economic future. this is about risks to our safety and our economy. we need serious policy conversations about what actions to take to address those risks. that is what we are focused on here this afternoon. thank you for joining us. i know invite secretary rubin to introduce our featured guest. [applause] >> thank you. let me apologize for starting a little bit late. i had to fly in from laguardia. if there is any doubt in your mind about our desperate need for infrastructure, take that flight. i just want to make a substantive comment. i have gotten pretty involved in this. the reason i've gotten pretty involved is that is a learn more about it i begin to realize that you have not only the most likely scenarios, which are pretty serious in many cases and severe over time, but you also

have the real possibility, unfortunately a high probability, that consequences would be vast multiples of the base case. instead of just being severe, in addition to being severe, in the long run it would become catastrophic. we can expand on that in our conversation. secondly, i said to a friend of mine the other day who is a well-known new york this newsman -- this businessman that i had developed an intense concern about this. he said we can deal with this decades done the road. i said no, the reason, as many of you know, the decay rate of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. what we do today will affect us for hundreds of years.

they're cumulative, they are irreversible, and as a consequence, this is an issue that cannot wait. as hank paulson observed to me the other day, if you look past over the cap past 10 years and see the predictions climate scientist have made, they bring forward the timeframe when the severe consequences occurred. this is an issue that we have to deal with now. in that context, let me invite to the podium, secretary jack lew. [applause] here. i'm going to uninvite michael. i will only invite jack. i will say one thing. when jack was in the clinton

administration, he was a pleasure to deal with. he is immensely substantive, and very sensitive to the politics of the issues he deals and he knows washington, and he also knows how to work with all of us numbers as we dealt with our issues. with that, i introduce the distinguished secretary of the treasury, jack lew. [applause] >> thank you bob for that introduction and for your strong leadership. and thank you to the hamilton project and brookings for hosting this event. this is an issue of great significance to our economy and to our nation's future. i want to talk today about the economic implications of a changing climate and i would

like to say a few words about the u.s. economy. the u.s. economy emerged from the financial crisis that triggered a devastating recession pushing us to the brink of the second great depression. our economy is now 6.6% larger than when the recession began in 2007. gdp increased in a 4.2% annual rate of the second quarter of this year. and our private sector has created 10 million new jobs over the past 54 months. the longest stretch of job growth in our nation's history. while more work remains, confidence is strong at home and internationally, something i saw the last few days at the g 20 finance ministers meeting. in addition to discussing the needs to take the skies of action to grow the global a economy andglobal create jobs, we discussed leveling the playing field on tax policy, so that we would

stop erosion of the corporate tax base and avoid a race to the bottom in international tax policy. today i will have more to say about inversions, where companies move outside to take advantage of the tax base. they need for action is clear. the world can either choose to ignore the challenge today and be forced to take more drastic action further down the road a greater cost. or we can make sensible, modest, gradual changes now, and in the process create jobs, reduce household expenses, and drive innovation, technology, and new industries. this choice should be clear. as an economic matter, the cost of an action or delays far greater than the cost of action. events associated with extreme weather events like rising sea levels, drought, heat waves,

wildfires, solids and severe storms, that demonstrates the scope of economic exposure. the council of economic advisers estimates that of warming above the industrial levels increases to three degrees celsius instead of two, there could be a 1% decrease in global output of a newly. -- output annually. limitedomic cost is not to one sector. it threatens our agricultural productivity, our transportation infrastructure, and drives up health care problems. we are facing historic levels of extreme weather from a range of conditions. some parts of the country face extreme flooding, and others face severe drought. nowhere is the economic cost of climate change more clear that in the area of infrastructure, which is fundamental to our economy's productivity and competitiveness. the fact is our water and sewer systems are power plant -- and

power grids were not designed or built for the extreme climate conditions we face now or expect to face in the coming decades. superstorm sandy closed every tunnel and bridge leading into new york city, while all seven tunnels under the east river was flooded. increased health care costs are well documented. high temperatures threatened the safety of construction workers, farmers, and those who work outdoors, while putting entire industries like housing at risk. dangerous air pollution creates the risk of similar negative consequences for the health and safety of americans across the country. on the other hand, much less has been said about the nation's fiscal system and climate change.

when the federal government has to step in and do things like disaster relief, crop insurance, protection from wildfires. health care, taxpayers pay the cost. already the national flood insurance program has had to borrow $24 billion from the treasury department because of a the last hurricanes, all of which happened in the last nine years. if the fiscal burden continues to climb, it will create budgetary pressures that will force hard to trade-offs and higher taxes. it would make it more challenging to invest in growth, meet the needs of an aging population, and provide for our national defense. whatever your public policy views, whether you care about our national debt and deficit then you should care about coping with climate related damage.

president obama understands what is at stake. after years of talk in washington about chasing the challenge of climate. he is investing in american energy including natural gas, solar, and wind power. making the right investments will make our economy stronger today, creates tens of thousands of new jobs, and position the united states to lead the world and industries of the future. and we have already seen this work. our new fuel economy standards would double the distance our cars would go on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. we have doubled the amount of renewable energy produced. this means that we will compete effectively in a world looking for energy efficiency, lower cost, and fewer emissions. the fact of the matter in over the past few years, solar

installations have increased, and now every four minutes another solar institution goes into place in the united states. so far this initiative has led to $300 million in energy savings for homes and businesses. changing how we power our country is good economic policy. renewables now produce as much electricity worldwide as gas, and more than twice that from nuclear. in the coming years and expanding world would depend on more and more electricity, and renewables are the fastest-growing source to meet that increased demand.

the better positioned our companies and workers will be to take advantage of these new business opportunities. the president announced new rules this summer for existing power plants. these rules represent the most significant policy to arrest climate change that united states has taken to date. they will help us to cut carbon pollution and increase clean energy production. tomorrow, the president will join more than 120 heads of state in new york to mobilize global action about like a change. global action is imperative, and it is a good investment in global economic growth. first, making these changes is cost effective. look at the new powerplant rule i just mentioned.

it will decrease emissions 30%. the health and climate benefits for producing more clean energy and reducing our use of dirty energy is expected to be worth $55 billion and $93 billion in 2030. if we fail to make changes now, it will be more costly to do later, and may fail entirely. what the latest science tells us to do to keep temperatures below dangerous levels. the alternative, allowing them to reach increasingly dangerous levels will require expensive and dangerous action later. the council of economic advisers found that for each decade of delay, the cost of hitting a given climate target goes up on average approximately 40%.

we must adopt a risk management approach to climate change. we must do what we can to substantially lower the risk of the most catastrophic climate impacts, and that means reducing emissions. as the former secretary of the treasury hank paulson wrote recently, there is a time for weighing evidence, and there is a time for acting. and if there is one thing i have learned, it is that it is to act when problems are still small enough to manage. let me close with two points. the first is, we cannot do this alone. we must work with the rest of the world to address this challenge and we must work with other industrialized economies so that everyone is cutting carbon pollution in a sustainable way. we must work with developing

countries, which are the fastest-growing carbon emitters. this step is leveling the playing field for clean energy alternatives. we are working to secure the agreements of the outher countries. we are also strong supporters of the green climate fund. a multilateral fund created to help reduce the impact of climate change. we must continue to seek the most efficient, market oriented waste to reduce carbon pollution. the congressional action based on market approaches is the most effective way. climate change is one of the

most important challenges of our time and what we do in the next few months and years to address this challenge will determine our nation's future, and if we take the right steps, we will leave the next generation with a stronger country, a better economy, and a brighter future. thank you. i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> jack, thank you very much. let me introduce michael greenstone now. he was the director of the hamilton project, he is now the professor of economics in chicago. and head of some institute. what is that? >> thank you. [laughter]

>> i thought that was a good introduction. let's start with two related questions. jack, i was talking to you a couple of years ago about climate change. and almost everybody talks to me saying it is a problem, let's talk about something else. do you get any greater sense of urgency? people will make all sorts of wonderful speeches. i gave one myself which i liked. [laughter] have people started to realize this is real? i want to ask you one other thing. >> i think there are two pieces of evidence that i can give you that is taken seriously. one is the take on this by the administration. i think it will have a very serious impact, both on power

plants and on motor vehicles. frankly, i think the work that you and michael bloomberg and others have done hundreds the business brought together the business community. people who were looking at a from a public-private perspective that puts it higher on our radar for ongoing policy debate. whether or not legislation can be enacted, as focused on what we can do with it. the commitments we make internationally matter. >> what do you say, i know the argument the indians and chinese

make that you created the problem, we are not sure we are adding more than you are. you have to compensate us in some way or another. make us good. what is the answer to that? >> i think that one of the reasons that we are so much supportive of international climate fund instruments and direct bilateral support is there are a lot of countries that will need help to take the measures that are both in their interest and global interest. for the largest economies like india and china, there is more they can do and will do. china is embracing the challenge of climate change and pollution in a different way than it did even a few years ago. there is a domestic demand because of the problems of smog

and asthma and otherhealth issues. it is internal debate, not just international debate. we have to lead by taking action, we take burdens upon our self. there will not be a one-size-fits-all answer. the no doubt -- but there is no doubt that the world's largest economies will be a major factor because that is where it is coming from. >> don't they say, you want us to do something, but we expect to have you get a more developed state. >> they are at a different stage of development than we are at and they needed an opportunity for them that we do not have

when we are at a similar point of development. we did not have the renewable options when the united states was building its first generation of power plants. we have to go back and deal with a lot of existing facilities. if going forward we all deal with the challenge of putting capacity standards in place, that would help. we are to make sure that our existing power plants do better. we also have more natural gas resource than a lot of other countries. if countries like china do not address this issue, it will not matter what we say. they will have domestic problems that are just beyond the current imagination.

they are going to have to deal with this. and setting ambitious goals is the only way we're going to take on this challenge. >> let me complete the introduction of michael. he is a milton friedman economics professor and the director of the energy policy institute. why don't you give us a little bit of a sense of the magnitude of possible risk. not just the baseline, but what might lie beyond that? >> what troubles we most, although there's great scientific certainty, there is a consensus among scientists that what is happening in this. one key, in my view, how much temperature will change for doubling co2 in the atmosphere?

it is a very wide range, some are between 3-8 degrees fahrenheit, if it was that, it would be ok. it originates the way they live, with the hardships. you can see huge parts of the united states the roughly uninhabitable outside during the summer. you can see large crop to climb, tremendous demand for new energy. that is to say nothing of the very painful discussion that we did have, going to build dams to protect. which ones are we going to let go? i think it is that risk of the really bad stuff that drives a

lot of the concern. >> do you want to add to that? >> i covered it in my introduction when i said if the debate is how bad it is going to be, it is important to read the directions. that is the line that people have, that they are near consensus among scientists. there is consensus among the economists about what to do about it. that ranges all the way to milton friedman to fill in your favorite left-wing economist that writes for the new york times. there is a clear consensus about what to do. when you're engaged in activity that is harming other people, that activity should be pricey.

we should not have a society where it is ok for me to dump garbage in the former secretary's yard. >> i heard somebody the other day make a high probability that technology will be developed at some point that will pull the emissions out of the atmosphere and we are trained to bridger way to that. and i talk to other people named say that is a risk to take. >> i think the private sector will play an analyst role in driving that point. without it, we are not a businessman, but we just don't see companies engaging in extensive investments.

>> you are taking a risk. when you speak to the indians, i do not know this is right or not, they're less receptive to moving forward than the chinese. what is a possible response to the kind of scenarios that we have been discussing? i do not understand how anybody can look at this and not say we will be engulfed by this. >> it is not so much a domestic issue as it is around china. to wait until you cannot breathe in indian cities is probably waiting too long. it is a question of rules that do not interfere with the ability of a country like india to grow. it will come down to how do you finance the investments of the future.

to the extent that we have technology that is available to meet the electricity needs of a growing economy in the affordable cost, it will help a lot. they are not going to not be able to have more electricity. the challenge is going to be to meet the load with new technologies. that is why think we can work together. but i think it helps when there is a measure for it. i see more of that in china than i do in india right now. i think that explains some of the difference. on a question that michael is raising, on market forces. in the year administration earlier we made a doubles on a cap and trade kind of approach. it got through part of congress, not all of congress. it would be a very good discussion to get back into with congress on how to have market forces work to help shape this to a better solution. i think what we cannot do is wait until congress acts to take the steps that we can because what we are doing while it is

incremental is very significant in terms of changing what usa emissions will be over the next decade. >> given that our political system seems to be somewhat less than perfectly functional to say the least. [laughter] if you take a look at what you have done, which i think as i have said before -- if you take that list in totality, what percentage of the total response is not going to constitute? >> i'm better at the economics than i am at the science. i know on the auto side, on doubling the fuel economy it speaks for itself in gasoline tax, we see it already. we are using less gasoline which

is good in terms of emission the power plant rules will dramatically reduce emissions. i'm not sure what percent. michael may have an answer. >> if you take the standard changes, is that close close to sufficient to address the u.s. piece of this problem? >> it is sufficient to keep the commitment we have made in the international negotiations on climate policy. we want to do more to get to the next level. it certainly accomplishes a great deal. i do not think we can stop where we are. we're going to have to keep putting more policies into place. but it builds a foundation where there was a lot of skepticism that we could meet the commitment that we made in the last round of climate negotiations. because of the actions we've

taken, we are on track. this is not a problem we are going to solve and one action, and i think what we have to do is take the steps that we can that are clear and concrete and if we were able to have a debate on the broader policy that would require legislation, i think we can do more. using the ministry of authority we have, meeting the international commitments we have made. i think it is a substantial accomplishment. we are not resting on our laurels. and it's sufficient for the president to go to the international community and say we are doing our part. there were a lot of skeptics a few years ago that we would be in the position to do that. >> if we go back to previous iterations of greenhouse gas treaty efforts, every single time we have had to show up and basically say, you should do

something, and if you do it we will back and confirm for a little while. the commitment that was made in 2009, that these rules will be met, 17% reduction in 2020, relative to 2005, the longer-term commitment of 80% reduction by 2050 will require a lot more effort. but i think for the first time the united states can go to these international negotiations and say we have done something. i think the noises one hears out of china about a potential nationwide cap and trade for rbon in a communist country, not here but communist country is ok, starting in 2016, that --

i think that's partially a reflection of the efforts the obama administration has made. >> but if you take just -- dwell on this but i'm kireous, if you look out over the decades as to what we have to do, what percentage we have to do when we accomplish it. is it more like 20% or 50% or 80%? >> the way i think about it is the problem has been for decades that the effective price on carbon, penalty for ee meeting co2 was zero basically around the world. you now have all of these bright spots. power plant rules, state of california, northeast states in the united states. you have china doing things. it's a huge step. now we have to get the effective price at a higher level to achieve levels of reductions that are necessary but it's an enormous step. and if i can add one thing, this is happening at the exact same time that -- it's the golden age

of fossil fuels with respect to fracking. it's really an enormous accomplishment to make progress on co2 emissions at the same time that's happening. >> what will happen in paris next year, jay? >> there's going to be a lot of bilateral discussions between now and paris. we're going to work very hard to get an agreement with both the developed and developing countries to set ambitious standards. i don't think going to paris would have progress and some of bilateral discussions will be as useful. even in november when the president is in china, this will be one of the topics he and the president discuss. it will be on the agenda when we meet with india. i can't put a number out there. we want the goal to be as ambitious and realistic and probably push a little beyond realistic. and

the challenge will be substantial because they want growth in their own company. we have to be in a position we can demonstrate dealing with climate change is compatible with economic growth. if it becomes a choice between economic growth and climate policy, it will be a much more difficult hurdle in paris. > when you frame the question, not exactly right, but when you frame the question do people look at you or other countries look at the question as a tradeoff between growth now and climate change now or look at longer-term perspective? if you loog longer-term perspective, it seems if we don't deal with this, we will create havoc for our economy. >> i think that's exactly the challenge. i think we're experiencing now it doesn't have to be a choice. that i think is perfectly apparent in our cafe rules, in

our fuel economy rules. by taking a lot of the weight out of u.s. pickup trucks, we're going to sell more u.s. pickup trucks. it's creating more jobs in the united states. it's completely consistent with growing jobs right now. at some level that can't be true in every product everywhere but overall being more efficient should lead to more growth and jobs even in the short term. it's -- the fact that we are recovering and growing at different rates makes the challenge also more complicated. the need for short-term growth is an independent challenge of dealing with climate change in a lot of parts of the world. >> that's what i was driving at, is it a little bit of short term versus long term? it's always difficult to get political systems to focus on the long term. >> it is, especially when there are short-term challenges where it seems the long-term goal is inconsistent with the short-term objective. we have been very much -- i just

spent the weekend in australia making the case again, making argument we need to worry about increasing demand in a good number of parts of the global economy. i actually think that's consistent with trying to make progress on climate change. doing a little bit better on short-term growth will expand the likelihood of an openness to dealing with the long-term issues. i don't think we can wait until everyone is feeling well in the short term all over the world to deal with climate change. otherwise, we will have waited too long. this will be a case of making the argument to do as much as we an, as fast as we can. in different countries that will play out in a different way. i think for a country that is looking at being an exporter of technology in the future, they should want to be at the cutting ge of this, not the last

adopters. they should want to be competing with us in solar and wind and they should want to be able to demand for fuel, which is both a strategic risk for a lot of countries and economic risk. i think we can make the case to overcome short-term issues but i think realistically, the fact there are a lot of parts of the world that are not experiencing the robust growth that they would like makes it more challenging. >> i should know the answer to this jack, but i don't. in the administration's program under the budget, are there resources being devoted to incentivizing research? >> we have increased research both in the department of energy and we have used tax credits to create incentives for renewables. we have more proposed that have been enacted but seen a lot of them already put into effect.

you know, an interesting conversation at the g-20 over the weekend was what kind of expend churs should country's prioritize if they're interesting in long-term growth. and everyone agreed research, development and education. there wasn't a voice at the table that didn't say this is not how we create the greatest economic potential for our future. this is a double win if countries put it into an area where they reduce their need for both andrettiy and expensive fuel. -- both dirty and expensive fuel. >> describe a little if you would dynamics with the ice sheet, with methane gas, with various specifics of what could become catastrophic impacts. >> yes. i think my high school science teacher will be slightly apolled to hear asking me to explain that. a lot ofunderstand it, what will happen turns on this

thing they call climate sensitivity parameter. and the temperature increases we get depending on what that proves to be, if it's higher than we expect, it could lead the ice sheets to melt more rapidly than we would expect. that would cause increases in sea level. it could also cause the arctic perma frost to melt, which would have massive releases of methane and speed up this and kind of have reinforcing effect on the rate at which the chimet is changing. those are really i think the draw we end up getting for the climate sensitivity parameter, a lot is at stake with that. >> in the months after super storm sandy, there was a kind of heightened awareness of how impossible may not be so impossible. the amount of new york city under water if you made it out before super storm sandy, people would have said you were exaggerating. but we experienced it. and it's not that any of us are

hoping for another natural disaster. storms, ace of major major floods, major droughts in the last decade has increased in an undeniable way. so it doesn't even have to get to these next level of extreme developments which are highly credible, if not certain, to note we have to deal with them. >> let me ask you, i think we have time for another question. let me ask you this, i had the notion -- don't know if the notion is right or not -- as i said before, you have done a terrific job and present certainly has but there isn't an urgency that permeates or political system and our business. now, if we had a parallel gp that g.d.p. that took into account extras and in the fiscal direction that o.m.b. had to make you had a separate set of objection that's took into up

account potential climate effects and with regard the effects to business climate change could have on them, would all of that increase awareness and perhaps motivate action? >> well, each of them in a different way would play a role. let me start with the piece i have had the most experience with, budget piece. by its nature, budget projections are backwards looking so as we go through a decade of dramatic weather experiences, there's more and more being built into the projections and you see it in the size of the disaster relief fund, which has grown dramatically over the last decade. i'm not sure it encompasses every risk out there but it is catching up. g.d.p., as you know better than i, is a complicated model that is imperfect but does bring in both direct and indrinth effects with very high degree of

utility. the projection that i referred to, council of economic advisers did that looks at the impact of three versus two degree celsius increase in temperature on global g.d.p. reflects the indirect impact of climate through the g.d.p. model. not enough of any -- any kind of mew trigs could figure out how to do it more directly but it's already being reflected in the way that makes the case and to some extent the question of recognizing that and dealing with it as opposed to the lack of transparency. on the disclosure side, the standard of disclosure is materiality. and i think that the more investors make clear that they consider climate risks material,

the more firmless have to under current rules and current law make these disclosures. and our experience with special subjects specific requirement that the s.e.c. has not been as successful as general materiality standards. so why i will actually discuss the chairman of the s.e.c. this idea and get the sense of their reaction to a separate standard, i think that challenge first and foremost is for investors to say that they need to to know more about the risks and then firms will have to make disclosures under current law. >> i agree, that is absolutely right. i just -- maybe i'm being unduly krned but it just doesn't seem a sense of urgency in the world i live in. >> i don't disagree about the sense of urgency. i do think that the work that you and others did on risky business raised it for a period of time for a level that was on the top of people's minds.

i think we have to keep making -- it's not a lack of analysis or information. >> no. >> so it's a question of repetition, at the risk of sounding like a pessimist, one has to say this is serious and we have to deal with it until it's dealt with. i'm not sure you want to wait until the public stands up and demands action because it will be too late when people are feeling it that personally. it will be a measure of leadership to get to the solution before it's out of control. >> which you and the president have done. yes, michael. >> i just want to join in this how do you about get people engaged on this question? the g.d.p. i think is excellent idea and corporate disclosure is also excellent idea. the challenge in all of that is, what is -- how do you monetize it? how do you come up with a value for that? nd actually there's a solution

which the u.s. has social cost of carbon, dollar value of the estimates damages from each extra ton of emissions in the atmosphere. in principal, that number could be applied widely. g.d.p. number, corporate disclosure. it could be used by state public utility commissions who are trying to figure out what kind of plants to cite. it could be used in the treatment of our natural esources and how we sell them. in principle that exercise you're suggesting is not difficult to do. >> jack, i'm being threatened being fired. you apparently have to go back to the white house. thank you. you have been terrific. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> you're very good. you do this well. [applause]

>> president obama will be at the united nations tomorrow talking about climate change and efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. we will have live coverage from the u.n. at 12:50 eastern on c-span 2. and then the president will speak at the clinton global initiative meeting. live coverage from new york on :00 eastern, also on c-span 2. coming up on c-span, a pennsylvania governor's debate

between incumbent tom corbett and his democratic challenger, tom wolf. then new jersey governor chris christie campaigns in new hampshire. and later retired general hugh shelton talks about the threat of terrorism. >> here are just a few of the comments we recently received from our viewers -- >> the historical educational shows, for lack of a better expression, are very, very informative and very, very highly educational and valuable -- invaluable to a young society today that does not value or maybe doesn't understand or know about the significant impact that the historical sites and researchers have on how they're ancestors shaped and formed this country. i highly encourage you guys to do more programming of the like.

thank you so much. >> i'm watching nancy pelosi at the weekly briefing center. i accuse c-span as being liberal before. this is a classic example of that i'm talking about. weekly briefing, we don't need nancy pelosi giving us a weekly briefing today. but c-span sees that we get a steady diet of nancy pelosi. she does not always tell the truth. in fact most of the time she never tells the truth. give us a break. >> i enjoy your programming. especially the historical programs you have on. upcoming one and including examination of little big horn. and all of it. very good programming and continue to do so, please. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. 202-626-3400.

e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or tweet us. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> pennsylvania republican governor tom corbett and his democratic challenger tom wolf took to the stage for their first debate monday. polls show mr. wolf ahead in the race. this foreem, held in hershey, pennsylvania, was hosted by the pennsylvania cable network. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. on behalf of the pennsylvania business of chamber and industry i would like to welcome you for the first three debates between the two gubernatorial candidates. the election is six weeks from tomorrow. please put your hands together and welcome two candidates. we have tom corbett, the

republican incumbent governor. [applause] >> welcome, governor. >> we also have the challenger from york county, former revenue wolf. ry >> how are you, tom? >> welcome, mr. wolf. >> tonight, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to foster a conversation where the candidates talk to us and not at us and to each other for that matter. a couple of the ground rules. they will each have a one-minute open and two-minute close. we will alternate directing questions. if you're the person who gets the question, you have two minutes and the other person will have one men for rebuttal. the candidates have not seen the questions in advance. they have been chosen by me and representatives from the chamber.

we should point out this is a chamber audience so many of the questions, if not all of the questions, will be of interest to the business community. so without further adieu, the -- as arranged by a coin flip among the camps, tom coshte will have the first open. tom wolf will have the last close. so one minute first opening, governor corbett, the floor is yours. >> thank you, dennis. good evening, everyone. >> good evening. >> good evening, everyone! there we go. [applause] and thank you to the chamber and thank you for inviting me here. i certainly do appreciate the opportunity to be here today. on this stage and to talk with tom about the future of pennsylvania. i also want to thank the voters who have given me the opportunity to serve not only as governor but attorney general across pennsylvania. i want to tell you, i really, really appreciate that opportunity. because i have to tell you, i believe in pennsylvania. today i had the opportunity to go up to the northeast.

i would ask you each as dennis asked you to think about the two troopers, the one who was killed and the one who is in the and also think about the men and women out there tonight searching, all of these law enforcement officers searching for this individual who would kill our troopers here in pennsylvania. that's part of being governor though. what's really part of being governor -- i used up my minute. >> we will hear from you more in a moment. >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. >> mr. wolf, one minute. he floor is yours. >> thank you. i would like to thank you, dennis, for moderating and all of you in the chamber for sponsoring this. listen, i am an unconventional candidate. i understand that. i don't look like candidates you probably have seen before but i think these are unconventional times for our commonwealth. i'm running as citizen in a

democracy. this is what we're supposed to do if we to see a change. i think we can do a better job when it comes to education. i think we can do a better job as business person and member of this chamber board, i think we can do a better job building a stronger economy in pennsylvania. i'm running because i think we need a fresh start. that's why i'm running. i love this state. i think we can do better. thank you very much. >> ok. [applause] i should point out, ladies and gentlemen, and feel free to walk the stage, guys, talk to each other as we're doing this. i'm going to feel free, if i need to move the conversation along, change topics or if i don't think we have quite gotten an ns, try to get more of an answer out of you. first question mr. wolf and first topic is education. as you might expect, it's been a hot topic. polls suggest that's one of the most important topics for pennsylvanians. for several years democrats and for several months you have insisted governor corbett slash, quote/unquote slashed a billion dollars from education.

governor coshte responded by saying he's spending more state money on public education than any governor in history. where is the discrepancy there? what's going on? >> well, my point is that we have actually seen real cutbacks in education. and under this administration, we can talk about whatever we want in terms of statistics. again, i'm a graduate of m.i.t. so that would be fine with me. just look at what we see all around us, at least in my area. we see educators who have been laid off, 27,000 educators lost their jobs. class sizes that have increased, property taxes have gone through the roof. in my area we have services that have been cut, parents are even having to pay money, fees so their children can participate in extracurricular sports. we can talk about statistics all we want but education has been cut. we are not doing a good job in following through on the promise we made in our constitution to

deliver a thorough and assistant system of public education. we need to do that. we can do a better job than we're doing. i know you can't throw money at any problem and expect a better outcome but you cannot disinvest in it either. in my business i needed employees who had the skills, i needed to make sure my business was successful. this is an important public good for all of us. it's not just a constitutional issue. it is that, but it's also a practical economic problem. we need to make sure we're doing everything we can to make sure our education system is working fully in every part of the of this commonwealth. >> governor corbett, one-minute ebuttal. >> that was 29 seconds. i would agree. we need to do better. we should always be looking to do better. we need to present a better pennsylvania than what i inherited to my successor four years from now and he or she

should be doing the same thing. the question is funding. now it is clear if want to talk about statistics because cuts in the education occurred in the administration before me. but supporters in the public secers union, particularly teachers union, has spent millions of dollars putting out the lie i cut education. i didn't. and even now the newspapers, even the "philadelphia inquirer" has admited that we didn't. but it's how you do you do it? how do you reform it? eem sure we will have more time to talk about this, dennis, because ed case is such a big part of this. but we have already begun that reform by two little steps -- first step, better teacher evaluation stock market. better than the old satisfactory or unsatisfactory. as a result of that, better education and better report on administrators and now we're able to, with the profiles we have created for schools here in pennsylvania, be able to tell if

those schools are performing and how are they performing? once you have metrics, you can determine how you need to spend the money. and that's what we're doing. >> governor, the followup is for you and it's along the same line. if more state money than ever is going to school districts, than why is it over the last several years school districts have either cut programs, cut people or raised property taxes or a combination of all three? >> very good question. and the answer to that is very simple. first off, putting federal stimulus money into their budgets, into operating budgets. shouldn't have done that. everybody know that's now. secondly, cost of pensions. you're going to hear me talk a great deal about the cost of pensions. what does that do? and it has driven up the cost of property taxes across pennsylvania. 163 school districts in pennsylvania have asked to be exempted from the requirement to have a referendum in order to increase their property taxes. the cost of health care and it's going to get much worse.

many of you in this room are dealing with the cost of health care with obamacare and what is coming in. that is going to cause to go up even higher. mr. wolf uses a number of 27,000 educators. that's a false number. those are not all teachers. those are people who worked in the system that were part of the administrations. not all teachers. but that's not the point. is the point is how much are we going to spend but more importantly, how are we going to invest it? it has to be an investment. not just how much can we spend. >> mr. wolf. [applause] >> again, the proof is in the pudding. we have to do a good job. if we want a strong economy and if we want strong communities and if we want strong families, we have to make sure our schools are working properly.

it's not enough to say this didn't work or that's not working the way i wanted it to. we have foig out how to make this work. this is an obligation we have as a community. i care about the education of the children in philadelphia as much as i care about the education my daughters got in the public schools in northeastern york county. that's the way public education works. that's why it's a shared responsibility. my life will be made better if the children in elk county get a good education. probability is i won't have as good a life if they don't. i need to make sure that we follow through and deliver on the promise of a good education. we need accountability, we need all of the other things the governor talked about. but we need in the end a system that delivers on the promise of a good education. [applause] >> mr. wolf, next question for you. i know you don't want to talk statistics but the fact is over $10 billion of the $29 billion state budget directed towards education, 30% and 40%, all in

with property taxes and feds, that number is $27 billion spent on public education in this state. the state budget is 29, education $27 billion. my question to you because you're complaining there is not enough. what is enough? what what is your number if can share it tonight? and whattingability would you like to offer so we're not shove ling money so the metric is not just how much money we're spending rather than what we're getting for the money we're spending. >> that's a great question. [applause] that wasn't applause for me. that was applause for the question, right? listen, we absolutely, i understand we cannot throw -- as i said, we cannot throw money at any problem and hope to get a good outcome. i understand that. but i also understand that we do -- and we have to have accountability. we have to know how we're doing. right now we're not producing canle -- most of us feel we employ. we're not doing a good enough job all across the state. in some places we're doing a wonderful job.

in some places we're not doing a good job. we need to do a good job across the commonwealth to make sure we have people with the skillser vept to a 21st century economy. how much money will that take? i don't know. but it's not enough to say we will spend more or we will spend less. what we need to do is say we need to have a public education system that delivers, delivers on the promise and delivers on the skills and talents we all need to make this economy we can't hide all statistics that we're spending too much to we have to embrace the idea that it is a responsibility we have. we cannot say ideologically we are predisposed to this solution or that solution. we have to sit down and look at this practically and say how are we going to make sure we have an educated workforce and educated pennsylvaniae in and we have to have leadership that will follow through and

invest whatever it takes to invest and make sure we get what we need. >> i am glad you point at me when you say leadership. give me the numbers. it is $27 billion now. what do you think the number should be? >> that is a good question. some of that comes from the federal government. one of the things we need to do is figure out how to reduce the local property tax burden for funding education. that would free up some of the conflicts or eliminate some of the conflicts we have. how much is it, i do not know. redeploybe able to that and reset our priorities. one of the ways when i had to do something to improve my company i would go first to my employees . i did not demonize them. i did not say that's, with some experts from out-of-town who will tell us how to do this.

with a to come up reasonable solution. let's make sure we're delivering fully on this promise. >> we are not that far apart. we agree we have to make it better. we are not hearing any answers as to how we get there. we have started that process. is whater one question is fair? what is a fair funding formula? and as you know, we have recently passed legislation to create a fair funding formula commission. members of the legislature are involved because what is fair and one school district is that is fair to the people and out pocono. of anch is the education individual child worth?

we have never had that discussion. that is how we decide how much is enough. we could spend a lot of money. on a $7 billion is a lot of money. part of the idea is to -- to determine is it being well spent my is it being invested wisely and what i come back i will talk to about the school profiles and how we are using that to help us determine where it is being used wisely. question for you. let's come back to that. everyone's ears will perk up. pledge butno tax you're not going to take this this time, what do you say to conservative critics? no tax pledge? >> what i said is two things. everyone knows my record. we kept taxes down and we did not raise taxes. we know where mr. wolf is going to go because if you start adding up all his taxes what we

know is that everybody above $60,000 will be taxed more. we are trying to glean this from his report. from his land -- planned how much will be the people down below. if you have a sales tax increase everybody pays that. taxou have an energy increase, electricity tax increase, everybody pays that. i am committed to working keeping government efficient. saidiran four years ago i i would run on three principles. fiscal discipline, limited government, and free enterprise. i can say to the people of pennsylvania i have kept that promise.

we made tough decisions. almost $29 million in spending in my first year but it was spending including federal one-time stimulus money. we had to go down the first time the budget went down in 40 years greatly reduced the size of the competent people working for state government to its lowest levels in 15 years. why? because we did not have the money. i promise we were not going to tax the taxpayers because i believe in my job as governor. -- as being a steward of your money. i mean everybody. job the person working at a making millions of dollars to the people who are working and $5,000, $20,000 jobs. you have not taken that for

this four-year term. >> i think my record speaks for itself. my answer. let's try this. >> does it help me keep everybody focused? many people in the legislature agreed with me on that. and helped them keep the focus. we had to look at the option of saying we need to tax the taxpayers more and spend more of their money. so what do you say to conservative critics that say the transportation bill and the -- this was the breaking of that . >> the transportation bill was a removal of a false cap and we are getting rid of the tax at the pump that was static.

we're seeing revenue, at the same time how many are you buying gas cheaper today? almost $.50 to the gallon. it was the responsibility of governor to the public safety of the people of pennsylvania where children get on school buses every day and 1.5 million people get on transit and travel our roads and highways. it is a public duty for us to make those roads better. >> mr. wolf, would you like to rebut the tax pledge conversation? you have a minute. >> no. but i would like to rebut what we see all around us. for whatever reason, things aren't working. i went back to my business in 2009. it was flat on its back and i turned it around and i had metrics and ways looking at whether i was doing a good job

and i did. i had to make end meet and i had to make that company successful. that's what we have to do here in pennsylvania. and you can measure success in a lot of different ways, but i look at our job creation rate. we used to be at the top of the charts and now at the bottom of the charts. bureau of economic analysis says we are being beaten by west virginia, ohio, new jersey, in terms of economic growth. our property taxes have actually gone up. we aren't doing as well as we should do. and i think we need to look at that and say, this is what we need from our state government, to set the table for robust economic growth. i'm a fan of the private sector. i come out of the private sector. i built a business, actually twice. but i also know that while the private sector is going to drive this process, we need a government partner that will set the table to make sure the private sector -- that the market works. that's what we need to do and that's what we haven't done and that's what i will do as a governor.

>> can you lay out for us your tax plan basically, it has been reported and if this is incorrect, please correct me you want to 5%, personal income tax on higher wage owners. that's incorrect? let's lay out your tax plan. do you believe most people of pennsylvania pay enough on personal income tax? >> here's where the 5% rate comes from. this is a miss conception. the ap reporter asked me to give him an example of how my plan would work because a traditional progressive income tax would be unconstitutional in pennsylvania. so we need a flat tax. i was giving him an example of how this would work. i said, peter, this is an example. this is not what i'm proposing. but what i'm talking about, what i'm talking about is a tax system that is fair. having been secretary of

revenue, having been a business owner twice i understand what a state government has to do to make sure we are setting the table for private sector growth. we cannot overtax or create tax burdens that are unfair to anybody, families, individuals or businesses. if i'm elected, i will do my best to make sure our tax system is fair. a fairer tax system, one that is actually good. >> when you say fair, do you believe most people of pennsylvania pay enough income tax or does that need to be increased in some ways because people are looking at the situation and think we need to raise more taxes? and they have painted you as the guy who wants to raise income taxes and businesses taxes. but let's talk income taxes and business taxes. do most individuals that pay that number, are they paying enough taxes to make ends meet in your view? >> i'm talking about a tax

system that gets people to the point where they are paying that i think is propose. some people are paying too much. and the middle class hasn't had a tax break in pennsylvania over 20 years. our property taxpayers are paying too much. we have the highest corporate net income tax 9.99% in the united states. that's too high. i believe there are people who are paying too much. >> most tax payers file separately and not jointly. >> but again state. state. not federal, state. >> if you look at where we are in pennsylvania. i think there are a lot of people in the middle class and we need to figure out where that break point is and need to have a system of taxation that does not overburden the middle class.

>> governor corbett, would you like to respond? >> sure. \[laughter] >> as the secretary of revenue, i know mr. wolf knows that, that the budget must have as much money coming in as is going out. can't spend that which you don't have. it has to be a balanced budget. so when i look at the spending, trying to figure it out in the plans that mr. wolf has put out and increasing to 50% education, state's share and we haven't determined what is fair and that is $3.5 billion. returning the billion cut by ed rendell, that is another.

there are a lot of people in the middle class and we need to have a system of taxation that does not overburden the middle class and ordinary pennsylvanians. >> would you like to respond? >> sure. \[laughter] >> as the secretary of revenue, i know mr. wolf knows that, that the budget must have as much money coming in as is going out. can't spend that which you don't have. it has to be a balanced budget. so when i look at the spending, trying to figure it out in the plans that mr. wolf has put out and increasing to 50% education, state's share and we haven't determined what is fair and that is $3.5 billion. returning the billion cut by ed rendell, that is another. we have added it up and we believe that his increases in spending would be about $6.5 billion.

the question is, how do you tax? where do you get the money? i what is going to be fair? and honestly, i think it's time mr. wolf share his plans rather than stand up here and say, we are going to have to figure it out. give us your plans. >> the budget they claim was put together with smoking members and people are saying no way to make the numbers add up without a tax increase. give us your plan, do you think it can be done without a tax increase or one of those moments we level with the pennsylvania people?

you tell me. >> number one, with me, the people know that they are going to have someone fight to make sure to keep our spending as low as it can and not tax them. somebody who is working to protect their tax dollars, mr. wolf indicated there will be a tax increase. you have to figure out what it's going to be. that's number one. and i know gene is right down there in front of me. it's always timely that it is the silly season. since the middle of the summer we have been in campaigns. but this isn't the first time this has happened in pennsylvania where we had to borrow money against future revenues and we under stood it. both parties have done it. i want to grow the economy in pennsylvania.

the first place you have to look at is what are the cost drivers. $610 million. that's what we have to spend new every year for pensions. and you can't walk away from the question and the answer of having to deal with the pensions of pennsylvania. why do i say that? the fiscal year 1718, our contribution from the state to pensions will be $3.3 billion. every time we sit down and look at creating a budget, first thing we have to look at, at least under me because some of my -- in fact my predecessor did not completely fund.

that is the starting point. to makeerstand we have ends meet. when i went back to my business i had to do that, to make sure that our expenses were in line with revenues. the first thing i did was to try to make my revenues grow and i did. that is the parts we need to look at. we have to look at how we're going to make ends meet in terms of keeping our expenses in line with existing revenues. what we have not done is make those revenues grow. we have not set the table for robust economic growth and the proof is in the numbers. we have not done that. what the auditor general and the state treasurer revealed last week was not something that

happens routinely in the course of any business or state. within two and half months we were already burrowing money. to pay bills and not just investment bills. these are bread and milk bills we are paying with that line of credit. if you look at the chart that was in the treasurer's report it cast -- casherage balances and the 2013 cash balances on a daily basis and 2014 in then projected. all of us in business, one of the things i would do is look at my cash balance. my cfo is here. he and i do this together. we have done this for 20 years and if i had a cash balance that look like the states right now business and that's it every year you are getting worse in your of your revenue

revenues are going down. there is no bank that will give a line of credit. that is the problem we have in pennsylvania. we do not have a business plan that is working. governor called pensions a crisis. do you believe that the legislature has not been able to come to terms on some pension plan? thisam not sure where issue is. we have a problem. if we do not do something it will become a crisis. we need to make sure that we knew what the governor said we need to do which is to adequately fund our pension system. we have not done that over the past 10 plus years. governors past and present have not done that. >> if we keep up with that pattern we will have a huge crisis because just like a credit card will the balance goes up every year we do not fully pay off our debt.

we have not been hang off our debt over the past 10 plus years in that balance is been going up. we have got to stop doing that and it is not just talk about plan design. what we need to do is pay that ill that we did not pay for the past 10 years. if we find a way to do that we are going to have a solution to this problem. what it promises i am not going to kick the can down the road. >> one minute rebuttal. >> i am surprised. we are disagreeing on how to do it. we are talking the same thing. i am looking at budgets growing. i'm looking at the cost of the budget growing because of health ofe, medicaid, because contracts we have in pennsylvania and just the cost of business continues to grow.

we have revenues growing. i have yet to see any country that has grown its economy by taxes. i guess 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 revenue. i heard him say 9.9% is too high. we agree. everyone agrees. we could be tracking a lot more business coming to pennsylvania if we could lower that like we are about to illuminate the capital stock and franchise tax. like we eliminated the franchise tax. that is a start that you have to control your spending first. >> let's pivot to the issue of marcellus shale. critics say your refusal to have an extraction intact's has left hundreds of millions of dollars if not more on the table. how -- why do you oppose it when

every other state in the nation it? has natural gas has >> we talked about this a number of times. we tax that industry and we tax it differently than a lot of other states. we have a higher corporate net income tax. we have a personal income tax. her -- when you are talking about the industry you're not talking just the big corporations. you are talking the small businesses. are small businesses that supply the industry and continue to work with that. you're talking about the employees were getting good salaries. we are getting revenue. point $5 billion in revenue since 2008 because of the taxes that we started -- we imposed. we did add the feed. you asked me about it if -- before. i called -- recall during my campaign governor rendell saying

-- he said if we put a tax on marsalis shale we will get $100 million a year. we put an impact fee because the communities are impacted. that impact fee in the first year brought in over $200 million. run overyears it has $336 million. that is a little bit to the state. it has gone to every county in pennsylvania so we do get that revenue. no other state has an impact fee on natural gas. we are the only state that i look at it this way. we are trying to grow relatively in industry here pennsylvania. we are trying to attract businesses. high taxes does not attract visitors. everyone in this room would agree with that. more difficult tax climate does not do that. here is what we are trying to do. come to pennsylvania. intention of

exploiting any of our natural resources whether it he timber gas.al or wood or natural i want to work with the industry's so they employ the people of pennsylvania. >> i believe the gas industry could be a game changer for pennsylvania's economy. i have actually ran a business and i understand how important tax calculations and tax considerations are for any business owner or business manager who's trying to make a decision on where to locate a business. but a 5% severance tax is not a burden. if we do it right we can make the gas industry a partner with the citizens of pennsylvania. doing this economically responsiblely -- responsibly we could make it a economic game changer. that's why i'm talking about a severance tax.

but my severance tax is not meant to kill the goose that's laying the golden eggs. i'm saying let's share some of that gold with the people of the pennsylvania and make sure the people and the industry benefit. >> now i want to direct the question to you, if i could. so your ad says it would raise $500 million and your most recent ad would raise $500 billion. which is it? is it enough with you tax that one industry to pay for all the things you'd like it to pay for? >> it's not a enough. the reason for the change -- i thought the number was around $600 million, we had more wells. we had a higher price and so the estimate that i have seen most recently says that would raise about a billion. i don't know.

i don't have a crystal ball. i work better with calculators. the estimate i'm using is that would generate about a billion dollars. some of that would have to go back to the localities. some of that would have to go to funding needed regulations and oversight from the e.p.a. some of that would create a bridge to a sustainable future. a big part of that would go to things like education. it's not enough in and of itself but it would be a start. >> governor, minimum wage, this is for both of you. you don't need to take the full two minutes. minimum wage is right now 7.25. the proposal is to raise it to 10.10 or support. support it or don't support it? >> i support the federal program and the federal level. because frankly, i don't want to see people have to work on minimum wage. i want to see them be able to get a job. that's why we're changing the education system from a 20th century model to the 21st century model. that's why we're encouraging more of our children in high school to take a look at technical schools to depet a

technical degree or two year degree or become a carpenter or a laborer or a plumber. 245% of the population in the trades today are 55 or older. if you are looking for a job in the future you know that those are coming and we absolutely need them. secondly, because of the great work that my secretary of labor has done and all the people in labor, we've created a job gateway site where people in pennsylvania can go and look to see where there are jobs. today that site on average shows about 200,000 open jobs, 200,000 open jobs. i have to be the each teacher year and ask every one of you. raise your hand. how many of you have at least one job that you're looking to fill right now? put your hands up. ok, a whole handful year.

now, the people may not be trained, and that's our job in education to get them trained for that. our career links. we've been working with our career links and the work force investment boards all across pennsylvania to bring everybody together and say how can we get that person out of a minimum wage job working at a burger king or something like that, how can we get them the training that they need to get a good family sustaining job? that should be the goal of government. >> mr. wfl, one minute, do you support raising of the minimum wage? >> yes i do. but i would like to ask the governor. it's one thing to talk about specific things that you're proud of but overall, how are things working out for us? the unemployment rate has gone up for the past two months in a row in a time when the national economy isn't doing that badly. what we're doing here isn't working. i'm not talking about partisan ship. i'm talking about open your eyes.

we all run a business. look at what's going on around us. it's not working. we've got to acknowledge that. minimum wage i think that's something we ought to increase. i agree with the $10.10 an hour from $7.25. now, there is economic theory that says that could not do good things for jobs, but there's also a good economic theory that says it actually will. in my own business when i went back to a company flat on its back in the construction industry, i raised hourly rates by a great deal. not only did that not destroy jobs, it actually increased them. >> ok, we are just about to closing comments. i want to give each of you one question. just for you, i need a 15 second answer if i could. i'm going to begin with you. a look at your campaign donations other than your sl, the biggest contributor have been union.

can you give us one area where you disagree with the union agenda? quickly. >> first of all, my second largest donor is a private business owner. >> ok. >> but i have gotten generous contributions from labor -- in the primary i did not get the endorsement of the traditional democratic. i am a free agent. what i'm getting right now is support from organizations who agree with me. i'm not making anything up. in my business i share 20 to 30% of my net profit with my employees. that's because i understand how important my employees are to the success of my business. i don't know anybody who is successful in business who doesn't understand that. i understand that. my contributions have come to me, i think, because people believe what i believe makes sense. they support that.

i am not pandering to anyone. >> thank you. last personal question to governor corbett. polls suggested this guy has had a big lead. what do you make of that? do you think there were mistakes made in the first term and what would a second term look like? >> in 15 seconds? >> take 20. >> and the clock's not on. first off, everybody makes mistakes, ok? have i communicated the best? probably not. i made tough decisions. i was hired to change the culture of harrisburg. maybe we didn't communicate that well. i know we went from an 8.1% unemployment rate to a 5.8. if i can control some of the things that are going on in washington with the cost of health care, with the whole cost

of obamacare, that would be one. second term, i can't answer that. i want to grow pennsylvania. i think i'll do it in my closing. >> ok. let's set the clock at two minutes. ladies and gentlemen, closing from tom corbett. >> thank you all for being here. i certainly have enjoyed this. i hope you will have enjoyed it, too. [applause] ok, that cost me five seconds of time. you know, this has been such a wonderful experience for my wife sue and i. she's here now. we really enjoy seeing the people of pennsylvania, all the people of pennsylvania. we're in a much better position than we were when i took office. no more $4.2 billion deficit. no more relying on the federal government to balance our budget.

new jobs coming to pennsylvania. recently we reported by insight magazine, we're the number one state in the northeast, number four in the country for the establishment of new or the expansion of corporate headquarters. why? because we have created the atmosphere for businesses to come and grow from jobs in the private sector here in pennsylvania. we have built the foundation. but what am i really looking at? i didn't make any one one of my decisions as many do and i'm not that good of a politician because i try to keep my promises and look to the future, not to two, four or six years. because we have a responsibility to do better. not to give debt to our children. not to give debt to our grandchildren. i believe many of you here have grandchildren. every day i get up and i look at the picture and many of you have

had to suffer of looking at my picture of my soon to be 3-year-old grandson and i talk about him. i'm looking at him and all your grandchildren because we need to leave a better state than just today. i'm happy to say that sue and i became grandparents again to identical twin boys, elliott and theodore and i want them to have a better pennsylvania. that's why i'm doing this. thank you. [applause] >> mr. wolf, two minutes. >> well, again, thank you to the chamber for hosting this great event. thank you. you've been a great hon audience. i look at this challenge as governor again coming out of the background i come out of in much the same away i looked at my business when i went back to it in 2009. it was flat on its back. i saw some great virtues, great

potential, great inner strength in that company. i turned it around. i worked with all of my employees and we turned that into a very successful company over the last four or five years. and i did it not with ideology, not with partisan camp, but practical problem solving. that's what i brought to that business and i think that's what we need to bring to this state because as a citizen, i look at my state and i say i don't like the report that the auditor general and the state structure put out last week. i don't like the cash balances that seem to be deteriorating each year. i don't like the fact that we're not creating jobs the way we used to create jobs in pennsylvania. i lament the fact that our schools are being hollowed out. i think when i look at those things as a citizen, the state i love, we need a fresh start.

i think we need to go in a different direction. i think we need a new governor. thank you very much. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, regardless of your politics, you have to appreciate that these two gentlemen have put themselves out there. can we have a have a big round of applause for tom corbett and tom wolf? [applause] campaigns we other are phone is i will governor's race. they debated over the weekend. here is a portion. i am only repeating, not accusations but the lawsuits, even the state auditor said the governor has mishandled the investigation of the secret sentiments and there were more secret settlements

that the staff said there were not. leader,re going to be a you needed to be a governor who will be open and transparent. it is just unacceptable that the governor stands in front of us and says he is open interest parent and has nothing to hide when that is all to have been doing. -- open and transparent and has nothing to hide when that is all they have been doing. it comes from legitimate sources , the state auditor's office, the courts, and individuals who have taken the time to sue him personally and his office. these are not in the actions of a governor who can lead. chris governor? -- >> governor? iowa not illinois. they know me. [applause] i have been a totally open and transparent.

and i have a press conference every week and i take the tough questions from the press. anybody can file a lawsuit but i can tell you, we work with the auditor. there was one agreement that was agreed upon before i signed the executive order and signed a later and when it was discovered it was the case, it was change. they eliminated the confidentiality clause. that has been in force. i will continue to enforce it. we want to extend to local governments and the legislature and the house passed it with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. my opponent and friends in of the senate killed it because they do not want the public to know the truth about what is in those competition files on employee personnel. i think the people of iowa deserve to know because it is their tax money that is paying it. >> iowa governor branstad

debating his competitor, jack hatch. you can watch it at c-span.org. >> for the third time this year, governor chris christie travel to new hampshire. christie is currently the chair of the republican governors association and while in the state, he attended a stump ground rally. the new jersey governor has been mention as a possible 2016 presidential candidate -- candidate for the gop.

>> they, everybody. >> hey, everybody. >> nice to see you, sir. welcome to new hampshire. >> happy to be back. thank you. >> hi, how are. .ood to see you again >> god bless you, sir. >> thank you for coming today. > how are you?

indiscernible conversations]

>> i had to come and my friend is going it get a picture of me with you. > all right. ndiscernible conversations

indiscernible conversations] >> we are going to do it again. we'll win this time. how are you?

>> governor, nice to see you. thank you.

>> we're certainly grad to have governor christie back in the great state of new hampshire, helping republicans and helping me get out of and spread the message of economic and job prosperity of our state, a critical aspect of the election. governor, good to see you. > i'm thrilled to be here. this is exactly where i thought

this race would be come the middle of september. we're going to work as hard as we can. ll be up here and also the r.d.a. will be playing a large role in trying to get walt's message out there. i'm thrilled to be back here, but in the end, this is his campaign. he has done a great job through the primary. prime ary. he we are reaching out to independents and democrats. i'm happy to be here and we'll take a few questions. >> governor, this is your third visit, you were here in june, july and now you're back again. do you feel like since you spend so much time here that in some way you're on the line here and your future political

aspirations are on the line? >> no. what i do is come here to help. no one is going to see my name in the ballot in new hampshire in 2014. everyone is going to be voting on him and good for them that they're going to be voting for him. he's the guy that's dedicated so much of his life here and what i dost come here to help. that's all i do. it's always about the candidate. everybody that comes to help is a little bit of help but in the end, it's about him and that's why i think he's going to be a winner because he's a winer. >> how much do you think he will spend on the race? >> i can't tell you. this is a guy who is worth envesting in. e see it as investing. i told all of you this was going to be a competitive race. i could sense it and now all of the objective indicators are there for it because we have a

really good candidate. that's why i supported him in the primary and that's why i'm supporting him now. >> [indiscernible] >> we saw what the democrats did to the economy in new jersey. that's what i've been cleaning up for the last five years, the mess they created a decade before i got there. i'm not looking to take advice from democrats who screwed up my state and now are trying to blame me for it: no, i don't this i so. >> governor do you think looking past november -- >> i don't look past november. you got to rephrase your question. i got 48 days. those are the questions that i'll answer. i don't look behind beyond it. >> let me try a different route. what's your view on isis? >> i have not been brubbing up on foreign policy. the fact is what i spent my most

of my time is first and foremost running my state, and secondly helping folks who are friends of ours like walt and others who are not in office. i'm not in nush to talk about isis. i'm i'm up here to talk about why walt would make a good governor. >> [indiscernible] dern >> no. i've invested money in pennsylvania. we are going to work hard to protect tom and to advocate for his reelection as governor of pennsylvania. i put my money where my mouth is in pennsylvania. we've now spent over $6 million and we are going to continue to fight hard in pennsylvania. >> are you going to come back? >> you bet. i'll be in coordination with walt and his campaign.

whatever walt thinks is best in terms of me being help helpful, that's what i intend to do. when walt asks me to come up, i'll come up. >> what is it about -- [indiscernible] >> i saw a candidate. the atmosphere plays somewhat of a role, and that's helpful to republicans, the national atmosphere. the fact is when i spoke to him and i was firsted introduced to him, when i first spoke to walt i could tell this is a guy who is extraordinary bright, very hard working and had a vision and a plan for the future of new hampshire. those are the elements you really need to be a credible candidate rblings especially in a place like new hampshire. so that's what i saw. i also saw the governor's record and it hasn't been a great one.

when you combine an incumbent who is underperforming significantly with a guy who has the smarts, the honest and integrity and a vision for a better future of new hampshire, i say it's going to be a good race. they vote for the person, not for the party. that's why walt would be a great candidate. >> governor, anything about new hampshire -- >> people are really smart up here. they understand public -- politics. you asked a real le good question. i love being chalervingenchinged. when i get challenged. i love coming up here and campaigning in front of people who really understand politics nd believe it's an important i'm glad to be

back here for walt as many times as he asks me to come back. we are going to win. this is a good man, a good candidate. he should be a great governor. i'm looking forward to working with him. >> thank you. [applause] indiscernible conversations]

>> governor, can i have a picture? >> sure. >> thanks so much. > thank you. >> it was a great game when you're the father of a girl who's going to notre dame and it was actually my birthday. it was a lot of fun to be there with my daughter on my birthday.

h, my gosh, hang on. >> i'm a new jersey native. had to say hello. >> i know you're here for new hampshire but are you running for president? >> i won't make a decision until next year. >> ok thank you.

>> thanks. > thanks for your hard work.

>> we have an opportunity right now but it can't >> we have an opportunity. thank you and god bless.

[applause] >> lord, have mercy. >> good job. [laughter] >> watch out. [laughter]

[indiscernible]