tonight on questioned newsroom, four weeks and counting. we'll look at how the longestn shutdown ihe nation's history is facting nscalifornia. also utility giant pg & e is planning to file for bankruptcy what it means for customers, clean energy goals and victims of wildfires. hello and welcome to newsroom. i'm thuy vu. oncy wednesday pelosi asked the president to delay his state of the union. she said without reopening the government there would be security concerns. president trump isn't budging from plans to deliver his address this month. the ump administration is

considering moving disaster money to the border wall. that could affect pairs and flood control projects in california. joining miss is john themendi, who serves infrastructure committee. nice to have you back. >> good to be withyou. i wanted to ask you about the buzzfeed report that's asserting that president trump directe former lawyer, michael cohen, to lie to congress about trump's role in a negotiation to build a skyscraper in moscow. what are your thoughts on that? >> well, everybody says, if true, it is a crime and therefore it's an impeachable offense. it happens to be the same offense that richard nixon committed, and ultimately was impeached, though he was not tried in the e.sen he resigned because of all of that. obstructn of justice, very,

very simple. if it is true -- we're going to findout. we're moving along. the mueller investigation ivi along. now that the democrat versus subpoena power, wee find out. you're saying if true, it rises to the level of obstruction of wijustice, you be calling for impeachment proceedings? >> i think there wi be an outcry for impeachment proceedings, both as a result of the muellerinvestigation, which may have this information, or the result of subpoenas and other testimony before congress. apparently there's backup information o thischarge. we'll see, and it's probably not ry far away. why suggest probably in a couple months we may know what it's all about. you would somethin support or call for? >> if this is true, absolutely. this is le impeach offense. >> i wanted to ask about the government shutdown. prident trump did not embrace

a government proposal to fund ale government for three weeks, toow time for negotiations. on the other side, house speaker has called the wall immoral. is there a way forward at this point? >> absolutely. we must open up government. we have passed nine pieces of legislation in the last two weeks, since janua 3rd, for the purposes of opening up government. lal or part of it we've even gone just yesterday with another piece of legislation w thld give until february 28th, opening government. why? so that there woume be to negotiate. so there would be time to gotiate. this is and has been a very serious problem. we'reng se the american economy takes a severe hit. we're seeing 800,000 federal oy ems, and who knows how many contractors losing the opportunity to have apaycheck and the contractors to have their contracts. i have situationsin herehe sacramento area. i have contractor that is don't

know what they're going to do, because they're small and they're going to be out of business as a result of this. open up thi government. this is an issue where mitch mcconnell has got to le not be a puppet to trump. >> but both sides have dug in hair heels, rit? the president said he won't back away from the money he wants for the border wallform the democrats are saying we're not giving you that money.he what will be tipping point for this to get resolved? like you said, so many people are impacted. >> open up the government. take up any one of those nine bills that are sitting on the senate floor. senator mcconnell and the republicans have an opportunity to put it on thepresident's desk. we've been very clear, open up the government and we'll about what we're going to do. as've offered -- in fact, in the legislation thatefore congress, before the christmas break, $1.6fo billioborder security. then the president at the very

last moment demanded $5 billion. then a day or two later he wanted 5.7 billionitut any specification of where it would be buset, what his purp would be, how it would solve problems. we know we have to be smart witt payer money. open up this government. we know there's some parts of that border fennce that have built 20, 30 years ago that need to be repaired. we can talk about that. but it is unconscionable that the president would simply hold and the the employees federal employees and all of the contractors hostage, but now total american economy is being held hostage formp his cgn pledge. >> how do you think california will fare in all of this? already the presiden said, he's threatening to divert money from the army corps of engineers. some of that money has already california.ed for what projects are at risk here? >> this is something that -- you're going to do what, mr. president? you're going t declare a national emergency?

you're going to go to the vil works program of the army corps of engineers, which we have put about 15 billi$15 billion for dr relief. and 2.5 billion of that are for california, specific flood bay of on, in the south san francisco bay. we're talking about the cupertino area. we're talking abut the san jose area, all of that. flood protection, we know the sea level isoming up. we know that sacramento is the most flood-pne area in america. we have more than 2 million people at rik. small cities like marysville, 17,000 people, just $13 million, but that was absolutely critical money on a city that literally is surrounded by 35-foot levees. >> what will happen if they projects are delayed or canceled? >> i just drove up the sacramento river to get here from my home, down in the delta.

the sacramento river is flowing full right now. will they projects make a difference this nter? no, but these projects would be under way next winter, next summer. not so many months away and they would provide additional protection. will it make a difference? we don't know, but it could make all the difference between horrible flood or no flood at all. in puerto rico, another 2. billion to shore up the levees and dams in the area that were totally destroyed 2 1/2iers in the hurricane, it is unconscionable tprat the ident would reach out and take away that money. >> how serious is the president at this point about this threat that he's making. >> we've backed him down a bit, but nonetheless he's kept alive the threat that he has the power emergency, ational and based upon the laws on the books, which frankly should be

changed, and i have introduced legislation tohange those laws, he could dip into the civil works. >> allright. >> he could also dip into the u.s. military's militaryuc conson projects. we have to rein in his power, not just this way, but also with the national emergencies. >> john garamendi, congresoman acramento valley, thank you for your time. >> thank you. thank you. on monday, pg & e declared it would file for bankruptcy protection at the endhe of month. the utility sis it featses $30 million in liability costs from wildfires. the company said, quote, wedo not expect any impact of service to our customers. stockres have declined sharply when the camp for thatr fire bke out some fire victims blamepg & e and have already filed lawsuits. the company is already on probation for violatingsa feder

ty rules when one of the gas pipelines exploded and killed eight people inan bruno pg & e did not respond to our request to appear on the program. joining us to discuss the issue is californiatate senator jerry hale.mu thank you s for being here. you were one of t what is your reaction about this? >> i was shocked, but not surprised. theyshave a c flow problem. they need to work through that. by declaring bankruptcy, it allows everyone to reflect on it. >> but they are lvent. >> they are, and they have a lot of money and resources, but they don't have a lot of cash. we don't know what those liabilities will be for the fires of 2018 yet. we're pretty clear on the 2017 ones, but not the 2018 ones.

it's premature, but it allows us to plan how to look at a utility in california at the end of the ty. do you thire should be a bailout plan? >> no, absolutely not. i didn't vote for one last year and wouldn't vote for onetoday. they don't deserve a payout. the rate payers should not be stuck with that liability. >> what will be the effect? >> the bail jowl will call for greater rates and higher rates on all us going forward. what we have to do is make sure that the shareholders a -- that they pay their price that thmpany itself with the assets covered those costs of liability. there are ways o doing that, but pg & e comes to the lecture and says two choices, bankruptcy or bailout. there are other options and choices. in fact, ey produced one where they had a back-door -- behind closed door solution to this

problem last year at the same time they were negotiating with the legislatd e. they plan to cover the cost, but they didn't tell anyone about it.>> so you've already said you don't think this should be a bailout. what's the best path forward? >> i think what we have to look at are restructuring the company. the legislature last year said they were too big to il. i fail they're too bill to proceed. they have a gas and electric division, which will give them into a position and a sigh that's more manageable, something they can work with aot s cumbersome as it has been. i think that's the first step. also, change the management of the company. it's not been a good management effort and team, change the board of directors to really change the culture of pg & e. what we want is a utility that provides a saf reliable service at a reasonable rate. they failed us. >>ou seem to be saying you would support all this restructuring and let them

private. do you think the state should take over pg & e? >> the state probably not take perhaps utility, but there's other opportunities that could do it. san francisco is right now talking about taking over the pg & e distribution system within the city. other cities are talking about it as well. >> what about wildfire victims? they're suing, they're concerned that a bankruptcy may mean they're not entitled to claims that they are entitled to. >> going back many years ago ere was the asbestos settlements, the bankruptcies that were invoed there. there were trust fences established. we could do the same with fe victims. at the end of the day, the public utilities commission will have to approveny bankruptcy settlements or restructuring. that will give us and the state and the puc an opportunity to

structure that in a way to prtect those victims. >> is that something you'll push for? >> definitely. v ratepayers andctims are the most important part of any settlement we have to deal with. >> pg & e declared bankruptcy once before in 2001. what did lawmakers learn from that situation that could be applied >> i think two things. pg & e was ging with the governor at the time in 2001. they were looking to find a settlement and the governor said at the time what a slap iethe fhat was. what we have learned is you can't really trust pg & e in the negotiations, and two, you have to be able to have al p utilities commission and memberships of that commission who ar a honest and w looking out for the ratepayers' interest. back then we didn't have that.

i would call it an incest out relationship back then, and that pretty much gave them everything they wanted, which cost us a lot more. >> but also there were problems with the cpuc's relationship with pg & e even after the zambuno explosion that happened in your district. >> absolutely. >> we started learning about ry cozy relationships. >> very cozy. that's because the same people that were there in er2001 still there. >> do you have more trust now? >>e greater confidence, they're good, honest people and they're putting the interests of the public at heart. that's critical. w would you hope that governor newsom handle this? he's barely in office. >> so far i think he's done a great job. he's stepped back, evaluating everything, not making any rash decisions, and we have to finda out w pg & e going to do?

not? they actually file or >> state senator jerry hill, thank you so much for being her >> thank you. it was a pleasure. pg & e sves about 16 million customers over 70,000 square eles. wht's unlikely the lights will go out, you could eventually pay more for the power. it could al jeopardizes the state's green goals. but investieavily in solar and wind projects may now be out of reach for the trunld utity. joining mess join us is, and severin bores in, and loretto lynch, a former president of the california public utility commission, the state agent tasked with regulating.lc e to you all. lisa, let 'begin with you. is a bankruptcy filing

inevitable, or could a plan prevent that? >> we could see l a planke that. the state could step in, or the administration or also pg & e could decide not to filed,shich seunlikely. we've also seen shareholder activity in the lastweek. one hedge fund wrote a protest letter, says t bankruptcy is unnecessary. >> loretta, how unlikely is the scenario? pg and e says it has no choice but to do th becau a wildfire liabilities and other liabilities from climate change, wft do you make the company's statement? >> it's absolutely pg & e's strategic choice to perhaps file for bankruptcy in order to leverage the state, the policymakers and get as much mey ashey can out of the ratepayers' pockets. this doesn't need topp . >> why do you say that?

>> epg & has plenty of money. they're talking about things that haven'tbeen assessed yet, and there's plenty of money to keep the lights on. this is a strategic corporate choice by a corporation that han proit is out of control. >> what is the role of the california public utilities he commission . you used to be the president. is it possibly to blame, because it is the agency responsible for overseeing the agency? >> absolutely they're partly to blame. the puc has been way too cozy and let corporations get away with way too much. mostly the puc has failed in the central job, which i to keep the system safe, to protect the ratepayers, victims and users. >> what do you think they should donow, given the plan that pg and e has declared? >> the puc is an integral part

of the reorganization. they cannot emerge from the bankruptcy, unless the puc approves of thedeal. that's why it's so critical the puc is aligned with the new administration. >> professor, there are some environmental implis here as well. california has ambitious plans to transfer to 33 renewable energy sources by 2020. pg & e is t larger investor in infrastructure for energy efficiency, for electric vehicles. how will this plan to declare bankruptcy affectall of that? >> i think regardless of whether they declare bankruptcy,pg & e will be very distracted over the next few years with the lawsuits and dealing with fires. so this is going to be a major distraction. ipe talked tle in the company who are working on those environmental initiatives. d that that'sfir just not where the focus is right now. exey're worried about what to do

in the week over the financial issues. this is going to be a much more complex bankruptcy than we saw ring the california electricity crisis. >> back in 2001. >> back in 2001. now we're faced with a lot of choices on how to movear fo from here that really weren't up discussed them. about was talkin converting the utility to publicly owned or breaking it up into smaller now we are talking about those, and i think that would be a central pa of the discussion through this bankruptcy. >> can you give us a snapshot of the potential ripple effect to other clean energy sources that do business with pg and e? how big a market is that and how could this bankruptcy affect those providers? >> we're nearly at 33% renewabl, ener headed to 50% by 2030. there are a lot of providers th havelong-term contract

with pg & e. that's a play a bankruptcy judge would try to harvest money from. so this will have a ripple effect throughout the renewable community. if they have to tray,fer mon a bankruptcy judge is looking to harvestoney for a certain set of creditors. that's their primary goal. that's not how r the companyns or the regulator is run, so really it anges th focus away from these state goals and more mpwards s moving money around. >> i would like to respectfully disagree with my good friend severen. i see several parallels. both of them are corporate strategic choices, to be able to leverage state policymakers and get every single penny they possibly can from the ratepayer. senator johnto b the head of

the senate then argued we need add dollar for a hot dog. if we were going to pay a dallas we should get a hot dog. that wasn't accepted by the davis administration then. i certainly hope the new administration seriously considers all options.ly frat's time to get the private profit tiering pg e corporate executives out of the picture and spend those profits on the victims. er i think one of the things that's also dit than in 2001 is pg &e is a convicted felon. >> from the san bruno explosion. >> they're under a court order to not commit any more crimes. there will be a hearing in two weeks to see whether some fires, what's going on there? he's already issued anrder ordering pg & e to look at their electrical lines andhe see wh they are safe right now.

>> lisa really ors an int point. this is an order to show cause. what it does is key d critical. right now the probation conditions of the convicted flob, pg & e corporation, only addressed the gas system. the judge saying for the first time he's going to d obation conditions that addressctthe ecal system, the transmission lines. how they respond and whether they agrh orher they fight, will be a critical piece of information we should all assess in terms of their willingness to step up, take responsibility and do the right thing, or their continued rogue actions as a corporation tt denies responsibility at every turn. >> where do you see all of this going, acright? in 2001, that bankruptcy deal resulted in a bailout pack package where ratepayers were

saddle with a higher rate. do you think they'll be otected at this me? >> no, first of all theresn't enough money to cover all of that liability. some of this will get get pushed off somewhere. it could be paid by the government. it could be foisted on the people who boar the losses. i think theasiest thing political is to push it off on ratepayers. think it's very unlikely that ratepayers will come through it unscathed. shareholders will certainly lose a o lmoney, probably all of their money and we'll have there larger debate, regardless of t actions of pg and e. what is the right way of organize are our electrical system, given thencreasing wildfire risks? >> what are the challenges with a publicly owned utility? >> it's time.r time the state to seriously take a look at the mechanisms cessary to take it over.

we need the profit out of the system. it's not a radical idea. every state in the union has public utilities even california has 22, the biggest of which are sacramento. they're not perfect -- >> i'm not sure i would agree. i think there's very good publii ties, but also good investor-owned utilities. i doh agree w loretta we should be alternative, particularly in light of the much greater regulation that would be required on the side, considered the risk, this used to be a industry widows and orphans revested in, because the investments w so reliable. that's not the case anymore. i think we have to consider alternative forms of utilities. >> how much risk do you think there is of other utilities and businesses across the country

facing this kind of stress because of climate change? >> ithink it differ regionally. california, clearly the drought and forest fire issue, is the major issue. in other areas it's hurricanes. it's floods, coastal all of these will be a threat. one difference will wile fires is that the wildfire may start because aactility on, unlike a hurricane, and therefore there's this qution of how much of that they are then responsible for. toxtthet they are held responsible for the entire damage of it, that is more than the value of the firm. whereas when we've seen problems with the hurricanes and utilities, they were for the fall joy. >> going impact to your earlier point, where you're not sure if it's better to have to have a public utilities, ninvestor- is a common model, but why don't

they have the same problems that pg & e has? >> i think there's a lot of questions about infrastructure and maintenance. ther's no question that pg & e does have more lines in rural areas ofalifornia that can be heart to get to and are more fire-prone. there are more people living in those areas. whether there is a fire, t fires are more deadly. we've seen that in the north bay and during the camp fire. hour, pg & e, they are convicted felons, and they've had issue throughout the year. i think that climate change is t certainly a pf this, but whether pg & e is maintaining their lines, that's part of the equation. >> i really disagree we should let pg & ff the hook because of claim change. if that were two, our other utilities would have similar problems with the urban/rural

interface. the onlywiutilities the catastrophes and only utility that's choosin to declare bankruptcy is pg & e. there are some good utilities that maintain their systems and protectcustomers. pg & e has lost the truth of california. we will leave it there. lisa, la ver, and severenthank you al that will do it for us. as always you can find more oft our coverage thank you for joining us. i'm thuy vu. ♪

robert: the white house denies a report that the prgsident his lawyer to lie. but russia-related questio pilep. i'm robert costa. welcome to "washington week." on >> this is "washineek." funding is provided by -- i was able to turn the aircraft around and the mission around and was able to save two men's lives that night. >> my first job helped me to grow up pretty quickly. >> in 2001 iigd up for the air force. two days later, 911 happened -- 9/11 happened.