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. >> 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 leade

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

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

and congress. democrats 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 doin

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

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

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

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

can congress stop his executive order? we have the truth of what the president can and cannot do. >>> and airbag investigation, a capitol hill hearing grilling the maker of millions of airbags, probably the ones in your own car. coverup. debate about problems, let's talk live in the "cnn newsroom." >>> and good morning. i'm carol costello. thank you so much for joining me. the florida state university classes are canceled and exams on hold this morning as gunfire erupts in the school library. it was midnight, the library was crowded with students studying when they heard this. >> there has been a shooting in the library. stay where you are. we'll be coming to get to each floor, clearing, and taking care of anybody. if anybody has a victim, if anybody has been shot call 911 from your cell phone. if you have not been shot or do not know if somebody was armed, do not call 911. >> jesus. >> if you know somebody who has a gun who has been shot call 911. >> when it was over, three students were shot. one of the students is in cr

those bills will offer the congress i think a new start. we can act on the keystone pipeline, restore the 40-hour work week that was gutted by obama care. and pass the hire more heros act that would encourage our businesses to hire more of our veterans. and again, this is just a start. i've been going around the country outlining my own personal vision for how we can re-set america's economic foundation. the energy boom that's going on in america is real. and i think it provides us with a very big opportunity. but to maximize that opportunity i believe that we need to do five things, and that is fix our broken tax code, address the debt that's hurting our economy and imprisoning the future of our kids and grandkids, reform our legal system, reshape our regulatory policy to make bureaucrats more accountable and to give parents more choices in a system that isn't educating enough of america's children. now finding common ground will be hard work, but it will be harder if the president isn't willing to work with us. yesterday we heard him say

and so i think it's an effort to include the congress and make sure the congress feels comfortable what they 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

. -- 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

that resides in their congress. this is a constitutional crisis and i listened to all the humanitarian discussion. what about the rule of law? what about compassion for the rule of law? this republic and the vision of our founders, this is a crisis. we have some options in the house. the first thing would be a resolution of disapproval that lays this out. we've to get a better look at the documents that will drive this first. the second one could potentially be a censure and that would be at least a direct message to the president. the third thing would be to cut off the funding. i want to fund this government, keep this government open f. they ask for me to vote for an appropriation bill that funds an unconstitutional act on the part of the president of the united states, i'm bound by my oath as he should have been bound by his. >> i want to bring in jake carney. do you want to respond to anything the congressman said? >> i do not doubt that the congressman and others have d p deeply held vaus on this ib you and ar

in 2011, republicans in congress blocked d.c.'s own locally decided, locally funded abortion policy. now they're doing it again. d.c. votes to legalize pot just as republicans sweep to power in the senate and expand their majority in the house. remember the whole republican mantra about local control getting the boot of federal government off our necks? butt out? this is the test. does the new republican majority in congress let d.c.'s new pot law stand or do they try to undo it? d.c. officials are going to have to accepted this to congress for a review very shortly. that will be another test of what this new washington is going to be like. today is day one. it's going to be fascinating. "first look" is up next. >>> good morning, we have breaking news overnight. new details this morning involving the rescue of the abducted pennsylvania woman and the arrest of her captor. >>> after an election shellacking, president obama's biggest challenge, ending washington, d.c., gridlock. >> as president i have a unique responsibility to try a

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

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

-- 114th congress. they have also reelected kevin mccarthy as the majority leader and steve scalise who will serve as majority whip for the 114th congress. the cuts not expected to hold -- democrats not expected to hold their elections until sometime next week, although we expect to hear from members of the democratic caucus in just moments, live on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the house is in recess. members will be back later today. they will start work on a bill that authorizes the keystone xl pipeline. house republicans and democrats holding meetings. republicans electing their leaders for the next congress, including reelection of house speaker john boehner to serve as speaker again in the 114th congress. we are waiting for house us briefingcause c to begin. before it gets started, from journal," toington talk about net jollity.

everything the congress -- the constitution protects a witness before in court applies in congress. so that's one of the criteria. but they also had some showmanship. they have to draw attention, get the press, keep the story alive over time. it can't be a one-day wonder. it has got to be something with persistence and sh what is going onows -- shows what is going on. by the time they did to the end of the hearings, they have to come up with some sort of solution to prevent the problem from recurring. those are the criteria historians have used to judge successful investigations over time. during world war i, the federal government had taken over a lot of lands in the west and set them aside as naval oil reserves because they were going to need it for military. when the war was over, there was an argument the government did not need these naval reserves, and that private developers should be able to pump oil from them. in wyoming, there was a rock outcrop that looks like a teapot. that the name teapot dome. that was the property that a fellow named sinclair was able to get the right

congress. >> congress not expected to be particularly happy about that. >> this has long been anticipated. everyone has their strategy ready to go as soon as word came out we were going to hear this from the president dome night. a lot of the words being thrown around by republicans are words like emperor, monarch, talking about the president making reference to him going it alone. we are now seeing how republicans are thinking about responding. ted cruz has an editorial op-ed piece in "politico" today trying to come up with words for everything the president wants to do. this is the power of the purse. the congress has the ability to talk about the money and to sort of hold back on some of that. but ted cruz is talking about shutting down the nomination's process, since the senate has jurisdiction over that, not letting any nominations go through except those deemed for national security, and, you know, as i talk to folks about this question, the power of the purse, how effective can that be? some republicans are saying they can really use that to their advantage. others are saying, you

what i also said at the time was if in fact congress, if this congress could not get something done, i would take further executive actions in order to make the system work better understanding that any bill that they pass will surplant the executive actions that i take. so i just want to eagerness 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 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 said, i do think the episode with the unaccompanied children changed a lot of attitudes, i think what may also change a lot of attitudes is when the public realizes that 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, ten years ago, or 20 years ago, but that what we also have is a system that is not se

applies as well in congress. so that's one of the criteria. but they also have to have some showmanship. they have tho draw attention. they have to get the press here. they have to keep the story alive over a period of time. it can't be a one day wonder. it's got to be something that is persistent and really shows what's going on. and then hopefully by the time they get to the end of hearings, they have to come up with some sort of legislative solution to prevent the problem from recurring. i think those are the criteria that historians have used to judge successful investigations over time. during world war i, the federal government had taken over a lot of lands in the west that set them aside as reserves, as naval oil reserves because they were going to need it for the military. when the war was over, there was an argument that the government didn't need these naval reserves and that private developers should be able to pump oil from them. in wyoming, there was an outcrop that looked like a tea pot. it got the

>>> good evening, adam schiff and the role in congress about military action. one of the few washington lawmakers said by not voting on the escalation of military action, we're setting a dangerous precedent for the future, then a conversation with jon se kad da, one of the first to bring music into the latin spring. glad you could join us. those conversations coming up right now. >> by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >>> when lawmakers return to washington after tomorrow, they're expected to pick up the debate about using military force and international conflicts. right now, the u.s. is using a 2001 authorization of military action against islamic state militants in syria and iraq. adam schiff of california is leading efforts to bring this to a congressional vote. good to have you on our set tonight, congressman. >> thank you, great to be with you. >> good news is your seat is safe. you don't seem to be in any trouble. >> for tomorrow's election, but your party is facing an uphill battle. what do you make in advance of tomor

it's congress that makes the laws. it's the executive branch's duty faithfully under the constitution to implement those laws. he is wholly failing to do that and i believe abusing his authority as president of the united states. >> we have now found 25 times in which the president himself, you know, constitutional scholar, professor of constitutional law, that he says he was, 25 times in which he says he doesn't have the authority to do this. now all of a sudden he's decided he does. why? >> this is the most egregious. he user prosecutorial discretion. i was a federal prosecutor, usually that's on a limited case-by-case basis, or responding to a humanitarian congress. he's basically granting amnesty for 5 million people. this will be challenged in the courts, and the courts will determine whether or not his actions violate the constitution, which if the courts find they do, i think would have some serious ramifications to it. >> the customs and border patrol in fillsial year 2013 recorded about 39,000 children coming

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

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

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

,ort of congress acting congress has not acted. he was going to try to see what he could do to make the broken immigration system work better where he could under the law. >> the republican position on immigration reform -- especially executive order -- we've had several republicans today saying you are really -- his word was, there could be an explosion. is there concern here that we could be going back down that road like we did last fall if the president moves ahead of time and that really copper case the cr? -- that really complicates the cr. week --, tomorrow, next we could -- the president could take any type of action on immigration if the house of representatives what unstick it's ears and let us vote to improving our laws. a half, than a year and about a year and a half, the house has had -- been sitting in its chamber -- had sitting in his chamber a deal that had 60 aide votes that would fix the broken immigration system. my sense is that the president would like to see the house republican leadership act, whether it is o

when i leave congress i will not be criticizing. if you want to say something critical, you should have said it will you were here and not when you are leaving. but i am not negative. liked them all -- all and they all treated me with respect. second of all, they could have done something to me -- let me give you one example. i like them all and they were all fair to me. i voted against seating newt gingrich. there were eight of us. i had not seen the report. as you know, on the first they, they call your name out. and dan coats, who has been a good friend of mine, kind of stood next to me. when they called his name out, i voted present. newt gingrich never punished me. i had people saying that you are finished. was disinvited to the republican national committee events. newt gingrich, to his credit, never punished me. he wrote me a nice letter, actually. they have all been good. >> you are leaving the institution with public approval ratings at the lowest point in modern history. that has got to be painful for someone who is spent

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

he has said -- >> he's going to take executive action, ignore congress, but then ask congress to ignore -- >> if congress is unwilling to act. remember, it's been 17 months since congress was willing to take action on immigration reform to fix the system. so, he said -- in fact, he said it in january in his state of the u.nion. if congress won't act, i will. what he's doing is no different than any president has done. as you said, what presidents reagan and bush sr. did was very similar to what the president is doing. >> no. here's the difference. this is what senator cruz said, and i have to say i think he's right about this. bush 41 acted after a major immigration reform bill was passed in -- please, sir. passed in 1986 and he was cleaning up after what they did. this president is going around congress and ignoring that. >> but that -- >> there is a difference there, sir. >> there's a difference in time. show me where in the constitution it says, you can have executive actions if you do within three days or three years of a law, but you can't do do it if it's three years and a day. co

. >> i think that congress has options. congress can overturn and amend. they have lots of options post talk. it is also clear, though, these congressional limits are in play because obama is not getting everything that he wants. it's quite clear if he has his druthers that he would go farther than he currently is. when we think about how healthy legislative checks are, we should also look at how much the president is getting as a function of what he would like. >> we'll be back with more inside story after this short break. over the last century has the freedom of movement of the president, the assumption of power seen in executive action waxed and waned with the occupant of the joel office and the situation with the rest of the world. stay with us. >> you're watching inside story. i'm ray suarez. we're talking about executive action this time on the program in the wake of president obama's decision to move on his own, to adjust the machinery of enforcement of immigration law. over time has presidential power to move unilaterally risen and fallen with the

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

what does the new face of congress mean for the economy? >> and what to watch. three sectors that may have the most to gain from a republican-controlled senate. all that and more tonight on "nightly business report." it's wednesday, november 5th. and good evening, everybody. i'm bill griffeth in tonight for tyler mathisen. >> i'm susie gharib. evening. stocks soared to new highs and as investors were emboldened by the republican sweep. republicans made promises to start working right away on important economic issues, including trade, corporate tax reform, u.s. energy exports overhauling the affordable care act and much more. on wall street, the s&p closed at a new record and dow anniversaries and dow utilities arn transport hit new highs. the blue chip dow stocks surged 100 points closing at 17,484, thenack slipped about three points and the sab up 11 points. hampton pearson has more on the post election agenda for congress, the president and what, if anything, will get done. >> we did it. >> the day after the 2014 midterm elections gave republicans clear major

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 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 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

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

if congress doesn't act. we'll just have the president sign something and that will take care of it. we won't have to worry about it. >> al, that's quite a change. what's happened in the year from the time the president said this would be unconstitutional? >> he thought he'd get a bill passed in the last congress and he didn't joe, is what happeneded. >> so did the constitution change? >> i don't agree with his analysis back then. i think he was on pretty solid legal ground. >> do you? >> yes, i do. >> here we go. >> judge posner, his son wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago, and we said, you know what this is, this isn't a paragraph. he is doing what all his predecessors did. he is not deporting 5 million immigrants. joe, congress tomorrow can come in and overturn this. the next president on day one, january 20th, can rescind this. >> but "the washington post" says, carol lee, that frustration with congress doesn't give the president the right to shred the constitution. obviously, the white house lawyers, whi

congress and at the white house. only 44% of the people who voted have a positive opinion of the democratic party. less than that, 40%, have a positive opinion of the republican party. 2/3 of the country thinks the nation is on the wrong track. nly 22% of americans right now think the next generation is going to be better than the current one. only 22% of the public still thinks there's such thing as an american dream. if people who were voting last night had the same buffet of choices in politics that they have in the theater, where they're going to shop, how they're going to shop. where they're going to eat. . if people had that kind of buffet of choice in politics last night, how many republicans and democrats would have been thrown out of office? celinda, whipt? why don't you answer that question. how much of the republican victory yesterday was a choice between twoest? >> there's no question that people are discouraged about washington and the direction of the nation. but yesterday was a whopping rejection of th

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

congress will pass some bills i cannot sign. i'm pretty sure i'll take some actions that some in congress will not like. that is natural. that is how a democracy works. we will find ways to work on issues where there is broad commitment among the american people. i will offer my idea. i will offer areas where you can respond together to economic needs. take one example. we all agree on the need to create more jobs to pay well. both parties have been for jobs, recreating the infrastructure. roads, bridges, ports, waterways. we can hone in on a way to pay for it through tax reform that closes loopholes. we could also work together to grow our exports and open new markets for our manufacturers to sell more american made goods through the rest of the world. we share the same aspirations for our young people and i was encouraged that this year republicans agreed to investments that expanded early childhood education. i think we have a chance to do more on that front. we have some common ideas to help more young people afford college

the wisdom of me acting where congress has failed. i have one answer, pass a bill. judge? you think it's unconstitutional? >> the president's power is profoundly unconstitutional. here is why. the president has the prosecutorial. ratchet up or ratchet town what the. [ laughter ] is going to do. he says ratchet down the deportations. ronald reagan did that. george h.w. bush can do that. he can do that for a class of people. a small class of people. 100,000 here. 100,000 there. when he does it for half the foreign nationals who are are in this country illegally, the practical effect of that is not just nullifying their deportations, it's nullifying the law. it's rewriting the law. when he says "i won't deport you if you do a, b, c, d, and e, which he is going to say in a few hours answered makes up the a, b, c, d, and e, it doesn't come from the congress. is he rewriting the law. >> it's a matter of scale? >> it's a matter of degree. absolutely. the president can say i'm not going to deport women over 8 a or women of child bearing years

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

congress and frankly members of congress should be back in washington now debating whether this country goes to war. [applause] >> moderator: thank you very much, mr. wager. mr. juries. joyce: the question is? nocona thank you very much and for the opportunity to be here. i appreciate when you get into arguments with leadership, but as i said before, these are the things i will never get out front and embarrassed as speaker or the majority leader. when i have an issue, i go right to them to discuss the issue and work our way through it. but as it. one is the skill of fact about reforming the way we trained people looking for careers. i didn't like way they were going about it. i want to see them and the author of the bill came in they try to explain to me. i went back like i always do to my district and i went to lakeland and i asked them how they see it and they said it's working fine the way it is. the changes seem to be basically trying to stick in the eye of the people who are part of it. i believe careers are for everyone in that one should have the opportunity because it's all abo

people and say to their congress people, we need you to stand up for a change. now, this is a way to kind of leverage the power that we aggregated with money into power with people. and ultimately, i think that that's going to be the much more effective way to begin to convert members of congress, to get it close to a place where we could actually have the majority to pass the statutes we think we can pass. >> larry lessig, zephyr teachout, thank you for being with me. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> at our website, billmoyers.com, find out what you can do to help drive money out of politics. that's all at billmoyers.com. i'll see you there and i'll see you here next time. >> announcer: don't wait a week to get more bill moyers. visit billmoyers.com for more. >> announcer: funding is provided by anne gumowitz, encouraging the renewal of democracy. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security at carnegie.org. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the

and what i also said at the time was if, in fact, congress, if this congress could not get something done that 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. 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, then 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. i'm 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. and i've said before, i do think the episode with the unaccompanied children changed a lot of attitudes. i think what may also change a lot of attitudes is when the public now realizes that was a very temporary and isolated vent and that, in fact, we have fewer illegal immigrants coming in today than we did five y

but short of congress acting, and in six years congress has not acted. republicans blocked votes on immigration. he is prepared to do what he can, as he did two years ago in an action i think most americans would look at and say it made a sense, in differing youngations for these people graduating from college and trying to serve in the military and all the rest. my sense is that all we have to do is see congress do its job and act and we will not have to worry about the president trying to act through his executive powers. to start with ultimatums, if you do not do this our way, we will not let you do anything else? that to me would be a bad sign. let me ask any other colleagues to respond. if they have anything to add. >> i would only add to that. as i mentioned before once , again, talking about threatening to shut down the government because they do not get their way or because the president is not trying to improve the way in which the laws are carried out i think is childlike. quite frankly we need to stop , creating more uncertainty. that is not g

in two years i would like to come back and say a do-nothing congress has turned into a do something congress. in two years i would like to come back and say that we have made health care work better. i would like to come back and say we are doing better for veterans. we didn't talk about them much tonight. we need to reform the veterans affairs. i would like to come back and tell you we have jobs that we didn't have two years ago. i would like to tell you that we live in a safer world and be able to tell you young people that we are starting to rearrange the way we live in our community so you will come back and be a part of our community. the seventh district needs you here. i thank you for being here tonight and being a part of this shared vision. i ask for your vote. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> gentlemen, these folks appreciated you so much they didn't even wait for me to ask them to applaud. you. thank you have made us proud. we wish you the best of luck in the coming weeks. i wo

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