE THE CARTEL MISTOOK THE AMERICANS AS HAITIAN REFUGEES WHO ARE REGULARLY KIDNAPPED AND HELD FOR RANSOM.

AND SO UNTIL WE FIX OUR DOMESTIC POLICIES ON THESE TWO FRONTS, THE VIOLENCE IS GOING TO CONTINUE.

>> I DO WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THIS SUGGESTION THAT THE DEMAND ALONE IS PUSHING THIS BECAUSE MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE DYING FROM FENTANYL DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT IT IS LACING THEIR DRUGS AND SO THAT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME AS THE DRUGS OF OLD.

YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE GOING SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

>> OH NO, THE FIX IS NOT MILITARY POWER.

WE AMERICANS TEND TO TRY TO THINK EVERY PROBLEM CAN BE FIXED WITH MILITARY POWER AND IT CAN'T.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROBLEMS THAT IS NOT FIXABLE WITH MILITARY POWER AND SOMEHOW WE AMERICANS ARE NOT A MILITARYIC PEOPLE.

WE DON'T LIKE TANKS NOW ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BUT WE ARE A WAR-LIKE NATION THAT SOLVES PROBLEMS WITH WAR AND MILITARY FORCE WAY MORE THAN WE SHOULD.

>> PERHAPS IT COULD BE FIXED WITH MEXICAN MILITARY POWER.

>> OR WITH A MORE PRECISE STRATEGY THAT TARGETS I'M GOING TO ASK FOR YOUR HELP HERE.

WAS IT NORICHIKA AOKI-- WAS IT MANUEL NORIEGA THAT WE WENT IN AND EXTRACTED.

SOMETHING MORE SURGICAL AND PRECISE.

>> ONE OVERLOOKED ASPECT HERE, IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DID-- WHO WERE KIDNAPPED AND THE TWO WHO WERE KILLED HAD GONE OVER FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT PROCEDURES AND SO IF WE TALK ABOUT DOMESTIC ISSUES AND DOMESTIC PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE TO SOLVE, CHAD, WHICH YOU WERE MENTIONING, WHY IS THERE A NEED TO CROSS INTO MEXICO... >> THERE ARE A-- THERE IS A LOT OF MEDICAL TOURISM BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T GET OR THEY CAN'T GET COST EFFECTIVE MEDICAL CARE HERE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO CERTAIN PROCEDURES BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT SO THAT'S ON THE RISE AS WELL.

>> I DON'T WANT TO BE INCENTIVE BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY BUYING THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THREE MEN GOING OVER AND ONE PERSON-- I'M SORRY.

>> A MEDICAL PROCEDURE HERE IS THE TUNNELINGY TUCK.

THIS IS-- >> PEOPLE ARE GOING FOR MORE SERIOUS... >> PRESIDENT BIDEN SAYS HE IS GETTING OUT HIS VETO PEN.

HE SAYS HE USE IT TO KILL A CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WHICH OPPOSES A LABOR DEPARTMENT RULE THAT LETS ASSET MANAGERS CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNANCE ISSUES WHEN MAKING INVESTMENT DECISIONS.

ESG OPPONENTS SAY THE FUNDS' RESPONSIBILITY IS ONLY TO GET THE BEST POSSIBLE RETURN.

MANY BIG BANKS AND PENSION FUND MANAGERS ARGUE TAKING ESG INTO CONSIDERATION IS RESPONSIBLE RISK MANAGEMENT.

SHOULD BANKS AND FUND MANAGERS CONSIDER ESG IN INVESTMENT DECISIONS?

WHEN THEY'RE HANDLING OUR PENSION FUNDS?

>> I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO AND I THINK SOME OF THE PUSH TOWARDS ESG HAS COME FROM CLIMATE ACTIVISTS WHO ORIGINALLY WERE ASKING FOR DIVESTMENT FROM FOSSIL FUELS.

BUT I THINK I WOULD ARGUE, AND LOTS OF OTHERS WOULD ARGUE, THAT ESG, USING ESG AS A SCREEFNING IS A REALLY SOUND FINANCIAL DECISION AS WELL.

I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT IS THE LARGEST RISK TO THE THREAT TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY HANDS DOWN.

THIS INSURANCE COMPANY THAT INSURES INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY CAN'T PAY THEIR BILLS, THEY ESTIMATE THAT THE GLOBAL ECONOMY COULD SHRINK BY 18% IN THE NEXT 30 YEARS IF WE DO NOTHING ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE.

IN THE U.S., THAT'S A 10% G.D.P.

REDUCTION BY MID CENTURY AND CHINA IS A 25% REDUCTION.

I MEAN IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE U.S. ECONOMY ABOUT LIKE $35 BILLION OF REAL ESTATE COULD BE UNDER WATER BY 2050.

LAST YEAR WE HAD $165 BILLION OF DAMAGES AROUND NATURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL DISASTERS.

SO THE NUMBERS ARE HUGE HERE, RIGHT?

AND SO FOR ME, YOU KNOW, IF MY MONEY WERE BEING INVESTED IN REAL ESTATE AS PART OF MY PENSION, OR RETIREMENT FUND, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT THE PEOPLE TO BE LOOKING OUT AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE RISK IS TO U.S. REAL ESTATE MARKET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO I DO THINK IT'S A PRUDENT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

I THINK ESG HAS SOME PROBLEMS.

IT'S NOT SUPER TRANSPARENT SO WE ARE NOT ALWAYS SURE WHAT THE SCORE OF A COMPANY AMOUNTS TO.

>> SO, CHAD, DOES IT HAVE TO BE ESG?

WHY CAN'T IT JUST BE E?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M PICKING UP ON.

YOU ARE ADVOCATING ESG BUT REALLY IT'S JUST THE E THAT YOU CARE ABOUT.

RIGHT?

ONE OF THE CENTRAL PROBLEMS OF ESG, IF YOU HAVE THREES THREE TACTOR, YOU ARE GOING TO-- THREE TARGETS, YOU ARE GOING TO MISS ALL THREE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS IN THE FRAMEWORK.

FOCUSING ON THE E ALONE IS BUILDING A DAM GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IT REDUCES FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE OR IS IT BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE IT KILLS FISH?

ON THE S, SOCIAL PART, WEAPONS MANUFACTURERS TERRIBLE FOR SOCIAL WELL-BEING BECAUSE THEY'RE WAR MONGERS OR DEFENDERS OF UKRAINIAN DEMOCRACY.

E VERSUS THE G. ELON MUSK HAS DONE MORE FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION OF VEHICLE BUT HE IS A MEGALOMANIAC.

FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU JONES ES-- DOW JONES ESG S&P 500 INCLUDES EXXONMOBIL BUT EXCLUDES TESLA.

NOW IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE THINK THAT ESG INVESTING SHOULD BE ABOUT, SUPPORTING EXXON?

THAT'S THE INDICES WE HAVE.

>> BUT YOU HAVE ELON MUSK DOING WHAT HE IS DOING TO TWITTER SO THAT COULD BE PART OF THE CALCULOUS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ENTIRELY NEW FOR US TO CONSIDER, AT LEAST THE SOCIAL PART, OF ESG.

I'M THINKING ABOUT TO WHAT I SUSPECT WERE ALL OF OUR COLLEGE DAYS AND THE CAMPUS PROTESTS AROUND DIVESTMENT AND SOUTH AFRICA APARTHEID.

THAT'S NOT NEW.

I DON'T THINK MANY OF US SEAT ADD ROUND THE TABLE WHO DO CARE ABOUT THE E PART IN ESG WOULD WANT INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN INDUSTRIES; FOR EXAMPLE, OIL AND THEN THERE IS ALSO GUN CONTROL, THOSE OF US-- WE DON'T WANT OUR MONEY GOING INTO GUN MANUFACTURERS SO THAT'S ALWAYS THERE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS THAT IF INVESTORS DON'T WANT TO INVEST IN ESG, THEY SIMPLY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

THIS IS PURELY VOLUNTARY AND IF THEY DO, THEN, YOU KNOW, EXIT VOICE AND LOYALTY, JUST PULL OUT.

>> FOR INSTANCE, LET-- THESE COMPANIES ARE COMPETITIVE, VANGUARD, BLACK ROCK, FIDELITY.

THEY'RE COMPETITIVE WITH EACH OTHER F. THEY WANT TO CREATE AN A.T.F.

FUND, ALCOHOL TOBACCO AND FIREARMS ONLY, THEY CAN DO THAT.

IN FACT THERE ARE FUND IN THAT YOU CAN INVEST JUST FOR TOBACCO ALCOHOL AND FIREARMS.

LET THEM DO THAT.

LET THEM DO ESG, LET THE MARKETPLACE HANDLE IT BUT KEEP GOVERNMENT FROM SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

THAT'S.

>> AT A COMMON THEME GOING ON HERE.

YOU MIGHT NOT SAY IT, BUT I WILL, THAT THERE IS A MILTON FRIEDMAN IDEA THAT THE COMPANY'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PROVIDE RETURNS TO ITS SHAREHOLDERS.

IF ESG IS PART OF THE CALCULOUS, SO BE IT, WE SHOULD NOT BE INTERVENING.

I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE WAY ESG IS MANAGED AND IT'S MEASURED POORLY.

IT'S EASY TO EVADE AND GREEN WASH, AS THEY SAY.

THESE ARE ALL HUGE PROBLEMS AND THERE IS ALSO THE PROBLEM OF FUNDAMENTALLY E IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN AND IT IS THE ONE THAT PRESENTS THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT, GLOBAL WARMING AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

AND THEY'RE PUNTING THE RESPONSIBILITY.

>> THE PROBLEM WITH ESG THAT IT IS CAUGHT UP IN THIS POLITICAL CULTURE WAR THAT WE HAVE ON SO MANY ISSUES.

AND THAT'S WHY PEOPLE... BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CONSERVATIVE IDEA TO TELL A PRIVATE COMPANY HOW TO RUN ITS BUSINESS.

>> IT'S REPUBLICANS TELLING PRIVATE COMPANIES HOW TO RUN THEIR BUSINESSES WHICH IS REALLY IRONIC.

NORTH DAKOTA HAS SAID WE ARE NOT DOING THAT.

90-3 SAID YOU GO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

>> STATE LEVEL THERE IS PUSH BACK.

>> THERE IS SOME PUSH BACK AND OTHER STATES THAT AREN'T.

>> BUT WHO IS BEHIND THIS?

I MEAN JUST REAL QUICK IS THE KOCH BROTHERS AND-- >> DARK MONEY IS BEHIND SOME OF THESE EFFORTS.

>> EVERYONE IS TIRED OF WASHINGTON'S PARTISAN GRIDLOCK.

SO HERE'S A SUGGESTION-EXPAND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THE HOUSE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET MORE MEMBERS AS THE POPULATION ROSE.

THE ORIGINAL DISTRICTS HAD 34,000 PEOPLE EACH, NOW • ALMOST 800,000.

THE NUMBER OF SEATS WAS CAPPED BY LAW A CENTURY AGO.

EXPANDING THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE PRACTICE OF DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP.

IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE MORE CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES?

WOULD IT MAKE THE BODY MORE EFFECTIVE?

>> WELL, WOULD IT MAKE THEM FOR EFFECTIVE?

NO.

BUT WOULD IT MAKE THE CHAMBER MORE RESPONSIVE?

YES.

BUT IN THIS CASE I DON'T KNOW THAT RESPONSIVENESS AND GREATER REPRESENTATIVENESS IS BETTER BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE FOUND THROUGH ALL OF THE RESEARCH ON CONGRESSIONAL BEHAVIOR IS THAT THERE IS THIS INTENSE FOCUS ON DISTRICT CONSTITUENT INTEREST, WHICH SORT OF MAKES EVERY MEMBER ACT ON THE BASIS OF PAROCHIAL INTERESTS, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH GRIDLOCK.

BUT PARTICULARLY IN THE HOUSE, IT'S THE SIZE THAT MAKES PARTIES MORE NECESSARY, RIGHT?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE RULES IN PLACE, MORE RESTRICTIVE RULES AND IT'S THE MAJORITY PARTY THAT CONTROLS THOSE RULES.

SO IF YOU INCREASE THE SIZE, YOU INCREASE THE NEED FOR MORE RESTRICTIVE RULES AND GREATER CONTROL ON THE PART OF PARTIES.

SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF INCREASING GREATER PARTISANSHIP.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THAT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE FROM, SAY, 800,000 VOTERS BEING REPRESENTED PER MEMBER TO 400,000, THAT DOESN'T MEAN I CAN SUDDENLY CALL UP, YOU KNOW, MY CONGRESS PERSON AND SAY LET'S HAVE LUNCH.

I MEAN THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE VERY LIMITED CONNECTION TO THEM.

AND THEN HERE'S THE FINAL POINT I WOULD MAKE IS ROUGHLY NOW THERE IS ABOUT 7,000 BILLS INTRODUCED IN BOTH CHAMBERS EVERY YEAR.

CAN YOU IMAGINE DOUBLING THAT TO 14,000 AND THEN EXPECTING OUR MEMBERS TO GET THROUGH THAT WHEN THEY CAN'T GET THROUGH A HANDFUL AS IT IS?

>> BUT OTHER DEMOCRATIC NATIONS HAVE LARGER REPRESENTATIVE HOUSES, THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IS BIGGER.

>> THEY HAVE OTHERS, BUTTY ALSO HAVE OTHER CONSOLIDATING FORCES THAT WE DON'T HAVE HERE.

OUR GOVERNMENT, BY DESIGN, IS DIVIDED ALT EVERY LEVEL.

THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, THE DIVIDED CHAMBERS, THE SORT OF UNEVEN POWER BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

SO THE REST OF OUR SYSTEM IS NOT REPLICATED THERE SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN DRAW SIGNIFICANT LESSONS.

THAT'S MY VIEW.

>> WERE YOU ABOUT TO JUMP IN THERE.

>> I THEIR YOU MAKE REALLY GREAT POINTS BUT TO TRY TO MAKE THE COUNTERARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE SOME POTENTIAL BENEFITS, ONE IS THAT IF THE DISTRICTS ARE SMALLER, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT MIGHT COST A LITTLE LESS TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE YOU WOULD GET A DRIERT DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE-- A GREATER DIVERSITY OF PEOPLE RUNNING.

RIGHT NOW THE AVERAGE HOUSE MEMBER SPENDS ABOUT $2 MILLION IN THEIR CAMPAIGNS.

THEY SPEND ABOUT TWO TO THREE HOURS A DAY DIALING FOR DOLLARS.

YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO DO THAT.

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND THEIR TIME IN CONGRESS RAISING MONEY, OR DOESN'T HAVE THE CONNECTIONS TO DO SO.

SO THERE IS AT LEAST-- I THINK RACES WOULD STILL BE EXPENSIVE BUT PERHAPS COULD DECREASE IN COST A LITTLE.

THE SECOND THING I THINK IS POSSIBLY MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT THIS KIND OF DEMOCRATIC EXPANDING KIND OF PROPOSAL, I THINK, IS MORE POLITICALLY FEASIBLE THAN SOME OF THE OTHER EFFORTS TO MAKE OUR SYSTEM MORE DEMOCRATIC LIKE GETTING RID OF GERRYMANDERING, THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM AND GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER THAT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE RIGHT NOW.

THIS WOULD JUST TAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS.

AND I THINK THE BENEFIT IS THAT IT WOULD GIVE PEOPLE SOME MOMENTUM OR HOPE THAT WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO OUR INSTITUTIONS RIGHT NOW I THINK THERE IS A SENSE THAT THEY'RE JUST SET IN STONE AND THERE IS REALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT OUR INSTITUTIONS AND WE CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING TO MAKE THEM MORE DEMOCRATIC.

AND SO I THINK IT MIGHT GIVE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF HOPE THAT LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN CHANGE.

>> AN ACT OF CONGRESS, I THINK IT WILL BE FILIBUSTERED.

>> IT'S NOT POSSIBLE AND HERE'S WHY.

THE EXPANSION OF CONGRESS STOPPED IN THE 1920s AS THE COUNTRY BECAME MORE URBAN AND RURAL PEOPLE FREAKED OUT.

AND THAT'S STILL GOING TO PERSIST TODAY.

SO TAKE THE WYOMING RULE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS A POLICY THAT WOULD SET THE SMALLEST STATE AS THE BASIS FOR REPRESENTATION FOR ALL OTHER U.S. STATES.

THAT RULE WOULD EXPAND CONGRESS BY 110 SEATS.

AND THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES WOULD BE CALIFORNIA, TEXAS AND NEW YORK.

WE WOULD GET SEVEN EXTRA SEATS.

THE MEDIAN STATE, OKLAHOMA WOULD GET 1.5 AND 38th STATE, THE ONE YOU NEED FOR AMENDMENT, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, THAT'S NEW MEXICO AND THEY WOULD GET LESS THAN ONE SEAT.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS EXPANSION ALL WE WANT BUT IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE MORE REALISTIC KINDS OF POLICIES FOR GETTING RID OF GRIDLOCK ARE STATE BY STATE LIKE RANKED CHOICE VOTING OR OPEN PRIMARIES AND SO FORTH.

>> I THINK THAT, WHAT SARAH SAYS ABOUT, THIS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL THAT AMERICAN ELECTIONS DON'T MATTER AS MUCH, THAT THERE IS NOT THE SENSE THAT YOU CAN MAKE CHANGE HAPPEN AND THERE IS FRUSTRATION WITH THAT.

WHEN FRUSTRATION COMES, BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

THAT'S WHERE POPULISM COMES AND A LOT OF BAD THINGS HAPPEN BECAUSE PEOPLE FEEL THERE IS NO CHANGE POSSIBLE.

I THINK THE BEST WAY AND THE MOST REALISTIC IS TO GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER.

GETTING RID OF THE FILIBUSTER ON THE SENATE SIDE SO 51 VOTES FOR EVERYTHING.

THEREFORE ELECTIONS WOULD HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND THOSE CONSEQUENCES WILL MEAN THAT THINGS GET PASSED AND THEN THE VOTERS COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SAY WHETHER THEY LIKE THEM OR NOT.

TO ME, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THE FILIBUSTER AND IF WE GET AWAY WITH THAT, THERE WOULD BE HOPE THAT MAJOR THINGS CAN GET PASSED.

>> OKAY, SO THE FILIBUSTER IS WHERE THE ATTENTION SHOULD GO.

>> ALL RIGHT.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE As AND Fs AND NINA, WE'LL BEGIN WITH YOU AND YOUR F. >> SURE, MY F HAS TO DO WITH THE GROWING LIST OF MEDICATIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE, AT LEAST AS OF NOW.

ASTHMA, FOR EXAMPLE, AFFECTS MORE THAN 24 MILLION AMERICANS, BUT LIQUIDITY ALBUTEROL, A MEDICATION USED PRIMARILY BY HOSPITALS TO TREAT ASTHMA IS THE LATEST ADDITION TO THE U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DRUG SHORTAGE LIST.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONLY A HANDFUL OF SUPPLIERS MANUFACTURE A DRUG THAT 24 MILLION AMERICANS NEED.

>> TYE, YOUR F. >> TO THE 11 STATES MAINLY IN THE DEEP SOUTH WHO HAVE NOT ACCEPTED MEDICAID EXPANSION.

THAT MEANS 2 MILLION PEOPLE DON'T HAVE INSURANCE AND IT'S LED TO THE CLOSE YOU ARE OF RURAL HOSPITALS.

IT'S NEARLY FREE MONEY FOR THOSE STATES AND YET THEY HAVEN'T GOT IT IN THE POOREST STATES IN THE NATION.

SO I HOPE THAT NORTH CAROLINA IS ABOUT TO VOTE ON THAT, I HOPE MORE STATES OPEN UP MEDICAID EXPANSION.

>> SARAH, YOUR F. >> WELL, THE COMPETITION WAS FIERCE THIS WEEK, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ENDING THE PANDEMIC ERA POLICY THAT INCREASED FOOD ASSISTANT PAYMENTS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE SNAP PROGRAM.

THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH FOOD INSECURITY.

SOME ELDERLY AMERICANS WILL SEE THEIR BENEFITS DROP FROM 280 TO ABOUT $23.

THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS OF PEOPLE WAITING UP TO NINE HOURS FOR FREE FOOD IN EASTERN KENTUCKY.

SOME PEOPLE ARE SAYING THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO EAT ONE MEAL A DAY.

THIS IS JUST SHAMEFUL.

>> CHAD, YOUR F. >> MY F GOES TO WANING SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN WAR EFFORTS.

VICTORY HERE IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT FOR CONTAINING RUSSIA BUT FOR DETERRING CHINESE AGGRESSION AND TO PRESERVING THE GLOBAL ORDER.

WE ARE SEEING DECLINES AMONG REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND EUROPEANS AND I'M WORRIED THAT UKRAINIAN AID WILL BE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK DURING THE U.S. BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS.

>> TO THE As.

NINA.

>> PRESIDENT BIDEN'S 2024 BUDGET INCLUDES BILLIONS FOR CHILD CARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION.

ALSO THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK THAT COMPANIES THAT WANT SOME OF THE $52 IN SUBSIDY FUNDS FOR CHIP MANUFACTURING WILL HAVE TO OFFER EMPLOYERS AFFORDABLE AND QUALITY CHILD CARE.

THIS IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR SYRACUSE WITH MICRON COMING AND WITH THE FACT THAT DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE HERE IS THREE TIMES GREATER THAN THE AVAILABILITY.

>> TYE.

>> MY A GOES TO SENATOR BROWN AND SENATOR VANCE, TWO SENATORS FROM OHIO, DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE COMPREHENSIVE RAIL SAFETY REFORM IN RESPONSE TO THE EAST PALESTINE, OHIO DERAILMENT.

TWO BIPARTISAN COMMISSIONS-- MORE RAIL TRAFFIC IS COMING IN THE FUTURE AND WE NEED TO MAKE IT SAFE AND THOSE TWO SENATORS ARE DOING IT ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.

>> SARAH.

>> MY A THIS WEEK GOES TO THE FIVE WOMEN WHO ARE SUING TEXAS OVER THE STATE'S ABORTION LAW.

EACH OF THESE FIVE WOMEN FACED REALLY SIGNIFICANT RISKS TO THEIR LIVES OR THE LIVES OF THEIR FETUSES WHEN THEY WERE DENIED ABORTIONS BY TEXAS PHYSICIANS WHO ARE AFRAID OF VIOLATING THE STATE'S RESTRICTIVE ABORTION LAW.

TEXAS DOES HAVE EXCEPTIONS BUT THE LAW IS VAGUE AND SOME PHYSICIANS HAVE ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION RATHER THAN RISKING HEAVY FINES AND POTENTIAL JAIL TIME.

>> AND CHAD, YOUR A.

>> A LOT OF AS TO THE LOCAL SPORTS WORLD.

COLGATE MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM SECURED ITS THIRD STRAIGHT AUTOMATIC BIRTH IN THE NCAA TOURNAMENT THIS WEEK.

COLGATE WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM IS JUST THREE WINS AWAY FROM AN NCAA DIVISION 1 CHAMPIONSHIP.

WE HOST THE QUARTER FINAL MATCH TOMORROW AT 3 P.M.

SO COME ON DOWN TO HAMILTON.

WATCH SOME EXCELLENT HOCKEY.

AND OF COURSE JIM BOEHEIM WILL BE LEAVING SYRACUSE AFTER 47 YEARS PLUS OF SERVICE.

INCREDIBLE RUN.

I KNOW HOW MUCH HE AND SYRACUSE BASKETBALL MEANT TO THIS LOCAL COMMUNITY.

LONG BEFORE I MOVED HERE.

>> AMEN TO THAT.

>> BOEHEIM GETS AN A, THE UNIVERSITY MAY GET AN F FOR THE WAY THEY HANDLED IT.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN, YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY.

FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER."

HAVE A GOOD FIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪