sandman: i cannot understand how 2-500 jobs are worth our future. once that stuff gets into the

water, there's no guarantee. it'll destroy our tourism which brings in to northern minnesota about $200-$800 million per year. how many jobs will be lost when it leaks? how many? doesn't matter which party you are, but we have to do the right thing. both my opponents here say something completely different short term. i don't. i look for a long term. we need that here in northern minnesota. we need someone looking after our children and after our future generations. it may not happen in our time, but 20, 30 years down the road it will. >> moderator: thank you very much, mr. sandman. we'll get back to the mining issue in a minute. in the meantime, i'm going to offer the each of the candidates

a chance for up to a one minute rebuttal if they want it on these negative-type stereotypes. congressman nolan, would you like -- nolan: yeah, i would. mr. mills says there's never been a federal government program that worked. stewart, i submit you might want to take a look at social security, medicare, and i know your party platform calls for privatizing and abolishing both of them. most people would agree they've worked quite well. with regard to clean air, clean water, i remember when they had to haul clean water, drinking water into duluth because the water was so polluted. i remember when the lakes and rivers were so polluted that they were catching on fire and that acid rain was destroying our forests and lakes. i don't apologize for supporting clean water and clean air. i've got as good an environmental record as you'll find of anyone in the country, and i don't apologize for that. and as for the aca, my goodness, you know, people with cancer and heart disease and parkinsons are

now able to get affordable insurance because of that. people are able to keep their kids on their insurance. people are protected from bankruptcy. women are not charged more for the same policy that a man is charged for. you really oppose those things and want to repeal all those important advancements? of course there's things that needed to be changed in the affordable care act, but it's done a lot of good for a lot of people. and i've heard you say that there are not many people who suffer those circumstances. well, i'm here to tell you, there are a lot of people who suffer those circumstances and are grateful for the affordable care act -- >> moderator: thank you very much, congressman. mr. mills, one minute. mills: yes. just to crept a couple of things -- correct a couple of things. first of all, i never said there aren't many people that have pre-existing conditions. what i said is as plan administrator, there are few people i've run across which are not covered by hipaa which allows you to go from your existing plan to another plan without having to worry about pre-existing conditions.

also i never said that there was a federal government program that never worked. i -- nolan: you just said that a minute ago. mills: hold on. may i have some time, sir? when i said the government has taken over the product or service, cost has gone up. i'm not talking about social security and medicare. in the past you have said i wanted to abolish social security. that's absolutely not true. and you've also said i want to turn medicare into a voucher system. not true. and i challenge you to substantiate those remarks without editing my words together out of context. nolan: well, thank you for the challenge. the libertarian party, to which you are -- >> moderator: congressman, can we give mr. sandman a turn, please? sandman: when you talk about affordable health care, we need to make it affordable. we need to make it affordable, that bill needs to be taken out, and we don't have to start from the bottom up again, but we need to pull the best parts out of there and make it affordable.

if you're a single mother with two children or three children, you cannot afford what is being offered out there now. especially if you have a low paying job, minimum wage job. it needs to be what it says, affordable for everyone. >> moderator: very good. thank you, roger? >> okay, thank you. thank you, gentlemen. farmers and agribusiness frequently complain that north dakota oil shipping is tying up the railroads, impacting delivery of crops to market. discussion of that issue often leads to the question of pipelines. what is your position on safe transport of oil, the backlog of the commodities to market and, ultimately, where do you stand on expansion of pipelines? mr. mills? mills: well, certainly i support expansion of pipelines. representative nolan said that he supported the keystone pipeline, then he got to washington and voted against the bill that would have made it that much more closer to that

project going forward. he said he was for the embridge sandpiper pipeline, but just not on this route. well, if we change the route of the pipeline, what happens is you delay it by four to five years, and it costs an additional $500 million, effectively killing the project. when you take a look at the $25 million worth of tax revenue that would come into our part of minnesota, that's $4 million a year alone for aiken county which sorely needs the tax revenue. and i'm endorsed by the farm bureau, and when i talk to those guys, you know, they have trouble getting their products to market. and, you know, because the rail cars are loaded with crude coming off of the bakken. so you know what? we need to go forward with the embridge pipeline. they can do it safely. we need to go forward with the keystone pipeline. our economy depends on it. you cannot be for jobs and against the activities that create job ises.

that create jobs. >> moderator: thank you. mr. sandman, your opinion, position on shipping oil and pipelines. sandman: that's not a hard decision for me because where they're proposing to put that pipeline at runs underneath a lot of water, underneath a lot of wetlands. and if you watch the news, there's been all kinds of toxic spills up there. is the science safe enough? i don't know. i don't think so. i know the president just the other day or someone, i may be wrong, talked about getting new tankers. why not split that? some for green, some for farm -- some for grain, some for farm products, some for the oil. but definitely reevaluate those routes that they're talking about. i know we need oil, but at what

cost? how's it benefiting us? mr. mills talks about some tax revenue coming through. will that outweigh the spill if we have to clean it up? there's some real issues and some real thought to our environment that we need to think about and start doing about. i'm proactive rather than reactive. we need to sit down at the table with the people involved and bring all these issues and concerns of the people before we make a final decision on it. but where i stand right now, no. no on that pipeline. it's just like hydraulics. you try pushing more oil through it, eventually it's going to pop

somewhere. we need to look at that. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman? nolan: well, first of all, you know, i've taken the time to study the consequences of rail versus highway versus pipelines. and to be sure, there are problems associated with each and every one of them. and none of them are perfect. but with regard to sandpiper and with regard to keystone, you know, i do, in fact, support both of them. but mr. sandman's made a couple of good points here. and i would like to add to that. first of all, there's probably 40,000 miles of pipelines running through minnesota right now. every road's got a pipeline running down it, and they're everywhere. i am convinced in my mind that pipelines have to be a part of the mix. they do, in fact, have a lower

carbon footprint, they do have, are less prone to danger and the accident, and if we -- and to accident, and if we use american steel in those pipelines as i have proposed in my regulation, they will be even safer. but when you talk about keystone, the tea party republicans brought a bill before the house of representatives that exempted keystone, a foreign corporation, from having to comply with the epa, from having to get army corps engineer permits for installation and for maintenance, for having to post financial assurances when those accidents inevitably occur. would you have voted for a bill like that? no. i'm for the keystone, and i'm for sand piper, but i want it to be done right. we've proven that we have the technology and the know how to do these things and to do it right if we have the political will. but we can't let foreign

corporations come in here willy-nilly and have their way with us. and the same could be said of sandpiper. mr. sandman has pointed out that some of that is going through some very fragile soils and waters, and we need sandpiper, but we can alter the route a little bit to make sure that we protect our precious waters, and that's what i'm for. i'm for pipelines, but i'm for doing it the right way. >> moderator: thank you, congressman. mr. mills, rebuttal? mills: well, i keep getting accused of being a tea partier, but i'm not sure that's entirely accurate. none theless, the epa and the army corps of engineers has been weapon niced against projects -- weaponized against projects such as keystone. and you know what? after years and years of trying to get it done and if these agencies aren't looking at how it can be done but flying to come up -- trying to come up with every reason how it can be stopped, you know what? it's time to get the peoples to take control of their government again from the bureaucracies and the various agencies so we can

get projects like a keystone going, so we can improve our balance of trade, our balance of payments, so we can become energy independent and then become a net exporter of energy. so whether it's keystone, whether it's polymet, enough is enough. we have to get on with it. this is jobs, it's our economy. this is the worst economic recovery in u.s. history, and we have various government agencies and bureaucracies for no good reason, all the hoops have been jumped through, the is have been dotted, the t have been crossed. let's get on with it, let's reignite our economy. >> moderator: mr. sandman, do you care to respond? sandman: not at this time. i mean, it doesn't make sense to me why endanger our wetlands for what it would bring to us. there's not offset. i always look -- mr. mills made

the statement of camp doctrine, leaving it better. i don't see that happening when it does break. we don't have that technology, we don't have the funding for it. i can't see them stepping forward and doing it. i really don't. you know? we really need to take a look at this is dangerous. this is dangerous. for the small term benefit, for the long-term effects that will happen. it's not will it happen, but when it happens. >> moderator: thank you. congressman, any final thoughts on that? thol novel well, not to be repetitious but, you know, like i said, i grew up in a time when the lakes and rivers were so polluted, they were catching on fire. the mississippi river where we lived, why, you'd go down there in the spring and there was toilet paper and condoms and

turds hanging on every branch, and that was the good stuff is. [laughter] that wasn't the toxic stuff. so, and you had to haul drinking water boo duluth -- into duluth, and acid rain was destroying our forests and lakes, and everybody said you've got to have jobs or environment, you can't have both. well, guess what? we went to work, we proved we have the brains, we have the technology to do both, and to do both, we must. our waters are precious, our jobs are precious, our mining, our manufacturing is precious, rebuilding this middle class is precious. and with regard to the economics of that, you don't rebuild the middle class by giving more tax cuts to the super rich and billionaires and fighting against a minimum wage for people that have to work two and three jobs just to make a living. that's not rebuilding the middle class. that's not restoring the balance, and that's a not restoring the american dream. >> moderator: thank you. >> thank you, congressman, for the sound bite. next issue -- [laughter]

perhaps the most polarizing issue in northern minnesota and, of course, we're in northern minnesota, has been precious metals mining, the copper, nickel mining. people say government is dragging its feet, it's taking too long, it's taken nine years. there are folks who say it can't possibly be done safely. gentlemen, where do you stand on copper nickel mining? can it be done safely? do you have any confidence in that at all? and mr. sandman, this is your big issue. we'll start with you, sir. sandman: no, it cannot be done safely, not at this time. and even though we do not have the science more that. so i oppose that wholeheartedly because i know what it can do and what it will do. just about a month ago a mine up there in british columbia broke and dumped five billion gallons of toxic waste into the river. no, it's the same technology

that the mining is proposing, and make a containment field for that polluted water. but where they're looking at putting that is already in a mine that is already leaking into the watershed. so i don't support that at all. but what i do support is the northern lights passenger train. i think my opponents will agree we need to get big money out of congress. we need to stop giving subsidies to the corporations. we need to have the corporations start paying their darn taxes. now we can redirect some of that funding into northern minnesota. so that we can go on with other

projects that are less environmental deadly. and we talk about 2-300 jobs? northern lights they were talking about the other day 13,800 jobs for the eighth district. that's something to look at. they may be temporary, but three, four years down the road maybe something else will happen. we don't need that mine up there. so -- >> moderator: thank you very, very much. representative nolan on precious metals mining, sir. nolan: well, first of all, i grew up on the iron range. mining is a huge part of what we do and who we are. our economy, it's been said up here, is based on timber, tourism. nobody enjoys the great outdoors

more than we to up here. our water, our forests, our lakes, we treasure them. that's why we live here. but i reject the argument that because something has never been done before safely, that it can't be done. there was never an internal combustion engine. there was never a catalytic converter, or there was never a scrubber on a coal-fired power plant to scrub the sulfur out of them. we didn't have the scrubbers to take all the toxic waste out of our lakes and our rivers and be our streams. i submit, i submit that we now have the technology, we now have the brain power. all we have to have is the resolve and the will to do it right. and, you know, on your right here my opponent suggests we should do away with all these epa regulations and onerous rulings. rules and regulations which, by the way, have cleaned up our air and our water.

and a little over one generation increased life expectancy from about 47 to about 90. maybe one of the greatest achievements in the history of humanity. no, i submit that we must be compliant with good, sound environmental rules and regulations, and we have the technology to move ahead with mining. these are minerals that are badly needed. it's a huge part of our jobs, our economy, our culture, and we need to protect our environment just as well. because that, too, is a critically essential part of our economy and our culture. >> moderator: thank you very much, mr. mills. sounds like there might be some common ground here? mills: well, not really. [laughter] you know what? i'm for it. you know what? polymet is amazingly well thought out. the science, the engineering is there. after nine years, there's no reason why we shouldn't be going

for it. obviously, mr. sandman is ainst it, and we're not quite sure where representative nolan is. in the last election cycle he blasted jeff anderson and the other representative for their support of the strategic minerals act and then went and voted for it. the duluth news tribune had a scathing guest editorial which outlined rick nolan, representative nolan's flip-flops. almost, most recently in september in the du ruth news tribune, how he's supporting polymet, and they did a scathing editorial complete with a video outlining representative nolan's flip-flops. so he can say he's for it right now, but where is he going to be tomorrow? and, you know, you can look at all this stuff is online. it's not really, did not, did too, did not, did too. just go look it up for yourself. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. one minute, mr. sandman, if you'd like.

sandman: we don't have the science for clean-up when it happens. simple as that. i look at what's happening now without the mine being there. we have the metal mercuries that are in the water, and the fish already. one in ten babies here in northern minnesota show a higher elevated, elevation of that metal in their blood. our babies. what will happen when this happens? it's not if, it's when. it's when it happens. we were the ones that are going to suffer. our children are the ones that are going to suffer. your grandchildren. it won't affect us right now. but you go down two generations, it will. and if their record so great, why are all the accidents happening with this type of mining around the world? it is unsafe because we cannot

take care of it when out happens. when it happens. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman, one minute, please. nolan: well, i do support polymet, i have always supported polymet, i have always supported mining, and i have always supported doing it the right way in compliance with good, clean air, water, health and safety standards. now, obviously, you take issue with the standards, and you take issue with the mining. my position has been consistent, it has been clear, and you can say that's being on both sides of the issue, and i would say, yeah, you're darn right it is. i am for mining, and i'm for doing it the right way. and with regard to the technology, minnesota's been a leader in clean water technology. we make some of the best high pressure pumps through companies like water engineering, we make some of the films that go into reverse osmosis, and with regard to wild rice, i've been picking wild rice all my life. i picked rice this year.

and the rice where i was wasn't very good either, skip, but we got a few pounds. [laughter] but you can take -- and polymet has said give us your standard. you want 250 parts, 10 parts, 0 apartments, we'll buy the pump, we'll buy the filtration, and we'll give you whatever standard you feel is important to protect the water and protect the rice. we have the technology, we have the know how, we just have to have the political will. >> moderator: thank you very much. mr. mills. mills: my rebuttal is simple. if anybody wants to know the truth about how rick nolan's been on each side of the issue and trying to walk the tight rope and hedge, just go to google. google it, the information's out there. the debate's over. >> moderator: thank you, gentlemen. [laughter] we've touched on it in some of your comments, but let's explore it a little further, the affordable care act. it's an a important issue, it keeps coming up. it has withstood dozens of challenges in congress, it's withstood scrutiny by the supreme court, and it currently is the law of the land. is it a settled issue, or in

your opinion, where do we go from here? congressman nolan? nolan: well, there's never a final score in politics, so i suspect it's not a settled issue. but i do like the good things that it has done. i have, in fact, probably some of our same friends here, one with parkinsons disease and another young couple with a child with a brain tumor who are thrilled with the affordable care act because they were protected from bankruptcy, and they were able to get affordable insurance to provide for their family. those are just a couple of the things that the affordable care act has done that i think are most important. now, is it the final thing? no. i've introduced a number of amendments to make some changes to it, to make it better. and, yes, i do support single payer which is exactly what medicare is. you know, they administer the medicare program in this country for about 3 or 4%.

the private sector insurance programs administer for about 27%. and that's why, you know, practically a third of all the health care dollars that we spend go into administrative costs and profits for big insurance companies. we need to find a way to get universal health care that's affordable for everyone in america. there's still 40 million people that don't have insurance in america. this problem is not fixed yet. this thing is not over with. there's still a great deal more that we need to do to make sure a number of things. one is make sure everybody pays, you know? that's kind of a conservative notion, but i embrace that. make sure that everybody's paying the same rate because that's the fair way to do it. and make sure that everybody's got the fundamental, basic coverage. that's what medicare athe tempts to do, does a pretty darn good job, and that's what i propose for the american public. other nations in this world of

ours do it, and guess what? they provide health care for lower costs than what we do, and they get better results in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and all the rest. we can do better, and i'm committed to it. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. mr. mills, the affordable care act? mills: well, first of all, what cannot continue will not continue, and as, what we've seen from the affordable care act so far is that costs have gone up and access has gone down. we have people that are paying higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles, they're getting less for it. remember the promises, if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor can, you can keep your doctor, and everybody was going to save $2500? that's a lie because it's a bad plan, and it will not work. i am for health care reform, health care reform that actually brings down cost and increases access. and i'm also for the goals of the affordable care act which is making sure that people don't have to worry about pre-existing

conditions, lifetime maximums or if they have a catastrophic health condition, that they don't have to worry about where the care is coming from. however, we have to decide who we are as a people, who we are as a society. are we a society of social safety nets and legal protections? or are we a welfare state with a government big must have to give us everything but also big enough to take it away. so we need the strengthen social safety nets. social safety nets such as minnesota comprehensive health association which, due to obamacare, is going to be closing at the end of this year. so we could have looked at that high risk pool. was it perfect? no. but could we have made it better? yes. we could have worked on our social safety nets and legal protections as hipaa, and then let the free market bring the medical economy, the inflation rate of the medical economy in line with inflation rate with the rest of the economy. because we know the free market works, and we know that

socialism does not work. so buying and selling insurance across state lines, tort reform, price parent city in the medical -- transparency in the medical economy and also more utilization of health savings accounts to put the power in the hands of the patient and the consumer. so it shouldn't be between the patient, the government, the insurance company and the doctor, it should be between the patient and the doctor. we have to get back to what we stand as americans. >> moderator: thank you. mr. sandman, your thoughts on the affordable care act. sandman: and that's just it, affordable. i'm for everybody does need insurance, single payer. but the program that is out will right now does not make it affordable to anyone who is single, maybe living on welfare, maybe having a minimum wage job working at mcdonalds.

it's not affordable. i don't say we scrap the whole plan, but we definitely take it to the table, and we fix the thing. if other countries in the world can do this, why not us? we are driven so much by profit and greed, by the corporations, insurance companies. they forget about their people. and that's us. so it needs to be looked at, analyzed, scrutinized and make it affordable, darn it. affordable. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman, rebuttal if you will? nolan: well, you know, mr. mills now is saying he supports many of the things that are in the affordable care act, but somehow you want to repeal it. talk about double speak. starting to, you know, smell like the barn on a warm sunday afternoon here.

[laughter] the fact is, you know, you keep talking about free market, you keep talking about affordable. why do you think we had to abandon the free market and establish medicare? because people couldn't aa ford it, that's why. and why do you think we need some changes now? well, first of all, we've got to rebuild the middle class. they can't afford anything. with the minimum wages -- and you oppose an increase in their minimum wages and you find that personally offensive that the super rich millionaires and billionaires should have to pay more taxes? you know, i, quite frankly, find it a little personally offensive that you would want to deny working men and women in this country a living wage. because then they might be able to afford some health care regardless of whether it was in the private sector or the public sector. but let's not throw these slow begans around about -- slogans around about socialism and government control and taking over -- we're looking for some

common sense solutions here to get affordable health care to everybody in america. it's a fundamental right where i come from, and we need to rebuild this middle class so people have some income to afford a lot of hippings like a home -- things like a home and to afford to feed their children without having to work two or three jobs. that's what this contest is all about. >> moderator: thank you. nolan: it's a question of who you're for. >> moderator: thank you, congressman. i suspect you have a response? mil mils yeah -- mills: yeah. first of all, he says it's smelling like the barn, i believe. how i've talked about how i would handle health care reform, i've always been consistent. and again, you know, if that's your accusation, substantiate it without editing my words together out of context. as far as the minimum wage is concerned, those jobs are steppingstone jobs. they're designed for 16 and 17-year-olds to get their first job, to get the skills and experience they need to get the next paying job that they have.

the fact that there aren't jobs after those is a stunning indictment of the failure of the democrats that have been in control of this economy for the last six years. we shouldn't be removing those steppingstones, we should be reigniting our economy because you know what? in the bakken oil fields, nobody's talking about minimum wage. they're talking about jobs and economic prosperity, and things are happening. in and the other thing, too, is, you know, representative nolan talked about common sense solutions. i hope that single-payer government-run health care is not a common sense solution to what we need to do with our health care economy. >> moderator: thank you, mr. mills. mr. sandman, would you care to respond? sandman: well, once again, we've got to have it affordable. i talked with some people here about three, four weeks ago, and just to make a living this young man had to work three part-time

jobs. that is not acceptable in a country like ours. he could not afford to have the insurance. so it needs to really be looked at, analyzed, taken apart and make it affordable for everyone. no one here in this great state or in the united states should have to work three jobs at minimum wage and still suffer. no one. this is supposed to be the land of opportunity. i don't see no opportunity there. at all. >> moderator: thank you very much. well, we couldn't possibly have this forum without talking about guns, gentlemen. i watch your tv ads, it's like

watching the hunting channel sometimes. [laughter] so let's talk about guns both in the context of the tragedies of mass shootings, but also in the context of protecting and respecting our second amendment rights. and mr. mills, we'll begin with you. mills: oh, thank you. first of all, we need to enforce the laws that we currently have rather than making up new ones. it doesn't make any sense when the laws that we have right now go unenforced. but also i'm somebody who will stand up for your second amendment rights. representative nolan has earned an f rating from the nra. that's a failing grade from the national rifle association. and, again, if anybody wants to debate that, they can go to nolanrecord.com and see how he earned that failing grade or go to the national rifle association's web site themselves. it will settle the debate pretty quick. however, he also voted for a national gun registry. he wanted to ban smaller framed handguns back in the '70s, and then he gets back to washington,

d.c., and then he goes on the sunday morning talk show circuit and starts talking about banning semiautomatic rifles, the ones that look scary to him, and to have the government tell us how many bullets we can have in our gun. you know what? representative nolan has more than earned his failing grade, and in washington, d.c. can i will stand up -- washington, d.c. i will stand up for your second amendment rights. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. mr. sandman. sandman: well, i totally support the second amendment as a veteran. i've been trained to use guns. but there needs to be some tweaking with the registration and background checks to keep the psychopaths and crazies as i would call them from getting their hands on that. so we need to dig deep, -- deep canner, more into the background checks. and not allow the school shootings to happen. guns don't kill people, people kill people. so that system is failing.

so we need to look at that process of registration and background checks for anybody, any type of gun. buying that. and that's a start. but i do support your right to bear arms. everybody's rights to bear arms. but we need to do more background checks. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman? nolan: um, stewart, what i said on cbs "face the nation" was that i don't need an assault rifle to shoot a duck. [laughter] and i don't. perhaps you do. [laughter] you know? maybe you should spend more time at your shooting range. [laughter] but the fact is right now you can only have three shells in

your gun when you're shooting ducks. the fact is there have been numerous safety measures that have been passed over the years that have not in any way abridged the right of our right to bear arms. that's just the hard, cold fact of life. you kids can't go to school with a machine gun and a grenade launcher. that was outlawed a long time ago. but that doesn't take away our right to bear arms. the right to bear arms, as skip pointed out, is fundamental. many of us have taken the oath to safeguard and protect that right. and with regard to the nra, i'm going to repeat it again. it's been made clear that the nra is made up primarily of washington lobbyists in thousand dollar suits lobbying for gun manufacturers and the people who sell guns. the nra guys that i hunt and

fish and hang out with, i've seen surveys that show three out of four of them support background checks. do you really want the right to sell guns and arms to people that are convicted, violent criminals and terrorists and people who have been found with serious mental illness? do you want the right to sell guns to those people? what do you have against background checks? gun safety is one thing. protecting our is second amendment rights is another. and i support our second amendment rights. i love to hunt, i love to fish, i love to sport shoot, and my wife, quite frankly, we live in a rather remote location, and is glad to have some guns around for personal protection. >> moderator: thank you. i'd like to remind a few members of our audience to, please, control themselves. mr. mills and mr. sandman and, congressman, i'll offer you one minute rebuttals, and maybe we could touch on reasonable gun

control which we keep hearing about. mr. mills? mills: well, first of all, i think it's way over the line to adude me of wanting to sell gun -- accuse me of wanting to sell guns to terrorists and criminals. we should follow the laws we have rather than create new ones. and i believe the exact quote you used is i don't need an assault rifle to shoot a duck, and i think they should be banned. all semiautomatic rifles, that's what we're talking about, work exactly is the same way regardless of how they look. and also, you know what? i don't want the government to tell me i can only have three bullets in my gun. so if you want to find out how rick nolan earned his failing grade from the national rifle association, you can go to the nra's web site or to nolanrecord.com. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. mr. sandman, do you have anything you'd like to add, sir? zapped zapped just want the -- zapped zapped just want to reiterate that we need the background checks. everybody in this great country of ours has the right to bear

arms. but we need to do something to keep the crazies, the psychopaths, the mentally ill from getting their hands on weapons and walking into a school because they had a bad day. we need to do better background checks. >> moderator: thank you. thank you, thank you, gentlemen -- >> moderator: the congressman has one minute. >> oh, excuse. >> moderator: oh, excuse me. nolan: the people that mr. sandman is talking about that we don't want to have guns, they can walk across the street from your store and go to a gun show and buy all of those guns. and as mr. sandman said and i agree, something needs to be done about that, and i'm sorry that you oppose that. but many of us feel that background checks are important to keep guns out of the hands of

murderers and traitors and people who are violently and criminally insane and threatening violence on other people. there is no reasonable civil rationale for not putting together a complete system of background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people with those histories and those kind of inclinations. >> moderator: thank you. >> thank you. gentlemen, let's turn our attention overseas for a moment. we are confronting a growing terrorist threat in isis. the united states has led a coalition in airstrikes, but experts say strikes alone won't win the battle. the administration says we will not commit ground troops. how do you propose we deal with this issue of a growing terrorist threat? mr. sandman, we'll start with you. sandman: the first statement i'd like the make, america should not be the world's policeman. our coalition forces need to

take, step up and put their troops on the ground. i've been to war, i've seen war. and i've seen the damage it has done to our young men and women. both from the past and from the future. i've served two tours in vietnam. so i know what the enemy is like. how they hide. but the risk our young men and women -- but to risk our young men and women, i don't believe the united states needs to send our ground troops in. a resulted air assault -- a limited air assault, what they're doing right now, i with that. but we need to have saudi arabia step up. they have the biggest air force in that region. let them step up and start putting their troops on grounds. let their troops face the danger

i'm sick and tired of the united states being called in to be the world's policeman. we need to step back, we need to bring our boys and girls home and let them fight it out over there, because they have resources, they have the funding from the united states to do that. and by god, they should step up. and save our young men and women. not put their lives in danger. so you guys know where i stand on that, so thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman? nolan: well, i've lived in the middle east, studied the language, studied the culture, done business throughout that region, got a pretty good feel for the people. over there. and a couple things.

one, it's very complex. things are never quite as they appear. but i'll tell you what some of facts are. we have spent trillions of dollars, precious blood in this conflict, and either directly or indirectly we have supplied arms and munitions to just about every single element in that fight over there. we started giving arms to the mujahideen. they morphed into al-qaeda. they're the people who attacked the world trade center. we supported saddam hussein. we know he used chemical weapons, because we gave them to him. then we decided to overthrow him, and we decided to support the shiites and maliki. mother would have called him malarkey. [laughter] we then, after they persecuted the catholics and the christians and the jews and shut down the churches and the synagogues and told them to get out of there or they would kill them as well as the civilians, then we gave

money tot sunnis. they called it the awakening so they could protect themselves against the shiites. then we sent arms in directly and overtly and to our allies in syria, to al-nusra, to the free syrian army who, by the way, are actually the muslim brotherhood. then we were going to attack assad because he was aligned with hezbollah and with iran. now we're going to attack the people who are opposing assad in alliance with hezbollah and with iran. and the other radical elements. the point is, the point is no matter how well intentioned we are, we have given money and arms to everybody on every side of this fight. we can ill afford it. these are monies that are needed here in america for deficit reduction and for rebuilding america. bring our troops home, get out of this conflict.

it is not our fight, it is theirs. they've been in it for thousands of years, and we can ill afford to pend any more -- to spend any more money many this conflict. >> moderator: thank you, congressman. mr. mills? mills: well, it starts with our failure to get a status of forces agreement with the iraqi government. we very well could have gotten it. the fact that we prematurely withdrew our troops from iraq created a vacuum. into that vacuum was filled up by bad people doing bad things. al-qaeda is not on the run. they have not been decimated. what we've done is we've given them a country. we don't have a choice in this one. they have a direct, stated intention of attacking americans, attacking america and american interests abroad. and the current track that we're on is the right track because we need to leverage our air power, need to work with our allies in the region whether it's saudi arabia, whether it's turkey, it

looks like they're getting interested, and it's right in their interest to make sure that we crush the threat of isis, or the kurdish peshmerga, partnering with them, or properly vetted -- the operative words, properly vetted -- moderates. making sure that we're able to give them the training, the arms, the logistical support and the intelligence they need so this particular coalition can be successful at undoing our mistake of creating the vacuum. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, mr. mills. mr. sandman, would you care to respond? zapped zapped well, i agree here with mr. nolan. we need to stop selling arms to all those people over there. we need to bring our people home. they've been fighting for how many thousands of years? and i don't believe we're doing them any favors by supplying arms to them. we need our boys and young women home. we need to stay out and quit

trying to be world's policeman. we need to take care of what's happening here in the united states. >> moderator: thank you. congress moon? -- congressman? nolan: yeah. i want to reiterate that we have no friends in this conflict. inevitably, it's the arms that we send that are used against us, and even if you think it's a good idea, we can ill afford it. it's bankrupting this country, it's bankrupting our nation. those are monies we not only need to rebuild america, those are monies that we need to protect and take care of the veterans when they come home. we have a sacred obligation to take care of veterans who have served and protected us, to serve and protect them when they come home. and i've been committed to that, and this is why we have to put an end to our involvement in this conflict. all it does is make us a target, and it prolongs the conflict, it exacerbates the violence, and it's a conflict that only the people in the middle east can resolve among themselves. everyone has said if we're going

to resolve it, we have to put boots on the ground, we have to be will for another 25, 30, 40 years, well, america will not be around in another 25, 30 years if we keep spending these billions and billions of dollars in nation building abroad at a time when america's bridges are falling down, our veterans are not being taken care of, and we need to use those monies and those energies for deficit reduction and rebuilding america. >> moderator: thank you. mr. mills? mills: well, there's one thing in there that i agree with, and that's that we have to take care of our veterans. we haven't done a good job with it in the past, but we have to do a better job. you know, everybody gave some, some gave all. and it's something that we just as a country have to make that a pyrety that -- priority that if we're going to be sending men and women abroad to fight our wars, we have to take care of them when they come home. but we don't have a choice in this. we can't bury our heads in the sand while there are people being beheaded, americans being

beheaded in the sands of the middle east. thank you. >> moderator: thank you very much. you've all kind of hit on this issue of taxation, so let's talk a little bit about taxation. the one side is tax the rich, rebuild the middle class. other side charges that, you know, you're offering tax breaks to the wealthy, tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas. honestly, what approach when it comes to taxation best benefits everyday minnesotans, and which approach more quickly fuels economic upswing? representative nolan, can we start with you, please? nolan: yeah. first of all, if it's not known, it should be known that i spent the last 32 years of my life in business. i built my own business, a saw mill and a pallet factory business. i bought logs from the loggers throughout this district, identify delivered pallets to the manufacturers in this district. i know what it's like to build a business from the bottom up and

create jobs. i know what it's like to have to meet a payroll. i know what it's like to have to finance a business. i know what it's like to have to comply with a wide range and a myriad of government rules and regulates. and would i like not to have to be obligated to do any of that? well, yes, of course. but it's necessary. i don't mind telling you in the saw mill business before osha, there was nobody that could count to ten on their fingers because they'd lost too many in the saws. [laughter] in the braynard area, i remember when kids were 25 and 30 years old, and their life was over for want of a little ventilation because their lungs were full of fiberglass. and now with osha, why, guess what? they're still making fiberglass boats, and kids are able to retire. so when it comes to taxes, when it comes to taxes, i'm fully supportive of things like investment tax credits for investing in new equipment and

new machinery. i'm fully supportive of government programs to facilitate innovation and new business starts and entrepreneurship and new business activities. the small business administration, for example, something we were able to take advantage of in creating our business which, by way, my children own that business today, and they're doing very nicely with it with saw mills in emily, minnesota, and roemer, minnesota, and the pallet factory and supplying pallet parts, and they're doing quite well. but if we want to rebuild this middle class, we've got to get away from this trickle down theory, give more money to the super rich and the billionaires. we need to rebuild frit the bottom up. that's why i disagree so vehemently with you on the need to provide more tax cuts to the super rich and your opposition to increasing the minimum wage. beyond that we need tax incentives to stop sending manufacturing overseas and headquarters overseas to escape

taxation. it's time that the rich and the powerful who have benefited so much from the greatness of this country step up and start paying their fair share in the same way that working men and women in this country are paying more than their fair share. >> moderator: thank you, congressman. in fairness, we'll give mr. mills and mr. sandman a minute and a half here. mr. mills? mills: thank you. our tax code is way too complicated: the irs is way too powerful, and they've been weaponized against the american people. we need a flatter, fairer tax code that benefits the middle class. we're talking about one deduction automatic above poverty line. and then we're talking one or two lower rates and then deductions starting for charitable giving, mortgage interest and also expenses for education. not limited to those, but it has to be flatter, fairer, it has to

be budge neutral, and it has -- budget neutral, and it has to be so simple you could fill it out on the back of a postcard and send it in because we need a smaller irk rs and a less complicated tax code. but we have to understand the economic engine of our part of minnesota. over 80% of all employers are small and medium-sized businesses that are taxed at the personal individual level. they're subchapter s, llcs, they're partnerships. they pay taxes as individuals. and when they're paying a higher tax rate, 39.6%, and corporate america, wall street, is paying 35% and they have armies of accountants and lawyers and cpas, you know what? that's the reason why we have disproportionately -- one of the reasons why we have disproportionately high unemployment in our part of minnesota. you know, the numbers, yeah, you know, for the state look good, but when we start picking apart what's happening in the eighth

district, the iron range has 64% higher unemployment than the rest of the state. braynard and grand rapids in the last several months have topped out above 10% unemployment. and, yes, the outskirts are part of this district, they have topped out at above in the last several months 10%. but that's not the real numbers there. we had a much higher rate of employment, participation in the employment market about six years ago. thousands, thousands of our friends and neighbors have given up looking for work altogether, and we have underemployment. we had people working two or three or four part-time jobs, and we've talked about that, because they can't find a good paying or a higher paying job that fits their skill levels. and that's indicative of an economy that is not working, that is sputtering in fits and starts. and if we want to make sure our part of minnesota has a great economy, we have to look at

reigniting main street bids from, again, main street up. not from washington, d.c. or wall street on down, and we need to look at getting projects like sandpiper going and making sure polymed is going. we know how to do it, we just have to go and do it. >> moderator: thank you, mr. mills. mr. sandman, your philosophical approach to taxation. sandman: well, i agree with mr. mills there, the irs is a big monster out will lurking in the dark waiting to strike. but where i'd start with that, i would start making sure that we get the money out of the corporations. stop that subsidies. i could be wrong, but last i heard it was like $500 billion a year. make the corporations start paying their taxes. you know? $4-$5 billion there. i believe in a strong tax base, but it doesn't need to come from the backs of the middle class.

it doesn't need to come that a way. we need to start looking at the top. they say the trickle down effect? it doesn't trickle down at all. it only goes so far. so when you talk about taxes, yeah, we need a flat tax break that is fair. for everyone. everyone, hot just the ones -- not just the ones at the top. then we can have some money that we can do some things here in minnesota. we can redirect that money. if i'm elected, i'll do the best i can to redirect that money. we need to get the money out of government. we need to put it in the pockets of the people. that's you, my friends. that's you. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman nolan, one more minute on taxation, if you'd

like. nolan: well, a couple things. stewart and a lot of people like to talk about the tax rates of 38% and 35%. let's talk about reality. recent tax study here in minnesota found that the average person making a million dollars or more is paying an effective rate of 13%, not 35 or 38%. and the average person making 30-$50,000 a year is paying 31%. so the one who made a million's only got $870,000 left to get by on for the year, and the person making $30,000's only got 20,000 left to get by on for a year. stewart, you made more money with the salary your family pays you sitting here in an hour and a half than the minimum wage earner will make in a week. one of your fellow employees came up to me said, and he did the math x he found out he'd have to work for your company for 33 years to make what your family pays you in a year.

the fact is, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the tax policies are exacerbating and accelerating that x in no small part responsible for that x nobody is for penalizing the rich. on the contrary, we just want the rich and the powerful to pay their fair share, be we reject this -- and we reject this trickle down theory of economics. we support increasing minimum wages and living wages and rebuilding the middle class because that's how you rebuild the promise of america. >> moderator: mr. mills, i assume you'd want to respond to that. mil mils well, yes. in the very beginning, representative nolan was making a great case for tax reform, but then he started talking about our family's business and, yes, we have been success. we do make a profit. that's the purpose of business. and whether it is through profit or whether it is through your paycheck, anybody who is in business knows that that's an opportunity to reinvest back in your business to sustain the jobs you currently have and to

create new ones. and that's our business model. that is fleet farm's business model. we work hard, sweat of our brow. sometimes we have callouses on our hands. they may get a little bit bloody at times. but then at the end of the day, we hope to make a profit and to pay ourselves good wages. but that's an opportunity to reinvest back in our business. and that is our entire business model. again, we're not publicly traded. there's no venture capital money, there's no private equity money. what we've been able to do is make sure we're able to grow our business off of our own profits and off of our own wages and reinvesting those back in our business, and we make no apologies for it. >> moderator: mr. sandman, any final thought on taxation? zapped sand we need to do the right thing -- sandman: we need to do the right thing. we need to do the right thing for the happiness and survival of the middle class. we need to get that money out of those corporations and have 'em start paying their fair share. then we can look at funding some

of our social programs that are out there. we need to start with the rich and bring it down. we pay enough taxes already. we don't need to burden ourselves with any more. just having it be fair, having it be father for everyone. -- fair for everyone. >> moderator: thank you, gentlemen. in respect of our time together this morning, i think we have time for one more question, and then we'll go to closing comments, so let's talk about social security, medicare and medicaid. all designed to provide for a social safety net, if you will. but moat to a degree -- most will agree that that net is fraying with each passing year of inaction by congress. what would you propose be done to begin to address the problems that we know are coming? mr. mills? mills: well, first of all, actually, you set that question up perfectly. a promise made is a promise kept, and we have to keep our promises to our seniors, but also we have to be cognizant of

those programs are going to reach insolvency in circa 2034. that's in about 20 years. and after identifying the problem, we have to come together on a bipartisan solution because we don't need to do to social security and medicaid what the democrat party has done to america with obamacare. it has to be both houses of congress, both sides of the aisle putting all options on the table to make sure that we are able to make good on those promises to our seniors. and as far as medicare is concerned, we have to look at the underlying medical economy. the increase in inflation in the medical economy is killing medicare. not only that, we have taken $716 billion, that's billion dollars, out of medicare to pay for obamacare. and if anybody thinks that's a phony accounting number or that somehow that that went to benefit medicare, you can talk

to the people in the home health care industry. they've had about $50 billion taken out of the medicare home health care, and we have seniors that are depending on that. we need to put that $716 billion back into medicare because those are real cuts regardless of what anybody tells you. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, mr. mills. mr. sandman, your thoughts on social security, medicare, medicaid? sandman: we need to put the money back in, but we also need to change that thought that is in washington where they consider social security an entitlement. we, the workers, built that fund up. and by god, just because they're sitting in washington, that's our money. that's our money that belongs to us. for when we get older. medicare's the same way. they sound good, but if they're

an open door for a bank robber, it's going to bank rob all of us. so we need to do the right things. we need to put the money back. social security is not an entitlement program. and we need to let all our representatives in washington, the senate say, no, enough is enough. thank you. >> moderator: thank you. congressman nolan? nolan: yeah. first of all, i want to reemphasize something mr. sandman has just said here, and that is social security and medicare are not entitlements. they are earned benefits that people started paying for first hour, the first day, the first month that they ever went to work. with the hope and the expectation that they would live long enough someday to enjoy the benefits. and the fact is that nothing has done more to lift more people out of poverty, maybe in the

history of the world, than social security. nothing has done more to extend the lives of our senior citizens than having access for all through medicare. a single-payer system, by the way, stew. and the fact is, social security's got a $2 trillion surplus in it. in the absolute worst case, and that's based on projections, we don't know what it'll actually be, but it's good for 20 or 30 years, and experts, actuaries say if we just lifted the cap on the amount that people have to pay their social security taxes on and make millionaires and billionaires pay the same rate that working men and women pay, why, we would make social security secure add inmy gnat them. and you're talking about keeping all options on the table when your own political party that you choose to caucus with has called for the privatization and turning social security over to wall street? i will oppose that with all my

might and all my strength. and you're talking about the same case with medicare? taking and turning that back over to the insurance companies where one-third of all of our health dollars go into a big insurance company profits and senseless, costly administration? no, no, no, no. there are ways that we can reduce health care costs, and there are ways that we can protect social security and medicare without turning social security over to wall street. ..

>>

>> we cannot just keep kicking the can down the road. i was enjoying the argument here. [laughter] nolan:. [laughter] sandman: you guys are good. it is not an entitlement program. we need to have affordable of all the things we talked about here tonight with the middle-class people. if i am elected to office, i will do everything i can to keep the cost down, the brink of money back where it belongs. thank-you.

nolan: do i get another minute? i will go back to what i said before. you have chosen to go to washington into caucus with the people that want to privatize social security and medicare. it is one thing to say you want to protect them. if your idea to protect it is to keep all options open including privatizing which is what you propose a caucus with, that should be disturbing for those who rely on social security and medicare. i would submit once again nothing is done more than social security. nothing has done more to extend the life and have

more of life to the lives of our seniors and medicare. with two wonderful programs that i have no interest whatsoever to privatize either one and whatever it takes to preserve them as day are they never failed to meet an obligation never a year to make a profit and have done so much good i will do everything in my power to protect them as they are. >>moderator: moving to closing statements please limit comments at two 1/2 minutes and i asked the audience to please refrain from applauding. your closing comments? mills: it is simple. we heard a lot today but who is better to represent our ideals and priorities in washington d.c.?

food with obama 90% of the time? someone who has everything by the end -- from the nra as f those who would vote for that energy tax that will strangle minnesota the number one cost of the minimg of the carbon tax and also the timber industry a large part of their expense is energy that carted energy tax will strangle the paper and timber industry. doo-doos ships about 40% that is called carbon energy to strangle our part of minnesota causing us to pay more at the pond and whole energy bills. someone who supports the waters of the u.s. role to

causes the epa to regulate ditches and ponds on the family farm? order somebody who thinks obamacare is a great for steps to health care so hopefully you have listened carefully with open arms and open hearts and all been years in the accord to your vote to represent you in washington d.c. because i truly believe based on what we talk about that i best represent the values and priorities of this district and i look forward to going to washington d.c. to serve you. thank-you. >>moderator: final thoughts? sandman: i am a common person and use common sense. if i am elected i can walk between both parties.

whether a republican or a democrat. i care about you to do the right things to lower taxes. student debt. jobs. environment. number one is environment with me. there is a lot of talk that there. that the corporations and the powers that be don't care about the environment or that people. they're fed by greed. they don't care about you. the parties i believe don't care about you. it is control and power. i care about you. i care about your grandchildren and your right to life.

if i am elected i will make my voice heard. i will do the best that i can for you. for you are the ones that put me in how are you put me into the office. your voice will not go on her. so thank-you. >>moderator: congressman? nolan: i want to thank everybody for this opportunity and my opponents in this race for a spirited debates. it should be pretty clear by this point what the choice is. and who you are for. one other element of a bite to add is the question of who can get things done in washington as well?

many groups were rated 10 percent of those who could introduce legislation and effectively get it passed into law. as a freshman and a teapartier republican dominated house of representatives, it is not an easy task. "time" magazine cited my leadership for keeping us out of the war in the middle east i sponsored an amendment to knock $89 billion out of the afghan reconstruction fund. because we need that money back, for deficit reduction and rebuilding america. that is enough money to finance the state's death minnesota for several years and also rose and bridges i helped to write of water resources bill and the farm belt. to make it streamline the regulations to create good jobs. i passed legislation and to prohibit it republicans and

democrats i pass legislation with the mississippi watershed to destroy the native fish and aquatic life. i security thousand acres for the chipewyan nation that was stalled by settlers in 1954 my staff and i have worked with government private agencies with well over $300 million for grants and roads and bridges and harbors and schools. the point is there is a longer list. mining as well as workers and executives and employees support my candidacy. you know, christ and all these issues. you know, who i am for.

people have to ask who they are for and this decision and therefore should be easy. >>moderator: we will leave it there thinking for your participation we appreciate your opportunity to have the discussion on the issues also thanks to the civility project and also for the use of the facilities. enjoy the rest of your day. [cheers and applause] >> bring more than 100 debates for the control of congress joined the conversation. follow was on twitter and like this on facebook. incumbent a democrat period lander and cassidy. louisiana has an open primary system where the candidates run against each

other with the majority winning the election. 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and an arkansas senate debates between incumbent pryor and the incumbent congressman and. here is more from that debate. >> i have to move go back because the congressman just told a walker. that i voted every one of his taxes used not even close in fact, i voted against every budget the president has offered for our real record on taxes and voted to cut by 2.5 trillion dollars 5.$5 trillion and i

am a big believer of tax reform to simplify the tax code and lower the rate it is more of this misinformation and rhetoric that has been so good over the course of the campaign but did use the get their real voting record with the is investors that once a big return on his investment that is a he is working for that is the evil deity is elected to the senate he is not listening to you but to those out of state billionaires' better writing the checks paying for his campaign. i have a plaque on my desk in my office that says arkansas, as first. this is what i mean i listen to the people in the state and i work hard i am granted

the most independent senator in washington i would appreciate your votes election day is november 4th let's go out to win this for the people of arkansas. >> tavis very blessed to grow upon a the cominform -- cotton farmer we are expecting her first baby born we wanted to have the same opportunities we did and also your families as well. to have a chance for a better life. barack obama's policies are making them harder. he said his policies are on the ballot every single one the name is mark prior. he built with barack obama 93% of the time because the vote for prior is a vote for the failed policies of failed economic policies that cost jobs and minimum-wage. he voted for obamacare that

drives up the cost of health insurance and hurting our seniors for cuts to medicare. prior has voted $1 trillion on average every year under the barack obama six years while cutting $1 trillion from military. mark pryor is a rubber stamp for obama as failed form policy and decision and weakness. he will not even hold the president accountable for not protecting our country and families from ebola. there is the arkansas way. let's get the economy moving and putting people back to work so we could have people achieve their dreams for repeal obamacare. and to to keep the family say fancy care whether a threat of terrorism or disease. this is the choice you face.

barack obama said his policies are all on the ballot. if you are happy with barack obama's pal -- policies it is a vote for barack obama. if you want change and a new direction for arkansas and our country than i would appreciate your vote. >> part of the arkansas senate debate. this race is rated as the tossup. you can see it on c-span right after that we will assure you that debate and 9:00 p.m. eastern. then incumbent oren governor goes up against the republican and challenger. that raises listed as leaning democrat tonight 10:00 eastern also on c-span.

earlier today that we give cities released the annual report tracking fiscal conditions from cities across the united states. we heard from that white house council of economic advisers and local leaders with their own fiscal outlook. this is one hour 10 minutes. >> that economic engine of america over 80 percent of americans it is clear the economy drives the economy of our nation of america. again, cities are the economic engine of america. like new york loss angeles

respectively represent the second largest growth gdp in america. economy represents jobs, opportunities, talent jobs, opportunities, talent, a tourism and america. that is why via national league of cities representing 19,000 cities and towns in america knows the economy is one of the most important elements of community. good morning. i and clarence anthony executive director of the national league of cities. ion excited to welcome you tussaud launch event for the city's fiscal condition 2014. it is now the 29 edition at the national league of cities has produced that

serves as a critical resource to shed light on local revenue the municipal work force and what we should expect in the years to come as americans who live in cities. since the economic downturn in 2008, the impact of the great recession is a unavoidable underlying theme in the yearly the book at fiscal conditions. as city leaders know well why they are the fuel of vocal government to provide the resources that cities used to shape personnel decisions and infrastructure development and key services that communities rely on day in and day out. we also know the decisions made at the local level can kickstart that very important economic activity

in the nation. investment the cities make in transit systems and services they provide to keep communities safe, the work to ensure the availability of affordable housing all provide a strong foundation for economic vitality for america. today's event will help us better understand this relationship between fiscal health and economic health of communities. we're here from local and national leaders on the fiscal condition and what the others off further power the innovation and leadership we see across the nation that is occurring in city's daily. this report by the national league of cities will provide the in depth look at the report findings of the president christopher coleman will bring a local perspective as a panel discussion by first i am

proud to introduce our special guest and our friend jason furman is chairman of economic council of life house advisers part of his role is to serve as assistant to economic policies and its deputy director 2007 through 2008 from director of the hamilton project at the brookings institute. he earned his ph.d. in economics in government and economics as well as ms from the london school of economics. i am so honored today to invite jason furman who has

conducted a wide range of research said he is a person who can and set the stage today. >> good morning. >> thanks so much. >> thanks for that introduction and for putting cities at the heart of our discussion with the economic recovery and economic future. with the united states economy with around the world we see trouble in many countries around the world in the united states we have 55 months of st. job growth. and is falling at the fastest rate in 30 years.

and the growth rate is picking up. at the same time we see wage growth that is just above inflation but not enough to make up. is this so long lasting impact than the growth of just guarded to pick up in strengthen? and that is our nation's cities. and as to why this recovery was different from others? what you hear is growing out of a financial crisis is

more difficult than ordinary recession because households leverage up businesses and it is a long and painful process. surely there is part of it that with our analysis the single biggest factor that differentiates from the current recovery that came before it is what happened at the state and local level. this is the first economic recovery we have seen when states and localities rather than expanding employment rather than output were hit so hard by the decline of property values and reduction of taxes that and the initial stages get out to contribute to deepen

that. if you take the normal economic recovery for states and localities we just have a growth rate that is half a point higher per year of the course of economic recovery but there is some good news because this is turning around and is documented in the fiscal conditions report something we just heard about. our economy as a whole has 8.3 million jobs in the private sector believe does 9 million jobs in total but the states and localities has attracted $4 million but it has reversed in the last 12 months states and localities have added 80,000

jobs. the contribution they made to grow as the second quarter this year with 4.6% growth rate this states and localities made the largest contribution to our growth that they had in five years. that has been positive as a dramatic reversal for 13 straight quarters prior to that. so the turnaround of local fiscal conditions with local investment to unemployment does a teacher or firefighter or police officers but to make this important contribution as the strengthening of our national economy.

we are not all the way there yet with our national economy and not all the way there yet in terms like the city's contributions to it. one of the most important steps that the president has put forward is to put more into the nation's infrastructure. that puts people to work today and increases productivity of the economy over the medium and long run it does it just concluded of the finance ministers of the world of the imf they endorse what pretty much every mayor already knew that infrastructure is the centerpiece of economic strategy for countries of the world and no less true for the united states.

and continuing to strengthen the fiscal position and one way it has been eroded as not collecting the taxes that have the a level playing field between the small businesses and their competitors that this president strongly supports not just good for cities but also good for jobs. we're pleased to see it was passed on the strong bipartisan basis in the senate and we would like to see the house act on it. with these two specific it issues with the agenda has a virtuous circle to strengthen the city's to help strengthen the national

economy that includes investing in education education, raising the minimum wage, continuing to make vigorous efforts on>t$

>> a. >> specifically local government and what does this mean for economic recovery? >> the challenge is employment is 600,000 below where it was at its peak. that 600,000 the single largest shortfall is in the future. the student population has only grown so that means ratio of teacher and pupil has moved in the wrong direction it is not about just jobs today but the future of our children. the single most important factor how the economy is doing and the finances of localities is doing that is why it is so all-important

to strengthen the economy and to take steps like infrastructure to put localities and a better position to hire teachers which is about a good idea that we can agree on that i can think of. >> despite gains in employment overall recovery is slow with direct implications for fiscal health. can you give us your perspective on the outlook of the economy? >> i feel good about the economic output right now. you have to see bill sides of the ledger with this situation and the rest of the world if it is a concern with domestic strength the stars with the consumer we were in a difficult position a couple years ago having

borrowed a lot interest rates remain though then to work its way through the system to be in a better position to spend. our businesses have very large cash flows, a very healthy equity pie rations and also to raise their investment. also the housing sector is only 3 percent of the economy but to when the economy is going down and going up. right now we're building 1 million houses per year but that is at a sustainable level is 1.5 million per year so there is more potential with the home building sector as well. >> daschle employment has been on the rise but the fast growth of low wage jobs puts downward pressure on

wages and equality warriors fought south this could impact local economy is going forward?

>> >> >> they all are contingent on this broader debate on what to do about spending levels with this request your in 2016 that will be an important debate that the president will push quite vigorously that is very much on this side of the nation's cities simic banks for taking the time to join us today. [applause] next we have my a research director crew will walk you through the state fiscal conditions survey.

>> i'm pleased to be here today to share the results of the fiscal conditions survey also michael will speak with you shortly on the panel's session also of the macarthur foundation for this year's financial support. this survey is the annual survey of city finance officers and is the only for the sector as we discussed a data groth for recovery has been slow and has a unique window into a the prospective how the recovery has impacted the city finance is. and how budgets have faired coming out of the recession. i will discuss this that millions understand the conditions of the nation's cities. the outlook of city finance officers and general fund

revenues, a work force personnel. also factors on the city's budget and how cities are responding. so it is not too much of the surprise this survey reveals the worst is behind them the city finances have not recovered following the great recession. this is how we know. looking at the city finance officers we gauge the informed opinion and it is important to understand if city finance officers deal with their budgets day in and day out they see the impact of their decisions on residents' everyday so that is critical to the outlook nationwide. specifically, is your city's budget better able or less able than last year to meet the financial needs of your community? it shows the gray bar better and blue is less able.

in 2014 a staggering 80 percent of city finance officers' report they're better able to meet the financial needs of their community than this time last year. will report a positive outlook this year than in the 29 year history of the survey. generally speaking, i am a glass half full type of person but we need to look at bull's-eyes. 80% are better off than they were worse off last year with the magnitude of the recession also during the recessionary period. so positive trends are tempered with the relative context of economic recovery. some elected general revenue fund activity this is critical.

was general city operation comprised of taxes and fees for development and services and agents as well. and they're highly responsive to economic conditions and to provide a barometer of what to expect in years to come. examining the amount of change in constant dollars and the gray line expenditures. good news bad news. good news general revenues grew by almost 3%. in 2013 compared with 2012. the first post recession year over year growth we have seen. the bad news. it is projected to stagnate as people close the books on 2014.

to gain further perspective to see how well the general fund revenues are fearing we look took a closer look. 2006 was the pre-recession peak as the base year at one end to% index and in 2012 for general fund revenues 88% of 2006 revenues in constant dollars. the first recession increased not common to all 2013 but in 2014 it was projected for them to close the books by the time we had the survey we are projecting revenues are 90% of 2006 levels. revenues are not yet fully recovered and a growth appears to be stagnating. again that growth appears to be stagnating.

but another window is a general fund revenues looking at the main drivers. property fell and income taxes. selected the expenditure chart to show the constant dollar change. what is the growth the blue line is propertied tax. typically sales respond more quickly to economic conditions but property taxes the bulk of funds with economic conditions take longer to recover. that is why it is ideal for any city with the economic downturn, all sources of tax revenue combine together together, property-tax aren't expected to increase slightly in 2014 as

collections catch up with the improvement of the real-estate market. this is the first increase the property taxes coming out of the recession. sales and income tax revenues continue to grow in 2013 but are projected to grow as cities close the books not only from a harsh winter but employment recovery that is still the dominating. work force personnel. throughout the recession many cities implemented a combination of personal related cuts with a hiring freeze or layoff in the effort to reduce their cost. the results are the loss of hundreds of thousands of mid wage jobs public safety and public works park and recreation among others. for the first time since the recession more cities are increasing rather than

decrease synthesizes the percentage that has the blue line and increasing. of the bad news? as we heard earlier in the context there is still half a million fewer government jobs today than there were 2008. this is troublesome given the state of the job crisis we experience today in this country. the last indicator, are ending balances an important indicator of fiscal capacity primarily because to help balance the budget to the economic times and say also to help plan expenses down the road. also to look as an indicator how well or how likely a city is to make good on

their debts. solid ending balances can and credit ratings. we measure ending balances says the percentage of expenditure as well as the budget did ending balance for the next year. the good news. for the better news ending balances are a positive trajectory and almost 23%. prior to the recession palace's covered a 25% so we're not there yet. but to take stock of key in the fiscal vital signs we start to see city finances turned the corner coming out of the great recession but as revenues work to do they have not returned to full recovery so what is holding back recovery? with those in state -- the insights that we ask what

are the factors that most impacting the budget? topping the list is infrastructure needs. maintenance during the great recession and the cost of health benefits and pensions , the cost in particular of infrastructure and health care are more than likely to persist for years to come. on the positive side the broader economic recovery is trying to take all that the local level with the value of the tax base as positive impacters. sauternes into policy action as the overall health and budgets that play a role on a daily basis it needs to

balance its budget every year. not only those factors in adjusting policy choices accordingly. what does this look like? asking finance officers about the revenue raising activity in the majority of cities report they're reinvesting in public safety capital infrastructure projects in employee wages. continuing to turn to user fees of the increase of property tax rates as well. inclosing we're cautiously optimistic about the fiscal conditions. for the first time since the recent recession revenues are increasing but also projected to stagnate through 2014. more cities are hiring to

close the gap but we have a long way to go. ending balance initial positive signs but still have not caught up. the bottom line is it is fortified from the great recession making the rate back to tough choices choices, innovation and partnership for nonprofits and others. put a constraint on city budgets with state and federal partners at the table is critical for full recovery of the nation's cities. welcome to the stage the mayor christopher coleman from minnesota he will reflect on his time as mayor and also with the fiscal conditions survey as well as a federal partnership. [applause]

>> good morning. thanks for the report and i want to thank the of the staff and those that participated in this report together and the city financial officers responded to the survey on-line and over the phone. it is critically important we do understand what the fiscal health of the cities are right now. 80% of finance officers are reporting a more positive direction more optimistic and that is of good things they have been difficult years the economy has been challenging and starting to use the the recovery and the public safety irina but has also noted we're down with a

substantial number of jobs from where we were. so while we are optimistic about the future about the horizon. there are long-term challenges from the cities with a national commitment if they will succeed to be the continued partnership on the federal government side. and with all residents that will benefit from the recovery going forward. the survey indicates cfo are concerned of the cost associated with the infrastructure spending in particular. example after example but one close to home is the recent discovery of of major bridge downtown st. paul was structurally unsound and has been severely restricted. closing off planes coming into downtown making them more difficult for your residence and to spend money

has a long term impact. infrastructure continues to be a key issue going forward. much of the structure is in dire need of repair and upgrade. and engineer reporting has fallen behind the rest of the overall. states are forced to change the infrastructure on their own even coming down from federal sources. city's lead and do what is best for the residents. in this city of st. paul be opened the union depot a multilevel transit hub to provide access to cities cities, the central stop on the train and a light rail rail, buses, but if you look at how the project came together was a combination. not just local but private, a federal sources and of perfect public-private partnership and those are the types of

things cities will be to sustain their well-being into the future and that type of cooperation we need to attack the with there under funded infrastructure. but to move goods and people to their jobs for about 5 miles of nation's highways and ports and airports in transit systems that is why we support a multilevel transportation and program spending dollars directly to projects. the city's need a stronger role in the selection process to recognize the central role to metropolitan economy is. by ensuring a strong voice for local leaders to return on innovation and infrastructure it is a hallmark of what makes the nation so great. panera can cities and businesses agree on a

program that is stable and can support long-term planning. you cannot plan for infrastructure projects six months at a time we need a long-term plan. in addition local economies are that economic and jinju's support growth growth-- congress is to have the flexibility to make the decisions that includes local governments can best raise revenue to support the delivery of services to residents. one way is to level the playing field between online and brick and mortar retailers tono

the items we've outlined here today are simple. we are asking congress to give a you opportunity to do what they say they want to do. make investments in strength and communities, put us on a path to greater growth and make the nation's more competitive. the league of cities works to build better communities and most importantly places where residents can thrive. we do this by building partnerships against a nonprofit and government across party lines and across the road divides. this is why cities are most akin to a set of priorities to the

set of priorities for their communities. we simply ask for the tools and resources to make it happen. we're optimistic on the local level could become very very dark time in our city's history, but though we are optimistic, we know unless we continue to invest, must we continue to provide resources and continue to provide local control, local authority and decision-making, the future of our cities could be very, very tenuous. we are up to mystic, hopeful and we hope to get congress, the white house come the state government at all levels of governments work together for the future prosperity of our cities. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, mayor coleman. at this point we will take a few questions from the audience before we move on to our panel. if there are any questions come if you want to come down to the microphone.