are spending somewhere between $80 million and $90 million a year to care for uninsured people. the federal government would pick up that cost and free up $80 million to $90 million that we could use for higher priorities here in the state. i see taking those medicaid payments as not much different than taking agricultural subsidies, funding the inl or funding the air force base. >> medicaid expansion is wrong for idaho. one thing people do not recognize is if you expand medicare, you are putting an additional burden on a primary care model that already cannot handle the medicaid patients that are out there currently. they also forget that our federal government is going to fund under medicaid expansion

90 cents of every dollar. idaho still has to come up with 10 cents out of every dollar spent, and has to pay for the cost of administering the program. it's a cost idaho simple cannot afford. the answer is not throw money at a model that is broken. the answer is create a new model, and there's one working in the state of washington. you pay a provider privately and combine that with a wrap around catastrophic model, and it's cheaper and it works better, and you get to see your doctor 24/7 if you want it. doctors are happier. and it works beautifully. patients are happy. doctors are happy. it's more cost effective and does not involve adding additional financial burden to idaho by expanding medicare. working on that proposal should be in the next legislative session. i look forward to that bill being presented because i would sign it into law. >> all right, because of the coin toss, we have two-minute closing remarks, and you start and you conclude.

>> thank you. >> ladies and gentleman, thank you for being her tonight. when november gets here, you have an important choice to make. you will choose idaho's next governor. you can choose governor otter. if you do, you lock yourself into four more years of cronyism into four more years of cronyism and corruption, medicaid expansion because even though he says it's not a guarantee, it's coming down the pike. idaho will dig deeper into a pit from which it will not be able to emerge. let me remind you, lincoln was a

third-party candidate when he ran for president. great moments in history happen when people have had enough and finally stand up and take a stand and this november, if you stand up, the power to change history rests in your hands. you just need to go down to the for governor -- -- iank you to the appreciate the opportunity to introduce myself until he where i stand on some of the issues. on an issue agree and sometimes there is some difference is where we disagree. the one thing we do agree on is it's time for change in the

leadership at the top. we need to change the govern or and we need to change them now. if you are satisfied with going downhill and spiraling to the bottom, but for the governor because that's what you're going to get. of futureredictor behavior is past behavior. . governor,lect me as it will be the first time at 25 years this state has elected a democratic governor. that will send an important message to the legislature. i'm confident i can work with them. i've been talking with them during this campaign.

there will not be stagnation. we will make education a top priority. we will improve the economy and we will get rid of the cronyism and the waste currently in our state government. i will work hard, tell the truth and put people first. that's why i'm asking for your vote for me on november 4. thank you very much. [applause] i want to thank both of these men for coming. i want to think the leaders that think the letters he sent in questions and thank everybody for listening to this debate. both on november 4. 4.vote on november

[applause] >> more live campaign 2014 coverage saturday here on c-span with the debate between the candidates to become montana's next commerce men. -- next congressman. a bit later on in an hour or so here on c-span, remarks from president obama. we expect he will address the latest jobless numbers. jobs were gained in september. we will have an here on c-span. ,bout the same time on c-span2

the top officials will be briefing reporters on the response to ebola in the u.s. he will hear from the director of nih, the health and human and davidecretary rodriguez. and at 3:30 on c-span2 online on c-span.org. here on c-span, we will have comments from john paul stevens. he recently spoke with georgetown university law students about his life, legal career and his time on the court. that's tonight at 10:00. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this competition will award 150 prizes totaling $100,000. create a 5-7 minute documentary on the topic, the three branches and you. videos need to include c-span and must be smitten

by january 20 appeared go to student cam.com. campaign 2014 coverage next. the candidate endorsement of you. -- endorsement interview. the candidates took questions from several editorial board members and tribune reporters. they debated each other's positions over -- it's about one hour 15 minutes. >> thank you for doing this. we really appreciate you taking the time. thank you. i look forward to a great conversation. we encourage you to engage each other. do not be offended if we touch on a few things during the discussion.

there is a lot to talk about. i said, you want my vote, you have 90 seconds to explain to me why you deserve my vote. what would you tell them? >> i would tell voters this election is very important. people died for that right. take it seriously. don't stay home. second, take a close look at issues in the election. there is a sharp contrast between the candidates. what is at stake is the future of the middle class in our country and our state, and working families need help. the best way they can get help is for washington to focus on the basics. let's increase the minimum wage so people who get up and work every single day are treated with dignity and can get by.

secondly, let's help pay for your kids' college education and let them renegotiate loans at lower interest rates so your son or daughter can go to college and take care of them in a short time. also, whether you are rich or poor, you have access to quality health insurance. too many americans before the affordable care act had no access at all. those issues and making sure you have health care are essential in the election. there is a stark contrast between us. my opponent opposes raising the minimum wage. he voted against student aid in springfield. he wants to repeal the affordable care act, which might mean your son or daughter graduating from college will not have health insurance.

>> my opponent, mr. drubin, has been in washington now for 32 years. that's too longh. there is a tendency for him to want to do things to get reelected. we should have citizen legislators, like myself, people interested in voting in ways that are good for our country and state as opposed to good for reelection. 32 years is too long for anyone to serve. when we look at economics and how poor and middle class families, when my opponent last ran for reelection the average income of an illinois family has declined by $5,000. it's time for a change. >> senator durbin, one criticism of washington consistently, is the inability to move legislation.

how do you defend's harry reid's responsibility to not move bipartisan bills? votes that would help jobs, veterans, and some people say harry reid has taken this blockage farther than any leader in the past. >> we are facing something we have never seen before in the senate. the incidence of filibusters by republicans has broken all records. they used to be two or three a year. now there are over 135 every year, slowing the senate to a crawl as republicans demand exceed both on measure after measure after measure. occasionally we break through. the conference of immigration reform bill is a great example. i worked on it last year, sat across from my friend and colleague john mccain.

we had differences, but four senators and four republicans created a bill that passed the senate. speaker boehner for a year and a half never called the legislation. when we sent them be farm bill, it took him three years to pass the bill. the marketplace fairness bill, maybe the most important for small businesses, i passed that with a bipartisan rollcall. never called by speaker boehner. that's troubling. he has an obligation, as we do too, to consider bipartisan legislation. 50 votes to repeal the affordable care act or whatever it is -- >> any criticism for your leadership? >> there are bills we could call if we could reach an agreement on the floor, and i hope we do.

but we sent him significant bipartisan legislation that the president supports, and he waits a year and a half and never calls the measure even for debate on the floor. >> but if you look at the ratio of bills, the house has called more bills, sitting on maybe 50 bills. how do you get to 350 bipartisan bills? >> you slipped in the word bipartisan, and that a significant. the bills sent to us by speaker boehner, over and over they are basically press releases. the key issues facing our country, as basic as whether or not we will deal with our broken immigration system. we put a lot of time into that, six months of negotiation.

>> im questioning a bill they sent that would have given the director more authority -- >> we would pass that. that's an example. they would send us an individual bill. when we had the v.a. crisis, we passed a bill. >> if you and senate democrats are not willing to accept any responsibility -- >> i accept, i do, and i think we can do better. i worked on the simpson bowles commission with republican senators. the measures i talked about our bipartisan. we are working now, so when we get back in session we can bring a bill to the floor for consideration. it might not be a top-down solution, it's a bottom-up. two of the most unlikely allies, joe manchin of west virginia and patrick toomey of pennsylvania,

after the terrible, horrible shooting in connecticut, came forward with bipartisan legislation toward universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and people who are mentally unstable. that was bipartisan. we passed it. it went nowhere in the house of representatives. my opponent opposes universal back rent checks are in that's what he got the endorsement of the nra. but most people think they are a good idea. we have a bipartisan bill. >> how would you break the logjam? >> i would say i have been successful in springfield. i would take the example of ronald reagan and tip o'neill, who had very different political philosophies yet managed to work together as gentlemen. in springfield i worked with senator marty sandoval, who is

quite distant from me in political philosophy. we became friends and we are known around springfield as the odd couple because we have been able to work together. i don't believe it has to be nasty. i don't believe we have to be totally partisan, as senator durbin has been in so many instances. i will look at legislation and try to come up with the best solutions, listen to the other side, and try to come up with bipartisan solutions. >> it's hard to gauge your level of bipartisanship in stringfield because you were there such a short time. we talked about the perennial run for office. why jump so quickly into another race for you fulfilled an obligation? >> i have been there for two years. it doesn't take two years to learn your way around springfield.

it does take a few months. it is difficult to get things done when you are in the vast minority, 19 out of 59, but we did get legislation passed to increase speed limits on interstates in illinois. the reason i ran for this, a number of people asked me to do so, because this is a very important election. it will help change the direction of our country. i believe we need more balance in stringfield, which a republican governor would bring to balance the legislature. i believe if i'm elected to that senate seat, it is likely republicans will take control of the senate, so you will have balance. it will allow the logjam of legislation to move forward, to

be discussed, voted on, and hopefully more of it passes. then the president can agree or veto it. it might mean republicans would sit down with the president, us into his point of view, and try to incorporate that into the bill. the president on the other hand would have to listen to what congress is saying. >> the senate is voting on whether to authorize what the president is doing in iraq and syria after the election -- >> the war powers let the president act, and after a time congress has responsibility to respond. as i see it, there was a vote as to whether the president could train and equip the free syrian party to fight the islamic state in syria.

that boat was overwhelming. three fourths of members supported it, and gave the president authority to work. he believes the original authorization for the invasion of iraq could work to fight the islamic state. i believe it is time for us to revisit the authorization. it is 12 years old, and it's time for us to put in in the context of modern day. it was a broad mandate to protect us from al qaeda. what we face today, it's a stretch to connect to al qaeda, but the threats are just as real. the first thing before and relations committee will take up his the reauthorization of the use of military force.

i want a vote by congress before we go further. this will not be over by the end of the year, so we have to speak to give president or not give the president authority to move forward. >> senator, did you say it's a stretch to connect isis to al qaeda? >> the authorization for military force connects extremism to the al qaeda group, which we know was responsible for 9/11. what i'm saying, there are other threats to america beyond al qaeda, and every president ought to have the authority to protect us from those threat, wherever they come from. what i'm saying is we need an authorization in broader terms. islamic state is just as dangerous, if not more so than al qaeda in terms of potential, but the language was written to

go after those responsible for 9/11. the threat, sadly, is much broader today. >> a short, one-year -- >> i worked with him. he sent me a copy of the bill. i don't know if a year is right, but it is appropriate for us to revisit this authority. things tend to change, and we ought to be mindful of our responsibility to watch carefully. i agree with the premise, we should not send ground. we tried that. that is what al qaeda hope we will do. revisiting this on a periodic basis is good policy. >> do you think the senate should vote on the floor before

the president undertook this operation, and should he have done it without congressional authorization? >> i think the limited bombings that were done, i believe, is allowable. we know this is a serious threat. i think bringing it to congress to get further authorization makes sense, but i believe he had the authority to do that. >> will the u.s. eventually have to use ground? do you think the white house should be ruling that out? >> i don't think they should relate out. i don't think we should tell our enemies what we will do. let them figure it out. let them worry about it. i don't know if we will have to use ground troops, but seems to me we should pay attention to what our generals are telling us.

some are saying that may be the case. it's possible it could be ground troops from saudi arabia, from other countries. that's possible, but it is likely if we will win this there will be granted's involved. >> if this mission is critical, why would you rule out any option? >> my theory is this war started with the deposition of the shah of iran. that was the march of radical islam that manifest itself in countries all over the world with various groups. and we are in for a long haul. when we went to afghanistan, turned out we were going after al qaeda forces responsible for 9/11 -- turned out to be the longest war in the history of the united states. here's what we know. when we send ground into the middle east, they are usually bogged down.

i went to walter reed hospital and saw the first casualty i could remember from the iraq war, from the national guard of ohio. he was well trained and ended up being the victim of a roadside bombing. if a crude military like that can stop a military power like the united states, we have to think twice. if we will go to the middle east, we will use the iraqi army, 900,000 strong, train them and support them with air, logistics, and intelligence. but the iraqis are willing to fight for iraq. we lost 4476 americans, 300,000 with areas injuries, $1 trillion to the national debt, and the

country was still in chaos. it has to be driven by forces in the middle east. the president's coalition, including major arab muslim countries, is the right move. we should not be sending america's brave men and women in their two die without their commitment. >> contrary to what he said, didn't our president say iraq was no longer in chaos, that things were accomplished, and that is why we could pull out the troops a year or two ago? >> the president said at some point iraq has to accept responsibility. when we tried to keep some forces on the ground the iraqi government under maliki would not agree. they can't be tried in iraqi courts, and they were not agree. it was president george w. bush

that negotiated the end date in iraq. think about that. we would have left american soldiers on the ground subject to crimes in the country if they executed military duties. most americans thought that was a bad idea, except my opponent. >> it was a bad idea to withdraw all troops. i believe we could have negotiated an agreement that could have been acceptable, that would not necessarily allow troops to be subject to iraqi courts. >> how many troops should we have left, and for how long? >> as a guess, 10,000 would be reasonable. 5000 to 10,000 would have been making a commitment. i don't know how long. we have had troops in germany,

in south korea. that have become major staging point for our troops. i don't want to leave troops there, unless it provides a military advantage. >> two questions. senator durbin, about rod blagojevich's arrest, you enabled a quick election. you said that no appointment by the governor could produce a credible replacement. today would you just as eagerly advocate elections to fill vacancies? >> i believed at the time and still do that there was such a blow to the body politic by the arrest of the sitting governor, led from his home in handcuffs, that you have a credible

replacement the people needed to speak. i had a phone call shortly thereafter. they talked to me about possibilities. he said, i you talking about being appointed by governor mccoy that? he said, that might help. i said, don't do that. you don't want to be associated with him at this point. it was such a dangerous time in terms of the credibility, the involvement of the public, that i felt the election would be the right way to let the people speak about a successor. now i think the law is in doubt. as i understand it, there's a statutory measure for filling a vacancy until the next election, but the courts, at least one ruled that doesn't stand.

so the current situation -- >> election or not? >> a special election was warranted. i think a special election is the right way to do it. >> i had not thought seriously about the issue. my first reaction is a special election would make sense, but i would like to understand arguments on both sides before i commit. >> that's fine. senator durbin, a recurring theme, the effort to amend the bill of rights provision on free speech, your efforts to build an enemies list. the irs commissioner examining one conservative advocacy group.

then you said it's unacceptable to single out a political group and target themnn., you speak openly about the danger of money in politics, yet your campaign committee is outspending republicans by $30 million. is the problem money, or money in the hands of people who disagree with you? >> that analysis is not even close. right now, the koch brothers, in the last election they spent $250 million. the democratic national committee, citizens united threw the door open wide. a businessman in chicago who i never met personally spent $75,000 in negative advertising against me. under the old rules he could not, but under citizens united and the supreme court, they threw the doors open, treating

corporations like they are human beings. i believe that is the first time -- what we see with the citizens united decision, we have taken away from ordinary americans the role they traditionally played. look at the governor's race here. i don't know the ultimate amount, but it will probably break all records in spending. in the range of $40 million now, and talking about millions more. i don't think it's healthy, and i think it will discourage mere mortals from going into politics when they see they are up against big money. let's talk about that. it amazes me that the open vote chicago tribune editorial board believes in secrecy when it comes to government. what is alec? they are a group that comes up with model legislation they propose to legislators. whose sponsors alec?

no disclosure, it's secret. they tripped up once and left a list of 300 corporations that support them. what measures are they pushing for? stand your ground, why would corporations be interested in standard ground laws? turns out alec was pushing them. they're interested in voter suppression. photo id's, shortening the time people can vote. when did that become a corporate strategy? so i looked at what this is, what do you think of stand your ground? one corporation said they supported, the other said they oppose. let's look into this organization, find out who is behind this organization that has a profound impact on american politics, right or left. my opponent happens to think the biggest single issue in this

campaign is defending karl rove. i don't think it is. i released a letter that said, i think the way you are interpreting the law in terms of the secrecy of campaign contributions is flat out wrong. i say, look at karl rove -- in crossroads. why did i name him? they were the biggest and most active. i said, look at all the group, right and left. the ruling gave secrecy to campaign contributions at a time when most of us support disclosure. >> could you explain how the alec situation is different from organized labor? >> you really don't know who organized labor is? >> you don't have to disclose your members. do you not think any democrat -- >> they are now.

it ought to stop on both sides. if i asked the corporate supporters of alec to give us the names of all their stockholders, ridiculous. i think it's responsible to say, what corporation is supporting the organization lobbying for the passage of standard ground laws in florida? why is there such an outlandish request? >> senator durbin has gone through so many things, it's hard to go back and catch up. but george soros has spent large sums of money on the other side of the coin. this is a clear case of intimidation. in the case of alec, they don't generally support stand your ground -- i'm sure people who supported you found out you voted for something they don't support as well.

the issue is, an organization is attempting to provide model legislation different states can look at. i think that's a worthy goal. to pick one particular issue and try to make political points with that against the organization that is generally conservative-leaning is totally unfair, and to subtly connect those corporations with stand your ground and say, send us your response and we will make the letters public, that's a perfect case of intimidation. certainly the use of the irs to intimidate political opponents was wrong when richard nixon thought of it, and it is wrong when you do it, senator durbin. if i go to washington i will do everything to find out what was going on and stop this from continuing. >> i say, full disclosure of those who contribute to political candidates and campaigns.

do you? >> of people who contribute to candidates? of course, and it is required by law. >> with citizens united and the case we went to the irs, they were able to collect the money in secret and get a tax exempt status. that is unacceptable. full disclosure is the only way voters know who is paying for the ads on television. >> what you're doing is equating a federal agency for collecting money with money going to candidates. so you see it as a candidate-oriented organization. >> of course. the ads they are buying are not in favor of the body politic. they are in favor of a political party, a political candidate, and that's what it's about.

i was the sponsor of an ill-fated election that would reduce the time of election campaign, take public the contributions in the campaigns, and individuals who are not rich consider getting in public life. that is healthy for america. the current situation with citizens united is out of control. right and left, massive amounts of money coming in. i don't think it's a good thing. i am for full disclosure. >> you say citizens should be able to fully expose opinions on different issues, and my understanding is that a majority of the funds must be used for issues as opposed to individual candidates. the problem is when you have career politicians like senator durbin, in washington for 32 years, i have just been in the illinois senate for two years.

what a phenomenal advantage i have. i get credit for what my staff does. my staff solves problems for people -- guess who gets credit? it should be the staff, but i get credit. in the news because i'm invited to events that happen in my district, same thing happens in the senate and congress. incumbents have an incredible advantage. 94% of incumbents who run for reelection get reelected, and it is not always because they did a great job. it's because people recognize the name. if you stop the free will, the ability for people to support candidates they believe in, who wins? incumbents. naturally, incumbents, career politicians of 32 years, will support that. >> could you explain why you oppose universal background check for gun sales? are the new restrictions on gun sales or arms shipments you

would favor at all? >> let me say, first of all i was one of the sponsors of the bill that passed in spring field for concealed carry. anytime you get the city of chicago to agree with the nra on legislation, we need to take a careful look. i think that was a great tribute to the people who worked on that, for the people who got that agreement. i believe illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws. illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws, and yet we also have some of the highest crime rates using guns. i if i believed the universal background check would clearly reduce crime, i would take a look very carefully. but the evidence is it has not made different. a lot of people are afraid if we have universal background check, it creates a database for the federal government.

we are seeing concerns about that in other areas. cell phone messages, cell phone locations, and so on. people don't believe the government should have access to do much information. that is an area that has concerns. but if i was convinced it would reduce crime, i would look at it. >> it has been shown, data has proven that because indiana does not 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 the illegal gun-toters in chicago, and not support a very moderate background check and closing the gun show loophole bill in the senate? >> if you believe we had a universal background check, that would stop people from buying guns illegally? >> we do. >> i'm not convinced of that,

and if i were i would look at it differently. >> in the city of chicago last year, the crime guns confiscated compared to new york and los angeles, we have six times the numbers per capita as the city of new york, and twice as many as the city of los angeles. we are awash in guns. several things need to be done. we need to close the gun loophole. third or fourth in supplying crime guns to illinois? mississippi. why? because you put a drivers license on the counter in mississippi and they will sell you as many guns as you can put in the trunk of your car. i believe we need good laws and universal background check. >> how would background check -- >> i tell you how it changes it. most responsible gun owners and sportsmen are not opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and mentally

unstable people. they understand these are lethal weapons that can kill innocent people. secondly, we have to make sure, whether it is riverdale or some shop in indiana, the notion the girlfriend buys the gun for the boyfriend to kill somebody tonight. also gun tracing. our own effort, encouraging police departments across illinois to trace guns. what difference does it make? you trace a crime gun in chicago to a murder in east st. louis. i went to their office. they're connecting crimes by going after the guns. that scares some people on the far right who think, the government is looking at our guns closely, but the legitimate, honest, responsible owners of weapons accept this.

my opponent is a minority of 8% of americans who say we should not do more. >> does that in any way make you rethink your position? >> i met with the parents of some of the people involved. it's a tragic situation, but i want to understand what will work, what isn't just one more attempt. perhaps strengthening penalties for straw man purchases would make sense. i don't know. but everything the senator talked about, and neither will universal background check stop straw man purchases, which is clearly a problem.

>> where is your primary residence? >> it is now sugar grove. it was aurora. i have been in the same home 37 years. >> you and your wife have different primary residences? >> we do. >> explain how that works. >> we bought a condominium in florida four years ago. she made that her primary residence and spends six months a year there. >> how much time do you spend there? >> i was planning on spending time there, but having been elected to the illinois senate i spent only a few weeks. >> do you think voters can trust you will actually represent illinois when your wife is living more than six months a year in florida, that's where she votes? >> i have five children, four of whom live in illinois. i have two stepchildren in chicago. i have 19 grandkids.

14 of them live in illinois. i have been in the aurora area of illinois my entire life, in the same home for 37 years. my businesses, the business i started, are in illinois. the dairy is in illinois. i'm about as tied to illinois as anyone can be. >> senator, having a dual residence in washington, you find that to make sense? >> let me clarify -- i never moved to washington. i have been commuting. 40 round-trips a year to springfield and chicago. this new responsibility, we bought a condo. our primary residence is springfield, illinois. it was when i entered public service. it is to this day.

until 2010, he declared his permanent residency was kane county in sugar grove. in 2010, his wife declared her primary residence inflorida. he was interviewed by another newspaper in november. he said, it's about tax advantages in florida. we know they don't have a state income tax. for his wife to claim residence in florida, he can't claim permanent residence in another state. he gave up his tax residence in kane county so he was viewed as a resident in florida. this might be the first time in history you had a state senator who declared his home in kane county to run for office but declared his tax home in

florida. he may not be paying illinois income tax. i challenged him. this is something -- >> should i let him keep going? he's totally wrong. >> these are my income tax returns. i make them public every year. state and federal, plus schedules. i did it every year. he refuses to disclose his illinois state income tax returns. the question is, are you paying illinois state income tax on your income? >> the senator has attempted to mislead people again, as he did several instances. what he said is clearly not the case. 3 buckingham drive is and has been for 37 years my residence.

under the law, if my wife claims a resident in florida i cannot claim a residence in illinois. the florida exemption is larger. i don't get any exemption, meaning i pay more illinois income taxes. there is complete nonsense he is talking about. never did i ever say to anyone that i am not an illinois resident. you get your chance to ask one question later on. i will be willing to take the question at that point. >> i will ask that question. will you disclose your tax returns? >> i already disclose my federal tax return. if it is important, i will provide you the state. >> you have income in illinois. do you pay illinois state income

tax, as an individual? >> absolutely. of course i do. i pay more than i ever paid before. i'm a great customer of the state of illinois, and they don't respect that. >> i was asking both senators, the deficit is going down. u.s. government debt is projected to reach 110% of gdp. i'd like to know to what extent that keeps you up at night? >> go ahead. >> that's one of the main reasons i'm running to a u.s. senate seat. spending has been out of control. since senator durbin went to washington, our debt now approaches $18 trillion. it will take time, but we need to get started.

my background is in financial services. i realize what really affect our economy are the unexpected things. if we know what is happening, you get expectations. but what can happen, all of a sudden something causes complete concern for the markets. the u.s. government cannot sell new debt to pay off the old debt at favorable interest rate. suddenly, interest rates, which are incredibly low right now, 2.5% for 10-your debt, is 6%, 8%, and the government has difficulty refinancing. as interest rates go up, that puts even more pressure on our federal budget, and we get into a downward spiral from an economic standpoint. i believe we need to change directions, simple by the tax code.

not just one more special lobbyist break. the senator has received more than $9 million from lobbyists and special interest groups. if you add the senator's campaign account to his network, it exceeds my campaign. he talks about spending on political campaigns. here's a man who has $9 million in a campaign account. i think we need to begin to look at every program, bring some spending under control, and instead of keeping on adding new programs -- >> what is the biggest opportunity to reduce spending, including entitlements? >> entitlements, obviously. >> which target? >> medicare, excuse me,

obamacare is clearly a huge new cost. we need to pass legislation on a bipartisan basis. we need to have both sides working. >> what would you do? >> i would repeal it and replace it with a health care plan available to more people. >> how much savings do you think you would get in federal costs from the change in obamacare? >> i believe there would be $50 billion to $100 billion in potential savings. i would have to look at proposals, but this would clearly increase, get worse as time goes on. >> medicare and social security, how would you change those? >> one way to do it, for medicare, would be to coordinate retirement age for medicare with social security, which for all practical purposes is now 67.

that would be a significant savings. we need to understand what the cost of these programs will be, and bring them in line with revenues. >> are you willing to do a means test for medicare going forward? >> that should be considered. i will go to washington and try to work together with both sides to agree on something. >> let me make sure i have it correct. you favor raising the eligibility age for medicare to 67? >> i don't think that's the only answer, but that should be considered. >> lots of questions here. where do you want to start? entitlements? you tell me. >> let's do that. we added trillions of new debt. we applaud you for your efforts on simpson-bowles, but it did not get done.

have we reached the point where we cheer when the annual deficit falls under? >> let's take a snapshot of the year 2000, the end of bill clinton's eight years in office he left having had four straight years of surpluses. had not happened in 40 years. 23 million new jobs created. he said to george w. bush, here is next year's budget with $120 billion surplus. the national debt accumulated was $5 trillion. eight years later, george w. bush is turning over to barack obama. the economy and the budget. what was the situation? at that point in time, we projected the deficit for the next year, the deficit, to be $1.2 trillion.

we were losing 800,000 jobs per month. mr. oberweis' mutual funds had taken a beating in the year 2008. they lost 60% of their value. the national debt was no longer $5 trillion. it was $12 trillion. how did we get into this mess? we had wars we did not pay for and we had a president who said the answer to every problem is to cut taxes. my opponent supported that. he was for tax cuts for wealthy people. it was an upside down approach that drove us into debt. the president inherits a recession, the second-worst in modern memory. he puts together a stimulus package, which includes some tax cuts, safety nets, and infrastructure. where are we today? the deficit he inherited was cut by 2/3. when he took office, 14% of gdp

was revenue and 24% was -- now, it's down to 18% in revenue and 21.6% in -- >> let's move forward. can we ask the senator specifically about, give us a prescription to deal with this and what are the prospects? >> what is the number one problem with the deficit in america? health care cost. 60% is driven by health care costs. the affordable care act is to extend the reach without being a burden on everyone else with health insurance. what we have seen for five straight years is a decline in the rise in health care cost. two things are happening. more people are being covered. the providers are thinking of a way to do this.

this last week, the week before, the new administrator of stroger hospital came to talk to toni preckwinkle. he said there was a time when stroger took every person in the region and did not bill anybody. it was a financial disaster. now they are billing people in regular hospital mode and they have to compete. people are expecting better service. he said people are on their toes. it is competition. let me get to specifics. untouched, unchanged, social security payment for 20 years, it falls off the table. what can we do today, small things, that play out like interest rates play out, that will give us more solvency in social security? >> [inaudible] >> i will tell you.

i will give you an example. we ought to expand the reach of fica taxes beyond current limitations. we should send 90% of earned income subject to the fica tax so more is coming into social security. my opponent and i have to qualify for social security. we paid into it all our lives. i don't think we should be receiving the same as the person struggling to get by. reduce it for higher income individuals. they receive reduced benefits. privatizing social security is disastrous. it does not work out. >> [inaudible] >> that is what i am talking about. we should have means testing. >> senator? >> are you asking about me?

what is the question? i think something could be considered. i have not really thought about that a whole lot. i have thought of other >> that sounds like a week or sponsored. but i think his comment about coka will notg solve our problems. >> you ought to meet the people that are counting the days until the qualify for medicare who otherwise could not get affordable health insurance. the idea of adding two more --rs of vulnerability >> [indiscernible] medicare, -- now he wants to lead to more years

of vulnerability, are they not eligible? to theseou talk people, you will get a better idea. those people say they have not seen you. senator durbin, you mentioned the operation, and in the primary you [indiscernible] totally ignored. have not done the anything ever since then. you, do you think this is something you can do,

and how far do you think you can go? fer facility. tranc a couple of nuns, wonderful ladies, and stand around and counsel the folks about to be deported. i went inside with the director of the office of homeland security, folks who were about to be deported. some should be deported. .hey have committed crimes others have been swept up. we are breaking up families. families have been there a long time. the people remaining are heartbroken. let's fix this immigration system overall to. until it is fixed, let's be thoughtful in deportations. --'s not break up plan meet families. let's make sure we apply the law and a thoughtful, sensible way to keep america safe, but not to destroy the families.

>> [indiscernible] >> i have encourage the president to sure that we do not deport those swept up in the great net, but those that are a danger to us. many of you folks are not. they are in violation of the immigration law. i understand they should be brought into the system, as the bill would, pay our taxes, and be part of our country. until then deportation standards should be changed. i was the first to write the president for that. i thought it was a good idea. have signed up for doca. him, these are great

young people, they only know this country. they have only been aware of this country. they can make a real contribution. importing them would be a tragedy. >> [indiscernible] >> i wish he did not have to. he may be forced to. he is waited on boehner for month after month. i wish he could have and did move earlier. the republican-controlled house of representatives, went into august recess, was to call for stoodportation of -- they up and gave themselves a standing ovation. they were so proud of themselves. that is how poisoned the well is on the issue of immigration. some hateful things have been said about this.

the president measured that and said i will wait until after the election. >> i think executives action in something so important like this would be totally wrong for the country. that is part of the problem with obamacare. it was done without a single republican vote. i will have an opportunity to try to bring people on the left and the right together to finally solve this problem. the senator has been in washington for 32 years and has not fix the problem yet. to think that if we send him back, he will magically do it the next time around, what is the definition of insanity? there are reasonable compromises that can be made. i believe blanket amnesty for people who have broken our laws is wrong because it will encourage more people to break the laws. >> [inaudible] >> can i finish -- >> [inaudible] >> i believe that people ought

to apply for citizenship just like anybody else. they should not be moved to the head of the line. they ought to have the same legal requirements that anybody who has not broken the laws -- if the laws are wrong, if we don't have the right immigration policy, let's change that. let's follow along with whatever the law happens to be. >> [inaudible] >> i believe if kids have grown up and were brought here by their parents at a young age, they consider america to be their home country, no, i believe we should not. we should give them a path to citizenship. however, the parents who broke the law, it is different. they did it knowingly as parents. they should apply for citizenship just like anybody else and go to the back of the line. >> [inaudible] >> i also offered a solution to that. that is to provide those parents

with a non-immigrant visa, but not automatic government entitlements. that be a huge additional burden on current taxpayers. they should not get that benefit by having broken our laws. >> you have apologized for your initial approach on immigration issues. how has your thinking changed, and why did you apologize? >> because i think it did not communicate the right message. my message has always been, we have immigration laws, we cannot reward people who break those laws, and if the law is wrong, change the law. that was not the message that came across. that message is still true. the one that has changed is i do believe if kids have grown up, they should be given a path to citizenship. in this country, we don't punish kids for the mistakes of their parents. >> three cheers for my opponent. i introduced the dream act 13 years ago and i am glad he is supporting it. if more republicans would take that position, we could pass it.

let me clarify one thing. there is no blanket amnesty in this law. if you happen to be in the united states undocumented, here is what the comprehensive reform bill says. you have to come forward and register. the government will do a background check on you. if you have committed a serious crime, you are gone. if you have a clear criminal record, you will pay a substantial fine. then you pay taxes. then you learning push. at the end of 10 years going through this, virtually qualifying for no government benefits during that time, you can apply for a green card and go to the back of the line. the earliest that these people can become citizens is 13 years. to call this blanket amnesty is to trivialize a very important policy issue. >> there are a billion other people in other countries who would like to come here, pay the fine, and go to the front.

>> if you read the bill, the cutoff date was two years before passage of the bill in the senate. read it. there is a cutoff date. meanwhile -- >> what about the people who come after that? will there be a new amnesty bill? >> meanwhile, what john mccain and your fellow republicans insisted on, there was more border security then ever in history. the border security between united states and mexico, that commitment is greater than the combined total of all law enforcement of all other federal agencies. we will have these people holding hands at the border. the border has been an important part of this from the start. >> a question on taxes, corporate inversion. [inaudible] senator, you are not just a critic, you are an outspoken critic, and have used strong

language, including accusing companies of being unpatriotic for following the law to follow their own fiduciary responsibilities. this is the global economy. if this is about tax reform, why such a strong perspective? >> when corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, other companies have to pay more and individuals have to pay more. that is the bottom line. what these companies are trying to do is avoid tax responsibility. they have told me as much. i have talked to the ceo of walgreens. i know what is at stake. income from investors from wall street are looking for the stock price to be pumped up enough, some so they can make a killing and get out, i think it is shortsighted for companies and for our nation. take a look at a pharmaceutical company. how do they make money?

they develop a drug. who did the research on the drug in most cases? taxpayer-supported national institutes of health. then the drug has to be testing. who does that? taxpayer-supported fda. they support the u.s. patent office. here is a pharmaceutical company that has made its fortune taking the benefits from our government-supported, taxpayer-supported institutions, and say, we are leaving. we are passing tax liabilities somewhere else. when walgreens made the decision, it was terrible. people came up to me in the street and said i will never set foot in walgreens again. they made the right decision to stay. if you want to be america's pharmacy, stay with america. tax reform.

one word on tax reform? >> the companies that have been following the tax code that senator durbin helped get passed. he has had 32 years to try to improve it and make us more competitive. that has not been happening. then he questioned the patriotism. nobody in this room or anywhere in illinois is more concerned about wanting companies in illinois and keeping companies in the united states. that has been my whole background. he has questioned the patriotism of companies that are following his laws and tax code. i want to read to you something he said here in this room six years ago. "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 have done here to raise the question as to whether i love this country is the lowest form of politics, the lowest." so, are you still good with your words?

>> i did not question your patriotism. >> not mine. walgreens. other companies are following your tax code. instead of doing the right thing and going back for tax reform to simplify this, to make this a country where companies want to be here, once again you are bullying companies, trying to make them stay here, instead of doing the right thing to have a competitive, worldwide tax code that will make sense for most companies. >> i don't know if becky is in the room, one of your writers. >> no. >> you ought to read this article she wrote about what corporations pay in the income tax rates. we talk about 35%. few get near 35%. >> [inaudible] the republicans run for the hills as well. >> let me explain. when my opponent runs for office

at least twice, maybe more, he makes this hat-in-hand pilgrimage to washington to walk into the office of grover norquist. signs the tax pledge. you know what it says? >> [inaudible] i am asking you, being the majority party [inaudible] >> filibusters, filibusters. it takes 60 votes. when we have senators who have taken the grover norquist tax pledge, they have pledged they will never reduce any deduction or credit in the tax code. we cannot write tax code reform with that premise. he has made this announcement, signed another oath. >> you believe we should not allow -- you want to end filibusters? >> they are being abused and you ought to know that. it should be limited in most

cases where it is necessary on big-policy items. i favor tax code reform. the last time we had it was 30 years ago. it was headed up in the house ways and means committee. it is a tough job. made doubly tough if you have a split in parties between the house and senate, made nearly impossible when you have people signing the grover norquist tax pledge. if we are going to look at this tax code, we should put everything on the table. >> i do want to give you an opportunity to ask a question of each other. senator, would you like to go first? >> you said the republican party should become this tea party. you have been to their rallies and accepted their endorsement. when i look at the tea party in washington, i don't see the republican party i know. the tea party opposes federal highway construction. i am not making that up.

they want to get the federal government out of the business of federal highway construction. 75% of the highway construction in our state comes through the federal government. the tea party opposes it. they also oppose reauthorizing the ex-im bank. critical for boeing and other businesses. do you support the tea party positions that would cost us jobs in illinois? >> senator, i am not a tea party member. i don't know where you got this be review throw this out as though it is factual. my understanding of the tea party is this is a group of individuals who have not been politically involved in the past who have gotten concerned about the direction that you have in taking this country and they would like to change that direction. they believe in limited government. they believe in lower taxes. those are the main directions they would like to see the country go. i don't know what more i can

say. >> do you think the tea party has been a positive or negative influence on the country? >> they have called attention to the fact that government has gotten too big, we have too many regulations. >> generally positive or negative? >> generally positive. senator, during this campaign, we noted that you and a few other democratic senators played an integral role in targeting americans' free-speech rights by asking the irs to investigate them. in addition to the infamous october 10, 2010, letter, asking them to investigate a conservative crossroads organization, we asked for you to reveal any other communications you or your office have had with the irs. you have mostly refused to answer this question. your campaign had the following

assertion, senator durbin has posted all communications he had with the irs on the senate website and it has been there for four years. do you stand by your campaign's assertion that you and your office had only that one communication with the irs during the scandal? >> we take you live to princeton, indiana. he will talk about manufacturing and u.s. jobs. it is just getting started, as you will see here on c-span. [applause] >> hello, everybody. a low, indiana, good to be back. close to everybody come have a seat. everybodynk henry and for extending such a warm welcome. it is good be back in indiana.

a couple people i just want to acknowledge quickly. where isere i he? your former congressman, say hello to brad. it is greatly back in indiana, great be in princeton, and i steelo thank millennium for hosting us here today. i'm here because you might have heard that today is national manufacturing day. you do not get the day off. but factories like this one all over the country are opening their doors to give young people a chance to understand what opportunities exist in manufacturing in the 21st century in the united states of

america. i figured what better place to celebrate manufacturing day than with a manufacturer. instead of giving a long speech about what i want to do is have a conversation with folks about in the happening american economy, what is happening in your lives, what is happening in manufacturing, and to talk a little bit about how we continue to build an economy that works for everybody and give everybody who is willing to work hard a chance. i wanted to do that here because in some ways american manufacturing is powering the american recovery. this morning we learned that last month our businesses added more than 236,000 jobs. [applause] fell fromoyment rate 6.1% to 5.9%. [applause]

that the means is unemployment rate is below 6% for the first time in six years, and we are on pace for the strongest growth since the 1990's. over the past 55 months, our businesses have now created 10.3 million new jobs. [applause] be the longest uninterrupted stretch of job growth in the private sector in american history. states told, the united has put more folks act to work than europe, japan, and all other advanced economies combined. we have put more folks right back here in the united states

of america than all combined. this progress we have been making has been hard, it goes in fits and starts, it has not always been perfectly smooth or as fast as we want, but it is real and it is steady and it is happening, and is making a difference in the economies all across the country. it is the direct result of the best workers in the world, the drive and determination of the american people, the resilience of the american people bouncing back from what was the worst financial crisis since the great depression, and it also has got to do with decisions we made the early on in my administration. example, manye an of you know that the auto industry was really in a bad spot when i came into office. we decided to help our

automakers to rebuild, to retool, and they are now selling new cars at the fastest rate in about eight years. and they are great cars, too. that has helped a lot of communities all across the midwest them and that is just one example of what has been happening to american and a fracturing generally. about 10, 15 years ago, everybody said american manufacturing was going downhill, everything is moving to china or other countries, and the midwest got hit a lot harder in a lot of places because we were the backbone of american manufacturing. but the calls folks invested new andts and new technologies ubsre were hugs create -- h created so workers could master and train in these new

technologies, what we have seen is manufacturing driving economic growth in a way that has not been seen in about 25 years. that weof the efforts have made, manufacturing as a about 700,000d new jobs. it is growing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. new factories are opening their doors. more than half of manufacturing executives have said they are looking to bring jobs act from china. our businesses are selling more goods overseas than any time in our history. the reason this is important is not just because it is some abstract statistic. manufacturing jobs have good pay and good benefits, and they create a ripple effect to the economy because everybody who is working here at millennium steel, because you're getting paid well, because you got decent benefits, that means that the restaurants in the

neighborhood are doing better, means you can afford to make your mortgage payments and buy a new car yourself, buy some new appliances, and you get a virtuous cycle in which all businesses are doing better. middle-class folks some of the last decade was defined by those jobs going overseas. but if we keep up these investments, then we can define this decade as a period of in sourcing, bringing jobs back to america. business executives around the world what is the number one place to invest their money right now, for a long time it was china. toay they say the best face invest money is here in the united states of america. here in the united states of america. [applause]

so there is a lots of good stuff happening in the economy right now. but we all know is there is still some challenges. there are still some challenges, because there is still a lot of families where somebody in the family is out of work or is not getting as many hours as they want. there is still a lot of folks who at the end of the month are having trouble paying the bills, and wages and incomes have not moved up as fast as all the gains we are making in jobs and productivity. too much of the growth in income and wealth is going to the very top, not enough of it is being spread to the ordinary worker. that means that we still got some more work to do to put in place policies that make sure that the economy works not just for the few, but it works for everybody, and that if you work

hard, you're going to be able to pay the bills, retire with some dignity and respect, and you can send your kids to school without having to worry about it. that is what we have got to be working on, making sure that no matter who you are, where you started, you can make it here in america. that is what the american jim is all about. now -- [applause] just close by saying a couple of things that i know would make a difference if we were doing them right now. to make the economy grow even faster, to bring the unemployment rate down even employers are hiring more workers and the market is a little bit tighter, then employers and up paying a little more, wages go up a little but more, and that means people have more money in their pockets, and they are spending more of it on his this is, products, and -- on businesses, products, and services. there are things that we are

doing of it could make a difference. we should be investing in roads and bridges and ports and infrastructure all across the country. we have got a lot of stuff that was built back in the 1940's and 1950's that needs to be updated. if we are putting construction workers back to work, that means they need steel, concrete, it means you need engineers doing the work and you need suppliers, and all that would give a huge boost to the economy and make it easier for businesses to deliver their products and services around the world. it would be good for our economy. that is something that we should be doing right now, and i have been putting proposals forward in front of congress to say, let's go ahead and start rebuilding all kinds of parts of america that meet rebuilding. nobody disagrees that they need to be rebuilt. the only thing that is holding us up right now is politics, you know? we should be raising the minimum wage to make sure that more

working if they are full-time, should not be living in poverty. we have legislation going on right now that would call for a $10.10 an hour, which means if you're working full-time, you can raise a family. the good news is about 13 states and a bunch of cities around the country have gone ahead and done it without congress, but it would sure help if congress did it as well, because right now since i two years ago called for a hike in the minimum wage, about 7 million people have seen their incomes go up, but there are still about 21 million people who would stand to benefit if we had a national minimum wage. when you hear folks say if you raise the minimum wage, that is fun to be fewer jobs, it turns out that the states that have raised the minimum wage have had faster job growth than the

states that have not raised the minimum wage. this is something that would benefit families, but again, if folks have more money in their pockets, they are working hard, they go out and spend it, and that ends up being good for business, not just for the workers involved. we should be making sure that women are getting paid the same as men for doing the same work. [applause] that is something by the way that should be a no-brainer for i rememberecause when michelle and i were both working, i was always happy if she got a raise. i wanted to make sure that she was getting paid fairly because it is all one household and the more and more women get into the workforce, the more families are incomes in order to make ends meet. it is just fair and right thing to do. [applause]

so there are a number of steps that we can take to make unemployment go down faster than the to make sure that wages are rising faster, and that would benefit everybody. i will just close with his comment. if you look at american history, the times we grow fastest and do best is when we are growing the economy from the middle out, when middle-class families are growing, and working folks and get their way into the middle class and that is when the whole economy does well. when you have an economy where just a few are doing well and a lot of other folks are left, no matter how hard they work, scraping to get by, the economy does not get the same kind of momentum. and if you think about what america is about, what he american dream is about, it has always been that everybody should have opportunity.

it should not matter how you started out. if you're willing to work hard, if you have good values, if predict response ability, and that is the kind of economy we want to build, and we can build it and manufacturing is going to be right smack cap in the middle of that effort. we have got to continue to build on the success we have had. we will not rest on our laurels for it we will continue until every person out there can get a good job as america is competing against everybody else so that the 21st century is the american century just like the 20th century was, alright? -- all right? albright. -- all right. this is how we're going to do this. any buddy who wants to -- anybody who wants to do this, wait for the mike so everybody can hear you. stand up, introduce yourself, try to make your questions kind

of short, and i will try to make my answers kind of short. that way we can get more folks in, all right? who wants to go first? i will go boy, girl, boy, girl, to make sure everybody gets in fair. this man right here. introduce yourself. is it working? there you go. >> thank you for coming out today, president obama. i'm with the university of southern indiana manufacturing club. my question for you is, can you share specifics but the rebuild america act? i know you talked a little bit about that. >> well, you know, we have about in deferred maintenance. i do not have to tell you because some of you have probably hit some potholes and try to figure out what the heck is going on, why aren't we

fixing that road, but it is not just the traditional roads and bridges. it is also the infrastructure we do not see -- sewer systems, water systems, a lot of them are raking. gas lines that we have been seeing in some big cities, they are wearing out, and some of them actually pose a threat if they explode because they are not just in good shape. there is a whole bunch of new infrastructure that we should the building. i'll give you a good example, our electricity grid. the way we transmit power, if we have got old electricity grids, what happens is a lot of the explicity leaks, a lot of the power leaks in the transmission from the power plant to a factory like this one. thatore it leaks, the more is driving up prices because it is not as efficient as it should be and it is more affordable to blackouts.

and in fact if we build a smarter power grid, what is called a smart grid means that not only is it not leaking power, but is also sending power in efficient ways during peak times so that we end up using less energy, which drives down forumer prices and is good the environment. i will give you one other example that i know everybody here will appreciate. archaican old, air-traffic control system. some of you heard about what happened in chicago, some guy got mad, he was being transferred to hawaii. i do not know why he was mad about that. he sets fire to some of the facilities there, and suddenly folks cannot get in and out of chicago for a couple of days. i was in chicago yesterday, the day before yesterday, i had to was in gary because o'hare still somewhat restricted.

but even setting aside that, turns out that if we revamped our whole air-traffic control theem, we could reduce number of delayed flights by about 30%. we could reduce the amount of fuel that airlines use by about 30%, which means we could lower ticket prices by a whole bunch. it means that you would not have waits any airport, and if you're flying for business, that is going to save you time and money. if you're just trying to get home to see your family, it means time spent with family instead of sitting in an airport, buying stuff that is really expensive. [laughter] be moree economy would efficient if we do it. so the good news is it is the best time for us to rebuild our

infrastructure, because there are still a lot of construction workers out of work, a lot of contractors -- it is not like they have so much business, which means they can do the work budget, interest rates are low. if we spent let's say the next 10 years just saying we're just going to rebuild all across america, old infrastructure and new infrastructure, but not only would we give the economy of china, but we would also lay the foundation for more economic growth in the age. it is a smart investment. we should be doing it. what i have proposed is that's pulls's close tax who that exist right now, that in some cases are incentivizing companies to send money overseas and profits overseas instead of investing here in the united states.

ands close those loopholes take some of that money, use that to rebuild our infrastructure. makes good sense. but congress has not done it yet. not because it is not a good idea. infrastructure is not partisan. that is not democratic or republican, but it is a common sense thing. eisenhower built the interstate highway system. lincoln, the first republic and president, helped build the transcontinental railroad. traditionally, everybody has been in favor of infrastructure because it powers are coming be. it is part of what made us an economic superpower. young lady right here. mr. president, you mentioned an increase to the minimum wage. how do you counter an opinion that increasing employee wages

would ultimately increase the selling price of goods and services, thus negating any increase to the employee standards of living? >> a good question. if younteresting that look at the studies that have all, most first of employers pay more than the minimum wage already. wage are, the minimum in certain sectors of the economy. they are disproportionately women who are getting paid and the minimum wage. the majority of folks to get paid minimum wage are adults, many of them supporting families. the average age of people getting the minimum wage is 35 years old. they are not 16. so in those states or where you have had one state pass a hike

in the minimum wage, the state right next door does not, and you look at what is happening along the border where you think that people would be kind of influenced, maybe they shop where the prices are cheaper or businesses would move over to the place where there is not a minimum wage, it turns out that actually it does not have that much of an impact. it has an impact on the families. it generally does not have a huge impact in terms of prices, and it does not have -- another argument that is made as folks will hire fewer people because sellers are higher. it turns actually that that is not generally what happens. it is just that if everybody has to raise the minimum wage, then everybody can adjust, and in some cases because of competition, they are not going to be able to raise their prices. but you are getting to a larger plaguedhat i think has

the american economy for some time. business hashat learned how to be really profitable and produce a lot of goods with fewer and fewer workers, partly through automation. and sometimes that does drive down prices. the problem is it also drives down wages, and it has driven wages down faster in many cases than prices. i mean, if what you are worried about most is low prices, then presumably we could have everything made in low-wage countries overseas. they would get shipped back here, but it does not do you any good if a pair of sneakers is really cheap and you do not have a job.

so i think the goal here should be prioritizing, number one, making sure that people have work. number two, making sure that that work pays well. people have good jobs and they are getting paid a decent wage, then businesses are the ones who have to compete for your business. they are still going to have to keep prices down relatively low because they're going to have to compete for -- against other businesses. if somebody raises prices, they will offer another day. consumers have gotten better because of the internet, they know what prices are there. there's never been greater competition out there. the problem right now is all that competition is on the back of workers. businesses' profits are through the roof. there was a report this week that showed that corporate balance sheets in america are

as strong as they have been in history. it is part of the reason why the stock work it is doing great. so it is not as if companies do not have some room to pay their workers more. they're just not doing it. and a greater and greater share has been going to the corporate balance sheets and less and less of a share is going to workers. so do not that folks tell you that companies right now cannot afford to provide their workers a raise. the reason they are not getting their workers raises is frankly because thehave to, labor market is still somewhat soft, and people are afraid that if i leave this job i may not find something. the good news is as the unemployment rate comes down, there are fewer workers --

audio ]the market will take part of this. that event i will give by the assume some folks here have shot that cosco before -- costco before. costco has the best prices around. starting prices for a cash register operator, $11.50, and before the affordable care act, costco gave everybody health care. they've been growing just as fast as folks who do not pay the minimum wage and do not provide health care benefits. their stock is been great. the difference is they are spreading more of the profits to their workers, which is good for the economy. when you walk into costco,

everybody is cheerful because they are feeling like they're getting a fair deal and the company cares about them. all right? yes. here, we got a mike coming. -- i am thes general manager at millennium steel. we are honored to have you. one of the questions i had is about the health care costs. we are seeing almost a double-digit increase in health-care costs every year. do you think that trend is going to go down, and what can we do to control that trend? >> that is interesting. you're going to have to talk to henry because -- no, no, no, this is serious. whether you guys are shopping effectively enough, because it turns out that this over the course of the last four years, premiums have gone up at the slowest rate in 50 years.

so health care amy adams have actually slowed us health care premiums have actually slowed down significantly, and it is having an effect both on businesses and families and the federal debt, because most of the federal debt, when folks talk about we got to drive down the debt, do something about the that most ofs out the federal deficit and the federal debt over the last health-careome from costs going up so high among which means medicare and medicaid costs start going up, and that has gobbled up a bigger and bigger share of the federal budget. because health care costs are going up much more slowly than expected, so far we anticipate we are going to save about $188

billion over the next 10 years reduced healthin care costs. so the issue now is what can we do to make sure that you at the lenny him are -- at millennium are shopping and seeing more competition, because the problem with the health care market is there are different pockets in different parts of the country. what we are doing is to make sure there's is more competition, driving down costs when it comes to both businesses who are trying to buy health care for their employees, but also folks who do not get health care on the job and are having to buy it on the end that is part of what the affordable care act is all about. now, the affordable care act is also known as obamacare. for a while, everybody was that as kind of an insult. it feeling pretty good about

being called obamacare. i suspect that about five years from now when everybody agrees it is working they will not call it obamacare anymore. [laughter] that is ok. the -- part of what we did there is we set up what is called these marketplaces, these exchanges, where individuals can go online and shop, and as you know, the website was really bad for the first three months. it is now in really good shape and we have signed up 10 million people to get health care coverage, in many times, for the first time, and we are giving them tax credits to help lower the cost even more. networklso setting up a for businesses to be able to shop for health insurance. happened -- i talked about this yesterday -- right now on average across america, so it may not be true

in every supermarket, but across --rica on average premiums if it had not been for this job and health care inflation, premiums probably would be about $1800 higher per family than they actually have turned out to be. now, you think about that. is money in your pocket that otherwise would be going to you paying for your health care premiums. and $1800 tax cut. i am going to make sure -- are you in charge of buying health care? you are? what i'm going to do is make sure you that you talk to some of our health care market folks. i bet we can get you a better deal. all right?

we will see if we can save you a little money. all right. [applause] all right. young lady right here in the jacket. good afternoon. grade ine eight lexington, kentucky. so nice to meet you. you are tall and pretty just like malia and sasha. >> i was wondering what are the actions we can take to put people in rural america to work. >> a great question. ruralorld economy -- the economy has done actually extremely well compared to the rest of the economy over the last couple of years. -- we goteason for it the best farmers in the world, and we are the most productive agricultural system in the world.

so we just -- our crops are really good and we produce a lot. weather has been pretty decent. i just talked to my friend -- there he is -- a good buddy of mine, the form over on the illinois side, said best crops we have seen in a while, huh, ever? so that is good news. but what has also helped is that we have increased our agricultural exports, sending our outstanding products overseas at a record pace. i should introduce by the way the secretary of commerce who is right here. that is penny. [applause] most important's jobs is going around the world and tried to open up new markets for agricultural goods. one of our biggest exports.

and so we have got to keep on making sure that if we have the best crops, the best products, at the lowest price, then we can get into these markets. theirof countries protect markets and their farmers from competition by closing their markets. and even though they are selling stuff to us, and my general tradeude about commission is it has to be two ways. if we are going to buy your cars or your tv sets or whatever else you're selling, then you ought to be able to apply american toat and corn and beans -- buy a mac and wheat and corn and beans. that is part of the reason we have seen record exports. that is number one. number two, we've also got to diverse affiant the rural

economy so it is not just dependent on agriculture. that means, for example, investing in things like biofuels and clean energy. we are at the threshold of being able to create new energy just crops of not that we grow, corn and ethanol, but also stuff that we usually throw away, i could corn stalks instead of the corn. and the more we invest in biofuels, clean energy, back and make a "in the rural economy -- make a big difference in the rural economy. and then there were all -- the rural economy, just like in princeton, we got to make sure that we are offering up opportunities for manufacturers to come back into look at some of these rural sites where you

know the people there were hard -- work hard and the quality of life is high, but oftentimes international investors do not know about some of these rural communities. so penny has been helping to advertise -- without a program called select usa -- or we go around and help towns, mayors, local chambers, of commerce invite investors singapore, germany, come invest here in the united states of america and because what you want is an economy that is just not relying on one thing, but has a bunch of different components to it so that if, say, you have a bad crop one year, the whole economy of the area does not just collapse. and i can make a big difference.

but if we are going to be able to attract investment into rural america, there are at least two things that have to happen. number one, it got to invest in -- we have gotke to invest in education to make sure that young people in rural america have the skills for today's jobs, and that includes not just k through 12, but community colleges which are a crown jewel -- community colleges can be so powerful in training folks. they might not go to a four-year college. they get technical training, and they can be ready for that job. if investors know they have good workers at a site, that is one of the most important things they're looking for. the second thing is the thing i talked about before, infrastructure. part of the problem with rural communities is they are little more isolated. all the more important then that our airports,s,

that they all work, and that they have got broadband connections and internet connections in order to make sure that they can access international markets, all right? great question. all right, got the gentleman's turn, right here in front. hello, mr. president. thank you for coming. i hope i have got this right. it is your wedding anniversary today, so happy anniversary. >> that is correct. thank you. thank you. iq. [applause] -- thank you. [applause] >22 years she has been putting p with me. i had a young man, a friend amanda just got married, -- a friend of mine that just got married, and i told the bride, a

wonderful young lady, i said it takes about 10 years to train a man properly, so you got to be patient with him, because he will screw up a bunch, but learn.lly, you know, we it takes us a little longer. we are not as smart. shell has been very patient with me. thank you very much. -- michelle has been very patient with me. thank you very much. that is very kind of you. young lady right here. >> hi, president obama. i am from indiana state university, visiting. i had a question. recently on the media, we've been hearing a lot about the epa system and the war on coal. what are your feelings on that? >> some of that is hype and is sort ofnd that the nature of our politics these days. but there is a real issue involved.

power isless of our coming from coal. of people think that is because of environmental regulations, and the truth of the matter is there is some environmental regulations that have had an impact mainly because when it has sent to the power plant operators is you have got to be more efficient, you cannot send as much pollution into the air. if you're using call, you got to figure out how you can get smart coal technologies that capture some of the pollution the wing sent up, put it underground, store it. some of that technology is developing, but is not quite there yet. but actually the main reason that our plants in america are using less coal is because natural gas is so cheap. coal iseal war on natural gas, which is, because

of new technologies, we are now extracting at a rate that is unbelievable. there's about a 100-year supply of natural gas underground here in america. we are now the number one natural gas producer in the world. and by the way, we are also producing more oil than we import for the first time in almost two decades. [applause] --some people do not realize you know who the number one oil producer in the world is? it is us, the united states of america. they're producing more oil than ever, more natural gas than ever. natural gas, we are producing so much that when tarbell, it is cheaper for them to run on natural gas than it is on coal. that obviously causes some hardship in communities that

traditionally relied on coal. there are two things we need to do. number one, and mike administration -- and my administration as been supportive, we have put money into new technologies to make sure we can burn coal cleaner than we have, and the second thing is that we need to do is to make sure that some of the new opportunities in clean energy and in natural gas and other energy-related industries, that they locate in places that used to have coal or used to be primarily coal country. because the the trend lines are going to be inevitable. because if you burn coal in a dirty way, that's going to cause more and more pollution, including pollution that causes climate change, you're going to