the speaker pro tempore: on this 387 --he yeas are

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 390 and the nays are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 391, the nays are 2 recorded as present, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the

rules are awe send -- suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. royce, suspend the rules and pass s. 1635 as amended which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1635, an act to authorize the department of state for fiscal year 2016 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on the vozz -- on this vose, the yeas are 374, the nays are 16, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the

bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> notwithstanding thed orer of the house of september 22, 2016, i ask unanimous con sent that the veto message of the bill h.r. 1777, together with the accompanying bill, be referred to the committee on oversight and government reform. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1777, an act to amend the act of august 25, 1958, commonly known as the former presidents act of 195 , with respect to monetary allowance payable to a former president and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection the veto message and accompanying message on h.r. 1777 are referred to the committee on government and versight reform.

for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> annapolis -- madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 6415 an ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 6415, a bill to provide for the appointment of members of the board of direct yoffers the office of compliance to replace members whose terms expire in 2017 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the bill? without objection the bill is engrossed, read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 179, concurrent resolution directioning the

secretary of the senate to make certain corrections in the enrollment of senate 2943. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of concurrent resolution? without objection the concurrent resolution is aeed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order. the chair will now entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. last week, the united nations general assembly passed six

anti-israel resolutions, including yet another one that denies and distances jewish and christian ties to the temple mount. in fact, madam speaker, the general assembly will have taken up 20 anti-rail resolutions by the end of this session and will have only brought up four, one, two, three, four, measures against some of the world's worst human rights violators, like iran, china, russia, north drea, venezuela, or cuba, combined this just underscores, madam speaker, the need for systemwide reforms at the united nations. with the new administration, madam speaker, we have an opportunity in the upcoming congress to wield our considerable influence and leverage to promote and enact reforms by reassessing how we contribute taxpayer dollars to the corrupt u.n. system.

legitimizing stop this farce at the united nations. it is time for us to take action and bring much-needed reforms. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. the gentleman is recognized. >> please meet daisy avuzo one f 300 residents to join at a dreamers' town hall with the border network for human rights last week. it was an opportunity for our community to come forward, both the dreamers in our community and those who support the dreamers like daisy, who works two jobs, a day job and night job and student at the el paso community college.

the president-elect has vowed to terminate daca, that means daisy has uncertainty at a minimum and she will be deported to a country she does not know and a language she does not speak and she will lose the benefit of her potential. madam speaker, we need to do the right thing and keep daisy and the 700 others plus in this country, the potential they can bring to the united states. i ask for your help with the members here and the president-elect to make sure we do the right thing and for the young dreamers like daisy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: madam speaker, on saturday evening, i had the privilege of attending the 10th anniversary celebration of the state theater. the state theater first opened

as a movie house on october 15, 1938 showing "the sisters" showing flynn and davis. the building was refurbished and opened in 2006 as a state of the art venue for concerts and other performances. the state theater is a community-owned theater dedicated to serving the region. it is a hub of local culture featuring artists. there is something for everybody at the state theater, rock and roll, drama, musical theater, comedy and opera, movies, dance, standup and children's programs. congratulations and thank you to the leadership, volunteers of the state theater for being a great venue. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to pay tribute to the incredible career of tony stewart on his retirement. tony stewart is known as smoke started his career as a career in go-cart racing and climbed the ladder to become the legend he is today. every time he faced an obstacle he overcame it. champions aren't born winners but built through hard work, grit and determination. tony's driven by that, leading and helping folks in need. his role might be changing, but i know smoke's presence at the

race track and his impact will continue. renee and i applaud tony for his outstanding career and wish him all the best. on behalf of north carolina's 8th district and racing fans, congratulations to tony. always a racer, forever a champion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any additional one-minute requests. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. duffy of wisconsin for today. mrs. napolitano of california, and mr. poe of texas for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. for what purpose does the entleman from.

mr. thompson: i move that the house adjourn. the house stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour debate. your money segment to look at programs and initiatives by the

federal government to look at how they are funded and what they do. our guest is liz farmer, with governing magazine, a staff reporter for the publication, and we're talking about the topic of federal funds that support cities across the state. approximately, if you are an average large city, how much of your federal budget is based off of federal dollars? 10%.t: i would say 8% to it is no small amount. unfortunately are no consistent statistics, but anywhere from 5% 10% for most midsize to large cities is fairly average. we are talking about $1 billion in large cities and several hundred million dollars in smaller cities. host: does that go directly to them -- is it passed on through the states -- how does it work? guest: if it works differently for different kinds of funding. most of the funding is passed through a significant amount of pass-through states.

in some of the research that i have done, it is difficult to parse out which of the funding comes directly from states, and which is coming directly from the federal government. it is both. host: i would imagine a city like los angeles or new york would get larger shares of pies that smaller cities -- is there a consistent format, or is it based on size? guest: it is based on the city's ability to attract federal funding -- the larger the city, , so typicallynt the larger the city, the more money they get. host: how does that usually work? guest: the city does make requests for certain types of funds. some of it comes to the state. a major example is medicaid funding. then the grants administration, some of it is targeted toward certain projects the city wants to do. some of it goes through different types of services the city wants to provide.

to click, there is a long-standing agreement. sometimes it is an annual reapplication process. it varies. host: the topic of federal funds came into vogue because of statements made by the trump administration when it came to policy on immigration. can you counter is what is at -- in discussion? guest: the concern is they harbor illegal immigrants, and do not cost them to the fence. trump has threatened to withdraw federal funding. there are huge legal issues, and some say trump cannot do this to begin with. cities are starting to stand up and say we will make contingency plans, not change our stance. it is becoming very divisive. host: contingency plans involve asking the question what happens if we do not get these dollars? guest: that is the issue, yes. so far, no city has actually

published specific contingency plans, but they say they are working on the. my suspicion is behind closed doors they are working on ways to rejigger money, but for some of these cities, especially the larger ones, we are talking about a huge pot of money, and there is no contingency plan if you lose several hundred million dollars in federal funding. host: liz farmer is here to talk about federal funds that go to cities. if you want to learn more on these topics, here is your chance to do so. we have divided the lines to do -- this way. if you are in urban resident -- actually, the lines will be host: you can tweet request or questions or comments and post on our facebook page. you provided for us generously

the city of new york's analysis for its budget and how much federal funds are part of it. we will not go through the specifics, but for a city like new york, if that money is gone or is taken, who is directly impacted? typically, and this is true for most cities as well, but in new york city, who is infected, the homeless, battered women, social services like that , public safety -- law enforcement relies on federal grants to you are looking at a wide swath of services. -- grants. you are looking at a wide smile -- wide swath of services. child care services, section eight vouchers is a huge one. host: that is the money they depend on, and if it were taken away, what is immediately affected? does that mean losses of

services, or does it go further than that? host: guest: it could mean suspension of a program, particularly with --guest: it could mean suspension of a program. it could appeal to the state for funds to cover that. either way, the money vanishes, and it has to come from somewhere, or it does not come from anywhere. host: the larger question is why do cities get money from the federal government in the first place, and not from the state or the city itself? host: -- guest: a lot of this goes back to 200 block grant funding, this was in the 1970's. -- community block grant funding. this was in the 1970's. cities want a direct access and do not want to rely on the state. they do not want to be the parent doling out what they think is correct. this is a way for cities to have a direct connection to the white house, congress, and to be able

to make their own appeal to capitol hill in terms of what their direct needs are rather than only rely on the state. again -- host: bill is in wisconsin, democrats line for our guest, liz farmer, of "governing magazine." bill, you are on. go ahead. caller: i would just like to interject the funding for states is very unequal. forst read an article that $.61 back jersey gets for every dollar of federal tax they pay, whereas wyoming, one of the least dense states, gets $1.11 back from the federal government for every one dollar citizens pay to the federal government. it is important to keep that in mind while you are talking about

city budgets. as you said, cities do not want to depend just on their state. there is such a great variation in state funding. thank you. guest: that is right. there really is a great variation in state funding, and typically, the lower -- the states that have lower income population -- more poverty, rely more on federal grant funding. this is largely connected to medicaid, things like that. there is certainly a disparity in terms of what the taxpayers in each state get back from what federal money is coming to their state. ,ypically, the new jersey wyoming example -- wyoming is a sparsely populated state, and new jersey is densely populated and has a significant amount of wealth. those are two factors. wyoming has less wealthy people, unless you are in the oil industry. those are two factors that work into the math. host: we hear next from a caller

that is in new jersey -- independent line. mike, good morning. guest: good morning. how are you guys today -- caller: good morning, how are you guys today? guest: good, thank you. is with theomment sanctuary cities, the lifeboat theory nobody seems to be bringing up again. i feel that if i were in an underdeveloped country, i would run to the united states, but here we go with the lifeboat theory again. should the working american be able to pay for anyone coming in? thank you. yeah, you know, i was speaking with somebody about this earlier this morning that when you have great services, which cities do -- a lot of cities have four of the lot into homeless services, social services and they tend to be more liberal than rural

populations. that attracts people that do not have as much to offer. that is why you see a lot of city populations that do have immigrants, legal or not, and they are an attractive place to live. with these sanctuary cities, there is no hard estimate. estimaten francisco's is something like 14,000 illegal immigrants, possibly. there are no hard numbers, but legal or not, cities are an attractive place for anyone coming to the country to start a new life for themselves. host: next, brad from maryland -- shadyside, maryland, republican line. go ahead. caller: my comment or question is this government funding has just gotten out of control for everything. you cannot even speak out against the much money is being spent anymore. who you talk to.

you do not talk to the president to get funding. you talk to congress. that is what we have forgot. we do not talk to congress for worse, for anything. the executive branch has gotten out of control. that is my question or comment. answer how you will. guest: the executive branch funding has gotten out of control, or congress has gotten out of control? host: brad, you want to respond? caller: everything has gotten out of control -- the only wars authorized by congress was the invasion of afghanistan and iraq. since then, we have a countless battles. libya. the middle east is exploding. where are the control with spending. it has gotten ridiculous. guest: ok, and certainly a lot of people feel the same way. that goes back to one of the reasons community block programs started in the 1970's.

cities want to have a voice on capitol hill. rather than rely on whatever congress decides to give to states, and then rely on whoever is in the state legislature, and whoever is running the state to figure out how much do we want to give two cities -- cities are where most of the people in this country live now. that was not quite true in the 1970's. they are still the centers of population in states, so they want to have a voice in the spending they are talking about. that is one of the reasons why funding directly to cities grew starting in the 1970's. community block development programs -- generally, what are their services that purposes? they are block grants, as the name suggests, and a city can apply to help reduce homelessness -- they do not have to be super specific. they do or do not get awarded however much they ask from the

federal government. there is a pot every year. there is several billion dollars every year, and typically, capitol hill and the white house duel that out directly to cities, and the rest of the federal funding comes through various other federal agencies. the other kind of funding is called category grants, and that is more specified. a city has a transportation project -- it will apply for that. there are certain stipulations on how it can spend that money. the next question -- if a federal government sends money to a city, what is the oversight? guest: it is eventually question, and it goes back to the inequality issue -- with larger cities having a large grant administration staff, so they tend to get more funding because they are more

well-versed in the process. smaller cities tend to get less funding. i have a smaller staff. when it comes to administering them, and making sure the money goes where it is supposed to go, that is where it can get tricky. the city as opposed to the monitoring that the money gets spent correctly. the federal government can audit them. couple of years ago, there was a gao report on how cities manage grant funding, and it basically found that even large cities like detroit, for example, that because they had cut back so much on city staffing in general, and really hacked into the grant administration staff, money was supposed to to be -- was being spent that wasn't supposed to be spent on certain things, so detroit would have to return the money or the money was just languishing in a fund waiting for matching funds from the city that never arrived. we are talking millions of dollars every year being wasted in one form or the other. granted ministration with the city is a huge deal.

host: liz farmer, staff reporter for "governing magazine" on your money segment. heat. raleigh, north carolina. keith, you are on it good morning. caller: thank you very much, sir. it is a very nice show. i love the show. a topicnt was i think like this -- the reason why people are very interested in it is a lot of people feel well, if you send trillions of dollars to other countries -- i do not understand the whole system. a lot of people wonder why is there such a problem helping out the american system -- not trying to interject politics with donald trump, but that is why people understand and agree with what they say. for a person to live in america and become a billionaire, a $50 -- 50 billion dollars men are

why isrk zuckerberg -- there a problem if you have the need of human beings, black, white, indian, chinese, try to help them out in the city. i love you all, love your show. thank you very much. guest: i think you touched on, as you mentioned, a nerve that explains what has been happening over the last year in this country with the election -- suspicion on how the federal government is operating is obviously very much a concern. so, what we have here with this discussion is we have a president elect saying he is going to withdraw funds from cities that do not operate in a way they believe -- he believes they should. parallel ineresting terms of what the federal government is telling states and cities to do when you look at has been handled,

and the supreme court decision. i read an article a week or so ago that later this out legally. earlier i mentioned there were legal problems. the legality of this is the way was handled, the result was congress and the federal government could not tell the states exactly how to manage medicaid expansion. they could not even tell states to expand medicaid. that is why we have all these different roles in different ways it is handled per state. it is the same thing for this -- the suspicion from the cities and population in general -- cities, states, on up to the federal government, not one of the federal government tell of how to spend money, or federal budgets -- it is the same issue with immigration. sit -- they want to be able to run the way they want to appear mark on a huge question whether trump can withdraw cities based on this. host: cliff.

florida. independent line. caller: good morning. great topic. i know the guest mentioned that disbursement in different states depends on budgets, and a large city might get more money, such as new york versus wyoming, but going back to the beginning -- who decides how much money gets disbursed by the federal government? are there actuaries? there are 50 states -- hawaii, alaska -- all the others like puerto rico -- who decides how much is the amount? that is number one question -- either actuaries, a public/private partnership on the information. and two -- do we consider a state influx? i live in florida. we are a growing state. does that make a difference in the formula?

i love the topic, i love c-span. i will take the answer off-line. guest: that is a great question, a technical question, and it is, sort of, a technical answer, in that there are so many different kinds of federal grants that the way each one is doled out, it is not all uniform. you mentioned a formula. some grants are formula funded -- medicaid is an example of that -- medicaid is based on need, funding, population, although sorts of things. other website transportation related grants, those are more singular, standalone items by themselves. the city or the state has to apply for it and lay out what its needs are. it may or may not get everything it needs from the federal government. the federal government has a lot of grants directly to cities and states that are designed to generate economic retirement -- economic requirements. you might have heard of a tiger

grant. there is no simple answer -- typically, the budget starts -- the white house has its own budget it lays out, and people in the white house staff lays out how much should go in certain grant funding, but what happens is typically agencies -- solid, the department of housing and urban development manages this end doles out the ones were cities and states apply. hud determines how much they get. it depends on the agencies. some things are directly in the budget. there is no specific answer. host: can a city employee lobbyist to make its case here on capitol hill? guest: yes, in the sense that cities and every level of government association has an association -- there is the national league of cities, the association of counties, the national governors association, and a zillion more. [laughter]

guest: there are a lot of organizations. those groups lobby on behalf of cities and counties. particular ones that i mentioned -- they are the big forces. they have offices, some of them located right here in this building. on capitolffices hill. they typically lobby on behalf of cities and states. cities often can send their own elected officials, and they do meet with representatives on a regular basis. hear from kathy, south carolina. independent line. caller: yes, i would like to ask ms. farmer a question. conversation, it sounds like the sanctuary city governments would prefer to make the vulnerable american cities suffer rather than comply with orders for removal of illegal immigrants. i will take my answer off-line. thank you. certainly one way

of putting it. that is probably the way that trump sees it as well. the other alternative to the argument is legally speaking, if cities comply with this federal order, what precedent does that set for any other policies they would like to have as a standalone city? i certainly agree with you cities are putting on the line the funding for needy services, and the greater question that i think most lawmakers are talking about is, again, it is an issue of federalism, and it is an issue of sovereignty. our country has been founded on the idea we have a central government, but the government cannot tell the states precisely what to do, and that filters down to cities as well. host: by that thinking -- here is a

guest: [laughter] you know, there used to be something -- i love stuff like that. there used to be something like revenue sharing. it died out in the 1980's. the nflort of, like how owners have revenue sharing. it was whatever revenue the federal government collected after spending it on its own needs, it would disperse it back to the states, and it does that now, but not in as free a form as handing over a check. it died out in the 1980's, as i mentioned. states do that in sales tax revenue -- they dispersed that back out to the cities based on population. it is another one of those formula things. this idea that states and cities should be self-contained bubbles, not share the revenue -- it is, sort of, a nice idea, but it does not play out when

you consider things like someonete commerce, or in washington, d.c., for example, someone might be west virginia on a maryland-operated train to washington, d.c., so you're talking about three dish -- three districts in one day. host: republican line. good morning. should i think this all -- should it be done in the reason i'm saying this is you the cities that if president of the united states does something wrong, no matter what his reason is, he is held responsible to the law. you have a person that is here illegally and does something wrong, the city says we are not going to turn them over. that is not the only problem that is in this.

most people would agree, and not disagree with the system that they have set up. if they only would turn in or hold the people that have done something, and the government wants to take them and either do themhing with them -- send back home, or put them in prison. this whole situation does not make sense to me. it seems to be all political. guest: it is definitely political. you are right about that. i am not sure that cities harbor illegal immigrants if they have committed a crime other than being here illegally. i am not totally well-versed on all the examples to be able to address that, but, again, you are getting into the sentiment that has been such a polarizing issue in the country. a lot of it is connected to the divide.ban cities are, kind of, the industrial centers of states, but they are attracting a lot of federal funding, as they have been talking about -- as we have

been talking about, and meanwhile the smaller, rural areas are losing population as a whole, seen less and less commerce, industry, and it leads to resentment. people look at cities as these great beacons of the state. independent line. this is earl. caller: what i am noticing is due to information from c-span, you have donor states that contribute the majority to the federal government, and then you have these southern states, or these middle states that contribute less. you mentioned earlier that donor states receive maybe $.60 on the dollar, whereas recipient states -- you did not say how much they contribute totally, and the of the southern states, and those that are not contributing -- they are the ones that have a problem with the federal government, and then

they want to tell the donor states what they should and shouldn't do. can you look at it from that perspective rather than to say the perspective -- percentage they contribute or receive on a dollar? how much do they contribute in real dollars and cents to see the actual reality? guest: a lot of this is something i encounter with my reporting -- i cover public financing on a regular basis, and an mass of things tend to gum appearance in politics, and people use that to politicize what their agenda is. the whole donor state idea is basically the notion that states with more population, richer people, more industries, faced , gross statedp product, i suppose, they naturally produce more revenue. some of that goes to the federal government. they do not get all of that back because they do not need it all

back and a lot of the government funding -- most of the inequality we are talking about with this issue has to do with medicaid. so, states that have less poverty with them do not need as much in medicaid funding. states that have more poverty -- a lot of them are in the south -- mississippi, alabama are two huge ones. they get a ton of money from the federal government for medicaid because they have more poverty. it makes this funny math equation, it shouldn't, but it doesn't have anything to do with politics, and it gets to this tends to get thrown in there. host: the washington times has a mayor, wee l.a. things he said about donald trump before the election and after -- the question is is donald trump a city president as opposed to president obama, who had a good relationship with metropolitan areas? guest: it remains to be seen it

i hesitate to predict anything with child because he has been so unpredictable. trump becausewith he has been so unbreakable. i would be surprised if he was a obamaresident as much as has been. he has bypassed governors, thickly in red states -- particularly in red states with governors that do not want to work with him, and gone to houston,hat are blue, austin, for example, and worked with citizens to eliminate veteran homelessness. cities got on board with that, and it became a collaboration with the white house. i wrote them down because i knew i would forget all of them. for example, prepare it for climate change is another one. obama, while he is not directed cities to increase them and which, he has supported all of them that have. you have these liberal issues that cities are taking on

because they're states have been reticent to work with the white house on it. host: let's hear from bill. patriot, ohio. caller: good morning. --se illegals coming in here they go to cities like california -- in california, and york,o to cities in new and they do take the jobs -- low-paying jobs, where if they were there, and the welfare recipients in those states, who work for what the government was giving you -- now you're not even have to work. you just have to say you are looking to find work. if the illegals were not here, and those people were made to go to work for their benefits, we raise in the

industries where the illegals are not there anymore, like the farming industry, things like that -- you would see them raise the rate on how much they pay. host: thanks, bill. guest: i don't disagree with that. to get reallyard good numbers on that with a lot of what we are talking about because it is, by nature, on documented. it certainly is a common belief that without the support of immigrants -- and many people believe illegal immigrants -- not just in agriculture, but the restaurant industry as well. without that support, and being able to pay them lower wages, things here will cost a lot more. it is a simple economic issue. host: a tangential question -- two host: can you shed some light on

the? guest: the unfunded mandate 1 -- states get up in arms about that. it is true. the federal government can change policy, and -- but not have a way for states to pay for it, and that is a to them. that is something states will get on their high horse and complain about over and over again. the problem is what states typically tend to do -- they will pay for what they can, then pass on the cost to cities, particularly major cities. you have it rolling downhill. can you read the other question? host: the other question related to enforcement cost to miss appellate is in counties that are not reimbursed by -- in his appellate is in counties that are not reimbursed by feds. maybe that is in question. guest: again, it goes into the

unfunded issue, and that is what cities and states are going to have to figure out. we have been talking about federal funding and the fact doesfederal government buoy cities quite a bit, but it has been going down the last decade. that is probably because of the recession. we have limited dollars now. states and cities, to some extent have been relying less on lesson whatever government has said them. you might see more cities and states reaching out to private sector companies to pay -- help pay for the cost. you have those issues. overall, the trend has been they have been relying less and less on those big dollars anyway. host: liz farmer is with "governing magazine" -- a staff reporting -- reporter. what is "governing magazine?" guest: we published monthly, cover state and government

policy. as relates to federal government -- i write a lot about tax reform on capitol hill, how that might affect state and local governments. we cover all 50 states and puerto rico. [laughter] guest: and, then, you know, as many cities as we can get our hands on. the idea is we write about things that are both good ideas and bad ideas so people in the private and public sector know what works and what does not. host: michael, you are next. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. my comment, and you can look at it as a question -- a lot of educatedn't quite as some of your guests may be, and you keep batting around the term "sovereign state." the state of california is not a sovereign state. they are not entitled to the

same things that we would give a country like canada, mexico, saudi arabia. they are sovereign states. a lot of the money that the government doles out every year to the states is in the form of grants. and i think what mr. trump has every right to do is if you have a city who is in a specific complyhat wishes not to with the federal laws and the laws that are in the constitution, which the current administration chooses to ignore, then they get no grants. host: thanks, caller. guest: you mention a couple of things there. i will start with the sovereignty issue. yes, states are subject to federal government overall. it is in the constitution, however -- i think it is the

10th amendment. the federal government law trumps state law, however state laws -- however states can create their own laws however they see fit, as long as it is not negate whatever happened at the federal -- does not negate what happened at the federal level. that is issue we're talking about here. when it comes to immigration, the legal question is that immigration is enforced -- this is in the law -- immigration is enforced by the federal government to cities have been -- government. cities have been standing on this leg of we're not going to help you enforce your law. the other part of this is state's cooperation with the federal government -- if they have sanctuary cities they do not agree with, they can pull their own state-funded. that is at the state level. that could happen. then the other part of this -- are a few aspects to this. the last thing i will say is

that legally -- looking at the legality again -- the guy mentioned earlier, when the federal government -- i think i mentioned it -- when the federal government change the drinking age -- it was age 21. it was different in other states. states that did not comply saw federal government withhold highway dollars because of the driving -- thinking and driving issue. withhold lawcould enforcement dollars because it is a related topic, but there are so many different things happening. i am not a lawyer. there is no hard precedent for this. therefore, you could argue both sides very easily. host: one more call. jerry. florida. republican line. caller: i will jump in. high walked on my morning walk and i walked by the border