captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> ifill: pipeline politics. president obama vetos construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. good evening, i'm gwen ifill. judy woodruff is on assignment. also ahead this tuesday preventing peanut allergies. why feeding kids nuts at an early age may reduce the risk of life-threatening reactions later on. plus: >> remain seated and come to order. department four is now in session. >> ifill: the special courts that take on the cases of veterans, haunted by tours of duty and charged with crimes. >> if you're talking about people that have severe trauma from being on the battlefield, and they may be self medicating themselves, these are things that the criminal justice system

cannot fix unless we bring other people on board. >> ifill: those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> it doesn't matter what kind of weather. it doesn't matter what time of day or night. when mother nature's done her worst, the only thing that matters to us, is keeping the lights on for you. we're the men and women of the international brotherhood of electrical workers. keeping the power on in communities like yours, all across the country. because when bad weather strikes, we'll be there for you. the i.b.e.w. the power professionals. >> at bae systems, our pride and

dedication show in everything we do; from electronics systems to intelligence analysis and cyber- operations; from combat vehicles and weapons to the maintenance and modernization of ships aircraft, and critical infrastructure. knowing our work makes a difference inspires us everyday. that's bae systems. that's inspired work. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> and the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

>> ifill: there will be no federal civil rights charges in the 2012 killing of trayvon martin. the justice department said they found "insufficient evidence" against george zimmerman, who shot martin, an unarmed black teenager in sanford, florida. but in a statement attorney general eric holder said: >> ifill: zimmerman, who pleaded self defense, was acquitted of second-degree murder the next year. civil rights investigations continue in two other racially- charged cases the police killings of michael brown and eric garner. the secretary of veterans affairs apologized again today for falsely saying he served in the u.s. special forces. robert mcdonald made the claim last month in los angeles telling a homeless veteran that like him he, too, had been in special forces. mcdonald apologized for the misstatement today. >> in an attempt to connect with that veteran, to make him feel

comfortable, i incorrectly stated that i, too, had been in the special forces. that was wrong. and i have no excuse. >> ifill: mcdonald did serve as a paratrooper and qualified to be an army ranger, but he was never part of elite special forces units. the white house said it takes mcdonald "at his word," and does not expect the incident to harm his work on veterans' issues. a commuter train outside los angeles smashed into an abandoned truck early today and derailed. at least 28 people were taken to hospitals, some with critical injuries. the fiery wreck happened 65 miles northwest of the city. three of the metro link cars landed on their side. the truck was scorched and cut in two. the truck driver turned up later. police say he got tuck on the tracks and could not move the truck in time. the head of the federal reserve has signaled again there's no

immediate plan to raise interest rates. instead, janet yellen told a senate hearing today that the central bank will be "patient." she said policymakers on the "federal open market committee" are monitoring inflation and the job market. >> the fomc's assessment that it can be patient in beginning to normalize policy means that the committee considers it unlikely that economic conditions will warrant an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate for at least the next couple of f.o.m.c. meetings. >> ifill: also today, eece greece staved off bankruptcy as european creditors agreed to extend its bailout by four months. that came after the new greek government pledged to fight corruption, and guaranteed new social spending will not bust its budget. bombers struck with deadly effect today in two widely separated countries. in iraq, at least 40 people died in car bombings and other attacks in and near baghdad. "islamic state" militants were suspected. and suicide bombers in nigeria killed at least 26 people.

authorities blamed boko haram. also in nigeria, an american missionary, reverend phyllis sortor was kidnapped last night. the "free methodist church" said she was taken from a school compound in kogi state, possibly for ransom. and islamic state forces have abducted at least 70 christians in northeastern syria. the captives are part of an assyrian minority that goes back to ancient times. the obama administration today defended its nuclear negotiations with iran. secretary of state john kerry told a senate hearing that u.s. policy remains the same: "iran," he said, "will not get a nuclear weapon". he spoke amid reports of a potential deal to curtail iran's nuclear activities for ten years, then slowly ease the curbs. >> anybody running around right now jumping in to say, "well, we don't like the deal" or this or that, doesn't know what the deal is. there is no deal yet. and i caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. >> ifill: the white house also dismissed reports that it's negotiating a ten-year deal with tehran.

the percentage of americans who lack health insurance has dipped to its lowest point in seven years. the drop last year, shown in a new gallup-healthways survey came as president obama's health care overhaul took full effect. more than half of those who are still uninsured said they plan to get coverage, rather than pay penalties. on wall street today, the news on interest rates and greece helped push stocks higher. the dow jones industrial average gained 90 points to close above 18200. the nasdaq rose seven points on the day. and the s-and-p 500 added nearly six points. still to come on the newshour: a presidential veto on the keystone x.l. pipeline; new data on preventing peanut allergies; special courts designed for veterans; how the demographics of the u.s. are dramatically changing; and a look at immigration from the local level.

>> ifill: now to the political power struggle over the keystone x.l. pipeline, which landed today on the president's desk and was promptly vetoed. >> ifill: the president chose to carry out the veto in private, out of the glare of cameras, a sharp contrast to house speaker john boehner's decision to stage a very public bill signing at the capitol only 11 days ago. >> senate bill one as amended is passed. >> ifill: the keystone bill was the first order of business after republicans claimed majorities in both houses of congress this year. it's been seven years since the 1,200 mile-long pipeline was first proposed. parts of it are already under construction, with the ultimate goal of carrying canada's tar sands oil to refineries along the gulf coast, a project many lawmakers say would create needed jobs. but environmentalists and landowners in some of the states it would travel through argue it

would cause more harm than good. white house press secretary josh earnest said the president's veto is not about the merits of that argument, but about the review process. >> it just merely says that the benefits and consequences of building that pipeline should be thoroughly evaluated by experts and through this administrative process that has existed for decades and been used by previous presidents of both parties. >> ifill: but republican criticism was swift. wyoming senator john barrasso. >> the president does have his pen and by choosing to veto it he is choosing washington lobbyists and special interests over the needs and desires of american people. >> ifill: the next step for the pipeline is unclear, republicans would have to muster a two- thirds majority in the house and senate to override the veto. we get reaction now from robert bryce, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute, who writes widely on the energy sector. and jeremy symons, senior

director for climate policy at the environmental defense fund. robert bryce, if this was a question or debate of jobs vs. the environment who won today? >> you know, gwen i'd say it's a tossup but i would say the symbolism over the pipeline far outstripped its importance in terms of energy security, independence, imports, et cetera. remember since 2008, we have been arguing about this pipeline, but all the blocking of the pipeline really assured is we're seeing more oil moved by rail and just in the last two years alone, we've seen in the u.s. 10,000 miles of pipeline be built and globally 23,000 miles of pipeline. so in reality, unfortunately, this is just a pipeline but the symbolism attached to it far

outstrepped reality. >> ifill: jeremy symons. the president did the right thing. this pipeline would be a wrong turn for america's emergency policy. we're talking about schaising scanda's tar sands oil and should be focusing on the real energy issues in the country such as how to move forward with a clean energy future for america that drats more jobs, pollutesless and is abundant. that's the debate congress should have had. >> ifill: how does this veto allow the conversation to be had. >> you have to ask quhie the pipeline for one foreign energy company ended up at the top of the new congress' agenda when we had so many new opportunities in front of us on clean energy. it is special interests. it took american families and farmers and ranchers across the country to stand up and shine light on what would sneak through in the halls of washington. this is a decision about our children's energy future and we

have to take it seriously and not let this decision go unnoticed. >> ifill: robert bryce, seems like burn person's special interest is another person's champion. how does it break down in this case? what would be the wisest step to be taken? >> well, i think it's clearly to build the pipeline. canada is one of -- it's our close ally, our neighbor. this is one of our largest trading partners yet, we're telling the canadians essentially to, pardon my language, to stuff it. the idea of trying to block the flow of canadian oil into the u.s. by blocking this pipeline is akin to try to make your diet work by shooting the pizza delivery man. it's not going to work. the reality is blocking the pipeline resulted in what? moving more oil by rail. western alberta has now about 1.1 million barrels of rail terminal capacity in place in. north dakota, the pipeline is also going to serve the ball

can built about 1.2 million barrels a day capacity. the idea blocking the pipeline will prevent the oil getting to market is false. >> ifill: jeremy symons you said there should be a different debate going on. if it's true the oil will get here perhaps in a less safe way are you moving toward or away from the debate? >> it's not about whether there's going to be a less safe way, it's about making a choice about what kind of energy future and infrastructure we want to build. we have a oil boom, natural gas boom here in america contributing to reduced oil prices around the world and that is what is standing in the way of the canadian -- very expensive canadian tar sands oil, but it's also a very dirty oil source. this isn't about canada-u.s. relationships, it's about choosing the path and making sure congress and the president are focused on the real opportunities and policy to move

beyond the old energy sources and particularly a dirtier source that has 17% more grouse gas emissions nan american conventional oil. >> ifill: explain the connection between oil prices being depressed and the outcome of the decision today. >> creating the the oil from the canadian tar sands is very energy intensive, high polluting process and very expensive. they're taking tonls of sand and trying to squeeze out a barrel of oil in doing that. becauseth so expensive they rely on high energy prices globally to do the big mining investments they have to expand this vast area in the aurora borial lis of canada and turn it into mining pits to make this. when you have lower oil prices it will put a blocker on even to bring it to america. >> ifill: do you draw a line between declining oil prices and what happened today?

>> the declining oil prices creates economic challenges pore the pipeline, no question. much more valuable and profitable for producer when the oil is at 80 instead of 50 as it is now. but this pipeline is clearly in the national interest and in his veto statement the president referred to the national interest a couple of times. yesterday, i.h.s., the consulting firm said roughly 70% of the oil that could be shipped through keystone x.l. would be consumed in the united states. i'm for cheap reliable energy and make no apologies. this is a good idea for consumers to say we need something else. virtually every automobile in the country runs on oil and refined product. to say we'll shift to something else, we may in decades, but this pipeline should be built and built now. >> ifill: but you started this conversation saying this is the wrong argument to be having. how, then, if they were to agree to this pipeline and the president were to revisit it in the next several weeks how would that contribute to america's

energy independence? >> well, look, it would provide more oil to the u.s. market. we are producing dramatically more oil in the u.s. we've seen increases of roughly 4 million barrels of oil per day in the united states alone but gasoline is now roughly $2. what's wrong with having more oil and reducing the price of oil further? i see no problem with that. i think it's a spurious argument to say we're supposed to shift to something else and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the u.s. reduced co2 emissions more than any other country, over 400 million tons. no other country is close. >> we agree the u.s. is reducing emissions, a lot built on the backs of auto companies that make fuel efficient cars that pollute less. why would government take on the top priority to bring dirtier fuel to put in the tanks of the cleaner cars we're trying to

make? >> ifill: for today that's not going to happen. does that mean you are optimistic about the president's ultimate decision? >> i. a i think he'll do the right thing and the case is clear this is bad for our economy and our future. >> we can talk about climate all day. a 2012 study done by andrew weaver at the university of victoria, lead i.p.c.c. author he said he and a colleague looked at this and said even if all of the 170 billion barrels of oil in the oil sands of canada were burned he said the impact on climate change would be almost undetectable at our significance level. this climate change argument is a spurious one. this is about symbolism for the left and the democrats and unfortunately has become a big fight between the republicans and the democrats when i think this is clearly an infrastructure project to benefit the u.s. national interest. >> ifill: sounds like you both

agree this is about something bigger but not on what is bigger. robert bryce the manhattan institute, and jeremy symons, environmental defense fund. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> ifill: for years, doctors had routinely recommended children at risk of food allergies should avoid peanuts until they turn three. but a new study challenges that medical wisdom, suggesting the opposite: that more infants should be introduced to diets with peanut products as a way of inoculating them from allergies later. jeffrey brown has the story. >> brown: peanut allergies are one of the most common forms of food allergy among american children. and the last two decades have seen a dramatic rise in the number of cases. it's estimated that today two percent of all children are allergic to peanuts. four times the number as recently as 1997. and it's the leading cause of death from food allergies. for parents, of course, a key question: how to avoid the risk to their children.

now comes a new twist: a study published in "the new england journal of medicine." it finds that exposing higher- risk infants to peanut products greatly reduced the risk of developing an allergy later on. the study was sponsored by the national institutes of health. joining us now is dr. andrew fauci, director of the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases. dr. fauci, what was generally thought up to now that exposure to peanuts early on was a bad thing, that was wrong? >> indeed, as we've seen from this case this study that you just mentioned, is that earlier exposure of a child does what we call tolerizing the child so you can get less of an incident of later on peanut allergies. so if you're pre-determined to get peanut allergy and you try avoid getting the child to be exposed, you find out the

contrary -- if you take the child and expose them early on and compare them to people in which you've tried to avoid exposure, there was a highly significant difference in the sense of less later on peanut allergies among the children who had the early exposure as opposed to the avoidance. >> brown: tell us about the study briefly. is it aimed at infants who already had a higher risk for allergies? how is that defined? >> well, what you did is you take children who, for a variety of reasons, either children who have a history of egg allergy, milk allergy, asthma, family history of allergies a pre-disposed tendency to develop allergic reactions, those are the children who would most likely to develop peanut allergies compared to a control population. if you take those children and divide them into two groups

children who you're going to completely avoid peanuts for a certain period of time versus those that you expose early and that's what we got the results. it's very interesting because it originated from an observation that, in israel where they expose children for nutritional reasons very early on to peanuts, these children have a much, much lower rate of peanut allergy compared to jewish and israeli children who actually are living in the u.k., and it turned out that that triggered the thought about doing the experiment in a controlled way to determine if deliberate exposure actually avoids the ultimate allergic reactions you see later on and it was a success. >> brown: translate this for parents and doctors. what should they do now? >> well, right now, since this study was just published literally today, what you need

to do is to just wait a bit because what we at the national institute of allergy and infectious diseases is going to do is convene and be the host of a convening of individual stakeholders -- the american academy of pediatrics the various allergy societies -- to take a close look alt the data -- at the data and to come up with guidelines and recommendations. you don't want parents now, on the basis of this study, to go ahead and be challenging the children early on because you have to be careful you don't precipitate a reaction in a child who might actually have a reaction immediately. so you've got to be a bit careful about that. we want parents on their own deciding -- we don't want parents on their own deciding what to do. let's wait and it won't be long before there is solid guidelines and recommendations. >> brown: in the mean time, no cure for the allergy?

it's still all about avoidance? >> indeed. well, it's avoidance if you have the allergy. what this study is all about jeff is getting children to not develop the allergy and it's almost paradoxal because the study says if you give them early on in life peanuts you dramatically lessen the likelihood that they will develop an allergy and subsequently will have to avoid. so you want to get away from having to avoid by exposing them early on. >> brown: briefly dr. fauci, is there potential application in all of this to other allergies? >> indicted. the mechanism that allows for this tolerance to peanuts might very well be applicable to other food allergies and there are studies that are going to be planned and ongoing to see if you can replicate these exact mechanisms and results with other food allergies. >> brown: all right, dr. anthony fauci, thank you so

much. >> good to be with you. >> ifill: the number of veterans with post traumatic stress disorder, p.t.s.d., continues to grow. and as some get into trouble with the law, special veterans courts are finding different ways to deal with those who have broken the law. newshour special correspondent spencer michels reports. >> remain seated and come to order deportment four is now in session. >> reporter: every friday afternoon judge jeffrey ross turns his san francisco courtroom into a veterans court one of 220 such courts in the country that hear cases of former military members who have been arrested, often for drug offences, sometimes for violence. to signal how different his court is, he often brings a basket of fruit and candy for the defendants. >> even me being in anger management, what good is that? because i snapped.

>> reporter: it's what's called a collaborative court: where the judge, the district attorney, the public defender, the probation officer and the u.s. department of veterans affairs work together to treat, or punish, each defendant. >> how are you? >> i'm doing excellent. >> that's what i hear, i'm glad to hear it. >> reporter: 43-year-old axel rodriguez has had a lot of problems common to vets. he served in the army in the gulf war in iraq and kuwait more than 20 years ago. it was crazy, it was exciting, it was scary. i have nightmares, you know? i don't like being in closed rooms; i don't like large groups of people. i just don't feel in control. >> reporter: you obviously got into some kind of trouble, you're in court. what kind of trouble? >> i got arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle, and possession of a controlled substance. >> reporter: just that one? >> no, a couple of times, you know, and i didn't want to at first, i didn't want to accept that i needed help. >> reporter: rodriguez spent

some time in jail and kept re- offending. why are you abusing? do you revert back to your time in the gulf war and ptsd, or is it something else? >> it starts off with that, but then once you become an addict everything goes out the window. the only thing that you care about is maintaining your inebriated state. >> reporter: he says he became violent on a few occasions. >> yeah, fights-- well. more yeah, not with girlfriends, with other men, you know it's weird. the combativeness, it's great if you're in the military, but it's not one to have when you're out in the normal world, to be combative. >> reporter: san francisco district attorney george gascon, who was in the army, and was police chief before he became d.a., argues that vets accused of crime shouldn't be treated like common criminals. >> if you're talking about people that have severe trauma from being on the battlefield, and they may be self medicating themselves, these are things that the criminal justice system

cannot fix unless we bring other people on board. >> reporter: when veterans courts first began seven years ago, there were some serious questions: why set up an alternative justice system just for veterans? how can you fail to punish violence, even if the perpetrator had bad wartime experiences? but those objections have largely faded as the courts have shown good success. about a quarter of the clients here have "graduated," while slightly more have transferred or been re-assigned to regular criminal court. the rest are still in the system. but those numbers, officials argue, are better than simply sending disturbed vets to jail time and time again. >> our goal is to find an outcome when will both prevent recidivism, keep the public safe keep the victims from being re-victimized, but also deal with the person's

background, and the reasons he committed the violent conduct that we're addressing. >> reporter: using federal grants as well a local funds courts rely on the v.a. to coordinate physical and mental care plus weekly court dates for vets in trouble. it's up to the vet to comply. >> we often meet with the veteran when they're in custody, develop a plan for where they're going to go when they're coming out, especially if they're homeless. >> reporter: kyong yi works for veterans affairs. >> we also link them immediately with mental health and medical services. a lot of folks we will put into transitional housing, or if they have a substance abuse issue we will put them in residential treatment. >> reporter: as for many vets, housing has been a problem for rodriguez. he recently moved to a recovery house called fresh start, mostly for veterans, after getting evicted from another program. he claims he's been clean and sober for eight months.

and he credits the veterans court for helping him find new housing and putting him on a new path. >> reporter: he has frequent court-mandated appointments with a psychiatrist. >> i couldn't open up my own family. they used to mistreat me emotionally. i got kicked out of that program for something i didn't do, possession of alcohol. but i don't drink. >> reporter: every week the key staff at the v.a. center in downtown san francisco meets to discuss the offenders. >> i think there's some inconsistent taking of his meds. >> reporter: and in judge ross' chambers, another group including the judge, the prosecutor, the public defender collaborate on how they'll handle each vet who comes before the court. >> he is doing extremely well he's in full compliance.

>> reporter: san francisco's public defender, jeff adachi, says this approach is something completely new in criminal courts, something he welcomes. >> i remember when no consideration was given to a person's background as a veteran, and we had to really fight just to get that evidence in at trial. >> reporter: veterans courts were at first reluctant to enroll those accused of violent crimes. but today that is changing. adachi says it's about time. >> we are looking at admitting veterans who are charged with violent crime, and obviously it's going to be over a period of time to see whether or not this is successful. but if you want to prevent violence, one of things you have to do is be willing to treat people who are charged with violent crimes, and not exclude them. >> reporter: for some offenders, court can demand more than they are ready for. this vet didn't show up when he had agreed to, and despite his excuses, judge ross sentenced him to three days in jail

starting immediately. for rodriguez, the new approach has led to success for first time in 20 years. >> veterans court is an event that you go to every week. it's not a court, it's an event. we cheer each other on. you know, when we are in compliance, it's a great thing. >> reporter: that's a kind of success in progress that veterans from around the country may also soon experience. spencer michels for the pbs newshour in san francisco. >> ifill: america is in the midst of rapid change, politically and demographically as the nation grows dramatically more diverse, more educated, and older. two research organizations with normally divergent views combined to produce a new study that shows the far-reaching implications of that shift. karlyn bowman analyzes public

opinion for the conservative- leaning american enterprise institute and ruy texeira is a senior fellow at the liberal- leaning center for american progress. i find this so interesting. i just want to walk through some of your findings one at a time. the big one i noticed was that majority minority states, that is the number of states which have a minority population -- a majority minority population are to increase. i think it starts, right now we have four states which meet that -- california, new mexico texas and hawaii. let me see, let me get this right in 2060, it's going to count for two-thirds of the country's population, that's 22 states we're talking about. karlyn bowman that's a big change. >> i think it's one of the biggest takeaways from the survey. >> ifill: what's the significance? >> it has political and economic

consequences, consequence force the private market, it will affect every aspect of site going forward. >> ifill: ruy texeira? yeah, i think that's true. when you're looking at a country that will have 22 majority minority states which include states like oklahoma, which we would never think of, you will have 20 other states where children will be minority by 2060, surely this is a country in such dramatic change that the parties will be forced to respond and compete for these emerging constituencies for these new voters. the democrats will have to deliver for the constituencies that currently favor them and i believe republicans will have to compete much more vigorously for their votes because that is our future and the future cannot be ignored. >> ifill: walk me through one to have the states. oklahoma, for instance. what is that's driving this

shift? >> oklahoma is a very interesting state because, like a lot of states, you have a burgeoning hispanic population, but actually what's going to be more important in oklahoma is a group we call asian/other, which is a bin nations of asian and native american. in oklahoma, the native american is growing fast and playing a leading role. you see some of those dynamics in north dakota and south dakota. native americans will be part of the constituencies in this case. >> ifill: in 1980 25% of the children in this country were minorities, and right now 2014 it's 26%, but by 2060 it's going to be 65% of the children are going to be non-white. >> again another extraordinary change over this period of time. of course children aren't old enough to vote but they will be

when they turn 18, they will be eligible, and that is, again, a major change that we're looking at going forward. >> are there policy implications for having that many children, people under age 18. >> i think there are extraordinary implications in terms of schooling, workplace preparation, marketing and the like. >> ifill: i want to talk about another interesting finding which is the decline of the white working class. i find that interesting because the reason the white working class is declining is not because more people of color are getting degrees, it's because more white people are getting degrees. i didn't explain it well. you will have to explain it. >> in 1980, three of every four american eligible voters was a white non-college or working class individual, almost 75%. that's down to maybe 46 or 47% today a decline of 26 points.

it's huge. what's caused that? one thing, there are fewer white people. but also a dramatic rise in educational attainment. more than a third of americans in 1980 were high school dropouts, down to 10% today. there's dramatic increase in educational attainment of the population has pushed down the population and this pushes down the white working class. every presidential cycle, we're losing about 3 percentageponents of share in the white working class every presidential cycle a pretty dramatic rate of decline. >> getting a high school degree used to be part of the american dream. today it's a college degree. we've made extraordinary strides with a different population. >> ifill: in 1974, 70% of us were married 30% unmarried.

in 2014 it's 48% are married, the majority 52% are unmarried. does that have policy implication sphs. >> it certainly does and political implications. this is the eligible voter population. if you look at actual voters, you still have more people married than unmarried. it has political implications moving forward. >> ifill: does that mean the poll the ticks will be more divided than even now as a result of the country going in separate directions? >> well, actually, i think you can maybe see a little bit of that in the short term, the polarization, particularly around different racial groups and so on, but actually my view is over a somewhat longer time period we will be less not more divided because of the fact i previously mentioned, the parties will have to compete for a much more diverse set of voters, they will have to compete for the minority vote, they will have to compete for the unmarried vote.

>> ifill: do you think this? do. >> ifill: so there are those political folks who look at this and say republicans are in the wrong place now in terms of who is voting for them and democrats are in a better position to take advantage of this kind of shift. do you agree. >> no, i don't. i think reps have significant problems going ahead. as the democratic national commit where reported saturday, the democrats realized they have very serious problems going ahead. but in terms of presidential politics, republicans will have to do better with the minority vote going forward. >> ifill: this is a question demographers like to ask. is demography destiny. >> i'm not sure but you need to pay attention to population changes. >> ifill: you agree? agree with karlyn as i usually do in these things. demography is huge, it drives a lot of things. structures terrain, it must be reckenned be. but to say destiny -- to say

it's destiny is wrong. i think democrats would be kidding themselves to say just because there will be more minority and unmarried voters let's do nothing and politics will be dominated by us. not true. look at 2014. anyone can be contested. the center is shifting and both parties will have to take it into account. >> ifill: ruy texeira, center for american progress, and karlyn bowman, american enterprise institute. thank you. >> thank you. >> ifill: now, how gridlock at the federal level is felt close to home. the senate and house are locked in disagreement over how to fund the department of homeland security, mostly because they disagree over immigration reform. there was some movement in the senate today in a game of chess being watched closely by local officials far from washington. jeffrey brown has that.

>> brown: on capitol hill, an offer to extend homeland security funding for the rest of the year, from republican senate leader mcconnell. i think we have a responsibility to act here. we have a solution to the problem that deals with both things. >> brown: mconnell outlined something democrats say they want a seven- month full extension of homeland security funding with no strings. but with it he also is setting in motion something conservatives want, a senate vote to block the presidents 2014 immigration actions. those executive orders expanded waivers for undocumented immigrants. i don't know what's not to like about this. this is an approach that respects both points of view and gives senators an opportunity to go on record on both, both funding the department of homeland security and expressing their opposition to what the president did last november.

>> brown: but house republicans may not agree. and for their part, senate democrats are chewing on the offer. >> brown: in the meantime, amid the angling, thousands of county officials took to the hill today, lobbying congress to act on a wide range of issues including immigration, concerned over the impact on their county- run hospitals, jails and on the affect on jobs and the economy. >> brown: we asked two county officials to join us to get our hands around what this means on the ground. liz archuleta is supervisor of coconino county, arizona, that's home to the grand canyon. and judge glen whitley is the chief elected official of maptarrant county, texas, home to the city of fort worth. welcome to both of you. fill in the picture a little bit, liz archuleta you first, about why and in what ways this immigration debate here is so important to you. how does it affect you at home?

>> well, counties are basically the ones that provide social services, health service and criminal justice services which include law enforcement. so this affects us at a very basic level. we're concerned about a people and about community building, and our residents are the ones that are uncertainty now as to what will happen with immigration reform. regardless of who they are, we have to provide these services. >> brown: uncertainty, the key issue in texas? >> incertainty, certainly. when washington fails to act it doesn't stop us. we have to continue to deal with the folks. we care about the people in our communities and we have to act. >> brown: well, so, what exactly are you -- you're on the hill today going around to congress. what exactly are you saying? what are you asking for? >> well, one of the things i'd say we're looking for is to -- you know, right now you have d.h.s. and the immigration bill are kind of linked hip and hip. we feel like they need to be separated. they don't need to be holding

one bill hostage over the other. if d.h.s. isn't funded it has a tremendous impact to us on the fema-type issues. we're going into the spring. you have tornadoes, floods there's a lot of uncertainty there. we need that uncertainty to be taken care of. >> brown: what exactly do you say when you go to the hill. >> we'll say immigration reform is needed. it's something that people have been talking about for years now and that we're about serving people. this is not about parties. you know this is about people. so we're the ones that are on the ground, in the grocery store that are having to answer why is this conversation still happening. >> brown: when you go to a congressman, do you say do this specifically x, y and z or do you just say, do something, get over the uncertainty? >> yeah, we're saying you have to act now, that we need to have this comprehensive reform, that

it has to be some collusion solution and that it's unfortunate that, you know the debate is about health services vs. immigration reform. we feel there is room for both and we feel we're an example of that at the local level. we solve problems and we're called upon to solve problems and we just need to move the conversation to action. >> brown: but you're a democrat you're a republican. you yourselves differ for example. take the president's executive action on immigration what did you think of that? >> well, i guess i'm glad to see that the courts are going to look at it. i believe, personally he's gone too far open that particular issue. but really, from national association of counties' standpoint, from counties' standpoint even though many of us reelected in partisans races, when we get together we have to

serve problems. we deal with people on a day-to-day basis, our potholes aren't republican or com. our diseases, outbreak of measles they're not republican or democrat. and we can't ignore the issues and wait sometimes for the federal government to pass a law or a policy. we implement -- if they've got a policy or a law we'll implement it. if they don't, we still have to deal with it. >> brown: to get there, you have to get past these political differences. what did you think of the president's executive action? is that a good step forward? >> i thought it was a good step forward. i didn't think it was an overreach, but i also think it demonstrates that congress needs to act. the only reason for the president's executive action is because congress hasn't acted. so i don't feel that the courts are looking at it but i also feel that it is within the power of the president to do that. i mean that's been since the beginning of time. abraham lincoln used executive

action poove for the emancipation proclamation but it doesn't take us away from the actual conversation of keeping the eye on the ball and the ball is that we have to have a legislative action for immigration reform. >> brown: what has to be in it? >> well, i think it has to be several elements to it, but first of all it has to be comprehensive. second of all it has to include a guest worker program. third of all, i mean if we're looking at actual national association of counties' policy on it, we have to secure our borders. we have to have a pathway to citizenship for those who pass background checks. >> we actually passed a resolution working together, democrat and republican last summer on the fact that we felt like it was very urgent for congress to pass that and, as i said, secure the border. right now we have college students who graduate in our science, technology, engineering

and math degrees, great young people, and then we force them to leave the country instead of encouraging them to stay. so we need the comprehensive program to secure the borders, come in with, you know, a way to deal with the undocumented folks that are here right now, and to be able to move forward and go on, getting to more important things. >> brown: but the last part, the way to deal with the undocumented is precisely one of the big sticking points. >> well, i think, you know, again, when we look and we talk about comprehensive policy, you know, that really outlines several different issues i personally am looking for a program that deals with the folks that are here and, in the background checks, if you find that an individual has been a bad actor, they need to be deported, they need to be asked to leave. they need to be forced to leave. at the same time, i think we have to realize that -- and this

is why we would sometimes like the federal government to be a little more flexible with county government. we've got 50 states, 3,069 counties. the situation may be different in each one of those. >> brown: briefly given what you've seen from back home and being here in washington, do you see the possibility for legislation or are you resigned to it being dealt with through executive action and perhaps the courts? >> oh, i never give up hope that there could be a solution, a legislative action. i think what we need is flexibility and hopefully members of congress will hear from their constituency back home and we'll agree to the points that i think we as -- you know, as a people in the united states can agree to it, seeing it is a bipartisan issue. we saw that a few years ago where we had senator mccain and senator kennedy that agreed on some legislation, and, so, i

think if we continue to talk it out we can reach to it but we have to get there sooner than later. >> brown: that's a hopeful note. judge glen whitley from texas liz archuleta from arizona. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> ifill: tonight on many pbs stations, part two of the series "italian americans," here's a preview on reaction to the movie "the godfather" from that community. when the film was released in 1972, "the godfather" broke box office records. for italian americans the film tapped into a sense of nostalgia for their family history and immigrant past. >> "the godfather" blew my mind. i felt i was watching the history of my family's past. the strange thing about it was is the lighting was always like i pictured it.

>> what if i done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? >> light comes through the shadows, and the rembrandt. that's the way i pick chord my parents' youth. >> "the godfather" i is the greatest movie made. it's about italians fra from queens. they're eating during the whole movie. they bring out this plate, my grandmother had that same plate, the same design. it was so carefully researched. >> i told my father to see it because i was interested in movies and marlon brando was in it. he saw it on a wednesday and he was flipped out and went to see it that saturday. oh, yeah, absolutely. it made a huge -- >> it was like watch ago story about your family elevated to something like they were the ken dis, youdis-- the kennedys, you know

what i mean? >> but not all italian americans had such a positive response to "the godfather" and some took to the streets in protest. >> we are united against discrimination and defamation! >> many were concerned the association of italians with crime was holding them back. >> 17 years, i got three children growing up with a cloud over their head. >> this was a stereotype that was potentially very hurtful to people like me. i was a young person. i wanted to see myself as kind of moving out of a working class world.

i was made extremely uncomfortable by the portrayal of all these gangsters with italian names. >> tune >> ifill: tune in tonight for "italian americans" on most pbs stations. and now to our "newshour shares" of the day, something that caught our eye that might be of interest to you too. get this: last night, nineteen manatees found themselves stuck in a storm drain in satellite beach, florida. police, firefighters and a rescue team from the state's fish and wildlife conservation commission spent hours rescuing the nervous animals and moving them to the nearby lagoon system. here's what it looked like. including the one you're with. >> and that one. i saw about ten of them go back out and later i saw about another five or ten go out, so i thought they were coming in and going out. i didn't think anything of it until this. this is terrible. (cheering)

>> ifill: poor things. >> ifill: again, the major developments of the day. as expected, president obama vetoed a bill authorizing completion of the keystone oil pipeline. republicans decried the move, but they lack the two-thirds majorities needed to override it. and the justice department announced there's not enough evidence to charge george zimmerman with violating the civil rights of trayvon martin. zimmerman claimed self-defense after killing the unarmed black teenager in florida, in 2012. on the newshour online, she calls herself a "lower-case rock star," but sonic youth's kim gordon, is far from small. her cool style and intense performances have become a big inspiration for scores of indie rockers. in a new memoir, she talks about the breakup of her band, and her marriage to its frontman thurston moore. read that on our homepage pbs.org/newshour. now a look ahead to tomorrow night's newshour: jeffrey brown recently went to houston, where macarthur genius fellow rick lowe is enlisting

art to reshape a community. an effort to rejuvenate and energize a neighborhood and its people through art, economic development, and social services. lowe told me it began in the early 1990's, when he was working as a traditional painter and sculptor. >> i had a group of high school students at my studio. and this student came to me, and he said, "that's not what we need." he said, if you're an artist, why cant you create a solution? >> ifill: creating solutions and creating change, wednesday on the pbs newshour. and that's the program for tonight. i'm gwen ifill, we'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us here at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ ♪

moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take charge of your life and become you're own chief life officer. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and...

>> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is bbc world news america. >> funding of the presentation is made possible by, the newman's own foundation. giving all profits to charity and pursuing the common good. kovler foundation. and, mufg. >> build a solid foundation and you can connect communities and commerce for centuries. that is the strength behind good banking relationships. we believe that financial