now that i have two children, the stakes feel even higher. thank you, tom and susan. i consider myself immensely fortunate to have collaborated with both of you. there are two no more dedicated professionals on this earth. no more strategic stewards of our foreign-policy than these two individuals. i moved to the united states from ireland with my parents when i was nine years old. i remember very little about landing and pittsburgh except i was sure i was in the largest airport in the history of the world. i remember what i was wearing. a red, white, and blue stars and stripes t-shirt. i always wore it in ireland on special occasions. even as a little girl with a

thick dublin accent. i knew it was a symbol of fortune and freedom. came to learn not to find opportunity, one did not need to wear the flag. the next three months, i came home from school every day sat in front of the mirror for hours straightening so i couldrogue speak and be american. came across a letter written by his father who was a navy lieutenant. he stopped briefly in san francisco after fighting in the pacific and he wrote to his 45, then april 25, 19 very day the nations of the world are coming together in san francisco to establish the new united nations and, in this

letter to my mother-in-law, who i never have the chance to meet, he wrote excitedly, conference starts today, the town is going wild with excitement. it's a pleasure to be here for the opening few days. let's pray they accomplish something. let's pray they accomplish something. the question of what the united states can accomplish for the world and the united states remains a pressing one. i have seen you and aid workers in during shellfire to deliver food to the people of sudan, yet i have also seen peacekeepers fail to protect the people of bosnia. the most powerful and inspiring country, we have a critical role in playing that insisting they meet the necessities of our time. it can do so only with american leadership. it would be an incomparable privilege to earn the support of the senate and to play a role in this essential effort,

one of which are common security and common humanity depend. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the next up on "washington journal," maryland -- member of the oversight committee discussing the upcoming hearing on irs spending abuse. from southressman carolina, member of the judiciary and oversight eric holder's

future. journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. thursday, a hearing to examine spending on employee conferences. the house oversight and government reform committee will the irstimony based on inspector general. live coverage beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> when you put on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job, this is true if you are a building janitor or a sanitation worker. you are subsumed by the role to where it's almost like you are just a part of the background, almost like a machine. you are a human being wearing that uniform. and it reallyyou

just doesn't see you. i have called it that it is like a romulan cloaking device emma for those of you who are fellow star trek geeks or harry potter's cloak of invisibility. it is frustrating and also an interesting privilege. when i wear the sanitation worker uniform, i observe people in ways they do not realize i am observing them. >> department of sanitation anthropologist in residence, robin nagle on c-span's "q and ." >> a funeral service was held today. he died monday at the age of 89. this hour-long portion includes remarks by former secretary of state hillary clinton, vice president biden, and members of the lautenberg family.

>> i was getting up from the pew and moving into the aisle, the vice president said, quot "d ."ck following that that had crossed my mind as i was listening to him. frank would have loved that. i can see the casket vibrating [laughter] like so many of my colleagues from the senate who are here, i have the great privilege of and i found frank

myself often sitting with him in the back row. frank came back to the senate, as you know, after retiring the missing the work, the advocacy, and the opportunity to speak his mind and do things for his constituents. when you first come to the senate, you are assigned a seat and it's usually in the back. i would often sit with him and we were having what we affectionately would call vote- o-rama. back,st your vote, go sit down, mill around, and frank always had something to say. it was usually a running commentary about what we were doing and what we were not doing. , which have been

referred to, which all of us have gotten very used to would sit with frank and you just could not help but have a smile on your face, at least one time during the conversation. , it's notould say where you sit that counts, it's where you stand. wherewas never any doubt he stood. he did stand with those keep theiro children safe from toxic chemicals, from smoking, drunk driving. he stood with the victims of gun violence, hiv-aids. he stood with veterans trying to follow in his footsteps and go from service to school to success in civilian life. proudly with the working people of new jersey trying to provide for their families, to build businesses

like frank and his two friends had, to pursue the american dream. he stood with the writers of amtrak. , he stood as we have all seen beautifully today, with his beloved family. he would talk about you all the time. invoke you from the senate floor. especially the grandchildren. explaining why he fought so in. for what he believed it was always for you. children, and the children yet to come. frank was also a steadfast champion of women's rights and opportunity. i have heard now, perhaps, why he had to be. [laughter]

i have to tell you, we did consider him kind of an honorary member of the women's senators club. [laughter] barbara mikulski, the longest- serving woman in the senate, has a phrase for those of our male colleagues who really go the extra mile on behalf of women. gallahads.hem our frank was one of them and he would have been the first to say that he was doing it for his daughters and granddaughters. when he left the senate -- the first time in 2000 -- he mused on the future. he hoped that someday, one of my grandchildren would open a history book and say, there was

my grandfather. he was the one who stopped smoking on airplanes. he was the one who raised the drinking age to 21 saving thousands of families from having to mourn the loss of a child. things to help this country that will last far beyond his service in the senate. well, we do not have to wait for the history books. and women who we have heard from could not the prouder of their pop-up. let me offer just one more memory that has stayed with me for a long time. in 1979, frank and i went to new jersey to meet with the first planeload of refugees fleeing the conflict in kosovo. , tired and00 people scared, many of them women and

children with little more than the clothes on their backs. the general in charge said he wanted to welcome the refugees, just as his own grandparents had been welcomed at ellis island. i watched frank talk with the families, put his arm around them. this man who had grown from poverty, this veteran who had helped liberate europe in world ii. whose own parents had come through ellis island with nothing but a dream who had written a law that allowed more than 400,000 people to escape religious persecution by coming to the country he loved. here he was again representing the best of who we are as americans. surprise and concern,

frank and i noticed that one of the women coming off the plane was very pregnant and quite dehydrated. she was a to a nearby hospital on a stretcher and the next day, she gave birth to a little boy. i remember how proud frank was that this baby was born, he said, and freedom, and security, in new jersey. [laughter] and how incredibly moved he was when the parents decided to name that little boy america. after the country that welcomed him. frank just loved it. now, the late robert byrd, a many of us to so once took to the floor to too pd tribute to frank. he quoted a point by emerson

that asks, what makes a nation great? ,he answer is not gold or arms but leaders who stand fast and suffer long, who work while others sleep, who dare while others lie. frank lautenberg was such a leader. he dared greatly and he led boldly. we are safer, stronger, and more prosperous because he did. are with his wonderful family. he wasw, he loved and loved. after all, that's what makes a great life. thank you, frank. [applause]

>> secretary clinton, thank you so much for your words. danielle, laura, we call on you. act to follow,d too, madam secretary. >> i'm danielle, or as frank 1.e to call me dan or step >> my sister, step 2. , frank wasple here an accomplished man on many levels, most notably in business as a philanthropist and in his role as a truly publicve and passionate servant who leaves a treasure trove of legacies that will impact us for decades to come.

and learned from that, but i adored and cherished my frank, or frankie poo. brought frank into our lives, he became our great person. early on, it would be safe to say that we hated each other. we had terrible battles because he was never wrong and i neither understood or cared what a senator was. sorry to all of your wonderful colleagues, now i do. that he was a man spending time with my mom. frank was a fighter. in his public life, he fought for things he passionately believed in but in his private life he fought sometimes just because he felt like fighting and he wanted to be right. andas incredibly stubborn incredibly passionate, but as

the years passed, our relationship developed into one of mutual understanding and respect and it turned into one of the best friendships i've ever known. we would still fight at times but it would end with one of us saying, you are wrong but i still love you. when my mom and frank finally decided to make it official -- i'm8 years of dating sorry. 16. i'm bad at math. only was i thrilled, but i was so happy i could finally refer to them as my parents. even though it felt like we had been family for so long, somehow making it legal was so meaningful. somewhere in the last 25 years, he became my dad. he cared about me, worried about me. he comforted me when i was sadder heartbroken and he looked at me like a father looks at his daughter. his beautiful blue eyes would light up when i walked into her room. we could talk and laugh for

hours and know what the other is thinking. we respected and cared about each other's thoughts. i love dancing with him at his date tobeing events when bob was unavailable and just hanging out at home. i loved watching him make others laugh. at the white house holiday party, frank thought it would be fun to introduce me to the late senator thurmond. , nice to meet you. it looks like you need a big hug. boy, did i get one. [laughter] he was a strong man for his age and surprisingly affectionate. [laughter] frank was hysterical.

he loved the setting me up for it. he loved telling a joke, funny story, or telling a prank, but he loved seeing the joy of others. while he was sick and reflecting on his life, he would often say to me, you're not my blood but you are bmine. will always beu mine, too. my protector and the most special second dad to me. but hudsonrokeen, was lucky to haev you. i know you will watch over us and protect us. when you meet my dad, i know you will love each other. i know you will have a great time exchang aing stories about

bon andnie for etern whoity. eternity.onnie for franco way you brought excitement to my wife and i will be forever grateful for the time we had together. rest bees. i love you. piece. in >> i know frank is kvelling. it seems like yesterday when mom told me about her new special friend. the early days were tough and our personalities did not gel. you did not get me and i did not get you. it was not until fifth grade when i begin to appreciate, respect, and maybe even like you. we needed to prepare a project relating to the smoking ban on

airplanes. my classmates labored over posters. i walked in with recorded interview with you. [laughter] this marks the beginning of a very meaningful and special relationship. and i got an a. our family of three soon begin a family of four. you became the mail rodel -- role model we needed. our country needs more role models like you. you taught us to fight hard for what we really even -- belive in. so many thingse i will miss about you. i will miss your endless phone calls especially when you wanted to send flowers to mom, whether it was a birthday, anniversary, or apology flowers, and there were plenty of those over the years. you would call and say, i want to send flowers to bon.

what's the name of that flower shop? i would roll my eyes and yell at him i would give him the same answer. frank, i've given you the name and number of million times. linda has the number. it's on your iphone. but of course, i will give it to you again. we would chat about the kids and catch up. i choose to believe your voice at the number but just wanted to call and say hello. we had weekly dinners where you restaurante your italian. you said "no garlic." you'd say it to the waiters, bus boys. i think you said it in a japanese restaurant. i will miss you too early when i look up to her bedroom terrace and you're not there.

i will be waiting for you to interrupt us. you never understand why we never stopped watching. the simplest things in life gave you the best pleasure. you would have a smile on your face. lare, have you ever tried this roasted corn? every weekend, the same corn, the same dialogue. i will miss the sound of your whistle. our country has lost the joy of momento -- giant of a man. you be the world to all of us. , weour wonderful children thank you for sharing your dad with us.

your pal wants to give you a little advice. wherever you may be, keep your head down. the fairway is right (you. rest in peace. we love you. -- wide open for you. >> danielle, laura, thank you for your beautiful words. vice president biden, we call on you to speak of your friend and colleague, senator lautenberg. >> if there is a definition of redundant, i am it.

[laughter] yo by the way, i'm representing the pope. i am the only catholic jew he knew. hillary, i think you were thinking about the same thing i was. i just wish the whole country could have heard all of you, not even about senator frank lautenberg. but just about the definition of what it means to be a successful man. i really mean that.

i have, as a lot of my colleagues, i have spoken at more eulogies than i would like to remember. you have all ready broken eggs -- broken a rule. good eulogy. you will be asked again and again. all kidding aside, what a testament to frank's life. of us could say, including me, could decide what a man he was more than what you have all spoken. there is not one of us who knew frank, and i knew him for over 25 years, not a one of us who until i have grandchildren and i try to match him. then he stopped.

i'm the most obnoxious grandfather of the world. wrong. frank was the most obnoxious. [laughter] by the way, danielle, i knew strom thurmond so well, i was asked to do his eulogy. this one's a lot easier. [laughter] but i want to tell you knew him well, but ofwould be plowed -- proud your recollection. he would be proud the way you described him. [laughter] gosh, i'm about to get myself in trouble. [laughter]

i'm sure, like senator menendez and secretary clinton, i'm truly honored to be included to ask to speak about a guy who was my friend. thatw from experience there is nothing anyone can say. they can do nothing to fill the void, the emptiness in your just get sucked in. i know from personal experience, the profound loss, it just takes time. i realize it's beyond my capacity to find the words to do justice to frank lautenberg. obviously i cannot do justice for what he meant to all of you, or even what he meant to me.

to this country. if you excuse what he used to , he was one ofte my closest friends in the senate. it started in delaware, new jersey we had so much we worked together on. , i was a young united states senator who had been in for three years anne frank was chairman of the united jewish appeal. and franksee frank asked me to speak. and i meanely -- immediately -- became friends. the thing that i admired about frank so much was that he always thought in terms of what he .ould do, what he should do

he always thought practically. what can i do to make it that are? ?- to make it better it was real simple. , at least in my observation. there is a problem? we should fix it. i believe the greek philosopher eric leedy's was correct when he ,aid character is destiny character is destiny. for everyone else about frank whether you agreed, disagreed, they all acknowledge that frank had great character, exceptional character. we saw that not only in how he lived his life but how he died. serving the people of new jersey

until the very end. i know you joke, josh, about your dad saying he wish he had not had made that speech, but bonnie would tell you he started at christmas time calling me. he had to see me. had to see me. and i said, frank, are you ok? he said i have to see you, but i won't talk to you on the in theecause we were middle of another crisis in the senate and did not quite work out. i see barbara mikulski smiling. i remember when i came up to explain that last deal and i remember you and i were talking frank grabbed me and said, i've got to see you, got to see you. we worked it out and frank came .own

he said maybe, you can come up to the senate. i did. i went to the ceremonial office. , bonnie.he told you we spoke for about two hours. he wanted my advice -- should he run again? [laughter] what in the hell do you say to frank lautenberg when he says, should i run again? [laughter] even then he was slowing a little bit and he knew it. , look. frank i think you would win if you ran again. i think even chris christie would vote for you. [laughter] by the way, the governor and i are friends. we both love the university of delaware. we both went there. i even asked him to come out and cheer for a game. i offered him a ride on air

force two. i really did. one of the advantages. i said, frank, what are you thinking? we talked down talk. , ok emma i was send you some data. i was going to germany. there's a guy in germany i want you to talk to, and i will talk to you. and then we met again. your dad was getting a little bit more frail. he said, what do you think? i think you should. he called me again. this was over about two and a half months and he said, joe, i won't use the exact language, but he said, i don't think i can run.

i legs. my legs. hewas clear to me desperately desperately wanted to run again. i think the reason is not .ecause he wanted to be senator your dad never quit. he never quit anything. he never gave up. he never gave in. for frank lautenberg to decide that he was not going to run was not only a decision about whether he cared about his state, it was about his character. he viewed it in terms that he was quitting something.

my dad, whom some of my colleagues knew and hillary knew. he is to have an expression -- and never explain and never complain. your dad never explained and in terms of -- well, he complained a lot. [laughter] he did not complain about his circumstance. he never complained about what life through his way. right to the very end. the last meeting he took was with senator vedder. i don't know if the senator is here or not tom a but two weeks at a bipartisan breakthrough to bring more transparency to toxic chemicals used in everyday products. frank lautenberg, two weeks before he died. he knew. knowing what shape he was in. even in his final days, it was not his health that was

concerned about, it was the health of the people of new jersey, the health of the kids in this country. he left you all an incredible legacy. , stepchildren, grandchildren. what an incredible legacy he has left you. to whatthere is no and can be accomplished if you work like the devil. he was tenacious. he worked in the work. this guy who was raised, as has been pointed out many times, , when hettle money

joined the army at age 18 and shipped out. when he came back, he proudly went to columbia. he did not just go to school. he went to columbia. anyone who knew frank would not .e at all surprised none of them or that old, unfortunately. frank was passionate about it. absolutely passionate about it. he knew what it could mean. he knew what it could do. done with he did was passion and success. f adp. proud o

he was proud. proud. proud to be a jew. proud of his heritage. proud. senator.be a u.s. like me and my colleagues, it's the greatest owner i think he can be bestowed upon you. greatest honor. i don't think there are many -- and some of them h ave done great things, btu there are not many senators who can, in the immediate time that they are active, see immediately the effects of the good things

they've done.f frank was able to do that. notwithstanding the fact that it probably got near in trouble in college when he changed the drinking age to 21. as the secretary of transportation ray lahood can tell you, he saved over 25,000 lives so far. .eople not smoking on airplanes how many thousands more lies has saved?me? -- has that he's the reason why since 1980 900s of thousands of jews and other persecuted minorities have been able to come to america. he's the reason why domestic abusers are prohibited from

, saving so many more lives, as dick durbin knows. in thebly wrote violence against women act that frank, even then, thought we should have had that in it and he did not rest until he got it done. his healtheven when was failing, he never gave up, never gave in. , amtrakre not for frank would not be what it is today. that's no exaggeration. i want to tell you something. in historyiterally -- has ridden amtrak more than frank. over 8000 round trips i have , literally, between

washington and wilmington. i never had a home or an apartment in 36 years and wilmington. the conductors were like my family, as the secret service knows. they were worried the first time i got on board. one of my best friends comes over and says -- joey! i thought he was going to get shot. [laughter] they are still my buddies. the train, as my colleagues know, every single day. i got it down to seven minutes. to theinutes to make it train. sometimes, i would miss the train. one day, i'm breaking my neck to get to the train. i'm sprinting. if you ever take the amtrak now, ask anybody when you hit washington station if they know joe biden, they will tell you a story about me trying to make a train. i am like those old commercials

running for the airplane, jumping over chairs. thinkrrying my bag and i the staff deliberately loaded down with waste to slow me down. i swear to god, true story. the conductor says, joe, hold up. don't worry. we are it for lautenberg. -- we are holding it. [laughter] [applause] and molly -- in all my years, i never asked them to hold the train on me. every christmas, have the conductors and their families over for dinner. i got so big we would have a picnic. these guys, they never once held it for me. chris, don't

worry, joe. we're holding it for frank lautenberg. the wilmington train station has a lot more people than the lautenberg train station. [laughter] the bidenrred to as train station. you cannot find the name biden one place on the train -- not one! a amtrak new york it is like neon sign -- lambert, lambert. it's amazing, man. lautenberg!g, i've been writing longer than all of them. [laughter] man, i tell you. he did make a difference, josh. he got me on that train occasionally. i saved amtrak three times before he was elected. this't know how the hell happened, you know what i mean? [laughter]

that's mostly true. [laughter] your dad and i -- i won't say. a call where he actually asked him we spoke about it. he said joe, i think we should have one train. he said it's going to go from washington in make one stop in philadelphia and then know your. i said, over my dead body. you think i'm kidding? that's the only time. frank tama i say, you are a powerful guy, but i'm german. -- i'm chairman. you will not get another judge in new jersey. i promise you.

cut outoing to try to the delaware station. he said joe, imagine what it would mean. i said, yes. you're going to have to lend me the money to buy a place in washington. look. that frank always had to be in the game. that is what i loved about your father. , too mucho be done left unsettled, too many injustices to write, too many people needing help. for frank, the thing i loved about him, like me, he loved the senate. he saw it as the place he could all of then philanthropy, the influence he had in the community, he believed that he was right. there's no no place he could do as much to impact the people he cared about than in the united

states senate. came back. i remember him saying to me when he was leaving in 2000. frank, why are you doing this? it's time. shortly thereafter i was doing a fundraiser for a new jersey candidate and frank was there. he looked at me and he said, i miss it. what a big mistake. let a big mistake. then he came back. , there it's fair to say was no one happier than me when he did. everything frank did shows character. as a consequence, it would earn the admiration of friends and political foes alike. look at how many of his colleagues are here today. domino and in all the years we have served together, ,o one ever doubted -- frank and all of the years we served together, no one ever doubted

that when frank said something, he meant it. his word.r doubted no one ever wondered whether or not he would keep whatever commitment he made, even if his political circumstances had changed and it was difficult to keep the commitment. as my colleagues know, the most valuable commodity, the most valuable capital anyone can have in the congress is their word. frank had his word. you are talking about your dad repeating things and i remember how the hell i drive my kids crazy. one expression we repeat all the time is the one used in my family constantly. it was my mother. she would always say, you are defined by your courage and you

are redeemed by your loyalty. you are defined by your courage and you are redeemed by your loyalty. friend, hewas your was your friend. he never calculated how the friendship of loyalty would somehow affect his interest reminding you of the saying your dad would repeat. a friend is someone who walks in when others walk out. a friend is someone who walks in when others walk out. every difficult political moment in my life, your father walked in. he did not walk out. every difficult time i had, he walked in. i suspect many of my colleagues would tell you the same thing. for more than 25 years, we were with one another and he was always there. , both physicalge and moral current age. on the streets when he was a kid in patterson, in europe in

slope.ar ii, a downhill i is to ski with him all the .ime, but that's another story you know, watching him, i remember watching him in the 1970's asking if i wanted to go helicopter skiing. helicopter skiing means you get in a helicopter and it takes you up above the lift line with the lift doesn't go on the very top of the mountain where you cannot get there other than being dropped off any helicopter. , he wasot mistaken doing that into his early 70's. i'm told, although i did not do it with him, but as late as three or four years ago he was skiing that where -- that way, downhill skiing. , frank had the courage of his convictions and he acted on those convictions.

frank would even talk about himself sometimes about his public speaking. frank's speeches were not marked by their eloquence. , hean this sincerely overcame it. eloquence and elegance of his .onvictions he spoke with principle and purpose. he always spoke with principle and purpose. this is a self-made man, a wealthy man who spoke to the poor, the disadvantage, the dispossessed and you could taste it when he spoke of it. even before he entered politics, he spoke with resounding commitment for the security of israel, the fate of the jews behind the iron curtain. rabbi, as you said, and abiding awareness of his roots. he never lost sight of the fundamental moral commitment to

israel and he never, ever backed off his political convictions for expediency. in the words of shakespeare, he was a man. shallfor all and all, i not look upon his like again. , heeas the irish would say was a man. he was a real man. [applause] allice president biden, we thank you for your moving and beautiful tribute. bonnie, we call on you to speak of your beloved.

>> i just want to thank the vice president and the madame secretary, bob menendez. you all spoke beautifully. this is an extraordinary gathering for a great man and i thank everyone for being here. it's just an amazing turnout and frank would be so proud to have you here. i want to welcome governor christie, former governor , thene, secretary lahood entire senate delegation. the pouring out of love from all of you to me, to frank, the family, i cannot thank you enough for being here -- everybody. all the representatives, hugitaries, and a special

and a thank you to hear he read. thank you for making this happen and getting everything done for us in washington. you have been amazing. the cousin of senator reed, frank will be the second in history to lie in the well of the senate chamber. his casket will sit on the same lock that held the casket of president abraham lincoln. on friday morning, he will be buried in arlington cemetery in a military ceremony including a 21-gun salute. you may wonder why this is so iique for the last world war veteran in the united states senate. most people prepare where they want to rest in the hereafter -- not frank. he told me he wanted to be in arlington cemetery so his grandchildren and great- grandchildren would come to washington and look for their grandfather to be proud that he served in world war ii.

frank, you have to make plans. fill out the papers, so when the time is right you can go there immediately. it could take one month or more if you're not prepared. he never did anything. he could not face his mortality and figured somehow it would get done. and harry reid did it. miraculously. so, thank you harry from me and the entire family. [applause] today is a celebration of frank's life and the only thing that would have made him have here is this this was a fundraiser for his next campaign. you heard, he did not want to retire. had he been well, you would've put up the good fight to stay in the senate. he would have been so proud of it.

what was it like being followed -- married to this renaissance man who actually accomplished all the things you saw on tv? difficult? interesting? challenging? loving, amazing. what a life we had. together over 25 years, married for more than nine. he was the most positive person i knew. he just looked forward and made things happen. he had a vitality and a smile i fell in love with 25 years ago and i never lost that love. he was my prince charming. he would call me every day from the senate and we would speak all the time in the senate cloak room when you were working until the wee hours of the morning and he would tell me what was going to be on the front page of "the new york times." that was before the internet and 24-hour news. he introduced me to governors, heads of states, union leaders,

actors, directors, ordinary people who always came up to him to thank him for his work. he loved them all and treated everyone with the same respect and warmth. he would tell the same jokes over and over and i would laugh. he got offended if i would chime in when he would he telling them. every time he had a new audience, i would hear the same story. after a while i hated introducing him to anyone new. there were extraordinary times with frank, like the time we got .nto a taxi the taxi driver had a russian accent. he asked the driver, how did you get to this country? he said, the lautenberg .mendment o frank says, that's me. the taxi driver said -- no!

frank, yes! driver, no! and so it went on. it was so amazing to see how you can make such a difference in someone's life and how much the taxi driver really appreciated what he did. hisid not want to take money but frank insisted we pay. frank suffered a ski injury and 30 days later he said, i'm seeing stars. we went to a hospital in new york because we had a good neurologist and we lucked out with a great surgeon. he had a bilateral hematoma and the doctors successfully operated on him. he was supposed to speak to about 1500 people at the chamber of commerce dinner in washington and frank was not going to miss the dinner. he got his favorite navy suit, got dressed to the nines on the waist up and had camera crews set up in a hospital room and gave his beach with all of the hospital apparatus hanging out

of his jacket. no one had any idea he was in the hospital. .e never missed a beat speaking of doctors, it's a perfect time to say thank you to all the doctors that held frank along the way starting with bill, marty goldberg, his friend and cardiologist, james holland who cured frank from lymphoma and has been a friend for 40 years and then to all the doctors who cared for frank at new york presbyterian who try to make frank healthy, but with several issues, he could not fight the viral pneumonia. to the caregivers who took loving care of frank, thank you very lay and to my domestic engineer who was there for frank at every moment and who he depended on for her able assistance. we owe so much to dan, brendan, the entire lautenberg staff. what would we have done without the extraordinary group of intelligent people who did not miss a beat?

they cap the engine revving through his entire illness and they cap the dark runs out. i cannot thank you enough. thank you to all of the lautenberg staff past and present to make his career the success that it was. he could not have done it without you. [applause] to linda, thank you for being a dear senate assistant to frank and being so helpful to me. you were always ready, willing, and able. eleanor,le assistant who took care of all of his personal business so that frank should concentrate on his senate career. he depended on her and respected her friendship for over 45 years. elliot, dan, rabbi and the entire staff at the park avenue synagogue, thank you for this beautiful service. [applause]

performing today and for your extraordinary generosity, talents and taking the time to sing frank's favorite songs. he lived he lived the impossible dream and always did it his way. to gail, thank you for the beautiful music selection. i love the love and adoration he gave to my children and grandchildren. he was an amazing role model. he was the father they loved. he taught us how to think at a deeper level and stimulated us in a way we had not known prior to his coming in our lives. his biological children and grown -- and grandchildren are an amazing group who he endorse. -- adores. they are grateful their dad had a family that was geographically convenient. [laughter] throughout his illness, we spent a lot of time together.

it was a blessing for all of us. when he was finally at peace. we leave here today to go to the caucus, to the train station that bears his name, and we will bring him home to new jersey one last time. it is a sentimental journey that will take us to washington dc, the country's capital where they served for 28 years. there was not a time where he was driving in washington when he did not say how much he loved his job as senator, even with all the difficulties and frustrations. he felt like he was in the world series every day. his job stimulated and challenge it -- challenged him. frank, i was so happy to take care with you, but it hurt every day watching you suffer. you told me i had done everything for you possible except to give birth to your children but you love me as if

i did. rest in peace, my love. i will miss you always and thank you for the most beautiful memories and an extraordinary life. [applause] >> vice president biden, secretary clinton, senator menendez, to each of the children and grandchildren, thank you for your words, spoken from the heart. each thought and memory for a -- is a brush stroke for a portrait of a life well lived, worthy of continued admiration and study, a life whose ideals will serve for the are of aspiration for so many here and so many not here today. as i mentioned, senator

lautenberg said each of us will not arrive in the promised land. in that sense, the service taking place on this side of the jordan and hudson has a poignancy verging on the poetic. said the accounts decree was given even as moses resisted. god bottom -- brought moses to the top of mount. he would have a chance to see the journey ahead. a legend explains it was not a blessing ofas seeing into the future, the compassionate act of being able to see one's legacy extends beyond one's lifetime. two children and grandchildren. for generations to come. on that morning as his life passed into god's embrace, a similar tussle may have taken

place in the heavens between senator lautenberg and his divine sparring partner. he knew he enjoyed not just the blessing of a life well lived, but the comfort of knowing his essence would be for a blessing into the future. so, too, today, tomorrow, and the months and years ahead, through our words, memories, and the eads. we have the obligation to ensure even in loss, the extended shadow of senator lautenberg extends long past this day, and in so doing, individually and collectively, we will ensure his memory is a blessing for generations to come. amen. please rise for the memorial prayer.

♪

♪

♪ infinite rest in your presence among the holy and pure. for the sole of senator frank to hiserg, who has gone eternal home.

we ask our loved ones find perfect peace in your eternal embrace. may his life be bound up in the bond of life. may his soul rest in peace. let us all say, amen. i would ask that everyone remained standing in their seats as the family escorts the casket out of the building. the immediate family toward the capitol police, who will lead the procession. following the families recession, i will ask you remain in your seat until the official party has exited according to the directions. on thursday for the senate floor and a burial in the cemetery on friday morning. may the memory of frank lautenberg be for an internal blessing. amen.

>> amen. ♪ ["america the beautiful" playing]

♪

>> coming up on the next "washington journal," carolyn maloney. she will discuss the open hearing on irs spending abuses. then, north carolina, members of the judiciary committee on other issues in congress. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. thursday, a hearing to extend an irs spending on employee conferences. the house oversight and government reform committee will hear testimony related to an audit. 9:30coverage starting at a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> house budget committee vice chairman of georgia was

interviewed on wednesday by the christian science monitor. he discussed healthcare, the debt ceiling, immigration, and issues facing the republican party. this is about one hour. >> thanks for coming. i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest today is representative tom price of georgia, vice chair of the house budget committee. his last visit here was in october, 2009. we welcome him back. he's a michigan native who graduated from the university of michigan and medical school. his father and grandfather were also physicians. our guest did his residency at orthopedic surgery at emory medical school. he was elected to the state senate in 199 and became a majority leader in 2002. he was elected to congress in 2004. and according to "washington post" story, transformed himself into a republican guerrilla warrior, serving as chairman of the republican policy committee and as the republican study

committee. in addition to the budget committee, he currently is a member of the ways and means and education and work force panels. so much for biography. now on to mundane mechanical matters. as always we are on the record here. please no live blogging or tweeting, no filing of any kind while the breakfast is underway. there is no embargo when it's over except c-span has agreed to not use this video session for at least one hour after the breakfast ends to give those of us in the room a chance to file. if you'd like to ask the questions, please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i'll call on you. we'll start off by offering our guest to make opening comments then we'll move to questions from around the table w that again thanks for doing this. >> thanks to all of you for allowing me to join you this morning. look forward to a good repartee. i will just make a few comments and just cloak them in the sense

that i'm the eternal optimist. i always believe that things are possible, even in this town. and i think that there are great opportunities from a budgetary standpoint from a tax reform standpoint, the biggest issues and challenges we have in this country absolutely must be addressed. folks on both sides of the aisle appreciate and understand that. our challenge is to figure out how to navigate the shoals of the increasing partisanship that has developed here in this town and pass policy that will benefit the american people. happy to talk about whatever issues you'd like to discuss. health care, budget, fiscal issues. >> you are in danger of setting a record for brevity here in the opening comments. thank you for doing that. i'll ask one or two and we'll go to paul krause and move around the table. let me ask you, talked about being an optimist and possibilities and budgets and other things, the "wall street journal" had a piece earlier this week that the odds to reduce the long-term deficit have grown much worse. and "journal" cited the shrinking federal deficit,

slowing health care costs, and partisan gridlock, meaning any kind of a big budget deal was not likely until after the 2014 mid terms. is that a view you disagree with? >> yes. because i think that the mechanism has been put in place, that is that both the house and senate have passed a budget. as you'll recall the senate hadn't passed a budget in four years. with the prodding of house action earlier, the no budget, no pay act, we encouraged our colleagues on the other side of the capitol to pass a budget. they have done so. the mechanism is in place along with reconciliation to be able to get to a bigger solution than we have had available to us in the past four years. that paired with the fact that the economic situation, although

potentially a little less challenging than it was a couple months ago, is still foreboding. we continue to have deficit that is are unsustainable. we continue to have a debt that is unsustainable. and the only way to get those items under control is through tax reform and entitlement reform. i think both those facts are appreciated on both sides of the aisle. now it just takes the will and leadership to be able to get it done. >> also your colleagues in the other body being willing to go to conference. >> exactly. the mechanism is in place allows us to move to the next step, which we haven't been able to do. >> that's one for me. off to paul. yesterday's "post" had a detailed report on your caucus, and among adjectives from members of the congress, were a drift, fractured, and leadership team still learning to work together and rank and file so green even the leaders' allies tune them out sometimes. how would you assess the state of the g.o.p. in the house so far this season? >> i think if you take where the conference was on january 2, which was at a pretty low point, and you fast forward these five

months, i any that what we have seen is a real coalescing and maturing of the conference in a way that has allowed us to get through the challenge of the sequester. get through the challenge of the continuing resolution. pass a budget that embraces positive solutions for the country and all sorts of different areas. resequence the debt ceiling discussion and debate. and manner that will be before us now, october-november time frame. i think that the successes of this conference have had early have been noteworthy. what is -- as my mom used to say is it takes two to tango, unless the senate is willing and desirous of working to solve the greater challenges that we have, then we'll continue to work on these issues in a unilateral way, but our desire is to have it be in a bipartisan way and bicameral way. i think that we've got our sea legs and moving forward.

>> paul, where are you? >> congressman ryan has been trying to reach the framework with senator murray before going to conference on the budget resolution. can you talk about what kind of framework you think that they could agree on, and number two, do you think what's most likely is that a conference will be saved until later in the year and could be used as part of debt limit increase? >> yeah. i think that it's important for people to know that chairman murray and chairman ryan are indeed meeting and talking with great regularity and trying to come to an agreement on the parameters of a budget conference.

that framework would be less specific than you-all and others might want, but it's important to develop that framework before we sit down in a conference so it's not just a free-for-all. so the issues of whether or not tax reform is directed by the conference committee, whether that's an issue that is included, whether or not entitlement reform and maybe some parameters around what that means, what the 302-a level of the overall level is, is it the 966-67 level, or is it where the senate appears to be writing their appropriations bills to, the 1058, those kinds of things are important to know before you sit down otherwise the word adrift was used for something else earlier. i think the conference committee

would be adrift and not have the focus that's needed. >> we are going to go to david grant. >> the second, do you think what's most likely is budget resolution conference is delayed until toward the end of the year and it's used as part of raising the debt limit? >> i don't know the timing is necessarily the end of the year, but i do believe that the budget conference is the vehicle, if there is an opportunity, to come to a solution on the debt ceiling. that the budget in congress is the vehicle for that. >> david grant, eric, and cheryl. david. >> if i could follow-up, and one quick on immigration. why is there not a conference between the house and senate? some of the colleagues in the senate explicitly say they do not want the debt ceiling to be

raised through that mechanism and they have come to the floor on numerous occasions to block that. they don't want that to happen. why is that? >> the senate? >> they don't want the budget, they don't want the conference committee to be the mechanism? >> difference between the majority and minority. the responsibility of the majority is to govern. and to move in the direction of solving challenges. the responsibility of the minority is to create a contrast and to pull the other side to account. so the roles are different. that's not to say they are right or wrong. the roles are different. >> on immigration, some of the folks, rand paul, marco rubio, mike lee are coming to the republican study committee today to talk about immigration reform. wondering if you would talk about how you feel about the immigration reform discussion thus far? do you think of yourself more as a marco rubio or rand paul or mike lee? >> i think of myself more as a bob goodlatte. a member of the house who recognizes that regardless of what the senate work product is in the area of immigration, what the house will do is take this in a logical, methodical step by step fashion.

and i think that that decision, which has been reached by the leadership in the conference, is the right way to go, to address the issues of border security, internal enforcement, entry-exit matters, of h-1-b visas, agricultural workers, all of those things need to be addressed, yes, but they need to be addressed in a separate fashion so people can work diligently for the solution in those targeted areas. i think that's the way that the house will proceed. >> can i do a quick follow-up? is that sequential, we had mr. goodlatte here a while ago. is that sequential approach tantamount to actually not getting something? there are a lot of folks who say if you do it sequentially or piecemeal, you doomed it. you doomed immigration reform. do you agree with that assessment? >> no. would we have been better off right now in the area of immigration had we done a bill in every congress for the last four or five congresses? wouldn't we be further ahead?

that's not what i'm suggesting we do now, i do believe that a stepwise fashion allows members of congress to be able to have their input on a specific area, border security for example, and have that work product move forward and have the issue being solved in portions as opposed to this comprehensive overall solution that clearly hasn't worked in the past, and i don't see it working now. >> what do you think should be attached to the debt ceiling? what kind of solutions? talk about keystone, this, that, and the other thing. what is mr. price's solution? >> i think it's important for us to put an array of options out there. so that, for example, the large solution to all of this, and our budget woes and deficit woes, is entitlement reform. so the solutions we put forward in our budget for medicare and

medicaid, i think are something that we could embrace in a -- in the context of a debt ceiling. discussion that would get significant resources to be able to be talked about and put on the table. that's kind of a long ball. if that wasn't possible, then pro-growth tax reform, which i think is -- we think is the kind of things that need to get moving, get the economy rolling again. getting jobs being created. solving the incredible challenges that are out there from a financial standpoint for families. that would get you a little less, i think, in terms of a debt ceiling increase, but would move us in the right direction. and then finally, there's -- you can get back to the dollar-for- dollar boehner rule, whether

it's in deficit reduction or in spending reduction. so those -- i think an array of options is important to discuss. so that we are trying to be the ones moving the ball forward for solutions. and being wedded to just one is not helpful for the discussion at this point. >> cheryl. >> trying to assess changing republican attitudes from same- sex marriage with the supreme court ruling coming up, you voted against repealing don't- ask, don't-tell. you voted for doma. i have three questions. would you vote that way today? >> yes. >> you would vote -- let me just ask the question. would you vote that way today?

do you see in 2016 a g.o.p. candidate winning the nomination, embracing a platform of same-sex marriage? could that happen? and then finally, some republicans like ted olson and even the former party chairman, ken melman, argued it's actually good for the party to embrace same-sex marriage. do you think it's good for the party? >> i would have voted the same way. because i think that's the right position. it certainly is the position representative of my district. >> why that's the right decision? >> that's what i believe.

any candidate for any position, whether it's for the future nomination for our party for president in 2016 or for a member of congress or senate, they ought to espouse what they believe. this is all about the give and take of the battle of ideas. so whether you are a republican candidate espouses that or not, i think is not something that we ought to be stipulating. whatever he or she believes. >> could they win? i guess have attitudes changed enough that republicans would embrace that kind of nominee? >> that's why they have the election, right? what did yogi berra say, that's why they play the game. the nation is shifting in its view on this position. whether or not the party shifts i think is something to be seen. >> going back to immigration, if immigration fails and it's the republicans' fault they'll be dead in 2016, do you agree with that? and also looking towards the next -- midterm, what's the republican's message? the conference we talked about has been criticized for passing some messaging bills, i think you would probably disagree with that assessment, what's the

message of those house republicans? >> your first question on immigration, i'm sorry? >> do you agree that republicans will be in trouble if they don't >> no. i think what the american people want is to see individuals working to solve challenges. i think that the house republicans will demonstrate as a conference and as a body that we have positive solutions for the challenge of both legal and illegal immigration, and we'll be putting those forward. how far down the road we get on that i think will be evidence for folks to recognize that we are trying to address this issue in a way that is responsive to the nation, but also solves the challenges that we have got in this area. i think we'll be -- i think people will see that we are working to solve the challenge. from a messaging standpoint in 2014, i think the message that i

would -- umbrella i would paint it under is that we are interested in creating the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of individuals so that the greatest number of american dreams can be realized. that's what our -- that's what we are about. and our budget clearly was demonstrative of that. the path to prosperity. efforts to get us on a -- to a balanced budget within a 10-year period of time which is hugely important not just to have numbers add up on a page, but make it so the economy can become vibrant again and jobs can be created and people can be much more secure in their future. we have clearly tackled the big issues that are confounding us from a fiscal standpoint in the entitlement arena with medicare and medicaid. with positive solutions. we haven't seen that from the other side. so i think we've got a great opportunity. i think the tax reform issue that we are embracing right now and the bill that i believe will be coming out of the ways and means committee at some point

this year will demonstrate that we are looking out for folks all across this country so that they can keep more of their hard- earned money and not have a government that continues to spend more and more and more than it takes in, but also takes more and more from the american people. i think we have a very positive message. we are working on a health care bill right now that we believe is the positive alternate to washington running your health care. and we are excited about it, and look forward to introducing that within a very short period of time. get folks covered with the insurance they want not what the government wants for them. that solves the problems of portability and pre-existing and saves hundreds of billions of dollars so we can get those folks covered that are unable to have the financial wherewithal

at this point. >> next to roxanne and nancy. i couldn't tell, were you so is nonthreatening. then mark shields, robert schlesinger and lauren foxx. >> i wanted to clarify something, have the republicans in the house determined that debate will take place in october and november and the budget conference document would be -- is that sort of the final >> i don't know that -- >> what are the options you guys are looking at? >> i don't think the conference has determined, which i think was your language, but in my sense is that is the vehicle for moving the debt ceiling issue. the budget. i'm sorry, the budget conference report. i think that makes the most sense to me. whether or not there is another opportunity to do that or

whether there is -- there certainly are other ways to do it, but i think that's the one that makes the most sense to me. the x date, the date that the administration selects when they have the opportunity to select when the treasury says that the jig is up. so they define that. i would prefer we move forward before that period of time so that we are not in a crisis mode, which tends to be the time when we make -- when washington makes the least responsible decisions. >> nancy. >> two questions. one what is the time frame -- what's the likelihood of it reaching the floor? and two, how do you think the i.r.s., what's happening with the i.r.s., is going to affect the scope of what you all are trying to do with tax reform?

>> the time frame for tax reform is -- hasn't been specifically defined, but i think it's this year. i think probably as soon as we can move forward with it, we will. we have done -- chairman camp has done remarkable due diligence on getting input from all sectors of society, really, and certainly from the other side with our working groups, where we have done some in a bipartisan way. there's been working over a period of years, literally. i think that -- i suspect by the end of the year, possibly before. i think the i.r.s. issues that have been raised and the real concerns of folks about the functioning of that agency allow us to have greater impetus for tax reform. i'm not one of those who believes that this puts the kibosh on tax reform.

i think it gives us a greater opportunity and we embrace that greater opportunity because i think all folks when they look at this issue recognize that the i.r.s. is this huge monolith. it's concerning and frightening to many americans and that anything we can do to simplify the tax code and make it -- make the internal revenue service less threatening to the nation, citizens of this country would be a good thing. that's something that more people will embrace. i think you are beginning to hear that. >> does it change what you're looking at in terms of potentially looking at revenue from tax exempt organizations? or change the scope of it like you're going to look more at tax administration not just tax breaks and rates? >> all that have has been on the table. as chairman camp has said, we are starting with a blank piece of paper and adding the policy to it as opposed to starting with current policy and extracting things that we don't think are appropriate.

>> mark? >> dr. price, i wanted to ask you, the congress has never been as popular, as this year, it's unpopular as any time in history. the democrats are unpopular, but the republicans are pariahs. 13% less popular than democrats. membership and leadership, 19%. that's a problem for the republican party. what can be done? ihat can be done to remedy it? am impressed by your optimism, quite frankly, today, and just like to ask you if you would, in your judgment three democratic house colleagues you said there's a feeling across the aisle who share that same sense of mission and common purpose in getting this done.

if you could give us an indication of today. >> well, i think what we have to do is demonstrate that we are moving forward with positive solutions. that we are addressing the challenges that the american people sense. my constituents and folks across this country are frustrated with washington because it -- you look to washington, it doesn't seem to be working. things don't seem to be getting done in a reasonable, responsible way. they know we've got challenges. they know that this country spends too much. they know that the health care system isn't working. they know that we are not creating the

kind of energy in this nation that we could. all these things they know. they are not ignorant about the facts of either the challenges or opportunity for solutions. and they wonder why the folks that they elected to this -- to congress and the executive branch are unable or unwilling to get things done. our lack of popularity is well deserved because we haven't, as an overall group, solved the problems that exist. so how do you turn that around? you demonstrate leadership. and you create positive solutions that are responsive to the needs of the american people. >> house republicans. ordinarily think people blame obama or bush or whoever is in charge. clinton, whoever is there. this seems to be specifically

directed at the group that you're a leading part of. >> i think what we have seen is a greater level of demagoguery from the other team over the past few years that has -- in some circles has worked. absolutely. the way we counter that is to remain optimistic about the future of this country. remain committed to the principles that made us the greatest nation in the history of the world. and put forward solutions that address the challenges that we have got. that are consistent with those principles. >> and three democratic house colleagues you look to to work across the aisle in the mission

you have outlined here today? >> in tax reform? >> tax reform and entitlement reform. you said common, shared vision across the aisle. >> on our committee ron kind, joe crowley. i think are at least two individuals that appreciate the challenges that we've got are significant and need to be solved. richie neal we have been working on some of the tax issues that he clearly understands the

challenges that we've got. that we need to be able to come together on that common ground that has to be there in order for us to move forward as a nation. we can't -- i tell folks, look, i practiced medicine for over 20 years. took care of patients for over 20 years. i didn't give up the practice of medicine and the incredible privilege it was to care for this people to come to this town and fight with the other side. that wasn't why i did it. i gave up the practice of medicine so i could come to washington, hopefully, and have some positive input into solving the incredible challenges we've got. that same story is basically true for every member of congress, regardless of their background. they didn't give them what they were doing so they could come and fight a partisan political battle over and over and over again. they came to help solve problems.

>> ever regret the choice? >> no. absolutely not. what an incredible opportunity it is to be involved in this beacon of freedom to the world, have an opportunity to preserve that and to increase that opportunity for future generations in this country. incredible privilege. >> robert? >> i'm still a little unclear. two questions. first, why hasn't the house appointed conferees for the budget conference? and secondly, since we are on the debt ceiling, you guys have negotiated an agreement, the white house said they won't. you both stick to your guns, we go over the debt ceiling, in your view what happens then? some people say it's doom and gloom. other people say it's manageable. what's your take?

>> appointing conferees, going to conference in something like the budget, we believe, i believe, requires some parameters. if it's just a free-for-all then it becomes more of an opportunity for the demagoguery and the partisan back and forth that won't reach any solutions. o chairman ryan i think is very wise in laying out the goal of defining those parameters prior to going to conference.

i think that's only -- i think that's a responsible process. in terms of the debt ceiling, again, i'm the optimist so i think that we can get to a solution before we get to that x date. it requires a willing partner on the other side to say, yes, there are things that they would attach to the debt ceiling as opposed to being dogmatic about whether or not they would allow anything to move forward on the debt ceiling. the closer we get to that time frame, that stands will soften. i'm not -- i think that the house has acted responsibly to say that default cannot occur, won't occur, which is why we passed the bill that we did a couple weeks ago to make certain that the prioritization of payments and the ability of the federal government to pay its debts is solid. >> does it make sense to have a debt ceiling? we are the only country that budgets in this manner. would it makes sense to get rid of it? accrue debt as we pass bills? >> you want to ask the american people does it make any sense to have a limit on your credit card? it probably makes sense to have a limit. yeah. i think you ought to have a debt ceiling. >> lauren. >> i wanted to ask you, you indicated earlier that the house leadership and your conferences decided that piecemeal bills on immigration is the best way to go. what about this bipartisan group working in the house, if they came to an agreement, how much willingness would there be on the part of chairman goodlatte and others to employ a more bipartisan approach before the senate bill got a vote on the floor? >> it's a great question. i don't know that the parameters that folks are working on in the group in the house are working on are as broad as what we have seen come out of the -- coming forward in the senate. and i think that that group has actually -- would be heartened by any movement on the issue in committee. i do know that what -- i think what would likely occur if the group produces a work product,

and it goes to the judiciary committee, my suspicion is the judiciary committee will break it down into its segments and would move it forward. that's not any internal knowledge, that's my sense of what would occur because i think that holds the greatest amount of promise for moving something forward. there used to be coalitions on issues instead of just the shirts and skins we seem to have right now. you would have a water coalition, and transportation coalition, and a health care coalition, and energy coalition. and they were bipartisan. most often. and the more focused the issue was that came forward in a bill, the easier it was to put forward the coalition to be supportive of that issue moving on. i think there's wisdom in that. broad, expansive, comprehensive pieces of legislation give everybody an opportunity to say, well, i don't like that so i'm going to oppose it. don't like that, so i'm going to oppose it. and the example for this is truly the state legislatures. state legislatures, most of them, have single issue rules. you can't have a piece of legislation that has soup to nuts. you got to have very focused legislation. i think that's what allows you not only to produce a better work product but put forward a coalition that can solve the problem. >> we are going next to paul, tom howl, david, alexis. paul? >> first one for dr. price, we hear from businessmen, insurers, doctors that obamacare when it

kicks in is going to be a nightmare. you have get the secretary of health and human services who say, no problem. t's going to work out fine. where are you and what are you hearing? >> i think that senator baucus was very wise when he observed that the law when it is fully implemented looks like it's going to be a train wreck. i think what we need to do is to pull the emergency brake before the wreck occurs. i don't -- as a physician i can tell that you this law is unworkable. for patients and for dogs.

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

hurt. and it is irresponsible of us as a congress and as a government, i believe, to allow that to occur not because of anything inherent within the people trying to make it work, but because of the rules that have been put in place. we'll continue to work and fight to put forward positive solutions as alternatives. >> thank you. you have been around long enough to remember the page program, and there are some former pages who are trying to bring it back now. do you think the leadership or

even you would be open to doing that? >> i think the page program was a huge asset to our body, but also to the -- especially the individuals who were able to participate in it. i haven't had this discussion with anybody, but i think it ought to come back. >> tom. >> following up on the train. you mentioned that republicans are working on an alternative bill to the a.c.a. can you be more specific than just patient centered solutions? because i think there's this attitude that republicans say they have a replacement, alternative, but they don't know what it will do. can you be more specific?

>> we'll be introducing a bill maybe even today that will be a comprehensive opportunity to solve the challenges in the area of health care so that we move in that direction of patient centered health care. and there are a whole lot of things in it, but a couple specifics, one, we've got to get folks covered. you got to get americans covered with health insurance. there are a couple ways to do that. you can do it the way the administration and congress did it in the a.c.a., and that is to mandate that they have coverage. dictate they have coverage. force them to have coverage. but the i.r.s. in charge of whether or not they have coverage. we simply believe that's the wrong way to do it. the way we propose is make it

feasible for every single american, from a financial standpoint, for every single american to purchase the coverage they want for themselves, not that the government wants for them. do you that through the tax code. series of deductions and credits and refundable, advanceable credits so that every single american has the financial wherewithal, feasibility, and incentive to have health coverage. second, you got to solve the insurance challenges. two biggest are portability and pre-existing. you ought not lose your insurance if you change your job or lose your job. that's a holdover from a bygone era when if you worked for a company, you tended to work for

that company forever. our son just graduate interested college last year, statistics say that he will work for 12 different employers in the course of his career. which means if the employers provide health coverage, if they are able to continue to do so, he'll have to plug in 12 different spots with who knows what. the best way to solve that is to allow every single american to own their health coverage regardless who is paying for it. you solve the portability issue overnight just like that.

like 401-k plan. you change your job, lose your job, you take it with you. that's an easy one. you ought not to be priced out of a market if you have an awful diagnosis. if you suffer from awful disease. and right now folks in the individual and small group market, about 18 million individuals, are under threat of being priced out of the market with the next visit they have to their doctor if they have awful diagnosis. that's craziness. that's a system that isn't working. how do you solve that without having the federal government dictate to people and dictate to insurance companies and dictate

to employers what they must do? you make it so that those 18 million individuals can pool together. you make insurance work so that they -- you get the purchasing power of millions. then the health status of any one individual, the average health status doesn't drive up the cost of health insurance for anybody because you get the power of numbers. it's why self-insured plans work. it's why the federal employee health benefits plan works. that's an easy one to solve as well. finally, we waste hundreds of billions of dollars in this country in health care. the main way we do that is through what's called practice of defensive medicine. it's what i did.

it's what every single physician in this country does, to make certain if they are ever called into a court of law they can look the judge and jury honestly in the eye and say i don't know what you expected me to do because i did everything. everything. and everything was rarely necessary to either treat or diagnose the patient. rand estimates it's $600 billion of waste in this country on that. jackson health care has done a study and they estimate it's one out of every $3. that's $800 billion. that's big money still. even in this town. you can solve that not by a cap on noneconomic damages, which i don't believe does a thing to decrease the practice of defensive medicine, but put in

place a lawsuit abuse reform system that the president has talked about which would recognize that society guidelines, if the doctor does the right thing based upon what his or her specialty says is the right thing to do for a set of symptoms or diagnosis, that individual is allowed to use that as an affirmative defense in the court of law. it becomes a higher bar to get over for the plaintiff, not preventing anybody from going to court, but a higher bar if the doctor does the right thing. that's the kind of thing i think would actually change the culture of the practice of medicine. you can get folks covered. everybody. you can solve the insurance challenges. you can save hundreds ever billions of dollars. you can do all of those things without putting the federal government in charge of a doggone thing. that's what i mean when i talk about patient centered health care. >> david. >> the house of representatives passed the first appropriations bill. as you know we have very widely differing spending levels in the house side and senate side. it's difficult to see how those are going to gets resolved without an overall budget agreement. so are you resigned that we will

likely need to have a c.r. to get us through to the new fiscal year? because the appropriations bills will probably not going to be able to pass all of them? >> i sure hope not. i think appropriating by continuing resolution is a failure of the body, is a failure of the responsibility that we have to work through these issues. at this point an annual basis. to move and allow for the flexibility and changes in public policy from an appropriating standpoint every year. the house will, i think, work through the appropriations bills. i'm hopeful we'll get all of them done. i know that's the goal of chairman rogers. and we started that last evening and we'll work through them. i think that the -- i think just doing a c.r. at the end of this doesn't respect either the citizens or the individuals who are working on their behalf in the house at this point on the appropriations side who are bringing their best effort to the table to put in place the priorities for the country. i do believe that the budget on both sides, the budget in the senate and house, was a huge step forward because the number that was agreed to, the overall number, discretionary number, 302-a number was the same on both sides. if i would have sat at this table four months ago and said the house and senate were going to agree to the same top line number in the budget, none of you would have believed me. and would you have been right in your skepticism. but that's what happened. so we've got the foundation for moving forward on the appropriations bills. >> sue. >> immigration, when you talk about the approach, one of the pieces continues to be the pathway to citizenship. do you think there is a legislation for path to citizenship that could pass the house with a majority of the majority? >> i think at this point that would be highly unlikely. because i don't think there's any trust of our conversation in the administration to enforce -- conference in the administration to enforce the laws as they relate to much of the immigration. not just this administration.

it's been previous administrations as well. the american people don't trust washington in this area because the promise that was made in 1986 has been broken. in 1986 there were about three million individuals who were here, estimated to be here illegally. and the agreement, bipartisan agreement was that we will provide a path to citizenship for those three million individuals and control and secure the border so we are never in this situation again. and we as a nation did away with the path to citizenship and woeful job on controlling and securing the border. there is no trust at all. the first step in regaining that trust is living up to the promise that was made to the nation back in 1986, and that is controlling and securing the border. until the administration is able to do that, i don't think there is any trust, whatever we pass, would be enforced or made certain that it worked in a positive way. the boston bombing that occurred pointed out a huge defect in lack of responsibility and enforcement of our simple student visas. there are hundreds of thousands of young men and women here on a student visa. when it expires we ought to know that as a nation. it's foolishness. it's irresponsibility. it's reckless not to know when somebody's visa expires and make certain that they either regain a new visa or that they return to their home. and what that pointed out is that one of the bombers clearly exited this country, went back to the country where he was given asylum from. this fellow was given asylum from a country he visited apparently repeatedly. so the asylum system doesn't work. at least didn't work in this instance. then he returned to this country with an expired student visa and regained access. this is a system that is terribly broken and needs fixing. the first step is to make certain what we have currently on the books works. and prove that it works and demonstrate that it works. that's the way you regain the trust so you can move forward and solve it in a positive way. >> alexis.

>> i was wondering if you can talk about -- are there any concerns about how the various numbers of the congressional delegation running for the same office, if that rivalry will have an impact? >> senator chambliss announced in january that he would not be running for a third term. so that opened up an opportunity in the state of georgia. these open senate seats don't come along often.

..

vote in favor of that authorization. private health insurance coverage using a market-based approach, not medicaid. i am worried the vote i cast made them vain. -- i apologize3 for this cough. i hope to get over it before the full imitation of the affordable care act. >> we can find you a good doctor. >> pennsylvanians governor asked that you work with the commonwealth to ensure the

children will not be affected but imitation of the aca. hisgovernor reiterated request, writing you and expressed concern that 70,000 children will be transferred to medicaid. . ask unanimous consent my question is pretty straightforward. are you going to work with the governor to see the kids enrolled in ship are not put into a position where they can no longer use the doctor of their choice, not dumped into medicaid and will continue to have a viable access to health providers? >> i can tell you i have had a number of conversations with governor corbett and i will continue to work with him to make sure that the children of pennsylvania are not disadvantaged by this next transition. chip remains a program that i am not -- octomom i had, i can see

what all the issues are around the pennsylvania program. i will go back and look them up. 170,000 kids -- 70,000 are going to move without ship among which is a program that is market-based to be put into medicaid. the majority cannot find -- physicians, let alone pediatricians. -- adjustmentss time has expired. >> isn't it true that the taxes so you only did -- you get deduction if you spend more than that, it is taxed like everybody else? >> that is correct. it is a cap on how much you can deduct, the level of the insurance deduction.

to kicknow, it is not in until 2018, and it was an attempt to put on the horizon the need for health plans to actually deliver some lower-cost services. >> they're blaming something on the affordable care act. any could not have had affect on that because it had not going to affect? >> that is correct. >> you mentioned the reason that 20% of the people have no insurance. isn't it true the 80% that have closing thee are doughnut hole, those with pre- existing conditions can get and keep insurance and can't switch insurances if they get the prevention. we are eliminating insurance abuses. a limit on what the insurance

company has to pay and we extended the cost of medicare for eight years under those benefits? >> i think you're absolutely right. he just outlined some of the market advantages for the 80%. i would say there are additional ones. they are paying for the cost of care for a lot of people who don't have coverage as their hospital bills are higher and that the bills are higher. estimated by some economists that it is about $1000 per family honor policies extra that they are paying for uncompensated care. from southleman carolina raise questions about the program. word about with the budget cuts sequester hasn't to your ability to properly and effectively administer the program? >> all of our programs? >> including the affordable care act into effect. >> i think that we certainly

have had a challenge the last couple of years in terms of resources specifically to effectively implement the affordable care act. we did not have a budget in 2014, and then we had sequester on top of that so that it is very difficult but we are doing a job to make sure the resources go and programs are built and that we are ready to government. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> what, in your opinion was the biggest read -- reason or need for the healthcare law? >> way too many of our population have no coverage at all or coverage that was unaffordable in and out of the market. >> how many people? >> it is estimated it is a sixth

of our population. >> how many people were uninsured? >> i can go back to 2010 and get you the exact number. guess?ive me a gas? -- 20% of the population. >> according to the recent report, 44 million people will be uninsured next year and still 31 million people will be uninsured in 2023. the federal government is spending $2 trillion to implement this law. would you say the offices numbers are correct, that the president's signature legislation to achieve universal coverage is a success or is it looking to being maybe not so much?

>> what we know right now -- i think it is safer to deal in fact -- >> let's look at the numbers. >> we have 3 million non-adults were now covered. we know small business owners are staying in the marketplace differently than they were in the decade before the affordable care act when they were dropping coverage. >> i know what you're saying, but what about all the concerns of the people who have insurance that are going to lose it? these numbers aren't the ones you were talking about. these are new people and a bunch --people around the country 60% of americans that did not want this healthcare law that are going to lose their insurance and up-to-date taxes. what do you say to those people? >> i don't have any idea what numbers you are quoting, but i would rather deal with what is happening on the ground. i will gladly come back next year --

>> for my people are not going to have insurance because of obamacare. >> i have no idea where those numbers come from. >> the gentleman yield back. as expected, there's been a lot of discussion about the affordable care act today. it is a bit of a mischaracterization because the bill attempts to increase access to health insurance. it is not necessarily increase access to health care. i would like to ask a a question about a bipartisan concern and that is the looming physician shortage. 2020, the u.s. will be facing a 91,005 budget physician splitge and it is evenly between specialists and primary care physicians. the administration continues to propose cutting medicare support for physician training and critical services provided

by teaching hospitals. it is estimated the proposal to cut ime by 10% the cost 10 main dollars annually. it would suit -- severely impact physicians. teaching hospitals receive funding to help compensate for higher costs that they your secure, more complex services that other hospitals cannot, such as trauma centers, burden units and standby capacities. can you tell me how the administration has considered this and actually increased access to quality healthcare? >> yes, sir. i know reduction in medical potentially difficult for a number of teaching hospitals. the cost reduction is estimated based on how much it costs to actually provide the residency

slots and how much is administrative cost. the administrative costs are reduced and the cost to provide the residential slots are in the president budget last year. ofre are a whole variety additional workforce initiatives that have been underway since the beginning of this administration to provide more healthcare providers and doubling the size of the national health service corps, which not only his doctors but nurses, mental health practitioners, dentists and other increasing nurse and nurse training programs, looking at moving medical slots from specialty cares to primary and geriatric care. ande is a constant continued look at workforce issues, which have nothing to do with the affordable care act teaching with our

population and demographics of what we will need in terms of how to providers. >> i would be concerned when the association is saying there's not enough training slots and we are looking at cutting training dollars dollars that will continue to compound the shortage. the greatest single threat to the medical field is sgr. if there is no one to take care of the seniors, it will do not much good. >> i apologize to members of the committee that did not get a chance to answer questions. we have hit the hard stop at 12:00. i would like to yield briefly to my colleague for his closing comments. >> i want to thank you for your presentation here today. the list of successes and studies that are done every day, the positive impacts of the affordable care act is very exciting. thank you for the terminus work you have done. >> i think the gentleman and i

have a different view. it seems we are an awful lot of bad news coming out of the implementation of the afford will have their act and the debate will continue. i ask unanimous consent that article from the wall street journal all the obamacare bait and switch be included in the record. without objection, they will both be included in the record. i think the testimony. we are adjourned. >> coming up, representative

maloney will discuss the upcoming hearing on irs spending abuses. then congressman of south carolina, members of the judiciary and oversight committee on eric holder's future and other issues in congress. washington journal is live every day at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. irsy, a hearing to examine spending on employee conferences. the house oversight and government reform committee will hear testimony related to an audit prepared for the treasury is that the general for tax administration. live coverage starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. all weekends live from the chicago festival saturday starting at 11 a.m. eastern. and douglashy

foster on south africa and presidents and war. live sunday, starting at 11:00, with the churchill -- winston churchill live tv on c-span2. >> candidates in a massachusetts senate race clashed on healthcare law. that's. resentment regenerative is running against a former navy seal. due to technical difficulties, this is a 35 minute portion of the debate. good evening and welcome to the boston globe u.s. senate debate. i am a political analyst welcoming our viewers and across

the nation on c-span, our radio audience on newsradio 1030 and those of you watching online at cbs boston.com, boston.com and boston globe.com. a special welcome to our spanish-speaking viewers on univision. welcome to cynthia, political editor of the boston globe who will be sharing the questioning duties tonight. most important way, we the two candidates for u.s. senate, republican gabriel gomez, a businessman, and democrat ed markey. worde beginning, a brief about our format. each candidate has up to 9090 seconds to address the same question. they will take turns going first in alphabetical order. after they had their say, they will be open and the. of rebuttal and debates between them. that cycle will repeat throughout the debate with no

formal opening or closing statements. let's begin with the first question from cynthia needham, directed first to mr. gomez. cynthia? >> there has been for several energy expended on questioning the other candidates character. mr. gomez, you are running an ad that cause your opponent dirty. mr. markey your campaign has challenged ethics and call him to come clean. let's get us out of the way. is your opponent character an issue in this race? if it is, why? >> 90 seconds. >> everybody out there watching, i appreciate you watching. it is an honor to be able to speak to so many voters at one time. congressman, after 37 years in bc, welcome back to boston. i think character does become a point in the campaign. what people care about is that we talk about issues. they want us to talk about the issues that matter to them and that is the economy and how we

will get jobs into massachusetts. they prefer us to stay positive and that is what we have been doing. we talk about what they care about and how we will bring economy back this up. also national security. seven weeks ago, we saw firsthand how dangerous of a world we live in. we need to stay vigilant and focused. we are staying positive and talking with people care about. >> thank you. is character an issue? , cynthia and john the boston globe and to wbz for conducting this important debate. thank you for deciding so everyone can watch the bruins game. you'll hear a lot from mr. gomez about he is a new kind of republican. you will hear the same old stale republican ideas. that is going to be a big part

of what this debate is all about. mr. gomez opposes an assault weapons ban. i support an assault weapons ban. mr. gomez opposes a ban on high- capacity magazines. which attaches to those map best weapons. i support a ban on high- capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports a cut in social security benefits for our seniors. i opposed that. mr. gomez opposes any burden on the billionaires in our country. i support tax -- there's going to be a big difference between mr. gomez and i on these big issues as we debate this evening. it is going to go right to who it is that mr. gomez and i want to go to washington to represent. i want to represent those massachusetts values that ensure that we protect the citizens in their homes and that we are also able to protect the elderly, the working class, the middle class from unfair tax burden that should be shared by

the wealthy, the multinationals in our country. >> thank you. rebuttal. >> you are going to see two different sides here tonight. you will see someone who is going to try to scare you. i will speak from the heart. i will send you the truth. a lot of people in my party and wrong underre control. it is going to be an issue that requires bipartisanship. like most of the issues you have been evolving, you want to be divisive about that instead of trying to to fix and solve the problem. you are the first and only political candidate to invoke the newtown masker for political gain. that is beyond disgusting. i am a father of four of young kids. as a navy seal, i know what happens when the weapons fall into the hands of the wrong person. that is why when i go now to d.c., i will make sure that we passed the expended baccarat

check because that is the bill that is going to make our communities, our schools and -- background check. i am not linking mr. gomez to newtown. that is a ludicrous position, which he has. we need the ban on assault weapons. we need to tell the nra that it stands for not relevant anymore in american politics. we need to ban high-capacity magazines and attach them which turns them into weapons of war, which belong only on the battlefields of this world, not on the streets of massachusetts, not on streets of this country. that is a huge dividing line. i want to go down to the senate to fight the nra, to fight their position on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. mr. gomez supports the nra and the positions. that is a huge dividing line between the two of us. >> i opposed the nra on

expended background checks. the progress men knows this, yet he continues to try to scare you. we need fix this problem. he would to fix this problem is to make sure we pass the expanded background check. we need bipartisan report to pass this bill. there is only one person up get morecan conservative democrats and you know that is the way we need to make our committee safer. .ou are the most hyper partisan you have not found a single -- they asked you can you name one time we did not vote with quark -- -- >> massachusetts is the leader on the issue of assault weapons bans them on the issue of banning high-capacity magazines.

the minimum, background checks, that is something that senators from west virginia can support. we are massachusetts, we are special. we are supposed to be the leader. we know high-capacity magazines should be banned. that is a huge difference between what you and i are promising the people of massachusetts that we will do we go down to washington -- i think taking on the nra is a cargo issue in terms of who will stand up for the people of massachusetts. the characterto question, there is a lot of mudslinging about each other's character. what would you say about that and do you have an issue with your opponent's character? >> the people are smart enough to realize they will want to have somebody they want to vote for as opposed to against. they want someone with him the

truth to someone who will try to scare them. the reality is, he knows firsthand that the assault weapons ban did not work. he knows that what he is trying -- vans trying to buy weapons from everybody instead of banning certain weapons and make sure they don't get in hands of the wrong people. we need to make sure that we passed the bill with bipartisan support. >> there was a flood, millions of chinese assault weapons that were coming into the united states. it was an epidemic, being used for crimes all of the country. i put together the coalition that led to the ban on those chinese sought weapons coming into the united states. that is still on the books. don't say those bands did not work. they did work. have ablem is now, we

greater epidemic and we need someone who is going to go down to washington to take on the nra, to fight the epidemic. 52 children died every single week from gun violence in our country and we have a response tolity to be the leaders put in place preventive measures that reduce the amount of deaths in our country. >> i want to move on. take 15 seconds and you can return to it later. >> you are the one that is taking millions of dollars from lobbyists. >> rebuttal. >> this issue on funding the nra is very clear -- fighting the nra. it is mitch mcconnell who is leading the efforts on blocking the passage not only of -- also a an assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazines.

mr. gomez opposes those bands. -- bans. >> i want to introduce another topic. our format allows you to return to this and you should feel free to do so. thank you. this next question kids was from a viewer. -- came to us. it is not always clear what they mean by middle-class. please define in terms of income range what you think being middle-class means and explain what you will do in the senate to ease middle-class economic and siding -- anxiety. >> the middle class in massachusetts is basically, if you look at the median income in the state, it is about $80,000. of course, it can go up to 200,000. as i look at those middle income families, that is what i am concentrating on. it is the issue of ensuring

they get the tax breaks they need. over the last 15 years, i have voted four $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for middle-class families. i have supported him up for example, a first-time homeownership tax break for those workers. , have also supported programs educational loan programs that help their children to be able to gain access for the education which they need in order to qualify for this jobs. i worked to bring in telecom jobs, biotech jobs, the clean tech jobs that all play into giving middle-class families in the state of massachusetts an opportunity to believe with the education and health care of their children that they can prosper even more greatly in the 21st century than families did in the 20th century in massachusetts and across our country. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. $80,000iddle class is

to $150,000. my opponent has voted to raise taxes over three times in his career. you can't name is able time that you did not vote to increase taxes to go against your party. i give you credit for inventing the internet over 20 years ago. the reality is, over the last 20 years, you have not authored a single piece of legislation that is not signed into law. the private sector where i come the last thing you would do is ask for a raise or even a promotion. that is a difference between you and i've. i come from the private sector and understanding middle-class and what they need. they need jobs and lower taxes, taxes, which is why we think we should have a copperheads of tax reform -- comprehensive tax reform. >> mr. gomez, you could not be

more wrong. in the last couple of years, i passed a bill that created the requirement that we actually have a plan to find the cure for alzheimer's. that is the law and it is my bill. i passed the law that created an on ramp to the wireless world for the deaf and the blind in our country. the schoolcause of for the blind so every one of the deaf and blind all across the country and across the world would have access to it. i authored a piece of legislation was called independence at home which ensures that there is a change in the way in which we view those people who have alzheimer's, those who have parkinson's so we can keep them at home. so that nursing homes and hospitals all have a financial incentive to keep those patients at home. those are all my laws and passed within the last two or three years and they are revolutionizing healthcare and the telik a medication sector

while helping people elect the mother that alzheimer's to be able to stay at home and not -- >> response. answer.ve you a slick in the last 20 years coming of the authored is in a piece of legislation legislation that has been passed into law. i am sorry, but you are the poster boy for -- we need to have a no budget, no pay. if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. for the last 20 years, you have not been doing your job. if you don't do your job, you don't get a pay raise or promotion, which is what you're asking the people of massachusetts today. -- to do.

[indiscernible] >> i am the author of the law of requiring screening for nuclear bombs coming into the port of boston so we don't have a nuclear explosion or any other ports in our country. i could go on and on in terms of the number of laws which not every -- which i am the principal author of. whether it be the people who are concerned about bombs on planes, the flight attendants, whether it be the kids at the perkins school, data i was the author of these laws. they came to me and asked me to pass these bills. >> go ahead, but i want to move on. >> i think he changed the terminology on the authorship of

these laws. i did the congressman does not like it when i talk about -- if it was up to him, we would not department of homeland security. you voted against that. you voted against the reauthorization act. twice, you voted against a resolution to honor the victims of 9/11. he is going to give a lawyer to not vote ton honor the victims of 9/11. >> let him respond to those charges. >> i voted eight times to honor the victims from 9/11. these two planes were hijacked at logan airport. people from a district were on those planes. i went to their funerals. i honor those families. i wonder that the permit of homeland security to make sure

it never happened again. when republicans controlled the house, they put inside of that bill a position stripping the first responders from their ability to be able to negotiate for their wages, for their health care collectively. -- supportsbparts the department of homeland security. >> he gets to respond to that. >> i care about the security of our count -- country. you just showed the put partisanship and party and politics ahead of the people. i head of the of the people of massachusetts. you put party and politics ahead of what is right and that is what i am running.

this election is about the future and new and fresh art -- ideas. we need to do the people massachusetts before party and politics. >> equal time and we are moving on. >> by the way, my position ultimately prevails. , theseht these workers first responders should not be stripped of their right to negotiate and that provision was taken out. not a law. we have a department of homeland security for these workers are given the respect they need. when they are rushing towards victims, no one checks to see whether they are in a union are not. i don't think stripping them of their ability to negotiate was the way for us to construct the department of homeland security. >>. thank you. states have expressed

frustration at the prospect of government the affordable care act, otherwise known as obamacare. please give a specific example of something you see wrong with the new law that you would try to change in the senate and please explain exactly what you would do to try to fix it. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds. >> i believe everybody should have access to quality and affordable health care. i sincerely believe that. we should not have done at a federal level. it should be done in a state level. here, we have 90% of our population that has healthcare. one of the most egregious parts of the affordable care act is the medical device tax that you voted for. you get a chance to repeal it and you did not vote to repeal it. a medical device tax were hundreds of companies in massachusetts with over 25,000 employees depend -- it is our

number one export coming out of massachusetts, medical devices. now that you are running for the senate, you are for repealing the medical device tax. you had a chance to repeal the medical device tax and you did not, knowing there are hundreds of companies and over 25,000 employees that are dependent on the medical devices. it is our number one export out of massachusetts. you put party and politics before the people of massachusetts. >> 90 seconds. >> the affordable care act is going to revolutionize the relationship that exists between americans and their access to health care. it ensures that every child has our to healthcare for the first time. if you become sick, it ensures you cannot become bankrupt. two thirds of the grizzly was ofause of medical bills --

bankruptcy. if you have a pre-existing condition, the insurance company cannot deny you insurance coverage. this is a huge revolution. i opposed putting the medical device tax in the bill in the first place. i am working to repeal it. i don't want to repeal it because you have to find an equivalent amount of money to repeal it. for me, i want to repeal it. my amendment on the senate floor will be to reduce the tax breaks which the oil companies get so that we can give back the deviceak to the medical industry. that is the way you have to legislate. the way republicans have set it up is that they cut into the programs of the poor and the middle class. the better way of going is to find an industry does not need a tax break -- the oil industry is at the top of that list -- partnered with the need to protect the medical device

industry and we have a winning formula for our state and country. >> rebuttal. >> i spent the last four months everyday of my campaign campaign here in massachusetts visiting small businesses, talking to voters and talking to families. their main concern is the economy and the overburdened of taxes and the affect of the overlook your act act is having on the small businesses. go out and talk to the small businesses and visit any of them throughout the state and tell you the cost of the affordable care act is going to increase a number of bankruptcies. it will increase less hirings and put a bigger burden. companies are hiring less and figuring out how to skirt away from the affordable care act. you want to talk about corporate loopholes -- that is why i am for the corporate tax overhaul and that includes getting rid of the corporate loophole.

, our unemployment rate is much lower than the national average. even as we have been first to provide health care for every child in the country, in our state as well as providing health insurance up to 90% of all adults. we have proven you can have a more robust economy than the rest of the country and provide health care. in math andr one science, so we should be proud of that as well. ,e can have a good economy provide healthcare and education to our children and still be ahead of the rest of the nation. i am sure there are other states that don't want to provide for every adult but that is not us. we have to be the leader. we are massachusetts.

we understand that health care and education are essential components of ensuring we fuel our economy to having the best workforce in the nation. >> go ahead, mr. gomez. -- iam not set of thought am not satisfied with a low item limit rate. -- low on appointments rate -- unemployment rate. that thell tell you affordable care act is a huge burden on us. i understand you spent your time in bc where the economy is booming. an employment is low. cocoon wheren a they forget how the rest of the country and how their state actually operates. just because things are going well does not mean they're going well everywhere else. >> response, please. >> we decided you don't have to

make a choice. you can have a robust economy and you can make sure everyone has healthcare. we are doing that. we have a response ability to be the leaders in hospital cost containment and to put together innovative new ideas to keep the cost from escalating. that iswhat my program called independence at home is all about. it is reforming the way in which we treat long-term, chronic care, by keeping the patient in the living room so we can save upwards of $30 billion over a 10-year. -- timeframe. sure thet is making system works better. more innovative and creative and controlling the cost. our economy will be better off if we do that. >> a final brief exchange on this and then we will break. .> we did a great job in 2004

i trust the state and the people to be able to do that better. you always trust the federal government in every thing you think about. i think the people are smart enough to realize how dysfunctional and how much failure there is. they don't want the federal government to do this. 98% of us are covered by health care. >> you can't be praising thernor romney, who was architect of our massachusetts plan and turn around and say everyone is complaining about the romney plan. you can't have it both ways. the truth is, the romney plan is working. it is providing healthcare care for the citizens of massachusetts. it became the model for the whole rest of the country. here in massachusetts, is working. we have to make it better and and have to control the escalating healthcare and insurance costs will stop we

can do that because we are the innovation state. don't just showed you spend much time here in massachusetts. if you talk to small business owners and voters, they would tell you the opposite is happening. go out there and talk to them. >> 15 seconds. long,m out there all day crisscrossing the state, talking to everybody of the commonwealth. let me tell you something, this health care plan -- it might not be perfect but people want to make it better. they don't want to take healthcare insurance away from people in our commonwealth. we are the model for our country. >> good job so far, plenty of time in the next half hour to continue. we will look at foreign policy after this brief break as the boston globe u.s. senate debate continues. welcome back to the boston

globe u.s. senate debate. we continue with our next question. let's turn to the most important foreign-policy question, what is your criteria for taking the united states to war and do you see a global trouble spots right now where that might soon apply? 90 seconds, sir. >> from my perspective, there has to be an imminent threat to the united states. there has to be no other option than for our country to send in our military. it is the most important decision which we can make. if we decide to go in, we have to build a coalition of allies so we are not going in alone. so we are ensuring the maximum ansensus in dealing with threat that exists not just for

the young states -- the united states but for the entire world. that decision is one that has to be made with great reserve. right now,, in syria i do not think it will be wise for us to send in ground troops into the middle of a civil war. i think that will be a big mistake. i think it is wise for us to pull out of iraq and to have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan. i think our missions their have now been completed and we should begin a new process to deploy where there are greater threats to the united states of america. in each and every instance, i think it is critical for the united states to determine that are inurity interests imminent danger and we build a coalition that ensures we do with them with a collective response that maximizes our likelihood of success in the mission. >> mr. gomez, 90 seconds.

>> i have a varying perspective on national security. i had the honor of serving nine years in the navy as an aircraft carrier pilot and as a navy seal. i have a lot of friends that are in the service out there every day of publishing missions from security of our country. putting troops on the ground is the last option that we should do before we have expended every part possible. national security has to be a threat in order for us to consider that. you want to build a coalition, if possible. you mentioned syria. iran's lastant -- and only threat in the middle east. i think we're taking too long to do anything in syria right now. there was a huge uprising in the middle east, regime change in egypt, in yemen and libya. we have a great opportunity here to make sure we align ourselves with the right

terrorist group or the right rebel group in syria to make sure that when they do take over of the best promote peace and democracy throughout middle east. at a minimum, we should have a no-fly zone and we should be supplying aid to that rebel group that's going to eventually take over. iran is all in on syria. they are supplying troops and intelligence and doing everything they can because they know that syria is their last friend. >> thank you, rebuttal. doing a very is good job over there. he is building a coalition towards the goal of isolating iran, isolating others who might be allies of syria. at the same time, we have to be careful. we have learned this lesson in afghanistan we gave weapons and

they came back to haunt us. selecting just the right groups that we would be helping, that is important because we cannot make a mistake -- the most important thing in any action we take in syria is not how we get in but whether or not at the end of the process we actually have a peaceful syria. that we don't have a civil war break out with multiple factions all going at each other's throats. so each action has to be carefully calibrated to a specific response. , yes.al aid going in to the extent we are sending in military aid, we need to make sure it is not going to come back and bite us as the -- compasses, two hurt as as it has in many agile -- other regions of the world. >> the conflict has been going on for a year and a half. 80,000 people dead in syria because of this. we have an opportunity here, congress men, to take out iran's

best friend and ally. our best friend and ally is israel. we will do everything we can to protect and defend them. isael is safer if iran isolated and the right rebel group grows in there to promote peace throughout the region. , we have, -- right now not done anything effectively in a year and a half. you have the muslim brotherhood takeover which is putting at risk the peace in the middle east between egypt and israel. >> let him respond. that causes risk throughout the rest of the world. >> look, i supported israel when -- was attacked.

i supported their action. i think israel was right to protect its own interests. hezbollah but- don't its weapons, there will be peace. ishave to make sure israel protected. anything we do has to be done and injection with allies. we had to have a plan going in. even a no-fly zone requires all of our allies to understand that as a first step towards a concerted effort to achieve a particular set of events. if it is done wrong, it can lead to escalation on the grounds that could pull in the united states of america. >> coming up, representative carolyn maloney. she will discuss the upcoming hearing on irs spending abuses. then a congressman of south

carolina on eric holder's future and other issues in congress. washington journal is live every day at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. today, a hearing to examine irs spending. the house oversight and government reform committee will hear testimony related to audit. live coverage on c-span during -- 3. that ist on the uniform a maintenance job, this is true if your sensation worker. you are subsumed by the roll to the point where it is almost like you were just part of the background.

it is both very frustrating and also interesting privilege. when i am wearing the uniform, i can observe people in ways they don't realize i am observing them. robin nagleofessor on c-span's q and a. a funeral service was held for the late new jersey senator at the park avenue synagogue in new york city. senator lautenberg died monday at the age of eight or nine -- 89.

>> as i was getting up from the pew, and moving into the aisle, the vice president said -- good luck, following that. [laughter] actually, that had crossed my mind as i was listening to brian. frank would have love that. i can see the casket vibrating. colleaguesy of my from the senate who are here, i had the great privilege of

serving with frank. sittingund myself often with him in the back row. frank came back to the senate, as you know, after retiring the first time and missing the work and the advocacy and just the opportunity to speak his mind and do things for his constituents. first come to the senate, you are assigned a seat, and it is usually in the back. i would often be sitting with frank when we were having what are affectionately called vote- a-ramas. that is where you vote constantly for many hours. you cast your vote, you go back, sit down, go around, talk, and frank always had something to say. it was usually a running commentary about what we were doing and what we were not

doing. and those jokes, which have been referred to, which all of us got very used to hearing. but you would sit with frank and you just could not help but have a smile on your face at least one time during the conversation. , it isfrank would say not where you set the counts, it is where you stand. .nd there was never any doubt familiesme with those safe, those children safe from toxic chemicals, from smoking, from drunk driving. he said would be victims of g violence and hiv/aids. he would go from service to school to success in civilian life.

he stood proudly with the working people of new jersey, trying to provide for their families to build businesses like frank and his two friends have. to pursue the american dream. riders ofith the amtrak. and most of all, he havs stood with his beloved family. he would talk about you all the time. he would invoke you from the senate floor. especially the grandchildren. explaining why he fought so hard for what he believed in. it was always for you. all children, and the children yet to come. a steadfastso champion of women's rights and opportunities.

i have heard now perhaps why he had to be. [laughter] but i have to tell you, i was talking with some of my friends serving soill serving servin incredibly well in the senate today. we did consider him an honorary member of the women senators club. barbara mikulski, the longest- serving woman in the senate, have a phrase for those of our male colleagues who really go the extra mile on behalf of women. she called them our galahad. frank was one of them. but he would have been the first to say he was doing it for his daughters and for his granddaughters. left the senate be first time in 2000, he mused on the future.

he hoped that someday one of my grandchildren would open a history book and say there was my grandfather. he was the one who stop smoking on airplanes, he was the one who dropped -- who raised the drinking age to 21, saving thousands of families from having to mourn the loss of a child. things to help this country that will last far beyond his service in the senate. well, we do not have to wait for the history books. , who young men and women we have heard from, could not be prouder of their papa. let me offer one more memory that has stayed with me for a long time. ,n 1999, when i was first lady frank and i went together to fort dix in new jersey to meet refugees lane load of fleeing the conflict in cozumel.

more than 400 people -- in kosovo. more than 400 people tired and scared, with little more than close on their back. the general in charge said he wanted to welcome the refugees just of his olwn grandparents had been welcomed at ellis island. i watched frank talk with the families, put his arm around them. this man who had grown from poverty, this veteran who had helped liberate europe in world hadii, whose own parents come through ellis island's with nothing but a dream, who had written a law that allowed more than 400,000 people to escape religious persecution by coming to the country he loved -- here he was again representing the best of who we are as americans.

and concern,se frank and i noticed that one of the women come in off the lane was very pregnant and quite dehydrated. she was rushed to a nearby hospital on a stretcher. the next day, she gave birth to a little boy. i've are member how proud frank was that this baby -- i remember how proud thifrank was that this baby was born in freedom, and security in new jersey. [laughter] and how incredibly moved he was when the parents decided to name that little boy america. after the country that welcomes him. frank just love that. the late robert byrd, a dear took too so many of us, the floor to pay to ruby -- pay

tribute to frank. he quoted from a pole and by emerson that asks what makes a great. the answer is not gold or arms but leaders who stand fast in suffer long, who work while others sleep, who dare. frank lautenberg with such a leader. he dared greatly, and he led boldly. and we are safer, stronger, and more ross fritz because he did. our hearts are with is wonderful family. he loved it he was loved, and after all, that is what makes a great life. thank you, frank. [applause]