that will be live here on c-span at 12:45 eastern. ahead of that we will go to the east room of the white house fo he's likely to put more pressure on the senate to strengthen background checks for firearms. that's live at 11:40 eastern on c-span. tonight at 8:00, looking at the intersection of the entertainment programming and political journalism. we will have a discussion with the executive editor of tmz, a new york times hollywood correspondent. here's a preview. >[video clip] >> it was the worst day i ever had on tv. actor robert blake was arrested in the sanford and zero valley for popping his wife. fernando valley.

the actor was arrested for killing his wife. we spent four hours on it. not like a figurative four hours. literally four hours. we were asking extra correspondents who we booked for no reason i could figure out, how do you to think this will impact his career? he has no career. [laughter] him.was an upside for >> [indiscernible] >> i think i was gone by then. i don't remember. so i go home at 2:30 in the morning. , a reporter, looks at me half asleep and says why?

honest to god, i don't need this right now. the next day i come to work and there are 15,000 e-mails. i look through a few hundred. you promised you would do serious news. one of them said you did not do enough robert blake. >> that entire discussion starting at 8:00 tonight on c- span. that's live at 9:15 will open phone lines for your calls, and tweets, and facebook comments as we are joined by two guest who been following the topic. tonight at 8:00 eastern. republican candidates for u.s.

senate in massachusetts took part in a primary debate last night. in 1996e endorse repeal defense america act, which was the subject at the supreme court. there were several differences on abortion rights and the rights of states to ban same-sex marriage. the candidates are u.s. attorney michael sullivan, state congressman dan winslow, and former navy seal gabriel gomez. the senate primary takes place on april 30. >> good evening, everybody. welcome to the boston media and consortium primary debate. we have something rare in massachusetts politics, an open u.s. senate seat. into arm will be divided two part. we will hear from the

republicans' first, the democrats' second. let's meet the three republicans running in the april 30 primary. dan winslow. former u.s. attorney michael sullivan. and businessman gabriel gomez. thanks for being here tonight. a great opportunity to introduce yourself to the voters of massachusetts and to hear some of the issues making headlines today. there are time limits i will explain as i go through. no filibustering. save that for the u.s. senate. [laughter] let's talk about issues and have a good conversation tonight. this first section, one minute responses from each of you and then 45 seconds for discussion. the republican party post-mortem 2012 campaign said the words that characterized the party, "scary, narrow minded, out of touch, stuffy old men." make the case to massachusetts voters that independent -- and

independents that you are not those people. >> i don't need a power point to tell me what we need to do on our campaign or to talk about what we support. moreore principles are personal responsibility, more personal freedom, and a smaller, more effective government. if we have been doing that since day one in our campaign going to all parts of massachusetts talking about the core principles about the party and why they resonate with the people we are talking. >> mr. sullivan, make the case you're not a stuffy old man. >> i am proud to be a republican and proud to be nominee of the republican primary. the people i am talking to are concerned about issues around fiscal stability, concerned about issues as it relates to national security and concerned about"kill li -- concerned

issues relating to energy. i have listened and have had the opportunity to serve as a result. i'm excited about listening to people in the commonwealth. >> ? >> i am proud to be a republican and member of the party of lincoln. the founding principles of the party of lincoln, freedom and respect for individuals and opportunity and responsibility. these are principles that most massachusetts voters agree with. america, then majority of voters the next 30 years will be women and millennial santa americans. we are notshow that the grand old party anymore, that's scary party. we are the great opportunity party. gop stands for growth, opportunity, and prosperity. that's the promise of america, that we bring to everybody in america no matter who you are and a matter what walk of life.

>> a point of view is elected, you have to try to work with democrats. if you are massachusetts republicans, can you work with mitch mcconnell? >> absolutely, i can work with democrats or republicans. i was fortunate. i'm a first-generation american and i learned spanish first. i served in the military almost nine years in and the most diverse organizations in this country, the u.s. military. people from all over the country with different kinds of views. nothing was accomplished without getting input from all the people and taking that into account and making decisions based on different people and different points of view. we did what was right for the american people and that's what i will do at the u.s. senate. >> very comfortable working with anybody. i've spent my whole professional career doing that in private- sector and government sector. something that people expect you to do a as an elected member of

government is to find common ground for the purpose of best representing the people for the commonwealth of massachusetts as well as our nation. >> i served our states as a judge almost eight years and the governor's chief legal counsel and now as a state representative in scott brown oppose the old house seat as well as 20 years in the private sector. i have a record of problem solving and reform and results. you cannot do that by yourself. if you have to be able to work with people of good faith. that's what i've done throughout my career in the public and private sector. i'm interested in solving problems. that's what we have to do as americans and what we have to do to move forward. that's what i commit to doing if i win the republican nomination. >> the supreme court has just wrapped up the days of oral arguments on same-sex marriage. california's proposition 8 yesterday and the defense of marriage act today. i would like to get you on the record. is it constitutional or not? >> i think the u.s. supreme court is taking up that question.

>> what do you think? federalist. i believe things like the definition of marriage is best left to the democratic process. level.cess at the state massachusetts recognizes same- sex marriage a decade ago. i am in support of the repeal of doma regardless of whether or not a constitutional. i think people in massachusetts recognize marriages couples should all be afforded the same benefits. a government is best when its closest to the people and most transparent to the people. i don't like to have federalized government where we can whereit. it's a shame the supreme court has to decide this issue because the congress should decide this is to buy repealing doma. i believe the quality of merit for all people in massachusetts and the country.

>> i'm a firm believer in the 10th amendment. i'm against any kind of discrimination. if two people are in love, they should able to get married. i support repealing doma. this should be decided on a state-by-state level. i'm proud massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage. and the eight or nine states that follow through and including the district. >> so you keep this at the state level. what about any constitutional rights for same-sex marriage couples at the state level? can the states a we are not going to recognize it? >> led start from the premise that merit is best defined by the state. when wey works best have engaged citizenry. states have traditionally been able to define marriage. that's what works best, definitions of the state to make the determination.

that's where significant social policies are best left up to be decided, at the state level. >> i think this goes to the core values of who we are. equality and freedom. if one of us is not equal, then none of us is equal. we have to work to make all of us free and equal to about american society regardless of who you are or who you love. if i were fortunate enough to earn the vote of the people of massachusetts and the republican party and the independents, i would work to make sure those principles were followed throughout my time in the senate. >> this is a state issue. this is coming up on the proposition 8 in the supreme court. the people of california spoke. although i don't agree with what they did, you need to respect what the states decide. what hisot clear to me position is. i'm not sure if he is saying he is in favor of the states making

the decisions or it should be left to the federal government to define marriage. >> i'm not sure mr. sullivan posted position. i support equality of marriage for all persons in massachusetts and throughout the country. i want to be clear about that. mr. sullivan wants to have government intrude into the personal lives of people on something that is so personal about who they get to marry. i disagree with that. >> you want to check in on that? >> i'm very clear where i stand. i'm against any kind of discrimination. if people want to get married, they should be able to. it should be decided on a state level. i respect the decision california made, but that's in front of the supreme court. >> the debate on taxes or cutting our way to a balanced budget focuses on entitlement programs, things like social security and medicare. what is your prescription for cleaning up the balance sheet? how do we save these programs? social security

is the most successful domestic program in the history of the united states. it's an old house that needs renovation, but we have to make sure we preserve the house. in anything that we do, anyone who is already receiving social security and anybody 55 or older on the cusp of qualify parcel to security, we have to ensure it is safe for those people. we also have to make sure it's available for future generations, for people right now in their 20s or 30s. we have to make sure the system is balanced. i believe we need to have something similar to the base realignment closure act. congress seems to be incapable of making complicated actuarial decisions. i propose a bipartisan presenton to prevent -- to congress an up-or-down vote to make social security solvent again so that the promise is kept all american people. >> mr. gomez, you have a

prescription? >> the first thing we need to do is make sure the promise is kept to the people that are receiving benefits and those approaching benefits. i do think there are a lot of ideas that have been discussed and have a bipartisan support. we just have a lack of courage to tackle the issues. some ideas i would support ar e- new taxese- are new taxes. you can have a slow increase in the retirement age. you can increase age by, per year for 24 years and you would increase it by two years. these are proposals that have been outstanding have bipartisan support and have the support of the people of massachusetts and the american people. we have a lack of courage from people who have to tackle these issues. notirst and foremost, i do defer my authorities as an elected member of the senate to a non-elected commission. that's the duty and responsibility as a senator of

mine. -- myself. social security being saved starts with a budget passed by the u.s. senate that is reasonable and begins to address the huge deficits that have been accruing over these last several years and this enormous debt. the budget that was recently passed by the u.s. senate was 30 years in the making. it was not worth the wait. it proposes a 3.7 trillion dollars worth of spending. $1 trillion worth of additional tax revenue. that does not make sense. as long as you have these continued deficits growing and the huge debt, social security and medicare will continue to be at risk. >> their two funds and so security. as a retirement fund and the disability fund. 20 years ago, the trustees and posted security warned that in 2016 the disability fund would become insolvent. edward markey was there for

every one of those years. in 2016 the disability fund is going to beat insolvent, but what have they done about it? reduction int in a all disability payments and that's wrong. we have to get those guys out of their. >> you are for means testing these programs. what about means testing social security? >> i think that means testing is something that should be on the table, but my concern is that it's not a welfare program. it's an insurance program. people should pay into it and get the benefits. >> the means testing should not be required. wealthy people can make a determination as to whether they want to decline the benefits or they want to give those benefits to a charitable cause that means something. it's not going to save social securing. >> let's move on. president obama signed a health care bill into law three years ago this month.

do you favor repeal of the affordable care act? what's wrong with it and what's right with it? of i think the overall theme obamacare was right, universal health care coverage, to have more access to affordable and quality health care. if i don't think he went about it the right way of the federal level. it should've been at the state level like we did in massachusetts when romney was governor. favor repeal of obamacare, but i don't think it will be feasible. waivers inn states order to formalize medicare with obamacare, as long as it does not raise taxes, i'm in favor of the waivers. but i'm in favor of the repeal of obamacare. it makes no sense. the things we like about health care in our country is the access and quality of care that we receive. the thing we don't like about health care in our country is the cost. the one problem we did not like,

obamacare did not fix. the costs are going up significantly. small businesses are getting a huge tax increase as a result of obamacare. two things we like best about health care, quality care and access, will continue to decline based on the way they provide reimbursements to the providers. fewer and fewer people will be excited about entering the health care profession as a result of the limitations under obamacare. i think obamacare should be repealed. the fact is people that are poor anduninsured have access they have quality care and access to the doctors. >> obamacare is bad for massachusetts. we did not need it. we had already solved the problem in massachusetts. obamacare simply layered on bureaucracy and took our government away from the state prince accountable to the federal government with the lobbyists will be running roughshod over our rights. it imposes taxes on all of us

and it's not affordable and also imposes taxes on our medical device industry, which will cost jobs. if the state has met the level the state is, automatically exempt from obamacare and the exempt from taxes, i propose. next week in the house i propose a plan for a state plan to reduce the cost of health care for all people in massachusetts by 25%. it's called mandates life. i will be testifying on it next week in the statehouse. >> i want to move on to the next section and that is candidated candidate questions. brief question, one minute to answer, quick follow-up question if you want, and a rebuttal. mr. sullivan to mr. gomez. >> every time you mention your first generation american and you served in the navy, i think of my father. thanks for your service.

>> thank you. it was an honor. >> can you describe the largest budget you have had make and are not talking about your household budget that you had to manage? and the amount of cuts you have had to make in a budget that you have had to manage? but in the private sector in the industry i was in, we invest in a lot of companies. small, medium, large companies, companies as large as $3 billion in revenue. i sat on the boards. we were responsible for the budget of that board, to make sure that company grows and is successful? . we are responsible for managing the budget and managing to make sure that the company was operating effectively and able to grow and be successful. >> did you have an opportunity to manage any but its other than on the board? what's what i have to offer is i have a lot of leadership experience. i served nine years as a navy pilot and as a navy seal of. i have 16 years in the private sector helping companies grow

and be successful. heard is people don't want somebody was been in politics for a good part of their life and they want people who has had experience helping companies grow and be successful, understands how the economy works, understands impediments of the government, and why companies are not hiring or investing in their people and why they're not investing in companies, why there's so much uncertainty. i have leadership experience and i've been affected my whole life. >> mr. gomez to mr. winslow. >> i am not here to ask questions of my fellow candidates to try to tear them down or put them on the spot, however i have questions for congressmaen. >> you have to run against these two fellows first. favored theactually budget that just came out of the democratic senate that doesn't

balance and has $1 trillion in tax increases? >> do you have a question for mr. winslow? >> do you think that congressman edward markey and congressman lynch should have to answer whether they support the democratic plan that just passed the senate for the first time in a full your years where never balances and as a trillion dollar tax increase? do you think that it the right thing to do raise taxes? guarantee steve, lin-sanity edward markey would have voted yes to a trillion dollar tax increase. that's my position. that vote was 50-49 in favor. if i read in that u.s. senate, i would have been the votes that turned its the other way around, to be able to have our taxes spent wisely and to get the federal budget under control. speaking on behalf of edward markey and stephen lynch is not

within my ability, because i don't understand them. but i do understand we will not change washington by some of the same entrenched democratic congressmen in washington putting them in the senate this time and expecting a different outcome. we need to get one of us -- and anyone of us is better than either one of them -- i just zer-- hoope i'm the one who ears it. around the states, i hear time and time again from families and taxpayers how worried they are about the federal deficit. it's a drag on our economy. it is something that will be a drag to future generations. what are three specific things you would do if elected? to reduce the elected? >> as we know, the federal deficit has continued to grow under the obama administration. what a lot of people don't realize is prior to this

administration there were two years in the history of our nation that the annual deficit exceeded $400 billion. since this administration came into office, the annual deficit was close to a trillion dollars. the budget that the senate just passed an additional deficit and additional debt. it will accrue to about $23 billion. i would start with waste. there's tremendous waste in the government. the government accounting office suggested it is somewhere between 3% and 5% of federal spending is lost to waste. our senators are careless with regard to be good stewards of taxpayers' money. as a senator, i would be vigilant in terms of identifying all the waste anin federal government. >> what are the other two specific proposal tou reduce the federal deficit?

but you'll have to reduce spending across a number of departments. when i served in the department of justice in senior leadership positions, we were called upon to reduce our budget on several occasions, particularly to support the war effort. we did it gladly and it did not affect the overall mission. itsone area i would not cut any funds that would put any of our men and women in uniform in danger. they are doing a very important mission. their safety and security is critically important. >> let's go back to our earlier format of questions. the topic is abortion. the 2012 republican platform has athe unborn child fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. party supportcan our human rights amendment to the constitution and endorse legislation to make clear the

14th amendment protections apply to unborn children." do you agree with your party's position? >> i am pro-life. i have been my whole life. i don't recall a time i was not pro-life. the only time people were curious in my position was when i decided to run for public office. as a nation, we respect life. i will do whatever i can to protect life. therect of the matter is are two lives involves. it's a woman's life and the unborn child's life. we have to do whatever we can to support women who sometimes find themselves in a situation they think is a crisis, to make sure they get all the education and information they need to make the best decision they can make. we also have to be supportive of changes in the adoption process to streamline it so people in our country are able to adopt as easily as they are able to adopt foreign-born children.

>> does that statement from the platform reflects your views? >> you have read it. i have not read it. this is what it is. do you agree with it? >> you have to be practical in terms of solutions. the fact of the matter is a constitutional amendment requires a a two-thirds vote in both houses of congress. we cannot get two members down there right now to agree on which day of the week it is. it requires a three-quarters vote by the state. that's the democratic process. >> we have five minutes left. mr. winslow? am the big ten republican when it comes to social issues. i'm pro-choice. roe hafez al-assad wade is a law. i support a woman's right to choose. -- "roe versus wade" is the law. i have a limited role of government view. the decision on whether to have an abortion is a question for a

woman's conscience, her face, and her family. those are three areas i believe government has no business being. republicann the party have to focus on the many more things that unite us -- jobs, the deficit, the debt. not the things that divide us. for me, if i'm fortunate enough to be in the senate, i will always stand in support of a woman's right to choose. >> mr. gomez? >> i was raised catholic and i am pro-life, but i'm not going down to detained the law. it was settled 40 years ago and it is settled law in massachusetts. justice scalia has said that it is established law and i agree. however, i don't support. late term support i think you should have. have. this is one of those issues where i go out there and talk to the american people, they're not talking about abortion,.

they are talking about the economy and a $16 trillion in debt and how we're going to fix that. how we are going to it that companies that are not investing in hiring people or in their companies, that's what people are worried about right now. -- i do not support late term abortions. >> iran is believed to be developing nuclear weapons. north korea has them. is there a trip wire in each of these cases that warrants american military action? dan winslow? >> the greatest threat to the iranian theocracy or the iranian people - -are the iranian people themselves. we have to increase the sanctions and not lose opportunities like we lost in 2009 when there was the start of an uprising against that theocracy. we need to make sure the iranian people are empowered to take back their country. ultimately, there should be no daylight between the u.s. and israel on these issues. we will not tolerate and israel

will not tolerate a nuclear weapon is iran. >> israel is our closest allies. we need to do everything we can to support and protect israel. in terms of is there a trip wire, israel should have the green light to do whatever needs to defend itself. whether iran has nuclear capability, more important is whether they have the ability to protect themselves and are immune from an attack. if they get to the point where they can protect their urbanization, and i think that's a trip wire to give israel the necessary means and the green light to do with any to do to defend themselves. >> absolutely, there needs to be a trip wire. i'm confident there is a trip wire that's been put in place by israel, and it should be. i have had the opportunity to work with counterparts in israel during my national security work. the fact of the matter is they have to make sure that their

national interest is protected. its greatest ally in the world, after mature is support them in every measure as well. >> one quick one. ben bernanke's term is up in 2014 and. does he warrant another? up to the that is senate. where does it deserve another term? courts are like to see somebody different. , we are not onno a good path. >> i would say no. i will post on my web site next week the reasons why. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. that's the first half of our senate primary debate this evening. our thanks to dan winslow, michael sullivan, and gabriel gomez. coming up next, the second half of our debate this evening. we will meet the democratic candidates. we will be back with them. more questions, answers, policy issues to discuss. the senate primary debates.

the debate continues in 60 seconds. [applause] >> republicans last night in that state senate primary debate. also last night democrats held a primary debate. edward markey and stephen lynch highlighted different views on the health care law and the bank bailout and abortion rights. a special election to fill the seat vacated by john kerry will take place on june 25. primaries are scheduled for april 30. back to the second half of the boston media consortium senate primary debate. we turn our attention to the two democrats in the race. eighth district congressman stephen lynch. fifth district congressman edward markey. we begin with questions directed

to both of you. one minute to respond to each and then a little time to expect mix-- and a little time to it up. lot to get through in this half- hour. capitol hill is gridlock. disapproval rating is 80%. the people's business is not getting done. why should the voters of massachusetts think that two incumbents with more than 30 years on the hill and more than a decade on the hill, why should they pink that two incumbents are the answer and not the problem? we will start with mr. edward markey. >> anyone who knows me knows that i take on the tough issues and i get results. i have asked dozens of bills with republicans, bipartisan, that are now a lot of the nation. i want to take my experience

over to the u.s. senate in order to make that institution work better. we just lost 75 years of experience with john kerry and with ted kennedy. nra and their attempts to keep chinese assault weapons from coming. i was successful in keeping those guns out of our country if. i was successful in passing bipartisan legislation that broke down the monopolies that unleashed telecommunications revolution that led to tens of thousands of new jobs being created in massachusetts. i'm leading the effort on a clean energy revolution that is now one of the top new job- creating sector is in the massachusetts economy. i'm running for the u.s. senate because the tea party republicans in the house are paralyzing our government. in the senate we can get things done. >> mr. lynch? >> thanks for having us. i think your question was about how you get people to work

together. one of the problems we have in the senate right now that i could help with its youth got the same as in the house, you've got people in a high position on the hard right for the democrats and -- a hard right for the republicans and a hard left for the democrats. i think people know my record is i don't work for nancy pelosi and i will not work for harry reid. i've taken positions that have been outside the direction of my party and gone across the aisle and i could. there's a difference between compromise and surrender, however. that agree with ed sometimes the track the position taken by the house right especially with the party members really leaves us no alternative. >> the health care reform bill was signed into law in three years ago this month. you voted for it, congressman

markey and congressman lynch voted against it. how did you come to different conclusions? >> there were three major flaws with the affordable care act. one was it gave an antitrust exemption to insurance companies, which allows them to keep prices very high and allows them to act in restraint of trade. the second thing the affordable care act did was it took away the limited amount of competition that we had with the public auction, which allowed states to go out and create competition in the insurance industry by offering low-cost plans. the third slot in the affordable care act was it piles taxes upon taxes upon taxes on health care. flswe third -- flaw. now we have employers running away from their health care opportunities.

we missed an opportunity. for obama's health care bill was the promise of my career. it ensure that if a person has a pre-existing condition that they cannot be denied health insurance, that every child in america would have health care, that if a person and a family became ill, that family did not become bankrupt. this was a critical important historic bill that ted kennedy had been fighting for, for a generation. every republican in the house of representatives voted no on that bill. every republican running for the senate of massachusetts this year said they would kill obamacare. came, youn the vote were wrong when you were needed most on that bill. that was the only option we had. to support president obama and to put that bill on the books. wrong. we did there was

we had one opportunity to provide good health care. here's how it was. in the negotiations with health care companies and insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, what they wanted -- what we wanted was affordable health care with wide access, good quality health care. with insurance companies wanted was millions of new customers. we gave them everything they wanted in that bill. it was like a hostage situation where we not only paid the ransom but we let the insurance companies keep the hostages. now we're in a tough spot. just supporting repeal of section of the affordable care act that you voted for, because now you realize the medical device tax is killing our manufacturers in the state. so more and more people who voted for it are now picking albee's acceptance out of the bill and saying we did not like those really but we voted for them.

truman?ry ted kennedy, we fought hard as democrats for national health- insurance. kennedy.ruman to we only had that bill. all those protections, pre- existing conditions, and every child covered, seniors coverage for prescription drugs, women not discriminated ever again so they have to pay more than men, all that was in the bill. the republicans trying to repeal it now. i want to go to the senate to make sure they don't argue that historic piece of legislation, based on massachusetts law. >> are you in favor of repealing or changing sections of the affordable care act? >> as long as those repeals do not in any way harm poor people or middle class in our country. >> would you vote to repeal? >> i would vote to fix it.

it needs a lot of fixing. we have lost all our leverage. we have already given away everything to the insurance company. now they have 31 million new customers and they don't want to come to the table. >> on abortion, over the years your respective positions on abortion rights have changed. mr. markey first ran for congress with the support of anti-abortion groups and then you changed in the 1980's. mr. lynch says there's a constitutional right to abortion but you call yourself pro-life. i would like you to discuss how you came to the positions you have today. proud to have the support of planned parenthood and others in this. for 30 years i've been a consistent supporter of a woman's right to choose. i believe that a woman should make that decision only in consultation with her physician, her family, and

yourself. it is something that i believe has to be protected at all cost. for 30 years than has been the position which i have taken. and so, it just is a core constitutional belief that i have that "roe versus wade" must be protected. this, on votes like the courthouse, three years ago that would deny a woman insurance coverage so that abortion would be covered from an insurance company perspective, i am sure i voted against that amendment and steve voted for its. >> where are you? >> i referred to myself as pro- life. i know i have read recently and heard recently that i'm not pro- life or not pro-life enough. i will confess i'm not an expert on church teachings, but i am an expert on what i believed and

what i don't believe. i don't believe attacking "roe versus wade" is part of any solution. itacking it would not make go away. it will just change the setting from a critical setting to one that it's much more dangerous for women. from a clinical setting the one that's more dangerous for women. i've taken before the house to defend funding for planned parenthood, because they are the ones out there with birth control counseling, contraceptive counseling to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, which is the real goal if we want to reduce the number of abortions in this country. ironically, that's seems to be working. where welast two years have the greatest access to contraceptives is the first time in 40 years where we've seen a drop in the number of abortions. that's the course we should be taking. >> any rebuttal? >> again, i just believe it's a

fundamental right, a constitutional right. provided your position change in the 1980's? to30 years ago i just came the logical conclusion that it is a decision which a woman has to make for herself in consultation with their physician and her family. it's now been 30 years and that's why planned parenthood has endorsed me in this senate race. >> one is driven your position? >> i just want to say once thing. you mentioned this tupac amendment. it's even had an exception for rape and. your provision is that before you changed your position, you actually supported an amendment to overturn roe versus wade, so it's not just an evolution, this is acrobatics on this position. >> for 30 years i've been a consistent supporter and that's

why i have the support. of planned parenthood and and other support three years ago he was voting for that amendment to deny insurance coverage for a woman to have this option medically provided to a her. >> in this data is provided by medicaid. it's not covered by the federal government. >> let's move on to the next section. at its candidate to candidate questions. we want to do several rounds. they will be quick questions, one minute response, qwikster a lot, and 30 seconds or response to that. -- a quick follow-up. supportedently you the wall street bailout, which bailed out wall street's biggest banks and caused a massive problem for the american people, destroyed trillions of dollars in wealth for a lot of families. 707-- $787 billion

from taxpayers and gave it the wall street. then when the american taxpayer was up against it with the debt limit prices, you voted not to rescue them. so you bail out wall street and you refused to rescue the american taxpayers. i don't know how you reconcile those two votes. >> into thousand eight we were in the eighth year of wall street turning into a casino. regulators have turned a blind eye and the economy was collapsing. the banks were collapsing. barney frank, john kerry, barack obama, and i, we agreed we cannot let the banking system collapsed onto the hopes and dreams of every family in our country, not just a small number of people without bank accounts. there would've been tens of millions of people without bank

accounts from exposed banks had collapsed. not tot was a decision bail out the bankers but rather to ensure that the financial system did not send us back to the great depression, which is what many economists were predicting would happen if we did not pass that bill. so i voted for main street, to make sure that wall street did not destroy all those hopes and dreams. and we're now in the 34th consecutive month of an economic recovery because we make sure that our economic system did not collapse. >> the bill that you voted for denied bail out the main street. the bill was supposed to help main street in theory. what happened was the bank's stock their banks full of cash and never increased lending. so you can take credit for something that never happened, i guess. but the bailout was certainly

something that has to this day ensure that these banks will grow bigger and bigger and bigger. they learned nothing from the lesson. >> i voted against the repeal of glass-steagall in 1999. i did not want them to get bigger and bigger. i also had to deal with the reality of what happened after george bush turned a blind eye to real regulation of .erivatives o i am the author of the laws that would have controlled the derivatives and credit defaults are. newt gingrich blocked me from putting those protective laws on the books. ordinary families had to be protected. if those banks went under, just like the 1930's, there would've been a financial calamity in that we would not ever covered for four generations. >> steve, we've got a decision to make on the sequester.

in that bill in 2011, we knew there could be draconian cuts to the national institutes of health budget, to pell grants, to investment in clean energy technology. i voted no on the sequester. you voted yes. can you tell us why? >> absolutely. we were up against a deadline. we would have defaulted on all of our debts for the entire country. isr $16 trillion in debt what we have. if we had not voted to increase the debt limit, which you did, then our ability -- our credit rating would have plummeted. the interest increase on the $16.39 trillion at the time would have been subject to much

higher interest rate. we would have dug ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole. what the debt limit compromise did was it allowed us 18 months, i believe it was, too, with a plan that created a super committee that was supposed to, with a plan to go through the budget with a scalpel and figure out what areas to cut. unfortunately, the super committee was never able to do that. but the idea would be that we would have a disaster right away or give ourselves 18 more months to try to come up with a plan. >> the sequester could lead to the loss of 60,000 jobs in massachusetts this year. that's just the first of nine years in terms of these draconian cuts in programs that are at the heart of the massachusetts innovation economy plan. , education,ch health care. when you cut, it hits us

disproportionately hard. they will hit our economic growth. they will hit us where it hurts most, which is a putrid-oriented economy we have, which will be seriously harmed by sequestration. >> 15 seconds. >> that contrary to what you actually did. yuba-sutter been a tremendous such a large tax on medical device manufacturers. the taxes that you put in are so high. it's become a real problem. >> your question? >> in addition to the bailing out of wall street banks, you also voted for nafta and, which shifted hundreds of thousands of american jobs to mexico and did not do much for mexico either. most recently, decided against a local fisherman in new bedford.

where it pattern happens in the telecommunications industry as well where you are siding with the big guys against the little guys. our local fishermen, those are small businesses, too. you are the only member of the massachusetts delegation that did not support pushing back on the caps limits that are putting them out of business and allowing the big multinational corporations to control the whole food source in our fishing areas. >> we've got the issue. [laughter] floorjust on the house six weeks ago trying to get an amendment on the floor and to bring disaster relief post- hurricane sandy to all the fishermen in massachusetts. i did not see you out there during that debate, that effort to have that vote on the house

floor. i do believe we have to have a plan for our fishing industry which has to be based on conversations with the local industry. communications, i took on the monopolies. i broke down the monopolies. breaking down the monopolies in the 1996 telecommunications act unleashed $1 trillion worth of private sector capital that has created thousands of jobs. ebay,e google, on youtube, facebook, twitter, but there are thousands of other companies in massachusetts whose names we don't know that our the heartbeat of the new innovation economy here in the state. i'm very proud of taking on those monopolies, because that was hurting our ability to be the engine of innovation growth. >> i want to make sure you need to get two questions. say thet want to

fishermen don't want disaster relief. they just want to fish. if you think we have controlled the monopolies in telecommunications, i want everybody to open up your cable bill and take a peek inside, read the cable bill. do you think you are being treated fairly by the telecommunications industry? when i passed my bills and 1990's, people did not pack their pockets to make sure they had their mobile device with them, to make sure they have their smartphone or all of these new information technologies. wrapped around the world in only 17 years and am very proud of that. >> steve, you are a real va.mpion for the ourreally concerned about veterans coming back from iraq

and afghanistan. could you tell us how you see what the solution has to be to make sure that the care is there for them? >> thank you. that's a very kind question and you are a gentleman for asking. when i first came into office, one of the first receptions i had was ted kennedy was banned he said congratulations, you have been assigned to the veterans affairs committee. he said that the good news. he said the bad news is they want to close all three of your va hospitals. now, with theay help of not only edward markey but also be other members of the delegation and senator kennedy and senator kerry we were able to push back and not only have those three hospitals open, but they're all being expanded. ist we're missing right now

we are getting a lot of our sons and daughters coming home from 5raq after three tourists to tours of duty and we are missing something. we're not correctly diagnosing ,tsd and in some cases tbi traumatic brain injury. that is a crisis that is just on the horizon that we have not dealt with yet. i think the answer is we need more funding and better diagnosis and better focus on those veterans coming home. >> very quickly? >> we fought two wars. them. not fund that was wrong. the first war as we did not pay for. i agree with steve. the one thing that we shall obligate ourselves to paying for is the care for these veterans, for their retirement, for their health care, for their

rehabilitation, for their employment. we should not shortchange anyone of these veterans. i honor steve for his work in that area. >> any response? >> no. no. i want to talk about the economy. the unemployment is easing. real estate is coming back. we saw the story in the globe this morning. stocks are up. overall good signs. but working and retired folks with savings accounts have subsidized this recovery because of low interest rates. is it time take a foot off the gas pedal, let interest rates increase even if it affects the pace of the recovery? >> i would like to believe all that, that the economy is growing well, but that's not the case in communities of color. that's not the case in communities of color. if you go to fall river or crofton, massachusetts -- brofton.

last week i took a walk through dudley square and there's some construction , but i need to see more people of color from the neighborhood on those jobs. among people of color across our state, the recovery may be reaching wall street, it may be reaching states, but it's not reaching blue hill. we had an opening of my campaign avenuerters on blue hill and i've been meeting with a lot of black ministers over the past few months. the unemployment is exceedingly high in those neighborhoods. i think we need to keep working at this, because the recovery is not here. i guess i need to keep rates low to give those families a chance to catch up as well. >> interest rates? have still an economic

crisis for many in this country. 44 million americans live in poverty. that is $22,000 for family of four. a 16 million children live in those families. no, we cannot raise interest rates at this point in time. 27% of african-americans live in poverty today. 27% of hispanics live in poverty today. is going toon actually serve as a break upon economic recovery. it's disappointing economic growth. so we need lower interest rates to serve as the antidote to sequestration. or else we will see catastrophic economic conditions unfold in our country. >> three minutes. yes or no question for both of you. chairman bernanke's term in the

fed is up in 2014,. as he and another term? >> yes. been chairman during one of our most calamitous time, not of his making necessarily. but i think he does deserve -- he's also an expert on recessions and depressions, which i think is handy. >> i said yes or no. >> yes. question.gn policy the president says iran cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. north korea already has them and has been doing a lot of saber rattling lately. are there any circumstances under which you would support american military action against either one? gives northhat korea vat tax south korea, we would have a military obligation to protect it. by the president has made that very clear. with regard to the iranian

nuclear program, i am very comforted to know that john kerry, to be a great secretary of state, and is now orchestrating the effort to put together the coalition that puts the tightest possible sanctions humanly possible on the iranian economy. we have to >> mr. lynch? >> i would agree. i was in south korea recently. there is need for caution there. it is an unstable government that we are dealing with there now. they are very unpredictable. but we have to have a good coalition with the russians and the japanese and the chinese, primarily, to make sure that that part of the world is stabilized. >> that is going to do it. the half-hour of flu by. thank you both, and thank you to

stephen lynch and ed markey and to the three republican candidates, michael sullivan, gabriel gomez, and dan winslow. remember, there is just five weeks to go until the primary april 30. thank you for joining us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up today on the c- span network. continuing live on c-span two, the u.s. chamber of commerce annual aviation summit. right now, a panel of leaders that's live on c-span two. we will pick up that coverage here on c-span. the lunch break starts at 11:30.

at 12:40 five, l panel of ceo's from airlines around the world will talk about the state of the airline industry. that will be live here on c- --n starting at wealth: 45 12:45. present obama will be talking about protecting children from gun violence. he is likely to put more pressure on the senate. on c-ill be live at 11:40 span. tonight at 8:00, we are taking at the intersection of infotain ment programming. will have a discussion with the aaron brown. and here is a look. >> a lot of people in congress or in the senate -- they are very interesting people. if you can get to that, and you can peel back a couple of

layers, you may find something interesting. they are not movie stars, but -- i don't know, seeing one of your representatives playback ball and finding out that they have got a great jump shot, and he does it every tuesday night, mighty interesting to some people. do you have an agenda? >> like i said, we are not going to go deeper -- sometimes we do ,alk about someone's politics but we are trying to make these intoe, these politicians, personalities. learn something about their personalities, you might be interested in them. in the neck time you hear on cnn you hear someone say, marco rubio, you will say, wait a second, marco rubio, that is the

guy i thought tmz live. and he talked for five minutes wayne is not the new to pok -- tupac. of theht the end conversation, there was a part of me that felt badly that we did not delve deeper into his politics and what he is voting on, but that was not the conversation. ultimately, it is probably more interesting. i really wanted to hammer him about reaching for water in the middle of the state of the union. but we had a fun conversation with this guy. so maybe people are interested now in what marco rubio's politics are. we are opening it up here and -- up. --hink there are still there is still a huge appetite for that. or we can create more of an

appetite for people to learn about politics. because right now i think a lot of people are turned off and they don't want to hear anything about politicians. why not try to make them a little more interesting, and may people will pay more attention? >> just a portion of an entire discussion eight concede tonight getting underway at 8:00 eastern. live at 9:15, we will open our phone calls. also your tweets and facebook comments. we will be joined by two guests, jane hall and patrick gavin, staff writer for "political." starts tonight at eight: eastern -- it got eastern. -- 8:00 eastern. resin obama will be talking about gun control in just over 40 minutes. aboutl join a discussion nurse practitioners taking over

when there is not a doctor present. is a member ofld the board of nurse practitioners. what is a nurse practitioner? -- a: a rest are certain registered nurse who have training beyond a bachelors degree in nursing. they can diagnose, treat and prescribed patients, much like the public is familiar with physician prescription, diagnosis, and treatment. we also run a nursing model to the treatment of the patient. host: what does that mean? guest: as registered nurses, we are taught to take care of the whole patient. we taken to their -- into consideration their social economic background, their perception of illness, their knowledge level about health and illness, and then we bring in x or level of care and that we have advanced education that

allows us to diagnose, treat and prescribed. host: how much school he goes into being a nurse practitioner ? guest: nurse practitioners must have a bachelors degree in nursing and they also must have a masters degree in nursing. there is a growing trend for nurse practitioners to have a doctorate of nursing practice. host: and you are a doctorate of nursing? guest: no, i actually have a phd in nursing. host: and that is different. guest: it is different. let me clear this up. a phd is an academic, research degree. it has been around for a very long time. the doctorate of nursing practice degree -- that individual is prepared differently in that. that is a practice doctorate. so those folks will have additional clinical education and clinical rectus experience. host: how many years of schooling have you had? guest: a lot.

[laughter] i have a bachelor of science degree, i masters's degree, a and aster's certificate, phd. 8-10.add up the years -- host: why not then get your medical degree? guest: because i wanted to be a nurse. because nursing is different from medicine. they are two different and distinct disciplines. we have a different approach to patient care. each brings something incredibly evil to the patient care situation. medicine has a wonderful diagnosis and cure model. nursing have a wonderful prevent and manage model. each of us can do a little bit of what the other can do. but it is a framework.

it is an approach to taking care of patients. and i personally chose -- i enjoy, i continue to enjoy it. practitionersurse differ from physicians assistants? guest: the biggest difference is re.the licensor -- licenstu are ourlicenses that own. we practice on our own authority. we have an independent licensed. that means we and we alone are responsible for our practices. we are responsible for the quality of our care, we are responsible for the standards of care, we are responsible for the surroundings of our profession. .o one supervises us physicians assistants operate the -- under the direct

supervision of physicians. many of the things we do are similar. we do physical assessments, prescribing, many things are similar. but the licensure is different. ,ost: do you work for yourself or do you work with a group of doctors? guest: i work with a physician in a private practice in new york. i work in the same office as the physician. host: are you required by new york law to work with a physician? guest: i am required by new york law to have something called a collaborative practice agreement. this means that in new york state, in order for me to practice as a nurse practitioner, i must have something signed by a physician.

that document requires that i identify the physician who will serve as michael aberdeen -- asian, and the only my collaborating physician. ie only real oversight is -- am required four times a year to identify a set of my charts, taken to a physician, sit down, and do a review. he says, ok, we could have done this differently. this was great. and that is it. that is the essence of the collaboration in new york. ground,n you make the can you prescribed medications, can you order tests? guest: yes to all of those things. host: is that nationwide? guest: no. and that is one of the issues that nurse practitioners are facing. there are 50 different states and 50 sets of laws and regulations. a crazy quilt of np regulation.

it is a profound barrier to patient care and for patients to access to the care that nurse practitioners can provide. host: i will put the numbers on the screen appeared we are talking about nurse practitioners, there role in the healthcare world in america. we set aside our fourth line this morning for norse -- nurse practitioners. you can see it there, (202) 585- 3883. how many states are like new york? and is new york one of the leaders in allowing nurse practitioners freedom? guest: there are states that are better. there are 16 states in -- and the district of columbia that allow nurse practitioners to practice without regulatory oversight, without oversight by another profession, specifically physicians. new york state is not as

restrictive as some which require direct supervision, controlling what they can prescribed, how much, whether they can prescribe controlled substances. ,ew york state is pretty good but in new york state, we continue to see removal of the requirement for collaboration. that list of put 16 states on the east -- on the screen. is there anything in common with those states? i apologize, we do not have the list. guest: i have it here. host: i will read it quickly. alaska, arizona, idaho, iowa, maine, maryland, montana, new hampshire, north dakota, oregon, rhode island, utah. what do these have in common? guest: that is a great question. ,hey are largely rural essentially. i think they have great need,

and many of those states started out when nurse practitioners were first identified. they started out as states that it not require physicians. so that also might be something that they have in common. host: in your work, how often do you talk to your collaborating physician? guest: all the time. we are in an office together. host: so every patient you see, do you talk to him or her? guest: no. that would not even be possible. sometimes he is not there. sometimes he is not in the office. i practiced the way every license healthcare professional in this world practices. i think it is really important to note that on the ground and offices when we are seeing patients, we are consulting with

one another all the time. consult with me and come to me and say, what about this, how do i do this, what is the immunization schedule? it is very much a collaborative process. we don't need statute to tell us to do that. i did not need statute to do that before he became a nurse practitioner. registeredtice as a nurse. i thought -- sought consultation when i needed it, as did anyone else to work on a team. the: what is the goal of american association of nurse practitioners when it comes to legislation? guest: it is seeking to provide quality affordable care to all patients in the country who need it. the vigilsmore in injuring healthcare roles, we -- when ato have

legislative barriers prevent from practitioners functioning at the top of my license, utilizing my full scope of practice, it is the patients who do not get the care that they need. group is seeking to remove barriers to patient access. host: our guest, susan apold, the topic, nurse practitioners. deborah is an houston, texas. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span, and thank you nurse practitioner. i am and medicaid. that's on medicaid. i had surgery last week. being a practical pain patient, after surgery, my pain was poorly treated.

some of the nurses acted like it was coming out of their paychecks. they were sometimes an hour late with the pain shot. they were not sympathetic to pain. i would like to know what nurse practitioners are going to -- if they are going to take over for some doctors, if they're going to get educated about practices of pain. because people should not be in pain, especially as much pain as i am in. host: susan apold? guest: i am so sorry to hear about your experience, and i hope you will be feeling better. all nurses are trained in pain management. nurse practitioners are also trained in pain management. we have no intention of taking over for physicians, but we are able to manage pain. hopefully your experiences will be much better as you encounter healthcare professional nurse -- health care professionals, nurse practitioners, who are able to provide the level of

compassion and care that you need. you can rest assured that the knowledge that we have qualified us to provide pain management. host: can nurse predators run emergency care clinics? guest: yes. host: do they? guest: i don't know any places where they do. we manage -- there are many nurse clinics throughout the country. specifically emergency room, what you have in mind? host: just an urgent care -- guest: can they? yes. do they? yes. greg on the republican line from arkansas. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i would like to say that nurses do a great job, and they need more of them.

i think they should have been in this healthcare because they are very good at what they do. there is a shortage of them. they are cutting on them because of the cost. they deserve more than what they get. i think they need a lot more of them. their input is probably better because they are with the patient. i have crohn's disease. there is no cure for it. when you're in there, it is a hard time. and when you have a helping hand there, when the doctor is not there, they have got to make a decision right there. they are there for you. i think we need more of them. workedreg, have you ever directly with a nurse practitioner who has prescribed medication for you, gone

through a procedure where you have only seen the nurse practitioner and not a doctor? caller: yes. a few had a surgery months ago. and i hadollapsed, four or five nurses around me. they got a hold of the doctors, got the problem fixed up, and they got me to where i could breathe again. they are just wonderful people. the reason why the lady did not have pain on the previous collar is because they're cutting back on nurses. more patience and less nurses. they need more nurses. healthcare is a serious situation. host: we get the point, great. thank you for calling in. guest: thank you for the rousing endorsement.

i'm happy to hear that you have been the recipient of such excellent care at the hands of registered nurses and nurse practitioners. there are 150 5000 nurse practitioners in this country delivering care every day. the production is that we will need more nurse predators and more registered nurses, so your point is well taken. host: susan, tweak that come in have come in.s liz says -- bottom line is, a nurse is a nurse and a doctor is a doctor. nursend wonderful -- practitioners are a great addition to medical care so long as they stay within their sphere of competence. some don't. and dennis s -- next, we will have cleaners prescribing medications while the doctors counter money. guest: ok. [laughter] -- all cutter

healthcare professionals are required by law to pride is within their scope of practice. that is not new. we been doing that since there has been laws defining us in practice. nurses, physicians and nurse practitioners -- we are legally obligated to fudge and within our scope of practice. that means one of the first things we learn is what we can do and what we cannot do. so we always function within our scope legally peer we do not have a choice. -- legally. we don't have a choice. it is a different way at looking at delivering health care, although it has been around 50 years. we are not as new as the current attention to our role may suggest. we have never sought to replace, take over. we just do not need a legal requirement for another profession, medicine, or any

other profession, to supervise us or oversee our practices. we are highly trained. highly educated professionals, who understand what it means to be a professional, who understand what it means to collaborate, and we are seeking statutory authority to practice to the full extent of our license. this is supported by major national foundations, the macy's foundation. the reserve were on the national governors association. the institute of medicine. clearly states that this is what the nation needs. the nation needs to look at that profession of nursing, specifically nurse petitioners, and allow us, require us -- nurse practitioners, and allow work to ourus to fullest extent. that is what we need. host: the next call comes from

richard in virginia, a physician. hi, richard. caller: everybody is about shortcuts. there is no way you can train a nurse practitioner with two years after college to be the equivalent of a physician. it is not possible. the extra six years mean something, otherwise we would give it all back and be nurse practitioners. some nurse practitioners are not well enough trained. uniformity in nurse schools is douglas emmett uniformity of -- is not the same as the universe of medicalformity schools. my problem is my experience with nurse practitioners. practicesumber of that deal with nurse practitioners, and they are dumber than dog doo. -- they are really

not well enough change -- trained. it is bad enough the doctors do not get these things right, but they do not have the training. they need to be supervised closely. allows midwives to practice without physician supervision. the doctor cannot step in and say, you are blowing it. when patients go to a doctor, make an appointment, and again shoveled off to a midwife or to a nurse practitioner, that is deceptive. those people do not have the training. it is keeping up with all of the subtleties of medicine. asked what steven johnson syndrome is or what you do about it. host: richard, we got a good point. what kind of medicine do you practice? caller: ob/gyn.

i've seen at least eight patients with fibroid problems that are floated right by nurse practitioners. they are not well enough trained to do these things. saying that they are to some make it so. tell me how six years is equivalent to 12. host: left in a response. there is a lot on the table. guest: 16 states in this nation and the district of columbia all do not have regulation that requires physician oversight. some of the states have experience in excess of 20 years working with nurse practitioners. none of these states are laid- back. none of them are finding that nurse practitioners are in any way unfit. forink that speaks volumes the educational preparation of nurse practitioners. i mentioned those studies, reports, that have recently come out supporting the safety of nurse practitioners. point as education, a

that my physician colleague made with that six years and eight years are not equivalent and you cannot train a nurse to be a physician and six years. that is not the intent of nursing education. the intent of nursing education is not to make nurse practitioners subsidies for physicians. i far as uniformity, respectfully need to point out that nurse practitioners in this country -- the programs are uniform. all must be accredited by either the commission of , or anotheration organization. those two have the credit from united face a board of education. so the fact that nurse practitioner -- the point, not the facts, that's nurse practitioner education is not uniform, is off.

as he said, just because he said it does not make it so. host: what about his complaint that there has been misdiagnosis? nurse practitioners -- is that part of their wheelhouse to be able to diagnose things like fibroid cancer -- thyroid cancer? guest: absolutely. we are as dedicated -- weird educated to diagnose and treat. we are educated to diagnose and treat. , who iild and wonderful think is a lawyer, is following up to an earlier tweet. to richard listening the physician -- shows up and it is a fit when someone has not stayed within that scope and his

liability is on the line very -- on the line. practice is af legal term. as a possible that we're talking about the difference between scope of practice and scope of authority? am i hearing that when a nurse practitioner, when it is perceived that he or she is stepping out of his or her scope of authority, it is a problem for the physician? i think that might be the point. but in new york, if i do that, the liability is mine and mine alone. unless the physician has been working with me with the patient, and let the two of us see the patient, i am the only person who's all the patient. a collaborative agreement does not convey a level of legal responsibility for that patient. they are my patients. it is me. host: are you covered by health insurance federally?

your work? guest: do they reimburse us? host: yes. guest: some do. any state, medicaid reimburses us. that is a federal issue that we are looking to work on. to make sure that all nurse practitioners are reimbursed through medicaid systems. , do they havets to carry malpractice? guest: absolutely. host: it expensive for you? guest: it is less extensive than it is for physicians. my malpractice is about $1200 a year. host: pam, you are on. caller: good morning. i'm calling to give kudos -- are you there? host: we are listening. caller: to the nurse practitioners. i have a nurse practitioner.

she is just wonderful. all of them in the clinic that i go to -- i am on medicare. they know what they are doing. , they writenose prescriptions, i had swelling in my mouth, and they die ghost -- diagnosed the medication for my blood pressure. it was no longer any good for me, that i needed to switch. and i have not had any problem with that sense. i'm just saying, i think they are wonderful because they spend more time with you. a doctor comes in, the view, and runs out of of the office. they take care of you. they listen to you, they pinpoint what you are talking about. , they will't know recommend you to go to a specialist. i just want to give kudos to the one i got. tracy.

host: all right, pam, we got the point. susan apold? guest: congratulations to tracy and her grateful patient. is verysatisfaction high with nurse practitioner care. often patients will say that they are at least as satisfied as with physicianal care, often more so. complaintsu get more from patients or doctors? guest: i have not gotten any complaints from patients. when i am working with physicians, i don't get complaints from them, either. the complaints are organized medicine. that is where most of the pushback comes from. host: going back to richard and the rest of them. he really unloaded on a nurse

practitioners in. is that common to hear that kind of complaint? guest: let's say it is not uncommon. there is a lot of uncertainty and doubt, a lot of concern about role overlap. it can beof change, very frustrating. we do get pushback. 50have been around for years. we provide quality care, affordable care, 88% of us practice primary care. that is where we are looking at the problems in this nation. there is a healthcare worker shortage. they project a 90,000 physician shortage by 2020. by the time the last baby boomers hit the medicare, we are looking at a quarter of a million shortage. the key to help primary care and prevention -- we need all hands

on deck. we cannot engage in a conversation about turf. we cannot afford it. it is beneath us. educatednderfully healthcare professions. we just down together and talk about how how to make the system what a candy and what it needs to be. -- what it it can be can be. thee here, we're good, quality, our patients care for us deeply. they give us support. it is time to not advocate leadership and engage in a dialogue. it is time to step up to the table and say look, let's talk about how we are going to do this. host: we're talking with susan member of is a board the american association of nurse practitioners. she is a nurse practitioner

herself. matilda is a nurse. she is all in -- calling from maryland. i am sorry, i have a cold. good things enough about nurse practitioners. attorney, his extreme is of spirit because that is his line of work. i cannot believe that that is a fair representation. i like nurse practitioners because they approach things in a family centered manner. they partner with the family. they provide lots of primary care, where i believe many physicians prefer to follow specialties. the healthcare row with -- role with the aging occupation, nurse an important role.

registers ande getting a commitment from them to work with underserved populations, and adjust to the needs of an aging nason -- nation. host: what kind of practice do you have? caller: i am retired, but i did pediatric nurses -- nursing for 12 years. i worked with a lot of nurse are tensioners over that time. my experience with them has been nothing but wonderful. i see a very good, collaborative relationship with the nurses and the doctors. i see the doctors as having high regard for the of -- for the ability and professionalism. host: let's leave it there and get a response from our guest. guest: thank you, matilda. you do deserve a break. as i mentioned before, on the ground, this works. it works well.

between the nurse practitioners and physicians collaborating together. , peter,d me earlier about what kind of feedback we get from positions. i have to agree with matilda. when i amersally good working with my physician colleagues. host: kathleen is a nurse calling from new york. caller: hi. i am a registered nurse with a masters degree, and a retired nurse and teacher. i have a few comments i would like to make. the first is that i am a hospital trained nurse. haveret that hospitals given up these programs for rns. it has taken forever for the ama to accept nurse practitioners. they were willing to take physicians assistants over nurse practitioners, and they still do, any physician assistant only has a two-year community college training.

looking at the difference in the training is unbelievable. the gentleman who called in to complain about nurses misdiagnosing and how terrible nurse practitioners are really should be taken to task because there are a lot of physicians that misdiagnose. he is failing to do his job to work with that nurse practitioner and just basically find out where the problem is. givenk nurse practitioners exemplary care to patients. you just couldn't ask for somebody better to be with you to take care of you at any time in your life. host: kathleen, you talked programs inrsing the hospital. what did you mean by that? hader: a lot of hospitals two year rn programs. they started out with three year rn programs. i trained in new york city. they had three year nursing

rogue rims that they converted that theyogram converted to a two year nursing program. they affiliated with colleges so they could graduate an rn with an associates degree. dropped a lot of these hospital programs, which gave a nurse a lot of hands-on experience, to go with four-year programs. i am sure the woman of that is with you right now understands that education. host: thank you, kathleen. susan apold? guest: the nursing education has advanced and grown. initially in this nation, people were educated in diploma programs, which were affiliated with hospitals. they were three-year programs that many of your viewers are familiar with. to movesion was made nursing education out of those

programs and into collegiate programs. the model worked well for many years. health care ewald, technology of all, knowledge evolves, and we learned that it was important to take that education and put it in a broader time. me period. basic education of nursing has moved from that model to the collegiate model. miss this opportunity to answer matilda. she talked about funding for nurse profession or education. i want to make the point that the affordable care act does identify programs that help fund nurse managed centers, midwives , and the american association of nurse practitioners is supporting any legislation, all legislation, which continues to support nurse practitioner education. host: are nurse practitioners worldwide?

of thishere are pockets model evolving throughout the world. , i want tostralia say new zealand because i have a colleague from new zealand. i'm afraid i don't say that, i will leave her out. it is a trend. is vieweding differently in other nations, but it is moving. we are seeing other nations come to the united states and take a look at what we are doing and see how they can replicated. roger green tweets and -- does the success of obama care depend on the expanded use of nurse practitioners to help reduce the healthcare costs? guest: i think so. i think that we need all hands on deck. we need as many providers as we can get to the table. nurse practitioners, because of our focus on primary care and prevention, primary care and prevention by themselves are

cost effective because it is much more cost-effective to keep someone healthy. the most important value human beings have is their help. if we can keep people healthy, we don't have to pay for expenses and intervention. so i'm a yes, i believe the success of obamacare does depend the use of nurse practitioners. the louisville, kentucky. good morning. caller: i want to comment on what the physician said a while ago about nurses. he did not use this word, but inapept. why wife is a nurse practitioner, and has been so for about eight years. she takes very good care of her patients. she takes better care than some positions i know. as far as misdiagnosis, he mentioned about the person who had hemorrhoids, and they diagnosed it as cancer, -- i'm sorry, i am nervous.

i was told i had the heart of a 16-year-old, went home, had a massive heart attack. .octors are not gods their humans, just like nurse practitioners. my wife and all nurse practitioners for what they go through. that is my comment. , thank you soain much for the accolades. it is important to her member that what we need to talk about here are outcomes. nurse practitioners have been studied for almost 50 years. i can think of no other healthcare discipline where research has been done to demonstrate safety, efficacy, and affordability. we do a great job. education is a standardized throughout the nation. legislation is not, and it needs to be. costs ourght taxpayers money that is on that isy that is --

unnecessary. any to be able to practice to the full assent of their life is and education. host: mary in detroit, you are the last call. caller: good morning, susan. i have been listening to the discussion this morning. there were comments made about physician assistants. i have been a physician assistant for 22 years in detroit. our licenses are not tied to the physician. .e have our own licensure we have our certifications. as you know, we have to retake our boards every six years to show that we are still qualified to practice. you also have your own licenses.

but the main difference between our professions is how we are trained. the physician's assistants are trained in the medical model. we are trained as physicians, but we just don't go to school as long as they do. one of the callers had commented about a physician assistant attending committee college education, which is not true. just like nurse practitioners, education has evolved. we are now masters-based profession. i wanted to point it out, historically, before our profession came into existence, when the medics were coming back from vietnam, there was a physician who wanted to use these people for their expertise. he offered what is now the tosician assistant program

the national association of nursing to be trained in this medical model. host: we are a little tight on time. we appreciate your clarification. guest: thank you so much. i meant to comment on the point about education. indeed, that is not true. physician assistants, as you mentioned, have far more than an associates degree education. i thank you for helping me with those comments. , are there apold still lpn's in the hospitals ? guest: yes. fewer and fewer, but they are there. has been ourpold guest here on th "the washington journal." anytimehat discussion

on the c-span video library. we are now in the east room of the white house. president obama will be joined by vice president joe biden. speaking about recent efforts for gun control education. between nine states are holding events. .- 29 states are holding events public support for gun control is dropping off since the shooting at sandy hook three month ago. no new legislation can be voted on for several days. and congress is away on their spring break. members will be returning on april 8. the president has been pushing for a ban on military style assault weapons and high- capacity magazines and better ground checks. we inspected president shortly. this is live coverage on c-span. -- we expect the president shortly. this is live coverage on c-span.

are waiting live here in the east wing of the white house for president obama to speak about searcher gun control legislation. this on a day of the associated press story -- an arsenal of weapons, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several swords, were found in the home of a gunman -- of the gunmen who carried out the newtown shooting. adam lanza killed 2026 people in sandy hook elementary school. the state attorney said the company released those.

>> president obama has been pushing for a ban on military style assault weapons and high opacity magazines and better background checks. we are expecting the president to come out and speak about the controls on gun violence. the associated press reporting votes rounded up. gun control supporters are struggling to win over moderate democrats in their drive to push experimented -- expanded background checks. advertisingn campaign finance by new york mayor michael bloomberg, gun control groups aimed at pressuring senators to back the effort.

wel

theadies and gentlemen, president and the vice president of the united states and ms. katerina. [applause] >> good morning. think i would like to from the bottom of my heart, the president, the vice president, for inviting me to speak here today. never in a million years did i think an average citizen such as myself would get an opportunity like this. my name is katerina red guard. two the mother of

beautiful young children. i have a unique background, both in the performing arts and in law. i have been first and only affected by gun violence. as a dance teacher, i lost one of my students at the massacre at virginia tech. she was a bright, beautiful, talented dancer who lost her life that was stolen from her at the age of 18. i will never forget her presence in my classes, and her enthusiasm for dance. as the mother have a first grader, i cannot even look at my own daughter without thinking about poor, innocent victims at sandy hook. my heart breaks for them and their families and the families of the children he every day who were killed by guns in this country. and seeing ther horror at sandy hook, my

reaction was that i no longer felt it was dave to raise a -- safe to raise a family in this country. i felt like i either needed to leave the country or do something. as an attorney, i vowed to do something because i feel that my right to feel safe in this country and the rights of our children to feel safe in this country are paramount and worth fighting for. i have never been an activist before. but i have found a voice with mom demand action for gun cents in america. and i am proud and honored to help them fight for better laws in this country. i am also honored to acknowledge vice president joe biden, strong proponent of gun violence prevention measures in the senate for decades and now in the white house. he is also an advocate for the rights of women and children. as mothers, we are eternally grateful for your support.

enough is enough. the time to act is now. i am now extremely honored to introduce to you the president of the united states of america -- barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you, katerina, for sharing your story. all of us are fortunate to have you here today. katerina, as you just heard, lost one of her most promising students in virginia tech. the shootings there that took place six years ago.

she and dozens of other moms and dads, all victims of gun violence, have come here today from across the country. united not only in grief and loss, but also in resolve and in a deep determination to do whatever they can as parents and as citizens to protect other kids and spare other families from the awful pain that they have endured. the families and friends who are here today can tell you, the grief does not ever go away. that loss, that pain, sticks with us. it lingers on in places like tucson and aurora, that anchorage -- that anguish is still fresh and new town. it is been barely 100 days since 20 innocent children and

six educators were taken from us, including grace mcdonnell and laura russo, whose families are with us today. families are here today. deep in theurns family of thousands, thousands of americans who have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from these last hut -- last 100 days, including a girl was killed on her school less than two months ago and whose mother is also here today. everything they live for and hoped for taken away in an instant. we of mothers on the stage whose children were killed as recently as 35 days ago. i don't think any of us who are parents can hear their stories and not think about our own children and grandchildren. we all feel it is our first impulse as parents to do everything we can to protect our

children from harm, to make any sacrifice to keep them safe, to do what we ought to do to give them a future where they can grow up and learn and explore and become the amazing people they are destined to be. that is why in january, joe biden beating a task force, came up with and i put forward a series -- leading a task force, and i come up with a task force to keep our kids safe. in my state of the union address, i called on congress to give these proposals a boat -- a vote. in just a couple of weeks they will. earlier this month, the senate advanced some of the most import reforms designed to reduce gun violence. all of them are consistent with -- second imminent, amendment. what they will do is keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people who put others at risk.

in moreour best chance than a decade to take common- sense steps that will save lives. visited newtown just over three months ago, if there is a step we can take the will say just one child, just one parent, just another town from experiencing the same grief the moms and dads who are here have endured, then we should be doing it. we have an obligation to try. ofthe coming weeks, members congress will vote on whether we should require universal background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun so that criminals or people with severe mental illnesses cannot get their hands on one. they will vote on tough new penalties for anyone who buys guns only to turn around and sell them to criminals. they will vote on a measure that

would keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate these mass killings off our streets. they will get to vote on legislation that would help schools become safer and help people struggling with mental health problems to get the treatment they need. none of these ideas should be controversial. why wouldn't we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or hand on a gun? what would we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40% of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? if you ask most americans outside of washington, including many gun owners, some of these ideas they don't consider them controversial. 90%, now 90% of americans, support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found be a danger to themselves and others from buying a gun. more than 80% of republicans

agree, more than 80% of gun owners agree. think about that. how often does 90% of americans agree on anything? it never happens. many other reforms are supported by clear majorities of americans. i ask every american to find out where your member of congress stands on these ideas. if they are not part of that 90% to agree that we should make it harder for a criminal or someone with a severe mental illness to buy a gun, you should ask them, why not? why are you part of the 10%? there is absolutely no reason why we cannot get this done. but the reason we're talking about it here today is because it is not done until it is done, and there are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock for changing the subject or drowning out the majority of the american people

to prevent these reforms from happening at all. they are doing everything they can to make our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration or their assumption is people just forget about it. article just the other washington -- is as washington missed its opportunity because as time goes on after newtown, somehow people start moving on and for getting. heree tell you, the people do not forget. is not forgetting. not forgetting. the notion that something as terrific as what happened in newtown happens and we have moved on to other things in two or three months? that is not who we are.

that is not who we are. i want to make sure every american is listening today. ago that 100 days happened. country wasre shocked. and the entire country pledged we would do something and this time would be different. we have us if forgotten. i have not forgotten those kids. shame on us if we have forgotten. thing have said consistently since i first ran for this office, nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. and that is what is so

important all of these moms and dads are here today, but also what it is important that grassroots groups out there that got started and are out there mobilizing and organizing and keeping up the fight. that is what is going to take to make this country safer. it will take moms and dads and hunters and clergy and local officials like the mayor's here today standing up and saying, this time really is different. we're not just going to sit back and wait until the next newtown or the next innocent pitiful child is gunned down in a playground in chicago -- innocent, beautiful child is gone down in a playground in chicago or los angeles before we summon the will to act. right now members of congress are back home in their districts and many are holding events where they can get from their constituents. i want everyone listening to make yourself heard right now. if you think checking some as criminal record before you can

check out a gun shows common- sense, make yourself heard. responsible, law- abiding gun owner who wants to keep irresponsible, lawbreaking individuals from abusing the right to bear arms by inflicting harm on a massive scale, speak of. we need your voices in this debate. if you are among let katrina who wants to make this place stronger country for our children to grow up, get together with other mothers like the ones here today and raise your voices and make yourselves unmistakably heard. we need everyone to remember how we felt 100 days ago and make sure that what we said that time was not just a bunch of platitudes. that we meant it.

the desire to make a difference is what brought corey here today. corey grew up in oklahoma where heard that sold firearms at gun shows. today she is a mom and a teacher. she said that after newtown, she cried for days for the students who could have been her students, for the parents she could have known, for the teachers like her to go to work every single day and love their kids and want them to succeed. wasy says, now i decided the time to act. to march, the time to petition, to make phone calls because tears were no longer enough. and that is my attitude. tears are not enough, expressions of sympathy are not .nough, speeches are not enough we have cried enough.

we have not enough heartbreak. what we are proposing is not radical. it is not taking away anyone's gun rights. is something that if we are serious, we will do. now is the time to turn that heartbreak into something real. it will not solve every problem. there will still be tragedies and violence and still be evil, if we can make a difference not just the activists here on stage but the general public, including responsible gun owners, say, you know what? we can do better than this. we can do better to make sure that if your parents have to endure the pain of losing a child to an act of violence. that is what this is about. and if enough people like the

parents here today to involved and if enough members of congress take a stand for anderation and common sense lead and don't get squishy because time has passed and maybe it is not on the news , if that is who we are, our character that we are willing to follow through on commitments that we say are important, commitments to each other and our kids, then i am confident we can make this country a safer place for all of them. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. cabos america. [applause]

[applause] [applause]

>> as the president's remarks come to a close, his, as are span talk or c- breathe a we have a number of tweets on the issue -- we have a number of tweets on the issue.

we are taking your tweets. coming up today shortly, live coverage from the u.s. chamber of commerce as a poster annual aviation summit. coverage will start at 12:45 eastern with a panel of airline sierra's talking about the state of the airline industry. that will start at 12:45. here is a look at the portion earlier or boeing president and ceo discusses issues with the dream liner jumbo jet, when it will be back in service. >> tell us what is the latest on the 787? >> you are referring to the battery issue. have avery close -- we

high degree of confidence in the technical solution that we are testing right now. i think it will be sooner rather than later the tests would be completed and we will all look at the data. of a high degree of confidence that data will tell us and we will tell the faa, who are the decision makers here, the fix is what we needed to be and we will get this airplane back in service in due time. this has been a difficult time for us. we have this fabulous airplane -- none of the promise of this airplane really has been diminished by this. why do i say this? because there is nothing about a battery that needed to be fixed,

that impacted the other things that make this a special airplane. whether it is the 20% to 30% improvement in operating cost or the range of passenger comfort, all of those things. as a matter of fact, we have taken some of this time to tighten up some things and make sure we are in good shape as we get this back into service. it has been frustrating. had beeny the faa champs here. they put us through our paces. they have america's best interest in mind. they have the safety of the flying public in mind, as i hope we do it at this point i think means, let's get this thing back in service. aviationge of the summit coming up here on c-span at 12:45 eastern.

right now, a discussion on a number of hot-button issues, gay marriage, immigration, from this morning's ""washington journal." >> joining us is josh kraushaar. he is the politics editor at "national journal." how has the political conversation on same-sex marriage changed in the last six months to a year? guest: the political evolution has been dramatic. politicians are very normally cautious. even those who advocate for change are normally very cautious. they look at the polls and the political winds. to see how much movement we have seen in the past month alone where we have over half a dozen democratic senators switched their position and support same-sex marriage -- we saw kate hagen from north carolina, a southern state. last year it passed him -- it passed an amendment defining

same-sex marriage as between a man and a woman with a 60% support. a democrat from missouri, a very culturally conservative state, over the last week decided to support same-sex marriage. when you see democrats from some of the more conservative parts of the country it shows what we are seeing in these national polls. there has been as rapid speed in which the public has evolved from having a majority opposing to now 58% supporting it in the latest abc news washington post. host: what about the conversation in the republican party itself? guest: the evolution has been a little more subtle. instead of hearing republican candidate's campaign against same-sex marriage by making it a major part of their campaign your seeing more republicans is

not focus on it as a central issue. social issues to be one of the key wedge issues with the central part of the rally in the base. in the 24 -- in the 2004 presidential election, that put the issue of the rights on the back burner. there was a very important signal. if you talk to a lot of republicans, especially from the democratic leanings states, you will see they are not openly supporting gay marriage. they are not talking about social issues. they did not have the same level of opposition that you would see just two decades ago. host: what is senator hagen's approval rating? guest: she is not very well defined in her home state.

she has put herself on the map in a big way. she risks the prospect of social conservatives in a midterm election rallying to the polls, the vote against her. she is someone who's gonna be campaigning very hard and as current be one of the marquee races of 2014. host: you mentioned all of the senators changing their position. here's a list of them. democratof missouri, of virginia, democrat of west virginia, democrat of montana, just reelected, jay rockefeller. guest: there are two big takeaways. senatorriking that the from virginia, one of the most culturally conservative states in the country, is switching their view.

jay rockefeller is retiring after this term. folksg takeaway is from like mark warner in virginia and mark baggage in alaska. both of them are up for reelection in 2014 tweet alaska is a very republican state. this could be a very significant issue in the alaska senate race. nine let's look of the democratic senators who have not spoken out in favor of same- sex marriage. arkansas, delaware, pennsylvania, indiana, south dakota, -- guest: you will see that all of those senators are from very solidly republican state or states that have voted republican in recent presidential elections.

pryor was one of the few senators who responded to a washington post request on where he stood on key marriage. he is one of the few who defended the defense of marriage act. he actually went as far as defending where a lot of democratic senators have actually declined to comment or have been much more hesitant to talk on the subject. you're seeing this evolution. in the deep south -- it is one of the few holdouts we have a great hold up of evangelical voters, an electorate. you're not seeing the movement at the same speed as other parts of the country. host: banter is up for reelection next year? guest: yes. host: do you think we will see an announcement in the next year or so?

guest: i would not expected. one of the challenges for southern democrats is the electorate in a midterm election is more conservative and more republican than you would see in a presidential election. you would see higher turnouts from college students and minorities that may be more supportive of overturning these the marriage bans. you're not seeing that same kind of turnout in midterm year. i doubt eurydice anything before 2014. host: bill king tweet sen. -- tweets in -- guest: it is a real challenge for the republican party. we are hearing two issues that are in the national debate, immigration and the marriage. -- and a marriage.

immigration is a lot easier to move to the middle because it is not a value based issue. it is an issue where there is more room for compromise. on a marriage, when evangelicals and christian conservatives and religious voters are opposing, there is no room for compromise. there is no move to the middle. if republican officeholders move to the middle they could lose what are some of their strongest supporters. they may lose support of social conservatives, which is a key part of the party. they're in a tough situation. dc the movement among other voters, the generation gap when it comes to gay marriage. they do not want to risk losing the support they receive from older religious voters. host: "washington tim4s" this

morning -- guest: it was not all that surprising. forname is out there several months. democrats thought that this race -- they are fun to be putting in a lot of money if they get a good candidate. ashley realized that judd would have made this an interesting race. she had so much baggage when it comes to are socially liberal position. she was a candidate that have some much baggage. they realized that she may not be the right candidate.

i am sure there were a lot of back channel conversations between her and kentucky democrats. nowooks much more likely that secretary of state, who is a 34-year old state-wide official. kentucky is still a very conservative state. mitch mcconnell has already gone up with his first television ad and we are only in march of 2013, over one year before the election. he is taking his reelection very seriously. his job approval rating is not in good shape. he is vulnerable against the right kind of democrat. the right kind of democrat is a

more socially conservative democrat in the role of the governor's rather than someone like ashley judd. the key is for democrats to raise enough money against mcconnell. and can they basically get a candidate that it's the kentucky electorate? host: was sequestration a political victory for republican? guest: is short-term victory. the white house did not expect to lose in the short term. like in the case in the '90s between clinton and the house republicans, they thought it could betray republicans as not being willing to compromise. -- portray republicans as not being willing to compromise. instead you're seeing a lot more nuanced support for balancing the budget, for spending cuts. inre is a lot of distrust washington in general. a lot of voters were going with the notion that both parties were at blame.

whites not good for the house. when you're the president, when both parties are to blame -- he took the hit. orseems to have lost seven eight points. you're seeing a lie -- a delay because the white house knows that they have a rather big fight -- perhaps immigration and gun control. bey did not want to distracted. host: you called it a short-term victory but it benefited republicans. guest: it could if they do not fight every battle and they do not bring themselves in cutting spending. the risk for republicans is they are still focused on cutting every line in the budget

they are losing the forest for the trees. making sure the economy is in good shape. amongs a lot of anxiety americans. both sides are eager to come up with a plan so they can convince americans the economy will be growing. host: joseph tweets in. guest: it has only been several months and we are seeing the prospect of small measures when it comes to gun control. assault weapons ban is no longer part of the picture. it is hard to get republicans on board with those measures like background checks.

mayor bloomberg is trying to persuade members of congress to get on board with background checks. even he realizes the limits of the campaign. he except a small measure and enforcing background checks as something that would be a more significant win. the: josh kraushaar is politics editor for the "national journal." we take your calls and we begin with this call from ohio. hi. please go ahead. marriagen the gay debate. i am a democrat.

i am disappointed it has become a political issue more than a social standard issue. it is become a popular issue with republicans changing their minds after they campaigned against it. democrats saying it is a popular issue among voters. now it is becoming a political game instead of a social standard. my question would be, where is america going to go after this? if the supreme court repeals the ban and opens the floodgates. only allow every lifestyle choice to be an issue -- that wetheir life style and now

allow heroin addicts. that is their life style. do you see what i'm saying? seems the supreme court to be content to leave it up to public opinion. we have seen a -- i do not think there will be a sweeping ruling on prop 8 and the defense of marriage act. i think it will be left up to the individual states. the political support is what is going to allow something -- that has provided the momentum for gay marriage. public opinion would drive this

issue. host: the caller identifies as a democrat. would he change his vote? guest: that is an interesting question. there are four states that are liberal states. marginssed by narrow maryland and oregon. the polls might show movement and majority support but it is still a divided issue. not all democrats are on board with gay marriage. it divides democrats less so than it did 10 years ago.

asican-americans are not supportive of gay marriage. there is a divide in the democratic party. host: connie, good morning. caller: good morning. i have five granddaughters. one decided she wants to be homosexual. i should say i'm happy for her but i am not. that is what god says you do. the bible says god destroyed sodom and gomorrah.

god destroyed the two cities, man, woman, and child. are you going to stand up for god's word? are you going to go along with a few people? this country was dedicated to jesus christ. considerld you yourself a social conservative? anti-gay marriage? caller: those are very important to me. stand up for god's word. to want a few things given you or just say, well, i do not care.

god's to stand up for word if i am a born again christian. guest: this is the challenge for republicans. of have a significant base the party that is socially conservative. whether members of congress out with a more moderate view on gay marriage, it would upset and likely lower the enthusiasm for voters like connie to support republican candidates. this is a dilemma that republicans face. they want to cater to young voters. they need to understand that seniors should be a part of their coalition. host: hillary clinton plans a

round of speeches. guest: i think it is about time we will hear more about her 2016 plans. similees out of nowhere with a video to the human rights campaign talking about how she is supportive of gay marriage. signis a crystal clear that she is thinking about a presidential campaign. theic opinion has moved on issue. oflary clinton was secretary state. she could not have a political position in that role. she comes out for gay marriage. int: she is giving a speech new york on april 5.

c-span will be covering it. will we be breathless every time have a clinton steps outside her house? this: we look at democratic potential field. there aren't many -- candidates. a serious candidate for president. there are no up-and-coming prospects that fit that void. if she runs, you'll not see much serious opposition. she will be a formidable candidate. she can continue the clinton dynasty. host: what has happened with rand paul since his filibuster?

guest: rand paul is the republican to watch. rand paul is making a bet there is a sentiment within the republican party away from the george w. bush hawkishness record. he believes in already first and foremost. he took a rubio-like position on immigration. he is very savvy. nationalking at office. he is busying himself as someone who is fiscally conservative.

host: mary in west virginia. thank you for holding on. caller: thank you for c-span. the first prominent national figure that supported gay marriage was dick cheney during the vice-presidential debate. president obama has evolved to where dick cheney was. that was my comment. guest: the republicans like dick cheney and portman have because of a family member and they have a issue.ion to the someone might have a family member and they know somebody

that is openly gay and that is responsible for that sea change. cheney and poor men have done so in direct response to a family member coming out of the closet. host: brenda in washington. caller: hello. i wanted to talk about doma and the sequester. areybody wants to -- there massive divorces. but back to doma. this all started from hawaii that wanted to do something within their state and congress' jumped in and said, "no, you don't.' then with the sequester.

i work for the government and my husband works for the government. now wait 20% cut and three years of at the pay freeze. they want to take 20% on the backs of ordinary, hard-working americans and you cannot get 3% off of the ultra-wealthy? guest: a lot of the workers that been affected are around the beltway. talk to someone in the midwest or in the rust belt, there is a perception that government is doing very well. what is the harm in trimming salaries or the waste? it's not just the virginia-

maryland-d.c. area being affected by the sequester. willsaid certain benefits not go out. wouldaid the white house not offer quatorze. the most damage -- they said the white house would not offer tours. the public did not have the same reaction as they did with the other fiscal fights. it is an open question about whether these cuts and people start to feel the pain, whether that will hurt the republican party. there are challenges to show they can get people back to work. host: mike from mexico on the republican line. you're on with josh kraushaar.

caller: hi. how are you doing? we have talked about gun control. if they do -- the criminals will keep the guns. they are not going to give them away. if you want to have one, you should be able to have one. with gay marriage. my concern is where do we stop? another small step away. guest: first with the gun issue. overwhelming support for background checks. we will not see any action taken by congress in terms of

any kind of law being passed. of intensity is on the side the opposition. you do see majorities that support gun control. they do not think some of these gun control measures will have a significant effect on crime. the types of voters that will show up on the polls. we're seeing a divide between the polling and what is going on in congress. it is the intensity that favors the opposition. host: we have a tweet from sport-dog.

guest: i don't think you'll say too much of george w. bush. jeb bush -- his biggest baggage is his last name. his talk about education reform, immigration reform and equality in his most recent book. these are issues like those from marco rubio. notut is that bush will run. there is too much baggage. i think they are looking beyond bush or clinton. forarco rubio runs

president, the issue that bush had advocated will play a prominent role in the campaign. host: do you think that jeb bush has the same power that hillary clinton would have? guest: he would. a bush and clinton running against each other. i do think voters are sick of it by now. there is baggage for both candidates. people want to get past the clinton years. bill clinton is still a popular past president. brothercy of bush's still looms large. he has different views and he is his own man, i did not think he can overcome some of the bush baggage. host: there is an op-ed this morning talking about some of

the governors in the red states. is someone out there in a governors mansion that could appear on our radar screen? guest: scott walker from wisconsin. he seems open to a run for national office and he has the credentials with budget balancing. theould get reelected for third time if he wins in 2014. he would be a formal candidate. the other governor that has that balance is chris christie from new jersey.

we are talking about rand paul and marco rubio. you'll hear more about the governors that will be building resumes of their own and can argue that they grant a state and more successful. bobby jindal is already promised that territory. host: what about mitch daniels? guest: he accepted a job at purdue university. he has divorced himself from politics for the time being. he would have been a compelling candidate if he ran in 2012. he was in favor of fiscal reform and balancing the budget. i wonder if he could leave the university and run for president when there are so many talented republican figures also

in the mix. host: keith from tampa, florida. caller: good morning. my question is for josh. i notice the courts have made several comments regarding the ballot initiative with prop 8 in california. >> we believe this year to go live to the u.s. chamber of commerce further annual aviation conference. we will talk about the state of the airline industry. this is live coverage on c-span. becoming quiet, and that is a good sign. welcome back. i hope you have enjoyed the day so far. we still have some of the best yet to come. that really begins with this panel.

this is a terrific panel. it is truly one of the great crowd pleasers. i can tell you that if ever there was a panel that has been rated no. 1 overall of the others on a consistent basis, it is this panel. so we have some new players. we are delighted. we have a longtime player, someone who needs no introduction but i will introduce him anyway, and that is alan mccarter, the chairman as.airbus americ he is a sensational moderator. thank you. i will turn this panel over to you and we are expecting great things. >> thank you, carol. thank you very much. thank you for hosting what is

one of the best aviation forums we have during the year. it is a pleasure to be here and be a part of it. i am pleased to be joined by a panel of people with whom i have a great deal of personal respect and they're all good friends and so it will be interesting dialogue today. i want to build all on what we heard this morning, which i thought was fantastic refers to and therview with jim ,eo of the manufacturing panel lunch talk, all through the points of -- i want to highlight and discuss with this panel. looking back over this past year, it seems like yesterday we were just here with the 2012 summit. some of the comments from the ceo's were pretty prophetic. i looked back over this past year and the airline industry, certainly in the u.s., did ok.

not great, but ok considering the economy and high cost of $3.30 a gallon. in europe, will more challenging. we will talk about that in a moment. we were facing quite a head wind in the industry. said, what profits there were, basically better utilization, management techniques, more efficient utilization of fleet's and labor. as one of cautious optimism. that u.s. airlines might be doing a little bit better, assuming we don't have any pandemic is or unpronounceable volcanic activity in iceland. but you're i think will be in a

little tighter bind -- europe i think will be a little tighter bind. profits are very thin. nick t, i think it was that said his airline's are enjoying a net profit margin of one-tenth of 1%. that is hardly a stable model. that is about 21 cents per model that is profit -- per passenger that is profit. we have seen some other changes from five years ago, we had six international carriers and now there are soon to be three. that is quite a move. on our side of the business, on the manufacturing side, boeing and airubs have seen substantial activity. combine we sold or delivered about 1200 airplanes last year. our backlog continues to grow. we have about 9200 airplanes in

our combined backlog. that is seven or eight years of production, not a bad problem to try to solve. our production rates are high. 42 a month. boeing will probably be there and another year. i think we're all tried to increase our production. we have seen a turnover in the wheelhouse. we both have new ceos. ray connor came on board last summer, june. both bring a tremendous amount of experience to our industry. we have had some introductions of new airplanes, with certification of new planes. the introduction of both the 320 and 737 max.

it has been a year, quite frankly, of a lot of activity. to start today -- first, i want to call your attention to something i think we're all very proud of, and that is bad he has been awarded the air transport world's -- and that is that he has been awarded the air transport world lifetime achievement award. [applause] you have been around this rodeo for a long, long time. back to the spanish american war? [laughter] >> 46 years. >> 46 years. when you look at 2013, into this next year, and you look at the pressures on europe, which the economy is in fairly rough

shape, while we're talking about slight profits over here, we're talking either about sustained losses for european airlines, how do you see the 2013 calendar shaping up? >> you talk about europe. going up things are toward. i also can see in our business in two or three months we have a clear upward trend. every week we have new negative messages, the debt problem in several countries, but believe me, the strength of europe is not the politics. it is the industry. the industry is determined. the european industry is very strong. it is very successful in global competition.

i am generally very positive. >> i want to come back to a couple of your concentric things in a moment, but just asking the panel here, and 2013, crystal ball, dave, how to use the it? a goodink 2013 will be year. i thought the earlier comments about consolidation taking place here in the united states, what was missing in a commentary, bankruptcy. leading to the consolidation. it is good for what has transpired in the industry. looking at capacity, literally plan for this year, you commented about the employment as our profitability last year. i think that is certainly going to be a higher number in 2013. unlikely beyond. we heard this with people are looking at turning the cost of capital if not more so. we are very optimistic 2013 and nd