>> he should be accountable for wasting our money. politicians and bonuses, proved that he is out of touch with middle-class minnesota. jeff johnson for governor. >> partisan discussion and special interests, and tina extraordinary candidate stepped forward to restore minnesota's governor back to its people. ..

>> we want to know how long would you make an exception for the renewable fuel standard? >> until we are on equal footing. if you look at the subsidies over out there to oil and within the energy industry we need to

be on equal footing. i am someone that will continue to support the rfs. i grew up on a southwest iowa farm and my father is a proud farmer. 1-6 jobs are created by the iowa farmer and that is why i am so proud to have the endorsement of the iowa farm bureau. i will continue to support the rsf and do that as your next united states senator. >> if i can respond, i am not sure that is what she said at the koch brothers meeting and said she was philosophical opposed. my support has been clear, strong and unequivalent. i stood up to big oil at every opportunity because their interest are not iowa values. >> i would like to respond.

congressman, you are not running against these other people. you are running against me. i am a mother, soldier and independent leader. you are being funded by tom styer who is a california billionaire extreme environmentalist. so remember you are running against me. not against any of the other groups. >> i realize that and president obama's name is not on the ballot. i am not going to owe president obama anything on election day. you are going to owe the koch brothers everything. >> please continue. thank you, i owe no body anything except for the iowa people. i will stand up and do what is right for iowans and not california extreme

environmentalist, president obama, or harry reid. but for the iowa people. i amsomeone who has stood up for my community, nation and state. i have not left my rural roots but i think congressman you have left them behind. >> 15 seconds to wrap up the comments. >> i have never forgotten where i came from. that is why i voted to pass the five-year farm bill. that is why the iowa corn growers are supporting me and the national farmers union gave me awards. >> and now the illinois senate debate between dick durbin and jim wise. the candidates took questions on gun control, taxes and health

care. this race is considered a safe seat for democrats. >> a few rules since we encourage you to engage in each other, if we cut you off it will be to keep things moving along during the discussion. there is a lot to talk about. a lot to do with candidates for governor. let's assume you are at my door, knocking on my door, i answer and i said you want my vote, you have 90 seconds to explain why you should get my vote. what would you tell the voters? >> i would this election is important and exercise your right to vote. honor those who fought for your right to vote. and take a close look at the issues in the election.

it is a stark contrast between candidates including my race. i think what is at stake is the future of the middle class in our country and state. working families need help. the best way they can get help is for us in washington to focus on the basics. let's increase the minimum wage so the people that get up and go to work every single day are treated with digniity. and let's work on the student loan rates so your son or daughter can go to college and not end up with a mountain of debt. and i want to make sure whether you are rich or poor in america you have access to quality health insurance. too many americans before the affordable care act had no access at all. i think those three basics: a job, education and making sure

you have health care are essential. my opponent opposes raising the minimum wage, i don't know if he has take an position on renegotiating college student loans and voted against student aid as a state senator in spr g springfield and why wants to repeal the affordable care act and that would mean when your son or daughter graduates from high school they will not have insurance. >> i would say my opponent has been in washington for 32 years now. that is too long. i believe we have career-politician and there is too much of a tendency to want to vote in ways that will help them get reelected. i believe when you have citizen legislatures you would have people interested in voting ways that are good for the country and state as opposed to reelection. i think 32 years is too long for anyone to serve.

with we look at the economics -- when we -- and how poor and middle class families have been served, just the last time my opponent ran for reelection, six years ago, the average income of an illinois family has declined by $5, 053 dollars. it is time for a change. >> senator durbin, paralysis and the inability to move bipartisan legislation is one of the complaints of congress. how do you defend harry reid's responsibility to not move the 352 bills that have been at the senate that were fact checked by a bipartisan organization and many would help jobs, veterans and some people say harry reid has taken the blockage further than any other leader in the past. how do you explain that? >> we are facing the incident of

filibusters breaking all records. there used to be two-three a year and now there are over 135 a year. it slows the senate to a crawl and brings to a stop as the republicans demand 60 votes on measure after measure. occasionally we breakthrough. the bipartisan immigration bill is a good example. i sat across from john mccain and we had differences but eight senators, four republicans and four democratics, passed the bill and sent it to the house and speaker boehner never called it. it took him three years to pass a bipartisan farm bill. the marketplace fairness bill, maybe the most important bill for small businesses with retailers in our state and around the nation, passed with a

bipartisan role call and bipartisan bill and never been called by speaker boehner. i think he has an obligation to consider bipartisan legislation. most of the things he sends whether it is 50 votes to appeal the affordable care act tend to be too partisan. >> and the same criticism could be said to your leadership? >> certainly there are bills we could call if we reach an agreement on the floor. but we have sent him significant bipartisan legislation and wait as year and a half and never calls. >> i understand that. but if you look at even the ratio of bills, the house has called more bills waiting or sitting on 50 that the senate has passed. how do you get 350 bills

bipartisan bills. >> you slipped in the word bipartisan. if you look at the bills sent by speaker boehner over and over they are basically press releases and don't address the key issues facing the country. issues like dealing with the brok broken immigration system. we put a lot of time on that. >> i am questions the vote giving war authority to fire -- >> we passed that. we did pass that. that is an example. they would send us an individual bill. when we had a va crisis we passed a bipartisan bill that included that. >> how do you expect to reach a bipartisan agreement if you and the democrats don't accept responsibility? >> i accept that. i think we can do better. i have worked with republican senators and the measures i have

talked about are all bipartisan measures. we are working so when we get back in session we can bring a bill to the floor for consideration. i think that is the key. it may not be a top down solution. it is a bottom up solution. individual senators work together. i will give you an example. two of the most unlikely allies. joe mansion of west virginia and patrick toomey of pennsylvania after the terrible, horrible shooting in connecticut came forward with bipartisan legislation, mansion/toomey for universal background checks so we keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people who are mentally unstable. that was a bipartisan bill. we passed it. it went nowhere in the house. my opponent opposed the become background check. but most people think it is a

good idea. we had a bipartisan bill from two conservative member and the house wouldn't call it. >> how would you break the log jam? >> i would say i have been successful in springfield working the other side. i would take the example of reagan and o'neill who had different flaphilosophy but wor together. i worked with marty sandball who was different from me but now we are friends and known as the odd couple because we have been able to work together to solve legislative problems. i don't believe we have to be nasty. i believe i will look at legislation, try to come up with the best solution, listen to the other side and try to come up

with bipartisan solutions. >> it is hard to gauge your level of bipartisan in springfield because you were there such a short time before announcing you wanted a difference seat. we talked about the run for office and why, again, so quickly into another race before you fulfilled an obligation? >> bruce, i have been in springfield for two years. it doesn't take two years to learn your way around springfield. it was take a few months. there is a learning process. it is difficult to get things done when you are in the majority, 19-59, but i have worked with the other side and we got legislation passed four times in a row to increase thepede -- the speeds on the interstate. a number of people asked me to do so because the senator said this is a very important

election. it will help change the direction of our country. i believe we need more balance in springfield which a republican would bring. i believe if i am elected to the senate seat it is likely that republicans will take control of the senate and you have a republican legislative and democratic president. it would allow the log jam to be discussed, voted on and hopefully more passed and then the president can make the decision of agreeing with it or vetoing it. it might mean the republicans would sit down with the president and listen to the president and the president would have to listen to what congress is saying. >> senator durbin, senators are fought allowed to authorize what

the president is doing in syria and iraq until after the election. >> the war powers acts allows the president to take action right away and after thime congress has to reply. there was vote on whether the president could train and equip the free syrian army in syria and that vote was overwhelming. 3/4ths of the members of the house supported it. i supported it. he believes that the original invasion of iraq covers what we are doing there in the islamic state. i feel it is time to revisit watt they call the authorization for use of military force. it is 10-12 years old depending on the one you refer to.

it is time to go in the context of modern day. it was a broad mandate to protect us from 9/11. what we are facing today is a stretch to connect to al-qaeda but the threats are just as well. we will be returning and i remember the senate foreign relation committee and the first thing we will take up in november is this reauthorization and i want to vote by the end of the year. we ought to speak and make the decision as required by the constitution to give the president or not give the president to move forward. >> senator, did you say it is a stretch to connect isis to al-qaeda? >> what the bill says, the use of military force, connects extremism to the al-qaeda

extreme group that we know is responsible for 9/11. we know there is a connection there. but what i am saying is there are other threats to america beyond al-qaeda and every president ought to have the authority to protect us from the threats wherever they come from. so we need it in broader terms. isis is just as dangerous as al-qaeda but the language was written to go after those of 9/11 but the threat is much more broadly today. >> would you support senator king's bill that has a one-year -- >> yes, and i worked with him on this. he sent me a copy of the bill. i don't if a year is right. but i think it is important to

evaluate this and things tepped tend to change and evolve. i believe with the president's premises of not sending ground troops into the situation. we tried that. that is what al-qaeda hopes we will do. bog down that situation. but revisiting this on a pair bases is a good idea. >> do you think the senate should have voted before the president undertook the military operation and do you think he should have done it without congressional authorization? >> i think the limited-bombings that were done is authorized and allowable and we know this is a very serious threat so i think bringing it to congress to get further authorization going forward makes sense. but i believe he had the authority to do that.

>> do you think the united states will have to use ground troops eventually? do you think the whitehouse and senator should be ruling that out? >> i absolutely don't think we should rule it out. i don't think we should tell your enemies what we are going to do. i don't know if we will end up having to use ground troops. but it seem to me we want to pay attention to what our expert and generals are telling us and some of them are saying that means the fact of the case. it is possible it could be ground troops from saudi arabia and other countries? that is possible. but if we are going to win this it is likely there is going to be ground troops involved. >> if the mission is critical, why would you rule out the option? >> the war started with the deposition and that was the launch of radical extreme islam

that has manifested in countries all over the world with various groups flying that flag. we are in for a long haul. we were going after the al-qaeda forces responsible for 9/11 and it turned out to be the longest war in the history of the united states. when we send ground troops in the middle east, they are easily bogged down. when i went to walter reed hospital and saw the first casualty who was the victim of a road side bomb and lost his leg. i thought if a weapon like that can stop a military power like the united states we ought to think twice. so what i would say is this. if we are going to have a role in the middle east i think the president is properly defining

it. we will use the iraq army, 900,000, train, direct and support them with air and logistics and intelligence but the iraqis have to be will to fight for iraq. we are not sending american soldiers to be bogged down in another war. we lost many soldiers, many came home with injuries, added a trillion to the debt and the countries was still in chaos. it has to be driven by the forces of the middle east. the president's international coalition is the right move. they have to care about stability and peace in the middle east. we should not be sending our men and women in there to die without their commitment. >> didn't our president say iraq was no longer in chaos and things were accomplished and we made great strides and that was

why we could pull out? >> the president said to the iraqis you have to accept the responsibility. >> he said everything was fine. >> he never went that far. when we tried to keep come forces on the ground, the government won't agree they would not be tried and it was president bush that negotiated the end date in iraq. >> would you have stayed with without a forces agreement? >> yes. >> he said he would leave them thon ground subject to be tried on the grounds there if they executed their military duties. president bush thought it was a bad idea. so did president obama. most americans do.

except my opponent. >> i believe we could have negotiated an agreement that would have been acceptable and not necessarily have allowed troops to be subject to iraqi court and i believe we didn't do a satisfactory job in doing this. >> how many troops do you think we should have left? >> 5-10,000 would have been m e making a commitment. for how long? i don't know. we have had troupes in germany and other places. i don't want to leave them there unless it benefits us. >> senator durbin, on the day of the arrest of abu, we played no

role in that. but today would you advocate to fill any future u.s. senate seats that were vacant? >> i believe there was such a blow by the arrest of the sitting governor being led from his home in handcuffs that in order to have a credible replacement that the people needed to speak. i got a phone call from roland burris shortly thereafter and he talked about possibilities and i said are you talking about being appointed by the governor? and i said don't do that. you don't want to be associated with him at this moment in history and after your service in public office. it was such a dangerous time in

terms of the creditability with the public and involvement of the public that i felt election would be the right way to let the people speak about a successor. i think the law is endowed asians -- as i understand it there is a procedure for filling a vacancy until the next election. but one court in illinois ruled that doesn't stand and there should be a special election. so the current situation is in doubt. >> where are you? >> i think a special election is the right way to do it. >> to be honest, i haven't thought seriously about that issue. certainly my first reaction is a special election would make sense but i would like to understand the argument on both sides before committing.

>> back to senator durbin, on several fronts we have reoccurring themes like the effort for the bill of rights amendment on free speech. your enemies list of private elect donors and alleging the irs commissioner to examine one group in particular and saying when the scandal broke it is absolutely unacceptable to single out a political group and target them. senator, you speak about the danger of money in politics, but it is your party outspending the republicans by $30 million or so thus far. so is problem campaign money or money in the hands of people that disagree with you? >> that analysis isn't even close. right now i will give you an example. koch brothers.

they spent over $250 million and they are bigger force than any democratic committee. with scitizens united we threw the door open. there is man who i have never met that spent $700,000 in ad r advertising against me. they threw the doors open saying we are treating corporations like human beings. i will believe that if they send the corporations to prison for embezz embezzlement. we took away from the role ordinary citizens played. look at the governor's race. it will probably break all records in spending. i think in the range of $40 million now and talking about millions more.

i don't think it is healthy. alec -- let's talk about that. the chicago tribune editorial board believes in seck secrecy when the comes to government. alec comes up with legislation for legislatures. who finances them? it is a secret. they tripped up once and shown who supports them. stand your ground is a provision. you say why would a corporation be in favor of stand your ground? they were pushing it. voter suppression, voter id, shortening the period of time people can vote in elections. since when was that a corporate

strategy? to limit the rights of people voting. i had a hearing on stand your ground and wrote to alec supporters and asked what they think and one said they support it and others opposed it. this could was them to look into organization and see who is behind this if they have an impact on politics. my opponent thinks the biggest single issue in the campaign is defending karl rove. i don't think it is. i wrote to the irs four years ago and released the letter publically and said i think the way you are interrupting the law in terms of campaign secrecy is wrong. i said look into all groups. i named karl rove and crossroads because they were the biggest and most active. but i said look at all of the

groups. right and left. i think the ruling was wrong and gave secrecry to campaign con tributio tcontrubutions. >> can you talk about how it is different from organized labor? do you think they are using 501-cs? >> they are now. if i asked alec to give us the name of the stockholders it is responsible. i think it is okay to say what corporation is supporting the organization that is lobbying for the passage of stand your ground laws in florida and beyond. why is that an outlandish request? >> he went through so many it is

hard to go back. but george sorris spent large amounts on the other side so picking out the koch brothers is unfair. this is a clear case of intimidation. alec doesn't generally support stand your ground and i am sure people that support you found you voted for something they don't stand as well. the issue is here is an organization that is attempting to provide model legislation that the different states can look at and see what worked in other states. i think it is a worthy goal. picking out one particular issue, stand your ground, and try to make allegations against the generally leaning conservative organization is unfair. and getting the corporations involved with stand your ground

and say send us your response and we will make it public is a perfect case of intimidation. it is wrong when senator nixon thought about doing it. it is wrong when you do it. i will get everything named to get the special prosecutor to investigate what was happening and stop that from the future >> i say with full disclosure who contributes to the candidates, do you? >> of course. it is required by law. >> with citizens united and the case we wrote to the irs about they were able to collect this money in secrecy and get a tax exempt status while doing it. >> you are talking about the

501-c4s. >> yes. >> what you are doing is equating them collecting money with money going for candidates, is that correct? >> you see a 501-c4 as a campaign? >> yes, but get real. this ads are in favor of a political party and candidate. that is what it is all about. i think full disclosure. i was the sponsor of fair elections for public financing which reduces the time of financing and makes the public aware of the contributions and provides matching funds so individuals who are not rich consider getting in the public light. i think that is healthy. the current situation with citizens united is out of

control. right and left, massive amounts of money coming in. i don't think it is good idea. >> i believe citizens should be able to express their opinions. it is my understanding the majority of the funds must be used for issues not politics. that is the problem with career-politici career-politicians. i found out in two years what an advantage i had. my staff solves problems for the people and i get the credit. it should be the staff. but i get the credit. in the news because i am invited to events that happen in my district, the same thing happens in the united states and congress. recumbents an advantage and i believe 94% get reelected. it isn't because they do a great

job but people recognize the name and they have an advantage. if you stop the ability to support the candidates who wins? incumbents, career politicians of 32 years will support them. >> i think if i sold ice cream they would recognize my name >> can you explain why you oppose background checks on gun sales? >> let me tell you first of all i was a sponsor of the bill that passed for concealed care. any time you get the state of illinois to agree with the legislation we should look at it. it was a tribute to the people that worked on it. i believe illinois has the most

restrictive gun laws and yet we also have some thof -- of the -- highest crime rates using guns. if i believed a background check would reduce the homicide i would want to look at that. but the evidence is it isn't making a different. people are afraid it will create a database for the federal government. as you know, we are seeing concerns about that with cellphone locations and so on. people don't believe the government should have access to too much information and that is an area that has concerned. if i was convinced it would in fact help to reduce crime, i would look at it. >> what about areas where it has been shown? data has proven that because indiana doesn't have a strict background check policy the guns

are flowing here. how can you sit in the midwest, right where this is happening, look at all of the illegal gun toters on the south side and not support a moderate background check and closing gun show loophole bill in the senate. >> you believe if you had a background check it would stop from buying people illegally. >> yes. >> i am not convinced of that. if i were i would look at it differently. >> crime and guns taken away compared to new york and los angeles we had six times the number per capita taken in chicago as the city of new york city and twice as many as los angeles per capita. we are awash in guns. we need to close the gun loophole. we are third or fourth in

supplying crime guns to ill illinois -- you know what state? mississippi. you but a drivers license on the counter in mississippi and you can buy as many guns that will fit in your car. we need good laws and background checks. >> how would that change anything? >> most responsible guno owners and sportsman are not against keeping the guns from the hands of criminals and mentally ill. secondally we have to make sure the straw purchasing comes to an end. whether it is chucks in riverdale or a shop over the border in indiana. the notion the girlfriend buys the gun for the boyfriend to killed someone i want to strengthen that penalty. and tracing guns.

what difference was it make? you find the crime gun in chicago and trace to a murder in st. louis. i went to the alcohol, tobacco and drug conviction is using this. that scares people on the far right saying the government is looking at the guns closely but the legitimate gun owners accept this. my opponent is in a minority of 8% that say we should not do more. >> did the tragedy in newtown cause you to rethink your position? >> i met in springfield with the parents of some of the people involved. it is a tragic situation and we

want to do everything we can. i want to understand what will work and not just another attempt or regulation that is not affective. perhaps strengthening penalties for straw man purchases would help. everything the senator is talking about isn't going to stop the strawman purchases which are a problem. >> where is your primary residence? >> 3 buckingham drive. it is now sugar grove, it was aura for 30 years. i have been in the same home for 37 years. >> explain how your wife has different residences? >> we bought a condo in florida about four years ago. she made that her primary residence and does spend more than six months a year there. >> how much time do you spend

there? >> having been elected to the illinois senate i spent only a few weeks >> do you think voters can trust you are going to be representing illinois when your wife is living more than six months of the year in florida and that is her primary residence? >> i have five children, four live in illinois and two step children living in chicago. i have 19 grand kids and 14 live in illinois. i have been in the area my entire life. i have been in the same home for 37 years. my businesses, the business i started, are in illinois. i have a dairy tied to illinois. >> senator, having a dual resident yourself, washington and springfield, do you find

this to make sense? >> >> for as long as i have been in congress i have been commuting back to springfield or chicago. about ten years ago my wife and were up here so much so we bought a condo. our primary residence is springfield, illinois and was when i started and is today. let me clarify what my opponent said. until 2010, jim declared his permit permanent resident was the primary home in illinois. as of 2010, his wife declared her primary in florida. he was interviewed saying what is this about? and he said it is about tax advantages in florida because they don't have a state income tax.

here is what is going on. in order for his wife to claim her resident in florida he cannot claim a permanent resident in another state. he gave up his permanent tax residence of king county so he is viewed when it comes to taxes in some capacity as being a resident of florida. this maybe the first time in history you have a state senator who declared his home was king county to run for office but his tax home is in florida. what is the advantage? the advantage is he may not be paying illinois state income tax. now i have challenged him and brought myself so you could see it. this is something -- that is not it. it is the other one. >> should i let him keep going? he is totally wrong. >> these are my income tax return. i make them public.

state/federal income tax return plus schedule. did it every year since hanging around with paul simon. he refuses to release his. the question is are you paying illinois state tax on your income? >> the senator is misleading people again. what he said is clearly not case. 3 buckingham is and has been for 37 years my address. he wants me to violate and break the law because under the law if my wife claims a residence for the homestead exemption i can claim a home in illinois. the florida one is larger so i allowed her to claim that and i don't get one so i pay more. >> disclose your income tax

return. >> this is nonsense and i never said to anybody i am not an illinois resident. >> will you describe your illinois tax return? >> you get the chance to ask that question and i will answer it. >> i will ask the question. will you disclose your tax return? >> i have provided my federal and if is an important issue i will provide the state. >> do you pay illinois state -- do you as an individual pay illinois tax? >> of course. i am a great customer of the state of illinois and they don't respect that. >> i want to ask you both about the national debt. the deficit is slowing down, if changes are not made by 2040, the debt is set to be 10% of the

gpd. i would like to know wto what extent this keeps you up at night? >> that is one of the main reasons i am running for the seat. spending has been out of control, since senator durbin went to washington the debt is from $1 trillion to approaching $18 trillion. it will not be easy to correct it, it will take time, but we need to get started. i realize that what really affects our economy is the unexpected things that happen. if we know this is what is happening it gets built in and you get the surprise. what can happen is all of a sudden something causes complete concern were the market. suddenly the united states government can't sell new debt to pay off its old debt at

reas reasonable rates. interest rates that are low right now suddenly it is 4%, 6% and up to 8% and the government has difficulty in rolling over the refinancing. as the interest rates go up, it puts more pressure on the federal budget. huge cost and we get into a downward spiral. i think we need to simplify our tax code and not throw out one more special break. the senator by the way has received an ex excessive $90 million. it will exceed by campaign networth. he talks about spending on political campaign here is a man with $9 million in the campaign

account. >> how would you fix the problems? >> we need to look at every program. bring the spending under control and instead of adding new problems. >> what is the biggest opportunity to reduce spending including entitlement? where would you -- what is your target? >> obamacare is a huge process. we need bipartisan legislation and both sides working to come up. >> what would you do? repeal? replace? >> i would repeal and replace it with a health care plan that was available to more people. >> how much savings do you think you would get on the federal cost from the change in obamacare?

>> i believe that there would be 50-100 billion in potential savings. this is an increasing cost that is going to get worse has times going on and not better >> how would you change those equations from social security and medicare? >> one way for medicare would be to coordinate retirement age with social security and that is 67 going forward. we need to look at these and understand the cost of the services. >> we know what the cost are. are you willing to means test medicare going forward? >> i think that should be considered. i will go to washington, listen to the other side, work with both sides and agree on something that works for both. >> you would favor raising the

eligibility age for medicare to 67? >> i don't think that is the only answer or solution but yes, i think that is something that should be considered. >> lots of question here. do you want to start with the deficit and get into entitlements? >> we added trillion of new debt during your last term and appla applauded you for the simpson framework but it didn't get done. have we reached a point where we cheer with when the deficit gets below a trillion? >> bill clinton left having four plus years of budget surpluses and 23 million jobs created in that eight-year period and he said to bush here is next year's budge with a $120 billion

surplus and the national debt at that time was $5 trillion. now fastforward eight years later and bush is turning it over to obama, the economy and budget. at that point in time we projected the deficit, not the surplus, to be $1.2 trillion. we were loosing 800,000 jobs a month. mutual funds took a beating loosing 50-60 percent of their value and the national debt was no longer $5 trillion. it was $12 trillion. we had wars we didn't pay for and a president who said the answer to every problem was to cut the tax including the wealthy people.

it was an upside down approach that drove us into debt. the president inherits a recession. the second worst in history. he put together a package and the deficit he inherited has been cut by 2/3rds. 14% of gdp was coming in at revenue and 24 as outlays. the delta equaled about 1.5 trillion deficit a year. now it is down to 18% in revenue and 21.6 percent in outlays. >> let's move forward. we asked the senator about entitlements. give us a prescription. >> what is the number one driver of the deficit in america? health care cost. health care cost. 60% of the deficit is driven by health care cost.

with the affordable care act we expanded the health care reach to 7 million americans who didn't have health insurance and were a burden on the system and everyone else. what we have seen for five straight years is a decline in the rise, i am not saying overall decline, but the decline in the projected health care cost because more people are being covered and the providers are thinking under affordable care act and they have to find a way to do this. this last week or the week before the new administrator came in to see me and he said boy, have things changed. he said there was a time when they took every poor person in the region and didn't bill anybody. it was a disaster. they are billing folks in regular mode and now they have to compete. he said our people are coming in, even low income people are expecting better, quality service. he said people are on their toes

and there is competition. untouched and unchanged social security for every 20 years. falls off the table at 30% cut. what can we do today? small things that play out like interest rates play out that will give us more solvancy in sotes socialize security. expand the reach of fica taxes beyond current limitations. 90% of earned income should be subject to this tax. secondally my opponent and i have to qualify for social security and i don't believe in our income level we should be receiving the same cola as the person struggling to get by. >> where would you set that?

>> i am willing to reduce the cola for higher income individuals receiving the benefits. my opponent's theory of priveatizing security doesn't make sense. >> would you support means testing? >> that is what i am talking about. social security checks and we should have means testing. >> senator? >> are you asking about means testing? >> yes. >> i think that is something that could be considered. i have not thought about that a whole lot. i have thought about other alternatives to that. >> this gentlemen said he is for means testing. are you for it or against it? >> i think about mean testing colas might make sense but it isn't going to solve a lot of the problems. >> let me also add raising the

medicare elability age to 67. you ought to meet the people counting the days to medicare because they cannot get affordable health care. >> through affordable care act they can't? >> some can. but they have an opportunity with medicare paying in and now he wants to extend two more years. >> if they cannot afford it, they must be eligible for medicaid. >> when you get out and talk to the people you will get a better idea. >> i have been on the south side of chicago and they are having a tough time. >> i am sure they are looking for you and looking for the first ice cream store there. >> you mentioned a bill you

helped write and you indicated it passed, went to the house, ignored and now the president is going to through executive action take steps to fix the immigration but not until after the election. senator durbin, do you think this is something the president should do? if so, how far do you think he should go? >> there is a transfer facility in broad view. you should go take a look. there are a couple nuns who get up there, pray the rosary and stand around the folks being deported. i went inside there with the director of the homeland security and folks about to be deported. some of them should be deported. others have been swept up. we are breaking up families. families that have been here a

long time and the people remaining are heartbroken and don't know where to turn next. let's fix this immigration system overall. until it is fixed, let's be thoughtful in deportation and let's not break up families that have been here long periods of time. let's try to apply the law in the thoughtful, sensible way to keep america say but not destroy the families >> what do you think the president should do? >> i have encouraged the president to make sure we don't deport all of those swept up in the dragnet but only those who are danger to us. many of the folks are not. they are technically violating the immigration law but haven't done anything wrong. i think they should be brought in and pay taxes and support the

economy. >> the deferred action for the children? >> we said if you qualify for the dream act we are not going to deport you. 6,000 across the nation have signed up. illinois is third or fourth in the nation for people applying. these are great young people. they have only scomboknown and aware of this country. >> should the president act alone? >> i wish he didn't have to. he maybe forced to. he waited on speaker boehner for months. ...

and the right to get her to finally solve this problem. for 32 years he hasn't fixed the problem yet. do you think if we send him back

he is going to do the next time around because the definition of insanity. i belief that there are reasonable compromises that could be made. i belief that a blanket amnesty for people is wrong because it will encourage more people. >> i don't think anybody has talked about blanket amnesty. >> it would be dropped in and need assistance. we ought to apply for citizenship just like anybody else. they should be moved to the head of the line or get a special deal or anything of that nature. they got to have the same legal requirements to anybody. the walls are wrong if you don't have the right immigration policy lets go back and debate and change it. but then let's follow along with whatever that happens to be. >> i believe that if kids have grown up here and were brought by their parents at a young age and consider america to be their

home country i believe we should not and we should give them a path to citizenship. however, the appearance that wrote the law, they should apply for citizenship just like anybody else and go to the back of the line because if they go to the front of the line -- i also offer a solution to that end up it is to provide those parents that you don't break up the family with a non- immigrant visa but not automatic government entitlements. government entitlements would be a huge additional burden on the taxpayers and they shouldn't get the benefits by not breaking the law. >> in the initial approach how does your thinking to change and why? >> it didn't communicate the right message. by message has always been we have immigration laws. we cannot rework people that break the law and if it is wrong but let's change it.

that wasn't the message that came across. it wasn't well done. that message is still true. i do b. the 15th had grown up here they should be given a path to citizenship to cause in the country we don't punish kids for mistakes or errors of their parents. >> three cheers for my opponent. i introduced the act 13 years ago and i'm glad he's supporting it and if moore would take the position we could pass it but let me clarify one thing. there is no blanket amnesty in this law. if you happen to be in the united states undocumented khmers with comprehensive immigration reform says. here's what it what is this. you have to concur with the register of the government. the government will think of a background check on you and if you commit a serious crime that you are gone. if you have a clear criminal record gets ready to pay a fine. a substantial fine and then get ready to pay your taxes and then learning blush. and at the end of ten years, ten

years going through this virtually qualifying for no government. you can then apply for green card and go to the back of the line. the earliest they can become citizens is 13 years. to call this blanket amnesty is a very important policy issue. >> there's a billion other people in other countries but would like to come here and pay that. >> if you read the bill except the cutoff date was two years before the passage of the senate. but there is a cutoff date. >> what about the people that come after that. will there be a new amnesty bill five years from now, ten years from now to ask >> john mccain and fellow republicans insisted on the security. the border security right now in america between the united states and mexico that commitment to federal law-enforcement is greater than the combined total of all law enforcement of all other federal

agencies. we are going to have these people holding hands at the border. federal law-enforcement officials. so there will be plenty of policing when it comes to the border. that's been an important part to start. >> going back to the taxes and moving their headquarters overseas you are not just the critic, you use a very strong language including the companies for being unpatriotic for following the law, to follow their fiduciary responsibility. it's a global economy worldwide. is it because tax reform and why is it a strong perspective? >> corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes. other companies have to pay more, and individuals have to pay more.

what these companies are trying to do is avoid tax responsibility. and they told me this much. i talked to the ceo of walgreens i know what's at stake. income investors from wall street looking for the price to get up enough some say they can make a killing and get out. i think that in the short flight of the companies and shortsighted for the nation take a look at a pharmaceutical company. how does a pharmaceutical company make money clicks they develop drugs. who does research in most cases? taxpayer in health. then it has to be tested to be safe. who does that? taxpayers supporting the drug administration. and they have to protect them. who does that? the patent office. so here is a pharmaceutical company that's made its fortune taking that benefits from our government supported tax pay your supported institution

saying we are taking these profits and leaving and we are passing them onto someone else. when walgreens made the decision was a terrible position. people came up to me in the street and said i will never step foot in walgreens again. i said they made the right decision tuesday. they hurt the stock initially but in the long term, you want to be america's pharmacy, stay with america. tax reform -- >> of the companies have been following the tax code senator durbin helped get past and he's had 32 years to try to reform it and improve it and make us more competitive. certainly that has not been happening. and then he questioned the patriotism that nobody in this room or anywhere in the state of illinois is more concerned about keeping the companies in illinois and keep companies in the united states. that's been my whole background but he's questioned the patriotism of the companies that are following his law and his tax code.

i want to speak to you want something that he said here in this room six years ago. both, i'm going to question a lot of things about my opponent, his positions. i will never question your patriotism. i think that is the refuge of scoundrels. i think what you've done here to raise the question as to whether i love this country is the lowest form of politics. so, senator, are you still good with your words but that's -- >> i could question wall street patriotism. >> in other countries they are following the tax code that you have been a part of keeping instead of getting the right thing going back for that reform to simplify this to make a country that they want to be here once again you are bullying the companies trying to make them stay here instead of doing the right thing to have a competitive worldwide tax code that would make sense for those companies. >> i don't know if becky is in

the room about what corporations actually pay in the corporate income tax rate is. we talked about 35%. very few get anywhere near 35%. >> [inaudible] >> and the republicans run for the hills. >> let me tell you why it hasn't been fixed. when my opponent runs for office he makes this pilgrimage to washington to walk into the office of grover norquist and to sign the grover norquist tax pledge. >> i'm asking you being the majority party in the senate and being there for so long where is the tax? the >> filibusters. it takes 60 votes. when we have senators have taken

the grover norquist tax pledge, they've pledged that they will never reduce any deduction or credit in the tax code. you cannot write the tax code reform enough premise. he is gone and made this announcement, signed it over to grover norquist. spaghetti you believe that we shouldn't allow -- you want to end filibusters? systemic they are being abused and give us to know that. >> it should be limited to those cases where it's rare and necessary. when is the last time we had it? it was 30 years ago. headed up in the house ways and means committee it is a tough job made doubly tough if you have a split in the party between the house and the senate that is made impossible when you have to do the signing for the grover norquist tax pledge. if we are going to look at the tax code reform --

>> you've done an excellent job on this already but i want to give you the virginity to ask a question of each other. i would like to ask my opponent you said they should become the team party. you've been to the the rallies and accepted at the end were spent and when i look at the capernaum washington i don't see the republican party but i don't. the team party in washington opposes federal highway construction. they not only want to eliminate the mass transit subsidies that they want to get the federal government out of the business of the federal highway construction. 75% comes through the federal government sending parts. >> they also pose reauthorizing the bank. so do you support the positions that would cost us jobs here in illinois clicks the >> i'm not a tea party member

and i don't know what you've got. you tend to throw them out as they are factual when many cases they are not. my understanding is that this is a group of individuals who cannot been politically involved in the past have gotten very concerned about the direction that you have been taking this country and they would like to change the direction. they believe in limited government and lower taxes and those are the main directions that they would like to have the country go. >> i don't know that it's been a positive or negative impact on the country. >> i think that they called attention to the fact that government has gotten too big and we have too many regulations it's generally positive. >> during the campaign we've noted that you and a few other democratic senators played a role in targeting about free speech rights by asking the irs

to investigate them. in addition to the infamous october 102010 letter asking them to investigate the conservative crossword organizations, we've asked several times for you to reveal any other communications to you or your office have had during the midst of the scandal. you mostly refused to answer this question but your campaign sent a statement recently that included the following assertion. senator durbin postal communications he had with the irs on the senate website and it's been there for four years. do you stand by the campaign assertion that you and your office had only one communication with the irs during the scandal? >> let me refute this because i have a copy right here but correspondence between you and the commission. this was revealed but it is

available and we will make it available to the tribune. you've obviously not told the truth so we would like to know what else is available. we would like to ask you to go back to your records. we can't require you to make those public and you have so far refused to do so and we hope that you will change that position. >> i've made it clear where i stand on this. why i did it and why i believe that organizations like, left, liberal or conservative -- >> please let me finish. my position is clear and i disclosed this publicly i won't hide anything on this issue and my position hasn't changed. i do have to tell you that you have forgotten on april 16, 2014 in addressing the local party meeting the overall isa takeover of the republican party.

hispanic let me explain what that was about. people were asking how they could get involved and does the regard he believed the republican party welcomed him and i said yes it welcomes you if you want to be more involved come in and get elected and become members of the party. >> i'm satisfied that he didn't tell the truth once again and we would like for him to now tell the truth and own up to the fact we would like to know what additional -- >> i would make public the letter that we send. you walk out in the streets of chicago. >> told the truth. >> walked on the streets of chicago and ask the first hundred people how many think that they have to be focused on protecting karl rove and the cost pack only one that i know of. >> i've given everything i think i had.

if there's anything else would be disclosed. >> tell us what you would like put on the tombstone [inaudible] spinnaker exam on being cremated. [laughter] >> what would you like the record to be? >> those are the two things that were said about public service and there is no better description of what the public service job should be. >> he cared about his family come out of his country, about his state and people most in need. >> it's been a great conversation. we appreciate you taking the time. thank you.

>> [inaudible conversations] starting shortly we will have the white house briefing spokesman josh earnest expected to brief reporters that had been scheduled for 12:15. then again rescheduled for 3:00. clearly things are running behind that we will have that for you on c-span2 when it gets under way. in the meantime we expect remarks on the meeting today with the israeli prime minister benjamin ben yahoo! and the secret service security breach a few days ago.

we heard today from the congressman elijah cummings who is the ranking democrat on the committee suggesting that secret service director secret service director julia pearson should resign saying president obama isn't well served under her leadership. i think that she has to go he reportedly said. jason j. fitz sat in on the meeting yesterday a meeting yesterday said that she should go in an interview on fox news. cq white house reporters are tweeting a judiciary chair patrick leahy which we got a couple of moments ago that says it but says it is premature to call for new leadership lindsey graham released a statement on the secret service in which he says i appreciate the directors service, but it's time for new leadership and additionally it is time for an independent top to bottom review and the of the agency and its operations and ability to fully carry out its mission. >> so we do expect the topic to be touched on when the briefing

gets underway momentarily. we'll have it for you live on c-span2. >> while we wait for the white house briefing to get underway and it should be just a moment marks from house leader nancy pelosi that told a held a briefing despite the congressional recess area she talked about the white house security breach and the challenges to the session of congress. >> good morning. today october 1, 2014 marks the one year since the government shutdown. on that day the republicans chose to do great damage to the economy. for 16 days they kept the government shutdown.

even before october 1 i had said to the speaker we will give you the votes to keep vote to keep the government open even though we don't like your 988 figure. you recall that was a drop of $80 billion from the $10.5 trillion that we had $1,058,000,000,000 that we had all agreed to enter end the house at about 1 dollar over 988 worlds they would shut down government. the senate agreed, the president agreed, house democrats agreed, the only people who didn't agree with the house republican member with house republican members and they shut down the government. they kept the government shutdown damaging to the tune of $25 billion into the economy hurting the rate of growth of the gdp and when they finally came around after the public pressure was too much.

overwhelmingly they voted to keep the government shutdown and the democratic vote for a number which we didn't like that he accepted to open up government. it's just stunning to be for quality with which the republicans treat the economy. that was five years from the time they had september 29 vote against a solution to the financial meltdown. president bush was president. six years from now going back six years ago was leading up to the election of president barack obama. when he took office that year the unemployment rate was over 9% and it's now 6.1. the deficit was $1.4 trillion in the year and it's now around

$504 billion, 60% drop in the deficit. the market then was around 7,000 it's now around 17,000. to the tune of $10 million much more could have been done but the republicans have supported some of the job initiatives the president has put forth we are not in the working place yet for families because they are scarred by what the president inherited in the greatest financial meltdown and economic crisis for us since the great depression. the president has much to be proud of but more needs to be done. and that's why it's hard to understand how the republicans could need for a break dot earliest departure before the

election. instead we should be here for the middle jumpstart. it is paid for by closing tax breaks that send jobs overseas and their jobs overseas and investing in education to keep america number one. to renegotiate their loans at a lower price at a lower interest rate so that they can be entrepreneurial and not straddling the chained by the oppressive debt. and in the jumpstart when women succeed america succeeds. who can argue with the republicans do that they shouldn't have equal pay for equal work. raise the minimum wage over 60%

of people making it nearly two thirds making the minimum wage are women. allowing the women to have a balance between command families between work and home and paid sick leave and of course the missing link in the evolution of women in the workplace and in our economy affordable, quality health care for children learning from the parents earning. they've been rejected at the proposal for the universal pre- k.. we have to go even younger than that. we have important work to do to meet the needs of the american people. the best thing we can do for our economy is to unleash the power of women in our economy. so, that's part of the debate that we will be having and i look forward to the president's speech and that's tomorrow on that subject.

some of you asked me about isis on that subject. we are the first branch of government, article one the legislative branch. congress has a role deciding how the country degrades isis. one of the challenges that we face in the national security. there is a conversation among the men was about what formed an authorization should take that with secure the national security and invest as well as to pass in both houses of congress. these conversations should be from the informal to the official. when the congress comes back in november it's important that we are ready to debate and vote on such an authorization between then and now we should be

preparing. as you have seen in the news on a day-to-day basis the peaceful demonstrations in hong kong. some of you that have been around for a while, you know that the issue of the democracy freedom and human rights in china and tibet have been an important issue to me since even before tiananmen square. these demonstrations were peaceful, they are young and hopefully they will produce a result. at the time of the great uk yielding back hong kong a basic law was established and article 26 states permanent residents of

the special administrative region shall have the right to vote and the right to stand for the election in accordance with the law. but china is doing now is counter to that because they are saying the people they put forth have a right to stand for office so we are watching closely to see what is happening. the chief executive said we need to amend the methods of establishing which is of course counter to the agreements that took place agreement that took place in the 1990s and so people throughout the world should speak about what is happening in hong kong. it's amazing to see how they've had their demonstration.

they clean up behind themselves and show up the next day because they want to have what was promised to hong kong. on the subject of evil ebola, global health has been an issue of concern to the congress for a long time and we've committed substantial resources whether it was hiv aids or whatever it happens to be, malaria, tuberculosis and the rest. on the subject of ebola i support the president for what he announced recently. it was well received. one of president i had been speaking to on more than one occasion in liberia said that it gives them hope in hospital beds and the conversation with the president of the world bank viewed this as having an impact not only on the people which is

first and foremost to the issue that the economies of the countries resources will need a difference if people or warranty and and they have care they can recover and it gives other people hope to seek care so it is a sad challenge but in our interest from a humanitarian standpoint and also what it means to our own country and with that i would be pleased to take questions. >> [inaudible] i have confidence in mr. cummings. i didn't see the entirety of the

hearing yesterday because i was at events for the prime ministers of india which they were wonderful but here is what i would say in terms of the secret service and secret service and protection of the president of the united states, there has to be an independent investigation as to what is going on. the protection of the president has to be precise and flawless and there has to be accountability and that is not the case. it is inexcusable that someone would jump over the fence and into the white house and inexcusable that someone would be on the elevator with the president of the united states with or without a weapon and so i think an independent investigation is what is needed not just to hold people accountable but how we should go forward in a way that has position, accountability and is

flawless. the reputation of the secret service mr. cummings keeps making this point and i agree with him it's about reputation. this is the expectation the president and his family will be protected. >> [inaudible] do you agree with that? >> good afternoon everybody. apologize for the late start. it's been a busy day at the administration. i suspect many of you have seen the statement from secretary of homeland security johnson and in that statement he noted that he had accepted the resignation of julie piers and the director of the secret service. before we get to questions with

a tall you this afternoon the president of the opportunity to telephone director pearson to express his appreciation for her service to the agency and to the country. she dedicated more than 30 years of her life as a united states secret service and the important work they do over there. as i mentioned yesterday she spent several hours in front of the cameras answering difficult questions from the members of congress and the context of the interaction she took responsibility for the shortcomings of the agency that she led and she took responsibility for fixing them and quite simply that i think is a testament to her professionalism and character. with that if you give us our first question today. >> in that phone call had she already submitted her resignation or did the president ask for it? >> in a meeting earlier this

afternoon but director -- director of homeland security director of homeland security met with her and accepted her resignation at the time. >> as recently as this morning you were expressing the president's support for her. if there was such support why did the president allow secretary johnson to accept her resignation? >> director pearson offered her resignation because she believed it was in the best interest of the agency to which she dedicated her career. the secretary agreed with that assessment and the president did as well. over the last several days we have seen in recent accumulating reports raising questions about the performance of the agency and the president concluded that new leadership of the agency was required. >> did the president take into consideration the opposition that was rising

>> the president it homeland security were both considering the performance of the agency. and in light of the recent and accumulating reports about the agency i think the questions raised in the mind of the secretary and the president. >> is there a timetable for replacing them? >> as you know and probably saw in the statement, the president recommended and secretary johnson agreed that joe clancy who served with distinction in the secret service until the summer of 2011 would be a good candidate for serving as the acting director of secret service until a more permanent replacement could be found. he had a distinguished career in the secret service and prior to serving he graduated from west point but he is somebody over

the course of the tenure rose to the level of being the special agent in charge. he is somebody that has earned the respect and admiration of the men and women who are the colleagues at the secret service and also somebody that has the confidence of the president and the first lady. has president raised any concerns about the instruction for the israeli officials confirmed today or the eviction backs >> they are concerned by the reports that the government has moved forward with a planning process in the sensitive area

were in a sensitive area of east jerusalem. it is contrary to the goal of negotiating its permanent status agreement and it would send a very troubling message if they were to proceed with construction in that area. this development will draw on a mission from the international community and distance israel from its closest ally, poison the atmosphere not only with the palestinians but also with the arab governments with which they minister said he wanted to build relations and would call into question the commitment to peaceful settlement with the palestinians. the united states condemned the occupation of residential buildings and the palestinian neighborhoods in east jerusalem by individuals associated with the organization whose agenda by definition still has tensions between them. these acts starts to escalate

the tensions when they've already been high. the status shouldn't be prejudged and can only be legitimately determined. at this sensitive time we call all parties to redouble their efforts and restore trust and confidence, promote calm and return to the path of peace. >> did this come up x. and is there any indication that the timing of this post related? >> by the time you have to ask would have to ask the israeli government about that. the problems at the agency are beyond. would the president like to see more resignation?

>> the president has nothing but the highest regard for the men and women of the secret service. these are individuals that are highly trained and highly skilled professionals that we got every morning prepared to put their lives on the line to protect the family and the white house. that is a commitment to service that is worthy of our respect. at the same time as secretary johnson mentioned in his statement, the deputy secretary of the department would be conducting a review into the september 19 incident in which an individual scaled the fence along the side of the white house and was able to gain access to the white house. that review will be the review will be conducted by the deputy secretary. when concluded it would be put before an independent panel of experts to get their outside perspective on what changes may

be required. the panel will also be responsible for making suggestions would be a good candidate to lead the united states secret service and they will consider individuals from outside of the agency. importantly they will also offer recommendations about whether or not a review of issues concerning the secret service is necessary. we are confident at the president is confident that the department of homeland security will take a hard look at the situation and that will assemble a panel of experts that will take a hard look at the situation and develop a set of recommendations that will ensure that the united states secret service can meet the high standard of performance that they have a head for themselves. >> do more people besides the

director need to go? >> the president believes an independent panel should review the results of this assessment is being conducted by the the deputy secretary of homeland security to determine what steps are appropriate moving forward. >> the president into the white house and the white house generally be beat any of the shortfalls are related and that are connected to the sequestration? >> you are raising questions that will be part of this review by the deputy of security so after it will be a fair position to answer. >> earlier you expressed confidence and said the white house has confidence. what changed over the course of the day? >> she offered her resignation and it did so to the secretary of homeland security because she believed that it was in the best

interest of the agency which she dedicated the last 30 years of her life. the secretary agreed as did the president with that assessment because of the recent and accumulating reports. those reports like the secretary and the president to conclude that a new direction was necessary. as to ask about the latest incident of merged i guess it happened prior but he was in the elevator and armed. did he greets the president on that incident class spinach i can tell you what the white house first learned of the incident. >> you didn't know about it

until yesterday. it would be accurate to assume that when does occur there would be an open channel of communication between the united states secret service, the department of homeland security and ultimately the white house. >> does the president want to see the channel of communication to be more open and transparent and why was it kept in the dark little too much by the secret service in terms of these problems that occur from time to time? >> this will be productive in the independent panel will consider as to what is the appropriate level of secret service response to the incidents like this when they crop up and that obviously would involve communicating reforms or

information where necessary to senior members of the department of homeland security come and again ultimately some occasions to the white house. >> does the president think that julia pierson buttoned-down? >> he took time out to thank her for her service to the agency and the country into the country and the president is appreciative of her service. she spent 30 years at the united states secret service because she believed so strongly in the mission of the agency. >> on september 16 the president said in the unlikely event that someone with ebola does reach our shores and as we know there is a case in dallas did the president not to get reliable information to the likelihood that ebola could come over here? what do you make of that?

>> she said in the unlikely events event someone with ebola does reach our shores and i can give you the full quote if you wanted to but you talk about it being an unlikely event. >> my suspicion is that when he delivered those remarks there had been a have been a couple of healthcare professionals who had been trying to provide medical services to victims in africa who have been returned to the united states for treatment so obviously these individuals who contracted ebola in the performance of their medical work or on the shores of the united states of america so i think the point of president was trying to convey to you and the american public is that we retain confidence in the sophisticated medical

infrastructure of the united states of america to respond to meet the needs of those and rituals that have contracted ebola and put protocols in place that will prevent an epidemic from striking the united states. there's a couple of reasons for that. first, ebola isn't easily transmitted. it is transmitted through the air like the flu or through water or food here in the united states. the only way it can be transmitted this from bodily fluids of an individual who is already showing symptoms of being sick with ebola. so there are protocols the president has strong confidence that can be put in place to prevent the spread.

that was my question in a shabby. >> that's correct it is our view that we have the medical infrastructure to try to treat this individual that does have ebola in a way that doesn't pose a significant risk to other patients in the hospital to the doctors and nurses caring for that individual and certainly a significant risk to the blog community. >> based on a scenario that we understand is any of this going to change? >> you can check with the cdc

but it's my understanding that the individual that has been hospitalized with ebola is somebody that recently traveled to the united states from west africa. according to those medical professionals this individual wasn't displaying any symptoms were experiencing symptoms while he was traveling. that means there is no risk. there are protocols in place where those individuals who are leading west leaving west africa and traveling to the west are screened. we also provide guidance to pilots, flight attendants and others who make up the staffing of the transportation infrastructure. we've given them guidance for monitoring the health and well-being to ensure if they notice individuals exhibiting system that seemed to be

consistent with the proper authorities are notified and that they are also screening procedures in place at the borders of the individuals enter the country they are observed by customs border patrol and others to protect the broad american public. so there's nothing about the case in the weakness or any flaws in that system right now but said in light of this incident, the administration has taken this type of recirculating our guidance to the agencies for securing the border and for those agencies that represent individuals who staff the airline industry and medical professionals all across the country to make sure people are aware that there is an important protocol that should be implemented. if an individual presents symptoms are consistent with

ebola. >> [inaudible] can you say whether anything is going to change what is adequate to ensure. >> director pierson said in her testimony that in the immediate aftermath of the incident on september 19, the united states secret service put in place additional security precautions to bolster security at the united states so there's already changes that have been made. the president continues to have full confidence that our highly skilled and highly trained and

good at what they do. these individuals also take very seriously their responsibility to protect the president and the white house. the third thing is that the president has -- is very appreciative that somebody with a resume and the skills are taking responsibility for leading the secret service are in the interim. a. he's taken a leave of absence to reenter the government service. that is i think a demonstration of the sacrifice that he's making principally because of the loyalty that he feels to this organization and agency that he served for so long. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. as the acting director mr. clancy will have the responsibility for leading the organization. the president is grateful that he's taken on that responsibility.

>> on the dallas ebola case, this particular was symptomatic and there was no risk. but also that means you can't screen for somebody that is infected and will become symptomatic in a week or two days. one of the conditions the president will want to see when traveling? >> the thing that's important about that is individuals who are not displaying symptoms of ebola are not able to spread ebola to other people. and that is why we have a protocol in place that does carefully evaluate the medical care for individuals that are displaying symptoms of ebola.

>> [inaudible] >> the cdc put in place specific particles that govern how to handle these kind of situations. what they do is face the priority on ensuring that individuals who are displaying the symptoms are limited from the broader public contact and the reason for that is that individuals that are displaying symptoms of ebola are the only ones that can spread ebola. that's why there are specific particles in place if we are confident and we are confident

that the sophisticated medical infrastructure that exists here in the united states can prevent the widespread ebola. >> [inaudible] diagnosed with ebola when they are here? >> we live in a global world and what we are confident we can do is protect the safety of the traveling public and protect the broad american public by rigorously applying the kind of protocols that are recommended by the industry of the disease control. experts have a keen understanding of how to prevent the spread of the specific disease. doctor friedman himself expressed confidence that because of our infrastructure and the expertise that exists in this country that we can stop the spread of evil and its tracks. >> will the president speak with governor gary or any other texas

officials about the outbreak? >> i don't know of any calls the president expects to make a fan in touch with officials in texas and the dallas area to ensure there is a seamless coordination communications between local officials responsible for responding to the incident and for the national officials in the federal government who can offer their own expertise to deal with this matter. i will say that there is a team of specialists who are already on the ground in north texas to assist local officials that they respond to this specific incident and they will benefit from the expertise to ensure that it doesn't pose a significant risk to people in the dallas metro area. okay. congratulations on your new job,

by the way. >> does the u.s. see any outcome of the nuclear talks to leave iran in the position whereby it is in the threshold of the nuclear power? >> we talked about this a little bit. in close coordination with our partners we have been engaged in conversations with them about the bringing of the nuclear programs into compliance generally accepted in the national standards. and as a result of the conversations, we have had some success getting them to roll back key aspects of the nuclear program. that part has been successful. but what is clear is that the united states will not allow iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. that creating a nuclear arms race in the region of the world would be terribly destabilizing

and wouldn't be in the national security interest of our friends and allies and partners in the region and it wouldn't be in a national security interest of the united states of america. there are statements from both leaders indicating that they need to reach an agreement between the iranian regime and the international community of the verifiable agreement to demonstrate that iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon. >> is there any surprise when the prime ministers said in the oval office he's worried about could show the position and won the when the u.s. is advocating. >> these conversations are ongoing into the president has articulated the determination working closely with our p5 plus

one partners to make sure that we have in place a verifiable regime to the concerns about iran's p5 program that we want to have insight in the program and confirm that iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. that's what they say. we are looking for an agreement that would assure that the community can verify them. the other point i want to make and then this is important. previous interactions about the program have drawn the expressions of frustration because they have observed them using ongoing diplomatic conversations to make advances on the nuclear program.

that is not the case in the context of peace talks. rather the opposite has occurred in the context of the conversations that the united states led with our partners iran has actually agreed to roll back aspects of the program that includes not enriching above the 5% level and that means diluting the entire stockpile and not installing or operating additional centrifuges in its plans including next generation models. also for making further advances in advances and facilities including the facilities in iraq and they also agreed to frequent inspections in of the facility that they have been less than transparent about. we have in the context made important steps or reached important steps that have rolled back the nuclear program.

but however we haven't reached a final agreement that would satisfy the community concern about the program. >> following on that, the prime minister also paints a broad concern that it might also collaborate in some way. >> there certainly was a lot of discussion about the imported into the strong relationship between the united states and israel. as you know, the security cooperation between the two nations is unprecedented and it continues to grow stronger. this has been manifested most recently by the partnership according to the iron dome