we spent a lot of time going over what the best way is to interact with the community. that's a lot of these dialogue sessions that i have been talking about. it's really focused on making sure that we are not top down, we are not distributing leaflets and just doing radio shows but really making sure it is a conversation with the community about what ebola is and what it is not. and having them come up with their own solutions that we work through. that's been able to allow us to make sure that the communities when they have a suspected case, that they put the community member in a separate location that the communities are doing a lot of their own monitoring and making sure they are making that phone call because really that phone call is the most important thing, making sure that that

victim is or suspected victim is isolated and then making that phone call is really huge. in the long term before we started, before this virus hit, we were doing these water and sanitation activities with the government. and we were successful in working with over 350 communities on proper sanitation and proper hygiene. and that effort was incredibly successful. in all 350 communities which are some of the hardest hit counties, none of them have been effected by ebola. it really goes to show that if you make that long term investment, if you prepare the communities before it hits they have a huge -- it has a huge impact and prevents that from happening. i only wish we were able to hit

all the communities in liberia before we were able -- before the virus hit. >> i wanted to ask if you would expand a little more. i understand it was something you said 70% of the transmissions were due to contact with people who had passed away. how long is a body contagious? my colleague was asking about the role of the faith community. i was wondering if faith leaders since the traditions are a part of people's faith, if they were taking the lead in getting people to deviate and divert from traditional practices? you said they have come up with ways to safely say good bye. i thought you said they did that with all of the protective gear on. i was wondering if that is what

you meant. i want to know what happened to you. did they hold you in the airport? how did you sneak back in? >> thank you. that is a series of great questions. i will answer the last one first. i was met at the airport. there was an x on my piece of paper. >> seriously? >> that pulled me over to the side. so i conducted an interview with the cdc. >> what airport? >> dulles. >> and they were really great and they treme lined the process as quickly as possible, asked me about my potential level of exposure which was very limited and took my temperature. since then i have been in daily contact with the dc department of health. i live in dc.

i am in contact with them every day. we discuss -- i self-monitor, take my temperature twice a day and monitor any symptoms of which i have none. i would like to reiterate that they, the cdc and dc department of health are really focused on the partnership aspect of it and the fact that it is a -- that we are working together on this and that they understand why i'm there and why i went and that it's not an antagonistic relationship. we work together. that allows me and everybody coming back to feel free and happy to discuss our health with the department of health and with the cdc. that really opens up that dialogue and makes it that much more impactful in terms of a monitoring tool. on your question about safely

saying good bye, we don't allow the community members to don ppes as a prevention tool because it requires a lot of training. we do, actually, allow them to don some ppes to make them feel better because the burial teams are wearing full ppes. it's fairly intimidating. so if it makes them feel better to wear some ppes we alloy them to do that. we don't allow them near the body. >> the burial teams. >> the burial teams are wearing full ppes. the community members are allowed to attend the burial. if they want to they can wear limited ppes but really they are not allowed close. but that allows them to understand what's happening, where the burial is, to watch the process which is incredibly

important to make sure that they are engaged and make sure the next time there is a victim, that they make that phone call. so that interaction really takes the bulk of the time, the way the burial teams interact with the communities and make sure the burial is done in a respectful and dignified way is a huge part of their time. there were a couple other small -- the other small item i wanted to respond to was on the hazard pay which is a really important aspect of the response actually because these are really brave people doing really important work, but they do want to make sure they are being compensated. that is a part of our efforts is to make sure that that pay is happening on time and really working to ensure that. it's a small amount of money by

our standards but it's incredibly important to make sure they understand they are valued and the work that they are doing is important. >> just quickly to the two last questions which were how long is a body -- and then if somebody could address the abandoned children, where are they? what's happening? >> sure. on the length of time that a body is contagious, we don't exactly know. the cdc and w.h.o. are looking at this. so that's why we are just focused on -- it's a long time. it's on the order of weeks. and so that's why we make sure that the body is covered in chlorine, placed in a body bag, covered in chlorine again. it's alternating soil and

chlorine. it is very low risk to the water tables but we also make sure that the burials happen above the water table to make sure. >> thank you. just a few follow up questions. in our september 17 hearing dr. kent brantly spoke at length about a number of things having lived through it and having surviv survived. one point that he made was that the 120-bed isolation unit at his hospital was turning away as many as 30 infectious individuals each day. i'm wondering with etus, has that changed?

is the capacity growing? the military is in the process and creating that capacity. he made a strong point about those who will stay in their home and will be cared for by loved ones, husbands, wives, childr children. he said we will be condemning countless numbers of mothers, fathers, sons to death because they chose not to let their loved ones die alone. i'm wondering since isolation is one of the keys to breaking the transmission chain in many of the infected people will stay at home, is the outreach to the individual caregivers as robust as it should be? let me also ask at our hearing, the second hearing, dr. fouchy used the word exponential time

and time again during his testimony. we had a group of top people including the head of usaid at a hearing last week of the full committee. that word wasn't uttered once. and i asked them about are we seeing a turn? cdc had said that if the rate of increase continues at the pace in september there could be as many as 1.4 million cases by late january. where are we in your view in terms of the estimations of how large this epidemic may grow? let me also ask you one of the ten points that you have suggested to us is the importance of a capable ambulance network. since so many people can't get to an etu or health facility

where is liberia? i think you know more about liberia in terms of capacity and also, if i could, all of you might want to touch on this. dr. brantly may have been helped by z matt. there are other drugs still in the pipeline, vaccines and curative potential drugs. i was amazed and positively shocked when you said that the rate of fatality at your ebola unit in liberia is approximately 26%. that is far lower than the average fatality rate in the three effected countries. what is being done there to achieve those remarkable results in terms of mitigating fatality? so if you could speak to those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i would like to talk with the last question about the low fatality rate of the ebola treatment unit. we are not using any miraculous drug or any testing drug there. what we are doing is working with the community to make sure that patients are referred to the ebola treatment unit as soon as possible. that has been one of the major factors in lowering mortality rates. as you have seen here in the u.s. those that were caught early on and sent to the hospital survived and those that were late did not make it, unfortunately. our treatment is basic, balance of electrolytes, making sure people are healthy enough for them to fight the virus on their own. one very critical component of success is the u.s. navy lab set

up next to the treatment unit. it used to take us five to seven days before we get the test result for suspect case. now it takes us five to seven hours. so basically people are coming in, we are testing them. if they are positive they are put in the treatment ward. if they are negative they are sent home. that cuts down on the potential exposure, as well. this has been critical for us, as well. >> that would be if people manifesting some symptom? >> correct. >> this actually ties into your question about the ebola treatment unit capacity. the lab facilities are playing a critical role. the ebola treatment units accept

suspect cases. they were turning a lot of cases away because they did not have the capacity to test those patients. so with the additional number of labs that are being established in liberia that is helping out a lot. it is no longer the case, hardly any unit is pushing patients away. the situation in liberia and this is something that was mentioned here, it's looking better than it looked a couple of months ago. the numbers are lower. the new cases are lower than it was before. it is much better than what we estimated two months ago. if we continue on the right track and we have to continue with the same momentum, we cannot slow down, we will get it under control. and the same applied for the other countries. we see the numbers increasing at a much faster rate than liberia. we need to work together, community, treatment, the

government, the host government as well as donors and other governments in the military to contain it. liberia could be a really good success story. we shouldn't start celebrating yet. it is still not under control. it is looking positive. if we continue we will get it under control but it is too early to start celebrating. on the individual protection, this is something that is definitely important. this goes back to educating the family but also giving them basic protection, gloves, masks. at the same time we do not want to give a false sense of protection. we do not want them to think that just because they have gloves and a mask they are okay to be near our patient. we need to be sure education takes place properly and they are very well aware of the risks even with protection. that is very critical. ambulance network is very

important in all countries. we turn pickup trucks into ambulances. we turn anything we can get our hands on into ambulances. we are looking at different types that can take patients from far away counties into our ebola treatment units. it is better and cheaper than setting up in some of those counties. there is a need to increase that capacity and a need to train staff working in ambulances. that is a very risky job when you are in an ambulance. it seems there is a move now to actually get ambulances in there. a lot of being donated. also, we look at alternative way of transportation. >> i wanted to add to the point about getting to that inflection point on the ebola crisis. i think this combination of getting both hardware right and

software right are hugely important. these etcs and getting many out into communities, getting community care centers to improve access. on the other side is what i see happening on the technology front and very quickly both so that we are in a position to do a better job of testing, tracking and treating the virus. on the testing side a number of rapid diagnostic tests are coming available, being tested out on the ground in the next couple of months. a lot of work is being done with u.s.-based technology companies working with people on the ground to develop tools to automate contact tracing, to bring the power of technology into this, to be able to do a much better job of tracking and doing surveillance. i think that, too, is coming in addition to what is happening on

the treatment side. like my colleagues i am very hopeful but we cannot be complacent or declare victory. there is still work to be done on all of these fronts. >> and i would like to go through a few of your questions because i think they are really interesting and show the changes especially in reference to mr. bradley's testimony. i believe there was a sort of vicious cycle going on at the early stages where there was not enough testing so there were not enough beds and so ebola patients were being turned rai from the etus both because of the lack of testing and just the simple lack of beds and health care workers. and so then the victims are turned away. they go back into their community and they infect others

and they pass away and the burial teams at that point were overstretched. and so that -- both of those issues being addressed, the etus having the available beds and then the burial teams being able to collect the bodies really had a significant impact on lowering the rate of transmission and then the cycle continued to bring down the number of ebola victims going into the etus. that has been one of the flips that happened since dr. bradley testified which is wonderful to hear. and i would like to reiterate that while the communities do need protective equipment and do need education about how to handle the sick, that risk of the false sense of prevention is

something that we are very careful about that just because they have a mask and gloves doesn't mean they are able to safely handle victims. the etus are not at all wasteful in terms of how they are put together. they are very straightforwardly put together. most are temporary structures. and they are the fastest lightest high quality treatment that you can get. and so as you move down from that you do incur some risks in terms of the community care centers that have to be looked at carefully to make sure that the quality of care is very, very high. in terms of the projections that you mentioned, i think a lot of the projections were if nothing happened, if we didn't do anything. now that we are doing something and i think we are doing a lot,

that is bringing down a lot of the projections i think we will look forward to future projections. on the ambulance network it is something that we are involved in and responding to and we got into a lot of the other activities that we are doing such as contact tracing and ambulance work and the community engagement work in the southeast because we are locating our teams at the county health team. so we have a significant relationship with every county health team and we make sure that the burial teams are run out of that county health team. so when they say our ambulance broke down, can you help us out, we are able to immediately respond and very, very quickly to make sure they have another ambulance or that it gets repaired. that's allowed us to engage about ten ambulances that are being run out of different

county health teams as they have requested it from us. i think that aspect of it to make sure that we are hearing directly from the county health teams in some of the remote counties, some take two days to get to on a good, dry day. and we are able to hear from them immediately and allows us to respond very quickly. and i think on the orphan issue it is a pretty significant issue that is being looked at by a lot of different ngos. the entire question of how you respond to the families that are infected, orphans, widowers is significant. it is a lasting effect that is going to have on this virus.

>> who is really in charge? is it the ministry of health? we know that w.h.o. came under some withering criticism in mid october from a report about how they had missed it and had inadequate staffing. i'm wondering who is truly in charge? what role do they play? we know cdc is playing a very significant advisory and leadership role. secondly, on the issue of training health care workers, community health care workers, could you give a sense what their ages are. are they older, more experienced? people who have come back into the system? are they young people who are stepping up to the plate? what does it look like? does the usaid provide salary support? we know in catastrophic situations very often that

subsidy can be provided. i remember being in sri lanka after the tsunami issue and we were paying salaries to individuals to do work, to do cleanup, not only was motivating, it stopped them from -- they were actively doing the cleanup of their own homes and communities but there was that significant subsidy to help them get money in their pocket, to get their businesses going locally. i'm wondering if usaid or any other entity is providing salary support. >> the liberia government is in charge and they should be in charge. at the end of the day it's their country and we are just guests there. we only work through them and with them. i don't think any of those countries were prepared for such an outbreak, especially

countries like liberia that have suffered from a long civil war and trying to recover from that. in addition to other systemic issues there. the world health organization, cdc, ngos work to support the liberia mintry of health and social work. they have a body that coordin e coordinates the ebola response. one thing going back to your question about what needs to be done, we cannot afford to go back to where we were before the ebola outbreak. we need to build the systems better than they were before because we saw they weren't that effective one way to do it is to support the government, the

ministers of health, build their systems, train their staff, give them all the support that they need to move things forward. and they are doing what they can given the limited capacity and capabilities that they have. amir is playing a more robust role than a while ago. there still needs to be clarification in terms of who is responsible for what and who is coordinating what. that is very important. i think as discussions take place on the ground that should be clarified. i will answer briefly about the health workers that i'm sure my colleagues will give you a homo detailed answer. most of them, the majority of them are younger. they are college kids or people who went to school or work in the market.

they are younger. those are the ones that have been working with us mostly. in terms of usaid support they have been very generous with us and others working on the ground. whatever we ask them for including salary for staff working in the community there hasn't been hesitation. i don't know what has been going on in terms of support for the libeeria government. they have been extremely generous and effective and pragmatic in their approach. >> i would like to reiterate that the liberia ministry of health is leading the effort. and the assistant minister of health has been leading the incident management system has

been a really great coordinator of the effort. those meetings which happen about three times a week, make sure everyone is on the same page. and that's allowed us to -- that's been our approach to make sure we are leveraging the resources they have and supplementing what they have to make sure we are successful and that they are successful. doing so has allowed us to move very, very quickly and be very responsive as i mentioned before. that said, the other actors especially u.s.a has been responsive and excellent at coordinator their efforts. the dart has been really incredible partners for us to make sure that as the situation

changes on the gruound we are able to move very, very quickly. on the community health workers the system in liberia that existed before was for all the community health workers to actually be community health volunteers so they were unpaid volunteers that received supplemental support in some way or another. i believe that depending on what the activity is they are getting some limited level of support certainly from our side when we do activities they do get incentive payments. if they are able to achieve certain deliverables then we get them some payments occasionally. i don't know if they are receiving large scale salary from ministry of health at this point during the emergency. >> the only thing i would add is

the great frustration that exists within liberia. the crisis and the gap between the people perceive is actually happening on the ground. these are big numbers that the public hears about. the government, the president in particular has been very forceful in demanding that the government be very focused on this agenda. as you may know she just had a shakeup in the cabinet. she replaced the minister of health to be sure she has the leadership in that ministry to see this thing through. there is no sense of complacency, quite the opposite. they are leading and working very hard to ensure that there was a joined up government approach on their side just as united states government is taking a joined up government approach. >> just to conclude, i mentioned

in the outset that we just introduced hr 5710, the ebola emergency response act. many of you provided insights as to what ought to be in there. i ask you to take a look at it to see if it covers all the bases, if you will. and if you can see your way clear after you look at it and perhaps support it. i do think we are talking about a sustainable problem that needs a sustainable response. and the good work that our house appropriations and senate appropriations committees have done particularly when the d.o.d. asked for a reprogramming request that was huge was done without the slightest bit of hesitation. we need to have the authorizers make sure we leave no stone unturned in mitigating this crisis. please take a look at this legislation. anything you would like to say before we conclude?

>> i would just like to thank you for your leadership and the leadership of the u.s. government. we are very proud of what has been achieved so far and the continuous focus on resolving this issue. again, thank you for having us here today. >> i would like to reiterate the efforts that you see on the ground in liberia in particular are really incredible and a large volume of that is due to the leadership of the u.s. government and the leadership of this subcommittee to make sure it happens. it is truly inspiring seeing the response happen and seeing the impact that we are all having. thank you. >> and i want to thank you for your continued leadership long after the headlines fade and they will to be sure that everybody is focused on how to rebuild in liberia and get these countries back on track. thank you for your leadership.

>> thank you so very much. again, i want to thank you for your expertise, your tremendous leadership, the three of you. it is just remarkable. and that said, the hearing is adjourned. a house foreign affairs subcommittee finishing up its hearing receiving an update on the international response on ebola. you can watch the hearing anytime on our website at c-span.org. earlier president obama

commented on the response to ebola and addressed the fatal terror attack on a jerusalem synagogue. i've got my team here to talk about ebola. before i do i just want to make mention of the horrific attacks that took place in jerusalem. we know that two attackers senselessly and brutally attacked innocent worshippers in a synagogue during their morning prayers. obviously we condemn in the strongest terms these attacks. a number of people were wounded and four people were killed including three american citizens. so this is a tragedy for both nations, israel as well as the united states. our hearts go out to the families who obviously are undergoing enormous grief right now. secretary kerry has spoken to

prime minister netanyahu. president abas has condemned the attacks. this is not the first loss of life we have seen in recent months. too many israelis have died, too many palestinians have died. it is important for palestinians and israelis to work together to lower tensions. the outrageous acts represents extremism that threatens to bring all of the middle east into the kind of spiral from which it is very difficult to emerge. we know how this violence can get worse over time. we have to remind ourselves that the majority of palestinians and israelis overwhelmingly want peace to be able to raise their families knowing they are safe

and secure. the united states wants to work with all parties involved to make that a reality and to isolate the kinds of extremists that are bringing about this terrible carnage. i now want to turn to the topic of this meeting, the ebola situation. obviously, some of the attention on the crisis has ebbed over the last several weeks but challenges remain. we have seen most recently dr. martin salea, a surgeon who contracted ebola flown back to the united states to the nebraska facility to try to get treated. unfortunately, he was already in critical condition and sadly passed away early monday morning. our thoughts and prayers are with his families. beyond this tragedy, though, we have established that when ebola is probably diagnosed and treated then we have a great

chance of curing it it. of the eight patients treated promptly in the united states all recovered and are ebola free and back with families. after the first incident with ebola in dallas and the unfortunate passing of mr. duncan we acted on lessons learned from dallas. we put in place new protocols for protective gear for workers. we ramped up training and outreach for health workers and added screening for travelers to the united states. we are funneling these passengers into five airports and put in place rules for public health workers to monitor travelers for 21 days after they arrive here. as we saw in new york with dr. spencer, one of the courageous health workers who voluntarily travelled to fight the disease,

our efforts to identify, isolate and treat ebola patients can work. america has proven that it can handle the isolated cases that may occur here. but, as long as the outbreak continues to rage in the three countries in west africa this is still going to be a danger not just for america but for the entire world. we are nowhere near out of the woods yet in west africa. the good news is in parts of liberia our efforts both civilian and military are really paying dividends and we are seeing that we are on track with diligence dealing with the hot spots that may still reemerge to actually get a handle on that disease. we are still seeing an increase of cases although our british

counter parts have done an excellent job working with us and the international community to coordinate this situation there. in guinea the numbers are lower but they are often in very remote areas that are hard to reach. the bottom line, though, is that we know how to treat this disease given that it is emerged in such a large significant outbreak in these areas. we recently saw cases in mali. it under scores how important it is to push forward until we stamp out the disease entirely. it means that everybody has some measure of risk. here at home we made great progress in preparing our health care system to deal with any possible threat. our scientists continue to make

progress with vaccines and treatments but we've got plenty of work to do. all of this means that although we should feel optimistic about our capacity to solve the ebola crisis we cannot be complacent simply because the news attention on it has waned. we have to stay with it. that's why i'm calling congress to make sure that it approves before it leaves the emergency funding request that we put forward to respond to ebola both domestically and internationally. the funding is going to help us strengthen our domestic health systems so we can respond to future. it will promote much-needed resources. it will accelerate testing and approval of ebola vaccines and treatments and it is going to help vulnerable countries to in the future prevent, detect and

respond to outbreaks of various communicable diseases before they become epidemics. that ultimately is good for public health. the more we can catch these things early where they begin the less risks we have over the long term. as i have said before in some ways we are lucky ebola is a very difficult disease to transmit. if we have a comparably lethal disease that is air borne we have much bigger problems. this gives us an opportunity to start putting into place the kind of public health detection infrastructure around the globe that is necessary should additional pandemics or epidemics or outbreaks arise. all of this makes it necessary for congress to act. this is not a democratic issue or a republican issue. this is a basic issue of the health and safety of the american people.

so i hope that congress is on the case on this issue before they leave. thank you very much, everybody. thank you guys. thank you. thank you very much. another hearing on ebola, this one on the u.s. response is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. eastern time. dr. tom frieden will be testifying along with the chancellor of the university of nebraska medical center in omaha where an ebola patient died yesterday. live coverage is here on c-span 3. the senate today is working on the keystone xl pipeline bill. a vote is scheduled for about 615 p.m. live coverage is on c-span 2. with the pipeline vote coming up later we are asking whether you think the senate should approve

the bill. you can leave your thoughts on twitter or our facebook page. more now from a reporter covering this issue. >> the house passed a version last week. when will the senate take it up? >> thanks for having me on. the senate is scheduled to vote this evening probably a little after 6:00 p.m. tonight. this has been part of a push that senator mary landrieu single handedly launched last week. she took the floor and worked out a deal. she has been spending her time trying to find colleagues to get on board. >> is she the one that is whipping the vote for this? or are the democratic

leadership, are they helping out or are they sitting this one out? >> they seem to be not helping her out too much. it's not clear how much they are whipping against this, either. right now public stands 59 senators on board. she needs to find one more. at this point the leading target out there -- the majority whip has n no. so there may be a little bit of wiggle room there. he may be able to be convinced. as things stand she is one vote short. >> she has about 14 democrats? >> yes. that's right. there are 11 democrats on the bill. over the past few weeks they have said they would like to -- >> what is her pitch to her colleagues? >> she has been keystone champion for a while now. it's been a long time priority

of hers. she comes from louisiana which has strong oil and gas industry. she says the pipeline will create jobs and will provide an outlet for some u.s. oil will flow along it though most of the capacity will be coming from the community up in alberta. she said this is about jobs and energy independence, the typical arguments that we hear around efforts to promote oil and gas industry and the infrastructure they need. >> what about the environmental groups? how are they responding? >> not been too pleased can senator landrieu throughout the year. there was a protest in front of her house yesterday. protesting outside of her capitol hill home. they have been lobbying. some of those who have come out in the last few days been

getting quite a few phone calls from the environmental community. we will sort of see what happens. i spoke with senator who said he is not doing anything differently than he has in the past. letting folks know he is opposed but wants to see everyone make up their own mind. there is certainly a lot of pressure being brought to bear on all sides. we'll see in about eight hours how it all will shake out. >> folks should tune into c-span 2. the debate will be about six hours and a likely vote around 6:00 p.m. eastern time. the house voted last week on their urversion. are there differences in the two bills and what would the legislation do? >> there aren't differences between the house and senate bills because the umbrella under which the debate is happening is the upcoming louisiana senate

runoff. that is where senator landrieu is racing against bill cassidy. allowed representative cassidy the same bill. if it passes the senate tonight part of the agreement is that it goes straight and they don't have to go through conference. there are no additional procedural. >> so a bill that would pass the house with bill cassidy's name on it and a senate bill that would pass the senate, does it have the landrieu name on it? >> technically a republican from north dakota was the lead sponsor along with landrieu. it is thought of as the hogan-landrieu bill. in the last week senator landrieu said this isn't about

me, take my name off of it if that is what has to happen to get this to the president's desk. not everybody -- there is a little bit of skepticism whether it's that divorced from consideration in this. she says it is not about credit but about getting the pipeline built. the bigger question is whether obama would sign it, whether president obama would sign it if it did make it to him. >> what do we know? >> the white house has not said definitively one way or another what they would do. they took the somewhat unusual step last week before the house vote. they didn't issue statement of administration policy which is a typical step when legislation is being considered. the white house will say this is something the president would veto. the president said he was asked about it during trips to asia. there is litigation in nebraska

happening. that process should play out. he has reacted negatively in the past to congressional efforts to force his hands. expectations are that he presumely would veto it again. they have not explicitly said so. it seems there may be an effort to -- seems like he would prefer to not have to make that decision if he didn't have to at this point. that is up to whether 60 senators are on board at this point. >> we will watch and see. be tuning into c-span 2 for that debate. inic juliano, thank you very much. and more now on some of the sno outstanding issues being debated on capitol hill. >> we are back with democratic of arizona. he is also the co-chairman of the progressive caucus. let me ask you about what

president obama is expected to do on immigration reform. what do you know about the action he is going to take? >> real specifics, i don't have them. but have is an understanding of possibly the magnitude of how many people will be affected by the immigration executive order. that magnitude is around 5 million, possibly more. and that it will concentrate on family unification. that there will be stepped up efforts in terms of security, increasing pay of border patrol agents and customs agents and i.c.e. agents and continually continuing to look at better how to manage the resources. i think overall, if you look at an amount, which is what everybody wants to, the numbers have fluctuated between 3.5 to 5.3 million. 5.3 is a robust number.

it certainly isn't the number in the senate bill, which would have been 7 to 8 million, but is it within the confines of an executive order? i think it's an executive order. >> it's a follow-up with what he did with the so-called dreamers. what program is he expanding and who would it apply to? >> he would use his discretion as to who would be in the country for that two-year period, which would be a protection. it's an executive order. the real fix to this broken system of ours is legislative. it's permanent and you can amend it and work through it with time. an executive order is, indeed, a protection. >> it's temporary? >> it's temporary. it will depend on the next president whether or not that order stays and more importantly, congress, whether or not they're going to tackle immigration reform. i really believe the whole idea of family unification, i hope

there's a tension in it. specificity isn't part of it right now in terms of what we know, but that, you know, those doca students, the dreamers, there be some protection extended to their families. there look at three and ten-year bars, that there be some look at assuring all constituencies that are part of this issue are affected. as we all know, as we all know, this is going to be a highly divided issue and it's going to be an issue that is going to immediately thrust the administration and congress into a fight. of historical proportions, by the way. i'm personally of the opinion that the fight's worth having. >> why? >> i have been in congress now 12 years. from the time i got here the issue was immigration reform. immigration reform. and we've kind of plodded along

half steps, go and start and never quite finish. consultation, bipartisan meetings in the house, the senate did something 18 months ago and it sat on the desk of the house. speaker for those 18 months never brought to a vote. many of us thought that could have been better but we finally had a compromise, bipartisan piece of legislation that would be a significant step forward. now we've reached this point where you have the speaker and incoming majority leader telling the president, don't do anything. let us work on it. i think we've reached the point of past trust now. it's about verifiable results. and the verifiable results there's been nothing that has imnaturi imimnatured from the house. the president held back in the face of criticism, including myself, of not executing those

executive orders early in order to deal with the upcoming campaigns and also an opportunity to give the house that chance to put something comprehensive together. it didn't happen. i don't see it on the horizon. fy see anything coming out of the house it will be an exploitive guest worker program that does nothing tore workers in this country. and more and more about enforcement but nothing about the millions we have in this country that need to come out and for security purpose, who are they? and see who qualifies in this deferred action to stay in the country. >> congressman, it doesn't appear to be just republican leaders who are saying to the president, don't do this alone. let us have a chance at this. a new poll by "usa today" found 46% of those surveyed want this president to wait for a republican-controlled congress to act. and one in ten are unconvinced

either way. but 46% say wait for this republican congress. don't do this alone. >> i would suggest that that waiting period has occurred. there might be some amnesia has to what has happened the last three years in the house of representatives. i don't see any action coming out from this leadership. the waiting period is only aggravated divisions we have. and further, increase the number of deportation, the number of divided families. and i think the president's actions is not just overdue necessarily. >> if it's not permanent and it's something for two years and congress could withhold money for it, why take this step then? >> because i think there's an economic security and moral imperative to take the step. i think it will galvanize also the public to look at this issue in a much different way than it

has up to this point, which has been to wait and to wait. and i think there's been a conditioning that if we wait long enough, something will happen. will something can happen through executive order. i really believe can be the prod to actually make the house and the senate sit down and come up with something that is bipartisan and deals with the specifics. >> "the washington post's" editorial board this morning weighing in on this issue, stumbling alone. three years ago when advocacy groups pressed president obama to take such steps, president obama demurred, believe me, doing thicks on my own is very tempting. not just on immigration reform. that's not how our system works. that's not how our constitution is written. >> and i don't disagree with that statement. what i think i need -- people need to understand, that that effort on the part of the president has been made, that gesture, that olive branch on

immigration and other issues over and over again. and been rejected over and over again. president obama has been the target of not allowing him to have major policy initiatives. they go nowhere when it comes to the house. when it comes to the senate, it won't go anywhere either. what does the president do in this division of powers? he uses his discretion and his authority to try to move an agenda forward. this agenda of immigration needs to move forward. yes, it's two years. yes, it's unilateral. i think in the long term, it will become the prodding point in which we finally -- congress finally had to embrace the idea they hadn't wanted to, that we must do something. >> republicans said last year or this -- in recent months before the election, they would sue the president when it came to the health care law. does this not now add more

legitimacy to their lawsuit against the president if he acts on immigration? >> you know, it's kind of interesting that the whole charge that this is an imperial presidency and the president does things unilaterally, doesn't check with congress. but when it came to the conflict and push back on isis, congress was more than willing and the leadership not to take any position on that issue and allow the president to use his executive authority. to go forward. when it comes to other issues, it's okay for the president to use it. but on issues of social consequence, immigration, economic consequences and environment, climate change, those kind of issues, then it becomes a point of contention that this is an imperial act. i think the lawsuits, the attempts to withhold money will be part of this fight when we started earlier. it's of historic proportions and i think this issue, climate

change, xl pipeline, they all merit that kind of attention. if it's going to be that kind of a fight, that's -- the democracy is set that way. the divisions of power allow us to have those kinds of discussions. they'll end up in court. how that goes is a whole different story. the initiative right now is what many of us feel the president has to take. >> the lines are open for congressman grijalva, democrat of arizona. start dialing in now. he'll take your comments and questions about immigration reform as well as other items on the progressive agenda. on this potential lawsuit that the republicans filed against the administration for his executive action on health care law, "the washington post" reports the speaker has also said he'll consider expanding a federal lawsuit over the aca to include possible executive action. the fate of that thread is uncertain, however, after two major law firms have bowed over.

boehner has yet to name a new lawyer to handle that litigation. so, that's an update on the republicans' plans to sue the president over the -- over executive action. >> one assumes that the president will not -- the president's not going to propose anything that he and his team don't feel is legally defensible under his authority. i don't think this is a shot in the dark. i think the executive orders that come out of immigration, the pending decision on xl and continued regulatory issues on climate change, those are going to be defensible. and so it's not just a one way litigation. there's going to be a defense of his authority and i don't think the president would do anything that he feels is not legally defensible. >> our lines are divide for the congressman by democrats, republicans and independents. also fourth line this morning for border state residents. let's go to jerry in cookville, tennessee, an independent.

hi, jerry. jerry, you there? all right. one last call for jerry in cookville, tennessee. no? we'll move on. start dialing in now with your questions or comments here and we'll get to them in just a minute. also "the washington post," the editorial this morning, they say president obama, the stumbling alone editorial, saying, be careful what you wish for, democrats, urging the president to act alone on immigration reform. they set up this scenario. it is 2017, newly elected president ted cruz insists he has won a mandate to repeal obamacare. the senate narrowly back in democratic hands disagrees. mr. cruz instructs the irs not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy insurance. thereby, neutering a key element of the program. it is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mr. cruz explains. tax cheats are defrauding the government of billions. he wants the irs to concentrate

on them. of course, he's willing to modify his order as soon as congress agrees to fix what he considers a broken health care system. in other words, a republican president could do this to a law that democrats support. >> and the challenges we're talking about today would be reversed. obviously. but also i think that -- go back to the point i made earlier that the legally defensible point of that, it becomes the key test in any action. and i think that, you know, the executive authority that the president has is impeded in the constitution and protected and i don't think the president will do anything that jeopardizes that consistency legally and historically that the presidency has always had. >> let's hear from isaak, south point, ohio. independent caller. good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: yeah. i was wondering if maybe the guest there think's obama's decision to go ahead with this

is maybe a reflection of anything but the fact he is from a minority, you know, and maybe he's trying to make a name for himself to bring in people that, you know, be kind of like a savior. maybe he's out to do something that don't really have anything to do with the interest of americans. just maybe something to do with the fact that he is, you know, from a minority class and he's just reaching out to do things, you know, under humanitarian issues, you know. >> isaak, do you agree with it? do you agree -- >> caller: oh, i don't agree with it. i don't agree with it at all. >> congressman? >> i think that's too simplistic to say that because the president's an african-american, that, therefore, he would have a greater tendency to do that than anyone else. i think that's simplistic and false on the premise. but, you know, not doing immigration reform does ill to this country. it's a divider of our social

fabric. we just assume that the people that are here right now and need the process and need a pathway to citizenship and need the system fixed, are suddenly going to disappear if this executive order doesn't happen. we will continue the way we are, which is not good. and our economy suffers, jobs suffer, security suffers. all the studies that have been made that if there was immigration reform, the net loss -- the net reduction in our deficit would be in the billions, after ten years. job creation would go up by $250,000 in the first year, and it would be have a rising effect on the wages in this country. no longer could you exploit someone at less than -- simply because they don't have the legal protections themselves at the workplace. that would all change dramatically. then we're not talking about isolated instances.

we're talking about mixed status family, citizen children, maybe a citizen spouse and an undocumented spouse. those are the realities that are out there. and to simplify it and say it's all about race or it's all about them versus us, i think, is kind of turning -- turning the clock on what this country's really about. >> mary jane is next in deersville, ohio. a republican caller. >> caller: hi, good morning. a little bit ago the guest said that he -- he just didn't know what else president obama could do. you know, he's got a democrat -- or republican congress now and he's going to have to go nowhere with him. i don't think that's true. i think really everybody wants something done about immigration reform. and i think the key to this is not this big sweeping arm of letting all these people come as citizens.

the best way to do it is piecemeal. go to the table and find out what people can agree on. and then go from there. and then you dwindle it down to where you can get this passed. do it a little bit at a time. this sweeping effect, we've already seen what happened with the health care. we've got people on health care that are expectinsubsies. now that they've already got this, then they expect it. so, the thing of it is, once you do this, you can't take it back. it just -- it just doesn't work that way. so, i think the piecemeal approach is the best way to go. >> mary jane, we got your point. i'll have the congressman respond. >> i think that's been offered in the past. i'm for doing the issue comprehensively but have been open and have said that publicly to a programatic -- pragmatic approach, doing portions of what needs to be reformed in the lawsuit, in sections. that has been denied as well.

protecting our men and women in uniform from their families being deported while they're serving their nation, that wasn't brought to a vote. you know, the dreamer issue died in the senate after it passed the house. those kinds of low-hanging fruit oim grags reform have been rejected outright. so, this -- and it's not about -- the executive action does not make immediately 5 million people citizens of the united states. even in the senate bill, it was going to take between 15 to 18 years for a person to qualify after going through many rigorous steps to become a citizen of the united states. so, one of the frustrating things about this issue is that we're -- we're dealing -- we don't deal with facts. we deal with opinion and we deal with emotion. and i'm as guilty of that emotion as anybody else that's calling in. at the same time, if we don't do

anything, i think it's to the detriment of the nation as a whole. if the president's action brings us closer to something down the road, that pragmatic step forward to try to get something bigger done. >> if the president had taken this step before the election, would the outcome have been different? >> i don't think so. i don't think so. i think that much was said that it would change, it would affect certain candidates. i don't think it would have. i think that the turnout for our bashgs the democratic voter base was low. the enthusiasm was low. and the appeal many times on that base was muted or not said. and i think that's what affected the turnout and that's what affected the election. democrats not having a solid economic agenda that they took to the voters. >> earlier this month we had

jonathan cowen on our show. he explained that -- how democrats have to adopt a more moderate prosperity-driven agenda in order to win in 2016. take a look. >> so, i think the democratic party has to think kind of on two tracks. one is, what can you do really over the next nine to 12 months before 2016 really heats up that's substantive, where you can find common ground with republicans? that's probably not going to be on the minimum wage. it is probably going to be on corporate tax reform, trade policy, energy policy. those are places where there is already well-established bipartisan common ground. those are the places you're going to see. the second piece of what democrats need to think about goes to the longer term message and agaenda of the party. our view at third way is very strong, which is, you must focus

as a party, both substantively and in terms of your narrative on prosperity. and in 2016 if democrats focus on a prosperity message and agenda that is about actually not throwing people a life preserver but actually fixing the boat and making it go in the direction they want it to go, if that's what they do, their prospects both in 2016 and beyond will be really good. if the party sticks with the same playbook that they used, the same economic playbook they used in this cycle, even though a presidential cycle is better for democrats, it's still not good enough. >> congressman, do you agree? >> yes. i would suggest that the playbook that was used did not include an economic agenda. that was part of the progress. and a pros pairtive-driven policy, an agenda is fine. i think also what the democrats have to do on this economic issue is to look at the fact

that, you know, profits have gone up, shareholder profits have gone up, corporate profits have gone up, individual 2% of the richest in the country, their net value has gone up and wages have gone down 3% for working folk in this country in the last eight years. there's an economic agenda but it also involves a contrast. not just do the same thing over and over again. but how are we going to deal with, i think, the fundamental question that middle class working people are confronting. my value is not there anymore. my purchasing power is not there. my ability to plan for the future is not there anymore. that's the insecurity that hurt us. that's the insecurity we have to address. and we have to do it with a contrast. we can't just keep repeating. i agree with the gentleman, we can't repeat the same thing over and over again, but we can't be talking about pie in the sky

ideas when a man working in the trade union or retail store or a woman doing the same feels their purchasing power or ability to take care of their family is in question. >> democratic caller from california. good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. my question is, we keep hearing now that they won't be -- you know, the mexicans aren't going to to come in and take our welfare. they're not going to get on the health care program, but here in california, we tried to stop giving out welfare to illegal immigration. and we got shot down. it is illegal -- the supreme court already decided, it is illegal to stop anybody when they enter the united states from being denied any federal government funding. anything. we are going to pay. and i know here in california,

we're dead broke. we can't afford anything. it's a $17 trillion deficit. where are we going to come up with this money? why is it -- how could it not be -- we're allowing so many more mexicans in here. what about the asians? what about people from africa? what about people from everywhere else? >> all right. congressman? >> the undocumented in this country is a -- is -- while the majority might be latino, is asian, central europe. it is -- it is african. it is throughout the world. asia. and so that's the groups that are coming here. people seeking something better. you know, what happens in california in terms of how they deal with their public assistance programs, it's kind

of interesting when conservative people talk about state's rights but when a state doesn't do something right for them, they kind of oppose to it, and i think that's the situation in california. but federal law prohibits any federal assistance when an undocumented person, whether it is in food, rental, medical, even people -- people that are here with legal status cannot enter the aca, affordable care act, exchanges. even if they could pay for themselves, they're not allowed in. so there are strict restrictions that prohibit that. they're law. and i think the exaggerated number all these immigrants are bringing here and taking away, i think that number's exaggerated. and migration studies and others that have done economic studies indicate the reverse. we don't make an issue of the

fact that, you know, mexico is our leading trade partner. for export/import. they create millions of jobs in this country as a consequence of that trade. ports of entry are important. and so it is a complex picture. and to narrow on one -- one an ekt doelgts example is not dealing with the whole total of what's going on. with our border and relationships with the rest of the world. >> congressman going to wisconsin. jason is watching us there, an independent. hi, jason. >> caller: hello. >> good morning. you're on the air. >> caller: yes, ma'am. thank you for taking my call. i'm a 63-year-old disabled veteran. i would like for the congressman to remind the right wing or the people that don't like obama or his policies about this executive order.

in 1986 the republican president, ronald reagan, did the exact same thing by executive order. in 1990 george h.w. bush did the same thing with executive order. middle bush, w., made a speech saying, we need those people in here because americans will not do those jobs. now, where was all the hoopla back then from you right wingers? you people are hypocrites. you are beyond hypocritical. that's my statement. >> talking about action by previous presidents. >> you can go way back to lincoln and the emancipation proclamation is an executive order. you can go as -- the examples that were just given. also bill clinton changed the immigration law, made it more restrictive but also allowed new categories that hadn't existed before.

you have silicon valley insisting the visa program be changed so they can get the technical expertise and employees that they need and recruit them worldwide. so, it's -- it's whose benefit are we talking about when it comes to immigration reform? president reagan always talked about amnesty. the architect of that '86 law was president reagan where amnesty became central to that. nobody's even talking about that concept in any of the legislation that's even being proposed. certainly not being discussed in an executive order. it's good. i appreciate putting some historical context to this. >> mike is a republican in waynesburg, pennsylvania. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i guess i want to say that population of 11 million illegal

aliens would make it the eighth largest state in the united states. that would be 43 states underneath them. and if you look at the populations of the state, it would take 11 states would be their combined population and voting power would be smaller than the 11 million coming in. as far as the pipeline goes, every time we go to war, canada is beside of us. when you talk about the trade with mexico, we must also consider our brothers to the north and that pipeline should come through for them. they're always there for us, beside our soldiers, no matter what. thank you. >> all right, mike. congressman? >> it's interesting that when the pipeline was talked about to go dial naturally -- and that

route was never finally put in -- executed because of internal complaints within canada. the route that is for trans-can, coming through the united states, i think the actions that congress -- that the house of representatives, to short-circuit the process that's already in place and to eliminate any real look at what consequences are going to be, environmental, public health, and to the taxpayer, i think, was wrong. the friendship with canada, notwithstanding, the effect on the american people and the taxpayers, it should be the priority for the president. i hope he vetoes it and that we sustain that veto and go back to that process. inevitably it's his signature that will either allow it or not. >> the keystone bill going to the senate floor today for debate. a vote on that could occur at 6

p.m. eastern time, so tune into c-span2. "usa today" their editorial board says keystone is just another oil pipeline. get it built already. they write, keystone is a useful way to provide oil for a nation that, like it or not, still relies heavily on petroleum and imports it from nations far less trustworthy than canada. the line would also help move land-locked fields in north dakota and montana that most often travel by rail. a more dangerous and inefficient mode of transport. keystone is not an existential issue. it's a 1,179-mile oil pipeline in a nation already crisscrossed by 150,000 miles of pipeline. it's long past time to say yes. >> and the product, the sands, the tar sands issue, the shale that's going to be -- from which this oil is extracted is

possibly environmentally one of the most polluting and potentially most dangerous -- >> the country's been getting that tar sand oil, though, for decades. >> the issue is -- for me is here we are, a sanctioned pipeline across the united states that we have an opportunity to do all the due diligence, intended or unintended consequences, really study them and not wake up ten years from now with an environmental issue or nightmare we could have known about -- i think a lot of this oil is for export, not necessarily for internal consumption. i believe that. and i think there's some symbolism here, that as we make the transition and deal with the bigger issue of climate change and dependence on fossil fuels, there's a symbolism of this pipeline that goes beyond the route. it goes up, how long is this dependency going to be continued and at what point do we start

looking at clean, renewable, alternative energy as a source to replace. >> out of the "usa today" poll, 63% support the u.s./china agreement unveiled last week by the president. but 62% say congress needs authorization from congress for use of force against isis and 65% say obama should approve the keystone pipeline. 60% of those say congress should approve this pipeline. let me go to ralph in d.c., a democratic caller. hi, ralph. ralph, you with us? >> caller: the reason i'm calling is, the republicans are receiving -- the senate is receiving $675,000 apiece from the oil and gas industry.

and the -- they've opposed any type of limb gags on fuel economy or anything like that. what we're doing is essentially firing a bullet that is going to kill a billion people in about 70 years. and if you look at what that is, you're essentially talking about a crime against humanity. they're committing a crime against humanity, where a billion are going to die in about 70 years and you're going to destroy half the world's environment. >> i'll have you quickly respond to his comments. >> one of the most -- well, not directly, but one of the most powerful if not the most powerful influence as lobbyists is gas and oil in congress. they'll be more now with new majority in house, more powerful now. and reforms are going to be very, very difficult to get. >> congressman, i want to show our our viewers what's hapt

happening on the capitol steps right now. the freshman class of 114th congress are gathering for their official photo. npr reports this group is overwhelmingly republican, as we know. it includes a record number of women and minorities but fewer military veterans. you've been in congress for 12 years. as we take a look at these folks gathering, do you remember what it felt like when you were on the house steps taking that picture for the first time? >> yeah. awe, just the idea that you're here. the overwhelming sense that -- like truman said, i don't knowfy can do this job. and as you look at the new colleagues, i think it is it's important to note that's america sending to the house their representatives and i respect each one of them regardless of party affiliation because we all get here the same way.

but i my only caution is sometimes not to get carried away with the trappings, but to kind of concentrate on the committees and the work you have in front of you. and you can start to establish yourself based on the competencies you show in those areas. >> how do you avoid the trappings? >> i happen to have good staff. a woman i've been fortunate enough to be married to for 42 years. any time there seems to be a swelling of the head, i hear about it. >> she makes you take the garbage out? >> not only that. threatens to get me a convertible so i can fit in the car. >> this is the -- as we said, freshman class of the 114th congress gathering on capital steps in washington for their official photo. what were you going to say, congressman it brings back a memory and it's a very good memory. when i got here, there were only eight democrats in that group.

four of us are still here and continue to be good friends because that's your class. >> you get together republicans and democrats as this class. why is that? why is it those that have been here want that to happen? because i think one of the -- one of the years -- you know, we have to fight tooth and nail on issues. that's fine. but there's a level of civilfy and humanity we need to extend to each other. you can only do that if you get to know each other. i have friends on -- really good friends on the other side of the aisle, we probably disagree on the color of the sky. in terms of children, grandchildren, what we did for a living, those all become areas in which we can be friends. >> congressman, thank you for your thoughts as our viewers get a look at that incoming freshman class of the 114th congress. we'll go on with more phone calls here for congressman.

>> caller: i have several points to make about immigration. and the first point is, i believe we were talking about more than 11 million illegal aliens. i think there's far more than that. the second point. before we can even consider amnesty for illegal aliens that are here right now, the bored has to be closed. we were lied to in 1986 and we've been lied to since then about closing the border. that has to be already accomplished before we can even consider amnesty for illegal aliens who are here right now. the next thing, we need to end the family reunification program. a new citizen should be allowed to bring in their wife or husband and their children and that should be it. no grandparents, no parents, no brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, no one like that should

be allowed entry based on the citizenship of that first person. >> our time is short. i'll have the congressman respond. >> closing the border, $20 billion a year, 20,000 border patrol agencies, a fence, the most up-to-date hardware, drones, helicopters and the issue remains the issue. i think it's a convenient excuse to say we will do nothing until we close the border. that inevitability of closing the border is not going to happen at 100% rate people demand. so for sake of security do you know who's here? deal with that. deal with who qualifies to remain here under circumstances of a law or an executive order. or do you continue to do what we're doing now which is nothing and pretending we're doing something on enforcement when the big part of enforcement is internal enforcement.

who's here, let them step out and let them become a whole part of this society. as -- you know, there's an historic point to this nation. we're a nation of immigrants. i'm a first-generation american. my dad emigrated to this country. he came during the program where employers could help you get legal status. the point i'm making is that this renewal of our country's strength is not something that should be feared. maybe we come in different colors than we used to, come as immigrants. maybe we speak different languages, like germans did and italians did. maybe we come differently. but we come for the same purpose, to make this country stronger. and so before we lay a blanket indictment of who these immigrants are, let's look at our history and look what immigration and immigrants have done to make this country what it is, which is the greatest

country on earth. >> on our line for republican, anthony in colorado springs, colorado. >> caller: hi. i wanted to say when reagan and bush both passed, they did not have majority opposition to their bills and yet they tried to achieve bipartisanship by adding in other fundamental sites securing the border. now that we have majority opposition to passing legislation, do you think it's your job or obama's job to go against the will of the people? do you believe in democracy? >> yeah, i believe in democracy and i believe in the protections this great democracy provides, and that is the rights of the minority. even though i'm in a minority party here, i have the right to present my ideas. i have the right to be heard. more importantly, in a very sincere way, to be able to sit down and find common ground. but if the discussion is going to be, do it my way or don't do it at all, then the whole

process of crafty legislation is lost. numerically we're in the minority, i would also suggest the american people are very much divided on this issue and would love to see common ground. but it takes two to dance. we're more than willing, the democrats, to be able to sit down and find common ground. i said about doing it pragmatically and programatically, piece by piece. all those have been offered in the past and have been rejected. so, you kind of reach the point where you're not going against the will of the people. you're trying to find a way to solve an issue, to remedy a division in this country, irrespective of what else is going on. we have to tackle that. you can't ignore it. just because boehner or mcconnell says no is not the end of the discussion on this. >> charles, hum bolted, texas,

democratic caller. >> caller: yes, ma'am. how are you doing this morning? >> doing well. what's your comment or question for congressman grijalva? >> caller: my comment is i think we're dealing with a sleight of hand. i'm from texas and i'm down here and i'm on the gulf coast. and the congressman was correct that that pipeline, the keystone pipeline, the part that runs through texas was built down to motiva refinery down in beaumont, which is right on the coast. and that's mainly what that pipeline's for, is to take that oil refinery and ship it overseas. i'm down here. a bunch of my friends, i am a pipefitter and i do work in those plants. that's exactly what that plant was built for. >> thank you. let's move on to tony, congressman, last for you and then we'll have you respond. he's in indianapolis and an independent. go ahead, tony. >> caller: yes. my question is, or my comment

is, i think you are going against the rule of the people. i can't believe that you actually believe that majority of the people believe we want immigration policy with amnesty. i truly believe that, with all due respect i don't know what plant you're from, you're going against the will of the people and this is another nail in the coffin for the rest of the party. >> let's get a response to that. could there be fallout for democrats? >> yeah. like i said it's going to be a very divisive issue. there's not unanimity in my party on the executive order. i have democratic colleagues that don't want to see the president do this. those of us that have urged him to do it, we think that in the end, it will end up benefiting not just the party but beginning to prod real action on immigration reform. the will of the people. the majority have spoken so the

rest of us have to keep quiet. that's just not the way democracy works. there was a time where the majority of the people didn't want the vietnam war and yet we continued to prod it along for another six years. people went against the will of the people. there was a time in the civil rights movement, people wanted a civil rights action, yet congress failed to move for five or six years on that issue. and there's numerous. the will of the people is an important -- in democracy. i get elected in my district. i bring that perspective to congress and that's what makes this melting pot of ours work. if we were all the same, then we wouldn't need a democracy. and if i'm here just to go along to get along, then i'm not doing my job. >> congressman, you will vote today on the leadership for democrats in the house.

does the country leadership deserve to retain those spots? >> i think the current leadership, i think there's going to be some new faces that come into play today, but i think if we're speaking specifically of nancy, yeah, i think she does. i think we've been through many, many ups and downs with her. she held this caucus together. we're going through another tough period. and i trust her tenacity and her leadership. >> what's her most redeeming quality for the party? >> at least inside our caucus, that she treats us all equally, number one. and for the party, i think it is the fact that going into this period of contrast, i think you need a fighter. >> okay. congressman grijalva, appreciate your time. coming up in about an hour, a hearing on the u.s. response to ebola. dr. tom frieden will be

testifying, along with the chancellor of the university of nebraska medical center in omaha, where an ebola patient died yesterday. live coverage is at 1:30 p.m. here on c-span3. the senate today is working on the keystone xl pipeline bill. a vote is scheduled for about 6:15 p.m. live coverage of the senate is on c-span2. here's more on that senate vote. >> juliano, on keystone xl, the house passed a version last week. when will the senate take it up? >> the senate is scheduled to vote this evening. more or less watched last week. she took the floor, work the out a deal. she's been spending her time since then trying to find 60 colleagues to get on board. >> so, is she the one that's

whip 'ing the volt for this or are the democratic leadership, are they helping out or are they sitting this one out? >> they seem to be not -- democratic leadership don't seem to be helping her out too much. it's not clear how much they're whipping against this either. sort of the public count stands at 59 senators who are on board. she needs to find just one more. at this point, you know, the sort of leading targets out there are senator dick durbin, majority w.h.i.p. has not said since last week how he's going to vote on this bill, and agnus king from maine, said he's leaning no, but sources i've talked to say there may be a little wiggle room there. he may be able to be convinced before this evening. as things stand, she's still one vote short. >> but she's got about 14 democrats to go along with her? >> yes, yes. that's right. there are 11 democrats on the bill and over the past few days,

senator bob casey from pennsylvania, and bennett from colorado all plan to vote for the bill this evening. >> what's her pitch to her colleagues. >> she's saying keystone champion, sort of for a long time now. she and center hogan, back in the spring, it's been a long-time priority for her. she comes from louisiana with a strong gas and oil industry. she says this pipeline will, you know, create jobs along the route, provide an outlet for some u.s. oil will flow along it. most of its capacity will be coming from the canadian oil sands up in alberta. you know, she says this is about jobs, energy independence, the typical arguments that we hear around efforts to promote the oil and gas industry and the structure they need. >> what about the environmental groups, how are they responding? >> they have not been too pleased with senator landrieu more or less throughout the year. there was a protest in front of

her house yesterday. a few climate activists were protesting outside her capitol hill home. you know, they've been lobbying, you know, vulnerable democrats the same as the pro-keystone forces have, you know, especially some of those -- some of those democrat who is have come out in the last few days. i think it's been getting quite a few phone calls from the environmental community. but, you know, we'll sort of see what happens. i spoke last night with senator whitehouse, who is one of the bigger proponents of dealing with climate change in the senate. he says he's not doing anything differently than he has in the past. he's letting people know he's opposed and wanting everyone else to make up their own minds. there's a lot of pressure to bear on both sides. we'll see in about eight hours or so how it's all going to shake out. >> folks should tune into c-span2 because the debate will be about six hours. as nick said, a likely vote around 6 p.m. eastern time on keystone in the senate. so, tune into c-span2 for that.

the house voted last week on their version. are there any differences between the two bills? what exactly would this legislation do? >> so, there aren't any differences between the house and senate bills. that's because the umbrella under which this entire debate is happening is the upcoming louisiana senate runoff. that's where senator landrieu facing bill cassidy. last week when senator landrieu was able to secure the house -- sorry, able to secure the agreement to set up the senate group, they allowed cassidy to introduce effectively the same bill with his name on it. the changes are the same. if it passes the senate tonight, part of the agreement is that it goes straight to the president at this point. they don't have to go through conference or any other -- there are no additional procedural votes between 60 in the senate and president obama making a decision. >> a bill that would pass the house with bill cassidy's name on it and a bill that would pass the house would have mary landrieu's name on it?

is it the cassidy/landrieu bill hitting the president's desk? >> it's typically part of the hogan/landrieu bill is how people have talked about it before the bill. you know, or over the course of this year. you know, in the last week senator landrieu says, this isn't about me. take my name off it if that's what has to happen to get to the president's desk. there's a little of skepticism whether she's -- you know, whether she divorced from political considerations in this, but, you know, she says it's not about credit. it's about getting the pipeline built. the bigger question is whether obama would actually sign it -- whether president obama would sign it if it did make it to him. >> what do we know? >> so, the white house has not said definitive one way or the other what they would do. they took the somewhat unusual vote last week before the house vote. they didn't issue a statement of

policy, which is a typical step when legislation is being considered. the white house will say, this is something the president will veto, this is something we like. they haven't said that yet. the president during his trip to asia said there's a process ongoing at the state department, litigation in nebraska that's playing out. he's reacted negatively in the past to congressional efforts to force his hand. expectations are that he presumably would veto it again. but like i say, they have not explicitly said so. it seems like there may be an effort to -- it seems like he would prefer to not necessarily have to make that decision if he didn't have to at this point. but that's up to whether 60 senators are on board at this point. >> well, we will watch and see. tune into c-span2 for that debate and vote today on keystone xl. nick juliano, thanks very much. >> thanks, greta.

with the keystone xl pipeline vote coming up later, we're asking you if you think the senate should approve the bill. you can leave your thoughts on twitter or on our facebook page. and the hill writing about the keystone issue, president obama is calling the american people stupid if he vetoes legislation authorizing the construction of the keystone xl oil pipeline. speaker john boehner said tuesday. let's be clear about this, a keystone pipeline veto would send the signal this president has no interest in listening to the american people. boehner told reporters at a news briefing in the capitol. vetoing an overwhelmingly popular bill would be a clear indication that he doesn't care about the american people's priorities. it would be the equivalent of calling the american people stupid, the speaker added. epa administrator gina mccarthy told washington reporters yesterday that she believes the american people and the president support the goals of her agency and they won't allow the incoming republican-controlled congress to undermine its mission. she made her remarks at a

breakfast with washington reporters hosted by t"the christian science monitor". she also discussed other administration environmental policies, including the new climate change agreement with china. fuel efficiency standards, and the keystone pipeline. here we go. i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest is gina mccarthy, administrator of the environmental protection agency. her last visit with our group was in september 2013. we thank her for being here at such a busy time. graduating from the university of massachusetts with a degree in social anthropology, leading her to quip about how a background in primitive cultures was great training for government work. she went on to earn a masters degree from tufts university in environmental health engineering and planning. our guest began her career in 19le 0 as suburban boston town's health agent. from there she went on to positions of increasing

influence in the environmental field. first in massachusetts, where she managed the neat trick of getting appointed by two governors who shared little else in common, michael dukakis and mitt romney. she moved slightly south in 2004 to become head of connecticut's epa. president obama nominated her to be assistant administrator of the epa's office of air and radiation in 2009 where she earned the nickname as the president's green quarterback. she was appointed to epa in 2013 after a lengthy confirmation battle. they have three grown children. she's reported to relax in the evening by reading government documents with barefoot con tessa playing in the background. my kind of woman. thus the buy graphical portion of the program. now on to this morning's mechanics. anga is sponsoring a number of monitor breakfasts today. our thanks to marty durban and

colleagues frank merpiolla and dan whitten, sitting in the back at the tablg helping spare me from the pain of premature retirement. we're on the record here. no live blogging or tweeting. in short, no filing at any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us a chance to listen to what our guest says. to help you rehe resist that selfie urge, we'll e-mail pictures to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to ask a question, send me a subtle, hand signal and i'll happily call on one and all in the time we have available. we'll start off by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments, then we'll move to questions around the table. with that, thanks again for doing this, ma'am. we appreciate it. >> that's great. thank you very much, dave. thanks, everybody, for coming this morning and for give ming the opportunity to talk for a

few minutes. then i'm happy to take questions. let me just begin by saying that i assume that most of what's on your mind is going to be related to climate. in particular, maybe the china/u.s. joint announcement, as well as the $3 billion commitment to the -- to the green climate fund. and i thought i'd begin with that and then certainly we can talk about other things as we move forward. but i think the most important message i have and i think we can talk about a bit is the fact that the joint announcement between china and the u.s. was a -- really an historic announcement. it was a significant step forward. and i believe a lot of it is attributable to president obama's leadership on climate change, domestically and internationally. i think the step forward that the president took to put out a climate action plan, that really showed that the u.s. could be

aggressive on climate change, but also make sure that it was being done reasonably and in concert with a growing economic climate was important. i think it sent a big international signal, which is what it was intended. i think it's pretty clear that the clean power plan that epa put out was also -- or proposed, i should say, was also seen as a significant confirmation of the president's leadership as well as our ability under existing law to move forward under the clean air act to regulate climate change in a significant way. in particular, the carbon pollution from the power sector. so, i think there was growing confidence not only that the president was showing leadership but he could deliver on those commitments. i think our work on resiliency and our work to understand the economic impacts of all of

these -- these efforts really showed us that there was significant need for work with our communities to ensure that they are safe and the light of the climate impacts that we were seeing, but also that the efforts that were under way, like the clean power plan and our work to develop a methane strategy, that it would be entirely consistent with a growing economy, additional job growth, continued investment in technologies of the future that would be consistent with a low carbon future. and also that it would spark innovation and it would send clear signals about where that investment could be made and where there would be significant opportunities for, in particular, u.s. companies to take advantage of the changes that would result from understanding that climate actions was necessary and the kind of actions that the president outlined.

now that the joint agreement with china, i think, is a clear indication that the president was very serious when he said, it's about taking domestic action and about sparking an international an international solution. these countries are obviously the two largest economies. they are the two largest source of carbon pollution. and they -- their ability to work together do a joint agreement, which basically was a significant step forward, outlining what the president is doing through his climate action plan and beyond as well as what -- how china interprets its responsibility was a big step forward, i think you all know that we believe that the president's climate actions are going to be significant but also achievable. but i would indicate that the commitment of china is also a big step forward. if any of you have been involved

in these climate discussions for any length of time as i have on many levels, you would, i think, appreciate the fact that china has never put an absolute reduction on the table. the commitment that they have made, which is a 2030 commitment, really does require immediate action to make sure that that commitment can be delivered. so we do consider both of these commitments to be solid step forward. our ability to announce this with china was not only i think a good signal for the international community, because with us and china and the eu, it represents half of the carbon budget in the whole world. so it does send a big signal and i think you will see other countries wanting to take similar actions, which hopefully will lead to a sound and aggressive international commitment in paris next year. so with that, i think i should

stop. other than to say that one of the great things about the china/u.s. joint commitment -- i should say announcement is the fact that i think it also represents an acknowledgement on the part of china that looking at carbon pollution and putting that in concert with work that they are doing and where he doing to develop our economies could help us really spark investment internationally on the kind of technologies that will drive towards the numbers we need to achive theve that sc tells us we need. i can answer questions on the $3 billion fund. will introduce it by saying this was expected. it was a commitment that the u.s. was forming and shaping since copenhagen in 2009. we join a number of other countries who had already made commitments. we expect this commitment will

spark significant additional effort on the part of other countries to join in a robust way. and we also think that, again, this is going to be an opportunity for us to invest in a significant way in the kind of innovations and investment strategies we need to address climate change and to get to the levels that are necessary. it also will, of course, provide us opportunities to work with some strategic areas where -- that are in our national interest but also deal with some of the resiliency challenges that we need to address given that the climate has already changed and is likely to continue. >> thank you for the -- for that summary. i'm going to do one or two and then we will go to mark, david it orrin, chicago, neil, fox news and the dallas morning news to start. let me start with your -- you

are bullish on the china arrangement, really historic. as you know there are critics who don't share your enthusiasm. one of the most prominent and influential is the senate majority leader who said that it requires the chinese to do nothing for 16 years. can the time" ran a piece over the weekend saying, it's clear the announcement is not meant to create any new obligations. the u.s. and china left themselves room to step back if the pledges become inconvenient. what are your critics missing is? is this as slifppery as they mae it sound? >> i think it is as significant and i make it sound. i don't know if anybody has looked at the numbers and have looked at the way in which china has been relying on coal as a part of their growth strategy. it's clearly a signal that they need to make significant economic changes in the

structure of how they look at their economy. and it will require significant investment in zero carbon technologies or low carbon technologies. it is going to result in the need for them to make an immediate shift in how they are looking at continuing to grow the economy and to use 2030 as a time to cap. without this commitment, which is that no later than 2030 they would top off, but their commitment to lock at earlier dates and try to excaccelerate t is significant. if you look at just how much renewables they need to actually construct as a result of this by 2030, we are talking about on the order of the entire generation capacity in it the u.s. so this is a big change that requires a lot of action now to turn this large an economy around and that can't be done on a dime. but it needs to get going right away. >> last one from me.

the good folks at the louisville currier journal had a meeting with the coming majority leader. the sense was that there's a war on coal he feels and now he will run a war on obama and one avenue would be spending process. he says fight the whitehouse any way we can. how vulnerable -- actually, your predecessor told us that with jim inhofe, i think what they will do is starve the agency. my question is, how vulnerable do you feel the epa is to a starve the agency strategy by senator mcconnell and others? >> well, i feel very confident that the american people understand the value of epa. i am confident that for 40-plus years we have been able to do

our job and continue to grow the economy. i feel confident that we have had four republican administrators at epa that have testified before that very committee, just this past year. and we're very strong about cry for immediate action on climate change. so this -- epa has not been a partisan agency. it has been an agency that's done its job to protect public health and the environment in the smartest way we can. i do not believe the american public wants to see us not do that. >> have you had conversations with senator mcconnell in recent days on this or anything else? >> not in recent days but certainly we have met before. and i certainly respect his position. but i think the american public will speak. >> mark? >> thank you.

when analysts are looking athe u.s. commitment with the u.s. and china, looking at the 26%, they say the power of money alone is not going to get us there. one of the things that gets pointed out is there will need to be regulation of methane not just standards but regulations. do you think that's the case? are there other things that need to happen? >> well, i think you may recall that we actually do regulate volatile organic compounds from natural gas wells. the question is how do we continue to get those reduck snz because we do that, you capture methane as well. we have put out white papers exploring this. the president and his climate action plan called on a methane reduction strategy to be developed. we are working on that with the rest of the administration. it's not just about what epa can do but what -- where we see emissions of methane that are readily reduced and can be done cost-effectively and with certainty. so we are looking clearly at

both regulation and voluntary actions and commitments of the business community as opportunities for reductions. and we will come out with a plan where that ends in terms of which tool is going to be relied on more heavily is still being analyzed. but we feel like we can make significant cost-effective reductions. and we're going to aggressively go after those. >> david? >> i'm going to ask you a non-climate question. two decades ago almost exactly, epa tried to promulgate a ban on asbestos. industry took them to court and won on technical grounds. congress has tried to length late a ban. now with the congress the way it's going to be, is it a situation where you think the epa can take administrative action independent of congress to do something about the fact that 10,000 people a year are still dieing of asbestos-related

disease in this country? >> we have an ability to get at this issue through a number of actions as we have shown before. we know that we can help provide standards for removal of asbestos where it exists and do it in a healthy way and in a protective way. we know we're addressing this with old disposal sites. i think the challenge you raise is whether or not we have the systemic tools to get at this issue and others. and i think from my perspective, this is not the strongest strategy we have. i think we are being as creative as we can in terms of looking at what our opportunities are under both options to address toxic substances and pesticides and other issues. but a closer look would be welcome. there was an active interest in