then we continue our week long look at china's geopolitical influence in the world. joining us is scott kennedy of the center for strategic and international studies on the impact of chinese policy on u.s. economics. then we talk about stricter federal banking regulations following the collapse of silicon valley bank. washington journal is next. host: it is the washington journal for mch 15. while in california president biden detailed an executive order aimed at increasing background checks were part firearms are purchased. we will show you the president's announcement from yesterday and in our first hour we will have you tell us what you think about

the president's executive order aimed at reducing gun violence. let us know what you're thinking. if you are -- if you support this new executive order, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose the new order, (202) 748-8001. and if you are a gun owner, (202) 748-8002 you can text us at (202) 748-8003. president spending days in califoia readingith families who died fromhe monterey park, shooting. using that as the backdrop making the announcement for the new executive order. cbs wring aut it saying issuinthis order it hangs to increase t numbeof ckgrou checks promote better and more securfirear stage. it would also ensure u.s. law enrcemenagencies are getting the st out of bipartisan gun-corol lawnacted last summer

in janua, talkg abouthe presidt'isit, a man in monter park, california shot killed at lunar new year celebration. here is a portion from the president talkin about the new executive order aimed to reduce gun violence. [video clip] pres. bide today let me announce another executive order that will accelerate the defensive line to work to salute -- to work to save more lives more quickly. this executive order helps keep firearms out of dangerous hands. i continue to call on congress to require background checks for all firearm sales. [applause] and in the meantime my executive order directs my attorney

general to take every lawful action possible to move us as close as we can to universal background checks withounew legislation. it is just common sense. to cck if someone is a felon, domestic abuser. before they buy a gun. the executive order also expands public awareness campaigns about red flag laws, which my son, before he died the attorney general in delaware was a great proponent of. more parents, teachers, police officers, health providers and counselors know how to flag if someone is exhibiting violent tendencies, threatening classmates or experiencing suicidal thoughts that make them a danger to themselves and others. and temporary or -- temporarily

remove that person's access to firearms and it protes this executive order safe storage of firearms. something every responsible firearm owner agrees with. to hold the gun industry accountable. an independent government study that analyzes and exposes how gun manufacturers aggressively market fearms to civilians, especially minors, including using military imagery. and it directs the attorney general to public release firearm inspection reports of firearms dealers who are subject to violation of the law. [applause] that way policymakers can set the laws to crack down on those illegal gun dealers and the

public canvoid purchasing from them. host: there is the announcement from yesterday. the new executive order aimed at reducing gun violence as a means of increasing background checks and red flag laws. the president spoke about. comment on this new effort. if you suppo the announcement from yesterday and the president's efforts, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose them, (202) 748-8001. for gun owners in the audience, (202) 748-8002. you could also text us at (202) 748-8003. and post on our various social mediapots -- social media sites as well. sports firearm agency, here is whsaid yesterday in that nouncement, "the biden administration should demand assaults on prosecutors and lawmakers already use -- misuse

firearms that prey on innocent americans. " it wt year the president gn something called the bipartisan communities act. putting a new law into effect that would expand to 2021. various flag laws in the unid states. it would include a criminal statute banning trafficking. clng who needs to register as a f firearms dealer. e so call boyfriend loophole, preventing people convicted for domestic violence from owning a gun. and it would provide money to expandccess to mental health school safety. the president announcement expanding those efforts even more. calling on congress to do more when it comes to gun legislation to reduce gun violence. pick the line that best represents you.

if you called in the last 30 days, hold off from doing so today. mike in ohio on our oppose line, go ahead. caller: good morning. we have already got enough laws. background checks? you have to have a background check to even get a gun. the only thing that concerns me is this red flag law. if i feel you are a threat to me or the neighborhood, i can call this special hotline, they will, and take whatever weapons you have. that is ridiculous. the second amendment says we are allowed it to arm and defend ourselves. the way these democrats have all these da people releasing criminals that are coming out reoffending and killing, murder and all the major states are up 100%. host: do you think these efforts by the president infringe on the second amendment directly? caller: of course it does.

this guy has been infringing on us since he got in office. host: red flag laws, how does that infringe directly? caller: we already have background checks. you have to go through a background check to even purchase a gun. they are just trying to push this red flag law so they can round up all of our weapons and then they have complete control. host: marquis in arizona also on our oppose line, you are next. though ahead. caller: we already have the second amendment. we have lawsn the books we can endorse. the president is n choosing to enforce those laws. this seems to be an old -seems to be a gun grab. different issues going on, we n't know w is coming in the country, who is not coming in the country. this is issue of safety. having a gun is just smart. host: you called these new

efforts a gun grab it. what makes them that, specifically? caller: his focus on the high cartridges and semiautomatic rifle. he said there is no point for a citizen having those. the president is in our chief magistrate, he is our leader. who is he to say what kind of gun person should have? the constitution is supposed to be for erybody, not just for one peon or group of people. host: tt is marqu in arizona. we have divided the lines in such a way aware if yosupport these efforts by thresident, especially from yesterday you can call us at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose them, (202) 748-8001. if you are a gun owner and you want to give us your thoughts, (202) 748-8002. text us at [captioning performed by the tionalaptioning institute, . -- text at (202) 748-8003.

a federal background check isn't required for private firearm sales of individuals. the change could result in mor individuals ing classified as firearms dealers who are required to conduct background ecks for all sales. wall seet jonal al adds the president producing a public report of how manufacturers maet guns. directed towards minors and the use of military imagery. that is from the wall street journal yesterday. a part of the executive order signed yesterday as well. on our oppose line in florida, this is michael. tell us what you think about yesterday's announcement. go ahead. caller: i am wondering if the laws areoing to apply to his son retroactively who mage to

y a gunntoxiced on dgs d theyound a gun in th garbage n. t'start ere fit. st: why do u oppo them currtly? aside from using the president's son as an ample? caller: the law-abiding citizen isn't the example -- i't the problem. you nt to p an end to oblems like illegal gun use, crime, start there first. host: we have set aside a lineup for guownerso give their perspective. larry situation in laurel, maryland. a gun owner. hello. caller: hi. i am a gun owner, retired police officer and retired polic-- and retired military. i am all for background checks but i am also for the enforcement through the court, through the justice system. on anyone that violates or uses

a weapon in crime. so we definitely need to hammer down hard. that is one thing we are lacking in this administration is the prosecution of crimina with guns. but other than that, every citizen, every law-abiding citizen should have the right to have a weapon in their home. or in some cases, in some states they can carry. host: do you think this background check would you support, should that extend to private gun sales as well which the presidt said yesterday? should background checks extend to privateun sale? caller: absolutely. if you are a felon, a convicted felon, you should not be carrying a weapon.

host not even that, just a private gun sale between two people, should a private -- should a background check be conducted on those too? caller: i believe so. host: thomas in indiana on our oppose line. caller: the amendment guaranteed it should not be infringed upon. gun laws are not to be infringed upon. host: what makes the president's actions that infringes upon the second amendment in your opinion? caller: all those people trying to get guns cannot. i have not got any felonies on me. but the gun shop. in wilmington, indiana won't sell me a gun because i don't

know why. i have been trying for two years to b a single shot shotgun. but the government keeps saying no, for some unknown reason. they won't even tell me why. host: they won't give you a specific of why they won't let you buy a gun? caller: right. i am not asking for an ak-47, i want a single shot shotgun. host: ok that is thomas in indiana. representative andrew clyde on his twitter feed with some of the reaction on this announcement from yesterday. herites that, "president biden's ultimate goal is to unarmed america." if you are on twitter saying, "it is not enough but certainly a start. it needs to be followed by a mandatory band on -- age limits

and online gun sales." "the american people have made it clear they want comprehensive reform. i will continue to fight for it in coness some of the legislive acon. some peoplresponding on r twitter fee ac-spanj. chris respondg in ktucky. go aad. caller: a retired prosecuto chasing people around it with a drone. this guy has been doing it over 10 years. it costs half $1 million a day. it is out of control. host: i don't know how that relates to yesterday's announcement on executive orders on guns by the president. w does that relate? caller: it really don't.

host: ok, let's go to scott. scott in skane washiton on our oppose line. caller: i find the legiation seems to be a spegoat for an inanate obct. whether it be sons, forks, automobis, i don't think we take enough consideration into accountability or holding people responsible. as a retired police officer earlier said our court system seem to be failing to hold peop accountable we have 20 plus time convicted felons still walki the street because they hen't been serving out sentences yete are going after honest,

hard-working, law-abiding citizens who are paying the price. host: why do you relate guns in the same category as fos and cars ller: everyy people make personal cices, what fds ey eat. whethe that leads to obesity, another epidem we have in th cotry and that a higy costly t our hlth and welleing. poor decisions drivi tomobiles, whether it is intoxication. the is a lot of intsect and ovlap. it isncredie how much we placthe spotlightn guns versus the personal choicesade by human beings with free agency. host: that is a vier in spokane. let's hear from kathy in michig on our supporline. caller: good mning, pedro.

c-span, thk you. it is very intelligent decision on president biden's pa. my oldest son who is 35 was skiing on the kilometer course cross count ski score -- ski source- ski course and there is an open trail and he thought two dd deer that had been freshly shot and killed. and it disturbed him gatly. it was like a mutilation. she called m and i contaed e dnr and the female dnr officer took it seriously. there is not a n in my house. i havehree sons, none of them own a gun. their father does haveis hunting rifle but he has nev used it afr the children were born, stopped hunti. host: to the previous callers

point we already have laws on guns why in your mind is executive action needed? caller: the state is going to take control of the situation. being born and raised in clinton, wating the city disc -- watching the city disintegrate, there is a lot of gun violence. it sms a lot of pele i know carry guns, that includes females. i don't understand it. i don't know why people think ey hav to have a firearm to protect themselves. i have a big dog. if i didn't have that i would just lock my doors. i have had incidents doing aot of long stance running. it was quite frightening when i was alone, that i never had a gun with me but i d have to report this one section of this 10 kileter crse ouinhe

woods. there was constant firing of a gun and it scared me. finally theyent out and looked and it was gun chills all over e grou. st: kathy in michigan relatin he thougs on the new executiverders sued by the president taking a look at the ise of gun violee. give you thoughts the same manner, 02) 748-8000, if you support this. (202) 748-8001if you oppose it. (202) 748-8002, if y are aun owner. texts at (202) 748-8003. president calling on congress to do more. the executive order she signed yesterday. here's more from the president from yesterday. [video clip] pres. biden: the executive order improves feder coordination to support victims, survivors and communities affected by mass shootings, the same way fema responds to natural disaster in california and all around the

nation. and it will help folks recover and build after wildfires and super storms and droughts. for example we need to provide more mental health support for grief and trauma. [applause] more financial assistance when a family loses a sole breadwinner or a small business shuts down due to a shooting investigation. there is more to this executive order. last week i laid out in my budget that we invest more in safer communities and expand access to mental health services for those affected by gun violence. congressional republicans should back my budget instead of calling for cuts in these services or defunding the police or abolishing the fbi as we hear from our maga republicans. none of this resolves congress

from the responsibility of acting. pass universal background checks, eliminate gun manufacturing from mited liability. dan assault weapons for high-capacity magazines. [applause] i led that fight in 1994. for 10 years that law was in place, mass shootings went down. it expired and 10 years later ss shootings tripled since then. then assault weapons, do it now. do something big. host: that full announcement at our website at c-span.org if you want to vw it on our app, you can do that at c-span now. follow us on the lines a giv

your thougs on psident's annocementrom yesterday. in lincoln, nebraska on our oppo line, this is bob. callerjoe biden, during the obamadminirationas involv where they shped guns ross the mexican border. during the event -- during the afghanistan withdrawal the lef billions of dollars worth military grade weaponry. so we are shipping guns to mexico, we are leaving guns in afghanistan, but in america, the land of the free, they want to take our guns. does anyone see the irony in that? ho: how does that relate to yesterday, please? caller: does he nowant to ban weaponry in america? host: would you call the actis or efforts on expanding background checks and red cloud -- read flag laws, would you equate that as a band? caller: they want to eliminate

our rights to firearms but they are giving them to afghanistan's and mexican cartels. host: that is bob. republican from texas on his twitter feed, "shall not be infringed to joe biden " president trump -- revisited from idaho's thing - when his law stops going againstun odors i will fight for idaho and seco amendment and pushback against biden'vendetta again lawful ownship. thats some of the congressional reactionromhe announcement yesrday. in pennsylvania a gun owner and harleysville. caller: this guy is a joke, first of all. he is not a president, he is a puppet. we own guns, we put them in a safe, nobody is bothered by them, nobody can get them out but myself. these cities that the shootings

are being done and held at our all drug dealers. you want to ban guns, band them in the city. maybe start dealing with these drug dealers and shut their guns down, they won't be ae to sell them. host: you said put guns in safer safe. should that be a law? caller: absolutely not. i put it in my safer for my own protection. that way nobody can break in my house and take my guns. these democratic cities are a joke. you have more drudealers and more people doing drugs than anyone in the whole world. host: yesterday specifically dealt with background checks. what is wrong with expanding those background checks? caller: how many background checks do you need? it is out of control. these gunsre getting their way through every way possible other than background checks. it is a joke.

read laws, come on, guys. host: let's hear from curtis in orlando. who supports it. caller peoplshould have the right to have a gunbut noon e stre. somebodyalkingith a gunn the seet, i will never own gu there e peoplyou te them goodorningthey want to fht with you i ll never, ever own a gun. host: ultimately yo said people

ve the right to own guns. is that your belief? caller: sometimes there are crazpeople coming in your house. i have -- i understand that. but to walk on the strt with an automaticun, you want to have a gun to go and hunt, not walk the street. to dwhat, sho and kl ople? it dsn't makeny sen. use mmon sse. host: tts curt. t's hearrom pa in ohio, a gun owner. hello. caller: i have a couplef issues here. i think they do need to have laws on background checks on private sales and also gun shows. i have no problem with that. it should be licensed just like a vehicle. we have to go to the state when we sell a car privately to have it registered. i have no problem with them doing the same thing we need to get the gun out of

the hands of people who have mental issues. trying to suppress people who have weapons is not good. we went through a stage where it was illegal to buy booze and sell booze. it went underground. we cannot stop -- why do we think we can stop guns from getting in the hands of people who will not do the right thing question mark host: -- right thing? host: you highlighted two things. you highlighted background checks and private sales. at gun shows, do you think there should be background checks? at the gun show, you have seen this happen? caller: absolutely. host: and so you think more laws regarding those two things,

private sales and gun shows are still needed? caller: i have no problems buying the gun. they can be put in a secure place. but after they have that background check. not to stop the sales, just make sure that thesendividuals are capable, mentally sble to handle gun. am in a police officer. i did undercover work. i s able to buy a still and that is supposed to be illeg. unless we take the right action and we d'want to put our people in this country at risk on not being able to protect themselves. espeally a lot of seniors now. host: paul in ohio, a gun owner. to point youo an article back in 2021,t goes back to a previous statement made by president biden in whh he said, according to th article, "you can go to a gun show and buy whatever you want and no background cck." politico who did t analysis of

this ss it imostly false. president biden announced several actions the administration wouldake. mr. biden repeating the call for congress to pass legislatioto expand those checks saying the house voted largely along party lines to verify checked bills to ensure they haven't move forward in the senate. he talked about that aspect of the gun show also an american statement in politico saying, "when it comes to where we sailed the guns, not where the gun is sold. they have to run a backgroun check. they have to do so at a brick-and-mortar store." every background check and a gun show -- in some cases the president's announcement yesterday they can lk at private gun sales as a means have the justice department look at background checks. so of the aspect from yesterday's announment, you

can add ur opinion to the mix r the next half hour. (202) 748-8000, if you support the president's announcement sterday. (202) 748-8001, ifou oppose it. and if you a a gun owner, (202) 748-8002. in maryland, this is zachary. a supporter of yesterday's announcement. go ahead. caller: i am a military veteran, i am a nurse in baltime, maryland. i am very aware of gun violence on the street stop i definitely agree with background checks. the majority of people trying to get their hands on guns, trying to be law-abiding shouldn'have a problem with background checks. you have to register to vote, register your car. you have to register for countless different things. if you are doing the right thing it shouldn't matter if you ha to go through background checks. the issue is people who generalloppose it have something they particularly don't want.

i also agree with the mental health. when you have mental health patients, i am a nurse, you are constantly making sure they don't have access to various different things to hurt themselves or other people. guns should be at the top of that list, given the deadly coursen which they can be used in. host: that is zachary. your signal is goingn and out. makes for calling. we will move on to mini in las vegas. he will make some comments -- that is where the president is today. vinnie is on our oppose line. caller: i am not a gun owner right now. i ink this is done for appearances. there is a website i look up that shows mass shootings that happen in our country every day. people who are injured and killed. the vast majority are in urban areas. when people are killed, half of these murders, killings go

unsolved and no one says anything. this is an anti-rural thing against law-abiding citizens. when covid came down and the government acted like the earnest, i sayore guns, please. host: that is vinny in las vegas. the president speaking later on today about 2:30 eastern standard time at the university of nevada at las vegas. heill make plans that she will make an announcement about his plans for presiption gwth -- prescription drugs. he is excted to arrive back in washingt about:00 th eving. dennis is ne in pennsvania, supporter of t president's announment from yesterday. good mning. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call.

the presidt is doing all that he can. there definitelneeds to be more done. i heard someby from pennsylvania claim aut background checkin pennsylvania. in pennsylnia i could set a table up in my front yard an sell guns. long guns do not have, a private sell does not have to have a background check. handguns have to have a background check. you can go to an auction as long as iis still on thproperty. i own guns. handgu theres a hole in pennsylvania you can dri a bus throh of stolen guns or a lost gun does not have to be rerted. they tried to pass a law tmake

it mandatory reported. publicans shot that down. you can sela handgun to somebo and say it is lost or sten, bideal. assault rifles, i have problem, they should be baed. semi on nomadic handguns are out of control. every manufacturer is trying to one up themselves. mine holds 10, mine holds 12, mine holds 15. now there is one out there that holds 18 a standard magazine. host: robert is next in indiana on our oppose ne. caller: i believe in the backgroundheck, but there is thousands of wa of people getting guns. mostly what we need get rid of is drugs. and it get that border close. that is why we got what we got. he will not eck th border. we don't ow who is coming through that ho: yesterday's announcement det with private gun sales.

do youhink bkground checks should extend to private gun sales russianark- private gun sal? caller sure. ifhey areoing tsell guns on their property or whateve you caot reapeopl's nds. ho: if you feel that way,hy are youallingn our pose line? caer: why did i call on the oppose? host: yeah, if u agree with what t president said yesterday? caller i aee if you have a gun, you should be checked a lot of people if eyant a gun, they are going to get it one way or the other. there ain't no law that lls yoyou can read a person's mind that ty want to go get a gun to kill somebodythey are going to dit. host: roberand inana. folks at gallup taking a svey early on this year when it mes to folks attitude on guns. they pted on gallup new com.

america's dissatisfaction with gun laws, 62%. the highest since gallup's tren satisfaction with gun policy has fallen to 43 --4%, tying the lowest on record. in janry since 21, dissatisfaction with eve lig -- a variety of pocy and life issues. in 2001 americans were only slightly more satisfied with gun laws than ey are now. 2003 they were evenly divided. 2004 to january 2012 americans re satisfied. more americans were satisfied than dissasfied. e mass shooting a newwn in nnecticut. majority of those have be

dissatisfi as ss shoings have continued in the united states. the prident's announcement yesterdataking a look at extending background checks an a look at red flag laws. inest virginia o ourupport line, we heafrom chuck. host: good morning, pedro. first of all, i would like to compliment you. of all the hosts on e shington journal, you dohe best job of keeping people on topic. because the show always arts off with a specific topic and a t of people call in with their own personal axes to grind and i really wanto complement you fotrying to keep people on poin some people have called in focusingn a particular phrase in t second amendment, shall not be infringed. i would like to focus on a different phrase in the second amendment, spefically, well-reguled militia.

the ability town an arsenal of is many gunss you want, whatev kind gun y want wi absolely no accotabili whaoever,hat doesn't sound like a well reguted militia toe. some people call in d say the reason we haveun violence, peop are wching, playing violent video games, watching violent movies. look at canada, i looked a website on per capita gun homicides. the united states hasix tes the per capita rate of gun homicides as canada does. canada is not thatiffere fr the united states cultural. theyatch violent movies,hey play violent video gam, they have drug club rooms -drug problems. what is it that cada is doing

right that our rate homices six tes as high as there's question mar- six tes as high as the's? host: the president -- is that something you suort? caller: if you can improve backgrnd checks, that is great. if you can improve red flag laws, that is great. i caot igine, people call themsees responsible, law-abidin citizens, why would y responsible,aw-abiding gun owner have any objection to improving background checks? it doesn't infringe on their freedoms aall. host: let's hear from kenneth in michigann our oppose law tt on our oppose line. go aad. caller: every week you have this thing on guns. guns, guns, gun. when are you goi to ha one on the crimina of guns?

criminals with gun the president should lead by maki sure the members of h own fily abide by the law. host: on the president's announcement of extending background checks, why do you oppose it? caller: i don't oppose the background check, i oppose the fact he wants criminals to go free. he should have harsher laws for criminal gun owners. and he shod start by leaving an example. host: kenneth in michig giving his thoughts. semi giving his thoughts recently on what deals with firearms. florida representative matt gaetz sent out a tweet march 10 on his twitter feed which reads, "if these weaponized agencies like the atf do not come to heal, congressill defund them.

it will not stop targeting law-abiding americans unless we look forward to taking the fight directly." he was on the house floor recently taking a look at the same issues with the atf here is representative matt gaetz from last month. [video clip] >> this new rule will ban firearms, forcing users to comply with this new decree or risk becoming a felon. disabled veterans and others have used these for years to help the -- to help them via pistols and the atf has unary cash has unilaterally decided this is no longer acceptable. now law-abiding americans will either have toestroy their newly illegal firearms or figure out how to comply with an arbitrary and confusing regulatory scheme and firearms act. the atf cannot be trusted to protect our rights to keep and

bear arms. there is no timeline in which the atf, under any administration would become an ally. it needs to go. we need to abolish the atf for they abolish our second amendment rights. alcohol, tobacco and firearms should be the name of a chain of convenience stores in florida, not an agency. host: more of that available at the website if you want to see it. in oklahoma on our support line, we will hear from sharon. caller: good morning. as far as this on biden and the background checks, yes, we need them. we needed to do everything possible to check that person out before we give them a deadly weapon. we have our kids on the street. i don't understand the republicans wanting all these mass weapons out there. it isn't going to hurt you to

get a background check. it isn't going to hurt you at all. getting guns off the street, we need to. these criminals that are getting the gun, all these mass killings were by children, white boys. have you all ought about that? they are not criminals, they are kids. host: do you think the idea of expanding a background check is more congress rolled in the president? caller: i really don't know whose role it is. i just think they need to get it fid. and quit letting all these guns. our amendment says we have a right to bear arms, but not war it -- not war weapons. ar 15's are not war weapons. we are not at war. this country isn't. why do we allow that? we need background checks. host: randy in missouri, a gun owner, hello. caller: pedro, i really enjoy

your show. i think you do a great job. i boug a gun 20 ars ago and i had to go to my local police department. itook three days. th loc police department was involved in issuing that permit for me to buy that gun. i think it is fine to goack to something like that. in december of 2022i bought a rifle at a cabela's and they did a background check on me in about five minutes. i don't know how thorough that is. the solution to this problem is having a mandatory federal rule mandary fedal law. if you do a crime with a g, you get five yearin prison. no plea deal, no judge that can reduce the sentence. you do a crime with a gun, you get five years in peri-- in federal penitentiary. i live in the suburbs of pennsylvania, we have prosecutor who doesn'show up for heangs for murdere. ey havto dro this -- they

have to drop the charges a lot of these prosecutors are not prosecuting these criminals. that is a good start. host: you talke about your gun background check at the store. what kind of information did you have to provide? caller: i had to provide a driver's license, my emploent. i am sure they did a credit check and a brief criminal background check on me. the local police, they might have come to joe's house three or four times, never make an arrest. but they know he is not quite stable. somebody just looking at your financial history and your criminal background is not going to see that. your local police are going to know that. they might be in a better position to say we might want to pause on the sky. host: we will go to illinois next. tim on our oppose line. m, good morning. caller: goomorning.

i would like to he it put on the ballot that thesmass shootis get a brief trial and executed promptly right after e trial. itost about a million a yea toeep somebody i prison, to the xpayer st: the predent's announcement yesteay, yo cause oour oppose lin why you oose it? ller: i oppose a lot of sff e president does. but yocannot do nothg about it. host: that is tim in illinois. gun violence archive, statistical data when it comes to gun violence across t uned state publishing the record since 2013. they say when it comes to their latest total number of gun violent deaths, 8500 relating to all causes on the categories of

homici, murder unintentional, 3000 600 plus. suicide, 4800 plus. total number of injuries, 6300 plus. then it goes on from there. ifou want to check o some of their findingshen it comeso gun violence in the united stat. thannounment of this executive der, you c still find it online at our website c-span.org. if you want to download ourpp, you cado that too. you can do tt at cpan now. we have about 15 mites or so left in this conversation where you can ta about the president's ecutive order announcement yterday in orida on our support line, this is david. hell caer: i suprt this. i am not sure how much good background checks will do, but i definitely support asslt weapons ban. congress won't act.

they did somhing. i support that. host: jim in pennsylvia. a gun owne heo. caller: also a federal licensee for some -- licensee for firearms. i have sold and bought guns in the last years. i have never sd or bought a gun i didn't do a background check. all is stuff is smoking mirrors. is has nothing to with anything but try tweaken the send amendment. host explain tha caller: we have already got the background checks. joe biden saidn the constitution it is st for shooting squirrels so you don't need anything bua single shot rifle. but the second amendment clearly states this is to protect yourself against a government that you wt to change. we are not goingo brin squirrel guns to a revolution.

thomas jefferson said himself -- host: o of the stories yesterda said when it comes to bagroundhecks, this don't exnd to private gun sales. caller: it does to me. i wouldn'tell a gun prively without doing a background check. i have never bought a gun withoudoing it that way. st: shod it be extended to that though? caller i don't ha a problem th background checks, pere. is just anoer wayfrying to wken the second amendmt. is gog afteassaul ries. they called him assault rifles because they are trying to scare people. an assault rifle is a rifle fully automatic that holds 20 rounds. he wants to take away anything th is a semi automatic gun. host: let's go back to yesterday, would you extend background checks to private gun sales? caller: i don't have problem with that, i never did. that in itself i don't have a

problem. it is the big picture i have a problem with. that is what all second amendment advocates, gun owners and people that sell guns have a problem with. you try to nip away at it a little bit at a time. every time give a speech about something. i don't have a problem with the background checks. host: let's hear from john in virginia. a suppter of this efrt. caller: i support the president on this. it is high time we do this. but i don't think we are going to make any progress until we register all guns universally in this country. and ban any kind of assault rifle or pistol. and also limit the numr of bullets it can have in anyone weapon. host: you think all those actions infringeagainst the second amendment? ? caller: no. i don't.

i think the secondmendment has been twisted bacand forth over these years. if you really back to the original meaning of the second amendment anread it, you will e it was for real -- it was for well-regulated militia. host: you are calling for registration of all guns and other things. you don't think that would infringe on someone's ability to own a gun in the first place? caller: it infringes people to be able to drive a car down the road too. but many people are out there driving cars down the road. they can still have guns. there is over 300 million guns in this country. we are overflowing with guns. you can buy them anywhere. anybody that says that they only so, they don't register guns when they sell privately, they are selling -- they are telling the truth. host: tom is next in woodbridge,

virginia on our oppose line. caller: i want to say you guys are a national treasur i am a recognized second amendment advocate in virginia. i ran first -- i ran for senate a few years ago. a couple of facts people conveniently forget. 90% of all of the homicides in thunited states occur in 17 neighborhoods. not states, not 17 cities. 90of theomicid occur in 17 neighbhoods. these 17 cities e war nes. evy single -- every single one of them h been governed by a democrat for 57 years. therhas not been a singl republican mayor in any of those cities and almost 50 to 0 ars.

the seco amendment is not about hunting. a well regulated militia, the time of the writing of the constitution was every male between the age of 16 and 50 was required to own a firearm to protect theicommunity. whh washeir state and ultitely their country. ho: how does that relate to thannouncement yesrday taking look at background checks? why does thatelate to background checks, why does that rete to red flag laws? caller: it is a fundamental objection to what the second amendment says. with regard to red flag laws, there is a missing argument in all of this. almost every single one of these cases of mass shooters, it has be somebody who has been suffering from mental iness for many times years and years d were known to be suffering from mental illness.

in some cases, like what haened dn in florida, the kid that shot the school was known to be violent and the f didn't do anything out it and ultimately the fbi had to pay the parents of those kids because they failed to intervene to stop that kid from committing violence. he was known to be suffering from mental health issues. host: that isom in rginia. speaking o flori. the actis of i governmt wn theretampa bay.com, the paper publhed the fact, legislation at would allow floridians to carry. to aow peoe to openly carry gun inublic. governor desantis was recorded by a group saying heas in support of open carr gislatively leaders -- the sentences he will not without a

bill just because it "does not ntain erythi i want." let's hear fm tony on r supportine in michigan. hello. ller: i support the psident. i do bause he means well. it itoo mu mass shootin for us to just t up wh this. but, i think it is aittle bit o late because t congrs is ran by the republicans o simply refuse to even takup a bill on it. what we need to d the wle fedel government needs to get together against every state. and itoesn't matter ho good of a person you are. everybody should be tread the same. the guns should be regulated.

and in most cases, taken away. because there is no responsible peop nowads. t the nobbyists, not e owners, not the manucturers. this is just out of control. and it won't get better until everody ge on the same page. host: aansas in our oppose line, is is ane. hi, there. caller:ood moing. i don't thinkhey really want to change the gun violence in thisountry. background checks is good idea, except their whole mning in doi it is to know where all the guns are and who owns them. so when theyant to come g them, they can come scoop them up.

if they reallyared aut lives, they wouldn't have let almost 400,0 assau rifles -- left almost 400,0 assault rifles iafghanistan. they wouldn't have done theast and furious acss the border. 4 llion documented people me across in t last o years. thatroughtll these guns with them. chicago, guns are outlawed. there is mass killings all the time. nobody says anhing about tha we don't re about life in this couny. you talk about 8400 people being kied by guns, that is awful. but we sughtered 190 8000 unborn children caller: i am opposed to the red

flag laws. the canceled culture in this country is a mess. as far as that goes with a federal registry. look at what happened with stralia? they went with the gun registry and they took all the guns and during covid they were all locked up. people were put in penal colonies against their will. that is gog to hpen here. wh drives kids to buy guns? lo at the military. my first gun i bought was in m-16 when i wasn the military. if you want to knowhy kids are buying guns and the obsession with it? look at blu can be. host: that's the last call on

this topic. to guess joing us through the morning, at this time at 8:00 we are taking a look at the aspts of the u.s. relationship with china, the military and economics. econics will be the topic today specifically the trade policy with china. scott kennedy from center for strategic and international studies will join us for that conversation. later on we will talk about those bank closures in the west in the future of the policy when it comes to bank closures with sohern methodist university professor michael davis talking about the takeover of silicon valley bank. those topics some more on washington journal when we come back.

>> health care, the environment, edation, the economy and gun violence dominate the headlines and where the top issues addressed by students in the studentcam documentary contest. almost 3000 students entered. for the first time students wer asked to envision themselves in a position of power and sharing what their top priorities would be if they were elected to congress. c-span judges evaluated each eny. >> i would institute counseling in schools aoss the nation. >> i would connect students with heth care providers. we are happy to announce this year's first and grant

prizewinners. our first prize winner is benjamin from ohio for his documentary, losing a generation. the first prizewinners in the high school centra division are sophia smith and their documentary on envirmental concerns. the first prize winner is carsten collins from austin, texas for his documentary on chine rchases of u.s. lands.

out of 3000 students this year and the span student competition you guys are thi grand prizewinners. i am speechles y so much. they won the top prize for data privacy. myop priority would be that americans have control over their data, how it is used and who it is given to. we are ae to communicatwith distant relatives, shop remely online offer free. are these really free services? corporations le meta and google, use these platforms to collect personal data. we found they track a user's

precise locatn, purchases you make in a plethora of additional data. companies that provide this information, to show us personalized ads. this would be like someone is following you every day as he walked down the street, watching what you do, where you go, for how long and who you are with. >> from all of us at c-span we would like to express our gratitude to teachers, parents and mentors to encourage the students throughout the compn. congratulations to all the winners and stayuned as the top 21 entriesirn c-span. you can watch every week studentcam entries any time at studentcam.org. "washington journal," continues.

host: we are taking a look at aspects of the united states and china like military, his geopolitical influence of today we focus on the economy. joining us for this discussion is scott kennedy from center for strategic and international studies. good morning and thanks for joining us. what is the best way tthink about the relationship ecomical that the u.s.as with china? guest: we have a monster relation, 750 billion in tra, investment we arintegrated with their supply chai. the same time, were strategic mpetits wher we e faci ofwith each other with what we want the intertional order to look le. we are deeply integrated but at the sa time we face momental polical struggles.

we have to fure o how to llaborate, compete fairl but also deawith the national security implications that come with it. host:heconomic concerns underlie every decision the united states makes with china? guest: economics to national security. issues play a large role. we are worried about u.s. economic competitiness. our employment picture, flatio as well as many different industries are going to go from autonomous vehicles and other tys of ai to quantum, semiconctors and all of that has national security implications. you can have a conversatn about china without the national security side. washington sees that economic integration wi china is

negative for our national security and it's a mixed picture. we can't decouple from china. we have to figure out how to use the kind of coupling that we do have to advance our national security. not just play defense. host: economic figures that show imports and exports increased to 590 billion. consumers bought more chinese goods, exports from china 194 billion. guest: all of the talk about decoupling, there are areas like semi conductors where we have imposed significant restraint. new investments of slow down but overall trade has grown during the pandemic, we had almost no

travel between the two countries and that will start to go. we are adjusting our relationship, not eliminating the relationship. host: as far as the adjustment, what is that look like? guest: when the.s. and china started increasing their trade relationship you saw aot of american multinationals go. we saw that effect jobs in the united states. and he saw china uses an export platform for the rest of the world. a lot of the trade we have between the two countries, companies that are doing business with china in china, for china, those who use china as their global supply chains

are still there but moving to southeast asia, india. you are seeing a transition in the way the industry is run. china was primarily competitive at the lower end of technology and clothing, toys, games. now they are comtitive at the top of the market. it's a very different kind of relationship. we are both targeting the same industries, the same positions so that makes r relationship more competitive than it was two decades ago. host: our guest is with us until 9:00 if you want to ask him questions about the economic relationship between china and the united states. the lines e (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8002 an dependents. the chinese premier spoke on

ling. the chinese and american economies have benefited from our dual development and there is great potential and u.s. cooperating to the outside world . no matter how the external situation changes we will certainly move forward. guest: that is well put from a chinese official perspective. the new premier who takes over from the oldremier is framing the challenge of the relationship from the beijing official perective. both beijing and washington are concerned about the vulnerabilities of these overexposed and dependent on each other. china started this. you can't participate in china's social media market. foreign investors have limited access to their markets.

china has a great industrial policy, the largest in the world. they havalready been somewhat closed. now it is e u.s.'tu with the position of export controls. more concerns about investments going to china and talking about the need to decouple frochina. reduce the overdependence on china as a place of production and supply. both sides are concerned about where we are going. you have a nationalist conversation that predominance and beijing and was washington. a lot of the conversation is conversation about two cities that don't represent the tal trip to pis where theconomy or the relationship is going. host: thi is the chese

foreign minister, the competition by the u.s. is a zero-sum game of life and death. guest: the chinese goal is to betray themselves asuiltless in this decline of the relatiship and they are peaceful and inevitable. everyone should just accept it. therefore to throw shade on everhing the u.s. is doing saying that everything they are doing to china is illegitimate, and appropriate and unfair and it wiltake the u.s. to make the relationship right. think tt's smart diplomatic tactic. the biden administratn is not falling for that. they have beenushing back hard and pointing out where the

chinese are wrong economically, politically, on military issues. you e both sides pointing the finger at the other. that is why we are in the stalemate. the chances of things going off the rails are still quite high. host: what woulbe the tipping point then? guest: on the security front thnumber one issue is on taiwan and whether something might go on there. we he enough deterrence to make it unlikely for the chinese take any action in the near term. but that ithe number one place at peoe are looking at on the economic fnt we have an integratedconomy butlso economies that have snificant weaknesses. we have inflation, we n have financl challenges. china has lots of financial challenges, that over 320% gdp

in a variety of things that may push them to close even further. and of course, you have ukraine out there and china providing military support to ruia and then yowould have secondar sanctions and all the micro steps that you would have to take would fail in comparison to whacomes next. that relationship would face a lot of difficulties. ho: you have been to china several times, what did you learnbout the way the economy functions there that we don't get? guest: the quotes you read me or from top officials in beijing given the p.r.c. official line. in the trip that i took to china in the fall wh i was there for six weeks and i'm going ain next week.

china's economy is driven by his private sector. politically shunted china, you have seen the challges of the founder of ali babaives i tokyo. the private sector accounts for two thirds of investmt and 90% of new jobs. last year,hey were on thmat. they did not increase thei investnt at l. concerned becausof zer covid policy and t attacks on the private sector. in terms of looking at where china's economy is going to go is all in the private sector. we s some signs that they are turning things around but nonetheless, it is dicey,

china's recovery. instead of focusing only on what chinese officials say or state owned businesses, t private sectors where the chinese economy is located. host: part of our series tang a look at china today and its ecomy. we have dave from st virginia, go ahe. caller: quite the conundrum. three-dimensional stress on steroids we have become so terwov wi china and yet they arsuch a thre. how doe unravel this so that it works for the u.s.? it's hard to compete with china when you manufacture stuff. vitamins all come from china. how do we get out of this?

how do we set up a pre-boycott and how could we do that and affectur relationship and make chinpay attention to the free world, like the russian oil thing. we boycott and resistance to china and tir big machine that needs mon to keep going. free enterprise provides, i didn't know they had a private sector in china. how do we unravel this? how do we use our free people of the world to pressure china to acquiesce and say hey, we l ed to ve togher? guest: that's a great question and yo initi concernare justified and your worries are justified. the id for what to do is an understandable starting point. weave a deep relationship with

the strategic competitor so reducing that relationship helps your national security. as far as their economic model and rules that they follow are not identical to ours. from the perspective of ou economy and national security, we gain a lot if we can manage that economic relationship in r self ierest. during theirstecade of chi's try in the w in 2001 thereere significanjob losses in the united states. every onomisthat has run the numbers saythat or the last 10 years, even as outrade deficit contues to rise, our manucturing sectorn the u.s. is grong. in additioto that, we've bee

ab to innate. we are overreliance on china and thats why you are eing diversification from american countries there. applhas announced new significant investments in india because th don't wa to ha all their es in one baske either. on the national security front, terdependence is not a guarantee to aid war or conflict. no one should be under that illuon. it does give us leverage to. and why is china not giving military aid to putin in ukraine? th know where the economic bread is butted in the united states and the west. they know that hammer of sanctions will come downn them superhard. that kind of leverage is something you d't want to throw away. i agree with the frustration and concerns but i think the smart

answer is not to decouple and isolate them and wait for their economy to collae. we can use the leverage we have a smartly as we can to manage a complex relationship. host: this is bert'in georgia on the republican line. call: good morning. i'm in ask you about this deal with the u.k. and saudi arabia where they are trying to get off the dollar as the world's currency. they want to go to a gold backed economy wherever they are buying oil. it is backed by gold. if you have that, will the united states go to the gold standard? or will th continue to try to

back it with the good faith of the united states credit? i will get off and listen to your awer. host: thank you bert. guest: i tnk people e really ncerneabout the global financial system. right now, the dollar still preenent and we have seen ncern out that because the u.s. overall debt is 30 trillion. it's another reason why the u.s. needs to pay all of his bills because if we don't, then the obal financial system and our economy would be at risk. what i have heard in terms o loing into alternatives to the dollar system. a lot of people have been talking about, will china push the yen as an alternative to

the dollar. china a monster superpower when it comes to tradeut internatnal finances of puny power because their capital account is closed. they are worried that dollars will come in and flow out. they have kept their capital accot closed and as a result, china's currey is not very important internationally. it accounts for under 5% of daily international transactions. in oil, chinese trade with saudi arabia was recently done in their currency but that's an exception to the rule.

you have seen discussions of digital currencies, not just cryptocurrencies but central government backed currencies. that might present some kind of stability for regulators but does not address the core issue. the world operates using a currency in the government that issues the currency has significant debt constraints. host: what the consequences would be wiemiconductors ma in taiwan? guest: over e last0 plus years but global semi conductor industry has transformed itself. we had a great number of factories that ke sem can

conduors. ctories have risen in east asia and taiwan which produces 90% of the most advanced chips. 60% of thehips in general. all the iphones produced in china, those chips start i taan. the rld is entirely dependt that. psmc cna's most irreplaable company. if there w some kind of conflict a you could not get access to those chips it would hurtvery sgle industry including the united stas. it would massively damage china's econy. we have mutually assured destruction here. were testing, the country that

depends on tsmc if they turn their lights o. if taiwan declares independence or china became a patient as people are concerned that they would, there could be war. that would have a devastating effect on access to chips. we have to figure out how to keep the peace and in addition expand productions, r&d and reduce our dependence on chips from that part of the world. that 60% from taiwan, you won't reduce that to 5% with the step of theingers. it will take decades to make those shifts. as with our economic relation, there is no easy solution. you have to manage a giant challenge and improve our positi. host: the president signethe

chips act wch would help americ compaes. as firall agnst china and are there other means the unite stes can build those walls? guest: le's rememberwhen we talk about competition in ips, the concern is that so much manufacturing occurs iaiwan that an attack or war would reduceccess. taiwan is an efficient pducer and is go for t u.s. econy. 'over concentrated there in a vulnerable place. the chips act will increase manufacturing of chips. there are a few other factories under construction compies that support those factories are also eablishing in the u.s. as well.

th will help us with e most advanced cps that weave but will it replace theeed for the producon lonterm but you have to start someplace. sohe chips and sence act is a good start. we neeto do en more than that and there arether indury whe they need to expandanufacring because w arin a gbalace in e chips and science act is not th on piece of leglation regardg government sport for seconductors. south korea, china, jap brazil. in some ways the competition requires d.c. and industrto

collaborate. cedric from texas, you are up next. caller: yesir good morning. i have auestion, i am a tck driver and we have srted to see the container rate go down the companies are cutting back on theates andhey ar cuing on the rat on the compition for the jobare just dlining i'm am not working today because they cut my sht as well. in the previous administratio, some of the customers were tellg me tt instead of sendinit to america they re sending it to other countries. i am tryg to understand how

they do that? guest: if i understa your concern what you are suggesting that what were seeing is a slowdown in the u.s./china trade, fewer imports which is affecting container shipments which is affecting the rest of the economy including the trucking industry and you. from when i was in chi in the fall and they were going through zero covid during the pandemic, the economy grew 3% last year. i would be surprised if that's what it was. china because of its own supply chai issues decreased exports for a significant period. the u.s. and the western ecomies slow down. as our demand went down, there were less exports out of china. in dollar terms, exports

continue to rise. i do think what we are seeing is a cyclical slow down. a temporary problem. china's economy is starting to recover. we are seeing some of this diversification out of china. eventually it will come back to the u.s. at some point because as some of our trade from china has dropped our imports from india, vietnam have increased significantly. what we are seeing is that over the long term a replacement of china as opposed to just simply having everything produced domestically. i expect when we get through this cyclical downturn there will be more containers coming and there will still be need for significant transportati of those containers around the u.s..

i am not saying it is quicker easy or help any individua ca. are sing thyclica wnturn and an adjustment occurring at the same time. host: vw is looki to invest in china for ev's. how many other companies are looking to invest other than germany? guest: china's economy has slowed down 3%. this year they aim for around 5%. they wl probably hit the target. if you are not growing at all and had the worst year in 3 years the next year you will see some growth. china's economy is very large, 65% of the u.s. economy and is projected to continue. even a slow-growing economy in china is still a big

opportunity. the auto sector is of particular focus beuse china sector it is the biggest with 30 million being purchased each yea four times the american market. all of the big automakers from the u.s. and europe, japan, korea have plants in china. tesla opened a big plant. most of their production is for the chinese market. it is quite large including the electric vehle market which is a quarter of their market, larger than the rest of the world. they are trying to export from china to southeast asia, latin america, europe. they have not started to export to the u.s. but if they did, the folks in the building right across from us and down the street at the white house would pay a lot more attention. we never thought about china being an auto exporter buthat

could occur. other industries, medical devic industries, chinese exports and significant investment. because of the concerns about strategic competition and the possibility of war. no one knows which export controls could be imposed next. you are seeing a concentration of investment by a few companies. it's about 4, 5 companies including volkswagen. you are seeing smaller, medium size companies much more concerned and hesitant and risk-averse when it comes to new investments. host: youalk about capitol hill, there is a electronic committee taking a look at issues to do with china. mike gallagher of wisconsin

talked about economic concerns is security concerns. i want to play a little bit of what hhad to say. [video clip] >> we may call this a strategic competition but it is not a polite tennis match. this is an accidental struggle over what life will look like in the 21st-century and fundamental freedoms are at stake. for the time being it is up to us to decide if that is the future we want for our children but it will be for much longer. time is not on our side. just because this congress is divided, we cannot afford to waste the next two years lingering and legislative limbo are pandering to the press. we must act with a sense of urgency. i believe our policy over the

next 10 years will set the stage for the next 100. we cannot allow the ccp tech dystopia to prevail. we must learn from our mistakes. we tried to win the ccp over with economic engagement that would lead to reforms in china. it did not work out. the ccp laughed at our naivete as they took advantage of our good faith. that era of wishful thinking is over. we will not allow the ccp to lull us into complacency or maneuver us into submission. host: there is the opening statent from the committee. guest: washington is laser focused on china. it's enomy ilargernd mpetitive with us. it is going to be long-term

strategicompetitor with u you see what has happened in hong kong anthe thats towards taiwan. there is a lot of good reasons to bdeeply concerned about the trajtory ochina. i uld say though that w shld not sell the u.s. sho for eir foign policy ove the past decades. china was focuse o t strategy ointegrating itself to the global economy a in some mary's adapting domestic rules to iernatial nor. there was some guine progress. it was a mixed bag. i think what's happened is that china ha changed. no one expected a leader like xi jinping withts foc domestical and internionall a result, u.oreign policy

has changed. we are not dling with the cha lookg to integre and get along with the west. we are looking at onthat h great ambitns. we have to pay close atttion to what the chinese are doing with advanced technogies. what their plans areis-a-vis t taiwan. we are showing signifint changes from what we have done. we are not focused on a strategy of integration. were foced on tempering that integratio and increasing deterrence and the strength of the west more broadly. investing in ourwn economy a trng to strethen t economies and societies and mitaries of others w share our values. we have already turned the corner significantly. there is a l more we could do

better we need to better understand the chese and where theare going. hothe chese broadly look at issues, where their ecomy is goingwhere ey are compitive and not as coetitive. we want to make sure responding to this challenge we do with th smartest way possible because regardss i china is a chalnge orot. we all need this enomy to operate asell as it can. we need democracto operate well to reduce our intnal divisi. thus aource of our strength. i agree with the sense of urgency thathis coittee has. i think we fe big choices about the best way to respd. st: this is joe fm maine on the independent line. caer: i just wanted to ask

your gst, do we owe them more money than any oer country in the world? yes or no? guest: in terms of our u.s. total debt, the chinese are holding one trillion in u.s. government bonds. that is more than any other individual country. but foreign governments hold around seven, 8 trillion in u.s. debt. one third of u.s. debt. the chances of them up and selling all of that and trying to drive up our interest rates and tank our economy. they have never acted on that because if they did, that one trillion would lose a lot of value. it is only 1/30 and there is a

lot of way to respond. china holding u.s. debt may give them some kind of leverage, people talking about the dominance of rare earth. they have never pulled the trigger on these because they would also be hurting themselves pretty significantly. we also have leverage in this relationship. we command most heights and tech industes. the chinese need us. they are operating in a dollar dominated world. we are interdependent and that means we are dependent on the chinese in some way and we need to reduce thaependence. we need to both worrybout the vulnerabilities we face and recognize the strengths that we have and not give us up.

host: sco kennedy is joining us with his cversation. ck fm geora on t reblican line. caller:hank you foraking my call. ears rked uwhen y' st menon cyccals. it sms lika buzordarly in the u. inflion. i am wonderingfou think the u.s. ilation is cyclal? gut: the.s. a chinaace very differe worlds in ter of inflati. u.s. inflati is pretty high right now. the way the fed is acting they don't think it is going to go down anytime soon so they have to continue to raise rates. we he a very tight labor

market whi is al pushing up prices. that will be a challenge to get inflation der control. regardss of the bestfforts of t fednd what washinon does. you can see at some pnt we wille able to tackle d make some proess. energyas a b effecon prices. inhe case ofhina, they d not ce sigficantnflati in 2021 in certain areas. but inflation is pretty low in china, around 2%. they are probably in a better place inflation se than we are. the reasoi use clical is because you e ups and downs with inflation as we ha seen changes in the business cycle. right now, the u.s. has a tig labor market, strong

economically aside from inflation. we don't want the downside of the cycle because thatill be significant unemployment and you don't want stagflation. inflation isot something we want, it makes peoe feelike they are being robbed. it is something thathe fed and the rest of the u.s. govnment need to tackle. it is cyclical. when inflation is high, you feel like it is a permanent proem you can't resve b at some poini expect us to turn a corner. st: from roosevelt in brooklyn on the democrats line. caller: good morning, my question is i noticed china is making significant investments in africa. i would just like to know how is

the united states responding to china's investments i africa? are we significantly investing because africa is a sleeping giant. i know that they are in different ages of development what is your view on th? guest: that's a great estion if you look at countries that are growing the fastest and hav th greatest potential, many of them are infrica. you adindia and vietnam as well. in terms of demographic, africa has the lowest age on average of continents arounthe world. it has strg prospects and growth, democratization has accelerated in parts of e ntinent. gives people reason for optimism.

cha has been a big invesr in africa, both state oed enterprises through the belt ro initiative. you see enterprises doing siness in africa. china has pulled back as a result of the pandemic. the belton road is a mh smaller project than it used to be. the united states is sorof the game and terms of an organized effort. the u.s. has provided a loof aid to africa and support to certain economies. the u.s. recently tried to inease collaboration through the g7 and bilateral through allies to come up with programs that are altnatives to the belt road. and terms of scale, nowhere ose to where the chinese are

spending. in terms of focus iroductory, you see significant amnt of action and washington that will translate into a great investment thawill lead to sustained economic growth and improvement of the societies. host: we saw the trump administration impose tariffs on china. are those still in existence? what were the impacts? guest: most of the tariffs that were imposed during trump's administration from 2018-2020, most of those are still in place. the effect of that, we did get a deal, a phase i deal and 2020 where the chinese responded to those tariffs by negotiating a deal where they committed to increase imports of american products. make some changes to

intellectual property rights, regulations and open financial services. i do think it was good to get that phase one deal and that restored the u.s.'ability to negotiate leverage. what it mea economically for us? i don't think u.s. exports rose to china very much in the areas that were identified in that agreement. there has been some improvement and intellectual property. was the trade war that generated cost worth it? and i think it was a mixed picture. the u.s./chinese relationship is more tense across the board. the question going forward,

should we continue to use that kind of approach and what we do about those tariffs? if we took those tariffs away, that would not solve problems either. some of those tariffs may have provided protections that you uld not want to take away. broadly speaking, should we approach china through a protective lens and increase our defensive? we have a competitive economy globally, even with the chinese. we still have a lot of advantages. those tariffs are going to come away anytime soon. i don't think we ought discontinue that strategy, we have real global advantages because of the chips in science ts. it will help us be internationally competitive including in china. caller: i am late in this

conversation but was respect to china and the belted road. i was reading about countries defaulting and not wanting to honor their agreements. what about china's housing crisis? i heard they are having all kinds of problems with their own housing and people not being able to meet their mortgages? guest: those are both important topics, particularly on housing. with the belted road which has an effect on many countries around the world, china's financial system is inefficient. it is state directed first-aid priorities and housing being one of them. the way the chese direct that

economic efforts abroad were inefficient. governments around the world, some with weak civil societies but looking at big piles of money took those loans without clear plans to how they would translate those into commercial activity where they be able to pay them back. both sides went into some these deals with not all of the right intentions or plans. we have seen a lot of the loans not work out. the chinese have, unlike other countries that provide donor loads and ornate, don't want to take a long any of those loans. that is not the way to treat

this. you are seeing a lot of animity and the rest of the world because they think the chinese were intentionally trying to get them indebted as a way to increase their political control. the chinese financial system is inefficient because they made a lot of mistakes because that's how e financial system operates but it has created a lot of resistance. you have to deal with that debt problem. global debt is an obstacle to sustainable development. it applies to students who get loans here. it applies to countries that participate in programs like the belted road. in terms of the housing market, china has lived on real estate investment, particularly housing and commercial investment. you have seen overinvestment and

lots of cities, apartment blocks with no one living in them. they have done that in part because local governments don't have enough tax revenue so they sell their land to developers that make these investments. that is why chinese debt is so high. it hurt during the pandemic because no one was spending on anything. real estate companies changed strategies and said we will have them pay for their houses before the buildings are built. that's a good strategy if you're a developer and a bad strategy if you need housing. a lot of those things were not built in people protested. china is now trying to fix our problem. you see some improvement in china's financial sector and housing market.

structurally, china's real estate sector is 25% of its economy. it is too big, they need to constrain that. we have to pay attention to belton road. host: we have allen fm nnsylvania. caller: i hope you can hear me. i want to push back on something you said that this ia problem that occurred when xiinping entered. i think a t of people mission this when they joined the wto. they have a terrib human rights record. in the u.s., we have chosen to igre it for a long time because of the fact that we were doing business that was beneficial to the united states.

i am in favor of coupling is much as possible, am wondering what you think about the possibility of leveraging things that we have in the u.s. like americanapital markets and investment ithe u.s. to try to encourage inese companies to separate themselves from the communist party. the ccp does that to us here. how can we push back in that direction, thank you very much. guest: i think this is an important point. reasonable people can disagree and have different perspectives about the history of u./china relations. those who thought having china joined wto that china would become an democracy.

it was never in the cards. it did not turn out that way. i think you saw conversations like that in the late 90's and early 2000's as china was joining. i think scholars and think tanks who work on china raised concerns that we suld not get our expectations too high. what china's entry into the wto did when combined with deterrence which we still maintain the whole time vis-a-vis taiwan and support for our allies japan and south korea. we did tempered chinese behavior and a variety of areas for a reasonable amount of time. we did not get improvement of human rights in china. it is a mixed reco. in a mixed record in terms of our economy.

certain seors of u.s. jobs lost and communities were hurt. other regions ofhe country did better in the first decade. in the last several years there has been more progress as well. there are very big concerns because the caller mentioned the chinese government has not gotten any nicer. its domestic policy has gotten worse of the human rights situation is not better, it's more assertive. in terms of foreign policy, some areas we need to pull back and reduce our dependence on china. make sure we are not providi them the types of technology, weapons or domestic surveillance which would be a danger to us or create human rights abuses in

china. you have seen the congress and white house adopt sanctions with regards to hong kong. we are starting to take steps in that direction. at the same time, i want to suggest that we don't want to throw the baby out with the thwater. there is some significant benefit for not just ceos and wall street for having a commercial relationship with china. you can make some mistakes and you have to fix those but we don't want to get rid of the retionship entirely because of benefits us commercially. in terms of national security with the example of ukraine. we need to be careful. we are going to need to walk and chew gumt the same time. host: you can find scott kennedy centefor strategic and ternatnal sties, thank you for joining us. guest: happy to be here, thank

you so much. host: in 15 minutes we will take a look at what happened with silicon valley bank and how that could affect other banks as well as u.s. policy. our guest michael davis from southern methodist university. a short session of open forum. (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8001 republicans, (202) 748-8002 independents. we will be right back wi the washington journal. >> fourscore score and seven years agoasked not what your country can do for you. throughout american history presidents have delivered pivotal speeches during inauguration, times of challenge and farewells.

watch her 10 part series spches that defined a presidency. here are wor of george washington, abrahamincoln, ronald reagan and baracobama. we will focus on president reagan's address in 1981. reagan spoke from the cliffs of normandy. before me, are the men who put them there. these are theoys. watch her 10 part series, speeches that defined presidencies saturday at 9:00 a. and p. on american history >> fridays at 8 p.m. eastern,

c-spanrings youfterwords from book tv. kathleen mcglocklin --i turned into a $20 billion business in her book blood money. she is interviewed by olivia goldman. watch afterwords on c-span. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign up for our youth -- newsletter using the q car -- but tv every sunday on c-span2 or any time online at c-span.org. television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. host: if you want to participate

in oakland -- open form, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans and independents (202) 748-82. the general david berger reacted to the news of a russian plane hitting a u.s. drone over the black sea. here's a portion from that statement. >> the rusan -- collid over the black sea. what is your response? >> this is probably my biggest worry. both there and in the pacific. is there an aggressive rush or or china pilot or vessel cabinet or something it's too close, doesn't -- something gets too close and doesn't realize where

they are and causes collision and we are trying to unpack this as fast as we c. i worry about that. either intentionally or unintentionally things bumping into each other, causing a collision antwo powerful nations trying to sort it out. even more challenging, right now, on our side and prc, normly, we would have talks with their military but it doesn't exist. the sources of challenges -- channels you have to talk with someone, they are gone. i am worried that something will happen in two -- at 2:00 in the morning. host: if you want to see those statements, you can go to

c-span.org. the story from dave chael says that separate probes are preliminarand might not lead to charges or allegations of wrongdoing. prosecutors open investigations fr financial institution whe public coanies suffer losses. shares from t svb fincial group -- more othat discussiocoming from our nex guest in 15 minutes but open form until then. jeanette, from misuri. democrats line. caller: i wanted to say shortly, if you wt to keep social security, they will take it. host: what do you mean? caller: if a teacher -- it is

called the wins all law --winds aw law. 13 states decide to do a disgraceful thing to teachers. my husband worked for four years and i have been teaching for that long but independently, not in a teachers union. he does it in a way where they take two thirds of his social security. even if you have your teacher retirement, -- don't teach from missouri. host: let's hear from bruce in chicago, republican line. caller: i wonder how long it will take people in this country to look through all the fade and lies of what is happening in the country and our president joe biden has sold the country

out for money. date -- he consistently lies about everything that he says. i just wish people can listen and look at the truth. host: what is the tth in your opinion? he hung up. two stories related to t president's family. this is from the washingn times saying that it uncovered a $3 million wire payment om a chinese energy company sent to associates of the biden family after he ended his term as vice presidt. soon after the wire cleared, this -- the story -- through an in camera review after a standout with the committee and that ory is being followed up at the washing with the wall street journal

aboutreasury reports fm the treasury reported -- deptment saying that jim coomer had negotiated the timing in terms ofawmakers access to the vicious activity report in which flagged bank transactions -- the treasury department will make reports available meaning the camera can inspect them -- cannot inspect them but can retain copies. it is a focus of the republican inveigator eorts a republican lawmakersre seeking to discover whether the younger biden's business involved his father. if you want to add that to the mix up open for the -- forum -- open forum, for docrats (202)

748-8000, four republicans (202) 748-8001, and four independents (202) 748-8002. chuck schumer talked about the recent events concerning silicon valley bank and re's a portion of that. [video clip] >> the u.s. banking system based a significa threat after the collapse of silicon valley bank and if the damage has spread across the financial system, the deposits and savings of tens of millions of families and small businesses that have been at serious risk -- could have been at serious risk. our banking system is stable thanks to the work of the biden administration, the federal reserve and the fdic on sunday. i think the president and the federal reserve and the ftse for taking action to preserve

confidence in the banking system and the american people can rest assured that bank regulators have acted quickly and are doing everything they can to protect consumers. in the days and weeks to come, congress will look closely on what caused the run on silicon valley bank and how we can prevent so -- similar events. host:hat is from the senate floor and if you want to see more, you c go to our webte at c-span.org anour ap political reporting -- in alaska's national proleum serve is teeing up a new highrofile role ll likely pride the biden ainistration and republican lawmakers against environmentalists. the project opened up new gas drilling areas in the slope and two fewer originally proposed by the mpanies. -- to have nationwide greenhouse

sses emissions by 2030 and deciding that the lal battle highlighted the divide between the biden ministration and environmental groups. mary democrats line in virginia -- on our democrats line in virginia. caller: iive god all the credit forhat is going on because we live in a ti that things are beingulfilled and i want to tell my black brotrs and sisters and poor people, spend your money, stay-at-home and enjoy your family and get the word in you. this is a time we are living in. host: little rive maryland, 9 -- line for demrats. caller i wanteto say that while we are being diracted with right-wing crimes about gun control --cries about gun

control and irrelevant issues regarding hunter biden and this balloon mess in south carolina, they are trying to impose the deh penalty for abortion so i am sounding the alarm fo women's rights. all ghts are being infringed upon - are --o rights are beingur --our rights are being infringed upon host: -- same the proposal could force water utilities to force -- use billing -use blazer of dollars to comy with the limit -- even though the limitare less stringent, the advisory levels for sake consumption and the agency said last year that small utilities will have access to federal subsidies and blunting the financial impact of

the rural pfas. it is linked to infertility and forever chemica can persist in any vironment for years without breaking down -- in the environment for years without breaking down. things that you can see on the c-span networks that -- as the day goes on and there is a hearing taking a look at the interior -- conal carry gun laws. the supreme court strk down a new york law pvidingroper cause to contain a conaled carry gun permit. and that look taking place at the senate committee. you can see that honor c-span now app or online at c-span.org. taking a look at budget matters in 2024, the whi house budget

director has -- at 10:15, that is on-span and other ways to sethat is our app at c-span now, our website is easement.org and when it takes a look at the senate, there is the senate services committee and the pentagon officials will testify civilian and military personal -- personnel programs. both hearings will look at the qualit of life for service members and childcare. c-span is how you can see that on c-span.org and if you follow along on the app, you can do that at c-span now. it is our app if you want to catch it there. a couple mins before we start our conversations with the silicon valley bank. it was a texas republican, about

the president's budget but relating issues of border security. [video clip] >> given the ongoing migration crisis in -- and fentanyl epidemic, which is killing americans every year, there cannot be a more important time to invest in border security. the president's request for $535 million may sound like a lot of money and it is but when you compare it to other line items in the budget, it looks a lot smaller. the white house suspended $1 billion trying -- wants to spend $1 billion trying to address root causes in migration and haiti, doubled the amount he wants to spend on border security technology. we have seen failed attempts of

alleviating push factors, violence and poverty because people -- that cause people to come to the u.s.. don't forget the migrants are just coming from central america and haiti. they're are coming from all over the world. best case scenario, it would take years, if ever before these efforts translate into even one inch of progress at the border. i have said before what i have learned. a border -- control sector in arizona where the border patrol chief said in this sector alone, we have people coming from across the border from 176 countries speaking to other languages --200 language.

this is a global phenomenon. the worst case scenario, the administration flushes $1 billion down therain while the border remains in a state of crisis. host: cing u we will turn our tentioto the rent federatakeov ofilicon vall bank a what ppened and how washington should respond. our guest, mike davis will join us next when washington journal continues. ♪ >> the tv, every sunday on c-span2 features lding authors discussing their latest books. one author shares his book where he argues that american children are being taught enough civics in schl. one after --one afterwords --

she is interviewed by an investigator -- investigative reporter. washable tv -- watch book tv -- any time at c-span.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring door and altered view of what is happening in washington live and on demand. keep up with the biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings of the u.s. congress, the court, campaign and more from the world of policy all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest epises of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio. c-an now is available on e apple store and google play.

download it for free. c-span now, your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere. >> c-span's campaign 2024 coverage is yourront row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates of the campaign trail and announcements, speeches and events. make up your own mind. mpaign 2024 on the c-span network, c-span now or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is michael davis joining us with southern methodist university. a professor to talk about the international banking regulations protecting with

events las wk -- pticulay with eves last week. can you tell us how you look at th events last week compared to the rest of us or lehman uld look at it --layman would look at it? guest: i spent a lot of time thinking about how the gornment interacts wh business and regulation and i have written about banking regulation. host: for the specific events of spv, --sbvvb -- what you think about the government's thoughts about it? guest: there is a lot of stuff that we don't know and there is always a tendency to think there has been a disaster and let's find someone to blam i am finding -- about finding

someone to blame but i am not sure who that is. all of us need to take up -- a deep breath and think about what is going on because this is too important to politicize. the other thing about this mess, that contradicts what i said that we don't know what is going on, we know that if we had required banks, all kinds of banks to carry out -- a higher level of capital, that would have gen us something to protect against the downfall so whatever the solutio is, i am convinced it is going to be requiring banks to carry more capital. host: we have seen back early on -- someone -- someing was supposed to take care of a lot of things specifically with making and including their fiscal and liquidity ality. do you think the law protects something like this or is it a relevant? guest: it didn't work.

we had a bank fail. there were mistakes made and we can get into the weeds here and we should. but there is some obvious mistakes made by the bank and the fact regulators do not pick on that, we have to figure out why. host: the top mistake would be what? guest: ok, i promise i won't get my powerpoint off in the lecture? -- lecture. bankhave to acire funds and investments -- invest funds. the's a lot of risk with the acquisition of funds and there is risk associated wi where you invest and a lot of banking is risk management and svb did a

turn -- a terrible job with risk management and thedid not manage the risk on the deposit side and they did not do a good job managing theirisky instments. whatever the regulations in place work, they dinot work to force a bank like svb to clean up their act. host: one of the requirements was to have capital and pretty requirements and that -- in that. guest: the capital requirements, all i have to do is going to what happened last friday. the requirements were not adequate and the other requirements are liquidity rules. why didn't they work? i don't know the answer to that. i will be -- when congress or

whoever has hearings, i want c-span to broadcast them. host: already announcements from capitol hill calling for -- for hearings. guest: i think fbi c is a victim in some ways --fdic is this -- a victim in some ways. the insurance system was designed to protect small deposits. there's a cap, $255,000. deposits up about that are -- deposits above that are supposed to be insured. on sunday evening, it was announced althe deposits at svb would be covered in the -- anti--- and the fdic, that

wasn't supposed to be covered. there is a grantee in place. host: has the fdic acted in this matter befor guest: they deal with these iluresll theime and we have many commercial banks in the u.s. a sometimes they fail. u mostly never hear about them because the banks that the'll usually are smaller ban but when they fail, the fdic swoops in and they usually arrange the sale of a faed bank to another bank. host: as far as covering deposits over $250,000, have

they acted in this matter before? guest: we have seen in the fecteau --defacto sense, they have. they will come in and arrange the sale of the bank to another bank and the big depositors usually don't see a difference and they don't have to take a haircut. that is the way the system is supposed to work. it hasn't worked well in this case. the less i read and you can tell me if i missed the memo, they are tryingo auction off svb. host: our guest is with us at :00 and if you have questions about svb, you can call at (202) 748-00 four democrats, (202) 748-8001 four republicans and

(202) 748-8002 for independents. you can tex at (202748-8003. are there ripple offense -- affects to the events last week? guest: there are tsunami effects. i've been seeing where we are with the markets this morning but thank -- bank stocks are down. investors are saying, whatever the government is doing, it has not solve the problem and there is an issue with banks -- a potential issue with banks and the stocks are taking big hit. the other thing that is scary is how this will affect what the federal reserve is going to do with interest rates. can iake a minute and explain why am thinking about it? host: please do it.

guest: of course, we know the fehas been raising interest rates rapidly in order to control inflation and we know that inflation is not under control and we got the latest inflation numbers yesterday or monday. showing that consumer prices are rising and the inflation rate is above 6% and core inflation is around 5%. that is not good, so the federal reserve under normal class -- times would say we will increase interest rates and that is what they would do in the meeting next week and the problem with svb, when interest rates go up, that squeezes commercial banks. svb would not have failed if we had the interest rate enronment we had 18 months ago.

i am shari for the long-winded answer but -- i am sorry for the long-wded answer but it is something the bed is work --fed is worried about. host: our guest imichael davis. we start with ann. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say i thought in 2018, they change part -- changed part -- so keep parts would be less ovsight for banks and that is causing these things to happen again and for them, risk for money --more money because they have less oversight. it is not that the issue -- is

not that the issue? guest: that is sometng i have been thinking about and in 2018, some of the rules surrounding got frank --were relaxed and that was more a less a bipartisan movement -- more or less a bipartisan movement. there re democrats -- it is true that svb was a big advocate of that regulatory reform and that looks fishy. this guy is saying, we don't want all this regulation and five years later is bank -- his bank fails. maybe there is something to that and maybe if the rules haven't -- had been changed, we wouldn't

have this oversight in this mess with svb -- and this mess with svb when -- have would not have happened. i have been reading commentary from smart people and they say even with the old docs frank -- dot frank rules were in place, it would not have fixed this problem. i am glad you brought that up and i have -- we have to think about ifhat rorm happened. it is not obvious. host: we have som tape om the event where the rollback ppened and president trump talked about whahe intended to do with that. we will listen to what he had to y. [video clip] >> the legislation i am signing today walls back the regulations that are crushing community banks and credit unions nationwide. they were in such program -- trouble.

one side fits all. they don't work and the bank should be regulated in the same way and you have to look at this they should be regulated the same way with proviso for safety as in the past. they shouldn't be regulated the same way as a large complex financial institution. that is what happened. they were put out of business and they were not lending. since its passage in 2010, dot frank has made a huge blow in community banking. i place we should rescue the community banks from dot frank, and we are all committee -- all keeping that commitment. ho: that isreside trump

from 2018 directing comments to community banks. est: theres a lot of thin to unpack. community banks were under pressure but not just becaus of dot frank. there is a lot of great things the community that they can do but there is disadvantage relative to figure banks. -- biggeranks. it wasn't dot frankhreatening community banks. the other part that president trump was sayinhis own point. e only reason we did dot frank because we were concned with systemically important financial institutions. these are the big banks tt j.p. morgan banks and wls

fargo and so forth if those banks failed, it woul be catastrophic because thrisk of a failure of a big bank like that would -- it will be over the economy. that is why these institutions have t be put into a high level of scruty. the community banks don't meet those lel -- don't meet those levels of scrutiny. it was bipartisan. they were saying we don't need to impose the same rules on these smaller banks that we do on the bigger banks and that made goodense. host: from bill in buffalo, new york. republican line. you are on, go ahead. caller: people aren't aware of

the stagnation of the financial crisis in the country before 1929 and there wasomething put inlace by roosevelt torevent gambling in the financial dustry and it was not one problem until th85 when neil bush, there was a long scandal and -- we have had many financial pressures. commcial bank like mnc is not allowed to gamble in the stock market. they are allowed to gamble in the stock market. host: that is built in new york --bill in new york.

guest: if you ever want to go to bar fight -- some people will agree with you completely. some other people will say it is irrelevant so it is great bar right it -- rights if you like bar fights. i han't heard anyone say that glass-steagall was a problem. it is a smart comment but probably not relevant this particular incident. st:t was nounced that ody's dngrade the ring of signature ba toump territory and putther banks in review? what ds that mean. --? guest: it means we have other banks in review.

we have many other banks in the couny and i saw the movie thg to. --moody's thing. moody's had been issuing warnings to svb. whatever after -- happened to svb, no one should be surprised. people knew that there was a problem. om bridget in south carolina. republican line. guest: -- caller: good morning and thank you. i s reading up on this over the weekend. you toucheon this topic about the sib. the systematically importa banks. i never heard that term and i don't read ahole lot about banking. can you explain a little more

about systematically important bas and was svb considered an sib? guest: yeah. i admire you not reading a whole lot about baking and you probably have a more interesting li than i do. so, svb wouldrobably not be considered a systematicall important bank. the asset level that engages the higher level of scrutiny under dodd frank was 250 -- $250 miion. svb was und that but ether we call it a systematically impoant bk orot, what

maers here is when the betting happened, when svb failed, it was treating -- treated as if it was a six chemical important financial institution -- systemically important financial institution. the government stepped in to handle t deposits. weould aue if that is go or bad but if the government treated sv as if it was systemically performing. -- important. host: inirginia. gues -- calr: what nes to be put in place is that you cannot take any depositors money and invested ianything without their solicit permission and the bank should take its own ney and do that and i think presidents of the banks need to be arrested and the overseers that work for federal, they should have been watching after

that -- this and they need to be arrested because somebody wasn't paying attenon. any deposits on -- under $50,000 are going. --gone. we had -- if we had laws like this that restrict, this wouldn't happen. if they want to take their own money, they shouldn't do that but not the depositors money. thank you. host: professor davis? guest: i have a friend -- think about what she was saying there and the thing that rang true to me is that we want people who owthese banks to have a stake in their decision. she says we want to play with our own money and i say we want them to have higher levels of capital in their bank but it

amounts to the same thing. host: recently in the wall street journal, taking look at the fdic actions. they said this, calling it a defect of bankel o the thinking sysen as regulars have been telling us the economy is great, the unpleasant truth that washington wi not admit ma years of revatory mist --on mi and many officials will pay for the mistakes but they were encourageby easy money and miuided regulation and it goes on fr there. guest: there are two things in that, both at this that i agree -- both at this that i agree on. part of it is what they are calling misguided regulation. the regulatory system failed. the other part of what they are commenting on is the monetary

policy. remember, we had really easy money for a fairly long time? certainly during the pandemic and that was probably appropriate during the pandemic. the fed maintained and easy -- an easy money policy long after we were economically recovering from the pandemic. we -- the fed kept interest rates low for a long time. that encouraged a lot of risk-taking we saw at svb. the other part of this, whethe fed slammed on the banks and set of raising interest rates, they slamd the banks -- breaks really hard. that rapid increase of interest rates was part of the problem. host: we heard thpresident and thousand -- emphatically say that taxpayers will not be on the hook on the actions the federal governor -- government took with svb.

you believe that? -- guest: presidents have to say that. and -- in a technical sense, he is right. the government will not write a check using taxpayer dollars but the fact is this money has to come from somewhere. there is no free lunch so someone has to pay for this bailout. it will mostly be depositors and higher premiums on fbi see -- fdic. taxpayers are off the hook but we are on the hook. host: let's hearrom bob in temple hill -- temple hills, maryland. guest: i have -- caller: i have one for the guest. i can't help but think that this has a lot of -- to do with ftx.

i can see bankman-fried stashing money in the svb. we are finding out now that that is a lot of active invtigation so when they gave him $250 million bills, --bails, we find that different people in different universities have to come up with that money. and also, what he gave them and what we find right before the election, the donations and contribution and even some people who represent california and the house of representives so i think that this has a lot to do with those people and making people hold who lost money doing ftx. what are we saying, that they didn't lose any money. really?

is up to $250,000 and after that, you have to take a l. i hope a investigator with the federal government is listening and might go with the theory. host: that is bob and please explain the technicalities. go ahead. guest: i am what the color in that the extension i am with the color in the exnt that ftx was a nightmare and sam bankman-fried was a piece of work. -- i am with the caller in the extent that ftx was a nightmare and sam bankman-fried was a piece of work. maybe there is connection and i like the idea that we need to get some forensic accountants on the case. there is a bigger question and that is the role of crypto in the failure of not just svb

other banks but -- but other banks. they -- there were a lot of crypto depositors in the northeastern banks and when crypto crashed, the deposits were at risk. host: do these usually end up with some type of satisfactory results? guest: sometimes yes and sometimes and they end up with a lot of academic articles from people like me to get published in some of srt -- journal that no one -- -- some obscure journal that no one will read. it will take a lot of investigations to get spun up and maybe they wl show is interesting stuff or not vote

they will not enlighten us anytime soon -- but they will not enlighten us anytime soon. host: vincent from florida. independent line. caller: i have a couple comments and i would like you to expound on the --them. i believe the majority of the problem with svb and the signature banks are the financialeaders on the board. none of them had any baking experience except maybe one or two. a lot of them with svb are obama and clinton appointees. big donors, i should say and it seems like the mood has changed from hiring people with knowledge and experience to hiring people witdiversity and equity and trying to get this welcome program --woke program

forwd and i want your take on that. thank you. guest: yes, it -- so, i think we need to be careful in saying the problems at svb were a consequence of some emphasis they said on dei stuff. maybe yes or no but i went to see the connections -- want to see the connections. you race another -- raised another connection in your call that i think needs to be said. i have been talking about the regulators, where were the regulators? a fair question but you should be saying where was the board? the board of directors shouldn't just be getting -- giving the management carte blanche to do what they want to do.

the bod of dectors can read a balance sheet and knows what moody's is saying. how come those people -- maybe they weren't and they re ignored but board actions are important. host: theresident is commenting on this a calling on coness or the eectation to go to congre for more rules and oversight. are there other roles thacould prevent from this -- prevent this from happening again? guest: there is something that happens that is weird. it seems like it is a debate between, there are people who want more rules and regulation and scrutiny and then you have people over here who say, we can't overwrite -- overregulated these banks -- overregulate this banks -- these banks. everyone thinks financial is duchenne's need some level of

regulation. -- financial institutions we some level of regulation. what kind of relationship we have? -- regulation should we have. i prefer less looking over your shoulder supervision's and less stress tests and more higher capital requirements imposed on banks. there are different kinds of relations being proposed. host: mike in new york, democrats line. caller: yes. what i am afraid of is an investor going to short -- and running away from investing in small banks so what will investors run away from investing and take stocks from small banks, if the first republic bank stockgo down

[indiscernible] will this have any affect on their day-to-day business? guest: you can almost say we are having stock run because we are seeing a drop in the value of a whole bunch of bank stocks including -- there are some really sound and solid banks that are taking a hit in stock prices? i am not too worried about that. oh really -- a well-run bankan be a profitable business. a bank with higher capital built in can stille a profitable business so there is a price of everything. we will nokill the banking segment if we weep -- redo our repertory system. --regulatory system. host: the stock market this morning is going down but that

is because it is being reported that shares of credit suites -- credit suites --suisse is dropping because they reported financial weakness. can you bring that into the picture on how we should look at banks? guest: i can't speak at all to the credit suisse issue. i need to remind everyone including myself that the stock market is crazy on a day-to-day basis. many cvs big drops in stock prices, sometimes you take a de breath and say, let's see what happens over the course of three months. -- hope rather than three days -- three months rather than three days. people look at banks and they are worried about what is behind the closet we can't get open and there's something scary.

host: the story says the fcc --f was asking about stamentstc and then the report- over fincial reporting being an issue. guest: it is hard to say. this could prove to be a lot of nothing and it could be technical violations and someo forgot to file a form -- on time and they were 12 hours late or it could be, someone is loang their gulfstrea jet with a pile of money and heading to a place whe they cannot be extra tight -- extradited. it is not comforting to say but wait and see. host rublican line. caller the present our company, is he going to be the president of the company, --s he going to be -- kwing going

-- janet ylen, she is a whole old fogey -- and she has no ideas and it took her 100 words to take -- to say 10 words. janet yellen needs to go and get new one in their. guest: let's be careful. janet yellen is old fogey college profesr and i am at -- an old fogey college professor. we tend to sick -- stick together. she was in favor with ensuring depositors -- and i have an issue with that. host: ts is tim in arksas come outline from independent -- arkansas, minerom independents . caller: i don't know when they

are going to blow up the ferc -- fdic. ev -- these people with millions, they don't need to -- they need to absorthe risk and i went to a bank that -- you didn't believe that esg and die had anything to do with this but i think it has everything to do with it. they add nothing to the balance sheet and when the federal government cannot get these policies put through by those or represtation, they do it in other means and they convince their money's -- buddies in the banking industry or sam bankman-fried to use other peoples money. it is ok to steal other moy because federal government will come in and we will -- if we like you, we will back you. if we don't, we will grow you -- we will make you a political prisoner and throw you in jail.

i believe it has a lot to do with politics. guest: i am shocked to learn that pitics would be going on here. i am not mocking you. you are right, that there is a big political element. to be clear, i am not saying that concerns with diversity, equity, inclusion, the focus on that was not a distraction to svb. i don't know. it might have been. if anyone it will make the case that -- anyone will make the case that the bank is a victim of dei, i want you to connect the dots. host: iall street journal professor reports that one of the things the federal reserve is considering as a top for -- a

tougher capital of liquidity will and stress tests. can you tell us how they will be improved upon? guest: no. i can tell you that they do stress tests and look at the quiddity ratios -- liquidity ratios. it is technical stuff and i do not want to present to understand the details of what exactly they stress. i have been reading interesting commentary over the past couple days and the two -- a lot of the way the stress test was working, they worked working for -- were not looking for the kind of interest rate risk that -- was exposed to. this is commentary from people that do understand the computer coast -- codes using to generate

that stress test but the commentary says that the fed was fighting the last war and looking for problems that happened in 2008. they weren't looking for the kinds of problems that were being caused by this rapid increase of interest rates. you can't just use stress test. --tests, but you have to use the right kind. the increased capital requirements, they disinfect a lot. host: from robert in arkansas. this is the ne for democrats. hello, robert. caller: hello. i am concerned -- i am seeing terms of an agreement and -- with banks and various big businesses, cox cable are

sending out, we should waive institutional rights and we cannot join a class action lawsuit and if we do have a case, it must go to binding arbitration that is toe kept confidential and the language -- we are talking pages of documents being seen. one of the last sentences from a bank said we were served the right to change any term or fee in the contract and it also says whether it is fraud, misrepresentation of contract, any other theory of liability, we are being reqred to go to a binding arbitration. is your school studying these contracts being passed out? host: thanks, caller. guest: i have no idea what they're saying in law school.

am sure they are. i n't know about you, i read every one of those. i signed up for mlb tv last night and it was 50 changes -- pages and i was up all morning but i made sure it was ok and i checked the x. ller: ivo question about bones is being -- -- paid out- i have a question about bonuses beinpaid out. bonuses were paid out when they may otection. -- made projection. shouldn't the money be called back? guest: yes. i read this morning that there were some people advocating, that the bones be called back. this circumspect to the question of -- circles back to the question of where was the board? dave vote -- they vote for this.

they were approving this for no reason? host: what are you looking for in the story and what is speaking your interest -- piquing your interest? guest: there's a lot we don't know but every day, we find out more and it is not a pretty picture and there is atrocio risk management processes. i am looking forward to more horror stories. the other thing i will pay attentioto is what we were discussing. the federal reserve meets next week and i think i have my dates rit and they will have to make this -- decisions about interest rate increases. will they take into accot all the stress in the banking sector when they decide what to do?

host: our guest teaches at the school of busiss, michael davis of southern methodist university. thank you for your time today. guest: thank you for having me. host: that is it for the program today and another edition of washgton journal comes your way 7:00 tomorrow morning. we will see you then. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content d accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2023] >> here's a look at the live coverage today on c-span. 10:15 am eastburn, the budget director shalanda young testifies on the 2024 budget proposal. and then at 12:15 lloyd austin

and mark milley hold a briefing after a ukraine defense contact meeting and will likely talk about the russian fighter jet struck the propeller of a drone over the black sea. and then the senate armed service subcommittee hearing at 3:00 p.m. looks at challenges facing the military. you can watch all of these events live on c-span. you can stream them live on c-span now, or free mobile video app, or online at c-sp.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye b