for more than a year and a half, about a year and a half, the house has had sitting in its chamber a bill that was a bipartisan bill passed by 60 -- 68 votes that would fix the broken immigration system. my sense is the president would like to see the house republican leadership act, whether on the senate bill or anything else, but to see us do something. short of that, i think the president is prepared to do what he can using his executive authority to prioritize what is -- how we go out there and make a broken immigration system work as best as possible. it is hard to understand why any member of congress would complain to the president about trying to make things work better when it is in the full purview of those same members to make the law work right by making the changes necessary. we could act and we could dispose of the need and the

-- the need for the president to do anything. >> speaking of the appropriations bill, if it comes to that, however, wouldn't this be different where they say, wait a minute, the president took this action and created this problem and then maybe in the court of public opinion, it is different than the standoff last fall? >> i will others respond, but i will say this. to impose ultimatums at a time when the president said let's work together i think would be a bad way to start a new session of congress and continuing the lame-duck session. the president said "if congress acts i will stand down. i would not need to act." but short of congress acting, and in six years congress has not acted. republicans blocked votes on immigration. he is prepared to do what he can, as he did two years ago in an action i think most americans would look at and say it made a sense, in differing

youngations for these people graduating from college and trying to serve in the military and all the rest. my sense is that all we have to do is see congress do its job and act and we will not have to worry about the president trying to act through his executive powers. to start with ultimatums, if you do not do this our way, we will not let you do anything else? that to me would be a bad sign. let me ask any other colleagues to respond. if they have anything to add. >> i would only add to that. as i mentioned before once , again, talking about threatening to shut down the government because they do not get their way or because the president is not trying to improve the way in which the laws are carried out i think is childlike. quite frankly we need to stop , creating more uncertainty. that is not going to help create less uncertainty. it is going to create more uncertainty. that is what we need to end here. this is no secret. the president talked about the executive order for quite some time.

we knew this has been coming down the path. we also know it is not the first time the president has used an executive order to carry out major events in the history of the united states, quite frankly. that, if and when i believe the president will carry through with issuing an executive order on immigration, it still will not address every issue that needs to be addressed. the congress still needs to come back here and fix a broken immigration system. that does not change. that still needs to be addressed. it is time for a republican congress in the house and the senate to take charge. the responsibility falls squarely upon them to act on this issue. >> the vote coming down tomorrow -- what is your position on that? >> we are going to have an the rule.y to see

the bill was sprung on us. this is not typically the way you handle legislative policy, where all of a sudden a bill comes before you for consideration and debate. it is a closed room, another sign we are not having full transparency and democratic action on the floor of the house , where amendments will be permitted. numbers will not have the opportunity to fully express themselves on behalf of their constituents, to try to make changes to a bill that we rarely saw and to try to improve it or perfect it. the process is flawed to begin with. this is an important issue which has been on the minds of some members for quite some time. in my particular case, my biggest concern is this, someone wants to make money by extracting petroleum from shale in canada, pipe it through the united states to get to our ports on the gulf, to then have it exported to who knows which

country or what place to sell at a pretty good profit -- there is no guarantee that an american will benefit one drop from the oil that will be transported through our turf by the company in canada that is getting ready to make money by exporting the oil out of our ports in the gulf. what is in it for americans? especially since, if there is some kind of catastrophe or leak of the oil -- it will happen on our turf. my understanding is that this proposal that is before us would exclude the company that is shipping this oil through the pipeline from any liability should there be a spill, which does not make sense. we get the ill effects of the spill. we get the contamination.

we have the cleanup. and the company sending this oil through our land is getting all the profits. that would concern me greatly, if americans are not going to benefit from a pipeline that is going all the way across our country, north to south, so that some company in canada can make profits by selling oil to people outside of the united states. i have concerns. i would like to have an opportunity to debate and amend that. this bill and this process that has been set up by the republicans in the house will not permit that. i have real concerns about moving forward with the legislation as it is. >> given the results of tuesday's election, give us some idea of the color or tenor of the meetings about sending the same leadership team going back

in the field for 2016. >> this is where it would be nice to hear from the newer members as well. i learned after 22 years that an election is an election. some of our colleagues have learned that you should not take anything for granted. an election for leadership in the democratic caucus, republican caucus, is no different. you still have to come out with the votes. i don't believe anybody in our democratic caucus will be elected to serve as a leader unless he or she deserves that opportunity to lead. we will have an opportunity to have a discussion, debate, about who should be our leadership team. i fully respect and will abide by the wishes of our colleagues in the democratic caucus on how to move forward on an agenda that will work for all americans. again, i have been to enough

elections to know that at the end of the day it is the votes that count, not what you say or do. we will find out who members of the democratic caucus vote for to be members of the leadership. if it is folks you have seen before, it is because they've earned the opportunity to lead again. >> as a member of the present leadership, and i say this for the new members as well, something they will experience, the collective wisdom of the caucus. that is what i have faith in. i continue to have faith in that. it will serve us well as a caucus. >> thank you for that, mr. vice chairman. i think one of the things the new members are looking for is leadership. someone who shares our values. chief among them is an investment and commitment to the middle class. those are things that i hear being discussed in our community and that caucus room. that is what i'm looking for with the leadership and within

the discussions we will be having in the future, to make sure that our leadership will reflect the values of the democratic caucus, reflect the values of my community, which is important to grow the middle class, create jobs, invest in education. those are things i want to see out of our caucus and leadership. >> i might too, if i could. i would like to comment a little bit on the issue of the pipeline. in nebraska, we spent a considerable amount of time debating and discussing where the pipeline should go through our state. as most of you know, the largest deposit of underground water in the world is located under nebraska and oklahoma. there is a great deal of concern in our state that that be protected. it should be a concern of the entire nation. my concern would be, as i said

throughout my compaign, when there is a decision made, and we decided in nebraska generally that if the pipeline is approved, it should be approved pursuant to the rules and regulations that we in nebraska have designed for that particular project. as of now, in nebraska, we have not finally determined the process for approving the pipeline. that decision is now up to the nebraska supreme court. i expect there will be a decision soon. i think there is some concern amongst my colleagues in the legislature and nebraska's generally that we respect the process in nebraska, which will be finalized very soon. that would be a concern that i would have as a representative of the state of nebraska. >> feel free to discuss anything and ask any questions of our colleagues as we conclude this conference. i want to thank all of those

participating. i want to thank our colleagues for participating in this press conference. with that, we will conclude. thank you.