larger than they actually are, that this is not a transnational gang organization, but pretty much a ragtag group of teenagers in latin america that are pretty hand to mouth. host: barbara in texas, good morning. caller: good morning. my thing is the children come up to the border, they are allowed through thep them united states and they do not know where they come from, who they are, but then they take egals, and instead of sending them back, even though they are kids, i do not care they need to be sent back, and instead we ship them through the united states and we put them into schools with our children, and then what? we expect them not to hurt our children? not to act the way that they are, to do the things they were sent here to do?

. sarbanes: -- >> the alabama company is raising their wages and giving a thousand dollar bonus. for those of you keeping track we have over 350 companies that have announced bonuses, new hiring or increased retirement benefits as a direct result of tax reform which not a single democrat supported. these have affected 4 million americans. the president is working to work for all americans. the tax reforms is a big part of that. as we all saw yesterday, the president is rebuilding infrastructure in america, secure decades of neglect. we are building a safe and reliable and modern infrastructure to meet the needs of the american people and to fuel economic growth and to help

make this possible, we have a special announcement today, in keeping with his campaign pledge, the president donates his salary for further work being done. most recently the president donated his third quarter salaries to help combat the opioid epidemic. and today the president is proud to donate his fourth 2017 salary to the department of transportation to rebuild and modernize our crumbling infrastructure. secretary of transportation, elaine chao. she will take a couple of questions on infrastructure and how about these funds will be used and i will be back up afterwards to answer your questions on the news of the day. ecretary chao.

he secretary: thank you. i'm accompanied here by two officials of the u.s. department of transportation. i have with me the under secretary of policy and jim ray, the senior adviser to the secretary for infrastructure. they're here because of this gift. and let me proceed. as many of you have heard yesterday, 12 federal agencies have been working with the white house on the comprehensive infrastructure proposal that the president announced yesterday. transportation is one component. the proposal also includes energy, drinking and waste water, broadband and veterans hospitals as well. the goal of the president's proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment, which

includes a minimum of $200 billion indirect federal funding and a key element is to empower decision making at the state and the local level because state and local officials know best. the infrastructure needs of their communities. many of you know that the principals are behind us. so i wanted to reiterate some of the principles. the principles behind this proposal are one, to use federal dollars as seed money to encourage infrastructure investment by the state, localities and the private sector. two, provide for the infrastructure needs of rural communities. three, streamline project delivery. and four, invest in transformative projects that benefit everyone.

we are applying these principles to the department of transportation's major existing infrastructure grant program, including, for example, the grants. these two gentlemen to my right are here because their offices will be among those at the department of transportation that will be taking the applications and also administering these grants. this quarter, as mentioned, the president has generously decided to donate his annual salary to the depth grant programs. this directly reflects the president's proposal by providing dedicated, discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our nation's highways, bridges and ports. under this program, states and localities that secure some

funding or financing of their own are given higher priority access to federal funds. in addition, this reserves 25% of its funding to be awarded to rural projects. so infrastructure is the backbone our economy and key to keeping our country competitive. it will create new jobs, strengthen our economy and improve the quality of life for everyone. with that quick summary, i will answer any questions. reporter: some of the criticism is it puts too much of a burden on states financially because the federal budget is 14% and people might pay more taxes and more tolls, what do you say to that? the secretary: federal money is not free.

federal money comes from our communities, taxpayers and our communities. they take that money, send it to washington and we decide how to use it and send it back to communities with a lot of strings attached on what they need to do. so what we are trying to do is o recognize the states and localities, communities understand best what their infrastructure needs are and to allow them to have much greater flexibility to decide their own projects, in con junction and in partnership with the federal government. reporter: one of the criticisms of the plans it doesn't address he highway trust fund. can you say why that wasn't in the president's broader infrastructure plan and what does the administration plan to do with that important funding? the secretary: the highway trust

fund needs to be addressed because every year more money goes out of it than receipts are received. and this will be a huge problem in 2021. so we in con junction with the congress has to address this issue so we are not in disagreement about that. and we look forward to consulting with congress on how to do that. the cliff begins in 2021. reporter: the white house doesn't have a plan for that? the secretary: we don't want to do it unilaterally, the president's proposal consisted of principles and we want to work in consultation on a bipartisan basis with the hill to address the infrastructure needs of our country. reporter: madam secretary, the crumbling infrastructure, could you talk to us about -- we know what's going on with roads, bridges, highways, but when it

comes to rural america, what is crumbling and what jobs will be given where? the secretary: i come from the state of kentucky and i come from a rural state and i'm especially concerned about the needs of rural america and we recognize that the needs of rural america are special. and that is why in the president's proposal, there is actually a provision which addresses the unique needs of rural america. so it will be separate from the -- there is a separate title that is addressed to rural america. and similarly, there is a separate title to address transformative technology. the under secretary of policy, one of his portfolio areas is transformational technology, autonomous vehicles, automated

driving systems. so that is another part of the president's infrastructure proposal that we will be also discussing with the hill. reporter: madam secretary. the federal gas tax remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. the u.s. chamber of commerce has advocated an increase. the american trucking association recognized that a 20 cent per gallon increase on the gas tax. what is your view on this subject? the secretary: the president has not declared anything out of bounds. so everything is on the table. the gas tax, like many of the other pay-fors that are being discussed, is not ideal, there are pros and cons. the gas tax has adverse impact, regressive impact on the most vulnerable within our society.

those who depend on jobs, who are hourly workers. so these are tough decisions. that is why once again, we need to start the dialogue with the congress and so we can address these issues on this very important point. reporter: would you clarify your answer to john in the first question. are you saying taxes will increase or tolls will increase or they won't? the secretary: that is a decision that is up to the state and local governments and also it's going to depend, the gentleman mentioned federal gas taxes. these are tough decisions. we all want better infrastructure, but unfortunately there isn't enough money in the world to pay for all the infrastructure. which is why the president's infrastructure also emphasizes the private sector. private sector pension funds are

a tremendous source of capital for funding public infrastructure. there are states which disallow the private sector from investing in public infrastructure. so we hope those restrictions can be removed. and then for those states and localities that want to work with the private sector, it's their decision as to whether they want to use private activity bonds, whether they want to use tolls, whatever. what we are saying in this proposal is that we are looking for creative ways for financing. and so tolls is one way. we are not advocating for them. we are also not endorsing them. it is really up to the local entities that are involved in trying to raise the financing. reporter: as a quick follow-up and you are from kentucky, you

know the highways were wideend to louisville. in rural areas it helped people to get to where they want to get quicker. here in washington, d.c., area and abundance of tolls. while you are espousing you want to help out rural america, isn't that going to impact and won't tolls hurt rural america? the secretary: you are mixing up things here. there is actually going to be a title as i mentioned on rural america. so that is separate from the rest of the titles in this proposal that we are talking about. there will be a special section for rural america. and then as to whether other urban areas want to embark upon tolls or private activity bonds or recycling, that is up to

them. we are giving them the flexibility to do so. so they are getting much greater flexibility now to look at creative financing mechanisms and decide for themselves what they want. thank you so much. i'm sure we will be talking more. ms. sanders: thank you secretary chao. the president has an event, we will jump straight into the questions for today. john. reporter: f.b.i. director christopher wray laid out a different deadline and the white house has been in contradiction that the white house has laid about. can you speak to what the trect tore said. he seemed to indicate that first you would have known might have been in march, june and november

and in january when the case was actually closed. ms. sanders: we explained the process last week. the white house personnel office received information last year and what they considered to be the final background information report in november but not made a final recommendation for ajudication to the white house because the process was still ongoing. in the view of personnel security office, the f.b.i.'s report required significant additional investigatory field work before personnel office could begin to evaluate the information for ajudication. as the director said information was coming to the white house personnel office in february. reporter: in the july report and back to march, what information was in those reports? ms. sanders: i wouldn't know the answer to that. raj said the nd

investigation was ongoing. director wray said it was closed. who is telling the truth? ms. sanders: both. the white house personnel office which is the one that made the recommendation had not finished their recommendation. reporter: you said yesterday you didn't get any paperwork from the f.b.i. chris wray said he did submit paperwork. ms. sanders: that will come through the white house personnel security office and had not completed their investigation. reporter: you do acknowledge you received paperwork. ms. sanders: we need to be clear about this, multiple groups here. the white house personnel security office which is staffed by career first may have received information. but they had not completed their process and made a

recommendation to the white house for ajudication. kellyer: who allowed john or rob porter rather, to stay here? ms. sanders: i can't comment on specifics on that than what we have already said on that matter. ms. sanders: we are going to keep moving. reporter: is the white house still maintaining that john kelly had no information about the allegations of domestic abuse? ms. sanders: that's my understanding. reporter: does the president believe the women? ms. sanders: the president takes all of these accusations very seriously and believes in due process and supports the victims of any type of violence and certainly would condemn violence. reporter: we haven't heard him say that himself. ms. sanders: the president dictated that comment to me specifically which i read out to

you. reporter: did anyone at the white house personnel security office have any talks about rob porter's clearance between when the f.b.i. started submitting its reports. ms. sanders: i'm not aware of any communications. reporter: and in an interview with the associated press, director coates said those are interim clearances should have limited access to security information. can you speak to whether that is a current practice for the large numbers of officials in the west wing and the white house complex who don't have permanent security clearances. are they limited? ms. sanders: i can't speak to whether they have permanent or interim security clearances and can't comment on the process. we are following the process

that has been used by previous administrations. and we would rely on the law enforcement and intelligence communities to determine if that process needed to be changed. reporter: he suggested it should be changed. ms. sanders: they would make that determination and play a role in what that would look like. . reporter: the white house official said until tuesday night they didn't know the extent of the allegations. would the f.b.i. and personnel office be punished? sarah: that's something that will be well beyond my scope to determine, josh. reporter: they weren't told? everyone knew but no one in the senior staff found out? sarah: i haven't asked him about that specifically. matthew. reporter: sarah. raj the other day said last week the situation could have been handled better. yesterday you echoed the

situation could have been handled better. today the chief of staff said it was all done right. can you explain, does the white house think the rob porter situation could have been done better? sarah: i say every day we come here and do the very best we can and every day we can do better than the day before. we will continue to strive for that. we're humans making us imperfect people and so every day i think we can learn from the day before and we can strive to do better and that's our goal certainly within our team and we are going to continue to try to do everything we can to help serve the american people to the best of our ability. reporter: was it appropriate for hope to be involved drafting in these statements given her relationship with mr. porter? sarah: she was not part of a lot of the conversations that took place. i don't recall you being in the room to say specifically what comments she made or didn't make. she's the white house communications director and is an important and valuable member of the staff and she's done a great job in that role. steve.

reporter: was there some discussion here about promoting rob porter to another job at the time this all blew up? sarah: i don't know the answer to that. jeff. sarah: sarah, you said that the f.b.i. -- reporter: sarah, you said that a follow-up required more fieldwork on that. was that because something rob porter said in response to that, the allegations weren't true, or what required more fieldwork follow-up? sarah: i wouldn't know the specifics. i can only refer you back to the previous statement. reporter: in an op-ed this morning in "the washington post," the first wife of rob porter said specifically of you, i expected a woman to do better. based on what you know, do you believe you were personally misled and do you have any regret for how you have explained this to the american people? sarah: look, as i said, we do the very best job we can every single day. i would never presume to understand anything going on with that individual nor would i think she could presume

what's going on with me or the way that i'm responding. look, we've condemned domestic violence in every way possible. in fact, the president's budget that he released yesterday fully funds the violence against women act. we are looking for ways we can take action to help prevent this from ever happening to feel , and to presume i differently is simply a strong mischaracterization who i am and who this white house is and what our actions are focused on and what we're trying to do. sorry. reporter: stand as we hit here today in terms if the president has confidence in him, why does he have confidence in him based on everything we learned over the last week? sarah: look, i don't have anything further to add. the president has confidence in his chief of staff. we will continue trying to do the best we can to help the american people. julie. reporter: clarification and question. in july when the f.b.i. was sent back in the field to get more information. are you apligse that not joe

higin, john kelly, no one in the single staff in the west wing was involved in the decision to tell them to go back and see if they can get more information? sarah: again, not that i am aware of. i can't say with 100% certainty but not that i am aware of any conversation between those individuals. reporter: are you looking at now ways you can change the process so that if a senior official in the white house is facing credible allegations of spousal abuse or other criminal charge that senior staff will be involved in a more timely way? it appears if your timeline is accurate taken more than a year. sarah: again, this is a process that the law enforcement and intelligence community should weigh in on and determine if changes should be made to the way it's carried out. reporter: i am talking about the process here where an investigation where serious allegations could surface and nobody in the west wing would be aware of that. sarah: that would include those agencies and those departments

so you couldn't exclude them from a conversation about what changes should and need to be made to any program. i think that would have to be something that involved all of the stakeholders and something certainly far beyond my purview to walk you through today. reporter: sarah, just following up on what julie was asking. you are saying law enforcement should weigh in but you are the white house, this is your process. sarah: it's actually not our process. a large number of the background component is run by the f.b.i. other intelligence agencies weigh in. again, what i said all of the stakeholders should be part of that discussion and it should be looked at and determined whether changes need to be made to the process. reporter: given it impacts the white house staff, do you not want to request an improved process here? sarah: again, that would go beyond my scope that i can walk you through here today but i think it's certainly a conversation all of the stakeholders should have. april. reporter: sarah, couple questions. in light of everything that's going on. is there a review now, an

internal review of all those who have interim security clearances to see if they should stay or should they go? sarah: i can't speak whether or not certain staff have interim or permanent security clearance. reporter: is there a review of those who have interim passes to see if they are going to stay or go in light of what's happening now? sarah: my understanding that has been ongoing for a while and that determination would be made outside of anything i can walk you through at this point. reporter: you spoke of fully funding the violence against women act. it's up for re-authorization. tell me the price, how much the president is trying to put into that and what was the price prior to all of this that's happened with these two people in the last week? sarah: i'm sorry. i am not following your question. reporter: the budget. you say the president will fully fund the re-authorization of the violence against women act. how much -- what is he putting in his budget? sarah: i have to look at the specific number but it was rolled out in the budget presented yesterday.

reporter: is the number the number that it's always been or is it -- can you talk to us about the -- sarah: i know what was requested has been put into the president's budget. it was in the budget that was rolled out yesterday. we don't -- it's been part of something that's been ongoing. reporter: i understand that. i understand that. there are some things in that budget mr. mulvaney did not tell us yesterday. sarah: that means you probably didn't ask those questions. reporter: he didn't give us the answer, information. reporter: thanks, sarah. i want to get clarification from you regarding the sworn testimony today by the f.b.i. director, laid out the timeline and according to the f.b.i. director's testimony, the f.b.i. submitted a partial report on the investigation in question of porter's background check. in march. and then a completed background investigation in late july.

and yesterday when i was asking you about when the white house counsel learned about mr. porter, had you learned before the report in the daily mail last week, your reply to me was, the process for the background was ongoing and the white house had not received any specific papers regarding the completion of that background check. so those two statements, the f.b.i. director's statement, mr. wray, and your statement yesterday seem to be at odds with one another. do you see anything that you'd like to clarify in terms of what i asked you today based upon your answer yesterday? sarah: as i said earlier, my understanding is any information would have gone to the personnel security office. that office had not completed their process in order to make a recommendation for adjudication to the white house. that was still ongoing, and, therefore, recommendations had not been made. reporter: you said the specific papers regarding the completion

of the background check had not been received. sarah: that's part of that process that the white house personnel security office plays. run by career officials. and we hadn't received a recommendation from that office. reporter: yet, the f.b.i. director said under oath, the completed background investigation was actually submitted in late july. so which one is it? sarah: let me read this to you again. the white house personnel security office, staffed by career officials, received information last year in what they considered to be the final background investigation report in november. but they had not made a final recommendation for adjudication to the white house because the process was still ongoing when porter resigned. in the view of personnel security office, the july report required significant investigatory field office before security office could evaluate the information required for adjudication. we find those statements to be consistent with one another. sorry, john.

[inaudible] [indiscernible] reporter: relay whatever information, was there a feeling that chief of staff john kelly misled you and your colleagues what he knew and when instead of the communications staff to rely credible information to us in the past week in order to cover up the firing of rob porter? sarah: no. we are stating we are giving you the best information. the press team won't be read in on a variety of topics but we relay the best and most accurate information that we have and we get those from those individuals. reporter: with you talk about the other staffers that had been dismissed previously not passing background reports and why -- sarah: my understanding is the same process was followed for all employees and it's the same process used in previous administrations and i can't comment on anybody else's dismissal. reporter: thank you, sarah.

you talked multiple times giving us the best information you have. the scandal has been going on for a week now and we don't have answers to basic questions of who knew what when. sarah: i've done the best i can to walk you through that process as has raj. reporter: whether you spoke to general john kelly and oncounsel and asked these questions -- sarah: i have and that's the information given to me by those individuals. reporter: [inaudible] one said we got to get out on entitlements. talked about structural deficit. said we need to get our partners in government, white house included, to do the entitlement reform that we're willing to do in the house. what does the president disagree with speaker ryan on the deficit and mandatory spending?

sarah: i have to ask him specifically on that question. i know the president certainly would like to reduce the deficit and it's one of the reasons his budget this time -- this budget reduces the deficit by $3 trillion which is one of the largest in history and will continue to look for ways to do that. reporter: the speaker says the structural deficit for mandatory spending, not the discretionary spending that is the driver -- saying this for years. what does the president disagree with him? i know he disagrees with that -- why would he disagree with that assessment? sarah: i have to ask him. dave, last question. reporter: majority leader mcconnell said daca negotiations have to be done by the end he of this week. did he give the white house a headup on that decision and does that reflect any view that the democrats are not bargaining on good faith? they blocked sanctuary cities today. sarah: it's up to congress to set the timeline.

the president laid out the priorities he has for that legislation and we are only going to support legislation that deals with those four priorities we laid out. we hope republicans and democrats can come together to a consensus to fix that problem and not kick the can down the road. thanks, guys. reporter: will john kelly answer these questions? reporter: will the president talk to us in the pressroom? [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the u.s. house is coming in to session in about 17 minutes at 3:30 p.m. eastern. you can see that live right here on c-span. on today's agenda -- legislation putting sanctions on people and organizations affiliated with hamas. and also a bill to expand science, technology, engineering and math education among girls aged 11 and younger. again, when the house comes back into session at 3:30 p.m. eastern, live coverage right here on c-span. and over on the other side of the capitol, the u.s. senate is considering immigration legislation. here's a live look of the

senate floor. majority leader mitch mcconnell said he'll allow any amendment to the immigration bill so long as it has 60 votes. you can watch senate debate on our companion network c-span2. stop number 19 on our tour >> stopp number 19 takes us to little rock, arkansas. the city has been featured in "gone with the wind" and small rock formation, brown v on names and board of education, state apitol building modeled after the u.s. capitol and used in films as stand-in and joining us on the that building and c-span bus is asa hutchinson, the governor of arkansas, hutchinson, good morning to you, sir. yesterday you addressed the that general assembly in building and next to you. how would you describe the state