brendan sasso, national journal. this is "the communicators" on c-span. >> next on c-span 2 national organization for women president, terry o'neill talk abouts the minimum page and preducttive rights. then in an interview with representative election ken buck of colorado, president of the incoming republic republic freshman class. late their association of american law schools host a panel on president obama and the separation of powers between the branches of government.

the 114th congress gavels in tomorrow at noon eastern. we'll see the swearing in of members and the election for house speaker. watch the house live on c-span, and the senate live on c-span 2. and with the new congress you'll have the best access the most extensive coverage anywhere. track the g.o.p. as it leads on capitol hill and have your say as events unfold on tv, radio, and the web.

this sunday on q & a author talks about the film "the birth of the nation." it's depiction of former slaves after the civil war ask the effort biz african-american civil rights advocate and newspaper publisher to prevent the movie's release. >> part two of the movie some is after the war ex-reconstruction, is the heart of the protest in the sense that this is where the blacks are just appalled by the portrayal of freed slaves. this is a scene showing what happens when you give former slaves the right to vote the right to be elected, the right to govern. it's a scene in the south carolina legislature where their first and primary order of business is to pass a bill allowing for interracial marriage because again in griffin's hands, black men are solely interested in pursug and hving white women.

>> national organization for women president terry o'neill talks about the socioeconomic relationship between the minimum wage and reproductive rights. she spoke at the annual meeting of the association of american law schools in washington, dc for about an hour. >> i want to welcome you all to the 2015aals annual meeting

program of the section on socioeconomics. this is see josh economics luncheon. welcome. i have a few obligatory announcements, and then it will be my pleasure to announce our -- introduce our speaker. a cle attendance signup set for the sessiones located at the rear of the room. if you sign this sheet, the als will verify your attendance at this program for cle purposes. please refer to the signup sheet for more details. the als also wants you to know we value your feedback, please take a moment to complete a session evaluation form that you were handed when you walked into the room. and please leave it with the student proctor at the doors. so those are the obligatory announcements. few discretionary announcements. this is the 20th year of the

aals section on socioeconomics. founding forum in 1996. we are dedicated to a set of principles at that time 120 law teachers and 50 member schools signed it, and our dear guest speaker, terry o'neill, now president of n.o.w., has a long history of that mission. i'm not going to take a long time to describe socioeconomics but i can describe it in a couple of sentences the first news is good news for economists and that is you cannot do important public policy without economic analysis. the second principle is good news to some economists and that is, but you cannot do economic analysis without drawing upon all disciplines necessary in giving them the same dignity you

give to economics in performing your analysis. and with those two principles if widely accepted, causes such as those nobly championed by the national organization for women would be much more readily achievable and we are dedicated to that. there is a fledgling organization called the society of social economists. you can get that by going to society of socialow economists.org. membership is free so i know you can afford it. and everybody is welcome. now, for our beloved luncheon speak, terry o'neill. she was elected the president of national organization for women in 2009 and was re-elected in 2013. she oversees n.o.w.s am pick program, including reproductive rights and justice economic justice, ending violence against

women, ending racism and homophobia, and guaranteeing women's equality under the u.s. constitution. what a noble set of goals. before this, she was an academic teaching both at tulane university and before that the california university -- university of california at davis. she is a respected expert in corporate law corporate social responsibility. she also taught feminist legal theory and international women's rights. as i mentioned before she is a founding member of the als section on so-you're economics. d socioeconomics. her title, socioeconomics and feminism, that do reproductive rights have to do with -- what does -- excuse me -- what does the minimum wage have to do with economic rights and her title is generic. one could say socioeconomics and

blank, fill in the blank, environmental justice. economic justice. you could almost -- and then what does? but rather than see it in the general form, let's hear terry speak particularly about what does the minimum wage have to do with economic rights. thank you very much. in. [applause] >> thank you for being here. it's a pleasure be to back among academics. it's been a while. i guess i left tulane in 2001 so it has been quite some time. so the title of my talk actually is what does the minimum wage have to do with reproductive rights. sounds a little as if it shouldn't have that much to do one with the other, but as robert said, my organization, the national organization for

women, has six core issues, right, that we address. and so they are reproductive rights and justice for all women, ending racism ending homophobia ending violence against women, economic justice for all women, and getting women into the constitution at last. the reason that n.o.w. has the six issues as a core of its agenda is because we do view those issues as deeply intertwined and interrelatedful right? and i think it's really intuitively easy to see how all of those issues, economic justice and reproductive rights and violence against women and racism and homophobia -- how they all interrelate. think about it this way. in politics right? who are the candidates that we think would probably be opposed to same-sex marriage opposed to

women's access to reproductive health care, opposed to serious funding of the violence against women act? what you find is it's the same -- the same crowd over and over again. that are more or less in opposition. so they get the interrelationship of all of these issues and so i think it's very important that we understand how they're interrelated. the issues are also -- this is different. those issues are also intersectional. which is to say that if you take any one particular issue that comes up -- let's say reproductive rights -- access to reproductive health care looks very different for an immigrant woman in what we call downtown montgomery county maryland, where i live suburb of washington dc. access to reproductive health

care looks like one thing in immigrant communities in my county versus looking like something in a wealthy predominantly white upper middle class

the lived experience of the individual women impacted by

policies. i said i was going to talk for 15 or 20 minutes and th throw it open for q & a and, i absolutely intend to do that. robert,'ll count on you to not let me ramble too much. so, that is what i wanted to talk about today. was to look at the minimum -- what does the minimum wage have to do with reproductive rights? and justice. so i think the easiest way -- the easiest answer is, well-the-minimum wage is actually a women's issue. and reproductive rights and justice, that's really an economic justice issue. so unpack that at bit and explain why we get to that point. on minimum wage, two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. in the progressive community in washington, dc that has become a mantra. the democrats and the progressive community have been pushing for several years very

hard to raise the issue of the minimum wage to increase the minimum wage. i know that my chapters in new jersey and actually -- activists from many parts of the country, came to new jersey in 2013 to help pass a minimum wage law at the state level. we didn't get barbara bono elected governor but we did get the minimum wage law passed in 2014 we got a minimum wage law passed in arkansas and alaska, even though those same voters voted for united states senators who actually don't support an increase in the minimum wage. so that's a whole other conversation. but why were n.o.w. chapters -- by the way, let me just pause for a moment and say the national organization for women is actually the grassroots arm of the women's movement. we don't do research. we don't provide services, and we don't have a lobby shop in

washington, dc. like a lot of other women's organizations. all of our lobbying is done grassroots. we have 250 chapters around the country. they do grassroots lobbying to their senators and representatives and their state elected officials andocal elected officials. so -- here's another piece of that. the reason that two-thirds of minimum wage workers in the united states are women is because over 70% of tipped minimum wage workers in the u.s. are women. the tipped minimum wage many people don't know this -- the federal tips minimum wage is 2.13 an hour. $2.13 an hour. servers in restaurants, other service providers, mostly

servers in restaurants, and to be clear, the vast majority of tips workers do not work at right's chris steakhouse making really good tips. they work at dep any's ihop. and their disproportionalitily women of color. so the minimum wage actually is a huge women's issue. the reality is if we were to increase the minimum wage for everyone, men and women to whatever to $15 -- by the way $10 an hour is a poverty wage. it does not pay the bills. and our dear friends on the hill, in washington, are very fond of patting themselves on the back with $10. it doesn't pay the bills. it remains a poverty wage. it is much better than the current 7.25 but it is not acceptable.

it needs to be between 15 and $20 an hour. i you bring the minimum wage up found what it is right now to $15 or $20 an hour across the board for men and women, you will go along a long way toward actually closing the gender wage gap. because a significant part of the gender wage gap that has women paid 700 -- i thing right out in a78 cents for every dollar paid to men -- for latinas, it's more like 59-cents to the dollar and for african-american women it's roughly 64-cents to the dollar. that's the gender wage gap. that wage gap would not be eliminated but would be significantly narrowed. if we simply raise the minimum wage to a living wage. that's why it's in that sense it's a women's issue. it's also a reproductive justice issue, and here's why. rock united the restaurant opportunity center united an organization based in new york city and it's run by --

actually teaches at berkeley now. she came out with a study that floored her. she was astonished by the results of her research that shows that sexual harassment on the job is sky high for women who are tipped workers, working in restaurants. well think about why that is. the women are not working at the high-end restaurants with the big, big bills and the big big tips. think working at the malls, the ruby tuesday and so forth. their base pay is 2.13 an hour. that's not quite enough to pay their taxes. so 100% of the money that they get to pay the baby-sitter, the child care worker pay the rent pay the food and so forth,er is actually paid by their customers.

the restaurant industry is the only industry on the planet where the owners of the companies get the customers to pay the wages to the workers in that company. that is what is going on throughout the restaurant industry, because the tips wages remained at 2013 while the rest of the minimum wage has gone up to 7.25. that's because of the efforts of the national restaurant association or, is a like to call them, the other nra. so as a result of the fact that these customers are paying the wages of these tipped workers they have to put up with a shockingly high level of sexual harassment on the job. being groped touched, hit on, being -- having inappropriate sexualized comments made to them. constantly. all day long. because they can't afford to be fired. and they can't afford -- their

bosses are always telling them the customer is always right. never get in the face of the customer. the customer is always right. so right there you can begin to see how this plays in. that in fact discrimination against women in employment very often takes the form of sexualized behavior. and that -- then you can begin to see a direct connection between the minimum wage or wages or economic justice and the reproductive rights and reproductive health of women. so that's one piece of it. that the minimum wage really is a women's issue. the other piece is that economic -- that reproductive rights really are an issue of economic justice. i think the easiest way to encapsulatthat is -- it was really given to me main who left a message on my voice mail years

ago itch think it was 2011 and 2012 when in washington, dc there was this huge effort to shut down planned parenthood and to defund all of the title 10 family planning clinics. most of which do not provide abortion services. they actually provide birth control and std screen examination hiv screenings, but the effort was to shut down the family planning clinics and defund planned parenthood entirely, and so we were all working very hard and trying to get the word out that this was possible, needed to stop it. in the midst of this i gate voice mail from a man who identifies him -- i don't remember his name now. what he said was i'm just calling to thank you for all the work that your organization is doing to make sure that planned parenthood stays strong. he said you know, i know birth control is really important for

my wife's health. i get that. but i got to tell you it's really about our family's finances. he said i got laid off six months ago and i'm having a really hard time finding another job. we have two kids and we can't afford another child right now and if she didn't -- wasn't able to go to planned parenthood and get her birth control at an affordable price i don't know what we would do. it's in that sense that reproductive justice is absolutely a matter of economic justice. now, this year you're going city that play out in a slightly different context in the united states supreme court, in young versus ups. a woman was pregnant, was told by her doctor i think she had lost a pregnancy previously and her doctor said, okay you get to a certain point in your pregnancy, you can't lift more than 20 pounds. she was a driver for ups, and might have been some boxes that were more than 20 pounds. she works out with her coworker she'll take the lighter loaded

and the coworker with take the others and the mentioned to he supervisor she has this set up and wants to permission to make it formalized so he won't have to lift the 20 pounds. the supervisor goes and looks through all the hr documents that she -- i think the supervisor is a woman -- looked through the hr documents, looked through the union contract and says, you don't fit any of our categories. you weren't picked up on drunk driving. we could accommodate for that. we have the -- so if you lost your license, you're a driver if you lost your license for for drink driving we could put you on desk duty but you're pregnant. that's not you. so, you don't fit in into the americans with disabilities, a because pregnancy is not covered by the americans ditch disabilities act. and you also do not a fit within the pregnancy discrimination act says the supervisor.

because you're looking for an accommodation. and accommodation is not spelled out how that might work under the pregnancy discrimination act. so you don't fit any of the categories i have in my hr manual and we can't accommodate you. she said fire, whatever i'll keep working. then the supervisor says, no actually now that you've told me your doctor says you can't lift more than 20-pounds i have to put you on unpaid leave because we don't want you working if your doctor says you shouldn't be doing that. she was forced on unpaid leave which caused her to lose her health insurance nos. she and her husband had to down into their open pacts to pay all of her prenate cal care and child birth, expenses until she could get back to the job, and get back to work. so there again, actually accommodating pregnancy and, news flash where do we think the next generation of workers

is coming from. accommodating women who are pregnant is very much a matter of economic justice and she is lucky. this woman was fortunate because she had a partner, another adult bringing money into the household. the most of the women -- i say most -- a very large number of women who face pregnancy discrimination in the workplace are single moms. and they're the ones who can least afford not to have coombss, and the kind of accommodations women are denied -- and let me just say, ups is actually a very good workplace in a lot of ways and have since -- the case is going toupe the supreme court but the ups practices have now changed. and pregnancy is accommodated by the ups for workers. but there are places where women are not allowed to have a bottle of water with them although

their doctor says just stay hydrated and you'll be fine but you're not allowed to have a bottle of water with you whatever your job is, factory work or whatever. so it's absolutely a problem of women economic ability. the final thought i want to leave you with is on birth control. right? the effort to defund planned parenthood has failed, at least for now. but there's an ongoing effort in washington and around the state but especially in washington dc to remove birth control from the standard health insurance contract. so you know under the affordable care act every insurance company has to provide a list of standard services. things they can't wiesel out of. hart disease and diabetes and surgery for broken legs and it also includes about well over 50 or 60 preventive services.

so screenings for high blood pressure and heart disease and so forth and birth control is on that list of preventive health care services. 98% of women in the united states have utilized birth control at some point in their lives. 99% of sexually active women utilize birth control at some point. go into any catholic church look around at the families they've got two kids. what do we think they're doing? right? 98% of sexually active catholic women report utilizing birth control it's a smaller permanent for evan gel kells. 96%. 96% of evan gel kell women who are sexually active report ute lieds birth control and for a surprisingly large figure use hormonal birth control for purposes other than preventing pregnancy. make no mistake, preventing

pregnancy is key to women's health. unintended pregnancy deadly. unintended pregnancy is highly correlated with infant mortality, with maternal mortality, and with domestic violence homocide. highly correlated with those three things. the united states has the highest rates of infant mortality and maternal mortality of any other country in the developed world and our rate is higher than that of some developing countries. nearly half of all pregnancies in the united states are unplanned. and a huge number of women, before the aca, had no consistent access to the birth control that was right for them, because they worked where? in a minimum wage job that didn't provide health benefits to which minimum wage employees. so, under the affordable care act we made some progress.

it's the act doesn't cover all people in the country but covers a great number of women and they all get birth control as part of their ordinary preventive care under the act's standard contract, and here you have the incoming leadership of both the house and the united states senate who have already indicated that they intend too bring up a law that would strip birth control out of the standard health insurance contract. and they're saying it because of -- for religious reasons. right? so just so you know my name is o'neill. i know that the bishops are opposed to birth control. ...

cannot be blocked. there is no religious excuse for it. there's no constitutional rights to be an employer. you haven't a constitutional right to be a mother superior but you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a nursing home. and if you do decide to own and operate a nursing home or university or a hospital or even a church and you decide you need janitors and secretaries and other people working in there, not clergy, the people working there you must follow the law with respect to the health care that you provide your employees.

is one law for all the employers and we don't think there should be any religious exemptions because it is a matter of basic economic survival for women and their families. that is where we are at in the way we understand the issues of reproductive services for women and i think this is a good point at which we can stop and maybe take some questions. [applause] >> thank you. yes. >> what does the landscape look like from the repeal of roe v. wade in the next two four, six

years? >> that's a great question and it's the repeal of roe v. wade in the next number of years. the folks who would like to repeal or overturn roe v. wade are an extremely well-positioned right now and in a 113 congress last year the house of representatives passed the so-called 20 week ban. it criminalizes abortions, all abortions at 20 weeks gestation which is well before viability significantly before viability. we think viability somewhere around 24 weeks and 24226 weeks and under planned parenthood -- planned parenthood bee casey is the point and what should the government can ban abortion. a 20 week ban passed the house and was blocked in the senate. the senate is now under the control of individuals who have expressed support for a 20 week ban. there are currently 10 states

less than a dozen more states around the country that have passed 20 week bands. arizona is one. the ninth circuit ruled that ban was clearly unconstitutional. actually as a facial matter. it didn't have to be attached on an applied basis because there was no set of circumstances under which a criminalization of america -- abortion pre-viability. it's been struck down in arizona and it has not been challenged in most of the other states where it has come up. i think in idaho was challenged but that was a weird case. there were a lot of other things going on there. so what you have is a 20 week ban in place in the number of states moving forward, not challenged and you have movement in both houses of congress to pass the 20 week ban. the only way you can uphold a 20 week ban is to overturn roe v.

wade. in fact i have seen at least some opinion out there that you can't draw a principled distinction. once it's a nonviable fetus there's no principled distinction between 20 weeks and 18 weeks in 15 weeks in 12 weeks and six weeks. the justification for the ban by the way is fascinating. fetuses feel pain. that is justified and it's shown to be justified numerous times. another justification is that abortion is much more dangerous for women as the pregnancy proceeds. that's just an astonishing claim. you have to ask yourself more dangerous than what? actually terminating at 20 week pregnancy is safer for women than childbirth. childbirth tends to be dramatic and can be dangerous.

so yes of course as the pregnancy proceeds any termination is more dangerous if the determination were done earlier but the determination is still safer than childbirth itself. so it's fascinating to me is that the only justification for this criminalization of abortion are demonstrably false. and yet we have i think it's very possible we could see a 20 week ban. if he gets passed to the federal level i think it has a much greater chance than going all the way to the supreme court of course. >> i want to build on the comments you made -- and one thing that i saw from diane ravitch is the influence of the billionaire boys club of finance executives coming in and saying to teachers generally we want to

tell you how to measure incomes and we don't care about the professional autonomy. we are going to impose one way of teaching. and also as a takeoff on this great book and how women are kept out the positions i'm wondering your position on the new digital copy and haul the hierarchy from finance reproduced by tech firms and tech businesses. >> that's a great question in the tech industry is a real problem. it's not just on gender. it's on race. rainbow/push coalition did some really great research and got google and facebook tumbling another set of tech industry to start revealing what their workers of color look like. where are they and indeed the workers of color are kept down.

women are kept down. women of color, white women and men of color as well. as replicating what we see in other venues. we have actually been working with our friends and the teachers union to try -- we have really taken -- we are concerned about a different set of things but in what you are talking about we see attacks on publicly funded unions and the attack on teachers unions and unionized teachers as the pacific problem. that was one of the reasons for trampling on union rights was that these teachers were not doing their job and they were out of control. the best thing i ever saw was an ample graphic that said you remember when it was the teachers of wisconsin who drove the economy off a cliff and got a bailout. e me neither. so that's what we have been working on with that.

you are right to real problem. you had your hand up. did you have a question? >> is that going to change and stories about the economy. [inaudible] >> we know it's northern europe and it will continue to fall. >> i think it's a absolutely an economic thing. we have talked about the fact that the middle class ideology goes very far deep into the low-wage population way down into the low-wage population as well as going up into the upper regions. and i'm middle-class ideology people love marriage.

they respect it. they think it's an important institution. they want to give it all the respect it is due which means they are not going to jump into marriage and start having kids until they're economically secure. i think that's absolutely right. as a matter of this country being able to compete economically we rely on immigration the same as northern europe and we are going to. i frankly don't have a problem with that. i think that the global village and so forth makes it less important for any one country to keep reproducing its own workers but that makes international trade agreements all the more important and my organization we are not taking the lead by any stretch stretch but we are deaf only supporting our allies in opposing the tpp.

how about if i go around because i saw some hands up their too. >> thank you for your inspiring and entertaining comments. the first 80% of what you said was particularly powerful because it was cutting across divisions of gender and class and political ideology in which potentially really unifying and coalition building. and so i was moved by that and thinking about how effective that was put in the 20% of what you said was very potentially divisive i thank and that you asserted very strongly that employers have no right no

constitutional right and no moral right and no right to have any say about what kinds of benefits you are providing in connection with an employment and health care and birth control. but for many people in our society they feel very strongly in another direction about that. it seems to me that obamacare was a compromise bill that nobody wanted but it would be just as responsive to the problem for your organization or for like-minded people to say the reasons we have seen the problem with employer -- as it is divisive to our society so now is the time to take those lessons and turn to true

universal health care, true single-payer health care so rather than digging in on obamacare and on employer mandates to use the division over employer mandates towards it true universal health care. i just wonder what you think about that as a political matter matter. >> i think that's a great point but i don't think it will work at all. my organization for 25 years has strongly supported single-parent health care. we absolutely think that's where it has to be but what we are concerned about with the whole religious exemption debate that's going on which is impacted by the way employment rights for the lg bt to community as well as nondiscrimination and employee benefits because you are only targeting women's health care for discrimination companies like hobby lobby. what we are concerned about is

embedding that kind of religiously justified discrimination in the law and here's the thing. we are going to have the aca for many many years before we get single-payer. that is political reality. what kind of single-payer do we want to inherit from the aca? one that assumes that there were some types of people who just don't get the health care they need because they have got the wrong anatomy? is that what we want to inherit from aca? no so we are attacking it from both angles. we absolutely are supporting single payer but we are very clear it that that's not going to happen anytime soon. would we have is the ability to stop this business of religious justification for what i call flat-out gender bigotry. you are talking about birth control.

you are talking about 90% of the women of this country, 98% of us needing access to this medication that is expensive. and it's about our health. so that's just basic. when you are attacking access to basic health care only to the women that's bigotry. we don't allow bigots to use their religion to justify racism and we shouldn't allow bigots to use their sexism to justify withholding birth control from women. that is where we are coming from. nina had her hand up too and i will come back to next. >> you are one supreme court decision away from losing roe v. wade yet polls show that you shouldn't be losing so what's wrong? why are you losing and what can he do to turn that around? >> i think there are two reasons we are losing.

one is absolutely at the feet of the women's movement but the progressive movement generally and i will talk about that in a second. what is an rc? this is not to comfort those of us who feel we are part of the progressive movement but it's not just the women's rights that are losing. the death penalty opposition to the death penalty is not going anywhere. we are clearly losing unions. we are losing the environmental fight. we are losing those hand over fist. aspect after aspect after aspect of the progressive agenda is really getting hammered right now. the only place we are winning is in the lg bt queue fight for marriage equality. we are not actually winning on employment nondiscrimination we are not winning on the option and we are not actually winning on family formation.

we are winning on marriage equality which is huge. it's absolutely enormous and very important the best the only aspect of the progressive movement that's going anywhere. that brings me to the second piece and let me tell you what i think the women's movement has not done well. we didn't go to the state early and we didn't go to the state aggressive and we don't have the resources to go to this date. we keep thinking that if we just hang and washington d.c. we can get federal law that will stop the states from passing these laws that are bad for women. and that's not working. my organization to collect the grassroots women's movement but we have 250 chapters around the country. we should have really well-trained volunteer lobbyist

in all 50 states and puerto rico and washington d.c.. and we don't have the resources for it. before he became president of now i served as the executive director of the national council of women's organizations. that's 250 women's organizations nationwide. some of them are more regional but really all of the organizations. my board was nine ceos of women's organizations all across-the-board struggling for resources. in a fabulous report put out in 2006 where's the money for women's rights and it closes -- traces globally how there's really been a restriction in funding for women's rights globally. a lot of reasons for that. it has to do with the growth of religious extremism in the global south and global east and so the global north and the

global west funders begin diverting resources to those stressed communities where women and girls were not getting basic health care at all. and not getting water and so forth so there's a shift of resources. the women in the north and west have really struggled. that's one piece that but the other piece is galloping inequality. i really think that the entire progressive movement has been hurt seriously by galloping inequality and again it's a question of resources. the folks who are, think thomas apache and his work really points out joseph stiglitz who points out at the very top of the income globally you have stronger and stronger imperatives to prevent a reduction in that inequality.

so it's a spiral going in exactly the runway which wrong way which makes all of its profits with less resources. at the state level we are absolutely getting kicked in the teeth for women at the state level and they don't have infrastructure at the state level to stop it. we are building. the unions have figured out that they need to work with all of their allies at the state level. but we are absolutely far from where we need to be. >> in virginia governor wallace just passed the health care initiative. one of her goals is to reach the visibility of the issues. i'm wondering if you could share your thoughts on the narratives about the economic -- of

reproductive health care. >> sure and i can give you more resources too. here are the basics. one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. one in three of us. it is a common and necessary aspect of women's reproductive health care. if we have to dip into her own pockets to provide that health care for us that's that much more money if we don't have to set aside for our college for her kids, for a down payment for a house or for our own retirement. in fact when you look at what's going on for women economically low-wage work when you cluster in the will will wage occupations that don't have health benefits increasingly well because the baca what you see as women have less money coming in the door just because

they are women and more money going out the door just because they are moms. the single most important factor in determining whether women will live in poverty after the age of 70 is whether she had children. that's reproductive health is economic justice right there. women are far more likely to be financially responsible financially responsible for their children and for their elders than men. so you have less money coming in because of the wage gap and get your expenses are higher because you dip into your own pocket to pay significant amounts of a health care. now which has been true for a long time many women not being able to access birth control and have to pay for that out-of-pocket. by the way birth control the ability to control the number of

your pregnancies dramatically reduces stress. the more we learn about stress illnesses the more we see how deeply connected that is to health disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. so dan reproductive health is absolutely essential to maintaining the kind of healthy body generally that allows you to go to work everyday and get your 77 cents. i hope that's a start. >> you alluded to the problems of at the state level. i wondered if you are considering trying to get more women elected as governor's number one and number two exploiting the national governors association's. a republican members often break with the national strategy and

are more progressive and less than closer to home. we need some real leadership in the national governors association because really it will neutralize some of the federal -- are you exploiting that enough? >> not enough that we are definitely involved with that. there are organizations and projects being run by the alternative fund which is trying to get more women elected to the governorships and also the congress. the state executives and then u.s. congress. they produce some really interesting research that suggest as follows. my organization works hard for example to defeat joni ernst the hog castrating candidate in the senate. we failed and she won. because she is wrong on the

issues. we are an issue focused organization. their other women's groups that will only endorse women candidates and we endorse men who who support or she's just we support women. but that doesn't mean after we lose that election we don't work with all of the elected officials. we absolutely work with all of them that will work with us on these issues in one of the reasons i think it's so important to get women elected even when they don't support our issues is that there needs to be a lot more research. but if you compare a self-identified right-wing female politician to a self-identified right-wing male politician the women generally will vote for issues that actually support women more often than a conservative man will. if you look at self-identified moderates, the woman moderate

will more often vote the way i would want her to than the man. and even if you look at the self-identified progressive the woman progressive will vote the way i want her to more often than they manned progressive or as one of my staffers called it the other day our friends they progressives. so it's really important. i think that's all the questions. thank you all so much. [applause] >> the american law school lunches adjourned and we look forward to a wonderful afternoon. we think -- thanked president tariq o'neill for her inspiring

speech and we will offer her any help that we can in the future. thank you very much. "washington journal" recently sat down with michigan congressman john conyers who will become the 114 congress dean. congressman conyers talked about his new role and what some of his responsibilities will be.

>> host: joining us from detroit is the incoming dean of the house of representatives john conyers from michigan. good morning. >> guest: top of the morning to you. >> host: tell the folks a little bit about the position you're about to assume. can you tell the folks how one becomes the dean of the house? >> guest: while the first requirement is longevity. the dean of the house is the longest-serving member and the house of representatives and he has the distinct honor on opening day on january 6 to swear in the incoming speaker of the house which is a constitutional office and so even though the present speaker

of the house is going to be the same one he will still have to be sworn in again and that is where i come in. >> host: so you will do that job today to swear the speaker in. tell us a little bit about the longevity aspect of it. you come to this position taking over from representative dingell to tell us a little bit about taking over for him and the fact that he's a fellow michigander as well. >> not only a fellow michigander michigander, his father and my father were good friends andy and i are good friends. he was once my congressman and i have been talking with him about this job and the important duty of course on opening day where we swear in the incoming speaker of the house for the next

session of congress. >> host: so you have been talking to them about the job and what kind of advice is to give in to you about a? >> guest: well he has given me some good advice. stay come get your swearing-in statements together so that you can have the incoming speaker raise his right hand with you and say that he will support the constitution of the united states among other things and we will be all set. >> host: representative you were the first african-american to assume this position. what does that mean to you? >> guest: i think it's a high honor under any circumstances but i think it's an even more significant that all the members in the congress i am now the

longest-serving and the first african-american to hold that rank. i value it and i'm very proud of it. >> host: with your new platform after you do the ceremony at -- ceremonial aspects of the two user platform to talk about race issues and user platform to talk about other issues near and dear to you? >> guest: absolutely. the dean of the house has a special recognition and it gives a little more added authority to the positions that i take so i will be very carefully assessing what i say and what positions i advocate as the new dean of the house. i follow a very distinguished member of congress who is the dean for a long time himself.

he is stepping down and of course his wife is replacing him him. debbie dingell, we are looking forward to working with her and the entire michigan delegation. >> host: representative as you become dean now do you get any privileges with that? do you get better office space? >> via choice of choice of committees? how does that work? >> guest: we have been looking to see if there are any perks lying around and guess what, we haven't gotten one. >> host: but you are the longest-serving member now and especially with the freshman class coming in and because you have the title of dean what advice would you give the freshman class being the longest-serving member? >> guest: well i would advise them to be very careful and thoughtful about the votes that they cast.

they want to realize that every vote they cast it comes part of our congressional history. we don't want them to get into a mood or get into a group in which they will be saying later on that they were sorry that they were running in a direction that they really didn't support. >> host: joining us the longest-serving member of congress, the dean of the house of representatives, representative john conyers from michigan. thank you representative. appreciate your time. >> guest: it's a pleasure being with you. have a good new year. >> a 114 congress gavels and tuesday at noon eastern. watch live coverage of the house

on c-span and the senate live on c-span2 and track the gop led congress and have your say say as it found some fault on the c-span networks. c-span radio and c-span.org. new congress, best access on c-span. >> joining us from denver colorado and c-span newsmakers program is congressman elect ken buck republican in the freshman class president. congressman thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: thank you. >> host: joining us with the questioning is emma dumain of "cq roll call" and sean lengell of the "washington examiner." congressman i want to begin as the freshman republican class president to talk about one of the looming budget states away coming and that's the department of homeland security because of the present actions on immigration. do you expect this funding issue to be a contentious debate and do you foresee any possibility that dhs funding could be forestalled?

>> guest: i think it's going to be a contentious debate. i think what the president did is poorly designed and i think the republicans in both the house and the summit will react to it. whether it ends up in some sort of agency shut down as opposed to government shutdown, i hope not. i hope that we can work through the issue and make sure that we defined the parts of the executive order that the president has issued and move on to make sure the functions of government are funded and the transition is smooth. >> host: the issue really is immigration so do you expect both sides to come together on some sort of an immigration bill that would then resend resend the president's executive orders or executive action? >> guest: that would be my hope. i'm not sure that's going to happen in the next couple of months but it is my hope that the congress will pass a

guestworker program beef up border security and we will be able to move forward with immigration in a way that the american people are satisfied that we have engaged in a thoughtful process and produced a thoughtful product. >> host: congressional reporters joining us for the questioning sean lengell of the "washington examiner." >> guest: mr. buck is an incoming incoming freshman and congress how much impact do you think you can make being at the low order of the pecking order and also what you think your fellow republican congressman elect elected you class president? >> guest: you guys have to stop asking me questions i want because i can never remember. how much influence do i have as a freshman? i have been amazed at how open

leadership and others are in congress right now to the thoughts and really the plans that the incoming freshmen have and i say that because i think what folks that have been there that have there that up in washington d.c. for a while feel is they want to know what the freshmen have heard. we have been on the campaign trail. we have been interacting with the public and we have heard the concerns most recently in an unvarnished way. i think as a result of that there is a lot of input from freshman members of congress. i think that gives us more than just the one voted influence. i have been very happy with the process of choosing committees and meeting the chairs of committees and talking to them about future legislation.

>> host: why do you think your fellow republican colleagues elected you as your -- as their representative as class president? >> guest: it concerns me frankly about their judgment. i think probably nobody else wanted the job so they were willing to give it a go. >> guest: did you run for the position and? >> guest: i did yes. >> guest: were you challenged? >> guest: there may have been challengers beforehand. there was nobody at the time when chairman mcmorris, kathy matt morris rogers ran the meeting. i have contacted all the other freshman and talk to them about my desire and my plans and nobody at that point stood up. i don't know of anybody else who's interested but at that point nobody else stood up.

>> host: emma dumain of "cq roll call." >> guest: hi congressman. i am the president of your freshman class. you are representing a new class coming in that has some diversity in it considering the republican party is trying to explain it -- expand. you have women coming into the republican party of the house and you have men and women of color. all of this is happening while the third ranking republican of the house scalise is under some scrutiny for meeting with a white supremacist organization in 2002. are you concerned about the optics of the mixed messaging almost wanting to create the possibility that some could see them member of leadership being involved in activities in the past that might run counter to that? >> guest: well look, i think steve scalise is a great man and

he has demonstrated over and over again that he is open to all americans who believe in strengthening this country. he has apologized for what happened. i think that was years ago and he is demonstrated in his legislative career that is not who he is. i think the republican party will continue to be a party that welcomes all americans who want a strong america of both economically or as a world leader. >> host: he was a member of the state legislature in louisiana and he did vote against the mlk holiday. was that a mistake wax. >> guest: you'll have have to ask steve if that was a mistake. it is not something that i think the american people are going to focus on. we have $18 trillion of debt and $100 trillion of unfunded liability. the american people sent us to washington d.c. to solve the problems and i don't think the

issue involving steve scalise is going to be an issue after we get sworn in on the sixth of january and i think that we will roll up our sleeves and get to work and produce legislation and that is what the american people will be focused on. >> host: emma dumain. >> guest: i want to go back to what you were saying about immigration reform and the possibility of passing different pieces doing a piece of mail approach to an overall package. what are your thoughts on congress with the next two years with the full republican congress can do something to address the undocumented immigrants living in this century, something that would have the effect of legalizing undocumented immigrants without having to rely on on on the president's executive order to accomplish that goal as you and your colleagues argue outside of the breadth of his powers?

>> guest: yeah i think the key is to deal with the immigration issue in a different way. i think we need to focus first on a guestworker program. i think we need to focus on border security and once we have fixed the immigration issue or once we have dealt with the problems that exist today in the law and the enforcement of the law than we can start to address what do we do with the folks that either came into this country illegally or have overstayed their visa. i think if we reverse the order we are going to be dealing with an emotional situation and really a situation of trust with the american people. this president has not earned the trust of republicans are the american people on immigration. he has failed to enforce the laws in so many areas. in order to have a workable immigration system we have got

to enforce the laws and we have got to make sure that people coming into this country understand that we do respect the law and we are going to enforce the law. once we do that than i think the issue of what do we do with the folks that are here illegally is really much less emotional and we can have a rational discussion on that subject lacks lacks. >> guest: congressman elect if we do exactly what you outline what you personally think we should do in the country if we do everything else you say we should be doing. >> guest: i will be glad to answer that and have discussion about that when we accomplished that. i think people are suspicious that we are trying to create an amnesty program and we pass laws about border security but we never really secure the border. we pass laws under the guestworker program that we never enforced the laws in that

area. i'm not going to address the issue of the people who are in this country illegally until we have a system in place that gives the american people certainty in the immigration area. >> host: shone so six of the "washington examiner." >> guest: you have been a long-time favorite tea party activists. this is a movement that for a long time has pressed republican lawmakers not to compromise the democrats are at these not to compromise the democratic ideals ideals. what is your view on this now that you are going to be in congress and do you think it's okay for republicans conservative republicans to compromise with democrats on major issues? >> guest: i think compromise is part of the legislative process. we need to compromise within the republican party. we need to work together to achieve goals and way to make

sure that we are working with democrats to achieve goals and overall legislation. where i won't compromise are on the financial end of fiscal issues that have just drag this country down. i am very concerned about our national debt. i am very concerned about the sense that the federal government can solve all the problems. i am going to washington d.c. to reduce the size and scope of the federal government so the role of the federal government is as was intended -- intended in our constitution in the framework of our government. in that sense i will not compromise my core values. i am absolutely willing to work with others on crafting legislation that makes make sure we have an immigration system that works that we have a way to defend our country and our country's interests overseas

that we have a monetary system that is effective, that we have transportation. on and on. i think we have to come together but we can't keep just throwing money at problems and hope that those problems get better. you may have heard a different message from the tea party groups. they have never said to me go there and don't work with other people. they have absolutely asked me to go there and solve problems and that's what i intend to do. >> host: republican leader in the senate mitch mcconnell said they would not default on the death on the debt on the death of one of the big big issues you'll face is raising the debt limit. under what circumstances would you vote to increase the debt limit? >> guest: well i think we have to make substantial progress on balancing the budget and if we do that i will take a serious look at voting to increase the debt limit. but i am not at all -- i don't

believe that the consequences of failing to raise the debt limit are what the president and some others in the united states congress have said. i think we have a lot of room to cut our spending and if we do that we will in fact avoid the catastrophic consequences that others talk about. >> host: do you support the so-called ruled dollar for dollar for cutting spending increase is? >> guest: i think that is a minimum threshold and real cuts not cut that happened 10 years from now or 15 years from now or another congress will inevitably change those cuts. i think we have to have cuts that happen now and they are unfortunately going to hurt but the pain is caused by a history

of irresponsible spending in the united states and by the united states government. >> host: if not could we face the possibility of a default? >> guest: you know, i hope that we don't. i hope that congress and the president act responsibly and balance our budget or at least move substantially in that direction. >> host: emma dumain. >> guest: i want to go back to cooperation by partnership and opportunities to work with the other side of the aisle. we understand you have been selected to be a member of the oversight and government reform committee and that committee under chairs as chairman darrell issa has been very partisan to not work particularly well with his democratic counterpart ranking member cummings. there was a sense among 114 congress that the new chairman

was sort of want to or have to take a different approach. are you familiar with the kind of visions that chairman elect jason chaffetz toward a more. [inaudible conversations] terry collaborative approach that he wants to take or do you appreciate the very confrontational nature of issa's tenure? would you want something a little more combative along those lines against the obama administration? >> guest: i have not had a chance to talk to chairman chaffetz about his plans with the committee. i can say that i think a combative role is not effective but the constitution contemplates that the legislative branch will perform certain oversight functions regarding the executive branch.

it's absolutely essential. along with the media. he keeps the executive branch from becoming a monarchy, from becoming a form of government that we maybe don't want to live with here in this country. so i think it performs a very important function. i would imagine that eight or 10 years ago when the congress was dealing with president bush there was also some tension that existed between the oversight functions of the house and the senate and the bush administration. i think those are natural tensions and as much as possible we have to keep those on a professional level and not make it personal but the use of this president, his executive order and other regulatory issues that are going on i think are very important for congress to look into.

>> guest: mr. buck's speaking of these tensions with the white house you certainly haven't been shy to criticize the obama administration. you have been putting out recently that you lost your appetite after seeing the president walk into a pizza place that you were eating at. now the republicans control both the house both houses of congress do you think it's possible that congress can have a working relationship with the president or do you see another couple of years of gridlock that we are seeing for quite a while here in washington? >> guest: i absolutely think they will work closely with the present and the democrats in congress but i want to clarify something. you mentioned that i tweeted out that i had lost my appetite when i saw the president. i did not tweak that at all. i was sitting in having pizza and we observed that black suv

after black suv come up in the secret service -- down a restaurant. there were 35 secret service agents there to close down the street and the sidewalk. the president could have a photo opportunity at a pizza place with a group of hispanic students before he gave his speech on his executive order on immigration. i find that offensive and i'm not suggesting that this person is the first to do that. wasting taxpayer dollars has a long history in this country particularly with the executive branch. i find it offensive that we spend 30 40 $50,000 for a photo opportunity when we continue to pile up debt. that's why i lost my appetite and that's what upset me. i think it's important to clarify that because i respect the president. i respect the office of the president.

i will be at the state of the union address. i will do the things that a congressman should do to interact with a person in the office of the president. i think he has enacted a lot of policies and very poor choices and i think he has put this country at risk in a number of areas. but i'm not at all going to disrespect the office of the president. >> guest: do you respect president obama? >> guest: i think that presidt obama has made a number of mistakes and has pursued policies that are ill-advised so if you are asking do i respect his policy decisions, no. do i respect him as an individual and i respect the office he holds and do what i as a christian respect him and his family? absolutely. >> host: emma dumain. >> guest: mr. but another committee have been selected to serve on is that -- pairing that

with your concerns about president obama's executive overreach and he think he has gone above and beyond his authority and of power. do you think republicans ought to consider impeaching the president? >> guest: i do not. >> host: mr. but you are a longtime district district attorn and usurp this prosecutor. how do you think those skills those jobs prepared you for life on capitol hill? >> guest: while some would look at it and struggle to see the common skill sets i think it has been great. the primary job of the elected district attorney is to get into the community to solve problems. we have reduced crime in my

district by 50% in the last 10 years. we have done that by working with civil -- city councils and county commissioners and police departments in developing programs to reduce juvenile crime and deal with drug addictions and other social issues that we face. by working with the community i think the same skills are necessary in congress. i'm not going to look at a party label when i sit down and talk to somebody about the need to vote yes or no on a piece of legislation. i think it's so important that we approach this job as problem solvers and not as partisans. i am really excited about this job and honored by it but also think the last 27 years i gave up my badge this morning and

that's an emotional thing for someone as a badge for 25 years. but i just think it is very common, there are a number of common skills that are involved in being elected district attorney in legislating. >> host: congressmen like i want to follow up on one of those issues and we will hear from the chairman of the house ways & means committee paul ryan sometime later this spring outlining a budget plan. if you look at the spending two-thirds goes to medicare and medicaid defense and other entitlement programs. so where do you cut? >> guest: well the same answer as where do you spend. you spend it everywhere and you need to cut everywhere. it has to be in a way that convinces the american people that you haven't just targeted a certain vulnerable group but

rather dealing with the problems as a whole. the initial places that i think we will examine and we need to examine are the discretionary side of the budget but ultimately we are going to have to find a way to address the entitlements and i don't like using that word because many of us have paid into social security for 20, 30 or 40 years of entitlement is something we have earned. i think we have to make sure we deal with the entitlement issue or we are never going to deal to balance the budget. i say that recognizing that we have made promises to seniors and we have to keep those promises and a way to deal with the entitlement issues to make sure the expectations of those who are entering the workforce right now that they will be able to retire at age 62 or 65

s. life inspected the increases. we have to make sure we adjust our social security and medicare program and others. >> host: you would support raising the retirement age long-term? >> guest: i would support raising the retirement age long-term. that will not balance to social security and it will not balance medicare. we have got to look at other areas and frankly i am looking forward to listening to the experts and working across the aisle to find ways to solve this problem in the long term. i don't have every answer at this point. it's one of the reasons i'm going to congress with an open mind. the only real goal is we got to make sure that social security and medicare are available to those americans 40 50 60 years from now.

>> host: emma dumain. >> guest: republicans now that they control both houses of congress have said they really want to double down and try to tackle reform of the nation's tax code. do you think that is a viable goal? do you think that's something that can be accomplished in the next few years and what would you hope to see out of a tax reform package? >> guest: i think it's an absolutely necessary goal and again the key term is fairness. all americans recognize that what congress has proposed is fair and it treats people at the low end of the income scale fairly as well as the people at the high at the high-end of the income scale. i think it's absolutely necessary to flatten our tax code. i'm not saying that we haven't absolutely flat tax within two years but we have got to make sure that people have faith in our tax system and understand

when they are filling out a tax return they are not missing an exemption or a deduction or something that somebody else can afford to hire an expert and someone hasn't gone to congress and inserted language into the tax code that gives them an unfair advantage. i think it's essential that people have certainty and as i plan my expenditures for the year i know how much money i will be paying at the end of the year because i know the tax rate will be. the tax system is unfair. i hear it as i travel the state of colorado and i think it's essential that we address the issue. >> host: epic include with this question. tuesday will place her will place him in the bible and be sworn in as one of 435 members of the house of representatives and a 114 congress. what will be going through your mind? >> guest: whoa isha probably

asking that question on wednesday but i'm thrilled with the owner. i think that it is a challenging time to be a congressman and i think that those challenges present great opportunities and i'm really honored that the people of the district of colorado have chosen me for this honor. >> host: ken buck represented the left will take the oath of office on tuesday. thank you very much for being with us on c-span for this program. >> guest: thank you. ..

>> it was challenging him on his veto authority. that is the question that everyone is asking and i think that it is one that no one has the institute today. >> he ran as a conservative and he really answered this with a tea party favorite, whether or not there is room for this in the congress. but in answer questions? >> not specifically. but i believe that he you know, i get the impression that he certainly -- but gridlock hasn't been good for either party particularly the republican party, for many reasons that they have taken a little bit more of a hit with the government shutdown in 2013. you know whether or not i

think republicans are wary to be seen as this. so as far as the optics are concerned i think that they don't want to follow that path again. and he said all the right things would suggest that he understands that. so getting into the is a few months from now, we will see what happens. but it is too early to tell. >> there is the question does the story have legs. we talked about congressman steve scalise. do you think that we will hear more in the days ahead? >> i think that we will hear more whether it is something from members that can be put behind a congressman or something that can continue. it depends on if we get more information that becomes more troubling for congressman steve

scalise to explain or to account for. i think that it could depend upon whether democrats see an opportunity to really continue to make this a point, especially with republicans claiming to be a big party and democrats, their point of pride in his or the party was with diversity and you guys have always been the party of old white men, that is sort of where democrats have challenged republicans when democrats see an opportunity to continue harping on this. you could see how it is staying in the news cycle for more than a couple of days. >> what about speaker boehner? how does he thread the needle. in working with the white house, compromising. tweaking his republican congress and keeping it at peace. that is the 64,000-dollar question. i think that speaker boehner has the second-most second most

difficult job in washington behind the president. but he has weathered a lot of storms over the past -- whether it's a lot of internal storms and other things. whether a lot of internal storms in congress. sort of tea party hole within the house gop that some felt was coming and never really came and he helped to control it and he holds the control now. and so if anyone can do it he can. >> your questions on this new year's weekend is wonderful. thank you sean and emma. we appreciate you being with us and happy new year. >> inc. you. >> thank you. >> in 2006 c-span aired a documentary titled the capital which gave viewers an in-depth look of the building in history. we also took a tour of the house chamber and learned of some of the famous symbols.

>> the symbols are very important. there's a cornucopia next to the clock come up a traditional american symbol of abundance. there are stars in the united states. we always think of stars and stripes. they were bound together in ancient rome. individually you put them together and there is a traditional symbol of the republican government in which the people rule and that is the same as well. and there's another eagle with his wings spread out there in the sky and it's rather like

this although it is covered from behind and it's not open to the heavens. but it is a wonderful eagle with this since i spreading its wings over the day-to-day and you can see these are great symbols of the nation. and when the congress is in session i love seeing this symbol. it, too, is a bundle topped by a terrific silve globe with an eagle on top of it. >> traditions are important because when you forget about the division you forget about the flavor of this place. when we see the speaker when

the british burnt the capital town come they also sold this. you read the stories of former speakers when people got rowdy and out of hand, there was a fight on the floor and you had to present this. so it is a symbol of what this country has invested in the congress and the power of the congress and the power of people coming together and getting things done. >> 114th congress gavels in this tuesday at nooneastern. watch it live on c-span2 and back the gop led congress and have your say as events unfold on the c-span our domestic radio, and c-span tv. >> association the association of american law schools wrapped

up its annual meeting in washington dc on monday. next, law professors discuss the obama administration and separation of power. this is 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> it's 9:00 o'clock, we are going to get started. welcome to the 2015 academic program. we're discussing lawmaking and we have wonderful guest here today. i want to thank the committee for selecting this program and i want to thank everyone for their hard work.

i would like to say a few things before i give my opening remarks. the attendance sheet is located in the back of the room. we will verify your tenants and give you credit. we also value your feedback. please take a moment to fill that out. i want to acknowledge the professors here when you see how this works with the program and the idea for the program was born out of our own work as immigration scholars and in response to the conversation over totality and legitimacy over president obama's executive action of immigration, particularly those in the ruble power against certain undocumented youth. we anticipated that five years

and president obama would likely ask congress to attempt to address in some ways the persistent problems that are very broken in the immigration system. ..

in the afternoon he will be having lunch on your honor we hope you come back. the conversation will turn to a rights-based assessment of some of president obama's issues of executive power. to test the general perception the obama administration as perception the obama administration is largely acted without congress to expand rights. professor said cohen will be moderating a panel and the final panel we couldn't not do this where immigration scholars organizing this. we will be looking at the immigration example a case study to deepen and expand the conversation to engage with the structure of the rights-based programs like the recent expansion of the program. so we hope you stay for the entire program for as much as you can.

many of the papers presented will be published in the love review and the american university law review so thank you very much for coming today. [applause] >> welcome everybody and thank you to the als at the organizers for their prescience in organizing this conference. we want to begin our session with a look at separation of powers. this contributed to equivalent term in which congress has filed a lawsuit against the president claiming executive overreach in health care. in 24 states are trying to limit limit the president of thomas executive actions and immigration laws. some of the criticism has been leveled against obama's environmental policies.

this panel will examine president obama's administration through the lens of separation of powers in order to assess the nature and scope of the executive actions that our speakers will explore these issues through a variety of policies including immigration health care and tax policy. i will introduce our speakers briefly and then have them share their papers in the order in which they are seated. first we have professor joe -- joe family was a professor at white man university school of law in the director of the lobban government has to do. professor family is known internationally for scholarly work on immigration. the scholarship examines the government's procedures in decidingho may ent and who may remain in the united states. shehas etensively studied immigration plicy making in the relatiship between the three branes ofgovernment in implementing and interpreting immigration law. her work draws o administration lawconstitutional law and civil procedure as well as a comparative study of procedures in other countries.

she perceived the 2001 excellence and faculty scholarship award and was elected as the low judiciary and abs. her talk today is entitled and unexceptional aspect of the battle between president obama in congress over immigration laws. we'll have professor chad devoe a professor at the university school of law. his scholarship focuses on federalism and the separation of powers and the role of constitutional law and private loss. his work addresses the role of the judiciary in the system of checks and balances that he he teaches constitutional law and contracts for which he won teacher of award at concordia. his research is how the debt ceiling in congress and is titled that the forest on a presidential power analyzing the debt standoff. next we'll have professor

william marshall is a can marshall was the ken professor bob university of north carolina law school professor marshall has published extensively on freedom of speech, freedom of religion federal courts of presidential power federalism and judicial selection matters. he teaches classes in all of these subjects. he was previously deputy white house counsel and deputy assistant to the president of the united states during the clinton administration. he was solicitor general to the state of ohio. a recent publication entitled actually was to wait evaluating the obama administration's commitment to unilateral executive branch action. our last speaker will be professor joseph landau who is an associate professor at fordham university school of law. professor landau writes in areas of administrative law national security and immigration law and teaches courses in those areas as well. professor landau received florida teacher of the year award in 2014 and has been named

one of the best lawyers by the national lgbt bar association. his talk today is entitled immigration experimentation and studies the role of agency bureaucrats and moving immigration law forward. without further ado i will turn it over to our first speaker professor jill family. [applause] >> thank you so much. it's my pleasure to start off our session today and to be a part of this panel on today's discussion. the topic of separation of powers have certainly been getting a lot of attention lately in the push and pull between president obama and congress over various issues in my opinion often too quickly boils down to a simple description that pits the president and congress in a battle of wars. while there is much to discuss and cooperation between the

executive and legislative branches it strange to say the least. i would start the session by focusing on an aspect of the recent high-profile separation of powers bent on further examination is not really very novel or very noteworthy. now you may be thinking it's a bad idea to start your a talk by telling the audience that about what you are about to talk to is not very noteworthy but my point is the hype may not always reflect the reality of the situation. as as been mentioned president obama recently announced actions affecting immigration law. he proposed to establish a process to allow for the parents of u.s. citizens children or

permit children with green cards to process to allow for their parents to apply for something called deferred action which is a promise not to deport for a certain period of time. what the government is saying, would be saying is you were not an enforcement priority for us and we will issue documentation that we promise not to do for you certain period of time and does not provide individual's legal status. he also proposed to expand the deferred action for the childhood rival program as mentioned earlier and that allows individuals who arrived the students to apply for that same promise not to be deported. he proposed to study changes to prove the efficiency of immigration bureaucracy among some other things. that is a very brief summary of the substance of what president obama would like to see accomplished. procedurally speaking what

exactly did he do? he did not issue any executive orders. he did issue to presidential memoranda that those address only to narrow issues of all of the substance. those only address the improving immigration bureaucracy and promoting better integration of immigrants into society. the most controversial items the establishment of discretion priorities the announcement that parents of u.s. citizens of children of unlawful children could apply for that. the c extension, those are all actually in the form of agency guidance documents. so the actual documents are simply memoranda from the secretary of homeland security to lower level agency officials directing the agency to observe certain prosecutorial discretion priorities or to establish a method for qualifying parents to

apply for that promise not to deport her. so i will just show you real quickly. this is the november memoranda that establishes the program for for parents of aegis -- u.s. citizen children. it simply has homeland security letterhead on it. memorandum for the director of uscis and some other folks from the secretary of homeland security. that is all it is but what exactly is this? what exactly is this piece of paper? it's an agency guidance document and agency guidance documents are not legislative rules that are used heavily throughout administrative law. in administrative allow the term world is used broadly to include both legislative and nonlegislative rules. legislative rules are uniquely binding. you might think regulations while non- legislative rules like the memoranda are not. the legislative role must follow

either the formal or informal were making provisions of the administration -- of ministry procedure act and rulemaking much more common. informal were making the general path is that the agency publishes a notice of proposed rule in the federal register and then allows the public an opportunity to comment on the rule and then a publication of the final rule follows. the administrative procedure act allows an exception to informal rulemaking for guidance documents like policy memoranda. policy memoranda for example are not subject to the notice of requirements of the ministry procedure act but as a consequence of the procedural shortcut they are not legally binding by the public so that means a regulated party may argue that a different rule other than the one that is contained in the guidance document should apply in any enforcement proceeding.

now all types of agencies use non- legislative rules a lot. non- legislative rules are really the workhorse of the executive branch. guidance documents allow agencies to move more quickly and to communicate more frequently with regulated parties. a policy memorandum for example like the one i showed you simply expresses an agency's enforcement plans plans to go about enforcement of the law. agency guided documents are controversial but that controversial but that has nothing to do with president obama or our current congress. the use of non- legislative rules has been controversial for decades. there have been efforts to reform agency use of guidance documents in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s the 1990s and in 2000. so why are agency document -- guidance documents controversial?

they are controversial controversial because one agency exercises the power delegated to it through the procedural mechanism non- legislative rule the concern is that the non- legislative rule binds practically without the procedural protections of notice of, in rulemaking even though policy memorandum is not legally binding on make public. regulated parties probably will conform to what the memorandum says because the agency is expressing its enforcement. the path of least resistance is to do what the guidance document says. so the fear is that the rule has a legally binding effect despite that it is not the subject of notice and comment rulemaking. it's a legislative rule masquerading as a non- legislative rule. so for example of the d.c. circuit held that federal communications commission should have used notice and comment rulemaking is comment rulemaking is that of an erpatape -- interpreted approach of

introducing a requirement that allowed landline telephone numbers to be transferred wordless carriers. we all remember when this was big news. because in requirement that more than quote supply crisper and more detailed lines than being interpreted the d.c. circuit held the fcc did not properly invoke an exception to notice and comment were making. the d.c. circuit also sort of regularly hears cases where people are challenging the use of the rule in a a policy memorandum and the court usually looks to the language of the policy statement and agency's behavior to decide although i should say the d.c. circuit's case law on the subject is anything but clear. if the document does not use language and agency does not true treat the rule is winding patrol may -- for example and immigration context context of policy memorandum addressing

issues affecting the adjudication for specific immigration benefit was held to be a true non- legislative rule as the procedure used match with the agency was trying to accomplish because the guidance document was not binding on its face or is applied. the memo itself stated that it only intended to provide guidance to lower level adjudicators and the court was able to point to adjudication outcomes and evidence flexibility in application. i would be remiss if i didn't mention that the supreme court is considering a challenge to a d.c. circuit doctrine that recommends that an agency may not change a long-standing interpretive rule unless it uses notice and comment rulemaking to change the long-standing interpretive rule. so as the example example shows that it's common in an administrative procedure action for a regulated party to challenge an agency's enforcement action as based on

an invalidly formulated non- legislative rule that should've been subct to notice and comment rulemaking. in the lawsuit that was mentioned earlier where a group of state has raised this exact challenge in a lawsuit challenging president obama's recent immigration executive action. in addition to other challenges such as violation of the take care clause that states are also asserting procedural violation under the ministry procedure act and the government has argued in response that the memoranda truly are a properly formulated non- legislative rule. so this administrative law aspect of president obama's executive actions my point is come is nothing new. it's not unique to the president, to these times were to immigration law. now there is a trend in immigration law to come up with names that symbolized the mash-up of immigration law with other areas of law.

the most famous being the merging of criminal law and immigration law. this is important because it represents seemingly iverse areas of law that have intertwined. as much as i would love to coin the term administration law that actually doesn't really fit my talk today because my point is and what i hope i will leave you with is the idea that what i've been talking about today is a plain old administrative law topic. at least this concern about executive power and the obama administration is not exceptional. in conclusion i do not mean to say that president obama's recent executive actions raised no newsworthy issues and the ministry of law issues are not important. in fact i think the procedures used by the executive branch in enforcing immigration law is an area that's ripe for scholarly

inquiry. we need to examine comprehensively the procedures that an executive power in immigration law and is immigration law scholarship grows to separate out the constitutional roles of the president and congress when it comes to immigration law we will inevitably consider the extent of the president's inherent authority over immigration law. one question that i have just to leave you for something to think about is if the president has inherent authority over immigration law what is the source of any of the procedural restraint against the present action? does the administration that become irrelevant if they present is exercising inherent authority? those are newsworthy questions but whether an agency properly formulated and knowledge is not. thank you. [applause] >> thank you jill.

next we have professor chad deveaux from concordia university school of law. >> my paper which recently was published in the connecticut law review focuses on what i think is the most extreme example of legislative dysfunction during the obama years years. a recurring debt ceiling standoffs between congress and the white house. as a way of background congress prescribes the federal budgets are a panoply of appropriations laws. the statues and struck the tap the federal subsidized marriott of programs. sie the founding of the public congss has passed the sax with full knowledge that funds available in federal coffers through tax revenue will approve inadequate to recover expenditures. when this happens other laws direct the president to periodically borrow enough money to cover the