that is a federal power, it needs to be a federal power, made a federal power by the constitution itself for a city to say no, we want to exercise that power and erode federal authority in this area is wrong. we've added to this mess by setting up all kinds of federal programs that provide all kinds of federal funding for state and local law enforcement for the operations of state and local governments generally, making them in many ways dependent what i heard you refer to as crony federalism, where states and localities come to the federal government on bended knee though they themselves are sovereigns within our system of government. and so what many people have said is that if a state or local government wants to try to undermine the enforcement of federal laws concerning immigration, then perhaps they shouldn't receive federal funds. it seems like a pretty reasonable solution to this, and yet some people freak out about it. but we have to remember that this will have about immigration, and immigration itself is a federal issue not decide based on the patchwork quilt of state and loca

>> federal dollars going to any program -- >> what is your interpretation of federal law? >> i think i've made this clear. >> then just say yes or no. >> federal dollars going anywhere for education, federal laws are adhered to. >> so you would not be able to send federal dollars to a private school that did not adhere to civil rights laws -- >> federal law -- >> is that a yes or no, just say yes or no. yes or no? >> federal law must be followed when federal money is involved. >> is there some problem, yes or no, will you guarantee -- >> i think i've been clear. >> then say yes or no. >> yes. pedro: that was massachusetts democrat catherine clark. give context of that back and forth. caitlin: that is not the first time they've had a conversation like that during a hearing on capitol hill. representative clark also sort of grilled her over the issue during a previous hearing and secretary devos is in a hard place on this one. yes, private schools do not have to abide by certainly protections federal schools do. funneling of federal funds to private schools puts secretary de

devos: federal student aid is a federal program with federal oversight. rep. delauro: you have issues. you have issued a declaration to preempt state regulations on companies that collect student loans. this is your department. did you do it? sec. devos: do not layer another layer of bureaucracy -- >> who was a part of that decision? borrowers? sec. devos: we have decided to exert? we? who doo: who is you believe this service? the borrowers or the servicers? sec. devos: we are supporting students and are committed to protecting students through the oversight that is -- rep. delauro: madam secretary, people can be people who have a stake in this interest have said no, don't do it. byy are not going to live what i believe you have said is, you made the decision as the secretary. i yield. >> thank you very much. the roleng supported of programs meant to support first-generation college students. i believe far too many students are unprepared for a college course work, relationships with faculty, simply at an thedvantage navigating environment, because they are th

and with that federal update portion and we are glad to be here with you. so a few topics we will cover today the budget appropriations are a little more complicated this year talking about two fiscal years at once instead of the one every year with that federal education legislation and then before moving on to a discussion mount oversight there is some discussion of that already with that capacity at the federal level to conduct oversight before talking about critical topics that don't fit neatly into these categories. but before jumping into the substance of my presentation i want to describe the political context here in washington d.c. will that image of what we are dealing with here with that political environment. so if it is when wet one -- windswept but generally a stormy environment with discord broadly over the political arena and washington d.c. and that is very evident between republicans and democrats and between congress and the white house. some vaguely familiar areas with discord but at this time we see even more heightened discord and tens

tension between the white house and federal agencies and federal law enforcement. tension between white house and the press and the press and the white house. tension between white house and the courts. if you believe the press, tension within the white house. and this is all sort of very elevated, tons of focus, tons of anger and discord that plays out on a daily basis. and it is not really particularly coming in waves. it is nonstop 100 miles an hour sort of tension and discord. and education policy, federal education policy traditionally has been somewhat immune from political discord and partisanship. it has been an island of bipartisan policy making focused upon the needs of the country and the needs of students. and that is starting to feel like it is beginning to change. in 2015 when we had 85 senators support the bipartisan every student succeeds act, president obama signed it in december 2015, called it a christmas miracle. chairman alexander and ranking member murray singing each other's praises, that was just a little over two years ago, yet it starts to

it would also ask federal agencies to return more federal land to gov guam more quickly. the federal government must finally live up to its commitment to guam and other affected u.s. jurisdictions with compact migrant residents. i continue working to secure full federal reimbursements for gov guam's costs in providing local services to compact migrants. indeed, i have sponsored the ompact impact relief act, h.r. 4761, this year. i have also championed legislation to reimburse gov guam for compact impact at the mandatory $180 million annual level, recommended by the government accountability office. transfers of valuable surplus federal property under my guam land return act provides yet another way to increase federal reimbursement to gov guam for compact impact expenses, and these transfers of surplus property would occur at no cost to the federal government or the taxpayers. a island of guam holds substantial -- hosts a substantial military presence and is an important military base in the asia pacific region. in 2011, the u.s. military made a commitment to the people o

three, federal local partnership. cities across the country are investing billions in there own resources and need a federal steady partner to exit in national programs and make significant investments for the benefit of the economy. having a reliable source of funding will allow local communities to properly plan and build for the future. fourth, expand revenue tools. cities should be given more flexibility to raise revenues and use innovative financing techniques while protectingly existing tools. we stand ready to work with you to identify new opportunities. and fifth, to rebuild and reimagine. we are investing in inner modal, sustainable and interconnected places people want to live, learning with work, and play in. congress should invest in cities' visions to rebuild and reimagine america's infrastructure ultimately boosting economies across the country. we believe these principles form the bases is for the next infrastructure investment. every day we wait our infrastructure gap band grows. a radio in detroit rec

on tuesday, issues by the federal government from the federal school discipline directives. then talking about defense strategy in the future of the military. later, when is this like covering the trunk administration with journalists from the washington post and cnn. anton c-span2, at 4:00 p.m. the u.s. banking deregulation meets.ee on c-span3, our national security form that looks at the future of warfare. >> monday on c-span's "landmark a san we look at francisco city ordinance case where the city discriminated against a chinese laundromat owner. the case was found in favor of the laundromat owner and found alsothe 14th amendment applies to foreign immigrants. two professors will discuss. landmark cases" live monday on c-span, c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. for background, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book from and forrg\landmarkcases additional resources, there is a link to the national constitution center's interactive constitution. withnight, q&a is next former u.s. border patrol agent francisco cantu discusses his memoir "the

yet, a federal judge in san francisco and a federal judge in new york both felt they had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction granting relief to others who are not parties to the case. then, last week, a federal judge in maryland held that the daca rescission was lawful. the plaintiffs in in the maryland case lost but by the rulings of the san francisco and new york judges, they got their relief anyway. fourth, limitless injunctions circumvent the class certification process required by rule 23 of the federal rules of procedure. that is because they provide the benefits of class certification without the procedural protections of class certification. fifth, limited injunction create an absurd situation in which a plaintiff only needs to win once. to stop a national law from taking effect or national policy. but, the government needs to win every time to carry out its policy. that makes governing all but impossible. you could lose five straight cases that seek to enjoin the government from executing a certain policy and then the fifth judge rules that the injunction is enforce

so that the federal law can be executed. they release criminal aliens onto the street, leaving ice to hunt them down. it is unacceptable. these are huge matters. the federal and state law enforcement relationship can never be the same when this continues to place our officers at risk and their own citizens at risk. we are not going to sweep it under the rug. homelandand tom and federal law and supreme law of the land, it has been made clear by the supreme court that the federal government has immigration responsibilities. we're going to do our part. if the states and counties are going to be partners with us, they need to participate us desperate dissipate with us. we are to change the mentality of these sanctuary jurisdictions. for thisk you roundtable. i think every city should be a sanctuary for law-abiding citizens so they can live and travel there and know they will not be subjected to violence and death at the hands of criminal aliens. where was the sanctuary for the mendoza family? wherethinks for the peace officers a

it is not exclusively a federal matter. the federal government took a different route. the states have april just -- the states have a robust presence. >> stephen is next. there is an increasing amount of concern today that the polarized in terms of the powers of the government, but the executive can do versus congress first the court role. it sounds like from your discussion that the country was fairly well polarized back then. i wondered if you would agree so, whetherd if what we are experiencing today is really as much of a concern as we all seem to think it is? >> thank you for the question. >> politics in the early nation as they are vicious now. the personal attacks on john jefferson during the 1790's were at least as robust as anything we have today. i think the variation we have today is the extent to which we can get agreement. but the splintering and perspectives, if you go into the debates about constitution and the first bank of the u.s. in 1791, it is pretty robust. it's pretty pointed. it is splintered. >> addictions of the apocalypse are just about as con

the federal government is not forcing local governments to do something on its behalf. what they are seeking is, and what the federal law requires is that state and local governments cannot prohibit police officers or local government officials or in the case of california, private employers from cooperating with the feds in a lawful manner. and so that's really key to this. the government is also saying that california cannot substitute its judgment or implement an immigration policy that's different than the federal government has and that very importantly here, they cannot single out immigration authorities for non-cooperation policies when they wouldn't dream of interfering with the u.s. marshals or another state government, or the fbi or d.e.a. they are really singling out immigration authorities for non-cooperation because they disagree with the federal government's enforcement of this law which of course, is very important to many americans. it's not an obsolete law that doesn't deserve to be enforced. it protects job opportunities and public safety and so on. so

they have a federal policy in place but where here, they haven't enacted a federal policy but are simply trying to effectuate federal policy through the states, that's commandeering. i think both of those lines are, again, sort of will define commandeering in a way that could be very important in sports wagering but also a lot of other different fields. the third issue which i'm not going to spend a lot of time on, is the severability question. and as i mentioned, there's only one provision of paspa at issue here and only really two words with that one provision. and so the sports leagues in the united states argued that even if the statute applies, and even if the court finds those unconstitutional, those two words, or that particular provision the whole statute does not have to go and that, too, is an important thing to look for when the opinion comes out because there are a couple of gentlemen here today that will talk about what you might do if the court strikes down paspa. i think you'll want to be very careful about parsing that opinion and figuring out how much of paspa is left, i

federal agency, one federal cabinet. kind of being first among equals to take the lead in some of these permitting difficulties issues. we're in the process of signing an mou with the various dent departments. and we hope to have that pretty soon. but the president's been pretty aggressive in mandating he wants the permitting process to be shortened. again, the permitting process is not the nepa process necessarily. we don't want to compromise the environment at all. but how do we have a more common sense call approach to streamlining the permitting process so that redundant, duplicitous processes are somehow resolved? >> well, thank you. my time is short here. but let me just say how excited i am about having a large infrastructure project, that could not only solve california's water crisis, but really expand our ports, expand our highways, really expand goods movement as we create more jobs. we will continue to partner with you to find new revenues. obviously we'd like to see our numbers as high as we can. but also wa

the federal budget and federal tax reform impact and then policy changes in public health and human services agency, and we'll also speak about related state funding issues. we're kind of rolling some of those state issues, as well, into is this topic. so you're probably reading right now that the house just passed a spending bill for the current federal fiscal year, which ends on september 30th. in february, they approved sort of a larger two-year budget package with listed spending caps overall. and there's various provisions in that february legislation which allocate funding for different programs, which will go to states at varying levels, notably for fire relief in california. also, to extend authorization for children's health insurance program funding, which dph folks will talk about in a moment. tomorrow at midnight is the deadline to pass the budget for the current federal fiscal year. should it not pass, we would have another federal government shutdown potentially. so the goal is to avoid that. but what they are doing right now is allocating spending for a variety of programs. so

is a federal law and where federal funds are involved in states, if they are, the federal government has a role. the report and the situation to which you referred are really matters of states. i agree with you -- >> wait, wait, wait. >> i agree with you that parents should have information and should have the fullest amount of information when making a decision for their child with a disability. but it is a state matter and a state issue. >> even though we're providing federal funding? >> we're not in those cases providing federal funding. >> to those institutions, schools that are not providing the services is what you're saying? well, i think there's -- >> i.d.e.a. funding is a federal program and a federal matter. >> correct. but then if it's a federal program with federal funding, then i don't understand how you don't have a role in providing information so that parents -- >> the programs to which you're referring are state programs. they do not receive federal funding. >> i.d.e.a. doesn't get federal funding? >> the schools -- >> maybe we're misunderstanding each other. >> perh

increase federal investments. during my time i worked with governor baker to develop the first recommendations on the epidemic which noted the need for additional resources. the bipartisan consensus highlights how serious this epidemic is. i've made the point and we have to make it again. we need to make sure were making robust, sustained investments. investments to support those on the front lines and investments on treatment and recovery. to that end, what would funding me for your efforts on the ground? >> in terms of resources it would be key for making sure that we have affordable, generic overdose drugs available to all first responders. that's an issue for us. have an additional resources would be key. . . >> we indicted a hundred people. we have also increased the dollars of funding and the number of treatment that's an option for prisoners. getting them the help they need makes a big difference. we have 8507 beds. judges consent people to a treatment bed rather than jail. they're supposed to be for the no

yet a federal judge in san francisco and the federal judges in new york, they both felt they had the authority to issue the nationwide injunction, lending a relief to others who are not parties to the case. then last week a federal judge in maryland held the daca decision that was lost. so the plaintiffs in the case lost, but by the rulings of san francisco and new york, they got their relief any way. fourth, limitless injunctions circumstance vent the certification process required by statute of the federal rules and the civil procedure. this is a class action, these injunctions. that's because they forgot the benefits without the procedural protection of the service protection. fifth, the limited injunctions will create a third situation in which a plaintiff only needs to win once. to stop a natural law from taking affect on national policies. but they need to win every time to carry it out. and you could lose five straight cases of what they did that will speak to the government from executing the certain policy. and then the fifth judge will move. that the injunction is in fourth

agencies and federal law enforcement. tension between white house and the press and the press and the white house and tension within the white house and the courts, and elevated, tons of focus, tons of anger and discord that plays out on a daily basis, and it's not really particularly coming in waves, you know, it's nonstop, 100 miles per hour, sort of tepgs and discord, and, you know, education policy, federal education policy, traditionally, has been, you know, somewhat immune from political discord in parts. it's traditionally been an island of bipartisan, you know, policymaking focused upon the needs of the country and the needs of students. that's, you know, starting to feel like it's beginning to change. you know, in 2015 when we had, you know, 85 senators support the bipartisan every student succeeds act, president obama signs it december 20 is15 callip a christmas miracle, and singing each others' praises. that was two years ago, and yet it feels like a long time ago sort of given where we are now. so, you know, w

the biggest state saying we're going to act to undermine basic federal law. do you worry that the country won't hang together? >> i don't think so. i think this is an extreme act. when i was in california, i heard countless people tell me they were embarrassed and outraged about what was going on. i think these people have just been able to get away with it not been challenged. not been challenged intellectually as to the meaning of what they're doing. how radical it is. how unacceptable it is. how it places the lives of american police officers and ice officers at greater risk as well as our communities at greater risk because we keep criminals in the country that are due to be deported. >> tucker: do you see how if you are looking on as an observer of this it does feel like the federal government is toothless in the face of this challenge. elected officials stand up give the finger to authorities, to law enforcement with impunity. it does seem like they, the mayor of oakland has more power than the feds. >> well, tucker, we are going to use every lawful too

agents are federal law enforcement officers carrying out federal law.d them or obstruct them in doing their jobs. just imagine if a state passed a law forbidding employees from cooperating with osha in ensuring workplace safety or the environmental protection agency for looking after polluters. would you pass a law to do that? and just think about the situation that it puts california employers in. they want to help law enforcement, they want to do their civic duty. we ought to be encouraging them and thankful to them, but your state attorney general repeatedly promised to prosecute these business owners. let me quote what he said more than once, ignorance of the law is no excuse if you violate eight, you are subjecting yourself to up to $10,000 in fines for violation. so this is a great state, i do not want to be in this position of having to challenge these laws. it was not something that i chose to do. i cannot sit by idly while the lawful authority of officers is being blocked by a legislative act and politicians. california has also claimed that th

that states cannot do these but there is no federal criminalization or federal policy on the books. another commandeering divide is to say it can only preempt if they have a federal policy ince place but they haven't enacted a federal policy but they will effectuate through the states that is commandeering. so both of those lines are answers will define commandeering in a way that will beer very important with sports wagering and different fields. the third issue i will not spend a lot of time on is the questions there is one provision so it is argued at some length even if the statute applies or the court finds those two parts unconstitutional for that provision, the whole statute does not have to go. and that is also an important thing to look for when the opinion comes out because a couple gentlemen will talk about what you might do if the cart one -- court strikes it down but you want to be careful how much is left in anything. it is always dangerous to make predictions and then we will get made fun of later when we get it wrong but i will make the prediction was that an oral ar

we are greatful for the strong partnership with the federal, with our federal partners thus far but we also recognize that recovery of this size will require the continued commitment of resources from our federal partners for months to come. thank you. >> thank you so much. let me just say i think the governor made us all in texas proud and strong. so thanks for your testimony. chair recognizes mr. mull to for his testimony. >> thank you, sir. good afternoon. hurricane irma made landfall as category 4, first major hurricane to impact florida since wilma in 2005. this required the emergency response team for dozens of impact scenarios, resulting one of the largest of florida's storm response in history. record breaking evacuations, shelter responses mission requests quite possibly the largest power restoration in american history. the is success of our state's response would not be possible without the steadfast support of mutual aid and emac partners. in the end 38 states and district of columbia aided our efforts through dedicated teams or through resources shipped. the military's con

the federal government share is only 16%. so overall, infrastructure is traditionally actually funded by the states. it's only the interstate that is -- that the federal portion comes in. senator markey: which is the essence of this -- secretary chao: no, the infrastructure is everything, actually. the infrastructure proposal is whatever local community wants. they decide and they make a targeted appeal to this competitive process. and the more creative and innovative they can be in financing, meaning if they can get more private sector involved and other parties, they'll be in a better position to win more federal -- the federal grants. >> thank you, senator markey. i appreciate your questions. senator bozeman. senator bozeman: thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate your hard work. we also appreciate the fact that you're honoring your commitment to make yourselves available periodically. it's very, very helpful. secretary chao, i'd like to ask you a question. it really doesn't have -- it's not under your purview in the sense

federal policy in place but enactedre, they haven't a federal policy but are simply effectuate federal policy through the states, that's commandeering. are,nk both of those lines definesort of -- will commandeering in a way that could be very important in sports wagering but also a lot other different fields. third issue which i'm not going to spend a lot of time on, severability question. and as i mentioned, there's only issueovision of paspa at here and only really two words with that one provision. so the sports -- in the states argued at some threapth even if the statute the courtd each if finds those two ports of -- unconstitutional, that provision, the whole statute does not have to go and that, too, is an important thing the opinionwhen comes out because there are a couple of gentlemen here today that will talk about what you do if the court strikes down paspa. i think you'll want to be very careful about parsing that figuring out how much of paspa is left, if anything. it's always dangerous to make predictions about how the court's going to come out. when i clerked for justice

this is the primary vehicle at the federal level. it has a bunch of different programs that affect higher education. mostly interested in the teacher preparation provisions within those, it governs data collection requirements for teacher preparation programs, also the loan and grant programs to assist teachers and to provide compensation to under compensated teachers, and the house committee has advanced a bill called the prosper act, it happened last year, it is at this point a republican bill, a partisan bill, it would move through committee with only partisan support and it is a lean bill. the intent is to reflect the intent of the committee to go smaller and have a smaller federal footprint in higher education. it also does limit a lot of important student loans, student grant programs such that it is unlikely to get the kind of bipartisan support it would need to be a vehicle in the senate. the senate has its own process underway. they have accepted recommendations from different stakeholders. as we get further along in an elec

have a central federal currency. the federal government has the power to do a number of things with regard to financial affairs the infrastructure, for the postal roads, to raise taxes to spend for the general welfare. part of what marshall does is give you a list of these other powers that congress expressly has and draws the connection that the necessary and proper clause means has the ability to give effect to those, many of which are related to managing the financial affairs of the nation. host: this twitter question. bitter taste test interstate regulated by the federal government with banking because congress does not bank itself. guest: i may draw a question out of it. one question that could be raised is, is a bank, which is not actually part of the federal government, is that an exercise of the interstate commerce clause? the answer for the history of the question has been yes. the answer for the history of one of the key issues of the decision and one of the arguments that maryland raised is this is not a g

there is never any federal commitment. it was a verbal sentence given at a political rally, no commitment. >> but the downgrading is. >> it's always been this way. >> that contradicts your website. >> that says the proceeds of the secured loan will be used for any nonfederal share of project costs cold under total 23. that's what the website says. >> that i need to look at it. >> we should have a fair standard to sort across every area of our country if you shift that's what you presented to the senator. just to champion the great work you're doing it has been amazing and consistent with it everybody, gateway project has finalized the environmental impact statement is an incredible achievement and coming half of a typical. everything then scheduled to achieve something we can brag about. can we make sure we get that done by march 31. >> i know whether i can promise that. >> i respect my colleague and early. >> thank you mr. german secretary challenging's it's nice to see both of you again. i see a lot of philosophical simi

and as you heard from our federal oversight today, federal policy changes do create an uncertainty for us, and if you think about medi-cal being 30% and any reduction in that area, we'll have a significant impact on our future of health care in san francisco. developing our people means developing our employees. we have implemented trauma informed systems of care to promote organizational change through understanding the effects of stress and trauma on individuals and families and communities. and we are very proud of a regional approach that we've been doing this with. some of our staff are involved in training not only our staff but staff from many of the contiguous counties, and i think we've trained altogether 10,000 individuals throughout this area. we embarked on the last kefsevl years on trainings and engagements in cultural humility, and supports diversity. i do want to say that we have one of the most diverse workforce in the city, and part of that is really insuring that the people of color in our system and our employees really do get respected and also the fact that other p

update outmoded existing federal standards. so currently there's a body of federal regulations. they are called federal motor vehicle safety standards. we use a lot of acronyms in the federal government, as i'm sure you do in state -- [laughter] >> really? cheri: it's taken me about 10 years to learn all of them. and so there's all of these standards which are meant to govern the safety of a vehicle, were written really without thinking about self-driving vehicles. and so, you know, in the interim we are setting up a safety evaluation process where manufacturers will self-certify that they meet certain safety criteria. and we also want these standards updated and new standards set that govern kind of the safety of these vehicles. and kind of most interest to you all, we also wanted to tackle reinforcing separate federal and state rules. and so over the past year we worked very closely with the states and cities. we may have worked too closely, too many meetings, but spent as many meetings as it took to craft, you know, the preemption section in our legislation. you know, we're r

as a result of this federal funding. the consequence was that college became commonplace for white voice with significant family incomes. less so for girls and blacks. the 71% of the top quartile of family income boys had degrees while 10% of the bomb quartile did. shot goinguch better to college if you were affluent. there was no federal financial aid. the enrollment was absolutely extraordinary. that is the first. changes in university. second issue is the servicemen's readjustment act, the g.i. bill. those of us interested in the history of college, we think of the g.i. bill as a bill to pay the tuition for veterans going to college. but when it was passed, that was not the idea. was that you had come up halloween for depression in the 1930's, in or miss unemployment in the united states. particularly for men. now, you are going to get all of these veterans being dumped into the job market in the united's takes and there was enormous right that unemployment would return. what do you do if you have a bunch of young men

>> on the one side, the 10th amement, you cannot be forced to enforce federal law. and on the other end we can't, the state of california, can't obstruct the lawful implementation of federal law. there's ways the federal government can ask for nd cooperation a entice cooperation through grants. for the california legislation, have they gone over the line and gone to the obstruction side of things? >> and let's talk about political risks and rewards. there were a few minutes that went by after sessions spoke inboxweek that i got in my a fundraising pitch and donald trump sent out a pitch as well. how does it affect both in the individuals named? >> the newsome pitch was great. he bragged about being called an emrrassment. he said if jeff sessions the not like me, then i'm dng right, donate here, most important. the professor will tell us, the legal case could take years to figure out a go through the court system. but the political impact could be fel in the mid term elections. so and the affect of this will contribute to increasing fear in immigrant communities who

you're right, no state is obligated to enforce federal laws, the federal government has all kinds ofnforcement agencies, but what states can't do and this is been law for almost 200 years, is obstruct federal law. they can't do that. when the mayor of oakland warns people who are breaking federal law so that they might evade federal law enforcement, that is obstructing federal law, do you see the difference? >> i understand why mayor schaaf did what she did. she didn't put out any information that would have endangered m anybody. that's playing into fear. they went on with their rate, people were arrested, that happened. i think what's really happening in these communities that we have be concerned about and that is that the federal government, the federal immigration law is so broken, we have people who have been here for decades, decades that have families that are u.s. citizens that have been torn away from their homes and sent back to countries they just don't know. because the system is broken. >> tucker: a lot of people disagree with the law. it's almost irrelevant for us to ar