i believe we need better information. i believe we need better reports and more detailed reports about what really is happening, not just on sexual assault but also on harassment in order to prevent unhealthy climate. we need to change the culture and we can only begin to change the culture by tracking performance and behavior from the very beginning. so thank you very much, mr. chairman, for having included this in the en bloc.

>> gentlelady yields back. any other discussion of the en bloc amendments? if not, the question on adoption of the amendment en bloc number two by mr. wilson. in favor say i was opposed? the ayes have it and the amendments are agreed to. are there other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> are you now ready? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> okay. we will go back to ms. speier's amendment. the clerk, please pass out amendment number 113. without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with.

the chair now recognizes the lady for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you, thank you giunta swing for the amendment to arrive at my desk. thank you. mr. chairman, this amendment deals with a particularly pernicious element of the construct that exist in the military right now. if you are sexual assault and/or rape in the military, you the option right now of filing a restrictive report or an unrestricted report. or not filing a report at all. as was indicated, the most recent staff report says that

26,000 victims are sexual assault at a rate a year. only 3600 actually file an unrestricted report. there are still some that will file a restart did report. now, what happens when you file a restricted report is that you're able to access health services, but the assailant is not identified. there's no investigation. there is no prosecution, and we are creating an environment in which the assailant, the sexual predator, is allowed to continue to prey on other victims. so why would we want to be complicit in allowing for that kind of activity? a restrictive report creates that kind of environment. now, the argument originally offered up, more recent development, it's only been

around for six, maybe 10 years, or maybe 12 years, was that, welcome once they found a restricted report they could be coaxed into making an unrestricted. well, that hasn't been the case. in fact, a very small percentage of these restricted reports become unrestricted. secondly, we do know that now victims can access the health care anyway. so having this restricted report is not necessarily to their advantage. and thirdly, even though they're told that this is confidential, the truth of the matter is it always seeps out. so the restricted report becomes a whisper campaign throughout the unit. so this particular amendment would get rid of restricted reports. if we truly want to go after these perpetrators, creating a construct that allows someone to file a complaint and not identified the assailant means

that we are complicit in allowing that the statement continue to prey on others. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. ms. davis request time to speak? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would agree with mike ali, and i speak gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. in an ideal world we would want for all victims of sexual assault, men and women to feel comfortable coming forth and giving unrestricted report. we know though that that's not always the case, and that while we continue to focus like a laser on this issue, i think it's important that we continue to provide the necessary medical attention. that's deserved, and not necessarily force people into

that unrestricted report at this particular time. i do think though that we have to recognize that the movement from a restricted report to an unrestricted report does give the victim power, i think, to move forward and work through the trauma that they have been going through. and that's an important movement and a think we need to honor that and continue to allow that to occur. the other thing that's so important is we have valuable statistical data, and have representation of the number of sexual assaults that are occurring. my worry is that the fact that may change and we may not be able to use that data as we continue to do today, and so i think that's important. allowing this flexibility does allow a victim to your buddy

process can be something that they have great confidence in. now, i would agree that it can become a whisper campaign, absolutely. and we have many, you know, stories in that regard. but also have had an opportunity, as have my colleagues, to talk to a number of people who have seen that shift. and at the present time as we are trying so hard right now to take that away, i think would be problematic. we actually understand that there've been some attempts to do that in the theater, or some discussions about how that could occur in the theater as opposed to here in the united states. and once again you have a concern that people may not come forward. we have to provide and be very strict about accountability in all regards, and in this one we continue to get information and. we continue to get very, very

important environmental, i think, information that helps us to understand this problem better. and the reality is there are many ways in which we really, i think we have just begun to scratch the surface. and if we can continue to have restricted and both unrestricted reports, i think that we will be more knowledgeable about what is going on and how we can better hold our commissioned and noncommissioned officers responsible for the tone that they set working with men and women under their command. so i yield back, and i thank my colleague for bringing this forward and raising this issue. >> gentlelady yields back. request time to speak? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak in

opposition. >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, wanted to add my thanks to my colleagues and we worked together on some of these other issues involving this whole arena of sex abuse in the military. and i think that my background as a former reporter covering crime isosceles situations where there was such a hesitancy on the part of especially female victims wanting to come forward. and i think that as we continue to move through this arena as a talk about things we talked to in this committee trying to eradicate sexual abuse in the military, i think that would suck to honor the provision of confidentiality and honor the right of the person to have a restricted report. my fear is if we right now we remove the restrictive report and take that decision and all those ramifications reporting a way into an arena where everything starts taking off, that we will have women that

possibly won't seek medical help. that's exactly what we don't want to have happen. and i realize we're talking up men and women both here in the abuse issue but i just think that as we move forward, a starting place to build represented sanchez mentioned, and whistleblower protection, my fear is that allowing a state if i were to report is the starting process here on this ladder of climbing out of this mess by a line -- my fear is that we take the restricted report away that we have now put some vulnerabilities in a place where there doesn't need to be women and men should be able to deserve and get medical treatment that they deserve without coming forward and engaging before they are ready. so i would ask that we oppose the amendment at this time. i do want to thank my colleague for bringing forward. we will continue to talk about this issue because i think where the tip of the iceberg and we will continue to talk and move

in the right direction. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> gentlelady yield's back. ms. tsongas? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i request time to speak in opposition. >> gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. first, i'd like to take the time to thank my colleagues for all her work and your continued attention on this issue of military sexual assault. but i would have to disagree with this proposal to remove a military member's ability to submit a restricted report for sexual assault. restricted report allow a victim to report a sexual assault to sexual assault response coordinator who can then ensure the victim receives medical care, treatment, and counseling without notifying the victims command or law enforcement officials. restricted reports give the victim time to get help and time to get a rape kit before they decided they want to move forward with a criminal investigation. and overtime some victims decide

to make the restricted reports unrestricted and move forward with a criminal investigation. while i understand and agree that we must hold perpetrators accountable, i don't believe we can do so at the cost of preventing the victim from getting the help that they need in an effort to recover from such a traumatic event. as we work to get and on the investigation, prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assault cases, we cannot ignore the legitimate needs of victims as this is so important to ensuring their recovery. in addition, today 62% of victims report and military sexual assault also report that they experienced professional and personal retaliation, an astonishing at a very troubling number. we do not have a system where victims can report an assault and be free from a retribution. we aspire to that system. we have to be so committed to getting there, but we do not have it yet. until we have a system where we can better protect victims from retaliation, i believe the

services need to maintain restricted reporting and i will vote in opposition to this amendment. thank you, and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. ms. roby? >> in opposition to the amendment. >> gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our colleague for all the work on this issue and many others in this room that have taken the time to drill down on the specifics, but i, too, oppose this amendment because of the facts of that, number one, the restricted reporting has allowed 2740 victims of sexual assaults receive the medical care counseling and support from victim advocates. i believe that if we remove the option for individuals to file a restricted report, it would discourage individuals. they would be unwilling to participate in this investigation, legal process.

they would never report. they would drive these cases underground. and this could result in, number one, them not receiving the necessary care and support, but it could also have a chilling effect on military members reporting such results. so it's for those reasons that i pose this amendment and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. gentleman from texas request time? gentleman from ohio requests time? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to speak in opposition. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you i just want to clarify one aspect of restricted reporting because when ms. speier was giving the description i think it's misunderstood. it can be stated in a way that

makes it sound like beauty, department of defense, is doing something sinister in having this restricted reporting. enemies declared by that affect restricted reporting with a congressionally directed process but, in fact, ms. sanchez and his davis the server credit -- deserve credit for saying there needs to be an alternative process for those who wish to seek medical care and attention, but did not perhaps at the time or ever wish to move forward with an actual official report of the sexual assault. so i just wanted to make certain that it's clear this is not something the department of defense initiate on their own. this was in the 2005 national defense authorization act. two of the members of our committee on the one who came forward and pressed this everything it has proven as ms. roby has said, to provide great access to those victims, sexual assaults, who wish to seek care but not report their sexual assault.

thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> you are watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays featuring live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watc watch key puc policy events. and to weaken the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing this morning on irs spending on employee conferences. live coverage is on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. booktv is live all week and from the "chicago tribune" printer's row lit fest. saturday starting at 11 a.m. eastern.

>> live this weekend on booktv on c-span2. >> that ethics and public policy center recently hosted a discussion of religious freedom. one panel included a look at the relationship between the states and religious groups. this is an hour. >> good morning, everybody. i would like to invite everyone to sit down. we will go ahead and start our panel discussion. my name is gene schaerr. i am a lawyer in washington and i've been asked to chair this panel. i'm sure all of you are for me with u.s. supreme court louis brandeis who is famous for lots of reasons but one of the reasons he's famous is that he

once had a very memorable analogy about the states and their role in our democracy. he said that the states are the laboratories of democracy, and nowhere is that more true than in the arena of religious freedom. but wait, you might say, doesn't our federal constitution already addressed the issue of religious freedom and due so definitively? and the answer, as a good rabbi might say, is yes and no. yes the amendment sets the floor on religious liberty but no, it's early doesn't set a ceiling. to the contrary, the supreme court pointed out in the famous or perhaps infamous decision known as smith versus employment division, that's the case that deals with religious use of peyote as a supreme court said in that case, as long as the state satisfies the minimum requirement, the first

amendment, the nature and extent of religious freedom for protections are legitimate democratic debate and legislation by the people's representatives including those who serve in state legislatures. and in that regard i'm pleased to report the american religious freedom program has been actively working in and with state legislatures around the country to enhance protections for religious freedom under state law. and here to update us on those efforts is a rfp state legislative policy director tim schultz. tim, if you'd like to come up thank you. one year ago at this conference we announced plans to help legislators in every state form a religious freedom legislative caucus. the caucuses were envisioned as

a platform for hosting bipartisan discussions of religious freedom. and for facilitating good legislation, protecting and promoting religious freedom. last october 9 states formed a form the first ever for an caucuses. today a bipartisan group of legislators and nine more states are taking that same step. this includes state on eastern seaboard, the midwest, south and west, a list of states for you, the nine caucus for mistakes or delaware, georgia, maryland, michigan, nevada, ohio, south carolina, texas and west virginia. most of the states are represented here today by their caucus founders, and many other state legislators are here in the audience today. i would just like to ask all of the state legislators in the audience to stand up and be recognized by the groundwork for the good work they are doing. could you all stand?

[applause] >> only half of the religious freedom of movement many of the leaders of whom are here in this room, we do offer you our congratulations and our gratitude. the 2013 legislative calendar in the states is growing to a close, so it's appropriate right now to give a brief report on what is happening in state capitals to date and in 2013. before 2013, 16 states have passed a version of the federal religious freedom restoration act, which is a comprehensive measure modeled after the bipartisan law signed by president clinton 20 years ago. before this year, no state had passed such a measure in four years, but this year to more states did so, kentucky and kansas, both with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. i will take a moment to mention

just one more category of legislation. as many of you know, 2010 the supreme court ruled in christian legal society versus martinez that government funded colleges and universities can parse to religious groups from using religious criteria in selecting their leaders. before this year, no state had passed stand-alone legislation preventing this practice, but this year tennessee, virginia and idaho all did so. one of the authors of the legislation is here to tell you about it, and all of these folks were bipartisan and all these measures were attacked all faith committees. the four panelists gmo introduced shortly are among those at the forefront of successful efforts to protect religious freedom. i'm honored to be appear on the stage with all for them. action with gentoo all five of them. and they and thousands like them are the ones doing the hard lifting of states. they deserve from all of us our deep thanks for everything they

do protect religious freedom for americans of all faiths. thanks. at this point i will turn back over to gene. [applause] >> well, congratulations to tim and george tenet for the marvelous successes, and we'll hear a lot more about those from our panel as. let me introduce each of them to you and then we will get started with the substance of the presentation. alan reinach to my right is the executive director of the church-state counsel of the seventh they have at his church in the western united states. the counsel that he leaves represents persons of all faith and primary victims of discrimination and employment. alan and i've had the opportunity to work together on several cases. among other things the counsel participates as amicus curiae in cases revolving religious freedom. alan also directs the counsel's legislative program, monitoring

legislation for its impact on both institutional and individual religious freedom and often testify before legislative committees. alan hosts a radio program entitled freedoms rein, which is nationally syndicated and even internationally syndicated. he regularly publishes articles on religious freedom and legal journals, religious periodicals and the like, and in demand of the speaker on issues of religious freedom and religious discrimination. he is a graduate of the university of north carolina law school, and a good friend of religious freedom and a good friend. next to him is jennifer kraska was the vice president of the national association of state catholic conference directors. in 2008, jennifer became the first executive director of the colorado catholic conference, which is a public policy agency

at the catholic church jointly operated by the three catholic diocese in the state of colorado, and her role as an advocate before the colorado legislature, she's been in someone and formulating responses to a whole range of public policies that implement religious freedom there, and she's also been a national leader in respond to state level threats to religious freedom and. she holds a law degree and a master's degree, among other degrees, from the university of st. thomas in st. paul, minnesota. to my left is curtis mckinsey was a member of the idaho state senate and he has chaired the senate state affairs committee since 2005. in 2012, last year, he became a founding member of idaho's religious freedom caucus. and earlier this year he sponsored and spearheaded passage of the bill that guarantees the rights university religious groups to use religious criteria to select their leaders, writers come under attack since supreme court under virtual opinion in

martinez, which tend mentioned early. he is a graduate of georgetown university law center and practice law here in washington for a while before returning the item to raise his family. and according to his official while, he has two exceptional children and to below average dogs. [laughter] rebecca hamilton is a member of the oklahoma statehouse where she represents oklahoma's 89th district, which includes south oklahoma city. she was first elected to the oklahoma house in 1980, and served until 1986 when she left to have her first child. she was then reelected in 2002, and since being reelected has offered laws to protect battered women. she has obtained funding for the first statewide program for adult day care, and the first statewide program on domestic violence shelters.

she was the only oklahoma legislature to address, legislate or to address last year's stand up for religious freedom rally. last october she joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in founding the religious freedom caucus in the oklahoma legislature. she regularly writes on faith and religious freedoms and the widely read blog. now, to begin the program, alan will give us a brief overview of the law of religious freedom, and then we'll turn the time over to each panelists to share some experiences and some insights that they have gleaned in working to protect religious freedom at the state level. alan? >> thank you, gene. and thanks for inviting me to be speaking at about 6:30 california time, after getting off the redeye flight, but i'm delighted to have made. thank you, united airlines.

when i was in law school in the '80s, my law school professors taught the future of individual liberties would be a mistake. not in the supreme court. it was rather pathetic i think certainly in the religious freedom arena that shift has most definitely taken place. today, we hear a lot about religious freedom issues that are largely symbolic. issues like a lonely cross on a mojave desert hillside, a war memorial that a supreme court battle is fought over, yet how many lives does that really impact? the most significant religious liberty issue today that the media largely ignores is that every business day there are several americans who lose their jobs, many others were never hired because of their desire to obey god, because they were a yarmulke, they were a turban, or

perhaps observe the sabbath. now, there are two supreme court decisions. gene mentioned one of them, the smith case, choose edit an especially tragic into voting the legal and constitutional protections or religious liberty. the 1990s smith case known as the peyote case is the better known of the two. but in 1977, the supreme court jumped in surprisingly early after congress enacted a specific protections in 1972, to clarify that under the civil rights act employees religious beliefs and practices had to be affirmatively accommodated by companies. they jumped in very quickly and completely watered down the legal standards of how employers have to accommodate religious

workers. in partisan, well, the standard that congress enacted was to provide reasonable accommodation short of an undue hardship. now, hardison was a sabbath observer who lacked majority, that the court could have announced the vigorous legal standard protecting religious accommodation and still found that twa had met its obligation to hardison. i'm reminded of the peterson case where the court announced a hugely vigorous establishment cause standard of separation of church and state, all the while permitting public funding of bus transportation, a parochial school students. apparently, a complete contradiction to the vigorous standards that it had announced.

and they certainly could have pursued something similar in hardison, saying that, yes, we have a vigorous standard that twa has met i in this case. but instead they completely watered down the standard saying that the undue hardship requirement on employers was the minimus. and richard cohen has often said in chairing our workplace coalition workplace, the minimus means not much. latin of course. ..

>> imposed a reasonable accommodation short of an undue hardship standard for accommodating persons with disabilities but took the extra step of defining undue hardship in terms of significant difficulty or expense in order to clarify that they weren't looking for a watered down standard. and i was involved in early discussions with leaders within our church, within the seventh day adventist church, about the kinds of language that we would like to borrow from the disabilities act and religious accommodation. and we've been lobbying for such a measure here in congress for pretty much my entire career, almost the last 20 years with some bipartisan support but with

very little success in congress. and so the battle has shifted to the states. back in the early part of the last decade, new york passed a workplace religious freedom act, new jersey passed one, oregon, i think, was next passed some vigorous standards, and last year we were successful in passing really the toughest workplace religious freedom act in the nation in california. and i have to say, you know, hats off to tim and the work that this organization is doing. coalition work is everything. you don't get bills passed without building coalitions and getting support and typically left, right and center. you know, the left alone or the right alone is unlikely to get bills passed. we have to build support across the political spectrum. well, california's bill did

several things. it clarified that the tougher difficulty expense standard was the law in california. it also added language about dress and appearance that arguably was already protected, but it clarifies it and specifies that employers really do have to accommodate employees' religious expression through their appearance which is something that impacts almost every faith. but then california went one step beyond what any other state had done. what the bill author tribed as the rosa -- described as the rosa parks measure of the 21st century, that employers can't shunt workers who express their faith through their appearance, can't push them into the back of the store, into the stock room away from customers because of their appearance. it's critical that we create a

climate in america where people of all faiths are welcome to participate in the workplace regardless of their appearance. and the corporate image standards no longer trump our rights to self-expression and self-determination. well, i've been dinged with time. i had a whole lot of material here about the erosion of free exercise as a result of the smith case. you heard from tim about the efforts through the states where the action has shifted to enact religious freedom restoration acts in many states. and it's a tragedy that we no longer enjoy vigorous protection for religious freedom at the federal constitutional level, that we do have to shore up these protections at the state level, and it's become increasingly difficult. i have jurisdiction in five

states. we've enacted a rifra bill in one of those five, and it's very difficult. we're working in nevada this year, very difficult climates in many states to protect religious freedom. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the invitation to be here today speaking with you about such an important topic. a topic that is especially relevant to those of us working in the trenches at the state level. if colorado is any indication of what the trend is regarding the issue of religious liberty, then we all might need an adult we'vage or two -- beverage or two after this conference is over. [laughter] i wish i were here today reporting on all the great victories we have experienced in colorado regarding the issue of religious liberty. but sadly, colorado has been

home to an increasing trend that is intolerant of religious belief and practice and seeks to marginalize and silence those who participate in religious speech, behavior and practice that isn't going to fit into the confines of modern society. all of us here are aware this is not a topic that affects just one religious denomination or one set of beliefs. the issue of religious liberty is one that affects all of us as americans. it is a foundational principle upon which our nation was founded. and for these reasons and many more, we all must be vigilant to the threats that seek toty myish this tremendous liberty. with that being said, let me take a few minutes to tell you what has been happening in colorado. it was just one year ago this month when the colorado court of appeals ruled that the content of gubernatorial proclamations in reference to a colorado day

of prayer are, quote: predominantly religious, they lack a secular context, and their effect is a government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion. the court went on to point out that it's quote: sack -- sack religious or nonreligious that the state should leave that function purely up to themselves. this decision was an inappropriate response to what was a longstanding practice to have governor of colorado recognizing the national day of prayer and acknowledging the right of an individual to pray and to worship. the decision was an unfortunate setback to religious liberty juris prudence in colorado, but the silver lining in all of this is that our current governor has decided to appeal this case, and just last week the colorado

supreme court granted cert on this issue. unfortunately, this was not the only attack on religious liberty that colorado has been privy to. last year in colorado we were dealing with a ballot initiative that was sweeping in its disregard for religious liberty. the ballot initiative sought to amend the colorado constitution to say, quote: in assessing whether government has burdened freedom of religion, a person's or religious organization's right to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely-held religious belief, is the ability to engage in religious practices in the privacy of a person's home or in the privacy of a religious organization's establish place of worship. this standard also applied to a person or religious organization's refusal to act. in essence, the ballot initiative sought to confine religious belief and practice to a place of worship or home.

what we all know is that religious belief and practice is never solely relegated to a place of worship or home. almost every faith tradition compels believers to take their message out into the world. thankfully, this initiative was removed from consideration before it made it to the ball out. but as you can imagine, the consequences for having something like this on the ballot would have been devastating to religious liberty and the colorado constitution had the people vote today approve it. voted to approve it. and it's not over yet. one of the most alarming developments in colorado this past legislative session was in regards to how partisan and political the issue of religious freedom became, and this sentiment was on display most prominently during the debate on civil unions. this was the third consecutive year that civil union legislation was introduced in colorado, but this year there

would be a significant change to the legislation from years past. the change was in regards to the lack of religious liberty protections for organizations providing adoption and foster care services. in yores past -- years past, there had been robust protection. the 2013 version of the bill did not include these protections. there were many legislators that courageously attempted to put these protections into the bill and argued the case for religious freedom eloquently. unfortunately, there was nowhere near a majority of support for the amendments to protect religious liberty. but it wasn't just a lack of support for religious liberty that was so alarming. it was the outright hostility that was shown to this issue. during the debate on the senate floor in response to amendments that were being offered to

protect religious liberty, one of the senate sponsors of the bill said to defenders of religious liberty, quote: so what to say to those of you who say religion requires them to discriminate? i'll tell you what i say. get thee to a nunnery and live there then. go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can't see as equal to yourselves. away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them. other legislators during this debate referenced the nazis and the taliban in regards to people of faith who believed that religious liberty should be protected in this legislation. and these were just a couple of the many astonishing comments that were made. but as discouraging and disheartening as those remarks were, the real disappointment was that no one in the majority stood to defend principles of religious freedom or to disagree with the sentiments that were

being expressed. the clear political divide that existed in colorado this past legislative session regarding an issue that should never be defined by politics was both disturbing and shocking. as undesirable as this trend is in colorado, i have not given up hope. there is a great deal of education that needs to happen in this area, but i am hopeful that in colorado we will someday soon put an end to these senseless attacks on religious liberty. i mow that for the vast amount of people in colorado the issue of religious liberty is not a partisan issue. rather, it is a constitutional value that must be protected and cherished. as ronald reagan once remarked, quote: the most essential element of our defense of freedom is our insistence on speaking out for the cause of religious liberty. i know by our presence here

today that we will always do whatever we all can do to protect and defend religious liberty. thank you. [applause] >> um, i was invited up here to speak a little bit about idaho's experience and the way that the religious freedom program can be used as a tool to help shape policy at the state level. in particular it's a way for thought leaders and policymakers to interact and communicate on issues that come up and help shape the way that policies develop as a result. of that interaction. idaho was one of the states that formed religious liberty caucuses after the program last year, and we formed a small

caucus, and i tried to invite those who are thought leaders on different issues and well respected in both bodies as part of that. i think representative lynn luker is here from the house in idaho, and other members have come to the last program. and i'll give you two examples of the way that caucus helped us develop policy on religious liberty during the session. two examples. one was a proposal to add an amendment to idaho's state constitution using rifra-type language, and then the other was the protection of religious-based student groups on our public universities and campuses. with respect to the first, first issue, there were local groups who support religious liberty who proposed that we amend our state constitution to add

rifra-type language to protect liberty. similar to a statute that we've had in place for over ten years in idaho. when that proposal was brought up as a caucus, we inviteed tim schultz, the ethics and public policy center, to comment on that, to share some of the experiences that other states have had. and we found two different, two different things that made us pause on those efforts. one of those was the fact that in other states when that issue had gone on the ballot recently, the proponents had been heavily outspent in degrees of 20 or more to 1, and it hadn't done well on the ballot as a result of that and efforts to communicate to the public x. the other issue was because we've had a statute already in place,

from from a lit dater's perspective -- litigator's perspective, there wasn't a huge difference in having that in the constitution. and as a result of that we deferred action on that and focused on the other issue which was a pressing problem in our state, which was that one of our public universities was changing its policy for student groups to ban from campus participation groups that required a profession of faith by their leadership. so as you can imagine, that's basically any religious group and many national organizations required that if you're going to be a state-level member. that was brought to my attention from the christian legal society who'd litigated a lot of these cases because i was a caucus member, and they knew i was interested in that issue. and so as soon as i heard about that, we used the caucus in order to put a coalition together in order to get that

through the legislature. first, we vetted the language, sent that to tim to dispersed it to the beckett fund and others so that we could craft language which is effective, very defensible and very concise. and i think it's model language that could be used in other states because we had their input before we drafted it up. using that language we then got an attorney general's opinion from our state as to where that fit in the constitutional bounds of the decisions including the 2010 case that was mentioned earlier. we find in idaho those opinions from our state attorney general can be used as a sword to try and defeat things, and so we wanted to get that early and invited him to have discussions with kim colby and others in order to draft their opinion letter. so we got that early on. we used the caucus, we got

bipartisan support including members of the democrat party who had been a member of the organization at issue here, was a strong supporter of it. and with that we got it through committee fairly easily. it went through my committee in the senate. on the floor the vote was 30-5 in favor, and then on the house side the vote was 56-11. so we had bipartisan support. and because we had the groundwork based on strong language that was vetted by the organizations that litigate this on a daily basis, it got through fairly easily and was signed into law by the governor two days after we got it to his desk. and so i would say don't underestimate the ability of this program and the connections that are made here to influence policy at the state level.

policymakers who don't necessarily deal with this on a daily basis find input from you as thought leaders invaluable on this issue, and we often want to do the right thing, but we don't always know how to craft the language in order to do that and to choose between different alternatives as we had in idaho. and so i found the caucus to be a huge assistance for us, and we wouldn't have been able to get that through our legislature without it. and so i found it was useful, and i would encourage other states to form caucuses and then use it as a tool when they get issues before them on religious liberty. and with that, i'll thank you, and i'll turn it over to rebecca. [applause]

>> i'm rebecca hamilton, i'm a member of the oklahoma house of representatives. i'm starting my 18th year in that body, which means that i have more seniority than anybody else. in either house. now, i don't know if that means that i, there's a sanity or intelligence test that i failed or what exactly -- [laughter] but that's true. and i had something unusual happen when i was looking at the program today. it says about me, it says as a public intellectual. that, in all these years, that's the first time anyone has ever called me an intellectual. [laughter] it is, actually, unusual for me to find something new that somebody hasn't called me before -- [laughter] after 18 years in office, and i'm very proud of this one. [laughter] i have on my hard drive on my computer at home, i have a file that i keep. it's called the crazy people file. and how you get into the crazy

people file is you send me an e-mail that calls me names or is pretty much whacko. unfortunately, a large number -- and i have gigs in the crazy people file. it's huge. after 18 years, it's enormous. unfortunately, a large number of the things that are in the crazy people file came from the central committee of the oklahoma democratic party. i am a democrat. i have actually been a democrat longer than some of the people who are writing me these crazy things have been alive. that is where i'm going with what i'm going to talk about today. i'm going to tell you some stories, just simple stories. i, a few years ago, i was being lobbied by a member of organized labor. this individual was not lobbying me about labor issues.

i'm a true believer about the rights of working people. that's why i'm a democrat, is things like that. so there was no reason to lobby me about that. this person was angry with me because i was the author of pro-life legislation and had voted pro-life on several pieces of legislation. and in this individual said to me, go to church all you want, but leave it there. what they were really trying to say to me is don't vote according to your values. don't author legislation that reflects your beliefs. i want you to vote according to my beliefs and my values. now, that's pretty common for anyone talking to a legislator. you want them to represent you. however, the arrogance of telling me to ignore my religious beliefs in this and

hooking into faith is a result of the ethos of the culture in which we live in which it's okay to attack people because of their faith. i think every member of any legislative body in this country has probably many, many times heard things exactly like that. the reason why is because we have a culture that teaches people that it's okay to harass people of faith. we -- as a result not of that particular conversation, but of that attitude within my party, the democratic party in oklahoma tried to censure me for passing a pro-life bill. they came within 50 votes at the statewide democratic party of censuring me. now, this had no legal force. it really didn't bother me. it bothered my colleagues in the house who were democratic a lot

more than it bothered me. i didn't care. but it says something about how far people think they can go based on religious faith. my party went into my district and lid dropped me. they took a picture -- i'm a catholic, and they took a picture from our catholic newspaper that i was in and put out a flyer saying this is rebecca hamilton -- rebecca hamilton's church is against birth control. and here is rebecca hamilton speaking to her church telling them how she's going to make birth control illegal. now, that was a total fabrication. but that shows, again, the degree to which attacking people on faith and faith alone is tolerated in our society. another story i want to tell you is a few years ago i was visiting a friend of mine who

lives in san francisco. and we were at a friend of his, at his home. and they were talking about some problems that they were having on the job with a supervise. supervisor. and the friend remarked, he said, you know, i think that she is an evangelical. now, i don't know, but i think. if i can happening -- if i can hang that on her, i can get her. now, what does that tell you about the culture in which these people worked? what does that tell you about our culture in which we live? what does that tell you about religious freedom as a matter of practice and faith for individuals? a few weeks ago, another story, gonzaga university -- which is a catholic university -- ruled that the knights of columbus were not welcome as a student

group on their campus because it's a holy catholic organization. there was such a public outcry that the president of the school reviewed this decision and overturned it, but it was a vice president of the school who had made the original, taken the original position. what that says to me is that the attitude and the belief that religious should be driven from the public sphere has become so widespread in this country that even schools that purport to be religious schools have fallen into it. the question that we are faced with at this moment persecution of any sort, let me back up here. the persecution of any sort does not begin whole cloth. you don't start out by going out and killing large groups of people, singling them out and

killing them. you don't start with lynchings. you don't start with to groms. you start with bashing. you start with hate speech. you start with singling a group of people out based on a certain thing. in this case, their religious faith. and limiting what they may or may not do, what they may or may not say. jennifer ghei you some -- gave you some very good examples of bashing and hate speech. and those weren't just things on a street corner. those were in a legislative body on the mic in public by elected officials who had no problem saying that because they knew they could get reelected. that, again, points to where we are on that continuum of religious discrimination. we've reached the point in this country that bashing people verbally because of their faith is accepted, it is tolerated, it

is applauded. you can get reelected doing it. you can have big ratings on your television show doing it. that's a line. that's a mark that's moved that far toward violent persecution which is where these things always end up simply because that is human nature. you keep going far enough, you dehumanize a group enough, you marginalize them enough, it becomes easy to do anything to them. what we are dealing with in this country is that we're moving on that progression. by saying that religion, religious faith, religious belief, religious practice must be confined to your home, that you may not discuss it in public, that you may not act on it as a belief, you are

discriminating. that is de facto discrimination. you are pushing -- and that is the argument we are having in this country. it has devolved to that point. the question is, does the first amendment, the second half of the first amendment and the second sentence of the second half of the first amendment apply to individuals and everyone in this country, or does it only apply to formally-organized religious groups within the buildings where they practice their faith? that is the real question that we're facing. and there are a large number of people in this country who are taking the position -- and they're doing it very aggressively, and they're doing it right out front -- there's no point for us to pretend we can't see this is a pretends. they are taking the position that the second half of the

first amendment only applies to institutions, and it does not apply to people. i'm out of time, but the bill of rights has to apply to all of us. the bill of rights is about individuals. if it does not apply to the people of this country, then it really does not apply at all. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you to all of our panelists. one of the things we've heard from all of them is the depth of the challenge that we face as we try to advance and protect religious freedom in the country, and we've discussed a number of those challenges here today and especially the get thee to a nunnery sentiment -- [laughter] that seems so prevalent. what i'd like to focus on in the remaining 15 minutes we have, however, is how can we

effectively combat that and other challenges that we face. and so let me begin by asking all of our panelists who have worked extensively with state legislatures either as members of the legislatures or working with them and trying to persuade them to pads various measures -- pass various measures. if you could give the religious freedom movement in your state one capacity or one tool that it currently lacks that you think would help combat some of these challenges that we've discussed, what would it be? and let me begin with rebecca. >> you would start with me. [laughter] >> sorry. >> i think that the number one thing they need is to stop being afraid. remember what you, if you believe it and you think it, then do it and stop being afraid. >> curt, how about you? >> the ability to effectively communicate especially on valid

issues. funding is such a key part of that, and the ability to get out a message, i think, is important for promoting religious liberty. >> and how would you do that? >> a lot of it comes down to the funding it. funding itself. the states that come on the ballot and didn't do well, the proponents of the religious liberty amendments were outspent by millions of dollars. and so it's not, it's not only getting it through legislatures, it's being able to communicate the message, um, and having the funding and the means to get the message out. >> thank you. jennifer, how about you? if there was one change that you could make in the way we approach religious freedom in the colorado legislature, what would it be? >> i think playing just off of

what the other people have said, the ability to educate more people to really have a true appreciation for what religious liberty means and why it is so important. i think right now there is a general sentiment that it's important, but not enough people are stepping forward to really express that publicly. >> alan? >> you know, i serve in a region where we have both very liberal places like california and very conservative like arizona. but to me, religious freedom has become a victim of the culture war divide. the left and the right are so sharply divided and religious freedom is associated with the right side of the culture wars. our challenge has been to communicate across the culture war guide -- war divide to all sides and to b able to say, look, liberty with conscious is something that belongs to everyone. we all need the right to live

according to our open values -- our own values, and that's good for, you know, the liberals, for the gays, as well as people of faith. you can't have the rights of one without the rights of the other. so somehow bridging this culture war divide for us has been the key to our success. >> and in the example you gave of the passage of the workplace religious freedom act in california, you obviously were able to do that successfully. >> we had the support to have aclu -- >> okay. >> -- of the leading -- well, california employment lawyers' association which i've been serving for a number of years on our legislative committee. so we had the liberal civil rights groups. we, um, specifically omitted the religious right conservative groups from the coalition and focused on minorities. it was sponsored by the -- [inaudible] coalition which politically was much more viable in california than if, you know, the catholic

conference or, who we work closely with, or other, you know, christian groups had been front and center. >> okay. um, who else has a good example, maybe even an inspiring example of bipart partisanship in the service of religious freedom that you can share with us? [laughter] >> i'll take -- >> rebecca, have you seen some examples -- >> i'll take shot. i think in oklahoma when i speak of the democratic party, i'm speaking of -- we have a divide between the party and the elected officials. but i, when i passed that pro-life bill that i was referring to, the one where i got censured for passing it, the bill had originally started out as being authored by two republicans, a republican senator and a republican house member. and the governor vetoed it, and it couldn't -- the senate wouldn't override the veto.

and so we took one of my bills, i'm a democrat, and put it in the bill and passed out back through and ran over the democratic governor which is what made me so popular. that added to my popularity, let's say. [laughter] but that was a bipartisan effort. we worked together. and we've done that a lot of times on different bills like that. >> and how do you get that to happen? just in very practical terms, how do you organize that kind of a bipartisan effort? how do you create the conditions that will be conducive to that? >> well, in politics political necessity's always going to be a part of it. and i think that one of the problems we have is that it is too partisan. when we allow a basic freedom, a basic human right like religious liberty to become a partisan football, that in itself is a

problem. and what i've seen in oklahoma and what i'm discussing with other legislators, what i've seen elsewhere is that when the two parties are very close in numbers, they're both much more eager to be in fave of religious -- in fave of religious freedom and other issues. because the parties themselves are not really representing the people out in the world, the people who have r after their, on their voter registration card and the people who have d on their voter registration card actually agree with each other a lot more than the two parties do. and when there's really a close divide between the two parties, they both tacitly recognize this and suddenly start representing the people a little more. when you have too much one way or the other, things like -- that they use to get elected like religious liberty or pro-life or any of those things,

they just go out the window pretty much. the ardor goes away. and other things take their place. political parties are not churches, and in this country we've made the mistake of trying to think that they are churches. they're not. political parties are about getting power and keeping power. and everything else they say is a lie. [laughter] everything else. and so you have to remember that when you're dealing with them. don't look to them to be your god. they're just a tool. and good people are essential. it's very, very important to elect good people. and by that i mean people of whichever party who really care about this country and who say things, who are honest and tell you what they think. when you start electing people that have been marketed to you like a can of corn, you're not going to get anything but a

puppet when they're in there. and so you need to know, you need to be a little more realistic when you vote. [applause] >> thank you. well, curt, along those same lines, let me ask you a similar question. you told what i thought was an inspiring story of bipartisanship in the idaho legislature. how did you and others who were leading the effort on the bill you discussed there, how did you a arrange to get the kind of bipartisan support that you got when you may have been able to pass the thing with just the vote of one party? >> well, it was, a lot of it was working at the front end on it, especially working with the universities. we have three public universities in the state, and i was good friends with the lobbyists on each of them.

i think good enough friends with two of them that they didn't even testify against the bill. and then the third was such a close friend, he knew it won't affect our relationship if he did. so one of the universities did testify against it, but it wasn't -- it was very low pressure in committee from the university and not even the university that was trying to change the policy. with my friends across the aisle, i communicated with them early on what i was doing, got them the attorney general's opinion. and then when one of the senatorseds had expressed intert and support, i asked him if he would like to be a co-sponsor and added him as a co-sponsor on the bill. and so, you know, i try to be as inclusive as possible. if someone shares an interest in something, i like to be able to share the credit with them. and so that, i think that

definitely helped. and i'm glad, you know, even in a state like idaho where the pendulum so far over to one party be right now, i do think it's important to have bipartisan support of issues that really have, that are not political issues, but are just fundamental issues like this one. so i tried to go out of my way to make sure we can do that. >> thank you. i know each of you has been involve inside trying to organize religious freedom coalitions and caucuses in your states. what singlemost important bit of advice would you give to somebody who's trying to do that in their state? and, alan, why don't we begin with you. >> well, put me on the spot, why don't you. you know, it seems to me i think, first of all, that it's important to understand the nature of an interfaith coalition and what this work is about. and it's very different from the

ecumenical movement which i describe as people coming together and leaving their differences at the door and trying to find things in common. in the interfaith movement when we protect religious freedom, we come together precisely because our religious distinctives are important to us. and we recognize and value the rights of our partners to those distinctives, and we're willing to protect each other's distinct is even though -- distinctives even though we have vigorous disagreements. so, for example, in california the catholic church has been under attack for some of its distinctives that we as seventh day adventists, as protestants clearly differ with doctrineally, but we respect their rights to their beliefs, and we've come to, you know, to support legislatively and in amicus briefs on numerous occasions. so i think you have to

understand the basic premise that we're going to respect one another's distinctives. >> thank you. jennifer? >> um, i think it's really important to, first, establish a broad coalition of support of many different faith traditions and faith leaders. and i think the more that you're able to get, um, various faith leaders around the table, the more influence you're able to have when you're, um, going into the legislative process to try and fight for some of these issues. so i think when forming these coalitions, um, it's really important to reach out to people even if you've had, um, you know, real vast disagreements with them in the past about issues to really try and bring all of them to the table to talk about the issue and why it is so, um, important and vital that all of us on this particular issue stand together and stand united. >> thank you. >> how about you, curt? >> well, in idaho i, first, just

invited legislators whose opinions i respected and would want to have giving me advice on issues. and the way i described the caucus is it wouldn't be advocating specific pieces of legislation. even the bill that we just talked about, i individually asked the members if they wanted to sponsor it. i said the purpose of this is for us to have a way to discuss with other state legislators about their experiences and then have some access to thought leaders on religious liberty. and so i think that's a good way to set up the caucus and so that if there's a particular bill that may be devisive, it's not -- that shouldn't be a reason for someone not to be a member of that. but it really serves as a tool for us to communicate with policymakers and leaders on this issue. and i think that was a good model for us. >> thank you. excellent suggestion.

rebecca, how about you? >> well, i think that people, when people work together, it always comes down to human nature. so i think that if we're going to form a caucus that is actually really effective for religious liberty in oklahoma, one of the first things that we should do is just start meeting on a regular basis and spending time with one another so that we develop the personal relationships that make it possible for us to trust each other and work together as a team. this is always going to be something where you have a nucleus of people who are very committed and then a lot of other people who will follow them. and for your very committed people, it's important for them to have a strongceps of teamwork -- strongceps of teamwork and understanding of one another so that they can

work together in the clenches. because in politics things move very, very quickly. and you can literally have something change in a matter of minutes where you need to motivate people. and if that core team is able to trust one another and understand if a person says we need to do this, this and this, that they follow through without question because they trust and know this person. then you can, you start being very effective very quickly when you can do that. but that begins with human nature, and that begins with knowing one another. >> thank you. let me ask for one more round of applause for all of our panelists. [applause] someone just told me we have five minutes left, but we won't take the whole five minutes. let me just close with one quotation from thomas jefferson.

it's not as famous as his letter to the danbury baptist association in which he talked about the unfortunate wall of separation between church and state. this is a letter that he wrote to another group of baptists, though, right at the close of his presidency on november 21, 1808. and he says this: in reviewing the history of the times through which we have passed, no portion of it gives greater satisfaction on reflection than that which presents the efforts of the friends of religious freedom and the success with which they were crowned. we have solved by fair experiment the great and interesting question whether freedom of religious is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws, and we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving even to profess freely and openly

those principles of religion which which are the induction of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries. and i'm convinced that if we all work together in our various states with like-minded people that one day we, too, can look back on the history of the times through which we have passed, and like jefferson, can conclude that nothing has given us greater satisfaction than our collective success in protecting religious freedom for all of our citizens and people of all faiths. and i invite us all to engage in this very important work. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the late senator frank lautenberg of new jersey will wl lie in repose today in the u.s. senate. you can see the entire service online at c-span.org. >> everything else about frank, those who agreed, disagreed, liked, disliked frank, they a all acknowledge frank had great character. exceptional character. we saw that not only in how he lived his life, but how he died. i -- by serving the people of new jersey until the very end. and by the way, i know you joked, josh, about your dad saying he wished he hadn't made that speech. obamany will tell you -- bonnie will tell you he started at christmas time last calling me. he had to see me, he had to see me. and i said, frank, is it -- are

you okay? he said, no, no, i've got to see you. but i don't want to talk to you on the phone. and because we were in the midst of another cliff crisis in the senate, it didn't quite work out, and i remember, i see barb mikulski smiling. i remember when i came up to explain that last deal, and i remember you and i were talking, frank came over and grabbed me and said, joe, i've got to see you, got to see you. so we worked it out, and frank came down. i invited him to come down, he said i can't get down right now, but he said maybe you can come up to the senate, which i did. [laughter] and i went to the ceremonial office. and knowing he told you everything, bonnie, i'm sure he told you, we spoke about two hours. and he wanted the know, he wanted my advice, should he run again. [laughter]

what in the hell do you say to frank lautenberg when he says should i run again? [laughter] and even then frank was slowing a little bit, and he knew it. but i said, frank, look, i think you win again if you run again. i think even christie will vote for you. [laughter] by the way, the gov and i are friends. we have one really important thing in common, we both love the university of delaware. we both went there. [laughter] i even asked him to come out to the championship game with me. i offered him a ride on air force two, hillary. [laughter] one of the advantages. but i said, frank, i said, look, what are you thinking? and we talked and talked and talked. and he said, um, i said, well, frank -- he said, look, i'll

send you some data. i said, okay. [laughter] i was going, i was going to germany. he said there's a guy in germany i want you to talk to, which i won't say publicly. i said, okay, frank, ill -- i'll talk to him about whether he'll come back to new jersey. he said maybe i might, i don't know. then we met again, and your dad was getting a little more frail. and he said what do you think? and i said i think you should run, frank. and then he said to me, then he called me again. this was over about a two-and-a-half month period. and he said, joe, i got -- i won't use the exact language he used. he said, joe, i don't think i can run. he said, my legs. he said, my legs. and it was clear to me he desperately, desperately wanted to run again. and i think the reason is not because he wanted to be senator,

but your dad never quit. he never quit anything. he never gave up. he never gave in. and for frank lautenberg to decide that he wasn't going to run again was not only a decision about how he cared about his state, it was about his character. it was so much, i'd never quit, and he viewed it in terms that he was quitting something. my dad who some of my colleagues knew and hillary knew, my dad used to have an expression. joey, never explain and never complain. your dad never explained, and in terms of -- he complained a lot. [laughter] but he didn't complain about his

circumstance. he never complained about what life threw his way. >> the massachusetts special election to fill john kerry's former senate seat is in a little less than three weeks. the candidates in the race had their first debate last night. their democratic representative edward markey and republican gabriel gomez, a former navy seal. our coverage had technical problems, and we're only able to air about 35 minutes of the event. ♪ ♪ >> good evening and welcome to the wbz boston globe u.s. senate debate. i'm john keller, political analyst for wbz, welcoming our viewers on wbz-tv and across the nation on c-span. our radio audience on wbz news radio 1030 and those of you watching us online at cbsboston.com and

bostonglobe.com. and a special welcome to our spanish-speaking viewers on univision. welcome, also, to cynthia, political editor of "the boston globe," who'll be sharing the questioning duties tonight. and most importantly, we welcome the two candidates for u.s. senate. republican gabriel gomez, a businessman, and democrat ed markey, first elected to congress in 1976. now, before we begin, a brief word about our format. each candidate has up to 90 seconds to address the same question. they'll take turns going first in alphabetical order. after they've had their say, there will be an open-ended period of rebuttal and debate between them with no formal opening or closing statements. so let's begin with the first question from cynthia needham directed first to mr. go gomez. >> there has been considerable energy pent on the other

candidate's character. mr. gomez, you are running an ad that calls your opponent dirty. mr. markey, your campaign has challenged the ethics of your opponent's financial disclosures and called on him to come clean. so let's get this out of the way. your opponent's exacter an issue in this case, and if it's, why? >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> thank you. everybody out there watching, i appreciate you watching. it's always an honor to be able to speak to so many voters at one time, and congressman markey, after 37 years in d.c., welcome back to boston. i think character does bring, become a point of the campaign, but really what people are caring about is that we talk about the issues. and they want us to talk about the issues that matter to them, and that's the economy and how we're going to get jobs back up here up into massachusetts. and the reality is they prefer us to stay positive. and that's what we've been doing during the campaign. we talk about what they care about and how we're going to bring jobs and fix this economy back up into massachusetts.

we also talk about national security and how we can make ourselves safer. you know, seven weeks ago, you know, we saw here firsthand just how dangerous the world we live in. we've got to make sure that we stay vigilant and focus on national security as well. more importantly, we're staying positive and talking about what people care about. >> thank you. mr. markey, is character an issue? 90 seconds. >> first of all, thank you, john. thank you, cynthia, thank you to the boston globe and to wbz for conducting this important debate. and thank you for sighting it at 7:00 so that everyone can watch the bruins' game starting at 8:00 tonight. you're going to hear a lot from mr. gomez about how he is a new kind of republican, but you're going to hear the same old, steal republican ideas. and that's going to be a big part of what this debate is all about. mr. gomez opposes an assault weapons ban. i support an assault weapons ban. mr. gomez opposes a ban on high capacity magazines which attach

to those weapons and turns them into weapons of war. i support a ban on high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports a cut in social security benefits for our seniors. i oppose that. mr. gomez opposes any further burdens on the billionaires in our country. i support tax fairness. and so there's going to be a big difference between mr. gomez and i on these big issues as we debate this evening, and it's going to go right to who it is that mr. gomez and i want to go to washington to represent. i want to represent those massachusetts values that insure that we protect the citizens in their homes and that we're also able to protect the elderly, the working class, the middle class from unfair tax burdens that should be shared by the well thinker, the -- wealthy, the multi-nationals in our country. >> mr. markey, thank you. rebuttal. >> you're going to see two different styles here tonight. you're going to see somebody who's going to try to scare you. i'm going to speak from the

heart, i'm going to tell you the truth. now, a lot of people in my party and your party are wrong on gun control. it's going to be an issue that's going to require bipartisanship once we get down to d.c. like most of the issues you've been involved in, you want to be divisive about that instead of trying to fix and solve the problem. now, you're the first and only political candidate to invoke the newtown massacre for political gain. that is beyond disgusting. i'm a father of four young kids. and as a navy seal, i know what happens when the weapons fall into the hands of the wrong person. and that's why when i go down to d.c., i'm going to make sure that we pass the expanded background check which is called the toomey-manchin bill because that's the bill that's going to make our communities and schools safer. it's going to require bipartisanship. >> go ahead, markey. >> look, i'm not linking

mr. gomez to newtown. that's a ludicrous position which he has. but it's not as ludicrous as opposing assault weapons. we need that ban. we need to tell the nra that nra now stands for not relevant anymore. we need to pan those high capacity magazines which turn them into weapons of war which belong only on the battlefields of this world, not on the streets of massachusetts, not on the streets of this country. that is a huge dividing line. i want to go down to the united states senate to fight the nra, to fight their position on assault weapons and on high capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports the nra and their positions on those two issues. that is a huge dividing line between the two of us. >> you made your point, let him respond. >> i oppose the nra on the expanded background checks. congressman markey knows this, yet he continues to try to scare you instead of telling the truth here. the reality is we need to fix this problem, and the way to fix this problem is to make sure we

pass the toomey-manchin bill. and the only way we're going to pass that bill is if we get bipartisan support. and there's only one person up here who can get more republicans and democrats, congressman. and the only way we're going to do that is bipartisan work. you are the most hyperpartisan congressman in the last four years. you voted with your party 99% of the time. you haven't found a single time where you've bucked your party even on tax increases. they asked you just last week can you name one time when -- >> let him respond. >> look, mr. gomez, massachusetts is the leader, not the lag laggard on the issue of assault weapons bans. toomey-manchin is the minimum. that's background checks. that's something that the senators from west virginia can support. we're in massachusetts. we're special. we're supposed to be the leader. we know that assault weapons should be off the streets. we know that high capacity

magazines should be banned. that is a huge difference between what you and i are promising the people of massachusetts that we'll do when we go down to washington, and i think that taking on the nra is a critical issue in terms of who is going to be standing up for the people of massachusetts. >> all right. that's a good exchange, and you can continue that in a moment, but you want to follow up. >> yeah. to go back to the original question, the character question. away from this stage there's a lot of mud slinging, a lot of discussion about each other's character. what would you say about that? do you have an issue with your opponent's character, mr. gomez? >> i hi the people of massachusetts are smart enough to realize, because thai going to want to have people they want to vote for as opposed to against. they want to have somebody who's going to tell them the truth as opposed to somebody who's going to try to scare them with a lot of untruths. and the reality is back to that bill, he knows firsthand that the assault weapon bandied not work between 1994 and 2004. he knows that what he's trying to do is he's trying to ban

weapons from everybody instead of banning certain weapons to make sure they don't get in the hands of the wrong people. and that's what we need to do. we need to make sure that we pass the toomey-manchin bill, and the only way is to get bipartisan support, congressman. >> equal time. >> by the way, back in the 1990s, there was a flood, millions of chinese assault weapons at $130 apiece that were coming into the united states. it was an epidemic. it was being used for crimes all other the country. i put together the coalition that led to the ban on those chinese assault weapons coming into the united states. that's still on the books. so don't say that those bans didn't work. they did work. the problem is that now we have an even greater epidemic, and we need someone who's going to go down to washington to take on the nra, to fight this epidemic. twenty children did die at newtown, but 52 children die every single week from gun violence in our country, and we

have a responsibility in massachusetts to be the leaders in putting in place the preventive measures that reduce dramatically the number of deaths in our country. >> will all right. i would like to move on. if you want to take 15 seconds more on this, and you can return to it later. go ahead, mr. gomez. >> i'm not in the back pocket of any lobbyist. you're the one who has taken other $3.5 million from lock byists -- lobbyists. >> and rebuttal. >> this issue on fighting the nra is very clear. it's mitch mcconnell in the senate, the republican leader, who's leading the effort on blocking the passage not only of manchin-toomey, but also of an assault weapons ban and a high capacity magazine ban. and mr. gomez opposes those bans, and i think that that goes right to the heart of who's going to be standing up for the people of massachusetts. >> all right. i want to introduce another topic. our format allows for you to return to this later on in the open periods, and you should feel free to do so, thank you.

and you'll start off here, mr. markey. this next question came to us from a viewer via cbsboston.com. politicians pay a lot of lip service to the middle class, but it isn't also clear what they mean. please define in terms of income range what you think being middle class means, and explain what you'll do in the senate to ease middle class economic anxiety. >> well, the middle class in massachusetts is basically if you look at the median income in the state, it's about $80,000. that's the median. but, of course, it can go up to $200,000. and so for me as i look at those middle income families, that's what i'm constantly concentrating on. it is the issue of insuring they get the tax breaks they need. so over the last 15 years i have voted for $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for middle class families, for working class families. i have supported, for example, a

first-time home home ownership x break for those workers. i've also supported the pell grants, the educational loan programs that help their children to be able to gain access to the education which they need in order to qualify for these jobs. and i worked hard to bring in the telecom jobs, the biotech jobs, the clean tech jobs that all play into giving middle class families in the state of massachusetts ab opportunity to -- an opportunity to believe that with the education and the health care of their children, that they can prosper even more greatly in the 21st century than families did in the 20th century in massachusetts and across our country. >> thank you. mr. gomez, 09 seconds. -- 90 seconds. the middle class, what is it, how will you help it? >> the middle class is between $80-$175,000. less taxes equal less jobs. more taxes equal more jobs. mr. markey has voted to raise taxes over 300 times other his

career. you can't name a single time, congressman, that you did not vote to increase taxes to go against your party. now, i give you credit for inventing the internet over 20 years ago, but the reality is over the last 20 years you have not authored a single piece of legislation that has been signed into law. now, in the private sector where i come from, you know, the last thing you'd do is you'd ask for a raise or even a promotion. and that's the difference between you and i, congressman markey. i come from the private sector. i understand the middle class. they need jobs and lower taxes which is why i think we should have a comprehensive tax re rereform. >> rebuttal. >> you know, mr. gomez, you couldn't be more wrong. just in the past couple of years, i passed the bill that created the requirement that we actually have a plan to find the cure for alzheimer's. that's now the law. that's my bill.

i passed the law that created an onramp to the wireless world for the deaf and the blind in our cub. and why did i do that? i did it because of the perkins school for the blind so that every one of the deaf and blind not just here in massachusetts, but all across the country and the world would have access to it. i authored a piece of legislation which is called independence at home which insures that there's a change in the way in which we view those people who have alzheimer's, parkinson's, so we can keep them at home. the nurse practitioners all have a financial incentive to keep those patients at home. those are all my laws. they've all passed just in the past two or three years, and they're revolutionizing health care and the telecommunications sector while helping the people like my mother who had alzheimer's to be able to stay at home -- [inaudible] >> response. >> what just happened here? he gave you a slick lawyerly or kind of career politician explanation about how he passed

these laws. he co-sponsored these laws. the fact remains that in the last 20 years, congressman, you have not authored a single piece of legislation that has been pass into law, and this is why i put a reboot congress plan out there -- [inaudible] i'm sorry, sir, but you are the poster boy for term limits. and it's also why we need to have a no-budget, no pay. if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. and for the past 20 years, you haven't been doing your job, congressman. and in the private sector if you don't do your job, you don't get a pay raise or promotion, which is what you're asking the people of massachusetts to do. >> he can keep throwing out these statements that are just completely inaccurate, and we just keep going. i'm the author of the law because of the flight attendants and pilots were frightened that they weren't screening the cargo on passenger planes after 9/11. i'm the author of that law. i'm the author of the law that requires screening for nuclear bombs on ships coming into the port of boston so that we don't

have a nuclear explosion in the port of boston or any other port in our country. so i can go on and on and on in terms of the numbers of laws which i am the author of, the principal author of. and mr. gomez can continue to maintain this mythology which he's trying to create, but whether it be the people who are concerned about bombs on planes, the flight attendants, whether it be the kids at the perkins school, they know that i was the author of these laws. they know that i worked for them because they came to me and asked me to pass these bills as people from the state of massachusetts that wanted their government to work for them. >> go ahead, but i want to move on. >> i think he changed the term term -- terminology on the authorship of these laws. but you bring up national security, which is great. i know he doesn't like it when i talk about his record. it's weak. if it was up to congressman markey, we wouldn't have deployed homeland security. you also voted against the

reauthorization of the patriot act. and even more unconscionable twice, congressman, you voted against a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11. now, okay, he's going to give a lawyerly explanation about why he was only one of 16 people out of 435 to not vote to honor the victims of 9/11 -- >> all right, let him respond to those charges. >> look, i voted eight times to honor the victims from 9/11. i mean, these two planes were hijacked at logan airport. there were dozens of people from my district who were on those planes. i went to their funerals. honor those families. i honor them. when they tried to create the department of homeland security, i wanted that department of homeland security to make sure it never happened again, but when the republicans brought the bill out -- and they controlled the house -- they put inside that bill provisions stripping the workers, the first responders from their ability to be able to negotiate for their

wages, for their health care collectively. now, mr. gomez supports the department of homeland security that strips the workers of their right to negotiate for their health care, for their pay. >> all right. >> i did not. i supported the the president of homeland security, he supported the department of homeland security that stripped fist responders of their abilities to protect their own family -- >> he gets to respond to that, then i'm going to move on. >> i absolutely sport the department of homeland security, was i scare about the security of our country. the bottom line is here you just showed that you put partisanship and party and politics ahead of the people. ahead of the safety of the people of massachusetts. and that's also the reason that you didn't vote for the 9/11 resolution. you put party and politics ahead of what's right for the people of massachusetts. and that's why i'm running because i think this election's about the future, not the past. i think it's about new and fresh ideas, not old and stale, and more importantly we need to put the people -- >> equal time and then we're moving on. let him in, please. >> our country's much better tan

his politics. >> and by the way, by the way, my position ultimately prevailed. i voted no, i thought that news workers, these first responders should not be stripped of their right to negotiate, and ultimately, that provision was taken out even though mr. gomez supported it, and that is now the law. we have a department of homeland security, but these workers are given the respect which they need. when they rush into the world trade center, when they're rushing towards these victims on boyleston street, no one checks to see if they're union or not, and i don't think that stripping them of their ability to negotiate was a way for us to construct the department of homeland security. >> gentlemen, thank you. you, again, can return to this later if you wish, but we're going to move on to our next question from cynthia needham. >> officials in a number of states, including massachusetts, have expressed frustration or even alarm at the prospect of implementing the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. please give a specific example of something you see wrong with the new law that you would try to change in the senate, and please explain exactly what you

would do to try to fix it. >> mr. gomez, 09 seconds, please. -- 90 seconds, please. >> from i believe that everybody should have access to quality and affordable health care. sincerely believe that. what we should not have done is done it as a federal level. it should have been done at a state level just like we did here in massachusetts where we have 98% of our population has health care. now, one of the most egregious parts of the affordable care act is the medical device tax that you voted for. and then you had a chance to repeal it, and you didn't vote to repeal it. a medical device tax here where hundreds of companies in massachusetts with other 25 the ,000 employees -- 25,000 employees depend because it's our number one export coming out of massachusetts, the medical device. and now suddenly that you're running -- which is a typical politician thing to do -- now that you're running for the senate, you're for repealing the medical device tax. i think your actions spoke for themselves when you voted for the affordable care act, and you

had a chance to repeal the medical device tax, knowing that that -- it just shows you you put party and politics before the people of massachusetts. >> mr. markey, 90 seconds. >> the affordable care act is going to revolutionize the relationship that exists between americans and their access to health care. it insures that every child has access to health care for the first time. it insures that if you become sick, that you cannot become bankrupt. two-thirds of all personal bankruptcies until three years ago was because of medical bills. it insures that you can keep your child until age 26 on your medical policy. it insures that if you have a pre-existing condition, that the insurance company cannot deny you insurance coverage. so this is a huge revolution. i opposed putting the medical device tax in the bill in the

first place. i'm working to repeal it. i don't want to repeal it, because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it. and so for me, i want to repeal it. and my amendment on the senate floor will be to reduce the tax breaks which the oil companies get so that we can give back the tax break to the medical device industry. that's the way you have to legislate. the way the republicans have set it up is that they cut into the programs of the poor and the middle class in their access to health care. the better way of going is to find an industry that does not need a tax break, and the oil industry's right at the top of that list. partner it with the need to protect the medical device industry -- >> okay. >> -- and then we have a winning formula for our state and country. >> mr. gomez, rebuttal. >> i've spent the last four months every day of my campaign here in massachusetts visiting small businesses, talking to voters and talking to families.

and their main concern is the economy. and the overburden of taxes and the effect that the affordable care act is having on these small businesses. go out and talk to these small businesses, congressman. go out and visit any of them all throughout the state, and they're going to tell you the common thread is that the cost of the affordable care act is actually going to increase the number of bankruptcies, which is what you tried to prevent. it's going to increase less hiring. it's going to put a more, bigger burden so companies are hiring less and trying to skirt away from the affordable care act. you want to talk about corporate loopholes with the oil and all that, that's why i'm for a corporate tax overhaul. and that includes gets rid of the corporate loopholes. we need to lower the corporate tax rate to where president obama wants to go at 28%. >> let's let him in here. >> look, our unemployment rate is much lower than the national average even as we have been first in providing health care for every child in the country.

in our state. as well as providing health insurance up to 98% of all adults. so we've already proven that you can have a much more robust economy than the rest of the country. and provide health care. by the way, we're number one at the fourth, eighth and tenth grades in math and science. we should be proud of that as well. every kid gets education and high quality health care. we can have a good economy. provide health care and education to the children in our state and still be ahead of the rest of our nation. yeah, i'm sure there are other states that don't want to provide for every child and every adult, but that's not us, mr. gomez. again, we have to be the leader and not the laggard. we're massachusetts. we're not just the bay state, we're the brain state. and we understand that health care and education are a central component to insuring that we fuel our economy through having the best work force in the nation. >> go ahead, mr. gomez. >> sure. you know, we may have one of the lower unemployment rates,

congressman, but i'm not satisfied with that. i think we need to have a lower unemployment rate. and the way we're going with the affordable care act, if you would go out to the commonwealth and actually talk to the small business owners and to the families and to the voters out there, they will tell you that the affordable care act is a huge burden on them. now, i understand, you know, you spend your time down in d.c. where the economy is booming. unemployment's low, the number of lobbyists is going up. and the people that spend all their time down in d.c. live in a cocoon where they forget how the rest of the country and how their state actually operates, and they don't understand just because things are going well in d.c. doesn't mean they're going well everywhere else up here in massachusetts. >> response, please. >> look, we many massachusetts decided you don't have to make a choice. you can have a robust economy and make sure everyone has health care. now, we have a responsibility as well to be the leaders in hospital cost containment and to put together innovative new ideas to keep the costs from

escalating. and that, by the way, that's what my program that is called independence at home is all about. it's reforming the way in which we treat long-term chronic care by keeping the patient in the living room so that you can save upwards of $30 billion over a ten-year period. and that's the way we should be thinking, not taking away health care from people. i don't think people want to do that. i think it's making sure the system works better. more innovative, more creative in controlling the costs, and if we do that u, our economy will be better off. >> a final brief exchange on this, and then we'll go to break. >> we did a great job under governor romney in 2004, and the difference between you and i, you always trust the federal government inering that you think about. and i think the people of massachusetts are smart enough to realize just howdies functional, how much discord,

how much failure there is down in d.c. they don't want the federal government to do this. they would have preferred the states just like we did here in massachusetts under governor romney. 98% of us are health care covered here. >> go ahead. >> by themselves. >> you can't have it both ways. you can't be praising governor romney who is the architect of our massachusetts plan and then turn around at the same time and say, well, everyone's complaining about the romney plan. you can't have it both ways. the truth is, the romney plan is working. the romney plan is providing health care for the citizens of massachusetts. the romney plan actually became the model for the rest of the country. but here in massachusetts it's working. we have to make it better. we have to control the escalating health care and insurance costs. we can do that because, again, we are the innovation state. >> briefly, go ahead. >> i just think that you just showed that you don't spend much time here in massachusetts. if you talk to the small business owners and the voters and the families, they would tell you the opposite is happening here, congressman.

i welcome you to go out there and talk to them. >> and i'll give you 15 seconds. >> look at, i'm out there all day long every single day crisscrossing the state talking to everybody in every corner of the commonwealth. and let me just say something, this health care plan, it might not be perfect. people want to make it better. they don't want to take it off the books. >> all right. >> they don't want to take health care insurance away from people in our commonwealth. we're the model for the country. >> gentlemen, good job so far. plenty of time to continue that, and we'll also move to other topics including foreign policy after this brief break as the wbz/boston globe u.s. senate debate continuings. ♪ ♪ >> and welcome back to the wbz/boston globe u.s. senate debate. and we continue now with our next question, and mr. markey, you'll start on this round. >> great. >> let's turn to really the most important be foreign policy question a u.s. senator will

ever vote on. what is your criteria for taking the united states to war? and do you see a global trouble spot right now where that might soon apply? 90 seconds, sir. >> um, from my perspective there has to be an imminent threat to the united states, there has to be no other option tan for our country -- than for our country to send in the our military. it is the most important decision which we can make. and if we do decide to go in, we have to build a coalition of our allies so that we are not going in alone, so that we're insuring the maximum consensus in dealing with a threat that exists not just to the united states, but to a region or to the entire world. and so from my perspective, that decision is one that has to be made with great reserve. for example, in syria right now i do not think it would be wise

for us to send in ground troops into the middle of a syrian civil war. i think that would be a big mistake. similarly, i think it's wise for us now to pull out of iraq and to have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan. i think our missions there have now been completed and that we should begin a new process to deploy where there are greater threats to the united states of america. so in each and every instance i think it's critical for the united states to determine that our security interests are in imminent danger and that we build a coalition that insures that we deal with them with a collective response that maximizes our likelihood of success in the mission. >> thank you. mr. gomez,90 seconds. >> sure. i have a very unique perspective on national security. i had the honor of serving nine years in the navy as an aircraft carrier pilot and as a navy seal and having deployed to parts of

the world. i have a lot of friends that are still in the service out there every day accomplishing missions for the security of our country. putting troops on the ground is the last option that we should do before we've expanded every part of diplomacy possible. national security has to be a threat in order for us to even consider that. and, of course, you want to build a coalition if possible. now, you mentioned syria. this is iran's last and only friend in the middle east. i think we've taken too long to do anything in syria right now. we've had this huge uprising in the middle east with regime change in egypt, in yemen and in libya. we have a great opportunity here to make sure we align ourselves with the right terrorist group or the right rebel group in syria to make sure that when they do take over, because assad's going to fall, that they best promote peace and democracy throughout the middle east. at a minimum we should have a no-fly zone, congressman.

and we should be supplying aid to that rebel group that we identify that's going to eventually take over, because assad is going to fall. and syria is iran's last friend. iran is all in on syria. they're supplying troops, they're supplying armaments, they're supplying intelligence. they're doing everything they can because they know that syria's their last friend, congressman. >> thank you. rebuttal, mr. markey? >> i think secretary of state john kerry is doing a very good job over there. he is building a coalition towards the goal of isolating iran, isolating others who might be allies of syria. but at the same time, we have to be careful. we've learned this lesson in afghanistan where we gave weapons to one faction, they wound up actually coming back to haunt us. so selecting just the right groups that we would be helping, that's important because we cannot make a mistake. because the most important thing in any action we take in syria is not how we get in, but

whether or not at the end of the process we actually have a peaceful syria, that we don't have a civil war break out with multiple factions all going at each other's throats. and so each action has to be carefully calibrated to elicit a specific response. so material aid going in? yes. but to the extent that we're sending in military aid, we just have to make sure that it is not going to come back and bite us as the law of unintended consequences comes back to hurt us as it has in many other regions of the world. >> okay. go ahead, mr. gomez. >> the conflict in syria's been going on for a year and a half. there's been 80,000 people dead in syria because of this. we have an opportunity here, congressman. to the take out iran's best friend and ally. now, our best friend and ally in the middle east is, obviously, israel. and we'd do anything we can to protect and defend them. and an israel is safer if assad

falls, iran is isolated, and the right rebel group goes in there that promotes peace and democracy throughout the region. now, at a minimum, we should be doing a no-fly zone. i don't want understand how you think we cannot have a no-fly zone in syria. look what happened in egypt. you had the muslim brotherhood take over which is now put at risk the cornerstone peace in the middle east. >> let him respond -- >> when you're not aligned with them, that causes risk throughout to israel and the rest of the world. >> let him respond to that question. >> well, look, you know, i supported israel when it just attacked the missiles coming through syria from iran heading for hezbollah. they just did that last week, and i support their action. i think israel is right to protect its own interests. let's be honest, if hezbollah put down its weapons, there would be peace. but if israel put down theirs, there would be no more israel.

so we have to support israel. we have to have their back. we have to make sure that we are protecting them. but anything that we do can has to be done in conjunction with our allies. we have to have a concerted plan going in. and so even a no of fly zone requires -- no-fly zone requires all of our allies to understand that that's the first step towards a concerted effort to achieve a particular set of ends. >> all right. >> and, unfortunately, if it's done wrong, it could lead to military escalation on the ground that could pull in the united states -- >> due to technical problems, we were only able to air about 35 minutes of this debate between the candidates for senate in massachusetts. >> live now to the u.s. senate as lawmakers are preparing to begin their day. we'll have more work on the farm bill. that's expected for the first hour or so with votes set for 10 a.m. eastern today. those votes will be on whether to move the farm bill forward.

there will also be a couple of votes on legislation seeking to set the doubling of student loan interest rates. we expect the senate to recess early to allow the body of senator frank lautenberg to lie in repose in the senate claimer. live now to the senate onsena c-span2. will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our fortress, our shelter in the time of storm. we look to you for peace in spite of turbulence and trust you to bring us to a desired destination. with your mighty acts, you bless and unshackle us, and we rejoice in the freedom you provide.