and the state on infrastructure spending. rand ebra knopman of the corporation on her recent report detailing how to make federal infrastructure spending more efficient. >> they were warned for the dissolution of dreamers to stay in the u.s. should not interfere with the administration's goal or a defense budget. a forthcoming book on the white

house sparked a war of words spnspn with steve bannon. his forthcoming book went after members of the president's family and he fired back in a statement saying mr. bannon not only lost his job he lost his mind, close quote. there's more to this story playing out in the newspapers this morning. but we want you to comment to us about this latest spat between president trump and steve bannon. the white house and steve bannon as well, 202-748-8000 for democrats. and independents, 202-748-8002 on twitter, you can tweet us@c-spanwj and not only post there but see statements made bizarrea sanders at the white house press briefing, that as facebook.com/c-span. the book is called "fire and fury, inside the trump white house" and excerpts of it appeared on the website for new york magazine. part of those excerpts

commenting and quoting steve bannon, particularly on several members of the trump family, including donald trump jr. here is one of the quotes. the three senior guys on the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with foreign government at trump tower in the conference room on the 25th floor with no lawyers. they didn't have any lawyers. and even if you thought it was untreason us or unpatriotic, and i happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the f.b.i. immediately. he added, the chance that don jr. did not walk these jumos to the 26th floor is zero. just one of the quotes from the piece in the new yorker. a forthcoming book coming up by michael wolf, the author this prompted a reaction from the white house, a formal statement which reads steve bannon, this from the president, has nothing to do with me or my presidency. when he was fired he not only lost his job he lost his mind. worked for ffer who

me. host: those are the statements. more on this as we go on this morning. we're interested in hearing your thoughts on this latest between these two men and if you want to let us know and ve us a call on this 202-748-8000 for democrats and 8001 for republicans and independents, 8002. post on twitter at c-spanwj and on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span. axios on its website this morning talks about possible latest move by the white house. this is mike allen reporting this morning. that amid the firestorm over michael wolfe's book, a lawyer

says legal action against steve bannon is, quote, imminent, accusing the former white house aide of breaking a confidentiality and nondisparaging agreement he signed with the trump campaign, cease and desist letter which ordered bannon to retain relevant texts and emails says communicating with the author about trump his family members is disclosing confidential information. staying in a statement legal notice was issued to stephen k. bannon that communicating with the author gives numerous legal claims including defamation and libel and slander and breach of his written confidentiality and nondisparagement agreement with our clients. legal action is imminent. comes with the latest spat, a

call from you, from pennsylvania, up first. robert joins us from there. caller: good morning, pedro, can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: this all broke esterday and i want you to know as a diehard democrat and someone who has been frightened for our democracy since mr. trump took office almost exactly a year ago, michael wolff is a very -- he's a journalist -- he's a credible journalist, in my opinion. we'll hear it from the fox news crowd and don't want to bring the me, too, into it but like minded folks across the country and the world itself, back in

the fall of 2016, how we felt. and i'm concerned. i'm concerned about his mental ability and before he got the nomination, i was concerned about nuclear war with north korea. i could go on. host: what's the main take away from what you heard the last 24 hours? caller: well, honestly the main takeaway and i don't mean to be preaching from my own ideological choir, however, i should say to answer your question and then i'll go, pedro, is these are all of our worst fierce, and i hear journalists or anchors of nonright or left folks in the media, mainstream media, in my opinion, cnn, for example, saying, you know what, this is he same things that we

suspected. i would say one last thing and i mean this on "democracy now" they were doing a new year's thing monday on new year's day, a compilation and might have done the whole weekend, it wasn't a live show with amy goodman in which there was a psychiatrist, apparently the congress has had a house committee and a senate committee respectively actually consult the psychiatrist about the fitness and he -- host: we get your point. let's go to margaret from kansas. democrat's line. caller: hi, good morning. disgusts me we've lowered the bar of our conversation so far. neither of these men look to be on the public stage and you know, it's like steve bannon looks like a psych nurse, he looks like he's had alcoholism

problems and hygiene problems and trump looks -- and talks ke he has beginning dementia or malignant narcissism. host: when you say lowers the bar, what do you mean then? caller: instead of talking about our world leaders could look to us on problems and our problems with the chip program, we've got a man titting and tatting and this and that and i wouldn't put it past these two to have planned this for some kind of version to have everybody talking about which, you know, and trump can't say he doesn't embrace bannon. he took him over to saudi rabia. they've been in our white house. we the american people deserve so much better than this.

what could we do to get this? greeny: that's margaret in kansas. host: that's margaret in kansas. 202-748-8000 and independents, 8002 and republicans 8000. and another one says if i were the president i'd ignore it. and looking at michael wolff, the author himself, saying that second-guessing of wolff's work has begun and thomas barrett, a billionaire friend of trump said he's not only crazy and stupid, but he denied he said such a thing. katie walsh, a former white house advisor who disputed a comment distributed to her by wolff wed he was trying to figure out what a child wants. paul berry says his reliability, michael wolff, has been challenged before over

quotes descriptions and general accounts he's provided to several magazine columns and in several books and even acknowledged that he can be unreliable and in "burn rate" his best-selling book, wolff kept his bankers at bay by fabricating about his father's heart. how many grievous lies have i told you and how many moral lapses have i committed and allen into, like any financial k -- conniver, i was in a short term mode. and he added, even wolff's anecdote of trump being unaware who john boehner was last year seemed a business suspect, the reason, he had tweeted about him multiple times since 2011 and in 2015 he tweeted the wacky glenn beck who cries worse than boehner thinks sadly of me because i refuse to do

his show, a real nut job. leroy in maryland, democrat line. caller: from day one all the people who mr. trump put in certain jobs like jeff sessions betsy racist, and devorr in public education, he even has a general who says he didn't speak bad about the fallen soldier though we know he talks about the soldier onstage. here's the main thing, this is all a cesspool of rats. now, i grew up in the ghetto so i know what rats did. when rats run out of food, they will start to eat each other and that's what's happening now. you can't tell me mr. trump says he and his son-in-law didn't communicate on what was going on. if i run a business and i've got children, everything that goes with that business, they're going to report to me, guaranteed, because i'm at the top. you can't tell me, oh, he

learned something he didn't tell me. that's not how it works. host: you're prone to believe mr. wolff then? caller: you better believe it, the rats are starting to eat each other and it's about time. host: james, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. the last time i called i got hung up first, mr. shuffle. -- ays, my comment is i host: go ahead. james from connecticut, go ahead, please. caller: i'm here. host: stop listening to the tv and go ahead and make your statement, please. caller: i'll do that, yes, sir. i'll turn it off right now. i think that a song has come to roost with donald trump, money, guns and lawyers, the shit has hit the fan and i'm almost believing they should make a presidential postcard and on top of it, the white house should say scheist house

because donald trump turned this place to a sewer. host: mile an burke said he agrees with his president and has little to do with the trump administration. he was a coffee boy. tony is in maryland. independent line. tony, go ahead. caller: good morning, c-span. i grieve donald trump and steve bannon are both a few french fries short of a happy meal. steve bannon is less dangerous than donald trump because donald trump, unfortunately, is our president. i believe that donald trump really likes p a likes putin an because of one thing -- maybe two things, the ties he has with russia, for one, for another because russians are donald trump loves

white people more than anyone else. he has a problem with people of color, whether they're immigrants or blacks which he likes to call thugs. host: tony, to the conversation or at least the statements by mr. trump and mr. bannon, what do you think about those fundamentally? >> i believe steve bannon more than i believe donald trump. i believe it was treasonous for what they did in the trump tower regarding collusion with russia. whatever they were doing with russia, i believe it was an act of treason, for one. the point is -- can i have something to say about steve bannon. he's nothing more than facebook on tv. nothing gets done. you can do better than this. all we're doing is complaining and nothing is getting done. you're hearing both side. the wrong side and right side. there's no left or right, there's just a right or wrong and you're doing nothing to help this country. all you are is a complaint pool. host: we're an avenue for people to give their comments

like you gave this morning. again, can you do that on twitter at c sexanwj and our facebook page. and on the phone line, for democrats and republicans and independents, 202-748, 8000, 8001, and 8002. we look back and forth at president trump and steve bannon. touche, mr. bannon, the headline of the peace and they account the back and forth and finished with this, the president left nothing for the pundits to say, comma, unless it's to say i wish i had written that, not since harry truman put a music critic of "the washington post" in his place for criticizing his daughter's singing and threatened to kick him in a place no one wants to be kicked has a president so eloquently risen to his family's defense. no man can look so cheap when he turned on his benefactor and steve bannon has been a fly in

the ointment or burr under the saddle of donald's horse, choose your metaphor and the president is entitled to feel liberated from the consequence of choosing the wrong friend if that's what mr. bannon ever was. host: from maryland, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing this morning? happy new year. i believe bannon. i believe all the information that's been going on in this white house is coming to light. and i believe that this is part of a conspiracy that bannon started with trump and now it's backfiring. i believe the republican party is in deep, just as deep as they are. on racism and ss the compromise of russia. trump still hasn't put those sanctions against russia, which i don't know why the republican party didn't just sit pack and nobody saying anything about

this. but he's quickly put sanctions against iran and against north korea. and what i believe they reap in what they sow and will only get worse, you know. donald trutch was a snake and said he was a snake and this is what snakes do. i think he's a mongoose. host: on our republican line from newport, kentucky. go ahead. you're next. caller: yeah, i believe both trump and bannon are having a glass of wine celebrating this bannon is going to sell his book and trump once again will tie up the media to focus on his agendas. host: so you ultimately think it's a victory for both sides? caller: oh, yeah. i think they're playing right into it because -- the media is playing into this once again. host: how do you think it helps the president's agenda?

caller: once again it keeps the focus on him. that's how he works. host: you don't think this discussion or at least this back and forth is more of a distraction from the agenda more than something to help it along? caller: no, i think it's temporary. i think that in the long run, you know, the democrats are so focused on everything but an genda that i think that it's art of a plan along with bannon. host: did you support the president, i'm curious? caller: well, sure. this president actually to quote obama, hope and change. this is hope and change. the people spoke back in november. for hope and change.

host: from nbc news, norah quoting, about the author and his forthcoming book, his website said mr. wolff taped the backup, quote, in his book, dozens of hours of them. among the sources he's taped, i'm told, or actually it was told, are steve bannon and former white house chief deputy of staff katie walsh and norah o'donnell giving her take on if, she from cbs news. the previous caller a couple calls ago talked about a briefing by members of congress, the hill reports that brett samuels reporting from yesterday that lawmakers were briefed by a psychiatrist on the president's mental state saying more than a dozen lawmakers met with a psychiatric professor to discuss his fitness in office. they met with the lawmakers on the 5th and 6th and warned the

president is going to unravel all the lawmakers in endance -- in attendance were democrats except for one republican senator. we feel the rush of tweeting is an indication of falling apart under stress. that the professor telling politico. the independent line is next. rich is in jacksonville, florida. caller: hi, pedro. thanks for taking my call. this is another continuing donald trump and the way he was and is and is going to continue to be. it's just another day in the donald trump world, you know. when he got elected, everything he did was just like his eality show. host: you think there's a long-term impact from that? caller: i think it's demoralizing. i think it's a reflection of how sick and twisted our country is, the way we operate.

we elected this guy. it's disgusting. to be a part of it. to even be a citizen that this is the way we're running this and we're taking our allies -- it's just -- i can't even -- if i said this was my kid, i'd have to disown him, you know. host: from illinois, stu is next, republican line. go ahead. caller: hi, thank you, pedro, for taking my call. i love your program. it is so wonderful because you tell either side and you try to be fair what you tell. and i also want to say something about president trump. hello? host: you're on. go ahead. tell us what you think about the back and forth between he and mr. bannon, first of all? caller: i don't care what they're saying because that's

nonsense. bannon has his opinion and he's opinionated. president trump is our president and we should give him the respect due the president. i'm thankful that we have a president who respects the veterans, respects the police, respects the flag, respects the anthem. i don't always agree with what he says but at least he has guts enough to stand up and everyone that is a democrat has criticized him and wanted to throw him out of office and some of those people in congress are so old they can't hardly walk. they should go home. let the younger people take over their jobs. host: here's your chance to let us know about the news that went out yesterday and continues on with today with developments. let us know on the phone lines and on twitter and facebook as well. it was at the white house briefing yesterday sarah sanders was asked about the contents of the book, particularly that meeting that took place in trump tower last

week with donald trump jr., sara sanders asked about it and here's the response. >> [video] >> did the president on donald trump commit treason? >> that's an accusation and one we addressed many times before and if that's in reference made by comments by mr. bannon, i would direct you to the ones he made previously on "60 minutes" where he called the colt resolution with the president a total farce. i'd look back at that. if anybody has been inconsistent, it's been him and certainly not this president or administration. reporter: does the president meet any of the guests on the trump tower meeting that day? >> as the president stated, no, and he wasn't a part or aware of that. host: steve bannon was asked about breitbart on sirius x.m. and some of the statements of steve bannon reads as such saying the president of the united states is a great man. you know i support him day in and day out, whether going

through the company giving the trump miracle speech or on the show or on the website. reported by fox news. if you go to the breitbart website, nothing about the latest incident that leaves the story about chris poback, the president of state that as of yesterday disbanned anded lead off the breitbart website there. and from tennessee, david, go head, you're on. caller: according to the news i've been watching for years this thing here where he said he got fired i guess he did and was upset over that to start with. and as to what's going on right now, you hardly know who to believe or not believe. but the one thing that really upsets me, we've had several things over the years, i'm 76 years old, and it's all been

swept under the rugby the democrat party the last 30 years and started in arkansas and tell you who come from arkansas. but this here -- host: the comments in the last 24 hours. stick to that. what do you think of those? caller: well, i tell you, when you go to line, you're going to pay a price. it may take two weeks, three days or 30 years to get you but sooner or later, you will fall from the line and that's all i have to say. host: "the washington post" this morning highlights the relationship of president trump and mr. bannon adding this paragraph in its reporting, it is possible if not likely the president and steve bannon will reunite again soon. the president has a long history of making up with associates against whom he has lashed out but for now at least the president and bannon are on the outs following the revolutions by the book of michael wolff in which bannon

is quoted as saying the meeting in the tower was treasonous and mr. bannon denied commenting. and you heard sarah sanders discuss the briefing and if you want to see the briefing and all the other questions, can you do so at c-span cot.org. emmitt from florida. democrats line. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call there. about to me it's not the loose manner. mr. bannon is telling us what we've known all along. to me again, i look at it as not about mr. trmple. trump is trump. if you want to know about trump, look at some of c-span. i'm talking to a trump supporter. you look at some of c-span's video log with trump, he's been pretty much lying and came knifing for a long time. -- conniving for a long time. to me it's about trump supporters. his rule of america has been said, a jelly and sandwich,

eating it like it's peanut butter and jelly. we have to wake up like it's coming together like pieces of a puzzle. like the last caller, you been lying all along, you're going to pay for it is what he is doing in my opinion. host: ron is next in missouri. independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. yeah, it's hilarious listening to all these liberals call in. if all they had to do was bring in a good candidate they could have wiped him out. of course they wanted to thank him. host: are you still there? ron's gone. rebecca stoner after twitter says this nothing i read in the book excerpts surprise me he wanted to lose the election. hat does not sound like donald trump.

it's about election night, one of them highlighted by mabling wolf on the website. certainly at 8:00 on the election night that mr. trusm a seem to win, don jr. told friend that his father, or d.j.t., as he calls him looked as if he had seen a ghost. melania was in tears, not joy and there was in the space of a little more than -- an hour, steve bannon was not amused observation. that is from michael wolff's book you can read. up next, the republican line, this book causing back and forth between steve bannon and donald trump. what do you think about it, russ? caller: well, there's a lot going on in the white house right now and in the united

states but when i was a kid, there was an old saying, the smoother they talk, the slicker they are. we've got a guy right now and i voted for him and is uncouth at times but is telling you the truth and is sticking up for the united states. like the woman said, he's for the military and police and so on. now the smooth talkers are the bushes and clintons, they want a world government. trump doesn't. he wants a government of the united states. you get the world government you'll need a new constitution and a lot of people don't like what's in our concity tuelings. so you'll lose a lot of the constitution if you listen to the smooth talkers. host: what do you think about the information reported from this michael wolff book? he's gone it. caroline in virginia, democrats line. hi, caroline? caller: hi, there p. there were a couple comments recently,

someone shared with me ivanka trump calling it the new economy and thought that adjective was powerful. it could have been the american economy, it could have been it was clearly in response to the new tax reform and calling it the trump economy. and that would be just one piece there to share. and i do think that there's some -- i think i've heard the idea, the fast casual, i think there's a lot of that going on right now and i think i would just add, i think it's fast cash casual. host: aside from that we're asking people about the statements of the president steve bannon. talk on that. caller: in terms of michael wolff and some of his comments? host: yeah, please. caller: i'm actually -- sure, i'm comment on that p. i know

when i get up in the morning and my cousin is president kennedy, i'm going to work. i'm going to work. i'm not dressing up to get attention. i'm going to work and i adore education and i think that yes, do i believe that there's stuff going on in the workplace that actually the commenlts, the dressing to impress when you're actually supposed to be conducting -- helping health care and food and all the different social services, yeah, i think there's a lot going on. you know what, i actually feel that when it becomes no longer hot to be political some of this will stop. host: caroline in springfield. "the washington post" talks about michael wolf's access to the white house, combined his book and said he himself president trump was aware of the project and allowed others to participate, an excerpt of the book said the author

conducted more than 200 interviews of a period of 18 months with the president and most members of his senior staff and many who in turn spoke. him sanders said he never sat down since trump took office short y only had a seven-minute conversation and had nothing to do originally with this book. harry in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: i think this is a big game, trump and bannon's play and they also do this and trump especially sucks in all the reporters to make fools of thements. bannon never confirmed or denied this. number two, they're going after trump on everything. what about obama giving $150 billion to iran? how about him running guns with his blah and giving away 20% of our uranium. if trump should be the joke, then hillary and obama should

get the death sentence for what they did. host: you think the conversation was planned, then? caller: i think the guy who wrote the book was lying and i think bannon isn't confirming or denying and letting everybody run with it. host: he's quote in the book. caller: i'm going to bring you something. you always bring up "the washington post" and "usa today," find five positive things in those papers the last year and a half about trump. can you do that? host: i'm not doing it now. nor is it my job to do that. my job is to read both papers and prebletting view points on these papers as well. shawn in maryland. independent line. hi. caller: good morning, sir, how are you doing? ost: fine, thanks. caller: this is purely an indicator of chaos and for the callers to say trump and bannon

are playing a game, that's still chaotic, whether it's a game or real. it's chaos. and this is very dangerous for our country. the president of the united states is one of the most powerful persons on earth, whoever he is, obama or bush, that's a powerful position. and trump has ran it to the ground. host: what in the last 24 hours indicates chaos to you? >> just how nobody is getting along and people are back tabbing each other. and pretty mutual everything you hear, is it corroborating the chaos we heard for example with mcmaster, i think there was something saying he was calling trump an idiot. you look in his book and it's like look at all the stuff going on. i want to say this real quick. if i was kim jong-un, or

somebody else that really hates this country, but let me use the north korean leader -- host: we'll keep it to the topic at hand to make sure other callers get a chance. sue, democrats line, go ahead. caller: ok. how are you? host: i'm well, thanks. caller: i hope you just keep up these work with all crazy people that are critical of you. they are the people they ordered for trusm. now let's put that aside. bannon, do you know what bannon did? bannon just separated himself from trump so he can get in trouble. because he knew from day one he's corrupt, he's a criminal nd just wanted to be sure he interrupts our rules of law.

he did that. he succeeded in that, from day one when trump came to that scalator, he's made me a nerve ous wreck. he's made me a very, very ill person. host: when you hear about the comments steve bannon makes, do you take them face value or believe them or question them, how do you receive those? caller: oh, of course. we all know what he said is nothing other than the truth. his telling the truth now because he knows he could be one of these days in trouble himself. and end of the line, he wants to keep himself out of this equation and say he was not there

[inaudible. ] host: john in ohio. republican line. john, you're next up. caller: how is it going? host: fine, thanks. caller: great. i want to say this is really just a bunch of stuff that really isn't that important. take all be that to of our thoughts what's really going on in our aun and the world, that stuff there isn't new. there's a lot more important stuff. i do back dommed trump 100%. host: what it says about the book and the negotiation on inside the white house, it's not an important thing to highlight or at least know about? caller: what i'm saying is, it's a book. somebody's written word. you don't know if the guy is just trying to make money off that book or what's going on. i think donald trump and the administration is doing a pretty good job now of trying to get us out of a mess this . untry's in

you can take it for what it's worth. will the guy make money off the book? probably. i don't believe a word of it. host: that is john on our republican line. and we'll go next to our independent line. that's david, baltimore, maryland. go ahead. caller: yes, my name is david. i'm a veteran and i think what is going on is of some concern. it's a little out of the line. trump is not a political person. i've been in the military and a lot of things that he kind of put forth is not going on. and a president needs to be of the people, by the people and or the people. so the story from the last 24 hours, is that a distraction do

you think or does it demonstration something about the white house, what do you think about that [ caller: yeah, something about the white house. it's what's in the white house. the white house is not right. he's only president for a season. and he's going to try it get what he wants to do, it can be the united states, not trump states. host: continue on those calls etween steve bannon. 202-748, es, dial 000, 2001, and 8002. the book by michael wolfe from new york magazine and you can read it there with those excerpts and we'll continue to talk about that and your reaction to it or what you think of it and show you other

stories as well. this decision yesterday by the white house about the voter fraud commission. the president of the united states deciding to disband that commission, announcing a controversial panel discussedying federal law and was mired from federal lawsuits including one from its own members from states that accuse of overreaching. the decision is a major setback for the president who created the commission last year in response to his business games he -- claims he lost to hillary clinton in 2016 because of millions of illegal cast ballots. the critics of the commission included the former missouri secretary of state who hailed trump's announcement saying president trump created his commission to substantiate a lie he told voters in the election and when he couldn't come up with any fake evidence, no choice but to disband his commission and good ridance, he added. the president sending out a tweet and commented directly

about the decision adding this, saying mostly democrats states refuse to hand over data from the 2016 election, the commission on voter fraud and they fought hard, had the commission not seen their records or met this because they know many people are voting illegally. system is rigged, must go to voter i.d. adding that as americans you need identification sometimes in the very strong and accurate form for almost everything you do except when it comes to the most important thing, voting for the people that run your country. push hard for voter identification. that's the president's reaction to that. back to calls with this back and forth between the president nd steve bannon. steve is next in rochester, new york. go ahead. caller: a couple points. are you with me? host: you're on. go ahead.

caller: bbc is reporting tony blair says there's a big piece of this book that is totally false. evidently the book refers to something blair did, i don't know exactly what it was but blair is really upset about the fact that whatever is in the book, he's saying it's totally false. this whole thing remind me of the takata administration. i'm 90 years old, a world war ii vet. the carter administration bothered a lot of people and never worked in washington. and the same thing here with trump and the press just jumps all over him. it, this me down to guy is trusted by a lot of people. he's in the press and trusted by the people in the white house and then he double deals them. that's why people don't like

the press. you can't really trust them. host: steve in new york who brought up the connection to the bbc, the guardian newspaper this morning talks about the former prime minister tony blair and headline complete to bench him and reported that the u.k. may have spied on him and tony blair warned the trump advisors and u.k. intelligence they spied on him in the election campaign and his best-selling new book "fire and fury, inside the white house" the former prime minister had a secret meeting with the son-in-law and kushner. blair suggests there was a possibility the british had trump campaign staff under surveillance, monitoring telephone calls and communication and possibly trump himself. the book repeated speculation blair had been angled to become trump's middle east envoy and blair suggested wolff made up both claims telling the bbc is a fabrication and i never had

such conversation inside or outside the white house with jerod kushner or anybody else. that's in corpus christi, texas. democrats line, michael is next. caller: yes, sir. i can't t to say believe what is going on in the world today. it says in the bible the devil comes to kill, steal, destroy and cause division. that's exactly what donald trump has been doing since he's been in office. steve bannon was at his seat and now he's no longer there and he's not a part of the team. he's upset and now he's telling the world what was going on and what was being said and donald trump knows it. i feel so sorry for the world for what has become of it because of this presidency. you know, if people watched tv, they see this circus going on

and i can't believe it, you know. host: are you prone to believe teve bannon? caller: yes, because when you tell a lie and the severity of what's going on, someone will be in great trouble. trump is lying and bannon is lying and trump is telling the truth and bannon is telling the truth. right now bannon is telling what's going on in that white house and anyone kicked out will do the same binge. everybody sees it. our white house is in chaos and never been like this, whether republicans or democrats don't like or like the president, what's gone on with our president is chaos. look what he's saying about kim jong-un. the president don't talk like that. him host: stick to comments about the book. "the washington times" this morning, their head lane, trump goes to war with, quote, fired

bannon. "the washington times." in "the washington post," their headline, abrupt feud splits trump and bannon and "the wall street journal" this morning about the book over itself, the headline president trump rips into bannon over book. miami florida, barbara, republican line. caller: good morning. i think bannon is a nut and his comments are strictly to sell books. when you see someone coming out and criticizing the president's children he comes out swinging, whether it's criticisms of a little kid or adult children, he's not going to sustain or ake those kinds of comments. my final comment why do people think republicans are crazy. whether we're miners or lawyers or soldiers, we have our act together. we support the president and when the president makes comments like the fact that steve bannon has lost his mind, i just chuckle.

it's not something intended to be headline news but intended to get a laugh out of people. so once again, steve bannon is out to sell books and he will. people will buy these books and he'll make a million and the president is still our president. host: so did you -- caller: i'll vote for him then. host: did you have the same feelings for steve bannon inside or outside the white house? caller: yes, i did. there's something sealy about this fellow and someone in alabama, like the candidate he supported, makes me wonder whether or not he's a bigot or racist. i don't think he belonged in the white house at all and why he was kicked out. host: you think the statements of the internal worksings of the white house, anything you believe is truth? caller: not really. i think these leaks are kind of peculiar. and i think someone is out to get the president and he probably should have cleaned house when he came in and got a

team aboard like he has right now and not people who may have supported him and get him elected. once again republicans are not crazy or racist or facists, we've got it together. and this is our leader and we should respect him instead of deriding him. host: and you don't see any long term impact from this last 24 hours or so? caller: no, not really. once again, these are just comments that come and go and foam they'll be another comment. i kind of wish the president would not use his tweet mechanism quite as frequently but again, i just chuckle. 'm not going into hysteria like some of the callers and quivering, acting like they need hospitalization because the president made a comment about a former person who supported him. host: barbara why miami, florida, you can post on facebook and on twitter if you

want to give your thoughts there. former campaign aide to hillary clinton, making a speech in washington, d.c., talking about the political future, this is sally parsons writing for "the washington times" saying phillip raines was a key in hillary clinton's campaigns and served her in the senate and state department and expects democrats to make big gains in congressional elections but is bearish on chances of stopping mr. trump's re-election. he said mr. trump has broken so many rules of politics that dozens of potential candidates could take a look at the 2020 race but not clear that any of them will effectively battle the president. i think it is going to be a bit of a circus in the democratic party. i think we all could name 30 people who might run. mr. reines said at a forum with college students sponsored by

the washington center. he cheered those pushing for impeachment using the 25th amendment to oust him as incapacitated. we as c-span recorded that speech by mr. reines and if you want to see his statements or other statements he made about the elections and politics in general go to our website at c-span.org and find it on the political library, the comments made in washington. amelia, democrats line. thanks for holding on. o ahead. bart: good morning, pedro. i think caller: good morning, pedro. i think it's sad what's happening with the administration in washington, d.c. every administration has had their controversy. i'm only 55 years old so i just can go back to robert f. kennedy and marilyn monroe. i mean, it goes way back, controversy. i think it's sad because of what social media is doing because of what people's

attitudes are about the president and about the administration. you know, there's always two sides to the pancake. so i may believe there is some steve bannon is saying but may be some truth to what trump is saying. you have to stay open minded and read and make your own decisions. to be freaking out like some of the cnn and msn is doing i think is ridiculous. i love you guys at c-span because you stay neutral and give people an opportunity to hear the truth. only when it comes to the white house press conferences and the president talking, i just watch because you let us make our own decisions what is going on in our country. i think it's sad. trump didn't start on a positive note calling mexicans rapists and saying other things

like that. since he started his. al -- his presidential run like this the pret has been critical and negative because there's never been a president that's been so bold to say something so racist and for some people to find that acceptable like freedom of speech. host: can i ask you a question? caller: sure. host: look at the past 24 hours, you hear statements by the president and by steve bannon, how do you process these statements and how much truth you put into them? caller: you have to, like i say watch c-span and go to your library and see the things steve bannon has been saying and see what trump has been saying. try to use some common sense and see, there's truth in there, pedro. i believe it. versus how th is it

much i want to sell books? i don't know. host: michael wolff is the author and to clarify the book is by michael wolff and steve bannon is quoted in that. finish your thought. caller: it's ok. i find it interesting but like the previous caller, it's the president, you have to respect it. respect to me is given -- is not just given. you have to earn it and president trump hasn't earned that respect from most mericans, i believe. with steve banlon and -- bannon and this book, i do believe, like the other callers, it is a distraction and this will pass. he was grabbing women by their genitals and now steve comes out or the book comes

quoting steve bannon, this also will pass. host: let's hear from bill, the republican line. caller: this will long be forgotten. is lieve mr. bannon claiming power that everyone has with the white house. as far as the tweets from the president, thank goodness he's ble to take advantage of a new social outlet and give us information and sound bites and put things to rest. he very specifically said something in his tweet that i think we should all pay attention to, and that is mr. bannon was a staffer. mr. bannon was a low level staffer. he was a fellow who is very intrigued with the presidency and of being in the white house , with being what he felt the

end circle and he was leaking information and was found out for leaking information and he was fired. host: bill, you still there? let me ask you about this intrigue. you're not fascinated at least little by by what you call policy us intrigue then? caller: no, it's one of a series of many, many tell all books that these folks write on the presidency that actually get out and they want to make their million dollars and pretend to be the one with the insider information. and we go back, trump is very clear this guy was a staffer. host: bill in pennsylvania, you made that point. appreciate your calls this morning. a change in the senate makeup as of yesterday with two new senate members being sworn in. this is the swearing in of doug jones and tina smith, almost

certainly brought a measure of relief for senators for both parties. republicans, senator jones means there will be no senator roy moore who faced accusations of child molestation and his election would have hung around each of their necks. for democrats, ms. smith's assent into the painful period with a popular colleague, al franken was dogged by sexual improprieties that blemished the democrats efforts with a tide of accusations. both of those new members of the senate being sworn in by vice president mike pence. go to our website if you want to see more of that from ranny in north carolina, democrats line. hi? caller: good one, pedro and appy new year to c-span. i'm not a big fan of steve but some of the commedgets he puts in his book makes a lot of sense, it's something the republicans have known for a long time.

one other thing. host: what is it about steve's comments that struck most with you? caller: some of the same things going on, we've been hearing it quite a while and republicans been talking about it behind closed doors for quite a while. the one so slick brained, listening to fox news all the time and listening to hannity and rush limbaugh. oosh not changing their minds even if god comes down and tells them trump is wrong. huh a program yesterday or the day before about the wall. was mr. trump, when he running for president he said mexico wants to pay for the wall. now the taxpayers have to pay for the wall. host: apologies. i stop it there because we're running out of time and want to give people a few more minutes to comment on this. peter baker from "the new york times" said a tweet about the

white house press secretary saying president trump never elevated bannon to be equal to the chief of staff but transition statements announcing bannon's previous disappointments in november of 2016 were created equal partners to transform the government. from texas, independent line, go ahead, you're on, please. caller: yes, i just want to ocus on fox news said bannon ain't the president -- king, trump is the king. they got to get out of their minds, trump ain't no king. they say we are with trump, not bannon. applaud hey going to the american people and not just try to hide anything but make everything right with what trump do, if he did something wrong, he did something wrong.

if you mention anything that trump said or done is wrong, that means you're against him. you know you have secretaries come on your show and talk about this and that protecting trump but when somebody calls in asking something about trump that he did wrong, oh, i understand you just don't like trump. no. he did this and you say anything you got to treat his tweets -- you have his recording where you don't record him saying or doing these things but then you ask questions, oh, you just don't like trump. host: let's go to ohio. republican line. tim? caller: yeah. hi. host: sorry, florida, democrats line, this is fred. hello. caller: i think the president has become a big joke. when our president stand up efore his base and says things

like standing out on fifth avenue and shoot someone and get away with it. well -- host: because of that you tend to believe steve bannon in this latest exchange? caller: i think so. and another thing -- host: why do you think so? caller: because of the things he has said. bigas taken the house as a joke. the things he says degrades the presidency of our great country. host: let's go to pam in florida. independent line. pam, good morning. caller: thank you. how are you this morning? host: fine. go ahead. trump isn my opinion, the best thing that has happened to this country. anybody with any intelligence has to come to the conclusion that this is a book that they

want to sell. it has been reported that the quotes in the book are not even accurate. this book is trash. one of your callers mentioned treason. that is what is coming out now with clinton, the fbi, and now the democrats tried to rig the election. bottom-line, they got caught. that is what this is about. trump will be reelected again. thank you for taking my call. you guys stay warm. host: mary jane from ohio, republican line. caller:hi. i think this book is a distraction. there is so much news we could be talking about other than this. they were supposed to turn over records on how they used the dossier -- that was supposed to be in last night at midnight, or something. i heard, and i don't know if this is accurate, there was a fire in hillary clinton's home

in new york. what is going on? there seems like there is so much more to talk about than this. host: why do you view this latest exchange as a distraction? caller: look at it -- every news agency is talking about this stupid book. what is this all about? i don't understand it. i am very upset about it. now here, c-span, you hear how we all think c-span is the best -- it gives both sides, everything. we like you guys. we want you to report the news. this is not news. we need to get back to the news. i would like to know, is that fire a real thing up in new york or not? host: that is the last call on this topic. there was a small fire reported as of yesterday on the grounds of the clinton household. no major damage from it from

what i understand, but that event took place yesterday. we appreciate the caller's that called in this morning. the remainder of the program looks at the topic of infrastructure spending when it comes to roads, bridges, airlines, you name it. the administration has plans looking at funding for those projects. we will spend the next hour and a half talking about it with several guests. the first guest is eugene mulero. we will talk about plans by the administration, how congress will react. that conversation next. next, will be joined by ght, who represents the state transportation officials across the united states. how money could come from transportation, and how state offices will take that money and what they do with it. those conversations coming up with it on "washington journal." there is a society in

washington, d.c., the american society of civil engineers, and they put out a report card looking at infrastructure, in which they assign grades. it you talk about it is the senior managing director of the american society -- here to talk about it is the senior managing director for the american society of civil engineers. thank you. thank you for being here. talk about the purpose of his report cards. guest: we have been doing this since the 1970's. there was a report in the reagan foundation, and not much happened for a decade. in the late 90's we took up the charge on the report card -- a way to connect with the public on an important issue. we take these water systems, transportation systems, aviation, the way we take care --waste, lakes, levies, dams it is easy to take it for granted. a lot of these projects are built for 50 to 100 years.

we have gone into a mode of taking these systems for granted, under-investing, and we are starting to pay the price. we want to alert the public and political leaders that all levels -- and all levels of the public debt private sector, this is on many levels. d+ across 16 a categories and the nation is entering economic peril because of infrastructure. host: you highlighted the d+. when you look at specific aspects of his associate, what got the worst grade -- of infrastructure, what got the worst grades? fort: the worst grade was mass transit systems at a d-. rhodes did not fare well at a d. bridges got a c plus p the bridge great has been improving

slightly over the years. i encourage people to visit infrastructurereportcard.org. people canapp download and state informational people can look at specific states and categories of infrastructure there and see how they are doing. host: when you look at these categories, what goes into determining the grade? a number ofok at criteria, and those criteria include the capacity of the structure to meet --of the infrastructure to meet current demand. need,k at funding, future operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience, and innovation. so, we look at all those issues only try to come up with these -- grades. people need to realize when we talk about the productivity of the united states, jobs, trying to expand the economy -- right

now if we continue on the current path, economic studies show that the u.s., by the year 2025, will put at risk for trillion dollars in gdp and two point half million -- 2.5 million jobs. we hear business leaders in terms of tax debate -- there is a lot of discussion about business and tax cuts -- we are hearing from business leaders, chamber of commerce, the association for manufacturing and others, about the need to invest in infrastructure to keep the economy going. child -- as the trump administration is due to unveil the plan for funding for infrastructure projects, what are you looking for to as far as that announcement is coming? guest: well, it is excellent there is presidential leadership. infrastructure has always been a bipartisan issue, and i hope it stays that way. uphink the feds are catching

with the states. over the last five years more than half of the states have raised gas taxes to invest in infrastructure at the state level. the need for the nation over the next 10 years is $2 trillion -- that would be $200 billion a year. that is a big number. we are also working on an economy of $19 trillion a year. i think it is manageable at all levels of government and the private sector. $2 trillion would get the grades from the d+ range to the d range, so we would go from poor to good. those are the numbers we are looking for. what we are hearing is the proposal's morning in the range of $1 trillion over 10 years, -- more in the range of $1 trillion over 10 years, and only 200 billion in direct federal investment will be made. the ideas they will try to leverage from state and local

governments and the private sector the other $800 billion. even $1 trillion, as much as that would be a step in the right direction, and assuming the plan would be successful, and i am not sure everyone is clear on that -- we are still missing the mark by, you know, half. dinges is with the american society of civil engineers. infrastructurereportcard.org is where you can see their findings. thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: joining us now is eugene mulero. we are talking about the trump administration's plan for infrastructure. good morning. guest: good morning, pedro. host: what we know about the plan? guest: we know several things -- the white house wants to unveil it before the state of the union. plans beforeo has

the consumer conference in las vegas. also, the $200 billion that are going to be from direct federal spending, we know from the white house infrastructure advisor, they are going to ask for money from existing federal accounts, and when you reach the $200 billion mark, that would incentivize $800 billion in private-sector funds. now, that is a different debate whether or not you can reach that mark over 10 years. also $25 billion will be allocated for rural projects. 3t is very difficult to get a p polling facility to be profitable along rural highways. then you will have a real push on the part of the white house and the administration to streamline environmental for construction

projects, these big infrastructure projects. the aim is to take it from 10 years down to two years. critics will point out that is extremely difficult. you know, this is something that is extremely necessary for these major projects. you know, the environmental permitting, etc.. the other thing that we know -- two other things -- the administration wants to call on committo commit to -- more of the transportation investment so that it is not only raising fuel taxes, but also, with other funding mechanisms to -- come up with other funding mechanisms and they want to encourage tolling. that is going to be somewhat controversial because not a lot of drivers like to pay tolls. host: that is a laundry list of things they want to accomplish. goal.s the white house's

how much cooperation with the get from key leaders in congress? guest: it would be extremely difficult to get cooperation on the part of members of congress, especially transportation leaders, mainly because this is an election year, and not a lot of the transportation authorizer's -- they want to avoid a tough vote for this year, especially right before the elections. if you have something -- if the white house actually presents a gas tax increase and put that on the table, it will be a tough call for members of congress to vote on whether or not they're going to increase taxes, and go back to constituents and argue in favor of that. also, members from merle district -- rural districts -- some are the top leaders on capitol hill. senator john thune comes from south dakota. he is on the commerce committee. the chairman of the highway committee and the senate. you have congressman bill

shuster who recently announced he is not going to seek reelection. he is from rural, western pennsylvania. these members of congress know , tolling, that p3's don't work in their district. they're going to call for other fund and -- funding mechanisms. then democrats, taken aside the political oculus of whether or not if you are a democrat and you are to work -- political calculus of whether or not if you are a democrat you want to work with the white house and republicans for another achievement by president trump, do you want to work on an effort that is privatizing infrastructure projects, where that is contrary to a lot of democrats who want to see more of a federal role. lastly, within the house republicans, you will have moderate republicans and the clash over the

role the federal government should have in transportation. host: eugene mulero -- you heard him talk about these efforts when it comes to infrastructure spending. if you want to ask him questions about the political back-and-forth going on so, from here, you said they may unveil something before the state of the union. talk about the timeline. what are we looking at? guest: the timeline for the unveiling? host: the passage, or at least working on this bill. sources tell me you will present before the state of the union. trump president will tout it -- president trump will tout it during his state of the union address. hisas alluded this, and in

new york times interview he said he wants to make 2018 the infrastructure year. we are expecting to see the legislative principles of this .lan the white house is indicating it might be a 70-page document. they will make that available, and it is up to numbers of congress. it will most likely originate in the house. congressman bill shuster, the chairman of the highway subcommittee, a republican from azeri, they will most likely unveil legislation, have it in committee, bring it up to leadership, get it up for a vote on the house floor. at the same time, the senate is going to look at what the house is doing and come up with a plan. we are expecting some time by the spring for these markups to commence. at the same time, the timeline is going to be really iffy

because congress has a lot of other things on the docket. governmentou know, spending, the debt ceiling, children's health insurance, hurricane, disaster relief aid -- that is the ideal best case scenario. that is what i'm hearing from embers of congress and their staffers, but that is all subject to change. i lookf i am a state and at this funding formula of $200 billion from the white house, billion, that0 means i have to fundamentally changed the way i approach the federal government when it comes to money for structured products? guest: for some -- four infrastructure products? guest: for some states. youru have already raised taxes for the structure spending, you are doing what the white house wants you to do. what we know from the white house plan, those states have to dedicate additional funding for

projects they would like to modernize or just maintain, upkeep. foryou have to scramble funds, which these states struggle to come up with anyway, just so they can appeal to the white house and have the white tose come in and agree partner with them and dedicate some funding. one avenue that many states -- one that i can think of is oklahoma -- what they are doing and they are seeking these federal transportation grants. traditionally, they have been the tiger grants, which began during the obama administration, and now these freight grants raat have been renamed inf grants undersecretary elaine chao. through these grants, you continue to seek these additional moneys. then you have to -- your government and state legislators have to come up with more money

to repair these critical projects, many of which are to enhance capacity along your freight corridors. taxes that raise their gas have to scramble to come up with more money, and states that have not raise their gas taxes, they will be encouraged to do so. the americanof associate in the civil engineers -- association of civil engineers pointed out there were gas taxes, but they were not easy votes. you could point out members could lose their seats for taking the tough vote. at the same time, are you going to take a similar vote again and say we have to raise fuel taxes against? new jersey hadn't done so since the mid-1980's. so, where do you find the money? the governors, all of them are starting to have their state of

the state addresses. they are calling on the federal government to play a major role in this. there will be an expectation of pullback from governors when the transportation plan comes out. host: let's take some calls. this is eugene mulero. the first call is from elizabeth, new jersey. independent line. bill, you're on with our guest. go ahead. thank you. once we start the fish after spending the number one priority mta subway, long longer -- the long island railroad. they are a complete mess. we would have had a tunnel opening sometime this year under the hudson river, which governor christie killed when he got into office. the new york metropolitan area has to be the number one

priority for infrastructure spending. host: thanks. guest: that is a very valid point. elizabeth, new jersey, is right next to the newark airport. you have both senators from new jersey -- menendez and cory booker -- they have been sounding the alarm that new jersey, the tri-state area, connecticut and new york, is a huge economic hub, and the newly -- called itnor of a national disgrace. so, new jersey has consistently asked for federal funding to update nj transit. you have proponents of amtrak called for more money for amtrak. it goes from new jersey to penn station in new york. that is a valid point. we can fully expect this year members are present in urban

districts calling for more money for transit projects. host: florida. daniel is on our line for democrats. yes, pertaining to so-called stimulus for infrastructure i cannot go back -- i can't help but go back to talk about the $800 billion plus, the $1 trillion obama confiscated from the american taxpayer. there was no accounting for a dime of it. as much as i love donald trump, i anticipate the same kind of -- host: we got you, caller. are there parallels to be made with this white house and what we saw under president obama and stimulus spending. guest: not necessarily. the stimulus -- some of that money was made available to states so states could apply, seek those funds. also, part of the whole incentive there, under obama,

the u.s. dot created the tiger grants. these were funds that were part of the stimulus package, and they were for shovel-ready projects. while they were readily available for states, there was an application process. there was a permitting process. some states did get it. other states were seeking those funds. that money was there, you know, to be sought. what we are expecting to see from the white house, president trump's white house is quite different. instead of having federal funds, have 20% of it be direct money from federal accounts to incentivize $800 billion of private sector money. when president trump has been talking about this trillion dollars over 10 years, we are learning he was saying $200

billion with the aim of $800 trillion -- $800 billion. it is quite different. host: the state creates a pool of money, and in the white house as we will chip in part of it as well. guest: and then the state seeks partners with investors, bankers, other companies, and they will team up to rebuild a .ridge, a tunnel that is what we are expecting to be the goal. i want to point out, this is quite a shift from the current system. the current system relies on the highway trust fund collecting fuel taxes in order to help states pay for the maintenance projects. the problem we have seen is the highway trust fund cannot meet all of this obligation, so there have been some injunction of federal funds -- injection of federal funds to pop up the highway trust fund to meet these obligations.

what we heard from the white house, the official tripadvisor dg griffin -- infrastructure advisor, dj griffin, if they want to take the federal role, enhance the state will, and have states partner with investors. that is something -- while we have seen these private/public partnerships before, laguardia airport being a famous example of that, nevertheless this will be to really, really enhance it and spread it around the country. host: eugene mulero. this is freddie from los angeles, california. republican line. caller: kiss anyone has noticed, the guy did not answer the last caller's question. where is all the tax money that has been spent by the government -- federal, state, local, all these years. i live in the state of california. taxes, ased our

13-cent gasoline tax to build more roads. what are you doing with the tax money you are taking in now --where is it going? you mentioned the highway trust fund -- why isn't it taking care of this -- the government rated the trust fund for their own pet projects to buy more votes and get reelected. this is ridiculous. we will spend more money on " infrastructure," and it will go to environmental groups that can go to court and stop it. guest: i enjoy the passion behind the caller in l.a. l.a. voted to come up with a whole pool of money to repair their highways. i don't know the exact number, but it was a referendum, and the of l.a. are taking it upon themselves to repair and reduce congestion in their city. the highway trust fund, the way

it is set up, it is 80% for highways, 20% for transit. you can argue whether you need to change that -- make it 100% for highways. that is a debate understood congress will have to have if they do pick up this transportation bill. the stimulus was not money that -- the coffers. , out, takee state the money, and leave. they had to apply for them. part of it was to create these incentives for states to, you know, determine which were the projects of major significance, and at the same time, what the obama administration also did is they created these -- they alled it the build america -- committee, a coalition within the dot to help states come up

and access those funds. now, you can debate whether or not the stimulus worked. these infrastructure projects are extremely expensive. states, while you have some repairs done to major bridges, the same time you still have to, you know, come up and go through the permitting process. host: could a case be made that with the new funding mechanism the administration wants to put in there, it could be for big projects, a big bridge, rather than smaller projects that might not see the light of day? guest: do so before major bridges that are structurally deficient, transit corridors an injection of money, such as the d.c. metro system. that is one example. your previous caller, mta in new york city. this will be your big, blockbuster project. the administration, only now so far from the plan -- what we

know so far from the plan if they want to focus on these transformative -- they call them transformative projects. not sure exactly what that will entail, but what i'm hearing from people is they want to have ega regional projects, like the hoover dam, these poster projects that will have a major impact on people's commutes. host: massachusetts. democrats line. hello, eugene. is that you? listen, i'm from massachusetts. i don't know how old you are, but governor wells built the big dig, and it was false cement. like donald trump, it is like false news, fake news. so, on the cement i spoke to a

person that was on that job, and they say a lot of people are going to be killed. andour infrastructure spending, i don't know what that definition is because everybody has a different reaction to that word. please tell me how you feel about the definition of infrastructure when everybody is lying in the united states. guest: i will get to the definition of infrastructure, what the caller asked. dig, before that, the big was a controversial project in massachusetts. there were cost overruns. that has been deemed a poster child of how not to advance a major infrastructure projects. to his question on infrastructure, you know, infrastructure are your -- i don't mean to be simple about it -- but your major bridges, everything -- roadways,. guest: --

host: we tend to think roads and bridges -- guest: canals, the electrical grid. another preview of the white house infrastructure plan as they also want to include veterans hospitals as part of this. so, it is, kind of, going outside of the realm of the traditional transportation purview. host: even broadband gets folded into that. guest: exactly, and that is more to address the needs in rural district. infrastructure is pretty much all of the above. a simple way that has been , former governor of pennsylvania at rundown -- he started a foundation in one of the cofounders is arnold schwarzenegger, and arnold schwarzenegger -- a story that governor rendell says is what is infrastructure, where the kids

asked arnold, and he said it is the stuff that i blow up in my movies. it is all around us, basically. host: mike. ohio. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. interesting subject. one of the stories that is flying under the radar will be the attack on prevailing wage and to institute a national right to work for less rule with the combination of government and private investment in these projects. i am sure that this is a concerted effort to drive a nail into -- one more nail into the skilledf decent pay for people such as operating engineers like myself, iron workers -- skilled trades people

, and when you destroy their wages, the very same people that say that it is people like us that make too much money if we are making $60,000 or $70,000 a year. if you go to these right to work states, you will see a higher rate of death on the job, lower pay with no benefits national health benefits, no retirement funds --nothing like that. host: mike, thank you very much. the idea of pay, and how those would build these roads are paid. guest: that will be another huge issue of debate on capitol hill. you will have a lot of lawmakers, especially ones from urban districts, talking about protecting the interests of employees, unions. sayafl-cio will have a huge behind the scenes with staffers, members of congress, to remind

them of the role of the worker, so we can expect that to be part of the equation when they begin to mark up any bill. the bulk of this program today dealing with infrastructure spending. eugene mulero of transport topics joins us. carl in los angeles, california. democrats line. you are next. caller: good morning, everybody. i think infrastructure spending is awesome. i think it is great. the last caller from california -- i don't understand -- roads are being worked on constantly. they are being repaired, advanced. themost important thing is electrical grid -- it should really be worked on and repaired. it is today i saw telephone line

that i saw in the old western movies -- above ground? that is ridiculous. all i have to say. it is a weird topic you have with everything else going on in this country -- the president talking about a big nuclear button. infrastructure? thank you. host: we talk about a lot of topics every day. thank you for calling. eugene mulero. things -- this is not a weird topic at all. this is something president trump touted in his campaign over and over again, then he will be the builder in chief. after the signing of the tax bill, president trump said he wanted to proceed with infrastructure. he had planned to have a package within his first hundred days in office. when you look around the country, everyone stuck in

traffic, the first thing they complain about is the bridge is old and needs to be repaired. you have people with your transit systems -- this is something that affects everybody. from the president on to every member of congress. infrastructure is something that is always on the two-do list. to do list. -- on his point on the electrical grid, he does bring up a good point in there has been an increase in power outages due primarily to the age of electrical grid, and, again, that is part of what the administration, the u.s. dot, and members of congress are going to look at when they start working on this legislation -- what do they do to modernize that aspect. one more call from nashville, tennessee. independently. rick, go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i would like to make a comment

about the state in which i live. i live in the capital of tennessee, nashville. by leaps is growing and bounds. we had a big medical industry, and insurance industry here, and also the entertainment industry here, and not only with hockey, pro football, we're getting a soccer team, and we have all the stuff going on. i want you to pay attention to this real close. from interstate 65, runs chicago to nashville, tennessee. chattanooga.m always interstate come through nashville, tennessee. there are four and six lanes coming into nashville. outside of nashville they in a loop. you have 65 and interstate 40 running from the east coast to the west coast coming into two lanes in downtown nashville, tennessee. we have a liberal mayor that has

made us a sanctuary city that is now looking at a billion-dollar infrastructure for rail system. system ineed a rail downtown nashville. you will go up different cities, that allows rural people to hop on the trains. do it like the japanese have done it. we're wasting money. host: thank you. guest: i think his overarching point is there is an impetus to enhance capacity. i can't speak specifically about but these major urban centers, big cities, mayors, governors, members of congress, they realized the need to enhance capacity. you have the trucking industry talking about this for years that being struck in traffic is excellent detrimental to the economy. takes about $63 million

annually -- the economic impact of the trucking industry. enhancing capacity, that is on and ige to do list -- mean capacity on surface transportation -- it is a huge to do list for your mayors and your governors. that is a debate in nashville on where you put your transit system. that is a local debate. mulero from transport topics. ttnews.com. thank you. guest: thank you. host: next, one group looking at the plans for the white house are the state transportation wright joins us next to discuss what they would like to see. later on in the program, rand corporation's deborah knopman with the way -- debra knopman on the way money is spent and if

there are better ways to do so. we will have a conversation on those topics when "washington journal" continues. "q&a," i on c-span's propose action instead of words -- i propose action now before it is too late. i propose it for the sake of a better world, but i say again and again, that i propose it for our own american self industry -- interest. book arthurh his vandenberg. >> arthur vandenberg finds himself in opposition for the next dozen years. to get anything done, which often met -- meant resisting some of franklin roosevelt's finished his, the

need to be a coalition. he had to reach across the aisle. "q&a" sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. " >> sunday night on newman looks at his judicial career. he is interviewed by democratic senator richard blumenthal. senator blumenthal: as a judge for 35 years, having gone from that act of life of making decisions, going to court, and isocating a case to judging, that a difficult transition for you, and did you ever miss the life of advocacy, so to speak? jon newman: it wasn't difficult. it has been for some that i have known. i have known people that became judges and so does like that decision-making process that they left the bench. i was an advocate.

i was glad to be an advocate. i found the decision-making process, while it was different, enormously challenging, satisfying. resultortunity to disputes, large -- resolve disputes, large and small, they all met to somebody, but some have a large significance. that is a satisfying role. host: watch "afterwords" sunday night on booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by bud wright. he is the american association of state highway and transportation officials executive director. would you represent? guest: we represent the departments of transportation of the countryes of

and puerto rico and puerto rico in the district of cologne appeared we are an advocacy group. and where theport most important missions is to make people understand the value of transportation investment. host: for the people you are representing, how are they looking on these potential announcements from the white house when it comes to infrastructure? guest: we are very interested in what the white house will release and we are pleased the white house has put so much emphasis on infrastructure. we know we have an infrastructure gap in this country. state and local governments are really stepping up. one of the things we know to be the case is this is a shared responsibility. it takes the federal government, state and local governments, and increasingly, the private sector, to make sure we're adequately invest in. right now we are not purely to see some change. we are hopeful what we see from the administration will lead us in that direction.

host: what gives you the most hope, what gives you the most pause, potentially, about what the administration could do? guest: what gives us the most direct aboutare streamlining projects. they have talked with us, many of our members, and we as an association have a chance to influence that process. streamlining the process, making it easier to deliver transportation investment and infrastructure investment in general is important. we have not seen all the details of what they want to do on funding and finance. we want to make sure that all the country is well-serve the -- that rural areas get their share, that every state is a part of whatever comes out of the infrastructure initiative. we are waiting to see exactly what the details are going to be there. until we know what they will propose on the funding and finance said, we are holding our -- our fire, if you will. bissett exploded in terms of setting aside seed money, if

i am a state official, is that a good thing or a bad thing for me? guest: it is a good thing depending on where you are. what that says it those projects will have to generate revenue in some fashion to be able to theify for the grants federal government might make you that works well you an urban setting where you have high traffic volumes to impose tolls were generate other revenue. it does not work well in other parts of the country. in every state, there will be rural areas where it is not likely the private sector will be able to generate the kind of return on investment that would like to see from participating in transportation infrastructure. there are concerns about it. it will work well in some settings. it won't work well in other settings. host: ultimate, state officials have to sell people on a toll if that is how they're going to do it. guest: that is right, and we know there are parts of the country where tolls have been

well accepted, and other parts of the country where tolls don't exist. it is not an easy task to impose a total, especially on a move that is -- toll, especially on a route that is already there. host: bud wright with us. , as the acronym goes. here to take your questions and comments. if you want to give him a call, do so on the phone lines. on twitter, you can do so at j.spanw you sent a letter to members of congress when it came to this idea of infrastructure spending. the bulk of it suggested that tax reform was the real avenue they should have done it. why is that? guest: we know for what the administration is going to propose, they need revenue. they are talking about $200 billion, hopefully incentivizing $1 trillion of investment over the next 10 years. standards, $200

billion is a lot of money to come up with. tax reform iseen the time to find that source of revenue. -- wouldion within a have been a blip in the overall context of tax reform. for a variety of reasons, congress chose not to do that. that leaves us with a formidable challenge. we understand the administration may propose cuts to programs to generate that $200 billion over the next 10 years. those that have been around washington know that cutting existing programs is no easy process either. one of the big questions about the initiative is where is the $200 billion when you come from, and what kind of bipartisan support will be generated for making cuts, and putting that money in place for infrastructure investment. host: some of the language used is this -- "we need to be honest with the american people.

host: do you still hold to that nearly impossible part? guest: we think will be very difficult. we have a mechanism that exists at the federal level -- the highway trust fund -- that has served the public well. that is a user-based financing source that has provided the revenues to support federal transit and highway investment, but the highway trust fund is not keeping up. we are seeing changes in fuel economy, increases in fuel economy of the average vehicle, electric and more vehicles in the fleet. we see the need for additional investment because of inflation and other factors. the highway trust fund is not keeping up, and it has had to have been subsidized to maintain current levels of federal spending. is going to billion be a challenge outside of the context of tax reform. casting a vote for a tax increase that is freestanding,

not part of a bigger package or compromise, we know it is a difficult challenge in washington. host: eastern and central time zones -- host: perhaps you work in the transportation industry -- bud wright of the american association of state highway and transportation officials joining us. the first call is from john. john from washington, state. go ahead. caller: it sounds like mr. wright has really got some of that right, because he is one of the few people that admits the country is broke and we have to come up with the money from somewhere. myself, i would think that the power grid and our nuclear power plants are the thing do we need to go ahead and upgrade the most in this country. especially being we have that little guy over in korea. i have a couple of other questions, and mr. wright is

definitely not from the washington state area because in washington state and seattle, king county, they think we have all the money in the world -- billion,ty metro, $53 open-ended. thented to know also about federal gas tax. is that in a lockbox like our social security was? host: thanks, caller. guest: yes, the federal gas tax is dedicated to transportation and specifically to surface transportation investment. right now it is an 18.4 cents per gallon tax. the 18.4 cents covers the part of the program that supports the federal contribution to investments in highway and transit. that has not changed in 125 years. we have been operating at the

same level. the cost of virtually everything else in our lives has increased substantially over that 25 years. it would not be unreasonable to be -- for there to be adjustment in the federal user tax. one of the things we like to point out is that while 18.4 cents per gallon might seem like a large number, that equates to one dollars per year per driver. it is not a hugely substantial investment by individuals to support the infrastructure we know this country needs, and specifically getting to your lockbox comment, to support surface transportation investment. we, as an association, would like to see additional investment. we think the user-based model works well. the highway trust fund, that lockbox, if you will, has worked well for 60 years. one of the hopes is in reshaping policy we don't

throw out something that has worked very well for the american people. cents for gasoline, 24.4 cents for diesel fuel. what is the ideal number? guest: i don't know there is an ideal number, pedro. i know to support the current level of investment at the federal level, if you were to use the gasoline tax to achieve that, it would require a $.15 per gallon increase. is that the ideal? many believe, and i agree with that, that we need to increase the investment of the federal level. some amount in the neighborhood or beyond. i should also emphasize the gas tax is not the only way to get there. there are other user-based fees that could make a difference. some have talked about freight-based fees, additional charges on containers moved on our nation's highways to achieve part of that. other vehicle ownership fees have worked in the past and could work again in the future. host: sierra vista, arizona.

harry is next. caller: hey, there. this is what is happening in arizona. we have a highway user fund, and what our governor has done, and our republican state legislature, instead of spending are on infrastructure, they hoarding that money to pay for the department of public safety. they have also instituted a program for a border task force to enforce stricter drug enforcement. therefore, our infrastructure money or gas taxes are not being spent on our highways. they are being devoted for other purposes. guest: i cannot speak to the situation in every state. i know there are some states that use highway-based fees for other purposes, and certainly public safety, highway patrol, those are ones that are

obviously legitimate expenses in many cases around the country, but i would also say that that is something that needs to be a discussion within each state, and typically it has been. those were not enacted without the legislature having some opportunity to influence that discussion. certainly we believe we need to be investing more in infrastructure. some states completely use the user-based fees they collect for infrastructure investment. others do use it for other purposes in some cases. purerited states has a model then much of the world, where especially in europe, what you will see is user fees, motor fuel taxes, that are much greater than the revenues expended on infrastructure, but they use it as a form of general taxation. that is the case to some extent in various places around the country, but at the federal level at this point that is not the case.

those dollars you pay in the gasoline tax or the diesel fuel tax go back into the cheshire programs. host: when the federal government offers a state money, how much oversight comes with that -- do they say you can use this and no other? guest: there is flexibility in how those dollars are used. a federal program that provides support for highways sets of broad categories of what i would call national offices, but then it is the state and local governments that decide what projects are undertaken. it is a flexible program. there is accountability in the form of performance measures and other factors that are weighed by the federal government, but in general, we call it a federally assisted, state-administered program, because the states, through a public participation projects -- process, determine what projects are undertaken. host: chesapeake, virginia, bob is on with bud wright. go ahead. , i have beenright

involved in transportation for a long time, and the biggest threat to transportation's social manipulation of the highway trust fund away from highway construction to amtrak, light rail, bus service, bike paths, and now a new funding that they are creating is inner-city environmental progress, which is diverging tax funds -- highway tax funds to the inner-city because they don't have enough highways. highways, andon not on a set of roll rate -- railroad tracks. each form of transportation should be self-supporting in order to create the greatest value to the citizens. to get money to finance the highway system, they could take the money that these corporations have docked overseas. ate them tax-exempt bonds

4%. bring that money back, bypass the federal highway department. host: thank you, caller. guest: well, the concept that , isdescribes, repatriation one that really has been under serious discussion for some time. it was, at one time, a potential source of revenue to support the transportation or infrastructure investment. as i understand it, in the course of tax reform, that basically was taken off the table. the repatriation, if you will, came in the form of corporate tax reduction, and those dollars were accounted for in tax reform. i would say that was a potentially missed opportunity to find a source of revenue that would have created additional infrastructure investment possibility. as to the other comment bob made, we support the notion of multimodal transportation investment. i understand what he is saying with regard to not diverting funds to other purposes, but the

fact is in a metropolitan area like washington and money others around the country, the highway system is not going to work without the supporting other forms of the shelter -- without the transit system here, without light rail, opportunities, the highway system would be overwhelmed. i certainly understand and we need to make sure we are investing in those things that are going to benefit those who need to travel, or those that are moving goods on our system, but the reality is without a multimodal system, the whole thing potentially breaks down. host: we had a call at talk about the money offered in the obama administration for shovel-ready projects, highway projects -- what was the long-term impact and was there lessons learned from this administration on the offering of money for infrastructure? guest: one of the things that came out of the stimulus bill from the early obama administration is there were requirements to money be spent quickly. the idea was we were stimulant

the economy, putting people to work. as a result, certain types of projects, ones that required additional planning, really weren't focused on is much with that stimulus package. at least from what we hear in the early stages of what the trump administration is going to propose, they would not require the dollars be spent immediately or within the first year -- they would allow there to be a longer term view. one of the lessons learned as if you put too many restrictions, too many parameters around the dollars being made available, you will invest inappropriate things, and good things, and certainly the students package did invest in good things, but it was mostly, i would say, repair and maintenance of existing the cylinders and not the transformative projects that some envisioned. host: lafayette, georgia. doug is next. hi. caller: hi. i have been listening to you guys, and from my understanding,

we give away a lot of our treasured to overseas, egypt, saudi arabia -- they could give money, but they don't. there is a lot of money america -- that america into that they could put america first. shouldn't america come first, like -- host: sorry, caller. diane. go ahead. i think we need to go back to the basics what we need to work with state, local, and federal together, and we're not doing that. when we get up to the federal part of things, it is their way or the highway, pardon the pun, and they don't have the discussions with people that come. i am talking about people in the local governments, the state governments, the public -- the people that actually do the work for infrastructure. they say they are going to, but

they don't. that has been the mantra the last year. they don't talk to anybody. they don't debate. they don't discuss anything. they just make up their bill the way it is going to be, and we find out later how it is going to be. had that money set for the states if they wanted it, the people here wanted the rail system that we could of got. we voted for it. in fact, it started. host: thank you very much. guest: what you described is one of the reasons why we support formula funding. funding provided by the federal government to wreck latest date and local government where they have discretion to make decisions on how that funding will be invested. so my in washington doesn't

understand the unique characteristics of each state or city. it should be those officials making those decisions. it should be the way the federal highway program operates. the government sets parameters, but ultimately it is state and local governments working with citizens that make decisions where the investments will occur. a comprehensive planning process requires public participation. there should not be the kinds of decisions made where citizens are saying we need one thing, and those making the final decisions or investment are choosing something different. the planning process requires you and other citizens have the opportunity to express your opinions and views. host: how much input have you given to the white house on this topic, and how has it been received? guest: we have had the opportunity to give quite a bit of input.

streamlining the process, making sure we get the dollars invested in the right places. they are receptive. we hope to see a lot of the things the state department cares about. one area where we expressed concern was rural areas. is aow leveraging theirs much more difficult proposition. the overall package, we haven't yet seen the details. itst: how do you streamline and make sure safety and other factors are considered? guest: there is a lot of redundancy. there is a lot of consecutive reviews. be done in onen place at one time. we have multiple federal agencies involved in any substantial transportation investment today. shopping, where

all thet have to go to federal agencies, but one federal agency works with other federal agencies to make sure projects move forward effectively. host: o'quinn, new york, for bud wright. caller: corporations generally have -- what do you think it is that we don't have a concept of capital budget and capital resource accounts at the federal level which would include reserves , reserves for social security, reserves for liability, and value infrastructure. and the value of natural resources and the way they are depreciated by carbon emissions. when we talk about cutting taxes and cutting bureaucracy, which

may boost the economy's growth in a given year, there is no consideration given to the depreciation in capital assets that may result from the very kind of short-term savings they in theing to get votes next election because we have no capital budget to look at the offsetting losses at all the these levels. host: thank you, very much. concept of capital budgeting has been talked about in washington many times over the last generation and probably beyond. there are elements of the concept that makes sense. one of the ways in which that has translated into have long-range plans foriswe states to like at for the next 15, 20, and beyond. to determine the appropriate set of investments for them to make. we have elements of capital budgeting. one thing that makes that successful and possible is to

know what resources will be available for some time in the future. at a federal level that has resulted in multi-year authorizations of highway and transit funds. we suffered. when we don't have multi-year authorizations states need to fulldecisions on less than information on the resources available. the elements of capital budgeting are they are in many ways. as you alluded to, it is tough to achieve. washington, and many federal programs, operate in short-term increments. there is the political process associated with that, which makes capital budgeting in its pure form a very difficult thing to achieve in d.c. host: tom in pennsylvania. caller: i don't understand why we did not embarq on a truck-only highway program.

guest: it is darn expensive to do that. not that there have not been proposals for that kind of approach. you find truck-only lanes in various places around the country. we know that freight networks are a huge concern. they are leading commerce. it is one thing we think this administration will care about. anyding additional lanes in road, especially in an urbanized area, is a difficult and expensive proposition. there are elements we would agree with. i don't think we will see a wholesale truck-exclusive interstate any time the near future. host: transportation.org is the website for our guest association.

wright is the executive director. thank you for your time. we will hear from the rand corporation's debra knopman. we will have that conversation when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> saturday, american history tv on c-span3 takes you to the american historical association's annual meeting. for live, all-day coverage 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. you stern, join us as historians and scholars talk about

commemorating civil war reconstruction in national parks and the birmingham civil rights national monument. live coverage of the american historical association annual meeting saturday on american history tv on c-span3. sunday night on afterwards, john newman looks back at his 38-year judicial career in his book "benched." he is interviewed by senator blumenthal. activeng gone from that life of making decisions and going to court and advocating a case to judging, was that a difficult transition for you? of you ever miss the life advocacy? >> it wasn't difficult. i have known people who became disliked the decision-making process that

they left the bench. i was an advocate and was glad to be an advocate. i found the decision-making process in or mislead challenging and satisfying. love being a judge because the opportunity to resolve disputes, large and small, all matter to somebody. large ones have public's. that is a very satisfying role. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is debra knopman , a principal researcher for the rand corporation. not everything is broken, the future of u.s. transportation. good morning. what are you suggesting when you say not everything is broken and

infrastructure spending? guest: we are not suggesting there are not problems. there are large problems with our infrastructure. by saying not everything is broken we are making the point of setting priorities. making sure we are not going into full-blown crisis mode, spending money on whatever comes along. instead, getting congress and the administration to focus on what is needed most. host: how does the government approach typical infrastructure spending? guest: it happens in different ways. one of the important elements of any debate that will emerge over the next several months is getting into the particulars of how the government functions in different areas of infrastructure. has the primary responsibility for the transportation program. the money comes from, substantial sums of money,

come from the government. on water utility state and local governments are making the primary decisions. the federal government does make some choices about dividing tax municipal bonds. it provides low-interest loans for state and local governments to do various projects, and funds agencies such as the u.s. army corps of engineers, the bureau of reclamation, and the department of transportation. started this segment today talking to the american society for civil engineers. they put out a report card of d's and c's. there isven though concerned, there could be a better way the government analyzes how it uses money, particularly for infrastructure?

guest: the american society of civil engineers did a great public service bringing this to light. aat is not enough to drive policy discussion that we think needs to happen. the particular case of transportation funding, there has been no change in the federal gas tax that funds the federal share of highly spending. since 1993. that represents a political impasse that needs to be addressed. host: debra knopman will be with us to talk about the report. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans.1 for for independents, (202) 748-8002 . let's look at roads. how could the federal government

to a better job analyzing what projects to fund and the most efficient use of the money? where we are at a point there is a lot of new technology coming along with smart vehicles, censored roads. this is a real opportunity for transformation. the federal government has historically taken a leadership role. it doesn't mean that it is the it can player, but a leadership and intellectual role in really encouraging a transformation. that could be one area that the federal government is focused on. we have the interstate highway built, the beginning in the 1950's. we needed to connect the nation. we needed a national network. we still need that. this network is aging.

there is much that can be done in the build out. in urban areas where congestion is greatest. we have the chance to do it terms of how we will fix and modernize the system. host: some would say the highways are always being built. does the government determine the life span of projects it funds? arrangementriginal with the states and the highway act of 1956 was 90% federal funding for capital spending, 10% by the state. the states are responsible largely for the operation and maintenance. the federal government doesn't put much into that. the federal government does have ce somertunity to pla

judicians on how the states spend the money. host: we heard the last guest talk about the federal government gives money to the states with some oversight involved. is more oversight needed when federal money is granted? guest: i am not advocating for more oversight, but more priority setting when it comes to federal spending. specifically, not about projects largely within an individual state's borders, more the regional and national scale projects that impact economic growth. that is where the federal government should be stepping up whereking judgments about the investments should go. for instance, most countries urban transit systems

as national assets. that would be getting the subway cities in goodr operating order. something that will benefit the country as a whole. we have major bottlenecks around ports up and down the east coast, around long beach in california. many opportunities where national benefits could be achieved through a focus on that go-scale projects beyond the capacity of individual states. there is no reason for the federal government to micromanage state priorities. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. we have been speaking about what the trump administration might

use as a main for funding public-private partnerships. how has that model worked in other areas of the country? guest: we are waiting for details on exactly what the administration will be. i hesitate to make any strong judgments on exactly what they are doing. there is precedence for the federal government putting out programs -- initiating programs where there is cost sharing between states and local governments. that is certainly an -- rtunity, but host: the idea of oversight. we had a previous guest talk desire of thise administration to change funding

and the length of oversight, or reduce the amount of time. concern, oruse you is there a case to be made that that could work? the whole idea of pending project delays on regulation or regulatory oversight is somewhat misplaced. reasons whyten large projects are controversial. there are multiple interests. also, the underlying regulations go back to the clean water act, the clean air act. these are pieces of legislation with broad public support that have been in place since the 1970's. when we talk about procedures, oversight, the need to keep the discussion separate from the underlying intent of what those regulations are and the actual way some of these regulations are implemented. there is no doubt that the

federal government, for example, could be more efficient in the way it applies oversight when there are multiple agencies involved and would make the process more streamlined in that sense. present public comments without circumventing the law and standardss. . the previous guest talked about consolidating the various agencies. how many agencies typically get involved in an infrastructure project? 6est: as many as 4, 5, or federal agencies. there was an issue about california and the endangered species act in play. that brought in the department of the interior and fish and wildlife services/ hadarmy corps of engineers

the responsibility of water management in the san francisco bay. the bureau of reclamation had water supply responsibilities. the environmental protection agency was concerned about salinity standards. -- not the federal level just at the federal level, there as well.l levels these can be complicated administrative procedural processes and challenges. host: can that consolidation be done to keep the level of safety and things you have to consider as well? guest: it can be done, and we have examples where it can be done well. beginning with strong federal leadership, if that is the arent, to make sure laws honored and the public is heard. this is doable.

it is not impossible. there needs to be a consensus and understanding of what that should look like going in, and not making it up. report, nots the everything is broken, the future of transportation and water funding. you can go to the rand website. our guest from the rand corporation. the first call is from ohio, democrat's line. caller: i lived in cincinnati, west of cincinnati. we do not have an adequate bus system, no subway, no trains. before i would allow one cent of my taxes to get a better train, subway, or bus to someone else, i want that here. on the west coast and east coast.

zero in cincinnati. you cannot give me a legitimate reason my taxes should support a better train from boston to washington, d.c. their not and do not fund s. i want it for me and all of the millions of taxpayers in the midwest to get nothing -- who get nothing. we are told wait in line. we have waited long enough. we have a road system. i have been living on the road i am on for 35 years and it has never been resurfaced. before i would give anybody anything i want some tax dollars spent on me. host: thank you. guest: i think you raised several points. highway allocation of

dollars through the federal highway program is apportioned to all states. that was a formula set by congress that takes into account population, land area. the highway program, the way the thes are spent, are up to states, not the federal government. within the boundary of your state. the rail system, the question about rail and the federal role is one up for public discussion. you raised a total legitimate p -- a totally legitimate point about taxpayers all across the country should be supporting individual projects in one region over another. this is also a question of regional equity should be

squarely on the table in a discussion about whether the u.s. wants a world-class real system. the next question is how to deliver in a way that is fair and equitable across the country. state generates more taxes, should they get more back in federal funding for infrastructure? guest: not necessarily. your last guest would know more on that than i would, but by and one-to-onee is not a correspondence on with the gas tax is giving out for the federal highway program. host: georgia, independent line. caller: i think all of america should pay for infrastructure. not just gas.

just gas to pay for it. everybody benefits from it. interestingis an question. the federal gas tax was put in place as something of a surrogate for a toll or user fee. that was decided that that was going to be the fairest way at that time when virtually all vehicles were running on gas. that there should be correspondence to those who are using the highways and paying gas taxes. we are in a different era. the gas tax structure is not sustainable going forward. you have hybrids, electric vehicles coming online, vastly more fuel-efficient vehicles and a wide range.

there are inequities with the gas tax in terms of how we fund other infrastructure. fees for inland waterways, harbor deepening, there is already a federal tax and fee structure in place for .ater systems for water utilities that has been a state and local responsibility. 94% of the funding coming at that level. the federal government does not spend money directly on those utilities, except through tax policy through tax exempt in a municipal bonds. senator moynihan, talk

about the politics of raising the gas taxes. is this something you saw firsthand question ma? guest: not firsthand at the time. the time of at raising the gas tax tied up with the politics of taxation, which is no one -- members of congress cannot be enthusiastic about raising the taxes on anything. here is the case where we need a sustainable source of revenue to support our infrastructure. it has to be coming from some fund. when the highway truck fund has been depleted, congress dipped into general funds, which means everyone is paying, whether they .re using the roads are not

it is the reluctance to raise taxes and the fundamental question of the federal role going forward and infrastructure. there is a debate on what the feds should be involved in and what should be left. is a group, the consumer energy alliance, and they are urging new england policymaker to develop infrastructure. is this part of that discussion? the energy of in particular, does it accommodate situations like we are seeing on the east coast? guest: the electricity is the most private hands. there is public power at the municipal level. there have been major investments across the country in resilience of infrastructure to make sure we are prepared for storms and other disruptions in

an elaborate and well-run system . regional transition operators coordinate individual utilities at a regional scale. i don't see the electric utility needing muche as federal assistance. there might be certain areas here in their, but basically they are charging their rate payers the amount of money they need to keep the system sustainable. states regulate this business very closely. they have to go in front of regulators and make cases for rate increases. that they cover asset management and resilience in the face of outages.

that is what needs to happen on the water and transportation science. 2 areas dominated by public ownership, not private ownership . we don't have the discipline in those processes. you talked earlier about capital budgeting. we don't have a way to do that long-term planning usefully at the federal level. joe in south carolina. caller: good morning. that iwant to say hope mr. trump's infrastructure -- everything bought american. american steel, american blacktop. not mexican blacktop, china

steel. i hope he is going to put americans first 20 puts these , and if we need to hire outsiders after. that is about my only statement. host: thanks. guest: in the government dictate who gets hired, etc.? guest: there is a long tradition of congress debating the labor terms and materials, things like that, in infrastructure spending. as much time as the senate and house is taking up this legislation that will be brought to the floor. host: independent line. caller: i think the of the structure is a response and

anything that comes after economic activity. one thing we have to realize in this country, in this north america and south america we have the largest pool of oil, and energy. coal when you study things with 4 different government panels, and have local, discussions for 10 years before you make a decision, it is not like the rest of the country where every $1 you have you have $3 worth of spending to see if it is a good idea or not. we waste money in that way. that is a a president businessman. business is efficiency. when you decide to do something it was for the public good, like franklin roosevelt.

when we have to make a decision we have to stand by and not waste and spend time studying for 10 years before making a decision. that is where we waste the money in the economy where we are now. host: thanks. guest: it took 10 years from the congress first passed authorization for the interstate highway system and started funding it. there were some time big decisions in the hundreds of billions of dollars that could take time to get a public consensus. caller's comment reinforces the point we try to make in the rand report, we need a sense of direction, vision, and priority rather than deciding we are going to spend a large sum of money and spread it around without regard to real

need. that was our major point with the study. host: i asked the previous of b theill.study -- study of the bill. guest: we learned the stimulus package that congress passed in shovel-readyon projects. projects ready to go. there didn't need to be much more discussion over whether they were good or bad. state and local governments were ready to go. the spending did get into the system rather quickly. ook at the charts in our report that show the spike. it was quite pronounced. at the same time, when you do standardsckly, some

met, or other goals or objectives may not be met. the biggest one we need to think the sustainability of the project. an ongoing source of revenue to maintain, operate, and repair what we are building. this is a test that needs to any type ofink, in federal spending on infrastructure. host: one more call. republican line. caller: i think the electrical grid is obsolete. littleer plants have devices called programmable logic controllers. h -- aro child

12-year-old child tax into the roosevelt dam in tempe, arizona. had he opened the flood control gates arizona could have been wiped out. grid iselectrical obsolete. host: thanks. guest: i think the electrical -- the electric power industry is well aware of those vulnerabilities in the industrial control systems and know they need to upgrade those. the caller is right. i would not say the whole system is obsolete. there is major investment going on throughout and a major transformation underway with the electrical grid as more states are bringing renewable energy

sources online and making accommodations. there is a lot happening in that sector. there's a lot of money being spent. there is great opportunity for major, major improvement. host: the rand report is called not everything is broken. debra knopman what was the driving force between the creation of this report? there was likely to be some debate in this administration based on the campaign on the topic of infrastructure. there was a lot of hype about , thething is falling apart country is going to hell in a handbasket. we wanted to look at the numbers and understand what is going on. is everything really falling apart?

are there particular areas that really need the attention? that is what drove us. was not a broad understanding of the origins of haveof these programs that been in place for decades. the bureau of reclamations was started in 1902. there was some value, we hoped, in putting out a primer on how primarily the federal government with its partners in state and local government, approach water and transportation infrastructure. host: rand.org is how you can find that report online. debra knopman, the principal researcher on it. if you want to comment, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independent, (202) 748-8002. we will take those when we come back. ♪

sunday on c-span's q and a -- >> i propose action instead of words. i propose action before it is too late. i propose action for the sake of a feder better world. i say again and again that i propose it for our american self interest. finds himself in opposition when fdr is elected in the early 1930's. he is in opposition for the next dozen years. that means to get anything done, resisting soment of franklin roosevelt's initiatives, he had to reach across the aisle. and a sunday night at 8:00

eastern on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. a 1979, c-span was created as public service by american's public television companies and is brought to you today by your satellite provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you can also participate in the open phones by tweeting us or posting on facebook. you can go to the phone lines as well. this is "the boston globe" about jeff sessions and marijuana policy. the attorney general is rescinding the obama-era policy that allowed legal marijuana to flourish. told "theh knowledge associated press" sessions will -- will let federal

prosecutors were pot is legal to decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law. it will likely add to confusion over whether it is ok to grow, by, or used marijuana in stays where it is legal. it comes days after pot shops opened in california. ofls show a solid majority americans believe the drug should be legal. that is "the boston globe." the opinion section of "the washington examiner." the trumpyear administration comes to a close, one cannot help but look at allegations of russian collusion dominating the headlines of every news agency. manufactured hysteria on this issue since 2017 has masked

substantial accomplishments of president trump's administration. some that qualify as historic. they cite the stock market and the condition of the islamic state. they say in spite of the constant headlines and rampant speculation over shadowing accomplishments, there is no evidence of collusion. the lack of evidence is not due of investigation. there have been six investigations, more on the targeting of irs conservatives and benghazi. there is zero evidence of collusion. you can read that in "the washington examiner." republican line. good morning. caller: how're you doing? host: fine, thank you.

caller: earlier on highway construction, their tolerances are too tight. i used to do surveying. three toonly allowing 400's vertical tolerance for every linear feet. doing 300 miles an hour, that is fine, but 70 or 80, you won't feel it. the tolerances are too tight. and the comment we don't have the right to be happy in this country, you have a wonderful right to pursue happiness. host: white plains, new york. democrats line. caller: i loved your last guest on infrastructure. i think she just scratched the surface. i would like to comment on the first caller from ohio complaining about the lack of

inelopment of infrastructure the middle of the country, the flyover region. as hit an important point well and i hope you continue on the theme. host: what would you like to learn about if we did follow up? caller: what are we doing in terms of developing an industrial policy? we rely upon public money for some of the financial stuff in the middle. we are relying on highway tax. that will not do with issues like flint, michigan's water problem. how do we keep people happy as well as taking care of overdue boston andtween washington, which are very important to what they feed into. host: thank you for the suggestions. we can talk about the infrastructure segments we had

. president in "the washington post" has an op-ed looking at the current activity in iran with protests. "this president will not be silent on iran." of thees in the wake demonstration, barack obama express american solidarity with the iranian protesters. i recognize the lack of action for an advocacy of american leadership where his predecessor stayed silent, president trump offered the iranian people american's unwavering support and committed to provide assistance. the president declined the previous administration's nuclear deal with iran which flooded money that it could be used to support terrorism across

the wider world. we issued new sanctions on islamic revolutionary guard corps and punishing the regime for its belligerent behavior and assault on its own citizens. florida, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you, sir? host: i'm fine. i have spent my life in the trucking industry. most of the time in the morning i could not watch because i was on the road, but i would listen to npr. i have been retired for 17 years, so i watch her show every day. having said that, could you give me an extra minute or two? host: go for it. aller: every year we take survey on the worst roads in america.

that is your best insight into the highways. these guys travel every road there is. like i said, they do a survey and the answers are there. federalaid that, this tax gas set up for federal highways and things associated with it. through the years, these politicians eventually got their fingers into it. of course, they siphon off this or that. know, there is less money than their supposed to be. host: ok. "overdrive?"ne caller: yes, sir. "overdrive" magazine. host: thank you for the tip. caller: good morning. i wanted to respond to some of rs in the regulation.

there is a reason there is regulation. you look back at three mile island, pull up the story. of the financial challenges 2008-2009. there is a reason regulations are put into place. so many people overlook that until it impacts them directly. great program. "the wall street journal" talks about opening communications between north korea and south korea. the reactivation of the telephone link across the demilitarized zone severed by the north and 2016 comes as the south follows up on a suggestion jong-un he would be open to talks. the talks lasted for 20 minutes.

they did not release the north korean official's name or transcript. it ensure the line was usable. independent line. caller: i wanted to comment tout jeff sessions' decision rescind the leniency with the marijuana sales. with the new tax law that just passed and the great deficit it will create, i think it would be a good idea to go ahead and legalize marijuana and tax marijuana over the country so we can help alleviate and reduce the deficit. host: from michigan, this is mary, republican line. c-span i am an avid

watcher. i have my own business. i always watched on friday when brian was the moderator. i often hear people say that president obama gave iran millions of dollars. that money was frozen in an account. it belonged to iran. it was not our money that was given to them. it is appalling to me how misinformed so many people are. i wish they would watch c-span more. i often hear them mouthing something you can hear on another unmentioned station. i would very much like to have c-span give us more information on the suppose it uranium that was sold or whatever. a little more clarification on

that. please, republicans. pay attention. don't just mouth what you hear on fox. host: the state of the british health care system. some emergency ward patients wait 12 hours before they are attended to. -- core ors are jammed. cuts to the national health service budget in britain left hospitals stretched over the winter. this year high levels of respiratory illnesses have put the nhs under the highest strain in decades. the situation is so dire that head of health services is warning the system is overwhelmed. some doctors took to twitter to vent publicly. one having to practice

"battlefield" medicine while another apologized for "third conditions" caused by overcrowding. more than 9 million people at emergency wards were sent home after receiving only guidance that in many cases could have been obtained by a pharmacist. "the new york times" this morning. south dakota, this is steve. caller: what we need for increase inre is an the gasoline tax. ronald reagan and his people will recall he increased the gasoline tax and we had great infrastructure improvement under his administration here just increasing the gas tax will not solve the problem. throwing more money without more contractors to put in the infrastructure. all be will do is increase

their profits. we have to take a portion of that increase and give it to the spa so they can work with individuals, increase the number of contractors so this money is not just a boon to the current contractors. we need more contractors to add competition so the costs do not go up. this would make costs go down. host: you think americans would accept an increase in the gas tax? caller: we have to. taxes are not evil. ronald reagan railed against government waste. that is the problem. thisthing that makes country great. do not be afraid of taxes. the afraid of those who would

spend the taxes unwisely. that is the problem with our country. host: jesse, arkansas, democrat's line. good morning. isler: on jeff sessions, it awful for them to go after the drug-sellers. the people he spoke about a couple of weeks ago on national television, how dirty they were and he was coming after them, is like going after the fruit instead of the root. they do not have planes and boats to bring the drugs in. host: should there be more oversight from states that allow recreational marijuana use? ander: if it is legal helpful for people's lives, let it be administered by hospitals

and doctors. it is all about money. let the doctors administer it to the people. host: there is a story looking at the number of refugees coming into the united states. he highlights from inauguration day to december 31 of last year the administration accepted 29,022 refugees, the lowest number since 2002. comparable figures before then are not available. the previous low was 29,468 in 2002 when the united states slowed down avenues of legal immigration after the terror attacks of september 11, 2001. the president instituted a cap of 45,000 refugees a year. alabama is where john is. republican line. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. on the iran money, i listen to

cnn, your show regular, and fox news regular. we were told on fox this money was not just given to them from out of our pockets. it was money that iran had frozen in an account in america. i heard that from the beginning. i did not hear that from anyone else. you may have said it, i don't know. but they told it from the beginning. it wasn't no secret the money was theirs to start with and we froze it and would not let them have it until obama let them have it back. host: nick from florida. caller: good morning. happy new year's. watch "washington journal" every day. , disabled veteran in my 60's. and iwatching betsy devos

was concerned to bring up the real problem in america. we don't have american civets classes or critical thinking classes taught from the last 4 years of high school and through college. if president trump was fortunate enough to do 2 terms followed by mike pence that would be 16 years. enough time to turn around the communism being taught in schools and get decent citizens out. to seef you want secretary devos on our network , courtesy oforg our video library. you can type in the education secretary's name and she will bring it every presentation she has made on this network. that is c-span.org for the previous caller about information on iran. we are planning a segment on that on sunday morning looking at that. for on c-span.org

more information. democrat's line. caller: one person says taxes are great, the other person says lower taxes. the of the structure and highway system, what do we have against socialism? that works good. we all pay in and we all get to use it. i don't know why we don't do that with our health care. host: profiling the 2 latest senators to the u.s. senate. tina smith from minnesota and doug jones from alabama. saying smith is the lieutenant governor of minnesota and was of alted to fill the seat franken. there are more female senators now, 17 democrats and five in u.s.ans, at any time

history. mr. jones made his name in alabama as a lawyer that kusecuted 2 members of the klux klan. he is the first democrat from alabama in years. both of them sworn in by mike pence. dave in irvine, california. you're the last call. aller: i wanted to make comment about infrastructure. you should not lower taxes, you should raise them. do cannot pay for it unless you raise the taxes on people. given this big tax break, all of those are publicans, you eight going to be able to fix infrastructure -- you ain't going to be able to fix infrastructure. barack obama tried to get infrastructure in the entire time he was in there. they wouldn't let him do it because they did not want a black guy being president.

they hated him because of his race. the republicans are no good. they will hurt the middle class and we are going to pay for it. not the rich. sending there, quit money out of the country. host: that is dave in california. infrastructure segments come you can see them on c-span.org. another edition at 7:00 tomorrow morning. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this morning the virginia state board of elections meets to determine the winning candidate in a state legislative seat by picking a name out of a bowl. after nbe