surveyed running against qaddafi for the canadian company and hezbollah and hamas have been using surveillance drones. .. this is before the airstrikes in syria. i would like everyone to give me their assessment as to the efficacy of drums and whether

one of the lessons of the last decade if it has to become pulled with a significant force on the ground. >> it depends on what your goal is. if you're all is to degrade urgent organization or terrorist group i'm a drug can be useful with the caveat that of course is very government you have to partner with saying it places a lot of political pressure because it is not popular with the people, but it is still a very useful tool integrating those organizations. >> degrading and containing. >> that is exactly right. that is the problem with the free work when applied in syria because the president has said not only degrade, but destroyed and that goes far beyond anything he has achieved with the same framework in yemen or smalley have. >> mary. >> i agree. airstrikes are really an important tool and i don't think

anybody believes airstrikes should be gotten rid of or drones should be gotten rid of. on its own, attrition will not deal with an insurgency. most of these countries, that is what we are dealing with. we cannot simply kill our way out of this problem and it requires much more than that. i just don't think the american people or this administration are willing to do what is probably necessary in order to absolutely deal with it unless we have some sort of a terrible disaster otherwise the american people are really convinced it is a problem over there and not a problem over here and therefore we don't need to deal with it. >> you and your last point alluded to something i would like to explore further, which is we've had supremacy or drones

for a decade that technology has improved. we are seeing other groups use the drones. we have used them in a way with the rules are very -- i mean, we are launching strikes and countries we are not at war with per se and indicates the dmn, we used it to target an american citizen. so how does that maybe come back en masse now that the technology has made it were available to other nations or groups? >> yeah, i think you're in a situation which is not completely dissed knowledge as if that were to this week he's to have a monopoly on nuclear weapons. when we have a monopoly, we are not interested in roles of the brain. but when a battery that is suddenly in our interest to create or think about international legal framework. of course these international

legal frameworks have been very much an art of interest. and so, it is growth in drones insider where we've had overwhelming superiority and also an offensive cyberattacks. but these are monopolies about parading in both areas with easy to imagine the chinese and a group of separatists in northern afghanistan who basically will take out the terrorists and across our border we are not at war in afghanistan but essentially the rules of the road are being made making the same argument with which he separatists in pakistan in the list can go on. so it is time to begin a discussion about it because it may be the international framework we created. whatever it is, we have to be comfortable with your grannies and cheney saying that is the framework we are going to use it similarly with cyberattacks. surely it's an act of war as an

act of sabotage is an interesting question. what is the point at which there is an international agreement about these issues because right now we are being subject it to very intensive cyberespionage by the chinese. when chuck hagel went there some months ago to china, he tried to explain what the alliance are to the chinese. there apparently wasn't much recognition of that. the point is we need to start having discussion about issues because we are in a different era of warfare and we need to think about how to constrain. i'm afraid this is unpopular as an idea because it would seem to constrain american power. on the left is unpopular because it would seem to endorse additional forms of warfare. the point is we are where we are. it is not completely new, but it is different and we should be having a discussion collect only about 40 days in this new world

to rethink the rules of the river should be. >> okay. next question, right here. >> can mark, is anybody looking for mr. azzawi heery? if so, is the fact we haven't found him a reflection of how inept our counterterrorism campaign has been quite >> i think the short answer is yes. i don't think our counterterrorism and the person who is the best witness or that is osama bin laden himself for before he was killed in our counterterrorism campaign broke links and memos about how concerned he was about a sickly most of his contemporaries and al qaeda were dead and he was urging one of his sons to know to the tribal areas because that is one of the richest and safest countries in the world.

so our counterterrorism campaign has inflicted tremendous damage on al qaeda whether in al qaeda or the arabian peninsula or outright essential. if you look at a number of people being killed, as we say in the report, almost none of the senior leadership is left. is a manpower heery and two others who are still alive. going to what mary said about this attack in karachi, it is very interesting. this is supposed to be the launch of al qaeda in the indian subcontinent. it happened in pakistan where al qaeda is located in al qaeda today because of our counterterrorism campaign is effective in only one country, pakistan. the limited the ability is to do a failed attempt on a karachi naval target or kidnap an american aid worker in his early 70s. that is the limit of the capability.

it has ticked a damage on al qaeda. of course as this discussion states indicate a command this doesn't mean ideology or the network of networks is over, but the fact is if somebody had said if we have this conversation in 2002 and anybody on this panel asserted only 25 americans would be killed by g terrorists in the 1213 years, that is where we are today because the offensive campaign group has been very good in our defensive capabilities have been extremely good. >> we have had some good luck though, too. the bomb failed because the device was to create a peer to >> the lesson of that is don't wear a bomb in your underpants for three weeks because it is not going to work.

[laughter] >> i agree that our counterterrorism has been fantastic yet i have nothing but the highest praise for it. counterterrorism is just one tool to deal with these guys. when you do with an insurgency as we are in many countries counterterrorism only goes so far. what we have done is we've set the objective that we believe al qaeda is fighting for. we think al qaeda is all about attacking the united states. not just because they have said that, but because they've demonstrated they want to attack the united states. in fact, that is not the real object is. that is a means for their greater rents. the greater rents are about creating the caliphate, just like isis. they've done everything possible to drive us out of their countries of the hottest free hand hand to do what they want to in places like pakistan, serious, yemen, somalia, wherever they've manage to set themselves up.

to me, the distinction in fact between local and global is one that we've created. so a local group in mali, we have captured documents from al qaeda and the islamic maghrib in which they are sending out what they call directives to on 13 and they say to them, don't talk about having a global or some sort of other kind of agenda. talk about having a local agenda because that is what we want you to focus on right now. so what we understood to adjust the local agenda was in fact been told, hide your agenda so you can be more exact days. >> next question. >> right over here, please. >> irene broke from the world organization for world research development education. i want to pick up on the scene near you just touched on.

it seems this administration as well as the one before it had a clear preference for the caption counterterrorism strategies and yet 13 years later, this threat of violent extremism still persists. so i was wondering if you could share in terms of your recommendations for how the u.s. can leverage its soft power and developing a sort of soft counterinsurgency in places like iraq and syria nns particularly difficult threat environment, how would you recommend we go about identifying some of the local moderate partners we could be engaging to implement some of these counter silent extremist programs? >> i firmly support soft power and especially the radicalization of the everywhere they are being put. please, what i'm going to say next you should not take this as a denigration of the efforts. in fact i support them wholeheartedly. in fact, one of my first was

working on this issue precisely. at the same time when you're dealing with genocidal groups are groups that have be willing to attempt to implement on the ground and kill tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands amistad power can only take you so far. it won't deal with the actual threat we face on the ground in places like iraq or syria. >> i think the united states has a basic drop him when it comes to these issues because we are very good about overthrowing anybody want. because we conceive of ourselves as not being an empire and to some degree we are, so there was no constituency for what mary is suggesting in the united states. not john mccain, lindsey

graham are advocating large-scale groups for what would be really required to completely eradicate this track. so, we can -- the afghan war is the most unpopular war in american history. by the way, that went pretty well. we have almost an ideological program, which as we can go in and overthrow the regime, but we've also seen a centuries long occupation as the british or the french day. we just won't. so we're kind of caught in this paradox, which is we can do this quick fix, but in the long term it is not likely to work out well. it may work okay and certainly works pretty well for protecting the american program, but it will not defeat an insurgency of the kind in her back and we would have for 10 years. so there's no public appetite for what is really required. in fact, maybe that is a good thing. but certainly not an american

thing. >> i think we have to be pretty bonnet on what we can achieve the counter radicalization of hers. i i think it helped set the margins, but i think we have seen during the arab spring the political instability enough for terry and ascend to drive radicalization and drive people into a conflict that may be willing to sit it out in more peaceful times. there's a limited capability to shore up a lot of governments that are having to go through this transition in order to reach a greater level of stability that will fundamentally undercut this, but that is years coming years in the making. we have a small part to play in it. >> i find myself kind of nodding my head on one hand to what you're saying the american people probably don't want. and for very good reasons not to engage in mass. and also we have these hopes that maybe strong capable

partners on the ground will be able to deal with it if so many of them did during the 1990s when threats that in some ways are very comparable. but at the same time, i don't believe it is a sort of 100 year after. nor do i think that everything what is done in iraq was completely insane. what i do think however is once you've engaged in a civil war for neighbors have been killing each other, you need to have a third-party presence for a generation to act as a guarantor for people security and safety otherwise you can't trust people who yesterday were picking up guns to shoot at you. the example i used was bosnia where you have the same kind of civil war and you had the same kind of low appetite on the part of the united states to engage boots on the ground, but with capable partners and a small injection of forest, an overwhelming one, we were able to make a real difference, but we still know there were boots

on the ground in former yugoslavia and necessary care otherwise we don't guarantee people security safety and people will hedge their best to start arming up again as we saw in iraq was the only guarantor of the peace walked away. >> let's take that one further step of afghanistan. it is one of the lessons we learned from our decision to completely get out of iraq, really twofold that we lost the eyes and ears of the military that provided that intelligence component. we became holy alliance are largely reliant on the iraqis so we were somewhat blind as to what was developing within her back in action later this is coupled with the campaign as we said, which has amounted to a targeted killing campaign. there has not been intelligence gathered from interrogation in the same way in the last five years as the previous administration of the issues associated. how do we apply this to

afghanistan now? >> i think afghanistan is a slightly different problem because you haven't been dealing with the civil war. so you don't have a non-top of an insurgency. we are more dealing with in some ways easier to be more difficult. one of the great writers on counterinsurgency theory, a guy named beluga wrote a book in which he described afghanistan as the perfect insurgent territory and i must impossible to control. so there are many differences here with our effort, the level of effort which is small and compared to what we did in iraq that was effective. the only way they are comparable is this intelligence problem and this problem is losing visibility on rats if we walk away. what would be necessary to carry out a car insurgency has been

done numerous times despite the fact people call it the graveyard of empires. local actors have managed to invade the territory and control for hundreds of years. including people from india and what we call so on and so forth. the level is something we have no appetite for. >> peter's point about domestic politics but not domestic american politics in iraq, domestic politics in afghanistan. the reason we do not have forces inside iraq to prevent the rebirth of al qaeda in iraq is because the iraqi parliament did not want it. we wanted to keep a force there. they are precisely to deal with this problem and it was politically unpalatable. you saw the same kind of pushback against the american effort to keep forces in afghanistan but karzai. just because we want to

stabilize and is the best thing for the country and they often do not allow us to remain there as the keeper of the peace. they say nothing for domestic politics in our own country to make it palatable. >> i agree with everything. there was this difficulty and a lot of back and forth and all kinds of problems getting it signed. on the other hand we have about a thousand boots on the ground. >> i'm just saying. a status of force agreement. >> between afghanistan and iraq is 29 million afghans want us to say. karzai wasn't a minority of one. they have a simple view of this on the witches we can be somalia or south korea in agreeing with

mary, we are the guarantor or south korea is one of the poorest countries in the world at the end of the korean war and is now the sixth richest country in the world. it is going to be signed by abdullah. by the way, we have a strategic partnership agreement with afghanistan to go through 2024, which means, and you are on the nsc and correct me if i'm wrong. the fact that president obama said we are going to be moving all combat troops are all troops out of afghanistan by the end of 2016, president hillary clinton for president jeb bush or whoever is president in 2016 will say i don't and this is a good idea. by the way, can you imagine the cost of the democratic party if there was a cost in the united states remotely traceable to the democratic resident but when a long? by the way, also a republican

president. boomer attack from afghanistan on 9/11. you know, the point is we are not bound -- this is the situation now. we are to have an agreement in place that will allow us to have a long-term presence in afghanistan while past 2016. >> i agree. one of the misconceptions americans in general have about afghanistan is dealing with this intractable problem that is a centuries long one and all d.c. patriots and so on and so forth. but afghanistan was the developed partner when you look at afghanistan pakistan in the 50s and 60s and even into the 70s. it was the one pakistan was afraid that because they were doing so well. they have a well-developed economy. they had international trade. they were on a path towards development and i was really only since 1979 that the invasion by the soviet union and the civil war that it becomes slightly before then do we

really have developed the afghanistan we all know today. but there is a pastor can look at it and it is in a distant past where you had decades of a really developing country that had a future. >> is there another question? well, that leads it to me. so you know, all of this said, what do you think the wildcards are and how does that impact what a future attack looks like, still looks like some kind of combat is on board an aircraft? does it look like the boston marathon bombing? peter, i'll begin with you. >> one wild card we have discussed in all of egypt is the regime make smooth bar or club like, you know, a nice guy. fishiness in prison 20,000 people. 2000 people are being killed sort of domestically.

you know, what is happening in egypt is exactly what zawahiri always said would happen. a against islam, be of alber. the algerian altercation of the vote in algeria by the army. again, the most populous country in the world. the army nullified that though. there is a brotherhood with a brotherhood where they make the mistakes that they were the elected government. and so, amen zawahiri that there's no islamists. it is basically been confirmed. the reason that is significant as we are seeing where these kind as step two groups and as you know were there people died.

they are being criminalized in the origin. and i see that and is off the front page for all the obvious reasons. and that is what goes on there. >> so i have to sort the response. one is that we might expect for threats from al qaeda and the other is the source of threats that we might expect from isis. i do believe the lone wolf attacks are the most likely thing we will see from isis because probably in the united states at least like any capacity to carry out attacks. on the other hand, over the past four months or so, a very large number of isis have been picked up in other countries. not just estrada, which just had a cell picked up. something like 62 numbers were picked up in saudi arabia.

a bunch of people were picked up in posted, in morocco and in malaysia. so it is not quite true i think that we just have to worry about lone wolf attacks. but we might not see though, this sounds really funny, is the kind of restraint that we have seen before from al qaeda. and by that i mean al qaeda 18 has a commitment to spectacular attacks because it is a make up for the disappointment after 9/11. please don't inc. i am saying disappointed in any asserting way. in this sense if we do something less than 9/11, everybody will say wow, look how weak you have become. but on the other hand, isis doesn't have anything to live up to. i think they are far more likely to do things like a group of shooters at a mall and we would see from al qaeda and that kind

of thing doesn't take all that much planning, dese. so that is my concern is that i'm very worried about the guys they've got nor attempting to get in syria and what was said about the threat they pose to the united states and others because you know, apparently i'm detect bull bombs, you know, that is a huge vulnerability and maybe we've all see that one coming. >> all rate. so, the crazy one, the true wildcard would be if the islamic state actually pushed into saudi arabia. hear me out. i sort of see the islamic state like a party balloon. you squeeze it on one end is here he goes into iraq. he squeeze in a racquet makers to serious. where does it want to go? may be a path. alleges they goes down south

into saudi arabia. that would be incredibly destabilizing for the political system. saudi probably has the military firepower with our help to push them back. but it's not completely outlandish. there is a good column on islamic states for soldiers, for an invasion of saudi arabia. it fits with the apocalyptic vision of the islamic state. a big part of that vision is drawn or in prophecies after the establishment of the caliphate for the muslim savior is going to mecca and medina and leave the final battle against the infidel. that kind of invasion combines the 1979 takeover of the mosque area in makkah, which was fueled i an apocalyptic group with the threat of saddam hussein's invasion in the early 19 days. both of those events were

incredibly destabilizing to the saudi political system. if you want to a wildcard, that would be attended with pro-world energy markets into turmoil as a consequence. >> can i suggest why that is quite unlikely? >> come on. >> look, the saudi air force was part of days. is anybody in the audience, the last time the saudi's are part of the coalition was in the first gulf war. it's been a long time. so the clerics have issued against isis. they have to come to the hand and they have criminalized going to syria. as mary said, they arrested 52 people just in the last week or so. i think they completely understand this could be annexed substantial problem problem, just as the returning from the iraq war was. but when it became a matter of their own security really got on top of that quick way.

>> would probably have time for one or two final questions. yes, please. right here. >> and tim nicholson. i'm not going to say the agency workforce insight here on a personal day. what is the likelihood of maybe one of these groups obtaining unsecured nuclear material and easy not to carry out an attack? >> that is a great question. >> the likelihood of a terrorist group deploring nuclear weapons is zero. arenas had a program for two decades and it's still not. so we don't live in a movie. i mean, it is very, very hard for countries to acquire nuclear weapons. to the idea that a terrorist group could acquire nuclear weapons is highly improbable. in fact, one of the takeaways of this report if you look up to 247 terrorist cases in the united states, not one of them

involve chemical or radiological biological. terrorists basically want to shoot people. they want to blow up car bombs, things relatively easy to do. you know, even al qaeda when it had a whole country at it disposal, if anthrax experimentations were incredibly immature. they never even acquired with the nice anthrax. so you know, i can't inc. is a case where if there was a terrorist group in this country who deployed some kind of radiological weapon that would be a right-wing extremist group. we've seen a dozen cases of right-wing extremist on antigovernment cases trying to acquire radiological, biological chemical weapons. but for some reason terrorists did to pull a chlorine, which is not that effective than iraq during 2007. but this is the case of the dog that didn't bark and in my view

is kind of unlikely to bark. >> the only thing i would add to what peter has said is i think there are at least some data points, which say to me that a searcher may have that aspiration. correct me if i'm wrong, but foreign policy has been very strong reporting based on a laptop computer they were able to obtain, i believe through the free syrian army from and isis and their interest and intent to try and use biological weapons. so you know, to me that is a very important data point because i am not sure what our visibility is in that area. but it tells me there is the aspiration because the reported owner of that laptop was someone who would relevant training and a university education. what also caught my attention was the group calling for some

kind with ec siddiqui, the sort of poster child, poster woman for wmds. for me, these data points suggest they certainly have the aspiration and i am not working to know whether there is other data which points to confirms that aspiration or whether they have made more concrete steps down that road. >> i find myself in agreement with both of you that it seems highly unlikely that is al qaeda, would be able to create their own nuclear weapon. at the same time, they do have this aspiration. they had apparently sent an 1890s. i remember reading the trial transcripts from the 1998 attacks in which there was this clear intent and they said they

wanted to acquire nuclear weapons because they assumed the response to the u.s. to an attack on the homeland would be a nuclear strike and they wanted to have us as a deterrent, which is something about having misread the u.s. also, i have sort of senior leaders if we would love to have nuclear weapons. so i think the intent is absolutely there. whether they have the capacity and capability it's never been done before. but they've done a lot of things never been done before. that is one. two, what about the always present pakistani nuclear weapons? one has to, given the fact he group of guys including some officers in the pakistani navy took over the ship and try to do an attack on american ship with it. i am not putting it yawned the possibility -- the realm of

possibility is that there is some percentage of the pakistani military that might no longer have the best interest of pakistan and mine. let's put it that way. >> okay with that, i think will wrap it up. at 11 or declined. to analyst, peter bergen, mary habeck and mccants. thank you to listeners and viewers on c-span and thank you to the audience as well for your attention an excellent questions. >> on behalf of the bipartisan policy center, thank you for moderating the panel is dead in west bank at the brandon at the bbc for making this event possible and of course want to congratulate peter and his fantastic team. emily schneider, bailey k. hall and tim mauer for writing this wonderful report. michael was hopefully next year will be a little bit thinner. hopefully the threat will be a little bit less. let's all hope for that. thank you very much.

[applause] >> republican governor tom corbett is running for second term. he is being challenged by democrat tom wolf. pennsylvania's last five governors were reelected going back to 1974 but according to the coat little report this year, governor's race leans democrat. the two debated last night in hershey. here is a brief look. calling pensions a crisis. do you believe pensions are a crisis? the legislature hasn't been able to come to terms with a pension plan. do you think it is a crisis or not? if you do, why? if you don't, why not? >> i'm not sure this crisis issue. we have a problem. if we don't do something it will become a crisis. many to make sure we do with the governor said we now need to do, which is adequately fund our pension system. we have not done that over the last 10 plus years. governors passed in present have not done that.

if we keep up with that pattern, if we keep up with that pattern, we will have a huge crisis because like a credit card bill the balance goes up every year we do not fully pay off our debt. we have not been taken off our debt over the last 10 plus years in there for the balance has been going up. we have got to stop doing now. it's not just talking about plan design. once when he gave us a new plan we can work with in terms of design for employees moving forward. what we need to do is pay the bill that we did pay for the past 10 years and we haven't paid adequately. if we find a way to do that that doesn't burden the taxpayers, we are going to have a solution to this problem. i promise i will not kick the can down the road. moderator: governor corbett, one minute rebuttal. corbett: i am surprised because we are talking the same thing. we are disagreeing on how to do it. i am looking at budgets growing because of health care, because

of medicaid, because the contracts that we have in pennsylvania. and just cost of business continues to grow. we have revenues growing. but i've yet to see any country that has grown its economy by tax. so i gaddis i am inquisitive as to where mr. wolf wants to spend the money, how much he wants to spend and how is he going to get the revenue? i heard him say 9.9% is too high. we agree and i think everyone in this room agrees. in fact, we can be tracking a lot more business coming to pennsylvania if we could lower that. just like we're about to eliminate the franchise tax. just like we eliminated the family farm in family business. that is a start. you have to control your spending first. >> pennsylvania governor's debated more than 100 campaign

debates. c-span plans to air this year. another one, this one from iowa republican governor terry branstad is being challenged by jack hatch. to put lyrical report breaks this race is likely republican. this debate comes to courtesy of kwqc tv in burlington, iowa. >> good evening and welcome to burlington, iowa. i am here with kwqc tv. tonight marks the second of three debates for iowa governor. we are happy to bring a tear with our partners, burlington hawkeye newspaper and the greater burlington partnership. for the next hour comic, and republican governor terry branstad and jack hatch, his democratic challenger were answer questions from our panelists. let's introduce them. kwqc reporter daniel mccarthy and editor of the hawkeye, dale à la fin. we'll also get questions from you, our viewers and readers through twitter life throughout this program. use hash tag iowa governor

debate. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our candidates, republican governor terry branstad and democratic state senator, jack hatch. [applause] moderator: the overall theme tonight is on the economy. jobs creation to infrastructure. our first topic will be on jobs. in this we'll talk about job creation, tax incentive like those used to build the fertilizer plant being built right now not far from here in the minimum wage. but we begin with jobs. job creation and sustainment is always a big lyrical promise and point of contention among candidates running for office. daniel mccarthy begins our discussion on jobs specifically with a question for senator

hatch. >> senator hatch, at 4.4%, iowa's unemployment rate is lower than the national average. what could you do to make iowa's jobs climate even better? will get to the governor's record on jobs in a moment. her plan first. hatch: absolutely. we are grateful in this state to ever recover after the devastating 2008-2009 recession. and every state is increasing. her employment record. we are glad that iowa has the most jobs is ever had before. the soda while the other states in this country and unemployment is going well and that is as well in a calm schmidt for all of us. but will be needed the next governor must lead iowa to the next generation of jobs that will be an explosion of economic opportunity. but to get there, we have to do something different. build the economy from the community up, not from the top down. my plan is to have an economic

development authority, not one to cover the whole state, but regionally for them regionally for them, so each congressional district will be able to match the state's priorities with national priorities funded by our congress thursday and then also the local communities that spend so much time and effort in dad poured in muscatine and burlington to be able to create jobs on their own. who knows jobs best of the local authority, city councils, stakeholders in the community. they know where the jobs are. they know where the communities are that made it and they know what they have to do to get those jobs to become a reality in their community. state government is going to be able to provide refreshing new dollars. set up one agency getting at, these for development and economic authorities at the run board of directors by the governor and sit for three years. they will create the opportunities and identify the

match between our state investment and the local priority. thank you, mr. chairman. senator, thank you. governor branstad, 45 seconds for rebuttal. branstad: first of all, obviously my opponent doesn't know what's going on in illinois because they had the second-highest unemployment in the nation while i was struck by nearly 30% inherent southeast iowa by nearly 40%. illinois is mired in debt and has the second-highest unemployment in the nation. i'm really proud that we've created over 150,000 jobs in the last three years and eight months. we have gone from the highest unemployment in 25 years to having a record number of people employed. that didn't happen by accident. it got a great economic development authority to partners with the locals. the fertilizer plant happened because the people in lee county partnered with the state and made that possible and i am proud that we see those great jobs in iowa. moderator: we'll talk more about the fertilizer plant in a

moment. would you rebut for 30 seconds? hatch: it's important to understand the numbers. the governor talks about 150,000 new jobs he's created. you know, even if it's greater knows you have to subtract what you've lost. over 80,000 jobs were lost in this economy, giving a net job gain of about 75,000 or 80,000. that is how we identify jobs. in the private sector, we know government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. we know that governors don't create small businesses, entrepreneurs do. we are going to create a basin entrepreneurs in the state that will be able to meet the demands and the needs of our communities. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, senator. we will try to keep as close as we can. i will give a reminder as to the length of the time. it's hard to keep track of her back here but we'll do our best. i second question on the subject of jobs for governor branstad.

>> yes, governor, i want to go more into detail about your promise in 2010 about creating 200,000 jobs in five years an increasing ioannis personal income by 25%. governor hatch has accused you of cooking the books on this. do you care to tell us where we were at that point, where we are now and how you think you've done all this promise is talking about adding and subtracting. branstad: people think that's where we were four years ago. the unemployment rate in iowa was the highest in the entire state and we had an unemployment rate in iowa well over 6%. we produce that i over 30% statewide, nearly 40% here. iowa just last week down after the fertilizer plant 1900 construction jobs they are. they'll add another 400. the permit jobs will now be 240. but there is also another

industry right here in burlington that sheer foods is going to be investing $35 million adding 80 some jobs. we are working everyday to bring more good jobs to the state of iowa. i'm proud to work in partnership with the local governments in the local economic people and authority. debbie duren heston a great job. you wouldn't have as much resource is when you have an opportunity like this. i'm proud of what we've accomplished, but were not done. we continue to focus on how we can prepare the workforce for the the jobs of the first future because lieutenant governor and i hear from business all the time. we can't find people with ray skills. that is where skilled iowa and engineering and math for our students prepare them for these jobs and i really proud of the fact that today the unemployment tax rate in iowa is going to go down again in january for the fourth year in a row.

this also makes iowa more competitive for business and jobs. mr. repaired it in the unemployment tax plan. moderator: governor, thank you. senator, 45 seconds. hatch: thank you. it is clear that des moines picks winners and losers is the wrong approach to use when recovering from a recession. our proposal is from the community yet. our proposal is to ensure local communities, stakeholders and the city council come aboard the supervisors have a chance to identify and empower communities to getting gauged into value $0 to be able to have an opportunity to leverage the local dollars with $8. i think it is wrong to be able to say it is only going to be des moines that is going to make those decisions. that's the wrong direction. we will have a direction of going from the community.

moderator: now let's move to debate topic both of you have alluded to regarding tax incentives. we know tax incentives are used more and more for job creation by nanny state. tax benefits or tax breaks in the fertilizer plant be built right here for $1.6 million plant right here. some are saying the tax breaks userland this deal and to build a plan was to match it for the first questionnaire regarding tax incentives for the governor, dale alison who estimate of federal job of reporting on this subject. >> thank you, governor. regarding the negotiations to land, property owners in the immediate vicinity don't quite share your enthusiasm. negotiations were done out of the purview of the general public and you know, not only with the property negotiated,

but a payment of taxes and other considerations. once the deal was announced, i will fertilizer up its demand for water from 480 million gallons annually to 3.3 billion gallons. how is this good public policy for every day working ioannis and how do you address the charge that this deal is crammed down the residence of weaver? hatch: first of all, was initiated by the people of lee county comes elected board of supervisors and they provide incentives, the state provide incentives. do you need to remember is the net result is the fort madison school district are going to get net plus a 2.9 million additional tax revenue every year and the state of iowa is also going to gain revenue. if it had not located here we would not get those tax revenues and we wouldn't have the construction jobs in the 400

more added, nor would we have the permanent jobs, nor would farmers benefit from the $470 million reduction in nitrogen fertilizer costs. that is the biggest cost of raising nitrogen fertilizer. most of it is being imported and the big cost is transportation to bring it in from overseas here to this corn producing area in the midwest. this was a big deal. in fact, the site selection around the world said this was the second best economic development deal in the entire world last year. we are very proud of it. the ceo said they are getting warmed up when they complete this, they look at expanding it. they're a 10 plants being looked at in this country. only three built into or in iowa and we are proud they are being

built here were the corn is produced. moderator: senator hatch, 45 seconds. hatch: let me be clear. i will help them engage in expander agricultural base and i'm very much in favor of the job created. what i've been very critical of his big deal the governor negotiated. it was a reckless deal. it was a bad deal. it was a terrible deal where he was able to engage $110 million of state money to create 165 jobs here that is equal to 700,000 jobs, $700,000 per job. let me give you a balance. governor vilsack and a manufacturing plant gave money to them to build wind blades. for 240 jobs, daddy pulled $7000 per job. $7000 per job instead of

$100,000 per job is an imbalance. that is why we are up against. that was a bad deal. that is what is causing the problems. just imagine what this area could do if we were able to balance those two business days and allow us to spread the investment from the state to more businesses in more areas than just lee county. >> moderator: governor, 30 seconds. branstad, you cannot be against the incentives and for the jobs. without the incentives we would've got the jobs. debbie duren is a skilled negotiator. for 15 years she did a great job in sioux city. that's why asked her to be the head of the development authority. she worked with people here and it looks like this is going to continue to grow beyond what was initially planned. the net revenue gain. we didn't write out a check. we are getting a credit against taxes in future years and the state is going to gain. this was a great deal.

>> moderator: we will continue on the subject for the same questions. let's go to team yahoo! is a question for senator hatch. >> senator hatch, if you are elected, what is your plan to make sure any state to does receive a tax incentive that is held accountable to contributing to the overall economy and can you also explain how you have used taxes in your own private investment? trade for absolutely. the one thing you have to do is make sure the accountability and responsibility. this is another good area and example in which governor branstad did not use any of those three guidance or principles in negotiating a deal. the citizens of iowa want to know what is going on. got to be open, got to be transparent and that is how you can ensure negotiations with a company will be honored in the

deal. or his son is already changing the deal. and they are going to change the deal more in is going to hurt our economy, our local folks, our water and the entire ability to share their tax rates. the governor has been critical of my business in "the des moines register" spent over six weeks investigating his claims the conflict of interest in and spending so much state money and not getting anything back in return. that is really kind of disturbing. my wife and i., sonya roberts, open up our entire business. the privately held company would allow this to happen. the outrageous claims by the governor that we were doing something wrong prompted us to do that. what did they find? that we follow the rules. there was no conflict of interest. gcr g also had a fact check on thursday night. what did they find?

the governor's claims of our use of tax credits or misuse of tax credits was false, that we did things right, but we are an appropriate company and a good company and is stranger republican governor would be blaming a good is this man for having a good and honest business. that is just wrong. thank you, mr. chairman. senator, thank you. governor, 45 seconds. branstad: i trust the people of iowa and i disclose my taxes. if he wants to disprove our claim that he has gained substantially and made millions of dollars at the taxpayers expense, i would challenge senator hatch to release four more years of this taxes. he's only done one. i've done 2024. i'm willing to do another before i became back as governor if he's willing to do that. i believe that we need to be open and transparent and i am telling you we have been. the people in lee county know

that. we'll work with them and and we are very proud of the fact that the state partnered with lee county to bring this great project here. bring these good jobs to southeast iowa. >> moderator: senator, would you like 30 seconds here? trained for this important to understand with my business and my wife is we did our tax credits in areas that no other developer was going. we built affordable housing. on august 21st, "the des moines register" vote and added serial dissent argues that tax credit was appropriate. the governor's use of negotiating with one of the largest and most profitable egyptian companies in that nation was questionable. so we are providing a public good way providing housing for low income by all in. he is providing additional dollars to the most profitable corporations in the world. >> moderator: now we move onto social media question. first of the night. this is for the governor.

since the governor brags about the deal to bring the planet to iowa, which was a good day, i'm quoting here, and putting a lot of people to work with this deal, how many of those jobs actually went to iowa this? most of those i've met have have been working around the buildings they iowa has out-of-town contractors bring an out-of-town workforce with them. governor, 90 seconds. branstad: first of all, it's got a lot of jobs to the area. many have been filled by high winds and others from other areas as well. it's been great for the economy and early 10 and format of thing in the entire area. i am really proud of the fact that we have that. we also did fear passed legislation for more opportunity for people to learn while they earn apprenticeships. we are working because there is a need for more people in the construction industry. we lost jobs in the construction industry during the previous

administration aired we are now rebuilding nine and we have a great opportunity. we tripled the state funding for apprenticeships and that we people don't have to go into debt. they can learn while they earn in construction and manufacturing and i am proud to say we work with building construction trades and we have worked with the contract or is that we got a legislation approved this year and it's now in the process of being implemented in helping train more people for those jobs in the construction industry like those of the fertilizer plant and others created across the state of iowa. remember, jobs and fort dodge, once in woodbury county, a pinot satish and all over the state. this isn't the only project. but this is the biggest and one of the best. >> moderator: as a follow-up, were there not enough skilled iowans? branstad: there weren't enough. that is why we need apprenticeship to trademark people for the skilled jobs. you could talk to the building

and construction trades people. they will probably be desperately need or people with skills and we are working hand-in-hand with them to train people so we have more iowans with those build and construction trade jobs. those are good careers and we want to have more in iowa. >> moderator: senator hatch, 45 seconds. =tranfour thank you. we are talking about the possibility of the next four to six years of economic opportunity explosion in jobs. but we won't do it if we are going to put all of our eggs in a basket of large corporations on large projects. you will have an inability to attract the workers to do the job in the construction. will focus on the small business. and small business i want to return to tom vilsack southeast iowa station when he brought in stephen and anheuser-busch now pleasant, when he widened hwy. 34 and he created and developed the avenue of the seeds.

that is what will create the opportunity in southeast iowa and all over the state by our ability to focus on developing job opportunities for small businesses in the state. >> moderator: let's move onto the topic of minimum wage. danielle has a question for senator hatch. >> senator hatch come in your campaign you talk about growing small businesses and increasing minimum wage. many small-business owners we have heard from are worried about how an increase in the minimum wage would affect their business here and how can you be in favor of both? ..

and we will lift 216,000 iowans possibly 20% of them off of general assistance. small businesses are not the type of businesses that pay cheap. small businesses like my wife and i pay very well and they are all over the state. we can't be afraid of that kind of wage and we know that when other types of proposals and when we raise the minimum wage before in which the governor signed there was no outcry from the small businesses that they were losing jobs and

opportunities. just the opposite. people got that money. they spend it in their community. they were able to get off of general welfare and they were no longer part of that anti-poverty program. >> governor in 45 seconds. >> will of the minimum wage was so important why when the minimum wage bill was assigned to the committee to senator hatch was on was a killed by the democrats democrats who controlled the committee? they didn't even bring the bill out of committee so it couldn't have been that big of a priority. as governor i reserved judgment until i see where a bill ends up. the house and the senate in the same form in this case the minimum wage bill did not even -- was not even approved by the democratic-controlled senate let alone the republican house. my focus is on trying to bring good jobs to iowans and to help people get the skills so that they can have a living wage and be able to support themselves and their families.

we work at that every day. we are focusing on workforce development and economic development and coordinating them. >> senator hatch of that is the case with the blockage by the legislature how do we fix this? >> will you know harry truman said republicans lead in the minimum wage as minimum as possible. so when we saw that bill come through the senator was the chair that committee. there were negotiations all year during the legislative session whether or not the house was take it up. the house. the house said no pay due into the governor's office. could you help us governor? there were disagreements in their own caucus. no you wouldn't. that's not leadership. he had no intention so the majority leader said you know what? it's a political year. and then have workers who are trying to lift themselves out of

poverty becomes a political ping-pong ball during an election process. we were very sensitive about that. we could have passed it without a problem. but that would have been stopped and it was stopped by the republicans in the governor. >> governor will continue that with social media. according to bright house i work 40 plus hours a week and construction and my wife is a cna and we still live paycheck to paycheck. is that writing is there a way that will change? >> that's the reason why we are bringing in these jobs at the iowa fertilizer plant that pay very well and we are working to try to be more of those kinds of jobs to the state of iowa. companies like case and qed in burlington to provide good wages. companies like cargill which were brought to the fort dodge area. i will homegrown businesses like kinsey and hagan vermeer have

all been growing and expanding while i have been governor and we are working everyday to try to do that. we also want to make sure that people have the skills for those jobs and that's why we started with the help of bill map the skilled iowa program by the lieutenant governor who led an effort for s.t.e.m. science technology engineering and math and we are working with every college in the state because the jobs of the future require knowledge in science and technology engineering and math and we want to make sure the workforce of the future and iowa have the skills that i'm going to continue to work on it every day. i have recently proposed a center for human capital enrichment which would coordinate what we are doing and economic development with their workforce development so that we have the workforce with the skills for those jobs and can raise their income and better provide for their families and for the economic growth of our

stay. >> senator hatch in a 45 seconds we have remaining in her first half-hour your reaction to that? >> the governor said -- the state doesn't have enough money for more than one deal for the model. i'm sorry we can't do that. the fact is we need to be able to use what our friends said in his question as an opportunity to understand that every middle-class iowa family is working paycheck to paycheck. they are being taxed too much and we may talk about this later but we have proposed that the middle-class tax cut for every person earning $20,000 will get a tax cut because we are working on the values of our proposal. we understand that if you have to live paycheck to paycheck the

state has the responsibility for accountability and leadership. much more still to come in her gubernatorial debate. we continue our conversation now with a focus on accountability and leadership. throughout the campaigns we have seen on television and on our -- newspaper and radio as well. senator hatch has accused the branstad administration of being scandal-ridden with no buyout settlement of state employees. now's your chance to discuss this matter in particular. we begin with dale who has a question for senator hatch. >> senator, iowans clearly like their governor because they keep reelecting him time after time. wider and wider margins that instead of telling i was why you might leave the state as you said your press statements and

advertisements focus on chris' interests. are you saying that i once don't get it? >> what i'm saying is iowans need to listen to the problems that this governor has had over the past four years. it is the most scandal-ridden administration in the history of the state and its beginning with the iowa workforce development office, the iowa supreme court said was unconstitutional. it was in the iowa juvenile home that he closed and the district court said governor dessing constitutional. then it was the political changes of merit employees. 990 of them were moved over to political divisions including at the administrative law judge meaning that they no longer had qualifications to be fired for any reason under the direction of the governor's office. and get a secret settlement to fire employees who have been there forever and hush money to keep them quiet. then the to blacklist them, do

not hire so now there's a class-action suit against the governor on people's names that should not have been on there. firing the top aide. the dci agent that reported the governor's vehicle first beating doing a hard 90 was fired for doing that and of course commissioner godfrey's position where the governor asked him to resign and he wouldn't and didn't commissioner godfrey who just left for an impressive position in washington said the governor for defamation of character. that is not leadership. that's not something iowans. that's not something that iowa values have. they should very well be looked at and there had are now investigations in the senate and the courts to look at how governor branstad has been mismanaging the state. >> governor branstad 45 seconds. >> i got every county every year have a press conference every week. they know i'm honest and

straightforward. i'm transparent and i released almy taxes. they know these attacks are false. they are not correct and the people of iowa know that. i trust the people of iowa. i have nothing to hide. i'm very proud of the fact when we found out about about the confidentiality agreement i signed an executive order to prevent and his friends on his friends our senate kill that bill which would have made it available to the public to know what the most personal records and why peter -- he was then dismissed or not hired. the senator and his brand didn't. >> 30-second senator. >> the fact is i once don't know what's going on. if you look at its ads that are attacking me you would think that i'm the one that's under investigation in the statehouse. that's not the case.

the governor's ads are false. don't take my word for it. the "des moines register" in their series of articles understood that i had done nothing wrong and they said that i follow the rules. kc rg didn't fact check in again they said nothing was right in his advertisement. that is advertisements are all false. ladies and gentlemen and governor i would like to ask that you take the keys from one of your political heroes ronald reagan. he said and i will read it to you. if you stop lying about me i will stop telling the truth about you. [applause] >> you have an opportunity to answer that if you choose the governor so schmidty questioned whether. why post on the deposition charges are true? why do you want that information out there?

>> first of all the lawsuit was filed about three years ago. it's been delayed by the plaintiffs many times. we are in the midst of the campaign. i have a very busy schedule and we have agreed upon the date for the deposition and like i said we have got nothing to hide. first of all i treat everybody with respect and dignity. i don't make these outlandish attacks. everything that's in our ad and documented it is true that he killed the bill that would have reduced the fees for the kind of tax credit he would get. it's also true that he paid millions of dollars in tax credits. he may complain about the tax credit bringing good jobs here to southeast iowa that he has no complaints about that nor will he release the tax returns that show the people of iowa, to money he made and what kind of tax breaks he got. >> senator hatch lets talk about this because this is a lot of information for the voters to go through one side having one big

issue and another bringing up other issues. let's talk about whether the politicians regarding some of the lawsuits against the governor right now and the accusations you face. >> the fact is i'm only repeating, not accusations, but lawsuits, investigations, even the state auditor said the governor had been handling the investigation of the settlement and there were more secret settlement and the governor and the staff said there weren't. if you're going to be a leader you need to be a governor who's going to be open and transparent and it's just unacceptable that the governor stands in front of us and says he is open and transparent and he has nothing to hide when that's all they have been doing is hiding and not just an attack of a candidate but the accusations come from legitimate sources of the legislature, the state auditor's office from the courts

and from individuals who have taken the time to sue -- sue him personally in his office. these are not the actions of a governor who can lead. >> governor would you care to respond? >> i am back in office because the people of iowa trust me. they know me. they know they can rely on me. i have been totally open and transparent. and i have a press conference every week. i take the tough questions from the press and anybody can file a lawsuit but i can tell you we worked with the auditor. there was one agreement that was agreed upon before i signed the executive order. it was signed later and it was discovered that was the case it was changed. they eliminated the confidentiality clause in that. that has been enforced. i will continue to enforce it

but we wanted to extend the local government of the legislature and the house passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. my opponent killed is because they don't want the public to know the truth about what's in those confidential files on employee personnel. the people of iowa deserve to know that because it's their tax money that's paying it. >> as they give you 30 seconds on this because i think this is such an important issue, i will remind her art is please do not applaud until the end so we can continue moving forward. senator hatch. >> gary and the audience it's really important for us to understand that these accusations go back in court. it's not something we have made up. the republican governors association and the governor has spent millions of dollars attacking me on tv on accusations that are untrue. he's expanding his search to

find something more. i'm very proud of my company with my wife. we have spent a lot of time being successful in the fact is we did not kill a bill that would lower the amount that developers could receive. in actuality the "des moines register" story governor he would see that what they said is that my developer fee was actually less than 10%. it was 9.2 and that bill had no support from anybody else. and it wasn't taken up. this is the kind of leadership you'd expect from a governor of illinois, not the governor of iowa. >> this is also a subject matter that can be intertwined with the following questions so let's move to property taxes now. a question for governor branstad from dale. >> governor last week we published a story looking at property tax reform and how it looks to be working against smaller low growth communities.

in fact in the story the state was accused of institutionalizing evaluation. apartment complexes for example have been taxed by 100% of their value. they are on their way to being taxed like residential rates. industrial properties are also lower. somebody must pay for the cost of government. if taxes are being lowered for the upper values the burden must fall on someone. do you know how this will work out for slow growth companies like burlington which are kind of more than rule rather than the exception and how can you assure ordinary iowans that they won't be asked to shoulder a portion of that? >> thank you for asking that question because this has been a problem that is face the state of iowa for 30 years. multiple residential property should have never been taxed as

commercial and that is being corrected. i was actually something that the senate democrats wanted. i wanted to provide permanent tax relief for commercial and industrial property in the agreement we reached between the house and senate and governor does all of that and by getting the state's financial house in order putting together a five-year projected budget and the state providing the money to replace the commercial industrial property tax is going to provide tax relief to businesses small and large across the state of iowa and communities of all sizes and especially helps slow growth communities and rural communities because the property tax credit is significant. it also benefits for economic development and commercial development in our state as well. the state is providing the money to replace the local property taxes and i insisted that we put that money and a standing

appropriation so that the legislature couldn't renege on that commitment. >> senator hatch, 45 seconds. >> the commercial industrial property tax bill that was taxes the governor said did nothing for residential property tax. his priority was to reduce corporate taxes, not residential. if it was the senate democrats who he is openly criticized down that provision of allowing commercial property tax for small businesses and property depressed areas would never have seen the light of day. so we came to a conclusion. i think there's going to be issues in the future about how the state will be able to fund all of those property tax entities but it didn't help the middle-class. it did not help the residential property tax owners and it certainly gave a boon to the largest out-of-state corporate leaders that are taking more

taxes away and out of the state. >> governor would you care to respond? >> i would just point out that this was passed with bipartisan support in both houses of the iowa legislature. it was long overdue. our commercial property taxes were the third-highest behind minnesota and illinois. we don't want to be there. this is going to make a difference and it's going to be the most significant property tax cut in iowa history and is going to be phased in over period of time. we have the resources to do it and i protected it because we cut the size of the cost of government so we can afford to fund the education leadership bill that we passed for future leadership and property taxes. >> senator hatch you'll probably get a chance to respond in the next question from daniel. >> senator hatch or campaign web site web site says your proposed income tax cut for middle and

income families would cost the state less than $300 million a year over the next couple of years. at a time when you say we need to fund our schools and provide infrastructure needs why would that be the best use of that money? >> the best use of that money for middle-class iowans, you are right. i went to her in the middle class working every day 40 hours, 50 hours a week need a break. middle-class iowans need that kind of help. we have the sixth-highest state with dual income families. we are a low-wage state. we are a state that values children so when the property tax relief we identified families that have dual incomes and we gave them a thousand dollars extra. we value productivity in the state.

we also value the children and i think governor branstad and every politician will say they are our greatest resources. right now we give them a 40-dollar tax credit. under my proposal we give them a 500-dollar tax rate so we put all that together provides us with a very strong middle-class tax cut that would help the people that needed the most common of these corporations corporations. but people need that. >> to answer your question on the budget is a priority. the budget is a priority. someone once said you can tell me how you want about your values but show me your budget and i will tell you what your values are. that should be a high priority of her frustration. >> deeply the legislature has such a plan and why? >> i think the legislature will engaged in the discussion. i can't guarantee anything but i know the democratic caucus in

the house and senate believe very proudly and very clearly that the middle classes got to get a break and middle-class iowans can be left out in the cold. they weren't at the governor's commercial property tax. as the largest property tax in history. if it wasn't for the residential taxpayers as well as the tax it -- corporate taxpayers. i want to give middle america the everyday i want a tax that they deserve equal to the tax break he gave to the dash of the state. >> governing a response. >> first of all eliminating federal deductibility will raise taxes for some low-income people too because your income varies from year-to-year you won't be able to deduct your federal taxes. the bill that we passed property tax relief isn't just for corporations. it's for all commercial and industrial property including all the main street businesses

in burlington and fort madison and all over the state of iowa. people have got most tax bills and they can see a real significant tax relief for individual iowans that own commercial property. i've heard from them all over the state. they are saying thank you. finally we got some real tax relief and i'm proud that we did that. that is going to continue next year and we want it to continue in the future. if you instead go out and spend that money on another program then we won't be able to do that and the education money that is committed also for teacher leadership. >> senator, being a governor means setting priorities and that you lead. the governor just said he wanted to provide the commercial and industrial property tax relief for commercial businesses in the state. i want to provide property tax relief and the middle-class tax

cut for the residents of the state. the citizens of the state, the every day i went to the state that need a tax cut. my priorities will always be with the middle-class. corporations, we are good at what we do. we will figure out a way and we will be able to continue to provide the jobs that are necessary but i want middle-class iowa to get the support they need. >> with just under 10 minutes remaining in our debate let's try to squeeze another category and if we can regarding the gas tax, infrastructure, roads, bridges. the question is for the governor from dale. >> time is gone by quickly. >> i thought we were having fun, right? >> the state needs money to improve its infrastructure. you are -- you are to minister to the department of education says we are not obtaining the

network that we have. it took some time to widen u.s. 61 between burlington and -- county and even more with all the truck traffic coming from the fertilizer plant. lawmakers told us in january that there was support for an increase in the gas tax if you would have indicated your support but without an an indication nobody was prepared to impose a tax that might get vetoed. during the state fair debate he said he were working on a transportation funding plan that we are not but were not prepared to reveal it. why not? wide-awake? >> first of all poll has put together a series of options and i've been discussing that with legislators for the last several months on how we can go to a hybrid system that would replace the gas tax partially with an excise tax on fuel like we have with this tale -- sales tax and

increased fees for every low to go across the state of iowa. i would also complement paul churkina when we had a flood in 2011 on the missouri river he was able to put together a strategy to rebuild all of those roads even though we only had 60 days to do it. we have rebuilt all those roads and cut the federal funds and reimbursement to pay for all of that. also it had the two biggest roadbuilding years in history over the last two years because he reduced administered to cost by $50 million. i'm continuing to work with them and i intend to work with a bipartisan group of legislators as we did last time we brought up this issue in 1988 and we got a majority of both the house and senate and republicans and democrats to agree to do this. i will leave but i want to make sure that we have a majority of both parties, both caucuses on board. >> senator 30 seconds please. >> you can't lead with legislators must have a

proposal. i have offered a proposal for 10 years. 10-cent gas tax, 2% for the next five years. not only is highway 611 meeting four-lane to hire 20 and -- highway and fort dodge to sioux city. their there are areas there that need four lanes plus the bridges in this day. we have the second worst, we are the second worst stadium bridge repair the country. we cannot have a repair of our county roads in her state roads if we don't have revenue. jackson county said they are just now reducing the tonnage of 44 but bridges in jackson county from 10 pounds to three. you can get a fan with children on a three-ton bridge but you can't get emergency vehicles. you can't get ambulances. you can't get firetrucks. you can't get the farm implements and the combines in the trucks that need to pass them provide commerce to our

farmers. this is a crisis. for the governor not to recognize it and have a task force that he doesn't listen to waiting for the special interests to say you can do it now is not the leadership we want. >> it's time for us to get to her closing statements. the order is determined by a coin flip. senator hatch you are first. >> thank you. gary i thank you very much and for kwqc-tv to be a sponsor of the debate of the hawkeye. i commend it to pass in yourself for providing this opportunity. i wants the want of knowledge my wife sonia roberts and my running mate monica is in the audience and if i could give a shout-out to my daughter in anchorage alaska who is an nbc affiliate and banker. i am as proud of her as i'm sure your parents or view.

being governor means we have to lead our state into a new area of economic explosion. i want to return to iowa to the time of vilsack iowa where he focused not only on agriculture but we diversified this economy to finance information technology and advanced manufacturing. in iowa where we are not picking winners and losers but creating regional authorities where we can rely on local leaders and direct the states resources to match the priorities of our local and our county leaders. we need to establish regional boards of directors and provide leadership locally. i will announce tonight that my running mate monica will take the lead in being a city council person. she knows how to bring people

together. she's done that and she's a leader in our community. the local business leaders know what they need and we will provide on their device. we need a community up economic development proposal, not a top-down. we need local people picking what they want to invest in. not winners and losers. thank you very much. >> governor brand said. >> first of all i want to thank the greater burlington partnership, kwqc, burlington hawk, burlington hawk eye in bellevue in the audience and for sponsoring this. it's great to have this debate the first territorial capital of iowa and burlington. i'm really proud to be here. my mother was born here and i'm proud to have my wife and members of my family and my stepmother here. i also want to say i love this day. i grew up in a farm and i learned to work hard at a very early age and i've worked every day.

lieutenant governor camera camera holds and i go over the state and we got every county every year. we work hard everyday to bring good jobs to iowa to make iowa the best in the nation in terms of education, to reduce the tax regulatory burden. we reduced the size of government by over 1400 we are not done yet. we are focused on things like college affordability and reducing student debt. two years no increase in resident state tuition we are going to do more to reduce fat and make college more affordab affordable. we have proposed a center for human capital enrichment and a goal to connect every acre so that we have high-speed internet everywhere in iowa. i would appreciate having your vote of confidence, your support and the opportunity to work hard for you for the next four years. i love iowa and i'm proud to have the opportunity to serve you and i would appreciate your vote. thank you very much. >> gentlemen thank you.

[applause] the conversation -- the conversation continues at your next debate but that's all the time we have for tonight. we would like to thank her candidates senator jack hatch and governor terry branstad. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] continue to watch at kwqc-tv.com and hawkeye.com. thank you for watching tonight. [applause] former senator jim webb spoke today and asked about it 2016 presidential bid. >> are you considering pursuing the democratic nomination for president in which you consider running as an independent? >> i would say we have had a lot

of discussions with people that i respect and trust about the future of the country and we are going to continue having these discussions over the next four or five months and i'm seriously looking at the possibility of running for president. but we want to see if there's a support base for people who would support the programs that we are interested in pursuing with the leadership so the answer is i'm a democrat, i have strong reasons for being a democrat. basically if you want fairness in a society and you want to give in the voice in the corridors of power to people who otherwise would not have what i believe we are -- that would come from a democratic party and we are taking a hard book and we

will let you know in the next few months. >> a good jersey governor chris christie made a trip last week in new hampshire. governor crist to campaign for walt havenstein the republican governor -- candidate for governor. [inaudible conversations] >> we see you every night at 11:00. you are a member of the family. [applause] >> hi how are you? hey everybody. how are you? appreciated.

>> welcome to new hampshire. >> happy to be back. >> hello governor, how are you? >> we are working hard. >> hi, how are you? good to see you again. >> good to see you. thank you sir. it's good to see you. >> god bless you. >> how are you? >> it's good to see you again. >> hey dan. there there's one of them.

>> how are you? >> all right. >> he's a good man. he's working for us. >> absolutely, he's a great guy. and he's the best. >> hey walt. >> i said where is the? >> how are you? [applause] >> hi governor. >> thank you for representing. that's really nice. >> i want to get a picture with you so i can send it back to new jersey.

they won't believe it. >> good to see you marie. >> thank you. >> how are you? thank you so much. >> governor welcome back. we have been here an hour and a half. >> thank you. >> nevermind. >> we will get back. how are you? thanks for being here. appreciate it. glad to be back. good to see you. how are you? it's good to see you again. how are you?

>> thank you. appreciate it. >> welcome, welcome. we would like to get your autograph. >> absolutely. >> thank you sir, it's a pleasure. >> it's a great to see you. walt is an old ship me. he was on the newport news. >> excellent. >> thank you.

>> oh yeah. came down down to see you. it was great. >> it's nice to see you. >> you gave a great presentation a year ago. >> you made me a believer. >> grade, we are going to do it again. how are you? >> governor it's nice to see you. >> nice to see you sir.

>> it's good to see you again. >> thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] >> there are point to get the spatulas or something. >> mike.

>> we are certainly glad to have governor christie back in the great state of new hampshire helping republicans, helping me get out and spread the message of economic prosperity and job creation for our state. a critical aspect of the upcoming election and governor welcome back. it's good to see you. >> i'm thrilled to be here. and here to let you know polling has us in dead heat. we are going to work as hard as we can walt and i together. i will will be a peer plant and also the rca will be making a major play here and playing a large role in trying to help get walt the job here. i'm convinced that he's going to

be the next governor of new hampshire. i will be back here but in the end is as his campaign. he has done a great job. now we not only have republicans with us reaching out to the content dense and democrats that no changes necessary to be able to get their votes on november 4. so happy to be here and i am sure we will take a few questions. >> company company have been a third time -- you are here in june and july and you are here now. do you feel some way you are here and your future aspirations are on the line as well? >> a choice about the candidate. what i do is come here to help but no one is going to see my name on the ballot in new hampshire in 2014 and everyone will be voting for him and it's good that they will be voting for him. he is the one who's dedicated so much of his life here. what i have done is to come

you're in hell. elections lies about the candidate. everyone that comes to help is a little bit of incremental help but in the end it's about him and that is why think he's going to be a winner. >> governor how much money do you think the rca was spent on this raise? >> i can't tell yet that we will spend a lot, that much i will tell you. until we see it as an investment and i'm looking to invest for walt havenstein as our donors across the country who have contributed to the rga. i told them it would be a competitive race. i can sense it and now although the objective indicators are there. we have a really good candidate and that is why supported him in the primary and that is why i support him now. [inaudible] >> we saw what democrats did in to the economy in new jersey and that is why we been cleaning up

for the last five years. the mess they created the decades before i got there. i don't want to take economic adviser mike governor who screwed up my state and now wants to blame me for it. >> looking ahead past november little bit. >> i don't look past november buddy so you better rephrase your question. i don't look beyond then. >> you have been brushing up on farm policy. >> i have not been brushing up on foreign policy. the fact is what i'm spending most of my time on is first and foremost running my state and secondly helping folks who are friends of ours like walls and others who are running for office. i'm not in new hampshire to talk

about isis. i'm in new hampshire to talk about walt havenstein and why he would be a good governor. a good second try but no. >> does the paper landslides and invest in lost causes? >> guest: . [inaudible] >> bell in fact i have invested money in pennsylvania in the month of september seem to be amount of money and i don't believe tom corbett is -- and we will work extraordinarily hard to protect tom an advocate for his re-election as governor of pennsylvania. i have put my money where my mouth is and spend $6 million we will continue to fight hard in pennsylvania. >> governor. [inaudible] >> you bet absolutely and as always i will do that in court nation with walt his campaign. whatever he thinks is best in terms of me being helpful that is what i intend to do. when your surrogate it's the hippocratic oath first do no harm so when walt asked me to come up i will come up.

>> the polls have not been gre great. >> i saw a candidate. races come down to candidates. atmosphere plays somewhat of a roll whatever the national atmosphere may be and that's helpful to republicans but i didn't know what the national atmosphere was going to be back in may when walt and i start speaking. affect is when i started spoke to him i was introduced by senator ayotte and when i first spoke to walk like a tell this was a guy who was extraordinarily bright very earnest very hard-working and had a vision and a plan for the future of new hampshire. those are the elements you need to be a credible candidate especially a place like new hampshire. that is what i saw and i also saw governor -- record and quite frankly it hasn't been a bright one. when you combine a governor who's underperforming to do daily with the guy that has the smarts and obscene integrity and a vision for a better future for new hampshire said this is going to be a race. new hampshire is very much a swing state.

they vote for the person up for the party and that is why think walt will be a great candidate. [inaudible] >> yeah i do. people are really smart appeared and they understand politics. so they ask a really good questions. and you know i love being challenged. i hope you bless me good questions and when i get challenged, i love coming up ear and i love campaigning in front of people who really understand politics and believe it's an important part of their civic responsibility and you can feel it. it's probable in new hampshire i love coming up here. >> good luck governor. >> god bless you for saying that. we will be back a lot and i will be back here for walt as many times as he asked me to come back. this is a race not only that we can win but that we are going to win in the rga is standing by his side the whole time. this is a good candidate and he'll be a great governor and we look forward to working with

him. >> thanks guys. [applause] >> see you a little bit later. >> thank you. >> thank you governor. >> it's nice to meet you. good job, that was great. >> i'll get out of your way. i know where i'm going.

appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> thank you very much. thank you. >> it was a great game when you're the father of her girl who goes to notre dame. it was kind of a blowout. it was actually my birthday so was fun to be there for my birthday with my oldest daughter. >> it's good to see you. >> oh my gosh. hang on. >> don't worry about it.

[inaudible conversations] >> thanks for coming. >> i'm a new jersey native. i had to say hello. >> i'm a union leader. glad to meet you. >> any decision on that i won't make any decision until next year. thanks. [inaudible conversations] >> it's my pleasure.

>> thank you again. welcome to new hampshire. >> thank you. glad to be back. >> do have time for one more? >> of course i do. >> thanks for your hard work. thank you, sir. keep working. >> thanks for coming. >> good to see you. come back. >> how are you? >> good.

[inaudible conversations] [background sounds] >> we have an opportunity right now but it can be done alone. we can do it by looking at here at each and every one of you you can take three or four hours a day for the next 48 days and i guarantee we are going to win so thank you and god bless and let's go get him. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> it's good to see you again. [inaudible conversations]

>> it's good to see you. >> governor we are going to go over here. right over here. >> all right folks. >> first of all let me make sure everyone is set. take your time. is everyone set collects first of all i want to thank governor christie for taking the time to come out and i want to thank all

of you. obviously this is an important election, and their import in making sure we take back the senate and get some real independent leadership to the senate again focusing on the things that people care about. that's what we are trying to do. it's a none to have the governor up here. we have a long and strong relationship and i look forward to his anyone else's support that can help make the difference so thank you. thank you governor. >> i'm going to continue to take my messages into people's living rooms of businesses and we will know in 48 days whether an underdog or not. >> you must be encouraged by the polls polls showing you are in a dead heat. >> we have known that things are moving in the right direction. that's why you're seeing the desperation and the constant barrage of negativity. they are flailing actually so we are working hard to talk about the issues. we are talking about isis and obamacare.

she can't talk about those things because she's voting with the president 90% of time. if she was right on the issue she wouldn't be talking about them. >> last question. this is the most important senate reaganite country. >> he's a winner not only politically but a winner in the government. that is what the people in this country so desperately want and i'm sure the people in msha want. we are so tired of seeing that bickering in the gridlock and partisanship -- partisanship down there. many about 99% of the time of the press and you're telling me i can't find anybody i agree with 90 of the time. i don't agree with myself 99% of the time. what we need is somebody like scott who will go down there and consider these issues on their merits and then make the decisions in the best interest of the people of new hampshire in our country. we will see that over the next 48 days in the trend we see now is going to be the trend be the trend trendy will see their election day and he's going to

win. >> thanks you guys. >> thanks everybody. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] .. conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> tonight on c-span2, a georgetown university conference on the ebola outbreak. health and human services secretary sylvia burwell on implementing the affordable care act, and later, legal scholars discuss upcoming supreme court term.