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 element

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

host: how many federal employees are furloughed today? guest: the administration is taking a new approach to this. agencyng to the guidelines on who would be furloughed, there was about 850,000 or so. found fundss have to stay open longer like the epa , the energy department, they are staying open at least for the first few days of the shut down based on leftover funds not are putting toward implementing the shut down immediately. host: do some agencies create a rainy day fund? guest: sort of but it's breakup located. -- but it's pretty located. agencies of not done before to this extent. toldbama administration the agencies to use their on obligated funds as they could but we are seeing more maneuvering between accounts and things like that to stay open. when congress appropriate's funds, sometimes the -- those don't have a time limit. if there is left over balances there, they can take that and use it to stay open. the epa and some of the other agencies i mentioned have decided they have enough to do that for a few days or weeks. became

that's the federal statute. it says states, you can't regulate them and we don't regulate their prices. free market does. okay, here, they say imagine -- they say we're not going to regulate sports gambling at all. we're not going to forbid it, and we don't want you -- you know, we want you to forbid it, you see the analogy. >> i do see the analogy. the case to which you're referring, it discusses in great detail the federal regulatory scheme, which included as a portion of the federal regulatory scheme a preemption of the states from regulating fares, conditions of service, and that sort of thing. but justice breyer, that is an area, a quintessential example of the federal government taking responsibility for how airlines flew in this country, and deciding in certain areas, yes, it could be preempted. >> what does that mean? what would you be looking for when you say that the federal government took responsibility? i mean, suppose that the federal government had just said, we don't want states to regulate. we d

the federal government doesn't put much into that. so the federal government, though, does have an opportunity to place some conditions on the way states spend the money and can certainly, more importantly, provide some incentive for moving into the next generation. host: we heard our last guest talk about the federal government when it offers money it largely gives it to the states, some oversight involved. is more oversight needed when federal money is granted? guest: i'm not advocating for more oversight but certainly more priorities setting when it comes to the federal spending. and i'm speaking specifically not about the projects that are largely within an individual state supporter but i'm thinking more about the regional, national scale projects that really would have an impact on economic growth. that's where the federal government should really be stepping up and making some judgments about where the investments should go. host: for instance? guest: most countries view their urban transit systems of natural aspect, that would

example of good micromanaging at the federal level going wrong.t is just not good for the federal government to try to run education policy with the diverse country we have a member and i would sometimes ask, why are we doing this? and then say because washington said for us to do it. it made no sense and yet, our administrators would try their best to do what they were told to do. education is best left to the states and localities. people in states and localities know how to provide good education and the history of our country shows that. host: we turn it over to michael for first questions. month, yourt committee passed the prosper at, the reauthorization of the higher education act, a competence of rewrite of the law in nearly a decade. before we dive into the substance of it, can you talk about the process, when should we see it on the house for -- house floor, and do we see commitment from leadership on when we would vote on it? rep. foxx: i believe it is the first reform for secondary education since the federal government got involved pyr

he is in favor of streamlining federal loan programs and federal grant programs, and simplifying the form. has a shtick where he waits around the fafsa. we are treating the bill as a republican wish list of ideas that senator alexander will have to work with the top democrat on his committee, patty murray, to write a bill that could attract democratic votes. it will ultimately need 60 votes to pass the senate. susan: the other component is the trump administration. are there signals about what they will support? michael: the white house quietly released a one pager on principles for authorizing the higher education act when house republicans released their bill last month. it is largely in line with what the house republicans are doing. education secretary betsy devos has not been particularly vocal on higher education issues. she is focused mostly on k-12 will education which is where her experience is. we have not heard very clearly from a trump administration since they have an office what they want to see in a higher education bill. candidate trump talks about relieving the burde

host: can you talk about federal unions, why would federal unions want to scare federal employees? political reasons. the union official for a long time. constantly, we put the fear out there. rather have a budget, face the fear, face what i'm now and not waste every time there is a furlough, life is going to be down the road. i've been through three furloughs, i know what i'm talking about. host: sal, thanks for the call this morning. two furloughs, two shutdowns so far this century, this, the first since 19 -- since 2013. 2013, last one was 1995, aplenty in 1997, most time, hort period of 81, most for 82, just a at a or two, not one in 1985, sorry about that. tweets this morning on what is happening on capitol hill in negotiations. from emocrats emerging bipartisan meeting and senator collins' office saying they will leaders moving back the noon vote to get a deal. firmer commitment for mcconnell to move on immigration, though. tweet from doug jones, the new senator from headed to moreat bipartisan talks this morning. to tor flake are working find common ground and end the shutdo

the growthe have cut of new federal regulations nearly in half. in 1981, there were 23,000 fewer pages in the federal register which lists new regulations than there were in 1980. [applause] by d regulating oil, we have come closer to achieving energy independence and help bring down the cost of gasoline and heating fuel. together, we have created an effective federal strikeforce to combat waste and fraud in government. in just six months, it saved taxpayers more than $2 billion and it is only getting started. together, we have begun to mobilize the private sector, not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs that to bring thousands of americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of america's social problems. together, we have begun to restore that margin of military safety that ensures peace. our country's uniform is being worn once again with pride. [applause] together we have made a new beginning, but we have only begun. no one pretends that the way ahead will be easy. in my inaugural address last year, i warned that th

part of the federal workforce.ther places, 16% of the workforce near naval air station in maryland. 50% of the workforce in towns near an air force base in georgia. 13% near a naval base in washington. and ever elsewhere easy large dots, large percentages of federal workers, federal offices will be and remain closed as long as the shutdown lasts, except for essential personnel. we have the line for federal workers. (202) 748-8003. lines for democrats, republicans, an independents otherwise. jean, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe, basically, the republicans are to blame. i think we are missing the point. they have been in office over a year now. where is the budget? why have they not been able to put the budget together? i think that this is all a smokescreen to do track -- de tract us from that point. they kind of pull at your heartstrings with the kids and people get all involved in that, instead of saying -- you have been in power. you have the power to pass a budget. and you are not doing it. do you

immigration agents any more than federal gaming agents or federal tax agents or federal anything agents. they have a job to do in keeping our city safe. our law was passed. the governor signed the law with a facebook live session late one sunday, and then on monday morning there was a preemptive lawsuit filed against austin in federal district court. the law as signed did not go into effect for another two months, so it was really hard to make the claim that we were violating a law that was not enforced, but it was a preventive strategy. austin responded to that lawsuit by pointing out that we could not be violating something that was not in effect. then, we joined other cities in federal court action that we brought as you can, challenging a law which under the state is unconstitutional in a san antonio federal court. we challenged that because it required cities to do things that we believe violated constitutional guarantees. we challenged that law because we believe that state action is federally preempted by a congressional balancing of what should and should not be required of loca

now the next step is to have him transferred to federal custody and tried in federal court. >> that wasthe question i wanted to ask, what's next in this case? so at this point is he released from jail? how long could that be? as soon as he's released, will federal agents take him into custody? >> theoretically, he could have turned around and walked out of the courtroom as soon as this was pronounced. he'll be processed through the jail but then we get into an interesting conundrum because, of course, san francisco is a sanctuary city. the sheriff who has him in custody is prohibited from even calling the federal officials and saying, hey, we're going to release him in a couple of hours, do you want to come pick him up. >> are you surprised by three years here in this decision? >> no, i expected that. three years and the obvious sentence, given that he's already done three years and given his background. the result of denying a new trial, i'm not surprised at all. it's very difficult to get a new trial because the judges are human, too, and in order to grant a new trial they have to ess

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 element

host: the last time you or the federal government in general, employees of the federal government had a pay raise, when was that? actually, we just received one beginning the january payday, but prior to who, i believe it was obama put the cost of living increase on hold. input,ppreciate your particularly on the furlough information. good luck. we will go to kayla and cut jacket, rhode island, democrat line. make iti just want to clear that i am a young democrat, currently in college, and i don't know if i agree with the shutdown, but i think on ifs some confusion it's republicans' fault or democrats' fault. i feel like there is a lot of the blame game going on and we really need to be focused on fixing the problem, not who to blame for the problem, but democrats are mainly focused on more domestic fin -- more domestic spending, not just daca, but more funding for the chip program, more funding for veterans assistance programs, and these real, issues that they want to negotiate on have, like, no gears on the republican side. nobody wants to listen, and i feel like that is why we are o

the jewish federation of san francisco, marin and sonoma counties. welcome. >> if we use our time with the folks earlier as a segue, can you talk about how the jewish community has commitment to development in our community and also in the state of israel. >> sure. i think, this is representative of our federation's overall mission and strategy for the way that we connect to israel and the way we invest in israel. with the overarching goal being to inspire and create a shared society. as you heard in the previous conversation, they are at the heart of the effort. bringing people together from across the israeli society from different communities and different religious backgrounds and heritages even. bringing them together for a shared experience, to understand themselves as jewish, israeli and part of this larger mosaic that makes up israeli society. >> the san francisco bay area is so diverse in general -- in the jewish community, we are jewish of color and lgbt. we are jewish from various backgrounds. many russian jewish people and other folks. an

immigration agents any more than federal gaming agents or federal tax agents or federal anything agents. they have a job to do in keeping our city safe. our law was passed. the governor signed the law with a facebook live session late one sunday, and then on monday morning there was a preemptive lawsuit filed against austin in federal district court. the law as signed did not go into effect for another two months, so it was really hard to make the claim that we were violating a law that was not enforced, but it was a preventive strategy. austin responded to that lawsuit by pointing out that we could not be violating something that was not in effect. then, we joined other cities in federal court action that we brought as you can, challenging a law which under the state is unconstitutional in a san antonio federal court. we challenged that because it required cities to do things that we believe violated constitutional guarantees. we challenged that law because we believe that state action is federally preempted by a congressional balancing of what should and should not be required of loca

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 tripa

on american history tv, journalist cokie roberts mod races s moderates a discussion on the first federal congress at the american historical association's annual meeting. the panel talks about the nation's founders including james madison and george washington who met from 1789 to 1791 to determine the structure of the new federal government and decide how it should function. this is an hour and a half, recorded at the american historical association annual meeting held this year in washington. >> hi, everybody. i'm cokie roberts and i am here in my history hat as a writer of history and a student of current history, but it is a thrill to have this panel on the first federal congress because it is such an incredibly important subject and one that these folks have mined assiduously for many, many years. the history project on the first federal congress is really one of the most remarkable institutions and outputs that i have ever seen. among other things, it's complete which, you know, doesn't happen that often. i mean, the founding fathers' papers will be, you know, being published when

the federal government currently has a federal payroll tax system. we are creating additional charitable organizations so that contributions to those charitable organizations would be tax-deductible. we are also addressing the wall street giveaway called the carried interest loophole, which is another device to give away revenue to people who don't need it. we are working with our legislative partners and local government partners. we are discussing this restructuring. you will hear more about it in our budget presentation. it is complicated. it is difficult. but, it is clear that we must protect new york taxpayers from this assault. it is clear -- [applause] gov. cuomo: -- and it is clear that we must not allow big corporations to enjoy a windfall at the expense of our middle class and working families. [applause] it is not going to be easy. it is going to be complicated. but, i believe working together, we will get it done because working together, we must get it done to represent in good faith the people of our great state , and i look forward to

one is to pass a new federal law. if you want to change the federal law.in the federal courts. but jeff sessions it said is right. one thing that you shouldn't do necessarily as great a memoranda as president telling your federal prosecutors to ignore federal law. there is prosecutorial discretion. reinstating right now, gives them the opportunity to prosecute some cases and take it on a case-by-case basis. >> i think they are hating what they did, that is exactly right. giving people prosecutorial discretion. not like he is going after states that permit marijuana. but there is a conflict between federal and state law, and it is up to congress to change that if they think it is time to change that. we saw the senator out there saying he is going to hold nominations in the justice department. by not introduce legislation and get people to vote for it to remove some of these federal laws and let it be a state-by-state basis? >> bret: chuck, we just saw, it was covered on new year's eve, a certain network, at a pot party, is there this sense that is being no

immigration agents anymore than federal tax agents orx federal or federal anything agents. they have a job to do in keeping our city safe. but our law was -- was passed. the -- the governor signed the law with a facebook live session late one sunday. and then on monday morning there was a pre-emptive lawsuit filed against austin in federal district court. of course, the u law has signed and didn't go into effect for another two months. so it was really hard to make claim that we were violatings a law thatla was not in force butt was kind of a pre-emptive strategy austin responded to that lawsuit by -- by pointing out that we couldn't be violating something that wasn't -- we had and then we joined other cities. in -- in federal court action that we brought as you can can challenging a lawou which on its base is unconstitutional in the stoinl federal court. we challenged it that and in part because it requires cities to do things that fundamentally violate a constitution guarantee and we challenge that because we believe state action is pre-empt ifer by a congressional balanc

by making the federal government the creditor of people throughout the nation, the federal debt wouldreate political sentiment in favor of the union as bondholders protected their vested interest in the health of the national government. debt pessimists, including many historians with anti-hamiltonian views, assumed and claimed that hamilton's bonds were owned by a small number of rich urban elite. i showed otherwise in "one nation under debt" by using bond registers to show tens of thousands of americans throughout the union owned federal bonds at some point. i devoted an entire chapter to bondholders in virginia, the home state of great debt pessimists like thomas jefferson. many federal bondholders in virginia owned plantations and slaves. others were professional doctors and lawyers, others were artisans and retailers. and some were women. abigail adams wasn't the only female trading government securities. some bondholders lived in nova. what would become the nation's capital. others lived south side. others in the blue ridge. others in the valley. and others along the james in ri

the federal government will still subsidize 95 million meals every day. that's one out of seven of all the meals served in america. head start, senior nutrition programs, and child welfare programs will not be cut from the levels we proposed last year. more than one-half billion dollars has been proposed for minority business assistance. and research at the national institute of health will be increased by over $100 million. while meeting all these needs, we intend to plug unwarranted tax loopholes and strengthen the law which requires all large corporations to pay a minimum tax. just as bold, just as innovative to make government accountable to the people. work again. our citizens feel they have lost control of the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government , such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection. and they're right. a maze of interlocking jurisdictions and levels of government confronts average citizens in trying to solve even the simplest of problems. they don't know where to turn for answers, who to hold

i have a stepson that was in federal prison and he hurt his knee and federal prison and did not get any medical attention to his knee. he is now disabled. he cannot work. he cannot go out of state to get a job or because of restrictions the government has put on it. of prison tot out get a nice job and go someplace when they are stuck in the state and cannot go any place else? it is ridiculous. as far as drugs are concerned, i agree that some drugs should be legalized. the majority of the problem we have with drugs is people, like drug dealers,, they are adding their thing to the drugs. there is the bigger problem. if you would legalize drugs, you could control them here do know what is in the drug. guest: the medical treatment is a challenge. i do not think we do the oversight, the medical treatment that we ought to. many of the states, it is a real problem. >> we have de facto legalization called prescriptions. drugs is not going to solve the problem. i cannot comment to the personal experience of the caller regard -- regarding his relatives. host: how does it work? guest: to the degr

he's calling for a federal investigation. so tim, she's been accused of rigging the presidential election, now her own election! >> well, let's be clear it was the broward county supervisor of elections and not debbie wasserman schultz who actually destroyed the ballots. we had our concerns about the accuracy of the vote count based on what a number of election integrity groups were saying us to. florida has a very good public records law. the first of three public records requests was over a year ago, we were stonewalled for six months. filed a suit to enforce our rights. while the lawsuit was pending they destroyed the ballots. that's in violation according to politico's interview, in violation of federal law and defiance of the court itself. you have to ask why would somebody be violating the law to destroy ballots? >> what made you think something was dodgy in the first place? >> well, the public opinion polls said one thing and were based on a limited sample size of 400 voters with land lines and not cell phones. our own

there used to be a line, don't make a federal case about it? there ought to be a federal law. we have seen the code expand exponentially. statutes since 1980. i'm a believer in the amendment. these are especially issues for police power and we have got a wide group of supporters from the right and the last -- the right and supporters. you have liberal and conservative reasons to support this. what is the liberal reason? guest: >> take a step back. it is a question about what you are doing. elected or yout try to reduce crime and save .oney reducing crime in saving money is something liberals and conservatives ought to agree on. if you have slogans and soundbites, many of which do not reduce crime but some of them , when you have the bill that reduces crime and saves money, it is something people ought to be able to agree on. states are way out in front of this pure the incarceration rate has exploded in the last 20 or 30 years. we have codified so many slogans and soundbites that states have figured out they cannot afford it. if you use ago, face with an s , in2 billion, one s

employee'm a federal and i have been a federal employee my entire life. i started 17 years old and i've been working well over 30 years. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i'm an administrative action officer. ourtually deployed civilians into afghanistan, iraq, kuwait. that's part of the main duty of mine. i'm very active in our military. i have seen over my years, when you have a government that has to have a budget the 30th of september, it was a dropdead date. we started this terrible downhill ball rolling once we started saying we will do 30 more days, 30 more days, 30 more days. the american people are tired of being held hostage by the minority of what the government is. it congress, the representatives, our entire federal government. you know what you are elected not -- thes is american people do not need to be held hostage for political reasons. and this is what the government has come. their rules, there are laws, their mandates. and let's try to put our personal agendas aside. i've been doing this for well over 35 years. i've seen a who

>> well, i was pleasantly surprised by the news of the federal judge. i think a lot of the times as d.r.e.a.m.ers, we feel that the law in the place we call home is not on our side, and this was one instance where there's an advocate at least trying to put the law on our side. and i do think it has the potential of helping some of us, depending on how it plays out, but there's also a lot of concern and a lot of confusion amongst daca recipients. so we're really just waiting to see how a lot of this plays out. >> given that there is still so much confusion, what are you doing about your status for now? >> for now, i mean, as daca recipients, we're going to school. we have work to do. we're trying to just live our regular lives but keeping in mind that looming deadline in march. it's something that lingers in the back of your mind, but there's not much we can do. just wait on these developments and advocate of course. >> professor, we just heard from state attorney general javier becerra talk about the daca ruling. hes feels there are strong grounds for k

federal standard tax deduction, federal -- federal standard deductions, they will not port over. -- i mean, they do port over to your tax return. now, maryland is not going to recognize any of the tax decreases but it will, the things that are not allowed anymore, like you were saying, you know the real estate taxes, that sort of thing. so, you know there is 90-day session up in annapolis. i would encourage everybody in this room, reach out to their legislators and ask them to compromise and come up with a solution that will provide this tax relief for the families of maryland because of what just passed down on capitol hill. thank you. yeah. >> comment on that briefly. it is important to understand the distinction in terms of how marylanders will be. >> can we have more mics? >> thank you, mayor for raising that issue. i think it is important to understand that marylanders get two ways. one, and i think this is what you were referring to. marylanders will see increase in their state tax liability because the new federal law essentially eliminates your ability to take your personal

so the fact there was a debate does that there is no federal power.it doesn't mean there is a blank check that congress always has whatever it wants to do it may do. if there is one thing that would have afforded ratification that congress is the guardian of its own power with functionally no limit. that is a good problem assuming that into existence. but there were limits on federal power but to push back one of madison's early proposals was to give the new congress and negative power over any state legislation. the never have omentum because that would tamp down on the state authority. but yet effectively if congress can dream it they can't legislate and have a negative power over anything. >> i cannot thank you enough for writing this book. it underscores what i feel very deeply this book is not political the way we are today democrats, republicans but to say a smart high school kid should pick up the book to read it it is written in ordinary english. thank you so much for writing that. >> i wrote this with the adf homeschoolers or to supplement th

i first encountered the first federal congress project about ten years ago. i wrote another book, washington, the making of the american capitol, aboal, about making of the city through the 1790s. a political narrative that focuses primarily, not exclusively, on the significance of slavery in the politics behind the location of the federal city, capital here in d.c., why aren't we on the susquehanna river in pennsylvania as perhaps we should have been. and also i wrote a great deal on the role of slaves in the building of the city's first draft so to speak in that decade. and i wrote a great deal about the great compromise of 1790 which resulted in a capital located here in a place safe for slavery, and the agreement by a certain number of southern opponents of hamilton's financial plan, abandonment of their opposition to it to allow the capital to come here. in the process of doing that research, i met ken, i met charlene and other members of the project and i became aware of how immensely rich the project's material was and how significant the first federal

garcia zarate also faces a similar federal charge.ony serra local attorney will now represent him. garcia zarate is expected to receive time already served then be handed to federal authorities. >>> president trump directed the white house's top lawyer in march to stop attorney general jeff sessions from recusing himself from the russia probe. a person with knowledge of the interaction tells cbs that don ma began carried out those orders just before sessions stepped aside from the ongoing investigation. the "new york times" first broke the story. >>> china is clamping down on trade with north korea under u.n. nuclear sanctions imposing a cap on oil supplies to the north and ban imports of its steel and other goods. the measure is announced today following increased security council penalty imposed following the ballistic missile tests back in late november by north korea. china is the north's main trading partner and energy supplier. >>> local earthquake researchers hope audio from yesterday's moderate temblor will help them learn mor

i was considered as a federal judge in 2009. it is a fair process and there are political considerations that go in the evaluation in some cases. the process is designed that way. i have no hard feelings. but i do have a critique of the process, my criticism of the process, not just for judges, but for people who staff the department of justice and our federal agencies, is that it takes too long to get through the process. people are going to be rejected, it might as well take forever. but if people are unobjectionable, there is no excuse for this process being delayed. when i see senators saying they are upset about something that has nothing to do with the nominee, it would be better if we get to the conclusion. it is disruptive for me. we have no attorney general in our -- john demurs is exceptionally experienced and is not partisan and wants to do his job and has not been confirmed. there is no legitimate explanation for why somebody like that can't yet on the job. my personal interest in this is there are only three officia

radiothe federal news website, federal news radio.com is a good site for federal employees and others following that. the headline as we look at your website, the government shuts down the senate fails to pass spending bill. what about people who are on furlough? do they get back they once the government comes back into session? traditionally gone the last shutdown from 1995 in 2013, commerce has passed a bill in the white house has signed it. to make those employees whole again. has been bills introduced in the senate and the house to give federal employees back pay once the funding is fixed and the cr is passed. but as of right now, they would not get paid, without causing hasm, we've seen history shown time and time again that they do get paid eventually. but it is still a lot of hardship on peoples who do live paycheck to paycheck and are unable to save when they are not getting paid. it could take three weeks or a month or longer until they get that back pay. it's a big hardship and let thought about -- list -- let's not forget about contractors who will not get paid a fair for l

i think they are calling it the federal law, whether or not your city is upholding federal law. as he heard the president put it there, he talked about putting the needs or wants or desires of illegal immigrants ahead of american citizens. what do you say to that? how do you respond to that? why is that okay? >> first, the president is wrong about the citizens. our first mandate is to keep the city safe. the president doesn't know our community, the hardworking people that are immigrants that have come to this city seeking a better life. they participate in our communities. in our economies in our schools. and there is a broken immigration system. >> martha: let me ask you about that. you guys talked before, you see your desire is to fix the system. now there has been a discussion in washington about having a traitor for border security and funding for a wall to protect the dreamers. are you in favor of that kind of deal? >> book, i am in favor of everything we can do to make sure that the dreamers that are here that are participating in our country are allowed to continue to do

so we absolutely need a federal partnership. i would also point out that there is already what i would call a robust public/private partnership in place because our port authorities work very closely with private sector port terminal operators and ship owners who invest heavily in our ports, are in partnership with our ports and with our federal government. so it will leverage -- the federal dollars will leverage additional private investment and go towards those sorts of infrastructure projects which there is no direct payback on. so we look forward to through this next round of werd and this infrastructure discussion we'll be having this next year to ensuring we can put a plan in place to fund those important needs at our ports. >> in my opening statement, i mentioned that the corps faces a rather -- indeed a real sizable math problem as it tries to service roughly a $200 billion requirement. and more with the annual budget that hovers around $4.6 billion. think about that. think about that. $200, if you will requirement to me

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 f

apa believes a significant federal investment would grow u.s. economy and supporting jobs, enhance's america competitiveness and generate additional tax revenues. i provided to info graphics which senator car per had pointed out in the outset of the hearing, those are both available to you. they look like this. the first provides details of 66 billion needs and the second info graphic highlights port related projects that can benefit from infrastructure legislation. turning to werta it's important that it be passed on two-year cycle asset enableses both small policy changes and navigation projects to be authorized. i look forward to the next word of legislation to continue making these improvements in the legislation and with point out apa's three-key priority issues for the next as follows, first, 2014 was landmark legislation establishing a path to full use of the harbor maintenance tax revenues for its intended purpose which is navigation channel maintenance. 2016 adjusted the annual funding approach so that progress is made for use each year

the first set won, federer. ..was one that federer always looked like meeting. federer, controlled and relentless. after that troubled start, the end was never really in doubt. what is in doubt now, is if anyone can stop him? now, federer will in doubt now, is if anyone can stop him? now, federerwill play in doubt now, is if anyone can stop him? now, federer will play the south korean, into a —— the first south korean, into a —— the first south korean, into a —— the first south korean into the semifinal. after his match, tennys sandgren read a preprepared statement from his phone instead of answering questions. it was in response to recent questions. it was in response to rece nt coverage questions. it was in response to recent coverage of his social media activity, which has included disparaging remarks concerning serena williams, and messages that sandgren re—tweeted from figures associated with the far right. gonna he seemed to put people in these of the boxes, searching and order in the boxes, searching and ord

, federal split of project costs. timing enactment of wrdas has varied. wrda 1986 mark ad decades long stalemate between congress and executive branch regarding cost sharing and user fees. since wrda 1986 congress aimed to avoid long delays between the planning and execution of projects. biannually enactment of wrda was roughly followed from 1986 until the early 2000s. since then enactment has been less regular. issue complicated enactment in the 11 is 1 and 112 congresses how to develop a bill without geographically specific activities commonly referred to as earmarks. 113 congress developed new reporting processes that i discuss later. 113th congress enacted water resources reform development act of 2014. it authorized 34 new construction project es. it authorized 30 now core construction projects as well as dozens of studies. wrda 2016 was title of broader water authorization bill, bureau of reclamation and edpa all 64 new core construction projects authorized in wrda 2014 and wrda 2016. . . completed by the end of

but it's also bad for federal workers.orking for the federal government is about doing a job that never involves being fired and so you lack the stresses and strains that cause you to evolve and also, it's supposed to be sacraficial public service, this is not about sacrifice. david: there's nothing sacraficial making $200,000. >> no. david: you know how many governors make that much? >> zero. >> i know. david: zero governors make as much as some federal employees. >> anytime the tax dollars are at stake. the american people deserve answers and transparency how they're spent. in order to attract quality individuals within the government, you know, at the end of the day, people need to make money. they need to earn a living and you know, in places like washington d.c., the cost of living is incredibly high, and i think what we really need to look at, what are the positions that are getting this kind of money. david: right. >> do they warrant that kind of money? is it the head of an agency that has, you know, hundreds of emp