tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 22, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
we are in trouble. we've got to live on a 2014 budget for medicaid for the next four years. where have those jobs gone? why don't you ask the governor and mr. shaheen -- and mr. shaheen? they're both there. >> thank you. it was the right decision to not accept the medicaid expansion. it was a bait and switch for obamacare. new setas for a whole of people that would get a new set of coverage. .ut we have old promises we have to make sure we are creating jobs through the private sector. what we have seen with obamacare and what we will continue to see is people will continue to lose doctors and premiums will continue to go up.
small businesses will have to lay off workers because of the cost of obamacare. >> at believe we should keep our tax dollars in south carolina. it is insane for governor haley to send our own tax dollars to other states and to send the jobs that would be created if we kept our tax dollars here to other states. i do not care if the idea comes from a republican or democrat. if it helps tell carolina, i am worried. i did not support some things in the of ordinal care act, like the mandates for small business. but i support keeping our medicaid dollars here. in rural south carolina where i live, right now our house little and chesterfield is slated to close down in if you must because governor haley is blocking their own medicaid tax dollars. what do we say to the people and chesterfield or marlborough or union whose hospitals are going
bankrupt or closing down because governor haley is putting her own political career above the good of those communities? what do we say to the people, 300,000 of us, mothers, fathers, grandparents, who should be getting help through medicaid, except for heaven or haley blocking it? it is morally and economically wrong? are nothospitals closing down because of medicaid expansion not being accepted. rural hospitals are closing down because the rural populations are getting smaller and the people left there are driving to get to more modern facilities. we have done more for rural hospitals than any administration. we are now paying 90% of all uninsured patients. paying 100% of all medicaid patients could we started a transformation program that will allow them to have urgent care facilities in those areas were they treat chronic disease and help with emergency room issues and then partner with larger hospitals. >> your time has expired. mr. french?
>> ladies and gentlemen, our governor is telling us that she is now for the expansion of medicaid. but if you read the state and other news organizations, we are expanding medicaid at a faster rate than states that actually accepted it. you can look at the numbers. it is going to be 16% expansion by june of 2016. they are saying that by 2020, this may take over 30% of our budget. this is not sustainable and not something we can do. my plan is to provide competition. we need to stop picking winners and losers and have free market competition and this day for health care. when we look at the rural hospitals in our state, 14 of them lost money last year. one went bankrupt. so our rural hospital systems are in trouble to it when they go under, we will have a real health-care crisis. the university of south carolina said, has governor haley expanding coverage in south carolina, it would have created
42,000 new high-paying jobs, jobs we need in this state, jobs that could have helped so many young people, yet, she turned her back on taxpayer money. >> rebuttal? >> yes, let's look at the facts. what happened with health care and the supreme court rule? i will tell you what happened. health care should stay in the hands of the federal government. it has been there. they have not missed a beat when senior citizens needed them. the federal government was there. when senior citizens need medicaid, the federal government never let you down. but these insurance companies, we ended pre-existing conditions , excluding from children. no longer limiting or denying benefits for children 19 years old -- >> your time has expired. we are going to get one more question. due to time constraints, we are holding you to a 30-second response. the last question starts with
mr. french. in southood obesity carolina has been on the rise. obesity can lead to a host of other health problems. what would you do to address that problem? about economics, south carolina it when i was making $50,000 to $20,000 a year, i did not have any money to go anywhere but mcdonald's -- when i was making $15,000 a european i cannot buy organic fruits and vegetables. this is an economic problem. this is about raising the poverty level in this state. we have close to 25% of south carolina on medicaid. so we need to talk about jobs and talk about people getting money into their pockets so they can get the things they need. thin question. >> did you tell me the question again, please? a host of leads to other problems. how would you address that? >> i would address the issues by, you know, the governor don't know everything.
i certainly don't know everything. i have a lot of room or improvement to it i have common sense to know to respect the doctors out here. again, i go back to cannabis plants. if they love health care so much, why not include the cannabis plant? if it can't heal people -- i feel those hurting people. >> your time is expired. governor? >> obesity is an issue we all hear about. it is forcing hospitals to deal with the issues and diseases coming up because of it. what we have done is, we initially tried to look at the way people were on food stamps, where they are buying. are they buying healthy foods? we wanted to eliminate sodas and snack foods. but we cannot do that. we looked at some of the most chronic counties and have partnered with them and have incentivized them to take nutrition classes and to buy healthier. >> your time is expired. senator, please. >> we need to set a good example in schools with healthy choices
weird at we need to encourage local produce. i have an eighth grader who might be watching this. if you are, anthony, make sure you do your homework in a few minutes, please. that i want him to eat well in school. i want to set that example and pop our schools. if we do that, it can lead to choices in thele years to come. >> we have to grow the economy for all. one in five south carolinians lived below the poverty line. one in three children live in poverty. we have two raise minimum wage so parents can buy healthier foods. we encourage them to exercise. we need to encourage public schools to reinstate physical education. questions.cludes the the opportunity for rebuttals has expired. we moved to closing statements. earlier, the campaigners june cards for the
order. mr. french -- >> south carolina, may -- new hampshire may have the most popular saying, give me liberty or give me death, but i believe we have the best -- while i breathe, i hope. i hope something has touched a nerve with you. i hope it has had you in your heart, your mind, or your soul. be thesouth carolina to freest state in the nation. i want you to wake up on november 5 knowing that you have the power over your child's education and you can make the best decisions for them. i want you to know that you're getting $250 back a month of your own money. i want you to wake of november 5 knowing you cannot be arrested for his victim was nonviolent crime like marijuana. i want you to wake up knowing that the government cannot tell you who you can and cannot love. this is about breaking tradition in south carolina, always being at the bottom of the barrel and things like transportation and income and always bring at the top of corruption and violence against women.
i want you to live in the freest state of the nation. if you vote for me, you will make a big difference in this state and in the country. likes senator? >> being governor is more than hanging out in the governor's mansion, flying on the state plane. it needs to be about honest leadership. governor haley's department of health knew about a tuberculosis outbreak in greenwood county over a year ago and did not tell the parents about a tuberculosis outbreak in that school for almost two months. after became known, i went there to meet with those parents bed you know what they told me? they said, why doesn't governor haley, why doesn't governor haley come here? why were we not told there was a tuberculosis out rate? and whyids contracted do teachers contracted? i went again a month later and promised them i would tell the story. the card to their kids have to present when they grow up to jobs that says they have been exposed to tuberculosis. this is bigger than republican
or democratic. this is bigger than the state. it is about honesty and leadership in bringing south carolina together again. i ask for your support. >> dr. reeves? >> i hope i can gain your support on the down stretch. iran the underdog here. -- i and the underdog here. the professor to put the polls out, that was his personal opinion. but let me say, what separates me from the rest of them is i kept god in the picture. i have mentioned god's name more than anybody out here. so may the lord bless you children and families. if you want to be broke, republican, vote for nikki. if you want to be a broke democrat, vote for sheheen. >> you know, will rogers once said that we have got the best heernment money can buy, and said it in a humorous way.
but in a sad way, it is to about south carolina. just this past week, go -- both governor haley and senator eheen exploited a loophole by taking contributions in excess of the $3500 limit. governor haley took $72,000 from . shady businessman in texas took $35,000en from the trial lawyers. you know, both of you should return these contributions. are for ethicsu reform, but you do not act that way. we need change in this state and we need to drain the swamp of corruption and columbia. i am an independent and will do it. i am not tied to special interest. toe tom ervin the chance change south carolina. >> governor? >> senator, you are right. it is about honesty and that is
why when a state was notified, not one child got tuberculosis after we were contacted. ladies and gentlemen, last time i asked you for your support, it was based on my words, based on my vision, and you really had no reason to support me. i wanted jobs for our people and a good education for our children. four years later, i am not asking you to go on my word. look at where we are. and other have been a lot of negativity in this campaign by mike, -- opponent, but another has been a lot here tonight. that is ok to it we can handle it. but look at the south carolina of today. over 57,000 jobs and 40 -- in 45 out of 46 dispute 25,000 people from welfare to work. where the third best state in the country to do business in. a massive education reform plan transportation plan. we're just getting started in north carolina -- in south carolina.
god blessed are >> this concludes tonight's televised debate. thank you for joining us. we would like to offer more to you. but we are out of time for tonight. good night. [applause] 2014 election less than two weeks away, our campaign debate coverage continues. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, the new york 11th district debate the between dominicgrim,m and recchis, jr. then a debate between rick scott and charlie crist. and then the illinois 10th district debate with brad schneider and bobob dold. then representative sean patrick maloney and nan hayworth.
at 10:00, rodney davis and ann callis. thursday night at 8:00 eastern, the iowa fourth district of eight between stephen king and jim mowrer. c-span campaign 2014. more than 100 debates for the control of congress. in last night's new hampshire u.s. senate debate, senator jeanne shaheen was asked if she approves of the job president obama is doing to it we are going to show you her response, followed by rebuttal for him a republican chain and -- challenger, former senator scott brown. >> in some ways i approve, some things, i do not approve. [laughter] we dealt questions that with as policymakers, there are not simple answers, yes or no. >> well, let me put it this way, you have said that you're are the candidate for the citizens of new hampshire.
because obama' approval ratings are at an all-time low in new hampshire, how does your approval rating jive with the citizens of new hampshire? >> i am proud of the 259 people now working at the berlin prison because i was able to get the prison open after it sat empty for two years. 1200 people were being for closed on in their homes that our office worked with to keep in their homes. it is the 129,000 veterans who can now get care close to home a cause of the legislation that the senator and i got into the veterans reform bill. what we need is a senator that will work for new hampshire, who
will make sure we address the concerns we hear from our constituents, who will be willing to work with democrats, ,epublicans, and independents anybody in washington who can help us get the job done. described me, because i was the most bipartisan center in the united states senate. out, survey that has come she has been voted with the president over 99% of the time. what does that mean to people in new hampshire? it means she was the deciding vote for obama care. she did vote against every ability for us to keep our doctors and care facilities that people trusted and loved. up.s are going care and coverage's are going down. she has also voted to put in place a system where we have more and more gridlock by voting with her party over 99% of the time. that is part of the problem here to we need to have an end to the
gridlock. >> that debate taking place as night. here is a look at some of the ads running in this race. >> i am jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. click sought brown says -- >> i am pro-choice -- >> that way too often, that is not how he votes. he sponsored up bill so employers can deny women rum insurance coverage for birth control. >> i cannot believe he limits access to birth control. >> and brown pushed to force women considering abortion to look at color photographs of developing fetuses being a wonder anti-choice groups in massachusetts endorsed scott brown. i do not trust scott brown. >> you may have seen as senator shaheen is running an ad calling into question my support for women's health care. i want you to know the facts. i am pro-choice. as part continued funding for planned parenthood. i believe women should have access to contraception. after six years of voting with president obama, senator shaheen has resorted to a smear campaign to distract you.
senator shaheen knows better. the people of new hampshire deserve better. i am scott brown, and i approve this message to >> i am jeanne shaheen and i approve this message. click the big oil companies are the most profitable on the planet. if scott brown voted to give them one at 20 billion dollars in taxpayer subsidies. >> this guy is not for us. >> i do not trust scott brown for a minute. >> big oil gives scott brown thousands of dollars within days of his vote. now big oil is spending millions to get him back to washington. >> scott brown is here for scott brown, nobody else, and not know hampshire -- not new hampshire, no way. >> hey, i know you're thinking, another ad. but hear me out. senator jeanne shaheen says she would put you first, but she votes with obama 99% of the time. 99%. that is for more spending, more debt or to obamacare? come on. we have to put up with obama for two more years, but we can fire
shaheen now. let's fire jeanne shaheen. ok, here is your video. be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook to get debate schedules and video clips of key moments. debate previews from our politics team. c-span brings you over 100 debates, and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter, and c-span, and liking us on facebook. >> in -- and ottawa hospital says it has received three victims from the shootings in canada's hospital. that is from the ap. the hospital says it has taken in three patients and two of them are in stable condition. there is a tweet saying an attack on ottawa, one soldier
killed, one suspected dead. holies say a soldier and a suspected gunman are dead. a soldier was shot and there were shots fired at a nearby shopping mall. the ap adding that police believe there is more than one shooter. reaction now from embers of the national security council, tweeting out that we express our condolences and prayers to our canadian friends. norad isreat that taking appropriate and prudent steps to make sure we are postured to respond quickly to any instance involving aviation in canada. the u.s. embassy is on lockdown now. the embassy tweeting -- due to shooting at parliament hill in ottawa earlier, we are currently on lockdown. we will update once further information is available. this from a white house reporter -- president obama has spoken to the canadian prime minister after the shooting in the canadian parliament.
live now to georgetown university law school to hear from the top democrat on the energy and commerce committee, congressman henry max when -- henry waxman on health care for he is retiring at the end of his current term and has served 40 years. he will discuss global health challenges that lie ahead. this is just getting underway. .> congressman henry waxman if one thinks about the modern history of health and health law, as i have all of my career, the congressman has been a leading force to really shape that law in the united states in so many different areas, from clean water to tobacco to the affordable care act. and he is a legend to as in the field. so, congressman, thank you very much for coming.
much to our relationship with the congressman to our wonderful faculty colleague, timothy west moreland. 10 is a professor here at the law center. it is aaching, and legendary. he actually can explain to students what a budget looks like and what goes into it. he has also been a very effective and loyal staff person for congressman waxman over the been a great just leader to all of us here at the at health looking budget and congress. so thank you both for joining us . it is just a great honor.
by tradition, what we will do is that tim will be asking the congressman a number of questions. they will have a conversation. once that is over, i will probably ask the first one or two trope questions. questions.wo trop then we will go to the audience for questions. thank you all. you are in for a treat. >> thank you. >> you are at the institute for health law. you have been doing health law since before there was a field of health law, when people really thought the only thing there was was medical malpractice liability litigation. how did you know it was going to be the field it is? do did you decide to go health? >> i have been in congress for 40 years and this is my last year. i would not planning on going for reelection. before that, i was at the state
legislature. i made a decision that i wanted to specialize in a particular policy so i could make the maximum difference in that policy. and i thought about the at the stateas legislative level. i came to the conclusion that health was an area where government undoubtedly had to be involved in so many different and to my constituency, and elderly constituency then and medicare was already in effect when i first got elected, medicaid was fairly new because the state had to implement it and we were going through a lot of growing pains in california with the medicaid program, that health care was where i wanted to focus my attention. when i came to congress, i wanted to get on the committee that had the most jurisdiction over health policy. that turn out to be the energy
and commerce committee. this was 1975 in the middle of the energy crisis, and everybody wanted on the committee because of the energy issues. but i went on because of the health policy here at on that committee, health policy was not just medicare or medicaid, but also public health and environmental issues that affect health. one of the ares i quickly became involved in and for decades with the clean air act, because the clean air act and the safe drinking water laws and other environmental laws, they relate to public health. >> you describe this as being a constituent issue for medicare and elderly constituents, but you have also spent a whole lot of your time working on behalf of low-income people, poor people, who probably really are not a big constituency, certainly not now that you represent beverly hills. [laughter] but you spend a lot of your time trouble with medicaid
expansion and child health insurance, trying to get poor pregnant women health care. how did you decide that you needed to work on poverty issues? ofecially if you start thinking about it as a constituent issue? >> i have a without that the government can and must make a real difference in peoples lives. and one of the areas where government can play an essential role is to provide a fair and equal opportunity for every child to succeed to the fullest extent possible. equal we believe in opportunity to advance as far as people can go, we have to recognize that there are some people, because of disabilities or other factors in their life, they do not have that chance it we have to provide a strong safety net. and government alone has to be there to provide that safety net. because we do not want people to possible --lowest
we want to respect their dignity as human beings. so we need a safety net for the disabled, the elderly, for the poor, for those who have nowhere else to turn. i have always felt a special , because in washington and in sacramento, there are always lobbyists that protect special economic interests, but i felt it was important to play a role for those who did not have anybody else representing them, the people who really needed government the most. looked at that seriously over the years i have been in public office. toi assume you know, but make sure you do and i'm not sure people here do, that sometimes changes had to be very small and very incremental, and you worked -- i mean, one person once said that henry waxman is
not a rock, he is a river and keeps going through until he wears you down. [laughter] but it has expanded medicaid incrementally. there was a cohort of children that came in year-by-year. kids under six, then kids under seven, then kids under eight, and then kids under nine, until eligibilityll for low-income kids. those kids are called "waxman in some crowds. >> i am very proud of that. >> i was going to ask of you knew how many kids you had across the nation. >> there is no paternity tests. [laughter] have given them support along the way. >> can you imagine in this country, the wealthiest country ever, that health care has not been available for everybody? it is available to those who can afford it, and it has been
available because of medicare were thers who fastest-growing demographic in poverty right into the medicare program. because people, because of a historical fact, after world war ii, they had their health care services tied to their employment. when people retired, they lost their health care benefits. but a lot of people who are very, very poor did not have health care, and we tried to help them out with the medicaid program. it we let each state decide how poor you had to be. a lot of them did not cover some evil that are genuinely poor, especially children -- a lot of them did not cover people that are genuinely poor, especially children. there has been implementation of a budget proposal, ways to expand health care. through medicaid, which is health care for the poor, but it
evenover all children, below the poverty line spirits we put them in so that over a if you explain-- to this group about budgets, if you cannot spend more than the budget permits that you could put a little piece in, and then the next year put another little piece in so that you can build up over time what you should have done all at once in a society that has this serious obligation. finally with the affordable care act, it is going to evolve. not the end of the road, but it is a way that people cannot be discriminated against in getting health insurance because of the existing medical conditions and because they cannot afford to pay for the premium. >> that incremental approach of doing something not all at once, i think, is something that people look at you and say he is the guy that is the river that keeps doing this. i assume you have seen the quote
from a former bush official that said it was invented by henry waxman when nobody was looking to gradual incrementalism is something i think is unique to you. there was this kind of incremental year by year approach. this is a group on health law at large. you have also been very involved with pharmaceutical law and regulation which is a huge business and a huge legal business. and you were deeply involved in genericthat invented drugs in the u.s. some people know, but let me make sure. it is called the hatch-waxman or on the house side, waxman-hatch, legislation to create generic drugs. and you did that with senator hatch, quite a conservative
republican member of the senate, and you worked quite amicably and well, i think. how did that go at the time? think legislation like hatch-waxman could be passed now, bipartisan and bicameral legislation? >> i think that if you're serious about trying to get good policy through, you have to be willing to compromise. unfortunately, there are a lot of people in congress right now who think compromise is a dirty word. some of the tea party republicans, getting them to work with democrats is like implicitly with the enemy. that is absurd. americans, we are not enemies. i always look for compromises, look for opportunities to move the agenda forward. if it is incremental, fine. always look for chances to get things done.
pharmaceuticals, a law changed in 1952 that a drug to be approved, it had to be safe and effective. so the drug companies had to establish the safety and to do that. but there is nothing in the law it is not a new drug or competitive drug on the market and it will go to fda. they could go to market because they are making a copy of the same drug, but they had to go through all the tests to show their safe and effective, even though they are following the exact formula that was on the market and already approved by .he fda so we worked out a compromise. on the one hand, we want to encourage the development of new drugs and the pharmaceutical
companies were a little annoyed because they had to spend a lot more time at fda in order to show that drugs were efficacious. and they lost time to get benefits from their patents. they said, we will give you more , patentyour patent restoration, from the time you used at fda. the when that time is up, we want a generic drug to be approved automatically, on an abbreviated new drug application. and all they had to show was it was the same drug as the original and not go through all those tests. well, i thought that was a very good balance. and all these years later, i still think it is a good balance. because we want both to happen. investments and new breakthroughs, medicines, even b2 drugs, but generic drugs make drugs affordable and the market will
produce a better price. >> you and mr. hatch came to a compromise over this? >> we did. it was a hard-fought battle. we had a lot of things to work out, a lot of details. but we worked it out. i think it is important to realize -- a lot of people say what we need is a lot of legislators in the middle. i am a proud liberal democrat and he is a proud conservative republican. so we did not have to be in the middle. we both had to be willing to see how we could get something done. we could get nothing done together -- in fact, that is what congress is doing these days. no compromises, no progress. we look for ways to bridge the differences and eventually worked out landmark legislation on that and other things. when we got the bill through, we were presented nightgowns, strange bedfellows on it.
[laughter] >> i assume they were not of the same size, you and mr. hatch. >> same quality, but he had a bigger size. [laughter] , in anotherow that area of from a cynical legislation that you have been involved in, that there is a really good story around the creation of orphan drug legislation, to try to create incentives for big drug companies to study products that only affect a little tiny market and the market might not be big enough otherwise for them to be interested in. the story?l us >> it started because i got a constituent call. my constituent called the office and said i have a rare disease called tourette's syndrome and there's no medicine to treat it. i have a drug that helps me a bit and i had to buy it overseas. i think he bought it in canada. and when he came into the united
states, it was seized from him because it had not been approved by the fda. he said, now i have got nothing. congressman, what can you do to help? that piqued our interest because he was a sufferer of a rare disease, and there are a lot of other people who were suffering from a rare disease, rare in that the patient population is so small that if a drug company develops a drug for people, even 200 people or 500 people have that disease, it is not as valuable as a drug they can sell to a large patient population overall. so we knew there was a market , a disincentive for the manufacturers to work on that. so after many, many hearings, we calledd a legislation the orphan drug act. because the diseases people
suffering, they felt like orphan pharmaceutical companies the right incentives to work on it. in 1980, i believe there were four orphan drugs. 450.ast figure i saw was so it has been a great success. there are a lot of interesting stories about the legislation. one of our strongest supporters was an actor named jack klugman. he had a tv show called "quincy ." we were worried that once we passed this bill out of the house, it might not go anywhere in the senate. we did not know where he stood on it, but there were rumors he might not be for the bill. the drug committees do not like it even though it helped them. they were a little embarrassed they had not done as much as they should had. jack klugman had a special episode of "quincy" written about having a bill for millions
of people suffering from rare diseases, demanding congress act to give them hope and it was going to be stopped in the senate. i am not sure that was the episode they showed, but they had that episode ready to go if hatch was not going to be for the legislation. the other was we just needed to get people involved for fighting for those with rare diseases. are was a strong efficacy not only for the people suffering from the disease, but a television episode. , after it passed, the president was going to veto it. the secretary of health and ,uman services at the time said i like this bill and want the president to sign it but senator hatch attached a provision onto the bill which i thought made a lot of sense.
he wanted it, because of his constituency, to find out the suffering of people from the atomic tests in nevada, you talk, the arizona area -- utah, and the arizona area, and they wanted people who were exposed to radiation. he wanted something done so at least we had the knowledge of that exposure and how great an it was paired but the office of management and budget i was looks to, oh, is this going to cost us more money once we know? and they tell the president to veto the bill. well, we had a dramatic effort on behalf of all the people with rare diseases, taking out full-page ads, contacting president reagan. there was even somebody i called that was going to be at the special new year's eve event that president and mrs. reagan always attended in palm springs. i call this man and said i would like you to talk to president reagan when you are there at this party and tell him to sign this bill.
bill. sign the that has been a great success and i feel a lot of pride in that. today, i spoke to the national organization of rare diseases actually, and they are thriving. there is still work to be done. there are a lot of orphan diseases that still need drugs. regulatorythere is a pathway for those drugs and incentives to the manufacturers. >> there was always a regulatory pathway. the drugs had to be safe and effective. we did not lower the standards. but john manufacturers, we felt, should not lose any money. we gave them tax breaks and gave them a longer time of exclusivity, seven years. >> just like a panton. -- just like their patent. >> it was an extension of their patent. ironically, today, the topic is how much these drugs cost.
because a lot of the manufacturers are developing pharmaceuticals for people with rare diseases and then charging incredible amounts of money. they will charge an insurance pay heror government for that, but when people do not have insurance or somebody to buy the drugs, they will give it to them. but they are making a lot of money or what we thought were going to be losing propositions. they turned it into a big financial successful effort on their behalf. >> another chapter for another time. [laughter] i think everybody who does public health knows the picture of you swearing in the tobacco executives to testify about whether they were manipulating the levels of nicotine or whether they think cigarettes cause cancer. that was quite a watershed hearing. but i am not sure that everybody knows the other part of the story that goes with that after
that hearing took place and after the republicans took over the house so you were no longer chairman. so everybody thought your role in moving forward tobacco regulation was sort of going to have to wait for a while because you were not chairman anymore. what happened? --i do not like the fact advance what we can under the circumstances. i left the chairmanship of the health and environment subcommittee. the chairman of that subcommittee was from richmond, virginia, a very strong advocate for phillip morris which is headquartered in richmond. when he took over, he said no more hearings on tobacco. no more investigations on tobacco. we continued our investigation. because after the hearing in 1994 with the executives when they took an oath to tell the truth and light about cigarettes not being harmful and nicotine,
no, no, that is not addictive. a targeting kids? of course not at after that hearing, we started getting insider information about what was really going on. >> from inside the industry? >> inside the industry. we were getting dockets, but i had an issue with the fact that itannot hold a hearing about -- >> because you are not chairman. >> i was not chairman. if i put out a document that i received confidentially, i was worried the tobacco companies would sue me. because they filed a lot of suits. they filed a lawsuit against abc television, threatening them with hundreds of billions of dollars if they ran a story which the tobacco companies that was not true, and that was that nicotine levels were being manipulated. turned out it was true. but abc's lawyers said we cannot afford to defend this lawsuit because of big tobacco money. i did not want to get sued.
i had documents, so i went to the house for after research by my staff said if you go to the house floor, you are protected under the speech and debate clause of the constitution. house floor and read the documents personally into the record. then i knew i could not be sued because the constitution protected me in doing that. >> the confidential documents being made public. you do not have a formal role in it because you are not chairman anymore. speech and debate protects members of congress doing their job, so reading those documents into the record and making them public, nobody could ever sue you for it. >> that is right. >> i wish i had some role in that planning, but i just think it is an ingenious legal factor. >> of following the time when the tobacco companies -- when i was chairman of the subcommittee, filed a subpoena
to ask me to turn over all the documents we had in the subcommittee records. because they said there were documents that had been stolen or misappropriated and they wanted to know whether i had those documents here they actually issued a subpoena. andnt to the house counsel said this is separation of powers. how can they have the courts tell me, a member of congress, to turn over documents, and that subpoena was crushed. they were pretty aggressive. still are. >> still are. also moving slightly again, trying to cover a few, you spent a lot of time working on women's health issues. some of it about reproductive health. some of it about women and biomedical research files. some of it about breast and cervical cancer, those kinds of
things. are there anecdotes you remember about the women's health issues that you think law students would be interested in? >> there certainly are. , even at thethat national institutes of health when they were doing clinical studies, they did not look for a representative sample. so in order to make a decision, they just took a sample and thought they could just use men. >> in the clinical trial? >> in the clinical trial, and then extrapolate to women. some of them had a theory that women might react differently in the clinical trial, so they did not want to involve women. >> you do not mean behaviorally. >> biologically. of course, that is absurd. a test on whether aspirin helps prevent heart attacks was done on men. they had to do the test all over again. so we asked why you would have a
sample that is so limited. they cannot really explain it. we passed legislation saying that any clinical trial that was going to be conducted with government funds, which is at nih and universities they get money from nih, had to have a representative sample of racial, ethnic, sexual differences so that they could see and get a genuine interpretation of what is actually happening biologically. could you imagine? i haveard to think -- always been for women's ability reproductiveeir lives. to me, it is a no-brainer. i have always thought if you do not like abortion, the best thing to support is planned parenthood and family planning, contraception. because the biggest reason for abortion is unwanted pregnancy. if you can avert the pregnancy,
we would have less abortions. but the people who are against abortions thought, well, i do not know what they are against. if they think it is wrong to thinkontraceptives, they basically the people for contraceptives are also four abortion. but it is not that therefore abortions, but they do not think the government should be making the decisions. it amazes me that we're still talking about contraceptive coverage under the affordable care act. and the u.s. supreme court would come down to the decision saying that a corporation can have a religious point of view where they do not have to cover contraceptive services. it is clearly an important preventive service. the institute of medicine determined it to be one, therefore saying it had to be covered by the law. and then the supreme court came back with another way to look at it.
i think you were with me at the time on the staff at the committee when we were trying to do legislation on having screening for breast and cervical cancer, and we cannot get anybody from the bush-quayle administration to come in and give testimony. but mrs. quayle came in and testified -- >> the vice president's wife. >> to her credit, she said we should have screening. that was very good testimony at of course, when we asked her, what if we find this cancer and people do not have insurance -- well, that is not our problem. but that gap was in the law for a long amount of time until we finally, on a bipartisan basis, got the republicans to say if you find that cancer through the screening program, we should provide services to otherwise, why are they going to show up to find out whether or not they have cancer?
a very interesting hearing. i remember it well. there was no formal representation from the white house, but there was a witness there who was married to the vice president who made very clear she was speaking only on her own behalf, not on behalf of the administration. it was an interesting conundrum. >> repeated again under the bush-cheney administration on gay marriage. vice president cheney was in support of gay marriage. he felt personally about the issue because of his daughter. yet, the bush administration's support policy was to proposes around the country to make it illegal to allow same-sex couples to get married. and i think he said at the time, i am not entered of the policy of this administration. [laughter] so i have nothing to add to that discussion. [laughter]
note that mrs. cheney never appeared in front of the congress on this. that made it particularly hard. i do not know if you remember or not, but on a staff basis, we had to promise the reagan administration -- i am sorry, the bush administration, over and over again that no democrat would ask a question about financial support or new legislation of mrs. quayle, the democratic members would only talk about breast and cervical cancer. and you stuck to the deal and open to the questions and talked about what a hard problem breast cancer was. had questionns after question after question for mrs. quayle about why the administration do not support your legislation. it was an embarrassment, but we stuck with the deal. >> i remember that and your involvement. i want to share an anecdote about you. >> oh, dear. [laughter] came to work for me when i
first became chairman of the subcommittee. was this your first job? like my first job out of law school. >> he was working on public health issues. worriedto me, i am about all these budget cuts during the reagan administration on a lot of public health efforts here at we have to be prepared for whatever may happen. so what happens? suddenly, game in were dying of a rare form of cancer. and the centers for disease control said this is geometrically multiplying and moving very quickly, expanding very quickly. so we held a hearing on it. we held a series of hearings. , president reagan, would not even mention the word aids. but his department officials understood what was going on, and they were worried about it. talked to them about or
talked to me, i should not present, but if we ask a representative of the administration with their view was, they would give the administration's position. but we framed it in terms of -- what is your best expertise? your best expert judgment, should we do this or that or the other? then we got the right answers, answers that affected their views that had not been approved through the bureaucracy. and the people within the health and human services were very, very pleased that you came up with this way to get the answers to the questions that we needed. >> well, i mean, the conundrum witness,ministration they are appearing on behalf of the administration. so if you ask them, they have to say with the administration's formal position is.
if, however, you ask what their personal professional judgment is, then they are compelled to say with her best personal judgment is on this topic. so a number of higher medical researchers, public health sayle, they were willing to with her best professional judgment was, even if they could speak on behalf of the administration. so i was going to ask you about aids hearings, but you started it there. you ended up chairing three dozen aids hearings along the way. at a timef them were when people were -- i do not want to say frightened, i would say hysterical, as we did not aidsfor sure how -- what was at first and what hiv was and then how it was spread. you chaired hearings during a time when the public was really quite frightened many times.
i, myself, am having some flashbacks of those days now. and i just wanted, without suggesting in any way that the ebola virus in the u.s. is anything like what the aids epidemic is and was in the u.s., just wanted to know if you have -- you were in an oversight hearing about ebola just last week. do you have views about how the congress and the administration and the public health world are responding? a lot of strong emotions about hiv -- we did not know hiv. we called it a spirit we held hearings before we even had the word aids. so it was affecting mainly game in and was a death sentence. and if you had aids and you do not have insurance, you had no medical care. if it came out that you had
aids, you lost your job and you probably lost your insurance, because insurance companies could drop you. there was no confidentiality and no real protections for people who had the disease or were fearful they might have the disease. there was no reason for them to want to be tested. it was not until later that we had some pharmaceuticals to help them. that the public had a strange reaction. sometimes it was absolute panic. there were people who were saying this disease is spread through the air. and we have got to take these people and quarantine them. the ranking republican on the subcommittee was a congressman also in california. it was just the wrong time for him to be in congress, although i cannot imagine a good time for him to ever have been in congress. [laughter] but he took the attitude, we are all at risk in we have got to take a list of all the people who are hiv-positive, who have
the potential for aids, or have aids and put ton place. that is certainly not going to encourage people to come forward to be helpful. , andde things so difficult then the public was getting very -- if you had a waiter that had aids, are you going to get aids? so there was a tremendous amount of fear. then there would be a lot of times when nobody would pay attention to it appeared i was invited to go on a sunday talk show. we had not been invited to talk about aids for a long and amount of time. we were only hearing about work about it but there was no questions about it. but then we heard rock hudson might have aids. so they call me and said we want you on the talkshow if it turns out rock hudson has aids. otherwise, we do not want you on it. 's coverage.he media
i learned in the many years that we don't with aids and hiv-aids and the ryan white act, one thing i learned is if you have some the like this or ebola, follow the science. that is junior -- true generally anytime. when you have people throwing things out like let's have a travel ban for anybody traveling to the united states from certain countries in africa -- well, that sounds theoretically good, but it becomes counterproductive. it means that people will disguise whether they have the disease. they traveled to brussels, which is what happened with the first case of ebola. there was a map of all the different flights. but then keeping everybody out, whether they have ebola or not,
so it would not make sense for or the health people to say let's screen them when they leave and screen them when they come in, rather than drive the whole thing under ground. was to justeas drive everything underground to her that makes it harder for the public health people to deal with a real epidemic. so do not let ebola become politicized. >> all right. thank you very much. lane,k me down memory with all the work you have done. you may not remember, but you were here at the founding. so you have been a friend of ours for a long time. i want to ask two quick questions and then turn it over to the audience. the first one is to pick up on the discussion we had with ebola
but to reframe it in a different way. if you think about our response andids and now with ebola the director of cdc coming to congress, you think about climate change or any number of other things, do you perceive in your public service that there has been an increasing distrust of government science to handle the great problems that are facing the united states and the world in terms of health and safety? of trust? deficit the other question was going to be on a different topic. >> ok. i think, certainly, there is a mistrust of government. some of that has been drummed into people for political reasons. you say health is not a democrat or republican issue.
>> neither is science. you have a pipe -- a hypothesis, you look at the evidence to support it. it should be dispassionate and not political. but i have seen in a number of areas, the political is a nation of science. thehe new political -- politicalization of science. they put on the website that if a woman were to have an abortion, she is more likely to have breast cancer. there is no scientific evidence , to make thatl statement. right now, republicans are denying climate change. science as if it is someone's political opinion.
if the scientists all agree, it is a conspiracy, not that they have looked at the evidence and they have drawn conclusions from that evidence. i am troubled by the superficial way that has been treated. it is not new, but more and more by people who want to deny science, ignore it, and then treat things as their ideology. >> we do need to rely on science . one last question and then i will turn it over. perhaps the signature achievement on health was the affordable care act. and you a landmark, a are a giant with that. you wanted to bring the supreme court case on the question of contraception coverage. i would be interested to see if there are solutions to that. it seems to me the biggest for the affordable
care act now is the medicaid expansion. you have been a champion of medicaid all of your life. when governors do not expand medicaid, is there a way forward? a way forward for children, for poor people? this is your life's work that i love your reflections on that. >> the supreme court us by surprise when they decided to say that medicaid expansion has to be agreed on. beenaid has always voluntary for all the states. they did not have to provide any assistance, but if they did, they had to do what was required under the federal law. they have a lot of discretion at the state level on how to run a program. we suggested discussions on how to run the program were not. the discretion to decide whether
you want to add on medicaid services. a lot of states refused it and to not expand medicaid people right above the poverty line, including low income, even though we put in the affordable care act that the federal government would pay 100%. it was a wonderful deal for the states to take. 100% funding for a lot of people , theured with low income hospitals, the health care providers, do not turn this away. we need it. if someone gets into an accident, they are brought to an emergency room at the hospital. no insurance, the hospital has to treat them but not get paid for it area -- for it. our own health insurance premiums is estimated $500,000 a year to pay for the cost of health care for those with no insurance.
stateslure of a lot of to pick up medicaid, i think, puts us on a track to a two-tiered system where people -- a lot of states will change their minds and they have a chance to expand their medicaid. they should. their own constituents ought to throw them out of offense -- of office. 175,000 dollars for three years. after that, it goes to 95%. say, no, this opens it up here five years down the road, we have to put up more money for our share of medicaid. it is either that or no insurance coverage for their own citizens. >> if i may, i would only point out i think the economics of this are so clear, a good friend
of mine pointed out if any corporation were thinking of relocating to a state and offering billions of dollars of money into the state, that the legislature would be passing tax incentives and begging them to come. just turning are the money away. >> federal dollars. it is remarkable. federal dollars for poor people. that is exactly right. i want to now turn to my wonderful students. we have got hands up. >> my background is in political organizing. i am wondering if, side from using those efforts to elect people from office, if there is a place for those efforts and advocating?
>> we do not have a microphone, so i will repeat the question. in terms of activism and tried to get people involved in the process, there is a role to play in the elections. is there a role beyond that to influence policies? of course there is. just looking at this drug act, if it were not for the strong activism of people with rare diseases, it may never have happened. if it were not for the people who have been marching to do something about climate change, we would not have the commitment by the administration underscored. more and more people understanding that we can just -- we cannot just ignore the problem or sweep it under the rug and deny the science and take a risk with the only planet we have to live. doing. what we have been
action is essential. the other point i want to make is almost all of these bills we have talked about that i had a role in enacting the law, a lot of them made sense. it should have been agreed to right away. but it took 15 years from the time the tobacco executives lying to the time we passed legislation president obama to give the fda authority to regulate tobacco. unregulated until 2009. it took us at least a decade before we agreed on clean air act changes. long did that take? >> it was in 2000 -- 1990, and you did your first hearing in 1982. eight years. >> a lot of people take for government ishe not doing anything right, but they take for granted the times when the government does the
right thing and sometimes, how difficult that thing was pier 1 of the bills i have a lot of pride in is, if you go and require uniform regulating of nutrition of different products, the calories, the sodium, the carbohydrates, whatever it is, you get that information and make decisions for yourself. it took a long time before we got that through because a lot of marketers of these products say, we do not want to change the labels, do not bother with it. but we kept at it. activism is essential, but saying in it for the long haul is also. the demonstration is great. being there and constantly , notng is what is needed for every individual, but for groups to keep whooshing forward in order to get things done. say, ofy are done, they
course we do not allow smoking on airplanes. they probably remember that, but we have separate sections. then we found out those people were forced to smoke involuntarily were getting cancer and heart disease and blood problems. it was just not -- it was not just a voluntary act for those who want to smoke. we learn from scientists who then adapt the laws. sounds obvious but does not happen easily. to the water that keeps flowing downstream and then it becomes a waterfall. >> ager, is that what you're saying? [laughter] >> thank you, congressman. is abouton
and equalng treatment. in my jurisdiction, a group of against the lgbt, they have been discriminated against. recently, the president of my country, uganda, adapted this legislation that discriminates against the gay community. the minister of health says they have access to medicines. closed. haveentioned we should politicized solve these problems, including ebola. in your line of work, how have you dealt with these kinds of politicians politicizing these , with the the access
community that actually deserve treatment and access to these -- to this kind of medicine. >> an important point. we have to follow the signs. we have to follow the evidence. we have to figure out what is best for the public health and not to allow bigotry or discrimination to be the basis for any policy, but certainly not the health policy area. stand up and say what is right and what is wrong. we have come across this over the years. people have been discriminated against. low income people have been discriminated against. gay people have been discriminated against. those who would politicize it create the others, the groups that we should not worry about. .e should worry about ourselves but we are all in this together. we have got to figure out the best solution for everybody.
question,t student and then i will take one or two from the audience. >> thank you for coming. we have an open presidential election coming up in three years. how would you like to see health discussed for the 2016 cycle? what would your wish be and how do you think it will actually be discussed? >> two different things. [laughter] sidee been on the winning of some debts and the losing side. i am talking about court decisions as well as legislation. decisions are made and they are made, whether you like it or agree with it or not. in our society, we accept it and that is how thomas he works. it is astounding that after we passed the affordable care act, that we had 50 separate votes in
the house of representatives to repeal it. decidedhe republicans this is a place for them to take a stand against obama. they wanted to repeal it. we spent 50 separate times are killing it in the house of representatives. once or twice, they got the message. they did nothing else. we voted 57 times against this law. .e compiled a record congress, we voted 500 times to weaken the clear air act, and publicrivers property and natural resources, 500 separate times, including that climate deny change exists and it cost us, as a result. embarrassmento from people who vote for those
kinds of positions over and over again. i think if something is settled, you move on. if you do not like it, change it. throw it all out, repeal and replace. they never gave us a replacement to givethey do not want us a replacement because insurance companies can -- they did not have any idea that people could pay for health insurance. a -- they do not want to give taxpayers to help them. they did not like the idea of medicaid because that is government expenditures and we do not want to spend more money because you would have to bring in more money to spend it, which might mean an increase in taxes, especially for upper income, one of the best tax deals for anybody around the world and ever in this country. except for those with free income tax. the taxes during president
eisenhower's administration, compared to what people pay today, is astoundingly different. rate, we get those kinds of ideologies involved. i hope i addressed your question, that by 2016, we are not talking about appealing the affordable care act, but to get general -- genuine ideas that are bipartisan and what improvements we need, what problems have we seen? there is a case are now being brought because of the poor drafting of the law that said, only states who have set up the exchange for health care insurance plans can draw subsidies. that was never what congress .ntended option the states the
but the federal government would run if they did not choose their option. that should have been corrected. there has never been a complicated bill where there was not a corrective piece of legislation afterwards. lee -- atd a problem, least allow us to correct that problem. the republican view has been, if you would deal with it, it has to be repealed otherwise, they do not want to talk about it. have our differences and we can narrow them. give people differences and let them make a choice, not just muddy it all up with political rhetoric. >> you have two or three minutes left. was to give you a minute or two for final reflection and then i will bring it to a close, with sincere apologies to non-students who did not ask questions.
>> no tuition, no questions. [laughter] >> they are all up on the tuition and they do not default on the federal loan. [laughter] >> i only have a reflection of something i sort of said, which has come through with the comments. quick. these changes is it takes a long -- you have got a 40 year career in congress. for instance, you were just talking about how we could fix technical errors in the affordable care act. we are still correcting it to this day. , and henryection is is in many ways unique to this, he is a river and not a rock. he keeps going to try to get it done. i worry when there is not the institutional memory and the
perseverance in congress anymore of somebody who can look at these issues for the long haul and for the long game of trying to make those programs work. -- >>ould simply close weight. you will close? [laughter] i have always stood up to people like you. [laughter] thank you for your time. he does things, individuals can make a difference. keep in mind. you can always make a difference. you have a goal and keep pushing toward that goal. come and work on the staff. come and be in public office. get involved. even on a pro bono basis there is do not think somebody else's deal withproblem to
these big major issues. we all have to play a role and design that role uniquely for ourselves and keep at it. >> let a fitting conclusion. let me simply say thank you. not just for being here, because that goes without saying, but thank you for being such a giant ourleader of health for country. i cannot imagine without your leadership. we are all deeply grateful. if there is one and we turn to government for, it is for our health and protection. congressman henry waxman has been there for us. thank you very much. [applause]
>> more live coverage later on as judge will be live brown talks about the u.s. constitution. she is on the federal appeals court in the district of columbia. she will be speaking at the heritage foundation. soldier or memorial, shot to death today. guns fired and then arrested inside the building. one gunman was killed and police say they were searching for as many as two others. people fled the building while others took cover inside. in this picture from the
newspaper, people blocked the fromto keep the gunman entering. we will have more later on our schedule. at the white house briefing this afternoon, a spokesman said the president has been briefed on what is happening in ottawa. >> before we go to your question, there is sad news today that i want to talk about briefly. let me begin by saying here at white house, our hearts go out to the families, as well as of the soldier was killed earlier this week. the president was briefed by his top homeland security adviser. the details about the nature of sketchy, are still which is not unusual in this chaotic situation.
is one of the closest friends and allies of these states. in issues ranging from the strength of our nato alliance to the ebola response and dealing with isil, there is a strong partnership and friendship in the alliance between the united states and canada. -- united states strongly makes the citizens of the country safer. u.s. government has been in close touch with their canadian counterparts today to offer assistance, and that includes officials here in the white house. we have been in touch with the canadians about arranging a phone call between the president and the prime minister harper at the prime minister's early convenience. he is dealing with a lot today. as soon as he can arrange the call, we will let you know. >> we see her in a tweet from the national security council that the president did talk with
canadian prime minister harper and offered any assistance that canada needs. >> with the 2014 election less than two weeks away, our campaign debate coverage continues tonight at 8:00 pm eastern on c-span. the new york 11 district debate between candidates representative michael grimm and recchia, jr. the florida governor's bait. illinois 10th district has to date. followed at 9:00 by the new york 18th district debate with representative sean patrick hayworth.d nan district houseth debate. thursday, live at 8:00 eastern, the iowa fourth district debate. c-span campaign 2014, more than
100 days for the control of congress. >> now to the national massachusetts governors debate in boston. returning after being first elected in 2006. it comes to us courtesy -- it runs at an hour. >> the "boston globe" presents a live debate, one-on-one with charlie baker and martha coakley. >> good evening. it is two weeks until election day and we hope the next 60 minutes will help you decide your vote for governor. >> we intend to cover a lot of ground. the only thing we can tell you about the format is that there is not one.
>> please feel free to talk to each other as often as you like. >> you are both running as job creator-in-chief. martha, you have been working in the public sector for 28 years. not creating private sector jobs. how do you convince people that you can do this? >> what has been really important is seeing what barriers are to job creation in the private sector, how over regulation and health care costs are barriers to that. i understand what the state has been able to do. to work as a good partner with schools and to provide for the growth any economy we see happening already. one of the differences between the two of us, i see the need to keep those jobs going and the need to invest in our workforce. >> charlie, what do you think of that plan?
>> the big issue we do face is jobs. as i have traveled around the commonwealth, it is very clear to me that some parts of massachusetts are doing well and other parts are not. that is why we have been talking about building economies based on the jobs already in certain parts of massachusetts and that is why my first campaign event was at umass lowell at the emerging technology center because that is a great public-private partnership. it has created this terrific virtuous circle between a higher ed institution that provides research and product development expertise to a bunch of firms that want to be here and grow here and it is a great pathway for kids. >> that is why i have a regional economic plan. aligning what is happening in our schools already with curriculum, making sure that as
we roll out half $1 billion over the next 10 years, we will build an economy from the ground up. sustainable, invest in our kids and workforce, so that we will have people unemployed. >> you outsourced jobs to india and you shut down and operation in rhode island. why should people have confidence that you can create the jobs you claim you can in the private sector? >> it was in terrible shape when i got there and i am proud of the fact that we managed to rescue the jobs associated with the program and the job
associated with many health-care associations. when we signed the contract, we outsource those jobs to wellesley and to quimby. i am proud of the fact that we saved their jobs and the jobs at harvard vanguard. we saved the jobs of thousands of hospitals. in some respects, we had to make some tough decisions, but leadership requires you to make tough decisions. the hardest decision i had to make was to exit the rhode island marketplace. everybody we owed money to got paid. everybody in active treatment, we continued to serve.
everybody who lost their job, we provided technical assistance and job placement. >> one quick thing about the outsourcing, i get your explanation that you needed to do that. i don't get the picture i saw you when you got dressed up in a tuxedo and you got an award. like it was something to celebrate about outsourcing jobs out of the country. what were you thinking? >> it was for the partnership we have with purell. those jobs stayed here in massachusetts. it was a system that was fundamentally broken. we turned it around and made it work for everyone, making it work for the members of harvard pilgrim and the providers that did business with harvard pilgrim. we saved thousands of jobs and kept them right here in massachusetts as a result of saving that company. >> history of job creation, should i assume from your answer and yours that you don't have any? in terms of actual job creation, the experience is limited. >> i also spent eight years working in administration during
which time between tax cuts, workers comp, and a host of other reforms, we took a state that has the highest unemployment rate in 1991 to the lowest unemployment rate in the country 10 years later. we created 500,000 new jobs. >> the public sector does not necessarily create jobs. the public sector plays a big role in how jobs are created. a company in fitchburg wanted to do on site outsourcing, energy production. they could put up a wind turbine. they saved money and they hired 300 more people.
>> governor patrick is shifting 500 employees from managerial positions to public positions. either of you have a problem with what the governor did? >> i was not involved with that. i think the governor needs to be more transparent about what happened. until we have that what and why, he needs to explain that. >> the guy you work for did some of the same things. >> 500 people at of the management workforce, almost 1/6 of the managers in state government. the fact that it happened two months before administration and there is no publicly available explanation about what agencies are affected. >> we need to know those facts. >> i worry about the message
this sends. what makes people crazy about government is that there are two sets of rules. look at something like the probation scandal, day after day, we had to listen to testament indicated that a whole bunch of people got jobs, not because of what they knew, but because of who they knew. i am still the only candidate for governor that put out a proposal to make transparent the process through which state government hires people and creating a process to make sure the public understands who gets the jobs and why. >> let's go back about transparency. kicking the can down the road.
letting go 700 department of mental health workers. i am happy to stand on my record. let's be transparent about our own records and the decisions we've made. that is what is at stake in this race. >> let's move on to taxes. charlie, you said you would not raise taxes. martha says, you only consider taxes as a last resort. >> that is fair. >> why would a good manager take anything off the table before taking office? you did not take revenues off the table at harvard pilgrim. you raised premiums pretty dramatically.
why do you take a solution off the table before you take office? >> we grew our membership by 40% while i was there. we made a ton of operating improvements, the kinds of things state government could use a good solid dose of right now. it is important to send a message to employers, small businesses, everybody in massachusetts, many of whom feel they have been nickeled and dimed to death. think about energy costs. families and businesses in massachusetts will be dealing with a 40% increase in their energy costs because the commonwealth, the governor, and the attorney general did not do the work they should have done to deal with the fact that we knew we were taking three coal fire plants out of production. what we should've been doing is moving forward to expand the
existing natural gas pipelines from three feet to four feet, a simple process, so that people would not get hit with those increases. >> that is a market issue, not a taxpayer issue. you are talking about taxes. back in 2010, you were against it. in the last four years, as the the ratepayer advocate, brought back $700 million on behalf of consumers. making sure that none of those costs were passed along. we have come much farther along in clean energy technologies than we would have thought four years ago. we need to catch up, i agree with that.
>> it depends on what see your talking about -- what fee you are talking about. >> if you total up the numbers, you do have to raise revenue. if i had to raise revenue options and do not increase the burden on the middle class, give us a couple of examples, series examples, of ways you could do that without increasing the burden on the middle class. >> both my opponent and i -- charlie has refused to take a no new taxes pledge. i've been straightforward. in order to move forward, we need to invest in this state. need to invest in our businesses and our kids and our workforce development. otherwise, you are missing the equation. charlie has proposed 300 million
of tax cost. he said, i will find that money somewhere. he also talks about the kinds of things he wants to do, including workforce development. where does that money come from? i know what my priorities are. investing in kids, investing in schools, investing in roads and bridges. >> what would those revenues be that would not increase the burden on the middle class? >> taxes on people who are the top two -- >> how do you do that? >> we are exploring ways to do a more graduated income tax. >> every four years, someone says they will not raise taxes on middle class. we have been hearing that for seven years. gas tax, middle-class. satellite-tv, middle-class. registry fees, middle-class. property taxes, fees for afterschool sports. all of this land on the middle class. i will not raise taxes because i think the middle class feel
strapped already and the last thing they need is another four years of getting nickeled and dimed again. >> you oppose the repeal of the gas tax index. charlie, you support it. they never review whether they are doing what they were supposed to do. in the spirit of question one, would you endorse the position that corporate tax rates should expire unless there is a vote of the legislature? >> we ought to do an annual
review of whether we are getting what we are supposed to be getting out of them. that is absolutely worth doing. >> i have always said we should be looking at whether tax breaks to businesses bring the money back. >> fair enough, thank you. let's talk about immigration. where are you on drivers license for immigrants who are here? >> i don't support drivers licenses for people who are undocumented. no one has ever been able to explain to me how you can document and verify someone who was undocumented. for many people, this is a burden and an inconvenience and i understand that.
fundamentally, we need washington to do with this question and solve the immigration problem. we need to create a coalition of governors to make the case to washington that we at the local level and the people who live at the local level deal with the hard reality of a broken immigration system. the folks in washington treat immigration like a football. we need to create a coalition, a bipartisan, and get after them on this one. >> they are not doing anything about it, not even handling it. i know other states have reached solutions. we have to move to a new system. there will be people in
massachusetts who will not be able to get those because they do not have their birth certificates. a lot of people have been here for a long time and they cannot get to work on it they cannot get to a medical emergency if they don't have licenses. there is some pending legislation. we have to address this situation. >> in-state tuition for people who are here illegally, are you for or against it? >> if you are going to get an in-state tuition subsidized by the taxpayer, you need to be able to work here in massachusetts when you graduate. the governor's executive order says if you fall into a certain category where you can work your after you graduate, you are eligible for in-state tuition. i support that.
i am not in favor of going beyond that. >> i support what the governor has done, but i support looking at extending that. for kids who have come here through no reasoning of their own -- we should be encouraging people who are law-abiding and want to work the opportunity to do that. >> i cover immigration. half a million people in massachusetts are not citizens, unable to vote. in boston, half the adults were not able to vote in the casino referendum because they were not citizens. what would you do about it? >> i think you need to be a citizen to vote. we need governors and local officials for whom the issues associated with the federal government inability, unwillingness to deal with the immigration issue, to form a coalition and make the case i make these guys and gals are
comfortable. it makes me nuts every day that i run into people that are confounded by the fact that the federal government has not been willing to address this. >> congress is not even meeting and we are in the middle of a war. it falls back on states, governors, to decide what you do. what do you do? 500,000 people in the state who are not citizens. a huge number of them in east boston are affected by this thing and they do not get to vote. >> i would not support that. >> certain cities and towns are mostly given the local option. there should be some requirements ahead of time.
i do believe, and i have seen over the past year, we have a new massachusetts. we have a lot of new residents. i know washington is not going to move. >> can you see a noncitizen who is a legal resident, can you imagine allowing them to vote in a local election? >> i think it is up to the local authorities, but i certainly would not oppose it. >> you lost to deval patrick 24 points among women. you got in a little hot water calling a reporter sweetheart in the campaign. >> you are killing me. >> and the hobby lobby decision. i think your words were, it does not matter in massachusetts. martha coakley supporters made a
lot of hay about this. do you think they treated you fairly in the media? >> hobby lobby, i am guilty of wildly overthinking it. i am still the only candidate in the race that proposed a solution. make it possible for women, if they work for a company that falls between the cracks, to be able to access the contraceptives that are covered under the decision. i am proud of that recommendation. i am pretty pleased with the
response we've gotten from people across the commonwealth. from every neighborhood, men and women. bring balance and bipartisanship to beacon hill. i have been very pleased with the response. >> do you think martha supporters were unfair? >> if i say something dumb -- >> don't call me sweetheart. [laughter] >> you have known charlie baker for a long time. is there anything in his record that would lead you to believe that he treats women as second-class citizens? >> we are not accusing him of being sexist. he has done great work, he has done a good job. the real issue for me, who do you see, who do you work with, who are you going to champion? the first response from me was, it is not just about contraception, it is about other forms of discrimination. i have been very involved in these sorts of issues. these are not academic issues.
these are things i know are real issues for people in the commonwealth. >> what is the one misconception of you in this campaign that drives you up the wall? >> that i care about numbers and i don't care about people. my entire professional career has been about people. i wanted to help the people. i did not spend eight years working in the administration because of the numbers. i took the job at harvard pilgrim because thousands of people were going to lose their jobs and millions of people were going to lose their health care coverage if we did not figure out how to fix it. for me, it has always been about people.
>> that is what this debate is about. i will put my record up against yours. it shows that when you are taking over harvard pilgrim, you do increase premiums, you do outsource mental health. i would not make those decisions, charlie. i have always made the decision to stand for people. there were 200 jobs outsourced to india. there were 700 employees who lost their jobs and people left without mental health care because of your decisions. this is about the values that drive your choices. >> let's talk about the mental health issue. i am proud of the work we did in the 1990's creating and building a community-based health care delivery system for people who no longer belong in institutions. those places were not great places. many folks in the advocacy community supported what we chose to do.
the care once they were out. only 60% of the amount went for outpatient services. i am working in the district attorney's office and i see the uptick in people who are homeless, who went up in the criminal justice system because we did not take care of them. >> is there a misconception about you? >> i think people think i don't have a sense of humor. >> i've been covering casino issues at "the globe" for three years. if the state casino law survives
a repeal challenge the day one of you is elected, as many as two casinos are likely to open during your first term. how much casino gambling have you done personally in your life? how does that experience inform your policies? >> i have played a little blackjack and never done well. one time i made money and said i was going to quit my day job. i have no idea how craps work. >> how does it inform your position? >> i'm a big fan of one casino. there are a lot of people from massachusetts who enjoy the atmosphere, the hospitality, the restaurants and all the rest. i wish that one casino in massachusetts made sense.
>> i am not a gambler. what i have done is because when this first appeared as a proposal in massachusetts, i knew we were not ready for it. from working with the attorney general in new jersey and nevada, the kind of oversight and regulatory work you have to do around everything from money laundering to organized crime to human trafficking. one of the things i did do was work closely in crafting the statute and looking at what we had to do in massachusetts. >> both of you have said that if we get rid of the casino law, you would like the springfield casino. isn't that thwarting the will of the voters?
>> i'm glad this question is on the ballot. i thought it should have been on the ballot from the beginning. i have walked the site in springfield and i'm pretty sure i am the only candidate who has and it is a very interesting proposal. the part of springfield that was hit by the tornado. and it is dying right before our eyes. it is a $600 million investment. the casino, they do not wrap the whole thing into the project. to build a streetscape. they basically rebuild a part of downtown bring field and they connected it to the civic center. having a conversation about it is worthwhile. the legislature may choose to say no.
>> if it is repealed, i would consider it as part of regional economic development. that kind of leveraging that could provide growth for other industries. >> we're going to try to pick up the pace. the lottery in the state, we add three casinos in a slot parlor. are either of you troubled by the fact that we have this increasing huge reliance on low and moderate income people losing money to fund services? >> it is one of the reasons i'm against internet gaming, why we have brought consumer protections to make sure there is no lending of money on casino premises, to make you can before close upon. i have continued to do that as governor.
>> one of the reason i supported one casino is i believe i can't imagine the three casinos isn't going to be a huge impact on the lottery. it will absolutely have an impact on the other industries, hospitality, restaurant, retail that compete for that dollar that people spend. you are talking but making a big investment where there is not a lot going on. that is what makes it attractive. >> let me ask about one judge -- a lot of us believe judges are getting tougher about repeat violent batter words and yet we
>> i understand. it doesn't sound like a bail situation. that was the incident there. this is leniency in sentencing. we have guidelines. we have an ability to appeal it. getting the balance with the judges is something i care deeply about. >> when you say review, what do you mean? five years down the road, ask them to explain themselves? >> right now it is an internal review done by the court with lawyers who appear before those judges. they have not made that public. perhaps in cases like this where the results are not consistent with public safety. >> what should happen to these judges? >> we made recommendations associate with domestic violence reform. one of the things i learned was that he had been in different courtrooms and the court system as a whole didn't talk to itself.