issues, and so it's very important we understand how they're interrelated. ...

years peterson being picked up the neighbors or family members picked up. so that plays out one way or as access to reproductive health care in the african-american community plays out a very different way. we take children away from african american single mothers.

that is an aspect. in service of the society that is headed by one group and others are kept in places. that is the interrelationship piece. it is harder to grasp. the lived experience. all right. i said i would talk for 15 minutes. i will count on you to not let me ramble too much. so that is what i want to

talk about today what does the minimum wage have to do with reproductive rights and justice. so justice. so i think the easiest answer, of course, is it is a women's issue. reproductive rights and justice is an economic justice issue. unpack. unpack (and explain why we get to that. two thirds of minimum-wage workers in. and the progressive community that has become a mantra. democrats and the progressive community have been pushing hard to increase the wage. activists came in 2013 to

pass him mysore at the state level. in 2014 we got a minimum-wage law passed in arkansas and alaska in those those voters voted for united states senators did not support an increase in the minimum wage. so why were to five and let me just paused for a moment and say the national organization for women is actually the grassroots arm of the women's movement. we did not do research. we did not provide not provide services, and we don't have a lobby shop, like a lot of others. it's all grassroots. 250 chapters around the country so why is it that

now we are so interested in the minimum wage. for one thing, two thirds of minimum-wage workers are women. 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 us are women. test minimum-wage, the federal tip to minimum wage is $2.13 per hour $2.13 $2.13 per hour, servers and restaurants, other service providers. to be clear the vast majority do not work at ruth's chris steakhouse making good tips.

denise, ihop the olive garden and the vast majority are women and they are disproportionately women of color. so the minimum wage actually is a a huge issue. if we were to increase the minimum wage for everyone men and women to $15 $15 and by the way, $10 an hour is a poverty wage. it does not pay the bills. our dear friends on the hill and washington are fond of pat themselves on the back. it remains a poverty wage, much wage, much better than the current $7.25 but is not acceptable. the reality is, if you bring it up on what it is now 215 or 20 across the board you we will go a long way toward closing the gender wage

because a significant part of the gentoo wage gap that has women paid right now it is $.78 for every dollar paid to men, for latinos it is more like $0.59 to the dollar and for african-american women is roughly $0.64 to the dollar. that would not be eliminated but significantly narrowed if we simply raise the minimum wage to a living wage. it is also a reproductive justice issue, and here is why. the restaurant opportunity for united is an organization based in new york city run by a woman teaches at berkeley came out with a study that absolutely floored her. she was astonished by the results of her research showing sexual harassment on the job is sky high for

women who are tipped workers and restaurants. well, think about why that is. they are not working at high-end restaurants. they are working at malls ruby tuesday and so forth. a base pay $2.13 an hour not quite enough to pay taxes. so 100% 100 percent of the money that they get to pay the babysitter, the child care worker, the the rent, the food is actually paid by customers. the restaurant industry is the only industry on the planet where the owners of the companies get the customers to pay the wages of the workers. that is what is going on throughout the restaurant industry because that wage

has remained. that is that is because of the efforts of the national restaurant association or the other nra. [laughter] so, as so, as a result of the fact that these customers are paying wages of tipped workers they have to put up with a shockingly a shockingly high level of sexual harassment, being groped touched, and on having inappropriate sexualized comments constantly all day long because they cannot afford to be fired. buses are telling them the customer is always right. so right their you can begin to see how this plays in. in fact, discrimination.

often takes the form of sexualized behavior and that you can begin to see a direct connection between the minimum wage or wages or economic justice. so that is one place. the minimum wage really is a women's issue. the other piece reproductive rights really are an issue of economic justice. the easiest way to encapsulate that is really given to me by a man who left a message on my voicemail years ago i think it was 2011 and 2012 when in washington dc there was a huge effort to shut down planned parenthood and the fund all of the title x

family planning clinics most of which do not provide abortion services. but the effort was to shut down the family planning clinics and defund planned parenthood entirely. we were working hard trying to get the word out that this was possible and we needed to stop. in the midst of this i get a voicemail from a man who identifies himself and says i'm calling to thank you for all of the work that your organization is doing to make sure that planned parenthood stays strong. he said you know i know birth control is important for my wife's health. i get that but i have to tell you it is about family finances. finances. i got laid off and i'm having a hard time finding a job. we had two kids and cannot

afford another job. if she could not go get her birth control at an affordable price i do not no what we do. it is in that sense that reproductive justice is absolutely a matter of economic justice. this year you will see it play out in a slightly different context. a woman a woman was pregnant and told by her dr. you get to a certain., you cannot lift more than 20 pounds. well, she was was a driver for ups. she works it out with her coworker. she mentions to supervisor that she has this setup and wants permission to make it formalized. the supervisor looks through all the documents.

the exterior all the documents, look through the union contracts and says you don't fit any of our categories. you were not picked up on drunk driving. we could accommodate for that. if you lost your license driving we can put you on desk duty but you don't fit there. so you do not fit into the americans with disabilities act. it also do not within the pregnancy discrimination act because you are looking for an accommodation. accommodation is not spelled out how that might work on the pregnancy discrimination act. you don't fit the categories i have and we cannot accommodate.

this is her says actually now they have told me her dr. says you cannot lift more than 20 pounds 20 pounds i have to put you on unpaid leave because we don't want you working if your dr. says you should not be. she pay. she was forced on to unpaid leave which cost of health caps on lose her health insurance causing she and her husband tipped into the personal pockets to cover her healthcare. there again actually accommodating pregnancy. where where do we think the next generation of workers coming from accommodate women new line pregnant is very much a matter of economic justice. she is lucky. this woman was fortunate because she had a partner,

another adult bringing money into the household. most women a very large number of women who face pregnancy discrimination in the workplace are single mothers the ones who can least afford to not have accommodations. the kind of accommodations being denied to us and let me just say, ups say ups is a good workplace in a lot of ways. the case is going to the supreme court but the practices have now changed. but there are places where women are not allowed to follow up on all the doctors have said to stay hydrated, but your not allowed to have a bottle of water with you. it is absolutely a problem of women economic ability.

the final the final thought i want to leave you with his own control the efforts to defund planned parenthood has failed for now, but there is an ongoing effort in washington and around the state trooper who to control from the standard health insurance contract. it is the affordable care act every insurance company must provide a list of standard services. heart. heart disease diabetes surgery for broken legs and it includes well over 50 or 60 preventive services, screenings for high blood pressure and heart disease and so forth and birth control is on the list. 98 percent of women have

utilized to control at some time. 99 percent of sexually active women utilize birth control. go go into any catholic church and look around at the family's. they they have to kids. what do you think they are doing 98% of sexually active catholic women report utilizing birth control. it is a smaller percentage for evangelicals. 96% of evangelical women report utilizing birth control. of course, surprisingly large figure a a surprisingly large number of women use hormonal birth control for purposes other than preventing pregnancy, but it is key to women's health. unintended unintended pregnancy can be deadly highly correlated with infant mortality, maternal quality, and domestic violence homicide highly

correlated. 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 had no consistent access the birth control that was right for them because they worked in a minimum wage job that did not provide health benefits to its minimum wage employees. so under the affordable care act we have made progress. it progress. it does not cover all people, but it covers a great number and they all get birth control as part of their ordinary preventive care. and here you have the incoming leaders of the

house and u.s. senate who have indicated they intend to bring up a law that would strip birth control out of the standard health insurance contract because of religious reasons. just reasons. just so you know, my name is of the. the the bishops are opposed to birth control. i get it. catholic church teaching considers the second to be sent. you don't see the catholic bishops going up and down the halls of congress to amend the criminalization of vasectomy but you see them walking into representatives offices and sitting down and talking about the way that law should be drafted to criminalize reproductive health care or prevent women from getting access. my organization has taken the position basic

healthcare like birth control cannot be blocked. blocked. there is no religious excuse. there is no constitutional right to be an employer. you have a constitutional right to be a mother superior, but, but not to own and operate a personal. if you do decide and you decide that you need janitors and secretaries and other people working not clergy you must follow the law with respect to the healthcare that you provide your employees. it is one law for all employers, and we did not believe believe there should be any religious exemption because it is a matter of basic economic survival. so that is where we are with

the way we understand these issues of reproductive services for women. i think this is appointed which we can stop and maybe take some questions. [applauding] clicks thank you. >> i think you could probably be your own moderator. >> what does the landscape looks like for the appeal of roe v wade? >> that is a great question. the folks who would like to appeal court overturned are extremely well-positioned. so in the 113th congress

must use the year the house of representatives passed the so-called 20 weeks then criminalizing abortion at 20 weeks gestation well before five significantly before viability. and under planned parenthood the casey that is the.at which the government can ban abortions. passed the house and was blocked in the senate which is now under the control of individuals who have expressed support for a 20 weeks then. there are currently ten states less than a a dozen, more than a half-dozen that the past 20 weeks pam. arizona is one. the ninth

circuit ruled that it was clearly unconstitutional. it did not have to be attacked on an as applied basis because there was no set of circumstances under which it could be considered constitutional. it has not been challenged and most other states where it has come up. idaho was a weird case. what you have is a 20 weeks then in place in number of states moving forward, not challenged and you have been in both houses of congress to pass the 20 weeks then. the only way you can uphold is to overturn roe v wade. in fact, i i have seen at least some opinion out there that you cannot a principled distinction between -- once

it is a nonviable fetus there is no principled distinction between 20 and 18 and 1512 weeks. the justification is fascinating. fetuses feel pain. that this junk science. another justification is that abortion is much more dangerous for women as the pregnancy proceeds. that is just an astonishing claim. terminating a 20 week pregnancy is safer than childbirth. so of course is the pregnancy proceeds in a next is dangerous than if they were done. it is still safer. what is fascinating is the

only justification is that of the forward are both demonstrably false. and yet we have it is possible. at the federal level is a much greater level of going to this court. yes. >> gender nature. the points tech executives coming in saying to teachers coming in saying to teachers about how to measure outcomes. we want to sleep you decide. and you too for also the

voice of facebook. your position on the digital economy. we have been working with friends and the teachers union to try to stop what we

do currently taking -- we we are concerned about a different set of things. we see a tax on publicly funded education and the attack on teacher's unions, unionized teachers as being a big part of the problem, one of the reasons for trampling on union rights teachers were not doing their job. photographic tests that human when it was the teachers of wisconsin drove the economy of the clip and got a bailout. so that is what we have been working on. you had your hand up. >> utility. the "wall street journal" has been writing stories. we certainly know that no

one can afford to have a child. i'm curious. >> fertility which is at 186 now. all the projections will continue to fall. >> that is absolutely and economically. you talked about the fact that middle-class ideology goes far into the low-wage population way down as well as into the upper regions. on middle-class ideology people of marriage, marriage, respected, it is an important institution that they want to give all the perspective is due. it is absolutely right. as a matter of this country being able to complete

economically we by emigration same as northern europe. i don't have a problem. i think that the global village and so forth makes it was important for any one country to keep reproducing its own workers but next international trade agreement all more important my organization -- and we are not taking the lead by any stretch. tpp. yes. how about if i go around. their hand was there. yes.

>> thank you for your inspiring and eliminating comment. the first 80% of what you said was particularly powerful because it cut across divisions of gender and class and political ideology and was potentially unifying and coalition building. so i was moved by it was moved by it in the hell of to the world as a political matter. was 20 percent of what you said was intentionally defensive that you asserted very strongly that employers have no right no constitutional, moral right is a about what kind of benefits are provided in connection with the employment as it is related to healthcare and both

control and abortion availability. for many people in our society they feel strongly in the other direction. it seems that obama care was a compromise bill that no one wanted. it would be just as responsive to the problem that your organization with like-minded people say now is just the reasons -- we have seen the problem employer mandates it is divisive to our society. ..

>> in his work he really points out it is joseph who points out that at the very top of the income globally you have a stronger and stronger and stronger imperative to prevent a reduction that inequality. it is a spiral going in exactly the wrong way which makes nonprofits weaker and weaker. it is the state level. we are getting kicked in the teeth. we do not have the

infrastructure to stop it. we are building. the unions figured out they need to work with allies at the state level but we are absolutely far from where we need to be. [inaudible question] >> and virginia governor has asked a council on women to create a healthcare initiative to raise the visibility of these issues. i am wondering if you could share your thoughts on this persuasive narrative about the economic implications. >> sure. and i can give you more resources. here are the basics. one in three women will have an

abortion by the age of 45. it is a common and necessary aspect of women's reproductive health. if we did dip into our own pockets to provide that the it is that much more money we do not have to set aside for college, a down payment for our house or our own retirement. when you look at what is going on economically the low-wage economics, what you see is women have less money coming in just because they are weapons women and more money going out just because the. the single most important factor in determining whether a person who lives in after the age of 70 is

whether she had children. that is the reproductive health economic justice right there. far more likely to be financially responsible, financially responsible for their children and their elders than men. less money and get your expenses are higher. now if women cannot access which has been true for a long time, not being able to access birth-control and pay out out-of-pocket, and by the way, birth-control the ability to control the number and spacing of your pregnancies dramatically reduces stress. the more we learn about stress and opens, the more we see how deeply connected it is to cardio -- what is

it, health disease and it is absolutely essential to maintaining the kind of healthy body that allows you to go to work and get your $0.77. so it -- it is a start. okay. yes. >> the problems of the state level. i wonder if you are considering trying to get more women elected as governors and exploring the fact that in the republican governors association they often break with national strategy and are more progressive in listening closer to home. it seems like some real in the national governors association could neutralize

are you exploiting that enough? >> we are definitely involved. involved. there are organizations take the lead. trying to get more women elected to governorships and the congress. state executive and u.s. congress. ..

>> in these include issues that actually support women. more women than just conservatives. if you look at self identified moderates, the women and moderates and the way that i would want them to then the man. even if you look at the self identified progression, the women progressives will vote the way that i want them to more often. one of my staffers called it the other day our friends the glow

progressives. [laughter] and it is really important. we are very much a part of that. >> i think that that is it for all of the questions. thank you all so much. [applause] >> hello, the economics luncheon is hereby adjourned. we thank president terry o'neill from the national organization for her inspiring speech and we offer her any help that we can in the future. we thank you so much. >> on our next "washington journal", we will talk to a number of capitol hill reporters about the opening of the 114 congress. we will also be joined by incoming freshmen house members from including don bier of

virginia, can buff of colorado and debbie dingell of michigan taking over the seat of her husband, john dingell. including cory gardner who will take your calls. plus, your facebook comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live on tuesday and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on seat and. >> the 114 congress opens at noon eastern on c-span. next ray flock discusses the history of the house speaker. this is 10 minutes. >> the constitution requires the house of representatives to choose a speaker. what is the speaker's job? >> the speaker has a big job that has evolved over 200 years. it started off as a constitutional office because

they say that the house shall choose their speaker's. they spelled it 18th century style. and there were no other duties mentioned. it was assumed since the founders knew all about this from colonial legislators and from the british parliament going back to the 13th century, what a speaker was, which was a presiding officer. but in our congress the speaker was not only a presiding officer but he quickly became a powerful person because he appointed the committees and that evolved into the party system, congress did not have organized policies as a two-party system developed and the speaker became the leader of the majority party and took on political ramifications. the constitution is very silent

on the powers of the speaker of what the speaker can make of this and that is the unique part of it. some speakers have exercised great power or they have even rival the presidency in terms of setting the national agenda, most of those in recent times and also 100 years ago to a powerful republican speaker. thomas reed and joe cannon of illinois. they both were powerful figures who set the agenda of the country. and the first speaker the first speaker of pennsylvania in the congress he simply was a presiding officer who was paid $2 more than the other members he got $8 per day. and he said i spent most of it on suppers for the members.

and so he didn't feel that it was much of a bonus, he thought that he was losing money on the deal. and even the individual quickly got powers and he found that he was elevated among the if other members. >> with the other members behind you the speaker and the vice president, what does this say about the authority? >> the speaker has great authority that was changed in 1947 with the secession act which brought the speaker up into a higher position as the highest elected officer after the president and vice president. and then it goes to the president temporary of the senate after that. so it is the president and vice president and the speaker is in line to succeed. and none act was an effort to

look at someone in line that was an elective official and in the old days it was the secretary of state. but since 1947 it has been the speaker. >> what happened at the time of the founders? >> as i mentioned in had evolved into something where the speaker today, the modern speaker, their role is to be the chief administrative officers of the house even though they had other officers that were elected and the speakers where the buck stops in terms of administration at the house. the speaker is also the head of this party and that party is opposite that of the president of the united states and means that he is the highest ranking officer of the opposite party. therefore the spokesman for the otr party as well.

the speakers are also at various times have had great power to bring the legislation to the floor and that is handled by many committees, but when the speaker's say-so. they control the agenda and the majority party controls the agenda and the speaker is the person who has the final authority. >> what qualities do you think make for a successful speaker max. >> the best speaker through history have been those that have tried to find a way to be problem solvers and compromisers those that work with presidents of their own parties and the opposite party. those who understand the relationship with the chairman of the committees of the house. and that is a tough job to balance all of those forces.

speakers do not always have complete control of their own caucus. there is division within the system. the house runs with the members of the most part. if you have the majority, you can push the legislation of the majority party and control virtually everything that goes on in the house and that is one of the differences between the house and the senate no matter which party is in charge and each senator, there is only 100 of them has considered a more individual power. but the house runs by numbers. so if you are a speaker, you can push the agenda. but that comes at a price if you do it against the best interest of most of the members of your caucus. or is sometimes if your party is in opposition to a national agenda that is different from your own. >> in a few minutes we will take the remarks of tip o'neill from

1985 on the opening day of the 98th congress. what is the speakers purpose and how old is this tradition we max. >> i do not know how long they have been doing the opening remarks. my guess is it's a fairly modern device and i don't know when it first started. a lot of things have started since radio and television. otherwise the house and the senate even though the chambers were opened, they did not really do a lot of ceremonial events even the state of the union address was not resurrected to be something that was held in congress until woodrow wilson did it in 1913. and lbj made it an evening event in television in 1965. and so these other things like opening day -- it is an important event and there is no western about it. it has been televised for many years. but it is a wonderful day

despite the differences, this is when the members tried to put their best foot forward and tried to be cooperative. they tried to hand the olive branch to the other party, the majority minority and the bigger families, you will see lots of children and some of them sleeping area at some of them paying attention. and so it is a family to a large extent and family members coming on the floor and it is sort of like meeting old friends and pack and none on the back.. patting them on the back. but it certainly has a situation where people say hi and they are glad to be here they are very humbled by this office. other times they want to speak about what the agenda will be like and this is the first opportunity and usually a light

handed approach and a friendly exchange. the minority part with the person who has lost the speakership has to hand the gavel over and that is usually done with reat style. >> tell us about tip o'neill. where is he from? >> tip o'neill was from massachusetts. he was a classic liberal politician of the old school and a new dealer and he was born in 1912 in his first campaign -- he worked as a campaigner when he ran for the president. so his whole life was politics. and he was part of the cambridge massachusetts city council council and he served the cambridge district and was a district in north cameras that was mostly irish and even was called old dublin.

that was his power who had forgotten where he had come from and he said that that was important. he said all politics is local and that was a pretty good observations about the nature of politics whether you are dealing with a national budget, some of the has to have the money to fix the problem and someone has to set the priority of what problem to fix. >> tell us about his life as a speaker. >> he was an affable that is a good way to talk about it. he was the kind of guy that would call you pal and he was someone that would sometimes go out on the floor just to sit on

the floor because the new members wanted to talk to him. and there were times when he would just make an appearance on the floor. and so he was a classic liberal in the sense that he believed the government could do things for people and he grew up during the depression watching franken roosevelt change america and put people back to work. it was the government and it was leading the struggle to restore the economy of the country and he always felt that was important. that was important of politics. >> ronald reagan was in the white house in 1985. what was happening in the house of representatives? >> his relationship with president reagan was quite interesting.

after hours they would have a drink together and they were too thin now against one another. by 1985 to o'neal had survived the reagan revolution of 1981 when he came into office and of course the senate went to republican. so it was very hard for the speaker to stop with reagan policies even though many democrats wanted them to and he simply said that i don't have the votes. in the early years the reagan agenda of cutting taxes and other programs went through without much trouble. and many members that were conservatives were frequently

siding with the minority. so tip o'neill did not always control the delegation. >> the 114 congress gavels in at noon eastern on tuesday. watch coverage of the house on c-span at the senate went on c-span2 and track the gop led congress and have your say as events unfold on the c-span that work and c-span radio and c-span.org. new congress on c-span. >> joining us from denver colorado, is congressman elect ken buck on "newsmakers." he he is the freshman class president. thank you so much for being with us. >> guest: make you. >> host: joining us as well is emma dumaine. congressman, first let's begin with the freshman republican class president to talk about the looming budget debate that will be coming with the homeland

department of security because of the presidents actions on security. do you expect this funding issue to be a contentious debate and do think that the funding could be forestalled? >> i think it will be a contentious debate and i think what the president did was poorly designed and i hope that we can work through the issue and we need to make sure that the transition is smooth. >> expect everyone to come

together which would then resend the presidents executive orders and actions. >> that would be my hope. i am not sure that that would happen but i it is my hope that congress will pass a bill and we will be able to move forward in a way that the american people are satisfied and this is the way that we can produce a thoughtful product. >> host: shawn of the washington examiner. thank you for joining us. >> guest: how much impact do you think you can make sort of being at the low impact of the pecking order and marty think of your fellow republican commerce and elect elect to class president? >> guest: you guys have to stop asking me questions at once more than one that once because

i can never remember. [laughter] >> guest: how much influence? >> guest: yes. >> guest: you know, i have been amazed at how open leadership and others are in congress right now to the thoughts and i say that because the folks that have been there are those that want to know what the freshman have heard and we have been on the campaign trail and we have been interacting and we have heard this in an unvarnished way and i think that is a result of that there is a lot of input with freshman members of congress and

i think that gives us more than one vote of influence and i have been very happy with the process of choosing committees and meeting the chairs of committees and talking with them about future legislation. >> guest: why do you think that they elected you as the representative? >> guest: well, it concerns me frankly, about their judgment. i think that probably nobody else wanted the job and they were willing to give it a go. >> guest: did you run for the position? >> guest: yes, i did. >> guest: were you challenged? >> guest: there may have been challenges before hand. they were known at the time captain mcmorris rogers ran the meeting and from that point on

else stood up. >> caller: hello congressman. as the president of your freshman class, you are represented a new class coming in and have some dimensions and in the republican party is trying to expand this. you have women coming into the republican party in the house and you have men and women of color and all of this is happening with the third ranking republican steve scalise, he is under scrutiny for meeting with a white supremacist organization in 2002. are you concerned about the mixed messaging and ethics of wanting to create this with the

possibility that some could see a number of leadership and being involved in this in the past? >> guest: well -- i -- i think that 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 and he has apologized for what has happened and i think that it was years ago that he has demonstrated through his legislative career that that is not who he is and i think that the republican party will continue to be a party that welcomes all americans who want a strong america both economically and as a world leader. >> host: he did vote against the mlk holiday. was that a mistake? >> guest: you're going to ask

him if it was a mistake because it's not something that i think the american people will focus on. we have $18 trillion of debt and we have $120 of unfunded liabilities in the american people sent us to washington dc to solve problems. i do not think that issue involving him 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 are going to be most focused on. >> guest: congress and let's go back to the pieces of the overall package. what about the full republican congress, what they can do to address the undocumented immigrants living in this country and something that would have the effect of legalizing

undocumented immigrants without having to rely on the presidents executive order as you and your colleagues are doing outside of this. >> guest: i think that the key is to deal with the immigration issue in a different way and i think that we need to focus on a guestworker program and border security and once we have fixed the immigration issue or dealt with the problems that exist today in the lot and the enforcement of the law, we can start to address what do we do with the folks that came into this country illegally or those who have overstayed their visas. and i think if we reverse the order, we are going to be dealing with an emotional situation in a situation of

trust with the american people and this president has not earned the trust of republicans or the american people on immigration. he has failed to enforce the laws in so many areas in order to have a workable immigration system and we have to make sure that people and people come into this country understand that we do respect the law and we are going to enforce the law and once we do this i think that 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. >> host: what you personally think that we should do with those here in this country, if we do everything that you just said that we should be doing. >> guest: i would be glad to answer that and have a discussion about that when we accomplish it. as we said i believe that people think that we are trying

to create an amnesty program and we pass laws about border security but we really never secure it. we pass this but we never really enforce the laws in that area. i am 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: john from the washington examiner. >> host: you have been a long-time favorite tea party activists. this has press republican lawmakers not to compromise with the democratic ideals and so what is your view now that you are going to be in congress and do you believe that it is okay for republicans to compromise with democrats on major issues?

>> guest: i think that compromise is part of the legislative process and we need to compromise within the republican party and to work together to achieve goals and we need to make sure that we are working with democrats to achieve the goals in overall legislation. where i will not compromise our on the fiscal issues that have just tried this country down and i am very concerned about our national debt and very concerned about the sense that the federal government can solve all problems. i am going to washington dc to reduce the size and scope of the federal government so that the role of the federal government is as framed in the constitution and our government. in that sense i will not compromise my core values and i am absolutely willing to work

with others on crafting legislation to make sure that we have an immigration system that works and i think we have to come together and we can't just keep throwing money at problems and hope that those problems are getting better. you may have heard about a different message from the tea party groups that i have heard. they have never said that we can go there and don't work with other people. they have absolutely asked me to go there and solve problems. >> in february and march he is raising the debt limit. under what circumstances would you vote to increase the debt limit reign. >> welcome i think that we have

to make substantial progress and on balancing the budget, if we do that come i will take a look at voting to increase the debt limit. but i am not in this includes what the president and others have and we have a lot of room to cut our spending especially if we avoid the consequences that others talk about. >> you support the so-called speaker boehner rule dollar for dollar two put in spending increases? >> guest: i think that that is a minimum threshold that we have to meet. not just 10 or 15 years from now, with another congress and

the pain is caused by a history of irresponsible spending in the united states and the united states government. >> host: if not could we face deflt? >> guest: you know, i hope that we do not. i hope that congress and the president act responsibly and balance the budget or at least move substantially in that domain. >> host: going back to what sean was asking about operation and bipartisanship and the opportunity to work with the other side of the aisle. we understand you have been selected to be a member of the oversight and government response committee.

and it did not work particularly well with his democratic counterpart linking him to the coming situation there was a sense coming in that this would want to or have to take an approach. are you familiar with this kind of vision, a republican in utah for instance, wants to take a more conciliatory and collaborative approach with the committee. or did you appreciate the very confrontational nature of isis? would you want something a little bit more combative against the obama administration? >> guest: i have not had a chance to do talked to chairman jason chaffetz about his plans with the committee. i can say that and i can say that a compatible is not

effective. and the constitution contemplates and this includes and it is essential with the media. and it keeps the executive branch from becoming a monarchy. that is something we don't want in this country and that -- i imagine eight or 10 years ago when the congress was dealing with the president bush, there was also some tension that existed between the oversight functions in the house and senate and the bush administration as well. i think that those are natural tensions and as much as possible we have to keep those on a professional level and not make it personal and the use of this

president and his executive order in this includes the other regulatory issues that are going on for congress to look into. >> host: speaking of these tensions of the white house, you have not been shy to criticize the obama administration or even sending out recently that you lost your appetite after this time when you saw the president eating. we are now controlling both houses. you think that it's possible that the congress can have a working relationship with the president? or do you see another couple of years of gridlock that we are seeing here for quite a while in washington? >> i absolutely think that we will work closely with the president and with the democrats

in congress and i want to clarify something that you mentioned that i lost my appetite when i saw the president and i did not say that at all. i was having pizza and we observed a black suv come up with the secret service and there were 35 circuit -- secret service officers to close down the sidewalk and also the president could have a photo opportunity with a group of hispanic students before he gave his speech on his executive order of immigration and i'm not suggesting that this president is the first to do this. wasting taxpayer dollars has a long history in this country particularly with the executive branch and i find it offensive that we spend 30 or 40 or $50,000 for a photo opportunity when we continue to pile up

debt. that is what upset me. and i think it is important to clarify that because i respect the president and i respect the office of the president and i will be doing the things that a congressman should do to interact with a person in the office of the president and i think that he is talked about a lot of policies that are poor choices. i think that he has put us at risk in a number of areas but i'm not going to disrespect the office of the president. >> host: due respect president obama? >> guest: i think the president obama has made a number of mistakes and has pursued policies that are ill advised. if you are asking if i respect his policy decisions, no i do not. but if i respect him and the office that he holds as an individual and do i as a

christian respect him and his family? absolutely. >> host: another committee that you have been selected to serve on the judiciary committee. peering that with your comments about your concerns of president obama's executive overreach in instances where you think that he has gone above and beyond with authority in his power. do you think that republicans often consider impeaching the president? >> no, i do not. >> thank you. >> host: he served as a prosecutor, how do you think that those skills in those jobs prepare you for life on capitol hill two. >> somewhat 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 and solve problems and we have reduced crime in my judicial district by 50% in the last 10 years. we have done that by working with city councils and county commissioners and police departments and developing programs to reduce juvenile crime and dealing with a drug addiction and other social issues that we have faced. so by working with the community i do believe that the same skills are necessary in congress. i'm i am not going to look at a party label when i sit down and when i talk to somebody about the need to vote yes or no on a piece of legislation. i believe that it is so important that we approach this job as problem solvers and not

as partisans. i'm really excited about this job and honored by it and also think that the last 27 years, i gave up my badge this morning and that is an emotional thing for someone who has had a badge for 25 years. but i do believe that it is very common and there are a number of common skill is that are involved in being elected district attorney in legislation . >> host: following up on one of the problems and that is the budget that we will hear from from the incoming house ways and means committee. time later this spring outlining a budget plan. if we look at the spending two thirds goes to medicare and medicaid in defense and other entitlement programs. so where do you cut? >> guest: well, you know, the same answer it is or do you

spend? you spend everywhere and you need to cut everywhere and it has to be a way that convinces the american people that you haven't just targeted a certain burnable group but rather dealing with the problem as a whole. i think that we will also have to find a way to address many of us have paid into this for 20 or 40 years and i think that some of us look at it as an entitlement instead of something that we have earned and we have to make sure that we deal with the entitlement issue or that we are never going to be able to balance the budget. and i say that recognizing that we have made promises to seniors and we must keep those promises

in the way to deal with this issue is to make sure that the expectations of those who are entering the workforce right now, that they are not able to retire at age 62 or 65 as life expectancy increases, we have to make sure that we adjust with the social security program and medicare program and others. >> host: without raising the retirement age long-term? >> guest: i would support raising it long-term, but that will not balance social security or medicare, we have 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 and i don't have every answer at this point and that's one of the reason that i'm going to congress with an open mind and the only real goal is that we

must make sure that the social security and medicare are available to those americans 40 or 50 or 60 years from now. >> host: republicans, now that they control both houses of congress have said that they really want to double down and try to tackle a reform of the nation's tax to. do you believe that that is a viable goal? you think that that is something that can be accomplished? what would you hope to see as this happens? >> i think that it's not only a viable goal but an absolutely necessary goal and i do think that the key term is fairness that all americans recognize and what congress has proposed is fair and it treats people into the income scale as well as the people at the high end and i think it is absolutely necessary

to flatten the tax code. i am not saying that we have an absolutely flat tax within two years, but that we must make sure that people have faith in our tax system and understand that when they are feeling out a tax return and they are not missing an exemption or deduction or something that somebody else can afford to hire and find out this and inserted language into the tax code that gives them an unfair advantage i think that it is just essential that people have certainty and as i start to plan my expenditures for the year, i know how much money i will be paying at the end of the year because i know what the tax rate will be and the tax system is unfair and i think it is essential that we address the issues. >> placing her hand on a bible

and be sworn in as one of the members of the 113th congress. will be going on in your mind? >> guest: well, wow, i should probably ask a question on wednesday. i'm thrilled with the honor and i do believe that it is a challenge to be a congressman and i do believe that those challenges present great opportunities and i am very honored that the people in colorado have chosen me for this honor. >> host: ken buck representative elect, he will take the oath of office on tuesday. thank you for being with us on our "newsmakers" program. and we are continuing the conversation with sean and emma. what can we expect this week and over the next two years? what are you looking for two. >> guest: i am looking for opportunities or instances like

the congressman said where there could be some compromise and are we going to see democrats and republicans worked together. are we going to see a stonewalling of democrats now that we have opportunity to push the legislative priorities. now that they have the opportunity to talk about this when we challenge the veto authority. i think that that is the question that everyone is asked to and i think that it is one that no one has the answer to at this time. >> host: he talked about this as a tea party favorite, whether or not there's room for that is did he answer the question enact >> guest: not specifically, but i get the impression that certainly gridlock has not been good for either party particularly the republican

party for many reasons. perhaps they are taking a little bit more hit. certainly with the government shutdown in 2013. it was largely blamed on republicans and i think that they are very wary to be seen in in this way. and so as far as the ethics are concerned i think that they don't want to follow that path again. he said all of the right things suggest that he understands that and to get into this a few months from now, we will see what happens. until it is too early to tell. >> from journalism 101 does the story have legs. we brought up the story of steve scalise. we answer the question, but have we heard the end of it or can we hear more in the days and weeks ahead enact. >> guest: i think it will be a

continued issue for some members whether it's something we put behind the congressman issa and we can continue with. it depends if we get more information that becomes more troubling for the congressman steve scalise to explain or to account for and i think that it could depend on whether democrats see an opportunity and how this will take place and especially with the diversity that you have always been dealing with. they are the party of old white men, they are known as that. and do they see an opportunity to continue harping on this, it could be staying in the circle for more than just a couple of days. >> host: how does speaker boehner compromise with

democrats, work with the white house in keeping the republican the republicans at peace. >> i think that speaker boehner has as the second most difficult job in washington behind the president. but he has weathered a lot of storms in the want of internal storms. you know a tea party with her role within the gop that some top was coming never really came in he helped to control it and he holds the control now. and so if anybody can do it, he can do it. >> host: for your questions and insights sean and emma. thank you both for joining us on the congress beat. we appreciate you being with us and happy new year. >> thank you. >> thank you

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 recen 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 deciding who may enter and who may main in the unitedtates. she has extensively studied immigration policy making in the relationship between the three branches o government in plementing and interpreting immigration law. her work draws on admistration law contitutional law and civil procedure as well as 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 immigrion 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 doc 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 erpa tape -- interpreted approach of introducing a requirement that allowed landline telephone numbers to be transferred to wordless carriers.

we all remember when this was big news. because in a 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 ated 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 subject 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 serting 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 diverse 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 s 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. since the founding of the public congress has passed the sax with full knowledge that funds avlable 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 shortfall and this

includes the manner in which subsidized payments on the national debt. congress is appropriation law is standing conflict with the debt ceiling log which caps the amount of debt the federal government can go at any one particular time. since enacting a statute in 1917 congress has routinely prescribed budgets mandating spending that so plainly exceeds projected revenues that they will nevitably require the treasury to borrow funds in excess of the debt ceiling to make good on our obligations. and for decades congress has improved -- approved home virtually every time we have crept close to the borrowing limit and all in all this is a very good thing because it is the largest borrow in the world a default by the united states government would in all likelihood trigger a worldwide economic depression. all that changed in the summer of 2011 when the republican majority elected elected to optimize the debt ceiling. and use the threat of the

federal default in the resulting and the resulting calamities that would result to obstruct. and despite rep -- it is quite likely this summer when the federal, and the available proceeds treasury funds dwindle we may face another debt ceiling standoff. ..

borrow money or unthinkably raise taxes. they posit that these options would have a further consequence. whatever option he chooses will be in direct contradiction to a statute andption he chooses will be in direct contradiction to a statute and would fail to execute a duly enacted law. i atmpt to analyze his options under the test prescribed by justice jackson. now, i am sure most people are familiar.

but it involved president truman's unilateral seizure of the american steel industry. and justice jackson offered his concurring opinion. for questionable cases of exercise of presidential power. they fluctuate. he offered his famous three zone template. now, the president acts pursuant to explicit or implicit congressnal authorization. the president's powers are at there apex. all the powers of article two.

in the second so we deal with situations where congress has chosen to remain silent. the distribution of power. in this congressional indifference or acquiescence and may be seen to invite independent measures of presidential responsibility. the motive, analysis it often depends upon the imperatives of events. zone three involves situations where the pres. president acts in the face of implicit rejection.