- Production and distribution of City Club Forum's on Ideastream are made possible by the generous support of PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland Incorporated.

(upbeat music) (bell rings) - Hello and welcome to The City Club of Cleveland where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

I'm Dan Moulthrop, chief executive here and a proud member.

Today's May 21st, you're with the virtual City Club Forum.

We're live from the studios of our public media partner, 90.3 WCPN Ideastream.

Big thanks to them.

Our Friday forum speaker today is 16th Congressional District Congressman Anthony Gonzales.

He's an Northeast Ohio native.

He also is a former Ohio State wide receiver and first round draft pick from the Indianapolis Colts.

After five seasons in the NFL, he went and got an MBA from Stanford, worked in tech for a time and then came home to Northeast Ohio and ran for office.

He is your typical under achiever.

The Republican's district runs from Rocky River in the north, south to Medina all, of Wayne County, and then it turns east and picks up portions of Stark Summit and Portage counties.

He was first elected in 2018.

Today, in his second term Congressman Gonzalez serves on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the financial services committee where he's vice chair of the Subcommittee On Diversity and Inclusion.

He's also co-chair of the House China Task Force.

In February, he made national news when he and nine other Republicans voted to impeach president Donald Trump over his role in inciting the January 6th riot at the US Capitol.

A few weeks ago, the Ohio Republican Party Central Committee voted to both censure him and call for his resignation.

Despite this Congressman Gonzalez joined Democrats and 34 other house Republicans who voted this week to create an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6th insurrection.

We will likely begin our conversation there.

And today we'll talk with Congressman Gonzales about that and his time in Congress and the issues facing Northeast Ohio.

If you have a question for him please text it to (330) 541-5794.

That's (330) 541-5794.

If you're on Twitter, tweet it at The City Club and we will work it into the program.

Congressman Gonzales, it is great to have you at the City Club of Cleveland.

- Thanks for having me.

- It is wonderful to see you, sir.

I see you're joining us from your office in Washington.

It's been quite a week for you.

And I think we sort of have to start with the fractures inside and the situation inside the Republican Party.

You're clearly at odds with party leadership.

And if that wasn't clear with this week's vote, your comments previously in supportive Liz Cheney who was removed from her House leadership role.

And I just want to quote what you told The Hill quote, "If a prerequisite for leading our conference "is continuing to lie to our voters.

"Then Liz is not the best fit, "she is going to stand on principle.

"I wish that weren't the case."

I abbreviated that a little bit there.

But you believe party leadership is lying to the people.

- Well, it depends what we're talking about.

And again, I think that the issue with Liz and the reason why she was asked to leave essentially, is because she tells the truth about the 2020 election.

And that can be uncomfortable for a lot of folks.

And so that was ultimately the schism that developed.

I think as a party, frankly, we need to be on the side of truth, we need to be on the side of substance and that's how we're going to win back majorities both in the House and the Senate, and hopefully the White House in 2024 I think continuing to perpetuate falsehoods, especially ones that are dangerous, that led to the violence on January 6th is a recipe for disaster for the party, but it's also horribly irresponsible.

- Why do you think you, you said it's uncomfortable for some people and why do you think the truth has become so uncomfortable?

- Well, because it's politically difficult.

So I mean, that's the reality.

The politically expedient thing to do is to just perpetuate this.

But, again, I think that the responsible thing to do, and let me just take a step back actually, and say two things, one, you said I'm at odds with party leadership.

That's actually not true on 99% of the issues, right?

And certainly the substantive ones.

But I think when you take a step back and you look at American politics in general for the first time in our lifetimes, more than 50% of people in the country do not identify with either party.

And that's a Pew Survey that just came out a couple of weeks ago.

So 50% do not identify with either party which means that every other person you meet on the streets is completely turned off by both parties.

And if that's true, then somebody, and as a Republican, I think that needs to be us, needs to show up and show this is how we are going to advocate for policies that are going to make your life better, are going to make us safer, stronger, more cohesive as a nation, more competitive against China.

And we're going to build that foundation on a policy framework, but also we're going to start by being forthright and honest with you about all the issues that we face, because we respect you.

And I think if that's where we start as a party, and we show that we can be responsible leaders, and responsible stewards of this country, then that 50% who's currently turned off by both parties, I think ultimately they come back to our party.

But those voters are all up for grabs right now.

And I think they're all starving for something that's different from what we've been seeing over the last handful of years, with just the chaos and the vitriol and all that's going on culturally.

And they want to see responsible leadership going forward.

And so that's what I try to create for myself and what I hope that we'll see more of as a party going forward.

- You studied philosophy as an undergrad and I wonder how much that has informed your decisions over these last few months.

- Quite a bit.

One of my favorite classes in the philosophy major was symbolic logic.

And that really helps you learn how to think.

It's not a what to think, it's a how to think, and how to process and structure arguments.

And so everything that I I do, and this isn't just a political statement, this is how I ran our business and how I approached football.

and certainly how I approach politics, is to start with an objective fact base and then process all your information through tried and true principles and ideologies and run the facts through there and then just accept whatever comes out the back end.

And so that's how I've always tried to operate.

It's worked well in most phases of life.

But you know, sometimes what happens in this business, and it happens on both sides, but sometimes what happens in this business is objectivity runs into politics.

And you as a member, have to decide what you're going to do in that situation.

And I try always to be on the side of objectivity.

Like I said, I think if you respect your voters, if you respect your constituents, you owe them your honest opinion and you owe them the truth as you see it.

And so that's what I try to deliver.

And then you got to figure out the politics obviously, but I don't think you should ever lead with that.

I think you should lead with objectivity and the truth.

- To hear you talk about it, it sounds almost dispassionate and I suspect that it's not, and there's also an ethical portion of this and a moral portion of this about what democracy is and what it means.

And I would like to assume that that's a driver for you, but you haven't said that.

- Yeah, look, it's not dispassionate, but I do think what you have to, all the issues that we face in Congress and all the issues that we confront as a society have emotion behind them.

You can't separate the fact that people are deeply passionate and entrenched on what they believe and and their views.

And that's great for the country in normal times because those ideas collide and you hope that the best ideas come forward and ultimately drive the country.

What I think I need to do as a legislator is pull the emotion out, pull the narrative out, get to the substance, get to the actual facts of the matter, what's true, what isn't, and then base legislation and policy off of that.

And that's true for every issue we face.

So that's true with how we fight China.

That's true with how we rebuild manufacturing.

That's true with bringing down drug prices.

That's true with making our healthcare system more affordable, better access to housing, all these issues that we face.

They're very passionate issues they're important to people, they're important to the country, where I try to be as is on the side of data and facts.

And then I process all that through my conservative ideology.

I am deeply conservative, have been my whole life.

And then from there, policy prescriptions fall out of it.

- If you're just joining us we're speaking with Congressman Anthony Gonzales.

He is the representative for Ohio 16th Congressional District, serves on The Committee on Financial Services, also The Committee on Science, Space and Tech, and is a also a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus and the Republican Main Street Partnership.

If you have questions, you can join us with those questions by texting them to (330) 541-5794.

That number is (330) 541-5794.

Or you can tweet it at The City Club and we'll work it into the program.

I'm Dan Moulthrop, This is The City Club Friday Forum.

Let's get into some of those legislative issues, Congressman Gonzales.

The Biden Administration has proposed some very large new legislation that comes with very large numbers in terms of spending, talking about The American Jobs Plan, which you refer to as The Infrastructure Bill and The American Families Plan.

You've talked about both of these before, but let's start with infrastructure.

There's going to be some compromises along the way, but this seems to be, there seem to be a set of things in here that both parties can agree on and could maybe make it through.

What would you like to see as the outcome of this process?

- What I hope we see as a bipartisan outcome.

So far in Congress, we have not done much that's been bi-partisan frankly.

And if you look at the first quote COVID relief package, which was partially COVID relief, that was done on pure partisan lines, which was unfortunate.

- You are talking about the first one in this Congress?

- The first one in this Congress, yeah, which was roughly 2 trillion.

And so going forward, what I hope is we get back to what we did last Congress, which was pass bipartisan legislation to help us beat COVID, but then also recover.

As we exit the COVID pandemic, we're not fully there yet, but we're pretty darn close.

As we exit the COVID pandemic, we need to implement policies that are going to get people back to work.

We have an enormous labor shortage while we also have above average unemployment, which is just sort of an interesting dynamic.

So we got to get people back to work, but then we also have to rebuild our infrastructure.

And to me, infrastructure is physical infrastructure.

It's the things that most people consider infrastructure.

So highways, bridges, airports, ports, I would put broadband in there.

I think we have a responsibility to make sure every American can connect and has the ability to compete in the 21st century.

And then we have to obviously figure out how we're going to pay for that all, which is sort of where the rubber meets the road.

If we stay in the lane of traditional infrastructure, I think we get to somewhere between 600 and 800 billion.

I'm working with the problem solvers, I'm on the subcommittee that's putting forward a proposal to the Biden Administration, trying to move the ball forward on that.

And hopefully we'll get there.

If it stretches into things that I don't consider infrastructure, and I don't think most people do, like housing and hospitals and daycares and schools even, then I think you're going to lose Republicans and it'll become a partisan bill.

And what happens in that world is the price tag goes up, the total spend goes up, I would argue inflation goes up even more too, but then also tax increases.

And so that's sort of the dichotomy here in Congress and we'll just see what happens.

I think President Biden seems to want to be bipartisan.

I don't think his staff wants him to be bipartisan, is my read, just from observing how the last couple of months have gone, but we'll see what happens.

- When you talk about taxes going up and the traditional conservative response is, no to that.

But taxes are historically low, particularly for the highest earners, and those who who receive a majority of their income through capital gains.

The capital gains tax rate, as you know, is at historically low levels and has often been as high as 30%, 35%.

Is there a room for an increase on those?

I mean, when we've arrived at a place in our country where we have a wealth gap that rivals, what we saw in the 20s leading up to the Depression, is there room for an increase in taxes so that we can pay for some of these things, which everybody seems to agree are necessary?

- In terms of higher earners, I think they're probably, like the highest earners, frankly, I shed no tears if their taxes go up a little bit.

But for your average American, no, I think it's a horrible idea to be raising taxes coming out of a pandemic.

Where I do think you can get some some relief is, and this is where I would look.

So we are a haven for investment, internationally, people pour money into our country, invest in our country, then take that money out.

I think you could put nominal tax on these foreign capital flows that are coming in.

And I think you could raise a good bit of revenue there.

The other one- - When you're referring to things like that, are you referring to corporate inversions, where headquarters are moving overseas to avoid tax laws or ax tax exposure, or what are you referring to exactly?

- Literally foreign investment.

So if you're a hedge fund in China say, and you're investing in the US economy.

So those foreign international transactions, I think you you could hit those in a nominal way and raise some revenue.

So that's one area that I think we could look that frankly I haven't heard many people talk.

Another spot, and here's something that I want the listeners to grab a hold of, there's talk about raising corporate taxes and raising income taxes and closing loopholes and those sorts of things as a way to pay for the infrastructure.

When you look at what's actually been proposed, the biggest pay-for is increased IRS enforcement, which I think is $800 billion.

So what they're basically saying is we're going to double the size of the IRS and we're going to start auditing Americans more often.

And we think we can get the money that way - If that cuts down on fraud and abuse and pays for itself, does more than pay for itself, is that a net positive?

I mean, we do live in a nation devoted to rule of law and I just sent some checks this morning to the IRS, they're a little late, but I funded a little bit of civilization today.

- Yeah, so here's what I'd say to that.

Obviously, we want to make sure that every American's paying the taxes that they owe, we should all agree on, that that is not a controversial statement.

My personal belief is that saying that you can get 800 billion a year there, is a fantasy, that's my personal belief.

It's similar to when we say on our side, well, we'll pay for everything by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse.

Is there waste, fraud, and abuse in the system?

Of course there is, and we should crack down on that, is it enough to pay for everything that everybody wants?

Probably not.

That would be my strong suspicion.

So I do think there's a little bit of a head fake going on with respect to these pay-fors.

That's just my belief - Well, I would suspect that through the process, through the hearing process and so forth around all of this, you'll find out if in fact there's data to back up what they're saying about investing in increasing the size of the IRS.

I mean, because presumably there's data.

- Yeah, so the only piece of data I've seen suggests that there's 80 billion as opposed to 800 billion.

And that came through Axios earlier this week, they sent something out about tax avoidance in one of their morning newsletters.

And the number was 80 billion.

- I want to switch gears for a second and talk about some of the threats to American security, you're co-chair of the House China Task Force.

And our relationship with China is super complicated.

I'm going to run through some of the different aspects of it, just to set the stage here.

They're a trade partner, a huge part of our supply chain runs through their economy.

They're a source of economic competition at the same time, and they're a source of competition for political influence around the world.

And we have major challenges with them, with respect to cyber threats and respect for intellectual property.

And there's also a very significant human rights problem there.

And there's probably more that I haven't even gotten to.

There's also their contribution to climate change, so on and so forth.

What should be on the policy agenda right now?

- So to answer that question I think you first have to ask two different questions, which is, who is China?

Who is the Chinese Communist Party?

And what do they want?

So the Chinese Communist Party is a totalitarian communist system where every decision that is made is designed to feed the party, to support the party, and advance the party's agenda.

Horrible human rights record, what's happening in Xinjiang, it should be embarrassing to every person who does business in China, in my opinion.

And so that's who they are, now what do they want?

They want to displace the United States and they want to lead the world.

They do not want to co-exist where we both are leading at the same time, that is not what they want.

They want a unipolar world with them at the center of it.

So if that's who they are, and that's what they want.

I would argue that the things that we should feel comfortable collaborating with them on are very narrow, and certainly anything that has to do with critical supply chains, whether that's medical supply chains or defense supply chains, we should be relocating back here to the United States.

And we should make sure that we can, at all times, protect our country from whatever threats may come, because the threat is increasing, not decreasing.

And we all need to take it very seriously.

This is the battle of our time.

- Let me connect that back to what we started out talking about with the definition of infrastructure, which in my mind, it's sort of like, it's not really important, it's just a word, right?

But the question that you're raising is what do we need to invest in domestically in order to succeed over the long-term?

Part of what we need is a better labor force, a stronger workforce that can tackle the challenge you just laid out onshoring the supply chain, onshoring manufacturing for these critical things like microchips and so forth, that we basically allowed to move overseas.

Can you do that without the massive investment that is being proposed?

- Yeah, I think you absolutely can.

I mean, so there's investments that we have to make in our workforce, no question about that.

One bill that I've been pushing for the last two plus years, that we hope will we'll be able to get through this Congress, is The Jobs Act, which would expand short-term training programs, extend Pell Grants to pay for short-term training programs.

Governor DeWine just came out in favor of it.

Senator Portman and Senator Kaine on the Senate side have been leading it.

I've been leading it with a handful of Republicans and Democrats, bi-partisan.

This is just a simple way to say for those who a four year college may not make sense for, we're going to provide ways for you to get tangible skills that you can put to use in our economy.

And that's one easy thing we can do.

Additionally, we need to beef up our stem workforce.

The workforce of the 21st century needs to be a tech enabled workforce, and we need to do more at the K-12 level, but certainly at the higher ed level to make sure that we have a workforce that's STEM capable, and is not just STEM capable, but STEM proficient, and we're not quite there.

And those are investments that we absolutely can and should make.

And then a lot of this stuff, frankly, about reshoring, comes down to tax policy and trade policy.

If we can get those things back, which I again, would argue should be a national priority, then we'll be in a much better position as as we go forward, vis-a-vis China.

- So getting back to China for a second and your reframing of the question, who are they, and what do they want, I think is a very useful way for us to think about it.

How do we handle some of the immediate threats regarding cybersecurity and intellectual property, the respect for international intellectual property laws?

- So I think a big part of the China strategy, so if those are the two orienting questions, I think my two orienting answers are our China strategy needs to be informed by two things.

One, an unapologetic, unabashed belief in liberal democratic values that we have led the world with since World War II, created more wealth, pulled more people out of poverty, the longest sustained global peace in the last 300 years, all due to American leadership.

The world should be incredibly grateful for American leadership and frankly so should China, because they used our system to build their wealth.

So unapologetic belief in the American system and liberal democratic values.

And then the second is alliances and partnerships.

So just the geopolitical math, they're north of a billion people, we're 330 million, and our economies are growing at different paces.

We're going to need partners, we need our allies, we need the G7, we need Australia, we need New Zealand, we need like-minded countries to come together and insist on a set of standards, and then hold the line on it.

One of the issues is in the UN and in the World Bank and all these international institutions, that are supposed to uphold the liberal democratic system, China has basically gotten a free pass.

They don't play by any of the rules of these systems.

And it's time that we start insisting that they do and be willing to actually get tough with them and cut them off.

If they're not going to play by the rules, there has to be sort of punishment.

And if we just let them keep going over and over again, they're going to run us.

- Over another you've area been spending a lot of time on is the Financial Services, specifically involving, retail investors, who collectively, in the aggregate, have been making huge headlines with regards to whether it's Gamestop, AMC, or bizarre crypto bets.

And I wonder when it comes to dealing with emerging technology, whether it's in finance, or social media or elsewhere, Congress is woefully behind in terms of understanding even what's happening in the immediate moment, much less where things are headed.

That's just Congress overall, and I'm remembering a few unfortunate hearings.

But I wonder how you see what's been happening, this is a golden age for retail investors.

People are making money and losing money from their couches without involving a stockbroker at all.

And I just wonder how you see things and what ought to be done right now to ensure that markets are free and fair and that people have access to the avenues to wealth.

- Yeah, great question.

So it's probably my top issue on the Financial Services Committee, which is making sure that retail investors, sort of mom and pop investors, have as many great opportunities to build wealth as possible.

And right now, so much of the wealth that's being created in the investment business takes place in the private markets, it doesn't even take place in the public markets.

So companies are going public way later in their growth cycle.

So all that high growth happens in the venture capital world and in the private equity world.

And your average investor is sort of locked out of that.

So one area that I am focusing on is trying to find ways to allow retail investors to get into some of these funds, but to do it in a way that still has the investor protections.

And there's some interesting ways you can do that by allowing them into closed end funds and things like that.

Because the truth is there still needs to be the investor protection role, that's a role that still needs to be played.

But I'm somebody who, by and large, thinks if you give people the right disclosures, and you give them the right information, that you should trust them to make the decisions with their money.

- I'm smirking a little bit, because disclosures in the world of technology are kind of laughable.

I mean- - Oh, yeah, tech's got its own, I'm talking financial markets.

Yeah, on the tech side, frankly, I don't think anybody has come up with a great answer with respect to how we treat these big tech companies.

My personal view, if you want to talk about the platforms, so Facebook, Facebook, Twitter, Google- - Well, I was thinking more about, Robinhood came in for all sorts of criticism for enabling the volatility of Gamestop last month or two months ago or whenever that was.

And people were pointing fingers in every direction, at Reddit and Robinhood in this, and I don't know what comes of all of that, but it does seem to me that there's something about, there's some more regulations, like a referee needs to get involved, and in the markets and capitalism, government's kind of the reference.

- Yeah, well in the Gamestop situation, my personal belief, and I think that the data has pointed this out, is that Gamestop, not Gamestop, sorry, Robinhood mismanaged their book.

So the way that this works is at the end of every trading day, there's a clearing house, called the DTCC, that sends the broker dealer, so sends Robinhood, sends Charles Schwab, sends wherever, Fidelity, wherever you do your trading, sends them a collateral requirement, a deposit requirement, that says here's what you need to post at our clearing house to cover all your trades from the previous day.

Robinhood did not have the money for that, they didn't have enough money to cover.

And so they had to quickly do two things, find it and get the liability reduced.

So what they did is they just shut off their traders for being able to buy any more GameStop.

And so if you're in a market and you can't buy, but you can sell, you're in trouble.

And that's a recipe to get whacked by the stock market, if the only thing you can do is sell.

And so that's ultimately what happened to them.

I think going forward, there's some interesting things we can do from a technology standpoint.

One is to shorten the amount of time it takes to complete a trade.

Right now, it takes two days.

That's part of why their deposit requirement was so high.

If it took one day, the deposit requirement goes down.

The other is, I think Robinhood probably needs to have more capital on their balance sheet if they're going to transact in these trades - We're talking with Congressman Anthony Gonzales, he represents Ohio 16th Congressional District.

And he's our guest here at The City Club Friday Forum.

I'm Dan Moulthrop If you have a question for Congressman Gonzales as we move into the second half of the program, which is when all of you get to ask your questions.

Please text your question to (330) 541-5794.

That number again is (330) 541-5794.

To text your question, if you're on Twitter, please tweet it at The City Club and we'll work it in.

Congressman, I received this question earlier this morning from a man who I kind of think of as one of the deans of the Cuyahoga County Republican Party, Bruce Akers, who I'm sure you know.

And he asked you see any way the Republican Party can move forward in a really united way without Trump being considered as the presumptive leader and spokesman?

In other words, how can we be thought of again as the Republican Party rather than the Trump party?

- Well, you know, the beauty of politics is the voters decide that question.

It's a question that I get a lot, as you can imagine, it's how do we all move forward?

My personal view is look, the whole purpose of a political party is to win elections.

That's why they exist, is to win elections.

And as a party, we need to be honest about where we are.

We are completely out of power at the federal government.

We don't have the White House, we don't have the House, and we don't have the Senate.

Sometimes when I hear us talk about the state of our party, we talk as if we somehow won an election, we've lost all of them when you look at the federal government and you look at the federal levels of power.

So if that's true, we should probably take an accounting of what we need to do going forward.

And right now, my concern is we're trying to excommunicate our own voters and when you're fully out of power, you need to be adding voters, not subtracting voters.

And so this position that we find ourselves in is baffling from a party standpoint.

And my hope is that we can find a way to co-exist, build the tent, expand the tent and move forward.

- Congressman don't you think you're going to lose voters?

I mean, the question is how many voters are you willing to lose?

I was talking to a friend, a Republican friend earlier this week, and he said he is no longer gonna support Republican candidates because of the allegiance to Donald Trump.

But at the same time, Trump expanded the party by some 10 million voters who may not show up again if he's not the head of the party or the center of the party.

So is, I don't know, I don't know the answer, but when I look at it, that's what it looks like the trade-off is.

- I don't know, I mean, again, a lot can happen between now and the next election.

But what I would say is if we build our movement around policies, and again, I supported, I don't know what the percentage, 90% of President Trump's policies, 'cause I think they're good for Northeast Ohio.

If we build the movement around policies and expand upon those policies and improve upon those policies and lead in a responsible way and show the country, show that 50% of Americans who are turned off by both parties that we have a better way built on principle and policy and we're going to lead responsibly.

I think that's the best way to grow the conservative movement and win elections going forward.

The reality inside our party is people do feel differently about president Trump.

If we're gonna win elections going forward, retake the House, retake the Senate, retake the White House, there has to be room for both.

And if we're going to excommunicate people who feel differently than we are, on one side or the other of that debate, I think it's a losing strategy for a party.

You should not, as a party, be committed to subtracting voters, you should be committed to adding voters, it's pretty basic stuff.

- You make it sound so logical Congressman.

- That's the problem.

- You mentioned, there's another question from our audience, you mentioned that 50% of the population does not identify with either party.

Do you think it would be best for a new party to be created to fill the gap?

- I'm always skeptical of third parties, frankly.

They typically don't work and they can be a bit embarrassing at times.

What I really think is, and I only worry about my own party, I don't spend any time at all thinking about what the Democrats need to do, but within our party, I'll just restate what I just said, which is we need to be a party built on foundational principles that work for American families, that work for Northeast Ohio, build our workforce, allow families to live their version of the American dream more comfortably.

We can get into all that if you want, but we have to do it responsibly.

We have to show people that we are a responsible party and we are worthy of their faith in leading.

And that I think is how you get that 50% number, more of those people moving the right, as opposed to the left.

Because I'm personally scared by a lot of what I see on the left, a lot of it looks and feels and sounds openly a lot like government taking over most aspects of my life.

And I don't think that's wise or appropriate.

- Which things in particular are you thinking about when you say that?

- Well, if you read sort of The Green New Deal.

which has a ton of co-sponsors or it did last time, it's basically a restructuring, a full restructuring of the American economy and goes after pretty much every sector.

I would argue it does it in a way that's completely contrary to where the science is and where technology's taking us.

But set that aside for a second, that is a full government takeover of roughly two thirds of the American economy.

And so that is the exact opposite of what I think we should be doing.

I think we should be putting more power into the hands of American families, pushing more responsibility to our states and our local governments, and then enabling at the federal level, making sure that we have the enabling investments in our society to make sure that we can kick back against China so that when this race between the US and China or the US led world and the Chinese led world, that we win that race, because we have to, that's the race of our time.

And I just have a different vision for that, but again, let's take a step back, and what are the American people looking for?

I think they're looking for a vision to answer those foundational questions about what's most important in their lives and they're looking for a responsible party to show them the way.

And right now, if you look in that 50% number, your average American hasn't seen at neither party.

- Ohio's Congressman Anthony Gonzales of the 16th District is our guest today at your City Club Friday Forum, I'm Dan Moulthrop.

Congressmen this question specifically about the 16th Congressional District, what do you think its future is given that Ohio recently lost one house seat because of population loss?

- Anybody's guess, I am intentionally not participating in any conversations around that.

There's certain laws about what members can and can't do and say.

And so I just said, I'll take the map as soon as it's done, I'll take it.

So I'm as eager as anybody.

I will say, one thing that I think is net negative for everybody is lost another seat.

And so Ohio's voice in Congress is going to be a little bit smaller.

And that's part of frankly, why I think focusing on Ohio's economic future should be a top priority or the top priority for every person in our state, no matter what side of the aisle you're on.

'Cause if we have more economic opportunity in our state, you'll have more people coming in, we won't lose the population and maybe we can even gain seats back and expand our influence across the country.

- The redistricting process is expected to be fairer this time, by statute, it needs to require minority participation, and minority party sign-off.

Although the the decision-making power will largely lie with the Republican party this time around because of the dynamics on all of it.

From a philosophical point of view, if you will, and as somebody who represents a substantially gerrymandered district, how should districts be drawn?

How should this new map be done, besides preserve a place for Congressman Gonzalez?

Is it compactness, is it keeping communities together, what do you think should be driving the decision makers in this case?

- What I hope is that the map is more balanced.

I personally don't like gerrymandering at all.

It benefits you if you're an elected official, because there's a power of incumbency there, but it results in a world where if you wanted to, you could legislate to a very narrow set of people in your district and never be at risk of losing an election.

And I just think that's wrong, frankly.

I hope that the districts are more even.

One of the challenges though, is if you just look at, if you look at where people live and you look at the population centers, there's only so many places where you can find democratic voters in our state, right?

And so you're going to have a lot of Republican districts.

- If I can push back a little bit, I mean there are democratic voter in every community across the state.

It's hard to find a majority of democratic voters in many communities, just as there are Republicans in Cuyahoga County, where it's majority Democrat.

- But what I'm saying is like, let's say you decided that you wanted a democratic seat in Southeast Ohio.

I don't know how you're going to do that.

When I say that the democratic voters are largely concentrated in a very narrow set of places in this state.

- Which makes it very hard to draw competitive districts in many places.

- Correct.

- Here's another question from our audience, how are House Republicans approaching climate change and clean energy policy?

What are the priorities, and what do you think they should be?

- So our strategy, I'll tell you my own personal one, and I'm on a lot of these committees.

Personally, when I look at the science, when I look at what's happening, I think it's very clear that we need to invent our way out of this and innovate our way out of this.

We need to invent the foundational technologies that are ultimately going to work.

And right now we're not there.

- What kind of technologies are you talking about?

Are you talking about carbon sequestration?

- Carbon sequestration, carbon capture, I think nuclear should play a big role.

I don't know how you hit any of these targets without having nuclear.

And that to me is a call for investment, investment into basic research, fund the science, because your average consumer, and certainly in my district it's true, and this is what I believe.

You're balancing three things, cost, efficacy, so does it work?

You turn the lights on, does it come on?

And carbon, okay.

Most people prioritize the first two.

They want to know that their energy is affordable and that when you turn the lights on, they come on.

- I think that's how we got into this situation we're in.

- And it's also how we built a lot of wealth.

- Sure, yeah, yeah.

- So, okay, I personally think, and by the way, if you look internationally, if you look at China, if you look at where 50% of the growth is going to come from, population growth in the world, 50% of the people, for the next 50 years are going to be born in Africa.

Those are carbon based economies.

And so the only way that you're going to make a dent in this, in my view, is you have to invent technologies that are affordable and reliable, as affordable and reliable as the existing set of technologies that you can then export around the world, so that you're not forcing people to make the trade off.

So that you're not telling people, hey, look, we're going to decarbonize the energy sector, but to do that, you're going to pay, 35% more on your gas bill, that's a non-starter for most people.

And so what you need to do is invent the affordable, reliable technologies, that get them out of the trade off.

And then if you do that, and and you do that here in the United States, you've now created an export business that you can proliferate around the world.

And I think that's the most responsible way, frankly, to do this going forward.

I think it's the only way if I'm being candid.

- Here's another question.

Why do you believe this is a completely different topic?

And it's The City Club, that's what happens.

You get one person that stands up, asks one question, then a completely different topic here, but why do you believe the January 6th commission is needed?

You joined 34 other Republicans and all the Democrats in supporting this idea.

Why do you believe the January 6th commission is needed when there are other investigations already underway?

- Well, those other investigations are looking at criminal conduct.

This is more about understanding from a legislative perspective, how do we prevent it going forward?

What laws do we need to change to make sure that we never put the country in this position ever again.

And so that it does have a different bend to it.

But what I will say there is look, the country was under attack, the Capitol was under attack, the constitution was under attack.

In every other instance where we've had a major attack on our country, we've had a commission, as nonpartisan as it can be, with the goal of understanding what led to it and then preventing it going forward.

And I think as legislators, we have a responsibility to do that.

- Sticking with this area for a second, from another listener, earlier this month you were censured by the Ohio Republican party.

You speak of bipartisanship and the expectation that Democrats should reach across the aisle and work with members of your party.

But how do you propose Democrats work with the majority of your party who continue to support the big lie?

This narrative essentially denies that Joe Biden is president and is fundamentally anti-democratic.

How do you set aside differences with the majority of your party who have tried to silence true conservative voices like yours and Liz Chaney's by asking you to resign and have gone as far as calling you a traitor?

- So a lot of those internal battles, GOP battles, the censures and whatever it is.

To me, I just don't pay attention to them, if I'm being honest.

I mean, the things that I focus on are what we've been talking about.

How do we get competitive against China?

How do we rebuild our middle class?

How do we rebuild our country?

How do we make sure Northeast Ohio is a hub for jobs?

That's what I've spent 99% of my time on, because I think that's what's most important.

There's this thought that people have, which is, all of these censures and all this stuff in my estimation, is a false belief from those who do them, which is that some group gets to decide who the elected officials are.

The group is the voters and they will have their say.

And that's a beautiful thing in this country.

And so we should celebrate that.

So, in terms of all the outside noise, it's just that for me, the only day that matters with respect to elections is election day and the voters are gonna have to have their choice and they'll make it and we'll accept it, and then move forward.

- Just to come back to the listener's question though.

They're sort of asking how should Democrats work with Republicans?

You saw Tim Ryan almost lose his mind the other day on the floor about accusing Republicans of being disconnected to reality.

And he's not the only person who's saying that, you've heard that.

I mean, the critique that you hear sometimes is that the Democrats believe in democracy and right now the Republicans are behaving as if they don't.

This is the critique that that's being leveled.

I mean, philosophically- - I would push on that by the way, I totally disagree with that characterization.

- I'm glad to hear it, but there is that perception and you've heard it among your colleagues in Congress.

- Yeah, so look, here's what I would say.

So I'm in a bunch of bipartisan groups and basically for the first three months of Congress, we all tried to figure out if we could even stay together and keep working together.

And I'll tell you what I told all my Democratic colleagues on those calls and all my Republican colleagues, I said, look, I understand and empathize with how disturbing you found the events of January 6th.

Obviously you can check my vote record.

That being said, there's only 435 of us.

There's only 435 members of Congress.

The country needs us to figure out how to work together, despite our differences, and as angry as they were with us, I can assure you, I have been just as angry with them multiple times over the last two years, two plus years, with various things that they've pushed, the first impeachment, which I did not support, was a perfect example of that.

So if we're gonna be in a world where as a Congress, we refuse to work with people, because they force votes or they take votes that we have passionate disagreement on, we'll never solve anything.

We're just never going to get to the work that the country needs us to get to work.

And trust me, I get it, I understand the anger and the frustration, I get it, and I share it in some respects.

But we have to find a way to work together because that's what we all ran on.

And, again, it gets back to this notion of we're in this weird societal inclination where we just cut people off that we don't agree with, or that we have a bitter disagreement with.

You can't organize society that way, you have to find a way to have those disagreements, be passionate in your beliefs, but still find ways to work together on the things that you can at least agree on.

Otherwise, what good is Congress?

- One of the issues that Congress has failed to deal with for years, probably since you were a child, if not since I was a child, is immigration reform.

It seems as though we're getting to a point where we might see an actual proposal for an overhaul, and maybe that might break things open where something new could happen, but what would you propose?

What do you think ought to happen right now?

- So immigration to me is one of the most frustrating, maybe the most frustrating topics that we deal with in Congress, and here's why.

If we grabbed 25 Americans, just picked them at random and put them in a room with no regard to political affiliation.

Within about four hours, they'd come up with something that they'd basically all agree on.

It's not actually that difficult intellectually, politically, it's a hot button.

And I think unfortunately, both sides seem to want the issue more than they want the outcome.

And that's a shame because, one, we should want a legal immigration system that serves our country's needs and interests and encourages the legal process.

But, and I think most people agree on that, and again, I think the specifics you can iron out, 80% of them, but the polarization inside our Congress just prevents us from doing it, and it's disappointing - What should the goal of immigration policy be though?

Should it be to to welcome more immigrants than we have in the past or welcome fewer?

- I don't think of it in more or fewer terms.

I think of it as it should serve our national interest - What's in our national interest?

For instance, if population is is flat or declining over the longterm, which the current census seems to reveal, that we are entering kind of what Japan has found, where the population is shrinking, would it not be in our interest to expand the population through increased immigration?

- It could be, and I'll tell you how I think about it.

So what serves our national interest?

I think a lot of factors should always come into play.

I think that the current state of the economy should be one of them.

So if you have high unemployment, I think that would argue for, hey, maybe we should throttle it back for a period of time and get our people back to work.

And then we can bring in more people.

Some folks disagree with that take, that's fine.

But that's one sort of principle I would say.

But at a basic level, if you believe in our country, you believe in the democratic system, you believe in our values, you hold our values and you're going to contribute to the wellbeing of our society, and you're going to follow our laws, then I think that we need to have a legal system that allows for you to get in line and work your way through that system.

And then in terms of what's the number, I think that's dynamic and it changes based on the situation on the ground at any given time.

The other thing I want to hammer home is the legal aspect of it.

So that's where, by the way, I think the agreement point that most people come to is, yes, of course, we need to secure our borders, why wouldn't we do that?

Of course you need to know who's coming in and out of the country, but then there's also this notion about, we still have to welcome people, right?

We can't just turn everybody away.

And I think that's where most Americans are, and that's frankly where I am.

And like I said, let's take 25 people and put them in a room, that's basically where they'll up.

- Congressman Gonzales, you're vice chair of a subcommittee for the Financial Services Committee on Diversity and Inclusion.

Our listener asks, what are your thoughts on the recent local, state, and national efforts to prohibit diversity, equity and inclusion training, and learning in workplaces and schools?

- To prohibit it?

- Yes, I think this is touching on the debate over critical race theory.

- Yeah, I think there's a healthy way to talk about diversity and then there's an unhealthy way.

And I think the healthy way is to find ways to expand the beauty and the opportunities that exist in this country to as many populations as possible, and being honest about the fact that we haven't done that, right.

So you can just look at the data and it's pretty obvious.

I think where I personally think it's less productive is when we start pitting everybody against one another and chopping people up into different demographic categories and rank order and all these things that I've seen.

I haven't been through one of these corporate trainings.

So it's really hard for me to say, hey, look, I have issues with XYZ policy, but at a general level, I think what it starts with is let's be honest about how we are doing as a society on racial equity?

And you can just look at the data and it's very clear, that we need to do a lot more.

But the question is, how do you go forward?

And to me, it's about, let's make sure that we're expanding opportunity and the blessings of this country to every race, gender, creed, no matter where you are, you should have equality of opportunity, and we don't, we don't at all.

And I'll give you a perfect example right now which is where school closures have taken place.

So my personal belief is we will look back 10 years from now, and we will say that what we did to our urban cores and our children will have accelerated inequalities worse than maybe anything else, any other policy that's unfolded over the last couple years.

Where most urban centers were closed from a school standpoint, kids were forced to learn at home, if they were able to do it, it's very challenging for everybody.

It's incredibly challenging for low income minority students.

And what happened in the suburbs, people were mostly open.

And if you could afford private school, you were definitely open or you're probably open.

And so you've seen these, and that's a perfect example right here in front of us, where one set of demographics, in this case, low income minority families who live in urban cores or around them, could not send their kids to school and wealthy folks in the suburbs could.

Now you tell me, is that a good outcome or not?

I think it's a horrible outcome.

And I think we're going to be living with the consequences of those decisions for a very long time and it's horribly unfair to the kids who we kept out of school - Congressman Gonzales, we're just about out of time.

I want to thank you very much, though, for making the time for us, and for the thoughtful way that you approach your work.

It's refreshing and we appreciate getting to spend some time with you today.

- Thanks for having me.

- Anthony Gonzalez is the Republican Congressman representing Ohio's 16th Congressional District.

Our forum today is the annual Richard and Sally Hollington Endowed Forum created to celebrate The City Club's dedication to local and national civic dialogue.

Dick Hollington devoted more than five decades to practicing law and taking on leadership positions in the community with his wife, Sally, an extremely active civic volunteer by his side.

Their generous support reflects their commitment to the exchange of ideas and opinions about issues important to all of us.

And we're grateful to both of them for their civic leadership.

Thanks also to members, sponsors and donors and others who support our mission to create conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

We have some great ones coming up next week.

On Tuesday, we'll present the final Youth Forum of the school year.

It's a conversation on free speech with the winners of our Hope and Stanley Adelstein Free Speech Essay Contest as well as the Stop The Hate Essay contest winners from the Maltz Museum of Jewish Heritage.

And on Wednesday, we'll talk with two change makers about what equitable development in America's small and mid-sized legacy cities can and should look like.

There will be no Friday forum next week because it's Memorial day.

You can find out more and see what else is coming up at cityclub.org.

You can check out what you missed there, or you can check out what you missed on PBS Passport, Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, Vimeo, and of course, our YouTube channel.

I'm Dan Moulthrop, stay close in your hearts, my friends.

We will be close in person soon and we certainly can not wait.

Our forum is now adjourned.

(bell rings) - [Announcer] For information on upcoming speakers or for podcasts of The City Club, go to cityclub.org.

(gentle music) Production and distribution of City Club Forums on Ideastream are made possible by the generous support of PNC and the United Black Fund of greater Cleveland Incorporated.