relations. security is a partially an outgrowth. .. >> when you put on a uniform authorize a maintenance job. if you're a building or sanitation worker, you're subsumed by the role to the

opinion where it's almost like we're just part of the background. i'm going to say almost like a machine. so you're a human being wearing that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you, and it really just sort of not see you. i've called it -- it's lick a rom ulan cloaking device, or harry potter's cloak of invisibility. which is both very frustrating and also an interesting privilege, because when i'm wearing the sanitation worker uniform, i can observe people in ways they don't realize i'm observing them. >> nyu professor, and an to the pollingist in resident, robin nagle, sunday at 8:00, on c-span's q & a. >> house budget committee vice chair tom price called early successes of the house leadership, quote, noteworthy at a breakfast hosted by the

christian science monitor this week. he was responding to an article that called the republican party dysfunctional and broken into factions. congressman price said the republican conference is maturing and overcome challenging, and he also talked about the debt ceiling and immigration. he is the member of the ways and means committee and the budget committee. this lasts about an hour. >> thanks for coming. i'm dave cook from "the monitor." our guest speaker is representative tom price. hi last visit was in october 2009 so we welcome him back. he graduated from the university ofle and medical school. his father and grandfather were physicians, and his residency in orthopedic surgery in georgia to begin his medical career. he was eye electricitied to the state senate in 1996 and became

the majority leader in 2002 and was elected to congress in 2004, and according to a "washington post" story, transformed himself into a republican guerrilla warrior, serving as chairman of the republican policy committee ask the republican study commit year. the addition to the budget committee he is part of the ways and means and work place panels. so now on to the mechanical matters. we're on the record here. no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there's no embarring when the breakfast is over except that chance as agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the breakfast ins ins to give thosef news the room a chance to file. i you want to ask questions, send me a subtle thon threatening signal and i'll happy by call on one and all. we'll start off with offering our guest to make opening comments and then we'll move to questions around the table. thanks for doing this. >> thanks to all of you for

allowing me to join you this morning. i look forward to a good retaree. i'm an einternal optimist so i always believe things are possible, even in this town, and i think there's a great opportunities from a budgetary standpoint, tax reform standpoint, and also from entitlement reform. the big issues and challenges we have in our country, absolutely must be addressed. folks on both sides of the aisle appreciate and understand that, 0 our challenge is how to navigate the schools of the increasing partisanship in this town and the past policy that will benefit the american people. so talk about whatever issues you'd like to discuss. healthcare, budget, fiscal issues, whatever. >> you're from danger of setting a record for brevity in the

opening comments. thank you for doing that. i will ask one or two and then we'll move around the table. let me did you about -- talk about being an optimist and possibilities on budgeted and other things the "wall street journal" had the article that the odds to deal with the deficit have growing word and cited the some rinking federal deficit. healthcare costs growing, and partisan gridlock, and a bug deal was not likely until after the 2014 mid-term. is that a view you disagree with? >> ism think that the -- yes. i think the mechanism has been put in place. both the house and senate passed a budget. the senate had not passed a budget four years and with the prodding of house action earlier, the no budget no pay act, we encouraged our colleagues on the other side of the capitol to pass budget, and they have done so so a mechanism is in place, along with reconciliation, to get to a big

are solution than we have had available to us in the past four years. that paired with the fact that the economic situation, although potentially also less challenging than it was a couple months ago, is still foreboding. we continue to have deficits that are up sustainable. we continue to have a debt that is unsustainable, and the only way to get those items under control is through tax reform and entitlement reform. so, i think those facts are appreciated on both sides of the aisle. so now just takes the will and leadership to get it done. >> and also your colleagues in the other body being willing to go to conference. >> exactly. the mechanism is in place allows us to move to the next step. which we haven't before able to do in four years. >> one for from me. yesterday's post had a detailed

report on your caucus and among the adjectives from members of the caucus was adrift, fractured, and leadership team still learning to work together, and a rank-and-file so green that even the leaders' allies tune them out sometimes. how would you assess the state of the g.o.p. and the house so far this season in. >> i think if you take where the conference was on january 2nd, which was at a pretty low point, and you fast-forward these five months, i think that what we have seen is a real coalescing and maturing of the conference in a way that has allowed to us get through the challenge of the to the query jerry, the which will -- to you the sequester, and a plan that embraces -- resequence the debt ceiling discussion and debate, and

matter that will be before us now, october, november time frame. so i think that the successes of the conference has had early in this 113th congress have actually been noteworthy. now, what is my -- my mom always used to say it takes to to tango, and this is the senate is willing and desirous of working to solve the greater challenges we have, then we'll continue to work on these issues in a unilateral way, but our desire is to have it be in a bipartisan way, and bicamera way, so i think that we have our sea legs and are moving forward. >> paul, where are you? use, right here. >> thanks. >> congressman ryan has been trying to reach the framework -- before going to conference on the budget resolution. can you talk about what kind of framework do you think they could agree on, and, number two, do you think what is most likely

is that the conference will be saved until later in the year and could be used as part of debt limit increases? >> yeah. i think that at it important for people to know that chairman murray and chairman ryan are indeed meeting and talking with great regularity, and trying to come to an agreement on the parameters of a budget conference. and those -- that framework would be less specific than you all and others might want, but it's important to develop that framework before we sit down in a conference so at it not a just a free-for-all. so the issue of whether or not tax reform its directed by the conference committee, whether that's an issue that is included, whether or not entitlement reform and maybe some parameters around what that means, what the 302-a level is,

is it the 9667 level or what the senate appears to be writing theirs appropriations bills to the 1058. those things are important to know before you sit down. otherwise, the word adrift was used for something else earlier. the conference committee would be adrift and not have the focus needed. >> we're going to david grant. >> i need to address the second issue. >> you think what's most likely is a budget resolution conference is delayed until toward the end of the year and used as part of -- >> i don't know that the timing is necessarily the end of the year, but i do believe that the budget conference is the vehicle, if there is an opportunity to come to a solution on the debt ceiling, that the budget is the vehicle for that. >> all right. david grant, eric, and then cheryl. david? >> if i can ask a question on

immigration. why is atlanta not a conference between he house and the senate? some say they do do not want the debt ceiling raised under that mechanism. >> the senate doesn't want that to happen? >> they don't want the congress committee to be the mechanism for raising the debt ceiling. >> difference between the majority and the minority. the responsibility of the majority is to govern and move in the direction of solving challenges. the responsibility of the minority is to create a contrast and to hold the other side to account. so the roles are different. that's not to say they're right or wrong. the roles are different. >> on immigration, some of those folks rand paul, marco rubio, are coming to the republican study committee to talk about immigration reform. can you talk about how you feel about the immigration reform discussion thus far? do you think of yourself more of a marco rubio or rand paul or

mike lee? >> i think of myself more as a bob -- a member of the house who recognizes that, regardless of what the senate work product is in the area of immigration, what the house will do is take this in a step-by-step fashion, and i think that decision, which has been reached by the leadership in the conference,es the right way to go, to address the issues of border security, of internal enforcement, of entry-exit matters, of h1v series saturday, agricultural workers. all of those things need to be addressed, yes, but in a separate fashion so that people can work diligently for the solution in those targeted areas, and i think that's the way that's house will proceed. >> can i just do a quick followup? is that sequential? we had mr. good lott here a whiling a.

is that sequencal approach tantamount -- people save i you do it piecemeal you immigration reform. do you agree with that assessment? >> no. wouldn't we have been better off right now in the area of immigration had we done a bill every congress for the last four or five congresses? wouldn't we be further ahead? that not what i'm suggesting we do now, but i do believe that a step-wise fashion that allows members of congress to be able to have their input on a specific area, border security, for example, and have that work product move forward and have the issue being solved in portions, as opposed to this comprehensive overall solution that clearly hasn't worked in the past and i don't see it working now. >> eric? >> what do you think should be attached to the debt ceiling and what kind of solution?

talk about keystone, this, that and the other thing. what is mr. price's solution to the debt ceiling? >> i think it's important for us to put an array of options out there. so that, for example, the large solution to all of this and our budget woes and our deficit woes, is entitlement reform. so, the solutions we put forward in our budget for medicare and medicaid i think are something that we could embrace in a -- in the context of a debt ceiling discussion. that would get significant resources to be able to be talked about and put on the table. that kind of a long ball. if that wasn't possible, then pro-growth tax reform, which is the kind -- we think is the kind of things that need to get the economy rolling again, getting jobs being created. solving the incredible challenges out there from a financial standpoint for families.

that would get you a little less, i think in terms of the debt ceiling increase, but would move news the right direction. and then finally, there's -- you can get back to the dollar for dollar boehner rule, whether at it in deficit reduction or in spending reduction. so those are -- i think an array of options is options is important to discuss so we're trying to be the ones moving the ball forward for solutions, and being wedded to just one is not helpful for the discussion, at this point. >> early. >> dress changing attitudes on same-sex marriage. you voted against repealing "don't ask, don't tell." i have three questions. would you vote that way today? >> yes. >> you would -- well, let me -- i'm curious, would you vote that way today? do you see in 2016 a g.o.p.

candidate winning the nomination, embracing a platform of same-sex marriage could that happen? and then finally, some republicans, like ted olsen and even the former party chairman have argued it's actually good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage, and do you think at it good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. >> the same way now? >> yes. i think the right position is the position representative of my district. >> why that's the right decision? >> that's what i believe. any candidate for any position, whether at it's for the future nomination, for our party for president in 2016, or member of congress or senate. they ought to espouse what they believe, and this is all about a

-- the give and take of the battle of ideas, and so whether a republican candidate espouses that or not, i think it's not something we ought to be stipulating. at it -- it's whatever he or she believes? >> can they win? has it changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nominee? >> that's why they have the election. right? yogi berra said, that's why they play the game. the nation is shifting on its view on this position, and whether or not the party shifts is something to be seen. >> kaitlin. >> yesterday that going back to immigration -- republicans -- if immigration fails and it's the republicans' fault, they'll be 2016? do -- be dead in 2016.

do you aglee and in the mid-term, what is the republicans' position? been criticized for passing some messaging bills and i think you probably disagree with that assess. but what's the message of the republican -- of the house republicans into the next election? >> the -- your first question on system i'm sorry? >> do you agree that republicans would be in trouble -- >> no. i think what the american people want is to see individuals working to solve challenges, and i think that the house republicans will demonstrate as a conference, and as a body, that we have positive solutions for the challenge of both legal and illegal immigration. and we will be putting those forward, and how far down the road we get on that i think will

be evidence for folks to recognize we're trying to address this issue in a way that is responsive to the nation put also solves the challenges we have in this area. so, i think we'll be -- i think people will see we're working to solve the challenge. from a messaging standpoint in 2014, the message that i would -- that the umbrella i would paint it under is we're interested in creating the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest success for the greatest number of individuals so the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. that's what we're about. and our budget clearly was demonstrative of that. the path to prosperity. evidence to get us on a -- to a balanced budget in a ten-year period of time, which is hugely important just to have numbers add up on pain but so the economy can become vibrant again and jobs created and people more

secure in their future. we have clearly tackled the big issues that are confounding us from a fiscal standpoint in the entitlement arena with medicare and medicaid with positive solutions. we have not seep that from them eside. so i think we have a great opportunity if the tax reform i. that we are em -- the tax reform issue and the bill coming out of the ways and means committee will demonstrate that we're looking out for folks all across this country so they can keep more of their hard-earned money and not have a government that continues to spend more and more and more than it takes in, but also takes more and more from the american people. so, i think we have a very positive message. we're work only a healthcare bill right now that we believe is the positive alternative to washington running your health care, and we're excited about it, and look forward to introducing that within a very short period of time. that would get folks covered with the insurance they want,

not that government wants for them. solves the problem of portability and preexisting and saves hundreds of billions of dollars to get those folks covered that don't have the financial wherewithal to do so at this point. >> we're going next to roxan, and then mark. >> i wanted to clarify something. have the republicans in the house determined that the debt ceiling conference could tapes in december or novel -- [inaudible] >> i don't know that the -- >> what are the options you're looking at? >> i don't think the conference has determined, which i think was your language, but my sense is that is the vehicle for

moving the debt ceiling issue. >> the cost -- >> no. the budget. two conferences. the budget conference report. i think that makes the most sense to me. whether or not there's another opportunity to do that or whether there's -- there's certainly other ways to do it but i think that's the one that makes the most sense to me. >> and. [inaudible] >> the date that the -- the administration selects when the treasury says that the jig is up, and so they define that. i would prefer that we move forward before that period of time, so that we're not in a crisis mode, which tends to be the time when we make -- when washington makes the least responsible decisions. >> nancy? >> hi. two questions. what is at the time frame of. [inaudible] >> ways and means committee and

what's the likely had of that reaching the floor? and how do you think the irs -- what is happening with the irs is going to affect the scope of what you're trying to do with tax reform? >> the time frame for tax reform is -- has been specifically defined but i think at it's this year. i think probably as soon as we can move forward with it, we will. chairman camp has done remarkable due diligence on getting input from all sectors of society, really, and certainly from the other side, wife -- with our working groups in a bipartisan way. been working over a period of years literally. so i think that i would suspect by the end of the year, possibly before. i think the irs issues that have been raised and that -- the real

concerns of folks about the functioning of that agency allow us to have greater impetus for tax reform. i'm not one of those that believes this puts puts the kabn this -- and the irs is a huge moonlight that is frighten to the citizens and let make the internal revenue service less threatening to the nation, to the citizens of the country, would be a good thing and i think that's something more people will embrace. >> potentially looking at revenue from tax exempt organizations or change the scope of it like you're going to look more at tax administration, not tax breaks?

>> all of that has been on the table. as chairman camp said, we're starting with a blank piece of paper and adding the policy to it as opposed to starting with current policy and extracting things we don't think are appropriate. >> mark. >> oh, i wanted to ask you -- the congress has never been -- [inaudible] right now about as unpopular as at any time in history. polls showed the democrats are unpopular but the republicans pariahs. 13% less popular than the democrats, among membership, and in the leadership, 19%. that's a problem for the republican party. what can be done and what -- how does it happen and what can be done to limit it? i'm impressed by your optimism, quite frankly, today. and i'd like to ask you, in your

judgment, three democratic house colleagues, there's a feeling across the aisle who share that same sense of mission and common purpose in getting this done. you can give us an indication of today. >> well, i think that what we have to do is demonstrate that we're moving forward with positive solutions, that we're addressing the challenges that the american people sense. my constituents and folks across the country are frustrated with washington. it doesn't seem to be working. things don't seem to be getting done in a reasonable, responsible way. they know we have challenges. they know that this country spends too much. they know that the healthcare system isn't working. they know that we're not creating the kind of energy in this nation that we could. they -- all these things they

know. they're not ignorant about the facts of either the challenges or the opportunity for solutions, and they wonder why the folks they elect to congress and to the executive branch are unable or unwilling to get things done. so, i mean, our lack of popularity is well-deserved because we haven't, as a overall group, solved the problems that exist. so, how you turn that around is you demonstrate leadership, and you create positive solutions that are responsive to the needs of the american people. >> house republicans, people just blame obama, bush, whoever is in charge, clinton. this seems to be specifically directed at the group that you're the leading part of. >> i think we have seen a greater level of demagoguery from the other team over the

past few years. that has -- in some circles has worked. so, the way that we counter that is to remain optimistic about the future of this country, remain committed to the principles that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world, and put forward solutions that address the challenges that we have that are consistent with those principles. >> and create democratic colleagues, look to work across the aisle on the mission you have outlined here today? >> in tax reform or -- >> tax reform and entitlement reform. you say you have this common, shared vision across the aisle, and you mentioned tax reform -- >> on our committee, ron kind, joe crowley, i think our -- at least two individuals that appreciate the challenges we've got are significant and need to

be solved. richy neil, some of the tax issues that he understands the challenges we've got. we need to be able to come together on that common ground. that has a be there in order for us to move forward as a nation itch tell folks, i practiced medicine for over 20 years, took care of patients for over 20 years. i didn't give up the practice of medicine and the incredible privilege to car for people, to come to this town and fight with the other side. i gave up the practice of medicine to come to washington hope any and have some positive input into solving the incredible challenges we've got and that same story is basically true for every member of congress, regardless of their background. they didn't give up what they were doing so they could come and fight a partisan political battle over and over and over again. they came to help solve problems. >> ever regret the choice?

>> no. absolutely not. what an incredible opportunity to be involved in this beacon of freedom to the world, and have an opportunity to preserve that and to increase that opportunity for future generations in this country. incredible privilege. >> robert. >> i'm still a little unclear. why hasn't the house appointed conferees for the budget conference? and, secondly, specifically on the debt ceiling you guys have one of -- negotiate an agreement. the white house said you won't. you both stick to your gucks and we break the debt ceiling in your view, what happens then? some people say it's doom and gloom, others say it's manageable. what's your take? >> going to conference in something like the budget, we believe, i believe, requires some parameters.

if it's just a free-for-all, then it becomes more of an opportunity for the demagoguery and the partisan back anding for that won't reach any solution. so, chairman is very wise in laying out the goal of defining those parameters prior to going to conference. i think that's a responsible process. in terms of the debt ceiling, again, i'm the optimist so i think we can get to a solution before we get to that x state. it requires a willing partner on the other side to say, yes, there are things that they would attach to the debt ceiling as opposed to being dog mat tick about whether or not they would allow anything to move forward on the debt ceiling, and the closer we get to that time frame, that stance will soften, and i'm not -- i think the house

has acted responsibly to say that default cannot occur, won't occur. which is why we passed the bill we did to make sure the priority tiesation of payments and the ability of the federal government to pay its debts is solid. >> we're the only country that budgets in this manner. would it make sense to get rid of it and have -- accrue debt as you pass bills? >> you want to ask the american people, does it make any sense to have a limit on your credit card? probably makes a little sense to have a limit on your credit card. >> lauren. >> i wanted to ask you, you indicate earlier that the house leadership and your conferences decided that piecemeal bills on immigration is the best way to go. about what the bipartisan group working in the house, if they came to some kind of agreement, how much willingness would there

be on the part of chairman goodcomplot others to embrace a more bipartisan approach on the bill before it got on the floor. >> it's a great question and i don't know that the parameters the folks are working on in -- the group in the house are working on are as broad as what we have seen come forward in the senate, and i think that that group has actually -- would be heart ended -- heartened by any movement on the issue in committee. i think what would likely occur, if the group produces a work product and it goes to the judiciary committee, my suspicion, this judiciary would break it down into segments and move it forward. that's not any internal knowledge but my sense of what would occur. i think that holds the greatest amount of promise for moving

something forward. there wood to coalesces on things. a water coalition and a transportation coalition, and health care coalition, and they were bipartisan most often, and the more focused the issue was that came forward in a bill, then the easier it was to put forward the coalition to be supportive of that issue moving on. i think there's wisdom in that. broad, expansive, comprehensive pieces of legislation give everyone an opportunity to say, i don't like that so i'm going to oppose that. i don't like that, i'm going to oppose it. and the example for this is the state legislatures. i come out of the state legislators. most of them have single issue rules you. can't have a piece of

legislation that is soup to nuts. you have to have focused legislation and that allows you not only to produce a better work product but to put forward a coalition that can solve the problem. >> we're going next to paul, david, and alexis. [inaudible] >> we hear from businessmen, insurers, doctors, that obamacare when it kicks in will be a night anywhere. the secretary of the health and human services says it's going to work out fine. what do you hear? >> i think that senator bachus was very wise when he observed that the law, when it is fully implemented, looks like it's going to be a train wreck. i think we need to pull the emergency brake before the wreck occurs. i don't -- as a physician, i can tell you this law is unworkable.

for patients and for docs. for the healthcare system it's absolutely unworkable. as a former employer, i can tell you that it doesn't work for employees or employers, and it doesn't work for states, and as a member of the united states congress, doesn't work for the federal government either. so it doesn't work for anybody in the system. and i think that there are so many other positive solutions that embrace what i call patient-centered health care, which is patients and families and doctors making medical decisions, not washington, dc, that we ought to move in that direction as soon as possible. my concern, my fear, is that if this law is allowed to come into it full glory, that it won't work, it will collapse, but in the interim, real people will be hurt. and it is irresponsible of us as

a congress and a government, i believe to allow that to occur, not because of anything inherent within the people trying to make it work, but because of the rules that have been put in place. so, i'm -- we'll continue to work to put forward positive solutions as alternatives. >> ment you've been around long enough to remember the page program, and there are former pages trying to bring it back. do you think the leadership or you would be open to doing that? >> i think the page program was a huge asset to our body but also to the -- especially the individuals who were able to participate in it. i haven't had this discussion with anybody but i think it ought to come back. >> tom? >> you mentioned that republicans are working on alternative bill to the ata. can you be more specific than

just patient-centered solutions in i think there's this attitude that republicans say they have a replacement or alternative but don't know what it would do. can you be more specific? >> sure. in fact we'll be introducing a bill maybe even today that will be a comprehensive opportunity. and there are a whole lot of things in it but a couple specifics. one, we have to get folks covered. you have to get americans covered with health insurance. there are a couple ways to do it. do it the way the administration and congress did it in the aca and that is demand they have coverage, dictate they have coverage, force them to have coverage. put the irs in charge of whether or not they have coverage. we believe that's the wrong way to do it wind chill propose to make it financially feasible for every single american, and attractive from a financial

standpoint, for every single american to purchase the coverage they want for themselves, not that the government wants for them and you do that through at the tax codes with credits and refundable credits to every american has the wherewithal, feasibility and incentive to have healthcare coverage. second, you have to solve the insurance challenges. the two biggest ones are affordability and pry existing. you ought not lose your insurance you change your job or lose your job. that's left ohm from an ear are a when you worked for a company, you tenned to work for that company forever. our son just graduated from college last years. statistics say he will work for 12 different employers in the course of his career, which means he -- if the employers provide health coverage, if they're able to continue to do so, he'll have to plug in at 1 different spots with who knows what. the best way to avoid that is to

allow americans to open their health coverage regardless of who is paying for it. it's like a 401k plan. you change your job, lose your job, you take it with you to asset an easy one. preexisting illness. you ought not be priced out of the market if you get an awful diagnosis or suffer from an awful disease, and right now 18 million individuals are under threat of being priced out of the market with the next visit to their doctor if they have an awful diagnosis. that's contractsness, system that does not work. how do you solve that without having the federal government dictate to people and dictate to insurance companies and dictate to employers what they must do? you make so it those 18 million individuals can pool together of you make insurance work so you get the purchasing power of millions and then the health status of any one individual, doesn't drive up those -- the cost of health insurance for anybody because you get the power of numbers.

it's why self-insured plans work and the federal employee health benefits plan works. that's an easy one to solve as well. then, finally, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars in this country in healthcare. the main way is through the practice of defensive medicine. it's what i did. what every single physician in this country does to make certificate if they're ever called into a court of law, they can look at the judge and the jury and say, i don't know what you expected me to do because i did everything. everything. and everything was rarely necessary to either treat or diagnose the patient. there's $6 million in waste. jackson health care has done a study and it's one of out every three dollars. that's $800 billion. big money in this town. you can solve that not by a cap on noneconomic damages, which i don't believe does a thing to decrease the practice of defensive medicine, but put in place a lawsuit abuse reform

system that the president has even talked about, which would recognize that guidelines, if the doctor does the right thing based upon what his or her specialist society says is right thing to do the individual is allowed to use that as a defense in the court of law and it's a higher bar for the plaintiff to get over, not preventing anybody from going to court but a higher bar if the doctor does the right thing. that's the thing that would actually change the culture of the practice of medicine. so you can get folks covered, everybody. you can solve the insurance challenges and save hundreds of billioned of dollars and do all those of things without putting the several government in charge a dog gone thing. that is what i mean when i talking about patient-centered health care. >> david. >> the house of representatives passed the first appropriations bill. we have very widely differing spending levels in the house side and senate side, and difficult to see how those will

be resolved without an overall budget agreement. so, are you resigned that we will likely need to have a cr to get through to the new fiscal year? because the -- not going to be able a pass all of them. >> i hope not. i think appropriating by continuing resolution is a failure of the body, is a failure of the responsibility that we have to work through these issues, at this point on an annual basis. to move and allow for the flexibility and changes in public policy from an appropriating standpoint every year. the house is -- well, i think, work through the appropriations bill. i'm hopeful we'll get all of them done. i know that's the goal of chairman rogers, and we started that last evening, and we'll

work through them. i think that the -- i think just doing the cr at the end of this doesn't respect either the citizens or the individuals who are working on their behalf in the house at this point, on the appropriations side, who are bringing their best effort to the table to put in place the priorities for the country. i do believe that the budget on both sides, the budget in the senate and house, was a huge step forward because the number that was agreed to, the overall number-the-discretionary number, was the same on both sides. and if i would have sat at this table four months ago and said the house and senate would agree to the same topline number in the budget, none of you would have believed me and you would have been right in your skepticism but that is what happened. so we have the foundation for moving forward on the

appropriations bill. >> sue? >> you talk about the step-by-step approach, one of the -- the pathaway to citizenship, the legal status. do you think there is a legislation for pathway to citizenship that could pass the house? >> i think at this point that would be highly up -- unlikely. i don't think there's any trust in our conference in the administration to enforce the current laws on the books as they relate to much of immigration. and not just this administration. it's been previous administrations as well. the american people don't trust washington in this area because the promise that was made in 1986 has been broken. in 1986 there were 3 million individuals who were here estimated to be here illegally. and the agreement, bipartisan agreement, was that we will provide a path to citizenship

for those 3 million individuals and control and secure the border so that we're never in this situation again. and as a nation we did a whale of a job on the path to citizenship and a woeful job on securing the borders. so there's no trust at all. the first step in regaining the trust is living up to the promise that was made to the nation back in 1986 and that is controlling and securing the border. so until the administration is able to do that i don't think there's any trust that whatever we pass would be enforced or made certain that it worked in a positive way. the boston bombings that occurred pointed out a huge defect in lack of responsibility and enforcement of our simple student visas. there are hundreds of thousands of young men and women here on a student visa. when it expires, we ought to know that as a nation.

it's foolishness. it's irresponsibility. it's reckless not to know when somebody's visa expires and make certain that they either regain a new visa or they return to their home. and what that pointed out is that one of the bombers clearly exited this country, went back to the country where he was given asylum from. given asylum from a country he visited apparently repeatedly so the asylum system doesn't work. at least didn't work this instance. then he returned to this country with an expired student visa and regained access. this is a system that is terribly broken and needs fixing of the first step in that is to make certain that what we have currently on the books works, and move that it works, demonstrate it works and that's the way to regain the trust so you can move forward and solve it in a positive way. >> alexis.

[inaudible] if there are any concerns about having the majority of the congressional delegation running for the same office and if that rivalry will have an impact. >> well, senator chambliss announced in january he would not be running for a third term, and that created an opportunity. these seats don't come open very often so a lot of people jumped at it. the of my colleagues in the house or running for that seat as well as a former secretary of state, karen handdell, and there's rumoff or one for two vivids -- individuals from the private sector getting in. our primary is in july of next year, so there's a lot of time between now and then.

i think at it -- it's too early to give predicts -- predictions about what will happen. know the citizens of the state of georgia wants somebody who will actively and aggressively work to solve the challenges we've got and they want somebody who is a solutions-oriented person. i think that the folks who are running from the house will have a bit of challenge because of what mark pointed out earlier, the popularity of congress isn't at an all-time high. so, i think that they will get -- have a challenge getting over that hurdle. they also will have a significant voting record they'll have to answer to, and for those running from the out, it becomes an easier political target. but i know that it's going to be a vibrant and robust campaign, and i think that the citizens of

georgia are excited about the opportunity to move through that process. >> anybody who hasn't had one before we do a second round? cheryl. >> i was interested in hearing about the girl in pennsylvania that needs the lung transplant. as a doctor, what did you think of kathleen sebelius' decision not intervene in that case? and conversely do you worry that in asking thor intervene, if the government did intervene, it would set a precedent where the government could intervene in individual healthcare matters. >> this is a situation -- heartbreaking situation right now of a 10 year, nine-month-old girl who has cystic fibrosis, which in her case is a death sentence because of the severity of the disease. there is a solution.

the scientists and the doctors who are caring for her and are in that area, as i understand it, all believe she is an ideal candidate for a lung transplant, which is a life so ifing procedure for her, abuse what can't be classified as anything other than at an arbitrary cutoff, which is age of 12 years, she is ineligible right now to receive either an adolescent or an adult donor lung. so, we have a patient whose physicians and whose family are desirous of moving forward with a solution that is available and they are being held up, not bus of science, not because of the doctors, not because of the capability of the facility, not because of the willingness of the family or the patient, but because of a rule and the out for that, the escape for that.

when everybody agrees this young lady ought to get the lung transplant, the escape for that is the secretary of health and human services who can allow that procedure to move forward. it is astounding to me that the secretary of health and human services won't provide that waiver. not just for this young lady but for apparently the two other young people who are also on this list and awaiting a lung. as i understand it there were three pediatric lung transplants last year. the. so, the likelihood of a pediatric lung becoming available for these children is not great anymore. asking for thor go to the top of the list. we're asking for her to be eligible for the list. my understanding i from a clinical standpoint, her health status would dictate that under the rules of transplantation

would move her to the top of the list if she were allowed to be on the list. so, a notion that the secretary of health and human services is protecting some sacrosanct thing so we keep order in the system, i just disagree with adamantly, and i think that the days -- this young girl's days are numbered with her current clinical statusment i have yet to see any rope demonstrated to me why the secretary ought not provide that waiver. >> mr. hill. >> the question for the -- [inaudible] i believe it's been quoted by a congressman the possibility that if there is some sort of legalization program for the people here illegally now, that should be important to force them to buy insurance so they're not a drain on the system. on the resources in the system. and it's been reported in a way

as sort of an individual mandate but i'm not sure i get that. can you talk about that? do you support that idea and where should that go? that there's some sort of legalizationize program. >> i i'm not sure i want to buy the premise of the assumption. tough issues, and conflating the issue of illegal immigration and how we deal with those here in that status, and health care, i think confounds both of the issues and makes each of them less likely to be solved. so, my preference on this, balk i haven't spent a lot of time on this area of the immigration matter -- is to allow it to work through. that's why i commend the chairman for his process that he has defined to allow this to work through in our normal committee process, and allow all

of the pros and the cons of what you describe and what others would say are our options to be available for public evaluation and for evaluation of the members of congress, and i think will come up with a work product and a solution that is most able to be supported by the members of the house. >> let me ask you -- followup. you said that -- agreed on the 302a in the budget resolution. i'm wondering what you mean given that the house discretionary limit is 967 billion and the senate is 1.058 trillion. >> the discretionary number that the senate agreed to was -- was 966. thunder budget -- their budget said the sequester would be

fixed, done away with, and that's how they get to the 1058. so, they're riding to an outcome that has yet to occur so the agrandma was a descreationer in number of 966. we don't believe the sequester has been administered in a responsible fashion. we believe there's a better solution for the sequester. we believe that the a spending level needs to be in place but there's a better answer in terms of appropriations can which is why the bills are appropriate so you can define where the priorities are. but the common ground is the 966-967 number. dealing with the sequester is something that has to be addressed, and our -- the process that we'll go through to address that on our side will be the appropriations bills written

to the 966 sequester number. >> in the three minutes remaining-let me ask you the question prompt evidence by the "new york times" article on colonoscopy. >> i'm an orthopedic surgeon. >> that's right. i'm not going to go -- what struck me was in that remarkable piece of reporting for the times what the wide variance in prices. looking down the road, you were talking about not wanting the government in health care and having it be patient-centered. looking down the road five or ten years is it possible for that kind of model, without sort of more government interference to be -- to work given what is supposed to happen to healthcare costs? isn't the government in the end going to have to do more to bring down this wide variance in costs so that we can afford to

take care of geezers like myself? >> well, we want to take care of all geezers like yourself, as a nation. and i'm approaching that geezerdom. i think the argument can be credibly made that a significant portion of the cost and the reason for the costs of health care is governmental involvement. if you look at the -- and one of the things i would use as evidence for that, if you take areas of health care that are uncontrolled by government, you see significant reductions in price over a period of time, and greater flexibility and greater options and greater choices for patients in those areas. so, i think that the argument that the government has to engage and get involved so that it keeps prices under control is a lack of appreciation for the

main reasons why health care, spending, and costs are out of control, and i would suggest that it's significantly related to governmental intervention in the first place from a pricing standpoint and cost for health care. so, i think we can hold down costs in a much more efficient manner if you allow patients and families and doctors to be making medical decisions and not washington. >> you decide that right ending at 9:30. >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] s [inaudible conversations]

>> today the senate began work on immigration preform, considering a proposal by the gang of eight. it provides a path to citizenship for foreigners. here's part of the debate on the bill with senators patrick leahy and jeff sessions. >> mr. president, i just wanted to thank the majority leader for his kind com