congress can't legislate in a direction that congress subsequently is willing to amend or overturn. it's these spaces in between that they exercise these powers and that's exactly what obama is doing here. >> is that usually where the courts come in, where they act as a space filler and referee? >> yes, and they're often called in. the vast majority of the time when they're asked to referee these cases they either step aside saying this is a political issue and they're not going to get entangled, or they side with the president. they have strong constitutional reasons to get hyped the president. but there are moments where they will overturn actions taken by the president or refuse to allow powers granted to the president stand. a recent case of this was the line-item veto in which clinton held for a few weeks, and then it was promptly taken away by the courts. yes, the courts and congress play--they both play important arrives of how these powers are exercised. but what is really in play or set of political consideration. there are legal considerations that under gird the conversat

here is a photo of some of the early women of congress at the start of the 71st congress. there are lots of them. you can see that they are very businesslike in their attire. wearing furs. it looks like edith nourse rogers has some flowers. this represents not all the women in congress but lots of them. they are being photograph and being treated by the press as an entity. how that is going to get played out would change. and over th e next couple of decades, as people try to figure out what do we talk about when we talk about women in congress? >> this is an interesting photo because it points out, you can go through this a look at the way the women were elected to congress. pearl front row is oldfield who succeeded her husband who passed away. then edith nourse rogers then who represented the silk stocking district in new york city. then on the far side here is ruth hannah mccormack of illinois. her father was marcus hannah, the republican kingmaker in the early part of the 20th century. d constantly butted heads with what jennings bryan. his daughter is on the side of t

congress pass laws, the president asked congress to change those laws, congress refused, so he ignores those laws. creates a system, megyn, that would give 5 million people unlawfully in america the right to stay here, take any job, a photo id, a social security number. and he'll pull down wages of americans, reduce the opportunity for work. and experts tell us it will create a tidal wave of increased illegal immigration in the future. >> now, i know that you want stopgap short funding measures to get the congress through to when the republicans take over the senate in january. what kind of response are you seeing so far? do you believe your initial suggestions have been well-received? >> i think our congress wants to be very careful. they want to handle this challenge through a constitutional order in a responsible way. nobody wants a shutdown, certainly not i. congress should fund the government of the united states, but congress has a duty not to fund programs that we believe are bad, unlawful or unworthy of financial support. and i think we will fund this government. i think we sho

blame congress.his has to be item number one. as tim said people are dying there. there hasn't been a public debate. the place the public can debate this is through congress. we spent a billion dollars, i understand that's chump change these days, but a billion over the next month is going to be more billions and there may be more deaths. and there may be turns and twists here we can't even imagine. and i just -- it's not just -- i actually agree with you, tim, that this is immoral. but i also think it is colossally dumb and unwise politics for both parties. >> you think they better, but will they? >> sort of. it starts now. it will depend on how -- what the public says, too. that's why -- digital campaign, editorials, come on, wake folks up. this is day one. here is tim kaine on hour one of day one down here doing the right thing which is calling for action. >> senator kaine, do you see the partners on the other side of the aisle, thrick as we have the leadership change, corker moving into a leaders

congress. it must be a huge drag if you're president to know that's coming. but even though that is the history, nobody knows for sure if that's going to be president obama in elections, as well. republicans will certainly hold the house. nobody yet knows if they will take the senate. republicans will seem very account e confident that they will take the snats. the republicans. >> in midterm e lerkss, the president's party loses an eave rang of four senate seats in each midterm election. if, however, you focus in on just the second midterms, just the mid temples on a president in his sixth year of office, the number of senate seets loses on average is 5.8, let's round to six. the historical average levels in tomorrow's election, the republican party tomorrow will take six senate seets from the democrats. seats happens to be the naex e exact number of seets they need to take from the democrats in order to take control of the united states senate. all they have to do is hit the historical eave ra

we certainly think congress could deal with it if they wanted to, but i think, as the members of congress brief points out, they likely won't. why? because people like mr. maclean promote the national security. they don't harm it. >> can i ask you about that? you say in your brief mr. maclean contacted a reporter with a history of responsible reporting about tsa who maintains close connections with congress. now, suppose that he instead contacted a reporter working for a foreign state-controlled news agency and the information was not quickly released to the public, so that the information was out there and could have been obtained, perhaps, by terrorists before congress was aware of this and before the agency was aware of it and before it was able to take corrective action. would there be any reason why that would not fall under the statute, as you understand it? >> justice alito, i don't believe the whistleblower protection act deals with that. of course, congress could, by circumscribing the act in various ways. but here's what i think congress did in (b)(8). they said not just can con

congress. principal drafter james madison, ten years after the constitution was final, wrote a letter to jefferson and said, our constitution supposed what the history of all governments demonstrates, that's it's the executive that's the branch most interested in war and most prone to it. it's for this reason that we have put the question of war in the legislative branch. another virginian, one of our first presidents, thomas jefferson was confronted with a war similar to what we're dealing with now, quasi terrorist, grappled with what congress said, what the constitution said about the allocation powers. jefferson knew as president and commander in chief, i can defend the nation immediately. as our ships were being attacked, he could tell the commanders of the ships, you have to defend yourselves. he didn't need congress for that. but at some point he decided, you know what? defending every attack doesn't seem smart. can't we go on offense? and he said, when i go beyond the line of defense, i

114th congress. and retired marine corps major conable double -- ben talks about u.s. forces training iraqi and kurdish forces. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the supreme court recently heard oral arguments in a case questioning whether a law passed by congress in 2002 file it's the constitutional functions of the presidency in foreign affairs. the case, deals with the bornort of a u.s. passport in jerusalem and whether israel can be designated as his birthplace. this is one hour. >> we'll hear argument first in case 13628, zivotofsky v. kerry. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. how an american is identified in his or her passport or u.s. consular birth abroad, including the place of birth designation does not amount to formal recognition by the united states of that designated location's sovereign status. this is a principal reason why congress' law authorizing jerusalem-born citizens to carry passports that say they were born in israel is a legitimate congre

i have got to push things through congress. he threatens congress. laws, but he is a very different chief executive. it is the chief executive that woodrow wilson would later think is the only significant one in the last 25 years of the 19th century. wilson thinks there is nobody else significant, but cleveland was. actually what he is is the first modern president. >> what change cleveland's mind? >> i think the depression, his loss of his wife. all of these things come together. and his secondew term, that we have got to do more to fix things. got ideas of what that is. the president is a part of this process. i think i will be told less and maybe we will achieve more if congress does what i say. >> he was the first modern president. that pre-modern view that you could feed to civil war -- veto civil war pensions, could that be sustainable today? it would be so unpopular. could a president get away with that now? >> it did not make cleveland popular. which is one reason he is not reelected the first time. so, i think it becomes harder. i also think

can congress do that? >> i think that a situation like that should defer to the executive branch judgment of the place of birth listing can have significant diplomatic consequences and we have had policies in place for decades the line this with our official recognition policy and the reason that we do that is because foreign sovereigns look to these medications as indicative of where we stand. >> if it is within the power of congress, what difference does it make? whether it antagonizes foreign countries? >> there are certain things that are within the power that wouldn't raise this problem, of course, like a trade embargo. >> this may be one of them. so when it upsets foreign relations, it doesn't prove anything. >> the critical point is that what this statute does that the other ones don't do is that it wears the executive branch and the president himself and the executive branch itself to communicate a message that contradicts this and the united states, undermining the president credibility and preven

obviously, much of that will take action from congress, and i'm eager to work with the new congress to make the next two years as productive as possible. i am committed to making sure that i measure ideas not by whether they are from democrats or republicans but whether they work for the american people. that's not to say that we won't disagree over some issues we're passionate about. we will. congress will pass some bills i cannot sign. i'm pretty sure i'll take some actions some in congress will not like. that's natural and how our democracy works. but we can surely find ways to work together on issues where there's broad agreement among the american people. so i look forward to republicans putting forward their governing agenda. i will offer my ideas in areas where i think we can move together to respond to people's economic needs. take one example, we all agree on the need to create more jobs that pay well. traditionally, both parties have been for creating jobs rebuilding our infrastructure -- our roads, bridges, ports, waterways. i think we can hone in on a way to pay for it thro

congress has not given a plan. he did not recognize that for congressional republicans a commitment to extend the war was a plan, was the plan they were offering. they had gaveled out and would extend the military powers over the south and see if the public would defend them in the november election. in a sequel i won't go into, when they returned, in december of 1866, they once again struggled over whether they should give any terms of peace at all or whether they should now extend terms that would depend upon african-american enfranchisement. even after that the question of ending the war and letting it continue to endure continued through 1868 and 1869 and even 1870 and 1871 as war powers and something that echoes throughout american and other nations' histories once found to be useful proved to be extremely difficult to let go of. but those are stories for another time. i'll be glad to go into in questions. thank you very much. [ applause] >> greg, that's a terrific paper. it makes me think of, you can tie an e

congress could by circumscribing the act but they not just can congress pass a specific exemption or with a fic one notwithstanding clause the president by executive order can eal with this problem and it doesn't require classification and doesn't require somehow two -- ems that are going to >> you are arguing you don't even need the president. the president wouldn't get you have to use have a very specific statute. that is your view. judge breyer there are two different ways in -- >> i know that but you don't because it was in a regulation and not in a statute. it is not in a statute you don't get into that. >> i'm dealing with the 60,000 people media ht leak to foreign and if the government believes that they can solve that problem by having an y executive order that says s.s.i. like the material here ir marshal information is exempt from the whistle pwhrer protection act and congress justice at and as scalia says that is to promote accountability they didn't want to fox to gencies guard the hen house. i doubt if congress thought about it they would be content a h the possibility o

blame congress. this has to be item number one. as tim said people are dying there. there hasn't been a public debate. the place the public can debate this is through congress. we spent a billion dollars, i understand that's chump change these days, but a billion over the next month is going to be more billions and there may be more deaths. and there may be turns and twists here we can't even imagine. and i just -- it's not just -- i actually agree with you, tim, that this is immoral. but i also think it is colossally dumb and unwise politics for both parties. >> will they? >> sort of. it starts now. it will depend on how -- what the public says, too. hat's why -- digital campaign, editorials, come on, wake folks up. this is day one. here is tim kaine on hour one of day one down here doing the right thing which is calling for action. >> senator kaine, do you see the partners on the other side of the aisle, thrick as we have the leadership change, corker moving into a leadership role, mccain, etc. do

congress wanted. that's not going to work out either. but with van buren, you've got somebody who turns out to be, to believe in a very modest role for dealing with financial matters. and to some extent there are still folks that believe that. probably less than the democratic party, though. that was the case in the 19th century. with van buren, he ended up not being very innovative, either. because he was -- in those days the conservatives would have been the van buren crowd. just every solution for them was a very modest and small one. and when you're dealing with depression that's a hard road to take. >> one thing that comes powerfully in your book is that the more constitutionally minded the presidents are, the less politically effective they were. you have a quote of van buren saying the principle and the high duty to which my country calls me is strict adherence to the constitution as it was designed by those who framed it. to what degree was he an originalist and what degree did that contribute

think about that working in tandem with a friendly congress. and laying out the evidence for the claim it is much more democratically accountable than maybe we thought it was. the second question the book addresses is that a good thing or of bad thing? that is the more interesting policy questions what kind of court do you want? that it is independent this is a good thing. debris would have fewer rights and liberties in the united states today if we did not cover independent federal court. so they investigate that claim we have projections around the world so looking to see if that is true but there is said different story for democracy for countries like us that is very much not the case the independent court provides greater protection the more independent the courts are the fewer protections to write civil liberties we have. so if you care maybe you do not. if you think they should have more protection than ours would be better off than said democratically accountable from what we have. however one of the findings findings, i was surprised a

in congress now we have a somewhat new congress and a new team in control but i think this congress is on trial. the terrorists are not going to check our party registrations before we get that. they are not going to interview you and figure out what had you are wearing. you are wearing a government had. that's why you are here and everyone on this panel. i hope that every board in the country starts writing about the congress. this has to be either number one. people are donating dying there and there has not been a public debate. we've spent a billion dollars and i understand that is chump change these days that over the next month it's going to be more billions and there may be more deaths and turns and twists and it's not just i agree with you this is in the world i also think that it is cholos only unwise for both parties. >> they better but will they? >> sort of. it will depend on what the public says. the digital campaign, editorials this is the number one and here he is on day number one doing the right thing: for action. >> do you see the partners on the other side of the a

[laughter] >> i think it is with the congress said into the congress votes on. it's the chief justice pointed out. the whole house, each separate house? >> the answer to that is yes but i would also say the other thing about it is that i do think that the congress actually what they were saying in the report made sense because the language is specifically prohibited by law and i think that with the congress was trying to do is sweep things in like the trade secret act even if the language might look general to an observer the words have been fleshed out. >> maybe this doesn't make sense but you have been focusing on the material that is covered. can't it also refer to the prohibitions specifically prohibited in other words actually has to say you cannot disclosed this you think that it is just specifying what this is. couldn't it could it equally be well specified how direct it must be specifically prohibited? spank this is the argument that comes up for the first time and it's never been advanced by anyone there is no support for it in the undecided history or

congress can do that? >> congress can do that. >> you say can do the same here and the fact that the state department doesn't like the fact that it makes the palestinians angry is i recall vap. >> absolutely, justice scalia. >> take that position, which explains it, then what do you think of justice story who writes in 1833 that the exercise of the prerogative of acknowledging new nations and ministers and he makes clear that that involves whether a city or region is part of a country, et cetera, he says it's an executive function, some argue, as we -- i think we have just heard, that congress could make that decision, too, but that has only been decided and concludes that a power so extensive in its reach over foreign relations could not properly be conferred on any other than the executive department will admit of little doubt. so he is saying, of course you have to of one person deciding such a thing and that has to be the executive. that's 1833. pretty knowledgeable about the founders' intent. >> but t

congress really has the authority -- it's up to congress tomorrow morning. and let's all run down to washington and see what these people are going to do. they will not move. >> the problem is, michael, you've got it backwards. the president, peter, in 2009 and '10 had a democratic house -- >> and couldn't get it done. i agree. >> he didn't get it done, but he doesn't have the ability to do it this way. let me ask you a question, do you agree with jonathan turley that this is now bringing this country to a constitutional tipping point? is it that serious? >> i hope it does not. and i hope that the president's calmer angels prevail on this. >> it's too late. >> he's way off base. even a first-year law student would understand based upon the constitution the separation of powers what his true abilities are in the constitution that he has exceeded it. and exceeded it in a way for personal political gain. we owe more to americans. we owe even more as well to the foreign immigrants in this country. it should be -- this is not the past. he's polluted their path. >

congress really has the authority -- it's up to congress tomorrow morning. and let's all run down to washington and see what these people are going to do. they will not move. >> the problem is, michael, you've got it backwards. the president, peter, in 2009 and '10 had a democratic house -- >> and couldn't get it done. i agree. >> he didn't get it done, but he doesn't have the ability to do it this way. let me ask you a question, do you agree with jonathan turley that this is now bringing this country to a constitutional tipping point? is it that serious? >> i hope it does not. and i hope that the president's >>> this a fox news alert. in his primetime address to the nation earlier tonight emperor in chief, obama, he called out republican lawmakers and essentially blamed them for forcing him to take these executive actions on immigration. take a look. i ekvxkgj3@x lt" /ssr?wkg;e@áf8 failed, i have one answer, pass a bill. i want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. and the day i sign that bill into law, the actions i take

congress said that. and you are trying to deal with a piece of win section without regard to the, to the thrust of the whole provision that congress has said we think jerusalem is the capital of israel. >> justice ginsberg, the, that correct, this section of the statute should be reviewed and constitutional of this should be determined on its own. the court should not look at what congress intended by entire section but what this section actually did. this section as i said gives the individual the choice and does not confer with formal recognition. there are benefits -- >> you may say that, and i think that is certainly a reasonable position. could you read this and say it doesn't really say anything about recognizing anything. but the solicitor general of the united states after conferring with the state department said, since israel's founding every president has adhered to the position that the status of jerusalem should not be unilaterally determined by a party and he adds, by requiring the presiden

to the 114th congress. it is unique for me. it has been a double all the way. i had two primaries, two general elections, so i will be sworn in a second time. it is been a wonderful experience for me to be the 100th woman in the 113th congress. with that comes with responsibility, not only representing and advocating for women, children, and families, representing working families, workers, and for middle-class families. i am an educator by training. taught 40 years and served for 30 in public office. i'm here to work. i have the experience to do that. i am looking forward to making a difference, not only for the 12th district, but for the citizens of the united states of america. it is good to be here. thank you very much for the opportunity. and i would like to introduce now my colleague from california, 31st district, congressman-elect pete aguilar. >> thank you very much. as the vice chairman said, we are envious of her position , starting off with seniority. it is my honor to be here. thank you, mr. ch

i'm james, the 13th librarian of congress. it's a great pleasure to welcome you all to the library of congress and to this event, celebrating the opening of the library's latest exhibition, magna carta, muse and mentor. we remember, of course, this institution's good fortune to have been called upon to safeguard the lincoln magna carta during world war ii. but as a repository of the accumulated knowledge of human civilian, the library of congress must also be -- human civilization, the library of congress must also be acknowledged to be one of the best assets the united states possesses for participating in magna carta's greatest legacy, the preservation of the rule of law. the library began over two centuries ago as the principal reference collection for legal research, both for the congress and the united states supreme court. it continues to do to offer its unparalleled legal resources to all three branches of the united states government, as well as to the governments of foreign states. this mission, the preservation of th

and congress.crats as a party has not always done the right thing either. >> controlled the congress for two years and did nothing. >> neither can republicans. >> i am not putting it on him i am responding to his saying it is republicans. >> it is amnesty. >> he had the support of congress. >> this came after the 1986 congress immigration bill. >> that is different. i agree with you he went beyond what they agreed with in the law but that was to implement portions of the law. >> it was beyond the law. >> congress passed a bill saying no more of that president. >> if you left the country and came back illegally we are going to give you amnesty. >> that is to implement a law. >> that is not part of the law. >> if you implement. >> it is far fewer. >> it doesn't matter. >> far fewer. >> it is both matters no the at all. >> he can waive in 11 million immigrants. >> it is a temporary -- >> take the hypothetical through to the end. can he wave in all 11 with no problem? >> no, because he is not doing it

of in the congress. this is from last year. 106 to 1000 is the average salary for the chief of staff. -- 160k can 4 indicate as director. is a differential between an american public servant can make in congress and what could make in the private sector. more igher you go the differential it is. you could leave your job the senate and make double in the private sector. there is an incentive to leave public service when it comes than finding your kids. they had to leave their jobs because they had a couple of kids and the need to make more money. even at the junior level, it could be a staff answering the phone for has representatives, and could probably make more in the private sector. director makes 80 k. why the difference between house and senate? >> a senate chief of staff, you have to keep in mind that 100 of them. in their ly do act transactional ways. one of the places of bipartisanship. they get on pretty well and do lot of work together. on the house side you are more of a manager. you could ate

and so, what are your priorities for congress, and what do you want this republican controlled congress, to do, but before that, the priorities for this lame-duck congress. beast controlled by democrats, and republicans on the house. >>> usa today, has this headli headline. >>> president baraka obama, says i believes, lawmakers, can consent to those three issues, in the final days. >>> bob, in montaken north dakota you are up first, your priorities for congress. >>> good morning. >>> yes, you know, i am concerned about this idea of the term limits and i don't think that it will ever work. >>> they're not going to vote themselves to be out a job, if we could get the congress, to put in a lottery system, that would limit the seniority and, put them in the committee hats, by lottery system, then, the public could determine, who they want to continue to keep in congress, knowing they're not going to be a committee, with a great deal of power. >>> lawrence, good morning to you. >>> good morning, thank you for this at any time tics i would like to see congress, feam sizemore of the schnucksal

and that congress will forever be known as the do nothing congress. it's the historic benchmark in our nation for the failure of a political institution, right? for the failure to act. that congress did nothing. for comparison sake, so that's the legislative record of the do nothing congress. the 112th congress there, that's the legislative record of the last congress we just had. they say there's nothing new under the sun. we are in our lifetime setting new records for congress doing less than it has ever done before. usa, usa. that's the do nothing congress. right next to it is the last congress which is officially on record as the least productive congress in the history of congress. and now this is the record of the current congress that we're in right now. the current congress, their record so far. we might even beat the record which we set last year. congress has never done less in the history of the united states of america than it's done since the republicans took control of the house in 2010. if the republican party also takes the senate, tho

obviously, much of that will take action from congress and i'm eager to work with the new congress to make the next two years as productive as possible. i am committed to making sure that i measure ideas not by whether they are from democrats or republicans, but whether they work for the american people. and that's not to say that we won't disagree over some issues that we're passionate about. we will. congress will pass some bills i cannot sign. i'm pretty sure i'll take some actions some in congress will not like. that's natural. that's how our democracy works. we can find ways to work together on issues where there's broad agreement among the american people. so i look forward to republicans putting forward their governing agenda. i will offer my ideas on areas where i think we can move together to respond to people's economic needs. so just take one example, we all agree on the need to create more jobs that pay well. traditionally, both parties have been for creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, ports, waterways. i think we can hone in on a way to pay f

they are weighing in on what it means for the new congress. >> congress makes the laws.hat the president did in this order is said i am not enforcing the laws that you have passed indeed i am going further. i am going to give work numbers who millions of people congress said could not work in america. >> i am not going to say why he said so many times he didn't have the power now he says he does have the power. all i know is i am an attorney and my work i have done and i am familiar with this type of executive orders and the president he does have that power. why he went from one position to the other, i can't explain that. >> we know he is crossing the constitution but there are temporary measures that cont last forever then what then? what then with this stal lard situation in office congress not wanting to place this because the president decided to side step them and act on his own. he's playing with their emotions promising things he won't be able to keep. and in the processes -- >> let's taeshg talk about the president's executive action is this about law or politi

now on the congress midterm election results. how the likely impact on congress. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you everybody for being here. appreciated for everybody that has come here. want to t thing we discuss herethe question of whether the next congress will to govern any better than the past. has been re historically unproductive, very little done from both sides. they have to be more efficient night they big question is whether big republican majority in the this congress more likely to come together and agree on things and get the president to sign them. senator snowe. certainly abroad and sleeping the status quo and the destruction of the senate. country people are fearful of the political paralysis that exist in washington. it is abundantly clear that congress is going to have to move forward and learn how to legislate. compromise and consensus has to be, it is critical. senator mitch mcconnell, said that on his speech. they wanted to restore the senate to what is intended to do. to govern and deliberate and consider. to have robust debate. committ

members of congress are going that route more. there was this really strange post from a member of congress, mark sanford of south carolina, who famously had that hike on the appalachian trail, that was actually in argentina. he announced recently on facebook that he wasn't going through his engagement, wasn't getting married. he wrote a 2000-word plus missive. that was interesting. more substantially, there was a post from another member of congress, jeff duncan, who after the disturbances in ferguson, missouri, wrote about how he was wrong to fund programs to give military surplus equipment to local police departments. it was very thoughtful. he at least said, i'm going to reconsider this. i found that pretty useful. >> here is another term, gang. >> this is a term that con oats members of congress, usually from both parties, teaming up. at one point there was a gang of six on capitol hill that was dealing with entitlement reform, maybe it was health care. there was also a gang of 14, which in a chamber of 100 senators is a lot

lame-duck congress. jones discussing veteran issues. >> good morning everybody, americans will celebrate veterans day today. our camera live at the world war ii memorial. will have several events, joe biden will be at the arlington national cemetery. we will have live coverage of c-span at 11 am. we began here in the washington journal. have veterans, economy, isis, any debate you will like to talk about. well the conversation as on twitter, facebook or email us. to get started this morning we with today's top story. veterans of third department announced an care and of the health benefits system. president obama today meets to talk na's leader about trade. also in the headlines, millions of fewer people will roll in the affordable care act. as of this morning president obama pushing the fcc to declare internet a public utility. declared a ebola free. you can call to or republican, democrat or independent lines. ground zero for the healthcare system. those who have served, tto truly honour those we must

and so i think it's an effort to include the congress and make sure the congress feels comfortable whathey are doing. the friction point between the administration and republicans in congress who don't think the u.s. is doing enough in the battle against i.s.i.l. is this idea of administration ruling out a ground combat role for u.s. troops. and some of the republicans say you know you shouldn't rule anything out. we may need to really battle these forces in iraq and it may take some additional military force in the future. >> jamie, what is the mood at the pentagon? because after all these u.s. troops that we are talking about even if they are in an advisory role are going in to do a job they train the iraqi military to do and then when push came to shove iraqi military turned and fled. is there a sense that some in the pentagon don't want to get involved in literally cleaning up the mess that iraq has become? >> well, i think general martin dempsey the chairman of joint chiefs has made it pretty clear in the past the united states doesn't want to own this mission. the feeling in the p

and what i also said at the time was, if, in fact congress -- if this congress could not get something done, then i would take further executive actions in order to make the system work better, understanding that any bill that they pass will subplant the executive actions i will take. so i just want to reemphasize this, major. if, in fact, there's an eagerness of the part of the republicans to tackle a broken immigration system, then they have every opportunity to do it. my executive actions not only do not prevent them from passing a law that supercedes those actions, then i am spurred to get something done. i am engaged every step of the way with their ideas. i think we should have further broad-based conversation among the american people. should say the unaccompanied children changed a lot of attitudes and also that the public did not understand that was a very temporary and isolated effect and, in fact, we have fewer illegal immigrants coming in today than we did five years ago, ten years ago, or 20 years ago, but what we also have is a system that is not serving our economy well.

and what i also said at the time was if, in fact, congress, if this congress could not get something done, then i would take further executive actions, in order to make the system work better, understanding that any bill that they pass will supplant the executive actions that i take, so i just want to reemphasize this, major. if, in fact, there is a great eagerness on the part of republicans to tackle a broken immigration system, they have every opportunity to do it. my executive actions not only do not prevent them from passing a law that supersedes those actions, but should be a spur for them to actually try to get something done, and i am prepared to engage them every step of the way with their ideas. i think we should have further broad-based debate among the american people. as i've said before, i think the episode with the unaccompanied children changed a lot of attitudes. what may also change the attitudes is when the public realizes that was a very temporary and isolated event, and that, in fact, we have fewer illegal immigrants coming in today than we did five years ago, 10

. -- 114th congress. this is about 20 minutes. but also "book tv". joining us now on our set, terry jeffrey. the editor and chief of cnsnews.com. good morning, sir. >> good morning, pedro. thank you for having me. we'll talk ally, about what the new congress means and what it means for republicans moving forward. oftentimes at midterms elections, there are on the president -- it was very bad on president bush in 2006. clearly, the country wanted different direction. >> so you sent to the thought specifically on leadership. tell us a little bit about what you're hearing from them? the big question is hear them say -- basically, let's punt until after the elections. by doing that, the empower the lame-duck congress. they now have the power to come back and have a significant influence on policy. so the question is, will the on ublicans insist short-term spending bills that put things into early january when a new congress can have a say? or do they go through the rest ends e fiscal year, which on september

. -- the 114th congress. a.m.,en at 8:40 protecting your credit card info. and as always, we can take your calls and join in the conversation on twitter and facebook. >> republican texas congressman ralph hall is retiring at the end of this term. he has served 34 years in the house of representatives. he is 91 years old and on november 27 in 2012, he became the oldest member of the house to ever cast a vote. on december 25 of that year, he became the oldest serving member. in an interview with c-span, congress -- representative hall reflects on his years and the space program. this is about 35 minutes. congressman ralph hall, you have been in the house of representatives since january of 1981. you had hoped to be here for one last term. the voters thought otherwise. how are you processing your departure? havell, of everything i checked on during that race, i was 12 points ahead. and it taught me that you never depend on people who tell you you are ahead when you are not. coming back that night at 3:00 in the

still women make up only 20% of congress. an institute for women's politics predicts they won't hilt 50% for another century. it will take more like sarah blair of west virginia to go into politics. >> i'm trying to do this for a greater purpose and to help all young people in the state of west virginia. >> at age 18 she just became the youngest state lawmaker in the nation. >> it is significant if young women are getting on the electoral ladder at a young age, that means that the pool of women sort of groomed for leadership, whether it be in the senate or the presidency, the pool just gets bigger. >> another interesting first this year for a man. republican scott brown became the first man to lose to two women in senate history. he lost in massachusetts two years ago and in new hampshire this year. john. >> roxana saberi, roxana, thank you. >>> up next why so few americans went to the polls and the surprising effect on the results. results. >> good evening, i'm meteorologist kevin corriveau. this evening i'm going to take yo

what the congress did is the k key. we don't psychoanalyze the congress. it's what it did. there's a case called railroad retirement board against threats which justice rehnquist famously says we look at the statute and we determine what the statute did. we don't go to the background to look at the purpose. in broader terms and ethereal terms we look at what it actually did. in this case what congress did is not what it is intended as the critical part in judge griffith in the d.c. circuit picked up on this and basically said if there's a gap in the statute then it's really for congress to use separate powers issue. i'm going to come back and make closing comments about that point. so what was their rationale? this is their rationale that developed with what describes colleagues in the constitution about -- accountability center my old friend cy lazarus and that is section 1321 allows for the federal government to stand in the shoes of the state government and if they stand in the shoes meaning under section 1321 the federal government can set up such an exchange as contemp

. >> why did you want to come to congress? >> well, sam rayburn and my mother were schoolmates at mayo college, a little college before east texas teachers state college at commerce, texas. ow it's texas a&m at commerce. they elected a good friend. she wrote a letter to sam rayburn when world war ii broke out and asked me to help me get an officer, get officers training school. he didn't call her back or write her back. table. to her breakfast he said i can't hire him because of his grades. i graduated in a class of 38 but i graduated number 38. i always have been able to make it some way. somebody's been good to me. >> was it sam rayburn that made you want to come to congress? >> yeah. because my mother spoke to highly of me. a bunch of republicans came to me one time when i was a county judge in rock wall and was going to put up money for me to run against sam rayburn. my mother asked me, if you do that, where are you going to get breakfast, you know? i wasn't going to run against sam rayburn. he was a great man. i think sam

with congress, nothing. today, after election he says, all right, i'm going to make this move which he knows is likely unconstitutional, which he knows is extending the reasonable boundaries of the constitution, he knows what he's doing but he knows now he can at least say i'm going to be able to blame somebody else. >> try. >> try. >> this is just a snapshot, but look at the celebrations outside the white house tonight. they're cheering, they're waving american flags. this group of people gathered to support what the president did. does that tell us anything? >> again, he's playing with their emotions. he doesn't care. if he would want to do something, he could have done it the first two years. he took over one-sixth of our economy, the health care industry. and now he's doing something we all know is temporary, right? we know he's crossing the constitution, but there are also temporary measures that won't last forever. and what then? what then with this soured situation in washington, with congress not wan

so a lame lame-duck congress following a do nothing congress is probably quite appropriate. and so i thought i would start by telling you the things we should do during a lame-duck congress. what we should do that could turn this congress into a do something congress would be to pass an increase in the federal minimum wage because most minimum-wage workers are women, the federal minimum wage since right now at a double that doesn't allow people to live and work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and not reach the poverty line. so we could do that in a lame-duck session. that would include tipped workers and for minimum-wage workers two thirds of them are women and the majority of those women, a vast number of those women are black and brown women, women of color. a lame-duck congress could pass an increase in the federal minimum wage. il lame-duck congress we could to the superintendent's point pass comprehensive immigration reform. we could do the a way that respects families, that values our economy, brings people out of the shadows and contributing trillions of dollars to ou

obviously, much of that will take action from congress and i'm eager to work with the new congress to make the next two years as productive as possible. i am committed to making sure that i measure ideas not by whether they are from democrats or republicans, but whether they work for the american people. and that's not to say that we won't disagree over some issues that we're passionate about. we will. congress will pass some bills i cannot sign. i'm pretty sure i'll take some actions some in congress will not like. that's natural. that's how our democracy works. we can find ways to work together on issues where there's broad agreement among the american people. so i look forward to republicans putting forward their governing agenda. i will offer my ideas on areas where i think we can move together to respond to people's economic needs. so just take one example, we all agree on the need to create more jobs that pay well. traditionally, both parties have been for creating jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads, bridges, ports, waterways. i think we can hone in on a way to pay f