this answer, this hope. the political debate over this research is forcing many of our brilliant scientists to think twice about whether they should stay in this field. i know how dedicated and passionate they are about helping all of us find answers who are pained and suffering. if we keep dragging this debate back here to washington, in congress and in the courts, more and more scientists will either find a different research avenue or move to another country where they can pursue the promise that embryonic stem cells possess. once and for all i urge congress to pass unambiguous legislation that allows this research to move forward. i grew up around racetracks and my family has won the indianapolis 500 a total of nine times. the goal of every driver is to pass under the black and white checkered flag first. the meaning of the checkered flag is winning. right now i can see the flag waving for me to go by, but with this current court ruling i feel that i have been driving under a long yellow caution

flag. today i came here to say that this research is real, promising and hopeful to me and to others as we want so much to take that checkered flag and win our battles over diseases that constantly challenge our quality of life. thank you very much. >> thank you, ms. unser. we now have two more votes. .

>> human embryonic stem cells work. in 1998. we have only had 12 years to work. they are related to bone marrow transplantation from the 1950's bu. we have had decades of work. in 1955, all the patients died. he went back to the laboratory to find out why he was not able to do just transfer it from one patient to the other. you have to match the immune

systems. the first successful transplant from an unknown donor was 1969, 14 years later. we apply this criteria of abandoning greasers that has not had success in 10 or 12 years. the nine of them when that exist today. -- then none of them with fixes today. >> one line, you said cells are different in important ways. i understand you have a grant to examine this very issue. tell me why this research is so important? what are the future discoveries that can be spurred? >> it is a major question to compare it this new and

exciting research against the embryonic stem cell. we have won such a grant. i am losing a lot of sleep over the future of that grant. when the intervention was in place, it is threatened. it was going to be pulled. very promising projects where all at risk. what our research has shown is that where as our panel is to make these cells as close as possible as to the others despite our best efforts, and there are still some differences. understanding those differences are essential to understand how they will be taped and all our research project.

add to return back to the embryonic state, and they remember where they came from. that can be in it vantage. we are working with cells that are derived. eight your interested in treating the disease or a leader disease predict liver disease, the fact that the thing in this may athwart your research. it is so ignorant about how these new stem cells will function. we continue to depend on an rihanna extend cells. >> dr. collins, i see these people that have been cured. i've had people like that in my own office who had stem cell treatment in another country.

they come in and openly testify that now they can walk. one person had heart problems. why do we make of all this? >> the examples are exciting. to see the potential that is here. he was sent to appear reduce said something that god gave this to is for understanding whether our treatment works are not, blinding and recommendation. if we have not applied those standards, in the have to be skeptical. things happen and had nothing to do with the intervention. >> a blinding? >> the patience and investigators cannot know whether that individual received the new treatment. brenda visitation, patients can randomize one of the other city

do not have a bias. for all of this involves, and so an effort has been put through, we have to be a little bit concerned about whether it to the journal lies. -- has been generalized. the research has not yet reached that standard in terms of the spinal cord results. i think it is very exciting to see how that is. i'm not saying we should be supporting the research. but the clear about what we consider to be proof of research. >> i have to go vote.

i will give you a minute. >> he is correct. what i am saying is we need the funds there is a problem and that this is a surgical technique. they are actually putting the tissue into the spinal cord the bi.

we need to move in as directions. it is expensive. quite the thing funding should be prohibited? >> this gets -- i am here as a scientist and not as a giving a personal opinion. as a scientist, what i came here to say is that in this country

is that we need funding said they can become standard of care. it is not to anyone in the go to treat five or 10 patients. >> i thank you very much for being here today. you are a courageous young woman. thank you for moving ahead with it. i thank our whole panel. thank you for being here. i am sorry i have to go. thank you very much. thank you all for being here. i and start i have to run. >> thank you senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> up next, treasury secretary

timothy geithner testifies about china and the country's budget. >> for me or anyone else that is considering this, i think the real question is, if you have a politician for the direction the country should have it? do you have a set of experiences that show you can handle it. crying up in minnesota and the eight years of governor. that is sunday on c-span. let's not a house hearing with timothy geithner. the tax-cut efforts to get in to raise the plight of their current da.

houg>> we will be here shortly bu. we very much welcome news. we are sorry for the two prthe delay. it is a shorter delay them expected. we all look forward to your testimony on this vital issue. we have a copy of your prepared

testimony. thank you for submitting it in advance according to our rules. that is not always happen. why do not you proceed if you would like? we have agreed to waive our opening statement because of the importance of this. all of the people who a been able to make it to our colleagues who want to be able to participate. why do not you get right into with your remarks? your full statement will be printed. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i look forward to our discussion or hearing. we have significant debate.

u.s. exports to china are growing very rapidly, more rapidly than our exports to the rest of the world. the good to resell and china have% prison and a guy you about 36 so far this year. -- the goods we sell to china have risen 36% to china so far this year i want to provide a candid assessment. china took the very important step on june 19 when it announced it would renew the reform of the exchange-rate regime and allow it to move higher in response to market forces. in the three months since the

announcement, the chinese have allowed their currency to depreciate by 1.5%. it has actually depreciated against the weighted average of the currency. the pace of appreciation hasn't celebrated. it would offer the prospect of a meaningful change over time. it is the judgment of the imf and the limited movement and income gains in china the size of the current surplus and the substantial level of ongoing intervention that the chinese currency is significantly

undervalued. we share that assessment. we are concerned that the pace has been too slow and the extent of appreciation to limited. we will take china's actions into account as we prepare the next foreign exchange rate report. we are examining what makes the tools that might encourage the chinese authorities to move more quickly. the two key factors worth highlighting but the pace and extent of appreciation in the exchange rate and the level of ongoing intervention. as it moves closer, the level of intervention should decline. it to support the judgment that it remains undervalued. during the last period that they

allowed the currencies to move higher, it appreciated about 20% against the dollar and 13% on a real basis proposed china has combined the% of a growth strategy with the protection and provinces for the domestic industry. it is a simple principle of fairness that american firms should have the same rights in turn by chinese companies for t. china pursues a range of industrial policies to promote indigenous innovation and promoting innovation and technological advancements in china. the chinese government played a very large direct role in the economy thursday it owned

enterprises and other input to domestic production. china has yet to sign on to the disciplines. piracy and a threat of intellectual property is still widespread th. we took action to address the surge in u.s. imports from china. our anti-dumping program provide protections for u.s. companies. yesterday, the announced the following.

[unintelligible] we are not in the process a carefully reviewing the evidence presented in the petition by the united workers position. we are also exploring ways to encourage a more substantial improvement in intellectual property protection in china. we are pursuing them at the highest levels of the u.s. government. we have seen some progress. we welcome the recent assurances by the chinese government, including the president's statement that china will commit. we want to see that fly more

consistently. we want it extended to exporters. this is the basic premise of the multilateral trading system. we welcome your attention to these issues. we will work closely to find ways to best protect our economic interests. we need a more balanced relationship with china. this is an apparenimportant for. >> i'm going to take my five minutes and limit myself to that. according to the roster, there are about twice as many on the majority side. mr. secretary, reading your testimony, i think he may agree.

the heart of it is what i agree here regarding this issue. the judgment of the imf said it is -- the renminbi is cigna mcginley undervalued. -- is significantly undervalued. we are concerned that the pace gratian has been too slow -- of appreciation has been too slow. we will take china's actions into account as he prepared the next foreign exchange report. what makes of tools those available to the u.s. a multilateral approaches might help encourage the chinese authorities to move more quickly?

later on, you say the administration is using all tools available to insure that workers can trade and compete fairly with china. the question is whether there are now and the tools that are available. my own judgment is that there are not. i want to bring this home. there are new technologies being a player in the solar industry five years ago, china is on track to produce more and half of the world solar panels this year. 95% will be exported to

countries like the u.s. and germany that offered generous subsidies for consumers. by contrast, at the chinese government has modest solar subsidies for the citizens. "china is on track to make nearly half of the world's wind turbines this year. they protect those developing industries." of the currency issue is not the only one. when these american companies start with a 15, 20, 25, 30,

35, it is [inaudible] this issue of currency becomes not the radical -- theoretical but real. i was in michigan at a barge solar plant -- at a large solar plant where the manager said the steps are not taken in five years, they will be out of business. also the panels will come from china. -- all solar panels will come from china.

it is true of so many products including the new technologies. this is no longer an academic issue, a theoretical issue. this committee needs to take into consideration whether there are the tools available to make sure the situation is rectified. if not, the prediction will be true that in the coming years we will lose any chance to compete. lhevinne and currency rigs the -- a reading ahead -- rigging currency rigs the playing field predic. is committee has the obligation to see if there are adequate

tools to straighten out what is an unfair advantage. >> thank you very much. i do not think there is a need disagreement that the arm misaligned. the last report was almost three months late. i believe that is unacceptable. it complicates congress's efforts to deal with the lack of progress. i hope you can assure is that the report will be issued in a timely manner in october. >> do you want me to respond? >> just briefly and then i have more. >> it can actually be done in a

timely manner. >> thank you. before senate banking this morning, you set out to test that any legislation needed to meet. you said it must result of more benefit than harm. i agree. i think it could run afoul over wto obligations. the commerce department recently determined the chinese currency regime is not need test set out in u.s. statute. i would like to insert that decision in the record. >> i do not think that says it exactly. >> let's put it in the record and have them read it for themselves.

>> we have heard a lot about congressman ryan's record. >> that is not my judgment to make. i am not in a position to give a legal assessment. that is a judgment that the lawyers would make. i like to refer you to them. they are looking at that basic question. i know have their -- there have been many concerns. we will take a careful look at that. >> i would be interested on your thoughts at a one to get a chance to look at it. this is our fourth hearing on china this year. it is very frustrating to have that prope. who have not ever had the trade representative.

it the tape and masses -- take that message back and try to get us an answer. if we make a mistake, what avenues did the chinese have available to them? any approach we adopt will change the practices we are proud about. it has to be affected. -- effective.

i suspect we are going to find a hard thing to agree on. we have to be careful on how we approach this. >> the chinese would have action they could take it that were found not to comply? what would some of the action speed? >> we are not one to lead that destroy us.

but they could expose the united states to deputy retaliation, could in not? it could be -- to wto retaliation, could not? >> of course. if we took action that was inconsistent, it could be challenged prep they could take additional action. that is why this is a difficult balance to get right pepc wing need to do things that are consistent. >> thank you. >> thank you.

in our deliberation, we listened yester day about different ways we could go. you are the one that is the primary director of that. i'd like to hear you discuss the prospect of going alone or going multilaterally through the wto. it seems like you could declare that china is a currency manipulate your and move ahead with bring a suit in the wto. or you could do some kind of international support. i'm with like to know your ideas about that. secondly, do you need us to push you? the constitution says the

congress writes the laws and you implement them. i am trying in a transparent way -- we say we want a country that operates by rule of law -- it doesn't look like we are using the lollaws that we could. maybe you need is to strengthen or force or position. >> i think it is very important that china and hear from the congress from republicans and from democrats about how strong the concerns are about the impact on u.s. economic interest about many of the practices we have been discussing. this is a serious issue for the american people. we are serious about it. is

it is not sufficient to year just from me or the president of the united states. there are a lot of different ways for you to make clear to them. what is the right mix? i'm talking more broadly about the trade challenges we face. we have to use all those devices. as many think we are talking about are a huge concern. the more effective we are in making these international issues multilateral issues, the more likely we will have its impact the behavior. >> stopped right there. if we file a suit with the of the steel, with the european union and other countries join in that suit?

they let us walk the plank all by ourselves? >> our experience has been so far that it is mixed. there are occasions and which other countries have been willing to stand up and expressed concern. often, they like this to carry the principal burden of that. we have to figure out ways to make it more compelling to them to join as more visibly. >> one of the things i think troubles all of us is that if we are the ones you are seen as the bad guy the rest of the world could say we do not want to deal with those guys. why do you deal with us? suddenly, we are -- i am interested in the way you think

you can draw them into support our efforts to read it and allow them to stand out. >> i'm not going to claim dramatic vistas for the samples. in the halls of the imf, we make sure that the imf is providing sensible candid judgment about the level of under evacuation and the implications for growth around the world. that help make it clear that this is an issue for the global economy and not just for american workers. n20in the g-20, we need to make sure these questions are at the center. it helps allow was in a way that

makes it easier. the year seen stronger growth in the rest of the world. there are expanding opportunities for trade. more the trade concern domestic demand. >> who set the agenda at the g 20? >> they work in close cooperation with the previous chair and the forthcoming share. we always play a central. >> thank you.

thank you very much. you can sense the frustration people feel. i think we all represent the opportunity. when the complaints we hear is the force partnering. it also has the impact of driving down opportunities from . that is prevalent in the financial-services. >> i want to reinforce the basic problem.

if you want to sell to our market, we want you to come establish a joint venture. we will need to transfer your technology to our company. we want you to export to the united states. that behavior, we find that untenable. we are invested in a long effort to try to change that approach. we export tens of billions of dollars of many that and projects. we are making gains.

we find it fundamentally unfair. >> i think there is a fundamental appreciation that managing this relationship is the most important. your press serbian -- your press a parent is recognized. -- perseverance is recognized. a 1% rise is hardly a staple of progress. >> i would never claim on the exchange rate paleocene anything more than 1.5% and that is too small to make a material difference. it is our objective to make sure we translate that into a much

more substantial gain overtime. i think that is reasonable. you never hear me over a claicl. even with the challenges, this is a hugely important and productive set of export opportunities for companies. we are clinton-gore more rapidly, where it to benefit the middle class. a stronger will have to come from china. >> thank you. >> thank you for calling this

hearing. a i agree the current policies in the impact on american manufacturing are important issues before this committee to consider i suspect that if he actually talk to many of the american companies that create manufacturing jobs, these would take a backseat to an issue that has been neglected. as members of this committee are well aware, it is set to expire at the end the ways and means committee has yet to hold a single hearing on the impact of this looming increase.

you have repeatedly stated that e support a tax increase on $700 billion by allowing tax relief to expire purdah it would fall on the income of successful small businesses that are creating jobs at less capital formation of large employers. i am very concerned that this tax hike and to affect it still stands in the way of economic recovery. in addition, several officials have suggested that the united states should impose a brand-new

value added tax or a v.a.t. it functions as a hidden tax would because built into the final retail price so consumers do not know how much tax they are paying. this means that it is politically easy for the government to raise the rate to pay for new spending initiatives. imposing a v.a.t. on top of the existing income tax would represent a huge tax increase on the american manufacturers. much of the cost will be passed along to consumers with the burden falling most heavily on senior citizens and middle-class families.

president obama has repeatedly pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year,. can you give us any sort of assurance that the administration will not support or propose a v.a.t. >> no member of the team has proposed that we establish that. let me say a few things about what we believe is good policy. the most important thing we could do to make our country stronger it will have to do a policies we pursue his here in the united states. what we believe the most important thing to do is to give americans the certainty today that the tax-cut go to 98%

of small businesses and we keep tax on dividends and capital gains low. we do not want to see them go above 20. we would like to give the people certainty that it to be law of the land going forward. if we wait any longer, it to be bad for recovery. anything they do to buy new capital of men will be fully expense. an expansion -- that a long flat with a multi-year program to restart the investment in america's public infrastructure we think will be there for a long term growth where we

disagree we want to make the middle class tax permanent now. we do not believe it is the policy to leave in place those tax cuts for the tax2% of americans. they will have to sustain tax cut for 2% of americans prepare their only passed because congress let them expire. we think this of the irresponsible for the country.

we think it is better for us to join together quickly. >there is nobody in the administration has put in place. >> as much as a lullaby to engage in this conversation, the me focus on china. china is an important trading partner. they are a very important

country in the world. they have proven that the we should all applaud them for what they are doing. they are doing what americans have been doing so good for decades. it is up to us to make sure we keep them a distance for where we have been for a long time to repai . when the principal lieutenant, you enter impossible to make sure you put their country in the best position for th. the reality is that china are not living as compete for contracts when comes to their

government contracts. they are not protecting our intellectual property, movies comedy beedis, music like they agreed they would. there are ways that could be improved this. have a right to protect what is ours. we have perhaps loss 1 million or more american jobs. we have known that china has been undervalued th. month as if we do not recognize it there simply wanting to compete. we need to stay ahead.

we know how to get ahead. i think is important to get some wind. what has been done have not been. it is time. it is time. i believe we have to negotiate from a position of strength. i am hoping they will recognize this. this is the people's reaction to what is going on with china.

they are trying to speak to the chinese government. hopefully, they will recognize what we are trying to say. i do not believe we are trying to say that we will kick them. it is not the we do not want them to have an opportunity to compete, but i think that when we see this happen and we know the rules aren't being abided by we have a right to stand up for our workers and our business. this is not a unilateral action on our part. this is a reaction to another country is doing to us. they are doing this unilaterally.

if they can act unilaterally to make it seem more in expenses, the me have a right to act and our business whether it is unilaterally or not. while we could do is give our workers a fair chance to compete. i do not know if i can ask a question. you have done a remarkably good job of trying to explain how important the relationship is. i hope some of us are able to speak to you and communicate to the chinese government that this is not about trying to get on the case of these chinese. when seen this picture before.

-- we have seen this picture before. we should fight for those workers in america. we ask you to give consideration to what we are trying to do. you can compete when you sit down and negotiate. thank you. >> your time is expired. >> [inaudible]

you can provide the tools to be engaged. >> i do not think his microphone is working. hold on. i want to make sure your microphone is on so we hear all your words bu. somebody came by and pushed it off. i will try it again. the concept here was the we would have the resources to make sure that they did play fair. i appreciate what my friend just said.

the chinese are hysterically a great entrepreneurial country. they are making great progress. you kindly pointed out that the $700 million protect the probably would have been barred from the chinese. -- borrowed from the chinese. i think it is a little frustrating that we have not use the tools as aggressively, and the thousands of pages that were filed in the the real one complained the president made a compelling case here to join by a businessman here. i kept track this summer every

day. for 21 days, there was a story on the front page of the times or the chinese were cutting corners. they were taking it vantage. -- advantage. it seems to me at some point there has to be a limit to our planning by one set of rules when our friends in china are adopting a whole toolkit, including senate cannot buy off the shelf and some that are not legal. i have decided to sign on the legislation from my friends. 20% to 40% gap and poor performance for a dozen years

put this at a disadvantage. i appreciate you have to be careful and circumstance -- circumspect. it seems to me that this committee are going to need some sense that we are going to be pushing back in these areas, that a variety of things that would be unconscionable for us to do and going to be met with firm resolve using all the tools a favorable to us. -- available to us. i am looking for something that goes beyond carefully crafted statement. those events that have been supportive of going to need something to indicate that the pact makes sense. >> i very much share the frustrations of the committee.

the only way this system works is if people plan by the same set of rules and there is a basic balance in the system. if we lose this sense, it is very damaging. one thing that this change is not just frustration with currency. it is that businesses across the country are finding that environment much more adverse and harder. they are much more concerned about the net incomimpact of the policies. i think we have been impact. the way our system works, we

have an obligation to decide whether it is not merit. there are a set a clear benchmark will we have been chosen to act. we will take a careful quick look at it. a lot of it is contained in the case that echoes the concerns. . .

>> we are carefully looking at it. not just to assess is consistency with our international obligations, but to examine the basic question as to whether it will be effective. that is an effort where my colleague, ron kirk, and his lawyers will be the lead in.

>> i appreciate the work he is doing. i want to continue on that vein. you would decline to go on record in support the bill as written, is that correct? >> that is correct, but do not read too much into that because we are, again, -- a lot of careful work has gone into that. we're going to look at all the alternatives. we want to get this in a better place. >> what are your concerns? what the administration budget concerns? >> i guess i would just a pre what i said in the beginning which is that -- repeat what i said in the beginning which is that for this stuff to work, it has to be consistent within our international obligations. we have to be confident that if we take action under it, it will withstand a challenge and it will give us a good ratio, a

good balance of benefits. we will look at any idea to that basic premise. any new legislation, any changes to existing legislation, any new proposals. >> is the legal challenge the only concern you have? >> no. as i said, making sure this is consistent with our obligations is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. meeting that test alone does not necessarily mean it will work if deployed. that is a typical calculation. i am not sure people could agree on that. >> is that a valid concern? >> img can be all over the board. -- imf can be all over the board. >> the merits or that we take an

independent assessment so that we are not judge and jury. the problems with that are that this is important to us. i generally do not like to delegate these responsibilities to anybody else. instead of other complications, as the german employed at the beginning, there is no science or determination to the degree of undervaluation or over valuation of exchange rates. all we can say with confidence in the chinese case is that the currency is undervalued and probably significantly so. it is hard to know why would prevail. that judgment could change overtime. even today, those in china who believe the currency should be stronger, cannot be sure help or

they think it would make sense to let it go. this is a difficult and complicated question. when you get into thinking about the levels of misalignment. >> you prefer to retain that decision making? >> it depends on the structure of it. there are lots of different ways to do this. we would certainly in making these judgments look to a set of independent assessments. we want to make sure we make the strongest possible and nation. -- johnny possible foundation. >> -- strongest possible foundation. >> mr. etherege? u.s. and questions for the record? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am have a number of questions for the record. it is a concern for everyone. i will concern -- allison met

mine for the record. -- i will submit mind for the record. >> earlier this week you said that china has done a very, very little to let its currency appreciate anything approaching market value. in my estimation, the united states has also done it very, very little on our and to ensure that u.s. manufacturers and workers are not taken advantage of by chinese policies. i am glad you corrected the record about taxes. since that is not what we are really talking about today, but i am glad you cleared the record because anything that the administration has suggested and

recommended and anything discussed in the congress right now is going to be paid for or we will not pass it. no one mentions that major difference -- fax do matter, although we are in the silly season, they still matter. you seem quick to dismiss the possibilities of using your term, leveling the playing field, about the fact that was referred to a few moments ago by my brother. the trade lawyers advisory group says it is a disadvantage to u.s. producers and exporters as a result of china's selected application. that is $55 billion in 2008.

my job in terms of what we are talking about today in the larger problem is to protect the businesses in my district. it is to make sure that they are competing in the true open- market and not what we think of. i have heard today that we do not want to overextend ourselves in showing the chinese government how tough we are on this issue. the chinese or one-quarter of the problem. we are the major part of the problem. at yesterday's's hearing that we had, some witnesses noticed that past, multi-lateral exchange-rate negotiations -- we had those when president nixon was the president in 1971. the past and insisted on an

import surcharge. the results of that are very, very interesting. when people would not shape up -- he did something about it. you may not agree with what he did, but he acted rather than simply define the debate by the negotiations emptiness. and then, one other time that i can think of, in the smithsonian agreement of 1971 -- this is not unusual. this is not a retaliation on the part of the united states at unfair practices in other countries. it is just an attempt to make sure that our folks -- our folks talk about the anxiety out there and about the economy. our 07 tremendous amount of anxiety in my district. -- our -- they want to see a

message from us. concrete rather than just negotiation. we do not agree? >> absolutely. i do not think that telling people we are talking about a problem raises confidence that we are going to solve its. you are not asking me what i would support today, the measures you refer to -- >> no, i did not ask you that. you can tell us what you thought of them since you brought it up. >> i would not support those actions because i think they would be deeply damaging to all the things we are trying to do which is making this economy stronger and making sure middle- class incomes are growing rapidly. anything that makes that test i will be strongly in favor of. i think it is important to recognize that we are dealing

with the basic problems of the deep economic insecurities because of the low income gains that preceded the prices -- the crisis. if we are going to make a difference, we had to do things that help the middle class now, encourage investment in this country. we had to do it in ways that are fiscally responsible. we have to protect americans from unfair trade practices. i think it is important to recognize that if we can find ways to resume, to improve, to engage in new trade agreements with some of the largest trading partners in the world, that would help, too. we will expand opportunities for american exporters and we will see more jobs at home in parts of the country where we are making things people need. >> i want to make sure that we can protect our domestic worker. we have not done a very good job of that by either party for the

past 35 years. we have not. i am suggesting something concrete. >> i want to point out that we live in a different time than the nixon administration. this negotiations were done within gatt compliance. those negotiations applied across the board to all countries. there is a difference. mr. secretary, thank you for coming before us today. as i look at this, it is important to recognize that we need to look at it from two perspectives. adequate tools and leverage. i have deep concerns about the ryan murphy bill. it but -- it invites a lot of retaliation. we're dealing with complex economic relationships. it is not just about currency. one of the tools that we have not had any discussion on is the bilateral investment treaty.

many of our competitors are using these year peak -- competitors are using these. the european union are embarking on these negotiations with china. we have not heard much from the administration on this. could you give us an update? >> you are absolutely right. we are the pioneers of those agreements. they are a very good way of making sure we are protecting the interests of investors in the chinese market. we are committed and are putting resources into try to get those resources to dance more rapidly. it takes two to make this work. you are right to highlight it. i am personally very in favor of moving forward. we have a good record of protecting u.s. interests and workers. >> secondly, with regards to leverage, we heard from embassador shapiro yesterday.

he mentioned it using the g20 form. is there any consideration to put a time line on the negotiations to deal with the currency misalignment and some of these other issues? secondly, what are we doing to engage other countries in a bi- lateral fashion as well as the european union? could you haleh some of that? >> -- could you highlight some of that. >> it is going to have to happen over time. it will not happen in a week or three months. we will not know if it will be enough. this is something we will have to be pursuing over a sustained period of time. become a nation of the simi-

annual exchange rate report, the meetings of the g20 that happened three or four times a year provide other benchmarks and timetables. we are using every approach we can find. we are using the img to reinforce the basic case that this is a global problem. we are trying to make sure that china understands that this is something the world economy has a great stake in. it is not just us. even if it were only us, we would want them to change their practice. i think that that has significant potential. i do not think that, on its own, it will change behavior. ultimately what will change behavior is for china to decide that it is in their interest to

protect intellectual property so that their inventors had the same protection we have in the united states. >> it has been politicized.

>> can i just say on this issue, mr. chairman, when we, the united states, act to protect our interests internationally, there is nothing political in doing that. that is the way the system works. that is what people do. i think china understands that, although they always say when we raise these concerns that we are being political. these are things we had the right and obligation to raise. we will do so over time as long as we can. i just want to underscore something you said, which is that it is very important that the major chinese companies that depend so much on the expanded export opportunities in the world understand that this is a real problem. it is their interest as companies that is at stake. the ministries in china like the ministries of commerce need to

understand that china's economic interests are directly at stake. thank you. >> thank you. >> just to be clear, first mr. rendell. >> mr. secretary, i think you have been doing a fantastic job in terms of our economic recovery. it is unfortunate that it has not had much of an impact on the unemployment. most americans are growing to the frustration of trying to better our economy. this is an a long issue. i had the impression that you never discourage the committee from expressing the concern that our business people have or the frustrations that we have with the people's government of china. you always had in the past taken

the position that you did not want us to move in such a crude way that it would prevent you from finding some diplomatic solution and encouraging the chinese government to recognize that this was a congressional prerogatives that was not used, mainly because you had suggested that it would not be as helpful as we thought. by the same token, we always knew that when you returned that this was a developing country. we are sensitive to their feelings. they are making some progress. we have heard that. now i know that you have given careful study to the brian murphy bill. the president's frustration is that whenever bill he has or supports, he knows that what

happens -- that one half of congress is going to support it. you can bet your life that just saying no is part of the minority party's view. having said that, i can see why you are making a careful study of the ryan murphy bill. is there any way i can find the language to ask you that after you study the bill, could you possibly tell us what the president would support in terms of declaring china a country that is manipulating its currency. i know that under better circumstances we should have bipartisan support on farm policy and foreign trade, but that is not a reality now. my question to you, mr.

secretary, after you do all of your careful studying and we do all of our careful studying of the bill that some of us have concerns about, would it be wrong to ask you to recommend it to us how you would like this to be handled legislatively? if you think we have reached a point where diplomacy is not working, we do not want to be the bull in the china closet, but there does come a point where diplomacy does not seem to work and you need a little more wind under your wings to work this out. >> i just want to clarify one thing. i am not arguing for patients. i am not suggesting that because china is a developing country that we should sit back and wait for them to develop. >> i am sorry. >> that is not my position. absolutely not my position. just to clarify, from the moment

i came into office, it has been might view that it was very important for us to encourage china to let its currency starts to move up again in response to market forces. at that point, as you know, we were in the midst of a devastating global financial crisis and china had decided because of the crisis that they were going to hold the currency stable for a period of time. at the same time, the currencies of all of our trading partners fell sharply against ours. china made it clear to everybody that until they were confident the crisis had receded, they were very reluctant to let the currency move. we spent the entire time, though, try to encourage them that that time should come sooner. they waited until june of this year. after they had more than one

year of solid growth to let the process began again -- they had a limited 1.5%. their recovery is very resilient. their exports are doing fine. their economy is doing fine. we think they have substantial room to let the process work. i am not arguing for patients. i am not asking the congressman about the particular merits of this legislation. i am just telling you today that what the truth is, -- >> i am over my time. i just ask the question as to whether or not the administration to suggest any legislation that would allow the congress to declare that china manipulated and it would be positively received by the administration. i did not state ryan murphy.

i said in a legislative solution. >> i will give you my personal commitment. we are willing to work with you on try to design legislation consistent with our obligations internationally and be affected in giving us leverage to advance these interests. i know what i said. we're committed to working with you on that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your testimony. i want to talk about tax policy. you indicated there is a direct connection between tax policy and deficit and that aspect of our economic relationship with china. early this week, the republican leader in the senate, senator mcconnell, put forth a proposal that would add $4 trillion

additional debt. it will essentially double the deficit over the next 10 years. currently, as i understand the figures, china holds about 10% of the united states debt. by my calculation, it the extrapolate out that if they continue to purchase debt, but it is about $400 million of debt purchase by the chinese if they decided to do it. that brings me to my second question with respect to the danger of these long-term deficits. it will have a drag on economic growth and jobs going forward. i want to get back to you at the end about your opinion about the impact this will have on job creation. as you indicated, during the previous administration, they enacted tax cuts for a wide group of americans. the tax cuts for middle-class

americans, 98% of the american people, were set to expire at the end of this year. we are now saying that we want to extend tax relief for 98% of the american people and we should not hold that tax relief hostage to giving the top 2% a break. we hear this argument that it will have been impact on small businesses, but the non- partisan joint committee on taxation has indicated that number one, only 2% of small businesses fall into that category and, what we find further is very interesting because it the look at the definition of small business, you find a number of hedge funds that are somehow classified under the small businesses. yes some members of the fortune 100 that are classified in that category. a lot the big washington lobbying firms are classified in that area. i think it is very important that we put an end to this myth

that this was somehow impact small businesses. i do not think anybody would consider an entity in the fortune 100 a small business. that alone would add $700 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years. with respect to the chinese currency situation, i think your testimony says it all without reaching the ultimate conclusion -- conclusion that i think many of us in congress are reaching. he indicated that he believed that the chinese currency is significant undervalued. he say here on june 19, 2010, china took an important step when it announced it would renew the reform of its exchange rate. he pointed out three months later that the chinese had allowed their currency to appreciate by only 1%. they did get some credit for making that announcement.

but at the same time, they have to get the criticism for not having that anyone's expectations when they made that announcement. to my mind, there is no way to send a signal that we are serious without the congress moving forward on something. whether it is the bryan bill exactly the way it is written or with some changes, it is my view that congress should act now. you have an upcoming report in october. it seems to be there is no way given the fact that he will be able to go back a report that they are in compliance. something has to be done between now and then and i believe we need to take some action. let me just end up with this question because there is this intimate connection between our deficits and our relationship with china. what do you think would be the end pat on our economy, jobs, and features -- impact on our

economy, jobs, and future growth? what would be the impact on jobs? >> congressman, let me answer the question this way. let's contrast to proposals for what to do for the american economy today. ohr proposal is to extend and make permanent all of the bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for the top 2% of americans. i will be the alternative proposal, which is the president's proposal. we get the tax cuts to the middle class and we put in place new incentives for business investment in the country. if we make permanent an extended credit for research and development conducted here in the united states, that we jump- start a multi-year investment in infrastructure. if you compare the impact on the economy on growth and jobs on those two strategies, i am top

dead at the present's strategy -- i am confident that the president's strategy will be effective in the short term and the long term. the short-term effects are indisputable. the combined impact would be more powerful on short-term growth than the alternative. the impact of long-term growth is hard to measure, but the key difference is that under the proposals supported by many republicans in congress, we would have to go out and borrow $700 billion, and that to our national debt so that we can give a very expensive tax benefit to 2% of americans that, i think, no economist they will effect the stimulus. i think that would undermine confidence and investors around the world if we were actually serious about bringing our long- term deficits down. when the things we have learned

of the past decade is that tax cuts are not free. we have to pay for programs we put in place. deficits matter. part of our ability to get growth we started, people back to work, and people confident in their future that they had to be confident in washington that people will make some tough choices about the long-term deficit. if we extend this tax cuts for the richest, they will lose confidence. i think that is the trade-off. >> thank you. under our rules, i think i need to ask mr. sanchez to go next. -- miss sanchez to go next. >> i would be willing to hear from the size first. >> you are very, very kind. mr. davidson -- >> i would respectfully disagree

with my friend from maryland on his assertions about the $4 trillion in debt. i think that statement is a strong man. myself, i know of many economists that take a very different view. i would suggest that we have a spending problem more than a revenue problem. one thing i would say, the gentleman's assertion about the lack of support from the majority -- i would like to assert into the record a letter signed by 31 members of the democratic caucus asking specifically for the extension of the current tax policy to provide some predictability and stability to the economy. >> no objections. >> thank you. changing the subject back, taxol see is an issue. -- tax policy is an issue. i would like to bring the focus back to china.

looking at asia right now, we all agree that the chinese currency is undervalued. it is a problem. it effects the -- it affects the ohio valley. it is of concern to me personally. where people start to disagree on this is how we should respond. the ryan murphy bill is one approach. other approaches have been altered. al effective to you think u.s. action -- how effective do you think u.s. action would be in getting the chinese to appreciate their currency? >> i think for any action to be effective, it has to be able to withstand a challenge. we have no independent capacity to act. our agreements -- i think that

where those tools can be effective, we should use them as we are. we have to see if they can withstand a challenge. there are a range of things we have the capacity to do to meet that test as i mentioned in my testimony. >> ok. thank you. finally, one thing i have noticed over the several years with quiet diplomacy, we have seen an appreciation from 2005 to 2008 by 20%. whether any lessons we should derive from this? >> that was a very substantial, meaningful change in china's currency behavior's. it was interrupted because of the crisis. what i would get from that experience is encouraging. i think it shows that even with a gradual move, you can have a very big change in relative prices in the basic economics of

the relationship that had big benefits to american exporters and american workers. it is promising. the reason why i thought it was important to highlight again deep fat that on june 19 china said they would resume the process of reform, they described that strategy in 2005 and 2006 as a long-term reform. they describe the period between 2008 and mid-2010 as a temporary suspension of that strategy because of the crisis. now they are resuming it. i look back and see that even a gradual move over time can bring substantial changes. >> thank you, mr. secretary. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. secretary, was the so-called stimulus to large or too small? >> i believe, and i think this is a fair judgment based on what

the cbo says, the stimulus had a very substantial effect on restarting economic growth and saving millions of jobs from the risk of loss. if you look back over this time and look at the combined effect of what the recovery act did and what the federal reserve actions did, you had an economy that was in free-fall in the first three months of 2009 and the second half of 2008. we have not seen anything like it since the great depression. that came to a stop and you saw were to restart, actually remarkably quickly. even though we are digging out of a hole too slowly and even though we have a long way to go, it is important to recognize that job creation by companies in this recovery started 18

months before it did in the recovery of 2001, 2003. even though we are still facing a lot of challenges and as americans try to recover from the crisis, will see a tougher recovery. we are growing. we have been growing for more than a year. we had job creation come back sooner than we did in the last recession. the recovery act was decisive in that. it made an overwhelming difference. it had a mix of very substantial tax incentives as well as support for infrastructure. it made a big difference in incomes. >> so in answer to my question, it was it about right in your view? >> that is a hard desmid to make. >> was it too small, too large? >> evin the ec private-sector healing -- even though you see

the private sector healing, we are not coming out a bit past enough. if washington does nothing, then we will risk having policy having an -- having a negative impact on growth. the debate we should be having is what is the best way to provide support for the middle- class and? we are seeing private investment in the first six months of this year increase at a rate of 20%. you are seeing pretty encouraging signs of companies investing again, but it will not allow us to bring the employment -- unemployment rate down fast enough. what we are trying to do is to make sure that we are getting

more confidence and more incentives for businesses. >> your f -- your answer is that it was too small? >> recoveries that all the financial crisis paul 8. where americans were living with fund -- follow a crisis where americans were living beyond their means. it is time to heal that. we are not prepared to make the mistake that so many other governments have made in the past, which is to to quickly decide that the obligation of government is over. what that will do is push rates down. the best way to avoid that risk is for congress to act. it is not something we can do. we need congress to act to extend tax relief to the middle-

class. we think there's a very high return. as many republicans have said in the past, a very high return and well-designed tax intent is for investment. we think we have put those in place. businesses can be more confident that they can add to what has been a healthy rate of recovery. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> not at all, mr. chairman. secretary geithner, the state of california has arguably lost the largest number of jobs due to a post of unfair chinese trade policies. my district is ranked 32nd out of all 435 congressional districts in jobs lost due to unfair chinese trade. we have now had two days of testimony where we have talked about and argued over what degree that chinese currency is

undervalued. the fact that the matter is, to have consensus that it is significantly undervalued and that does provide a disadvantage for our exports. that is in relation to chinese exports in this country. i am curious to know, several people have suggested different ways to get past the problem, whether the obama administration as a position of the currency reform and fair-trade act which is a bill that was presented. it has 143 co-sponsors in the congress. does the administration have a position on that bill? >> the administration has not taken a position, yet. we are taking a careful look at it both in terms of whether it is consistent with our

obligations and whether it has the right mix of leverage. we are looking at it carefully, but we have not taken a position yet. >> ok. i would like to ask you, clearly we are not the only country that suffers from unfair trade practices. they are stuck in the same situation. i'd like to our situation with china to children on the school yard. they agreed to the ground rules of the game. china is the 800 pound gorilla on the block that we find is cheating at the game. there is consensus among everybody playing the game that there is something underhanded and unfair going on. people are grumbling about it. let's take the analogy one step further. they are playing for lunch money, let's say. yet, nobody seems to want to stand up to the cheater because

they all fear retaliation. i go back to my former background where there is power in numbers. i have to believe that other countries like brazil, japan, the european union have a vested interest in seeing china play by the rules. rules, i might add, that they have agreed to in treaties. my question is, why do i tell my constituents or small businesses in my district who had been financially impacted by unfair trade? what can i tell them other than we want to talk to them about this problem? what can i tell them that the administration and you are doing to help remedy that situation? i believe we have hit this critical juncture where we either stand up for ourselves now, or china grows too big and too strong and we are for ever at their mercy. i do not, quite frankly, i

relish the thought that the united states ends up in that position. >> alike or analogy a lot with one exception. people are concerned with the challenges we face in this country. we are the 800 pound gorilla. it is not even close in relative size. we are the largest economy in the world. we are the most productive economy in the world. we are vastly far ahead of -- >> therefore, would we not had the leverage to stand up and do something? >> excellent point. your exactly right to say that they agreed to follow the rules and it is our job to make them all the rules. we have two basic things that we have the authority to do, even with current law. one is to make sure that american firms can use our anti- dumping laws to import safeguard

loss to make sure that they are protected from unfair trade practices and surges in imports from china. we are using those lawless very effectively. the second is that we have rights under the wto to make sure that if china is doing something to limit access to their markets, that we can take them to the wto and make them change their practices. we are using this tool is very effectively. we have a long way to go. we are having an important debate, as many of you have said. we are in he did agreement of the objectives that we face. the challenge we face is what is the better set of additional tools or beverage or persuasions that we can use?

we're working actively with other countries around the world that compete with china. many of these countries may have more adverse effects on them. we are going to try to use all of those tools and, of course, work with you and your colleagues to find better approaches. >> i appreciate your answer. i would encourage you to take a look at currency reform. with that, i will yield back to the chairman. >> i think that was an appropriate place for questioning to end. it has been a long day. i think he started over on the senate side at 10:00. you have had meetings in between there and year. we really appreciate not only your time and not only your talent, but your dedication. we are proud that you are here

and you'll be hearing more from us. we'll be talking to each other. with that, thank you mr. camp. we stand in adjournment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> c-span's local content big locals are crossing the country. we are looking at the most closely contested house races leading up to november's elections. >> there are only a certain number of congressional seats that are highly competitive. they constitute very good opportunities for republicans to pick up a seat in congress. this is one of them. >> it has always been one of those races that is a barometer of what will happen nationally with either party. it has always been that way.

i think there's always a lot of interest in it. that is not what is important to me. what is important to me is the way i represent the people of indiana. >> we have the democratic incumbent, baron hill. he has served since 1998. he was defeated one time in 2004 and won his seat back. he is challenged by republican todd young. he is making his first run at any public office. it is a very interesting district. it runs along the ohio river in southern indiana. it seems to be homogenous, but there it is actually quite a lot of diversity in terms of political thought. you have areas of bloomington, one of the most liberal areas of the state, in the northern part of the district.

you have a big swath of area where people consider themselves democrats. they elect democrats locally, they elect democrats to the state house, but they tend to vote republican for the president. you get eight real mix. the result is, even though the district can be considered a democrat district, there is a lot of southern indiana conservatism there. you're not sure how that will turn out. one of the things that makes the district interesting and very expensive for candidates is that it is covered by four different media markets. little, cincinnati, indianapolis, and evansville -- and none of them are majorities in the district. your advertising dollars to not go very far.

the cincinnati market is mostly covering ohio. the little market -- louisville market is mostly covering ky. >> i think we will be explaining some of the boats that were controversial about health care. he had a chance to explain to the individual voters why he supported the health care plan and what he thinks it will mean for that individual. he feels like he can make a real difference. the question is will he have the money and the time to get that message out to enough people. says todd young is a first-time candidate, it will depend on his ability to raise money. he has to have enough money to have enough advertising to affect the district. you have to rely on a lot of

radio and a lot of cable television. you got to spend big bucks on advertising in major markets. i hate to say it, but money will play a huge role here. mr. hill is way ahead in money. todd young was raising money at about the same pace. if he can keep up the momentum and ec's and national groups, in, -- and you see national groups come in, that is the difference. >> social security is not a huge problem to correct. we corrected it under ronald reagan. we are now at a time where we have to readjust again. the commission is going to get it and offer recommendations. those recommendations probably will not be forthcoming until we get to december. then we will have to vote the

whole package up or down. we will fix social security. we'll not privatize it like of my opponent wants to do. >> i met the fact that congress has been so irresponsible with our finances that they spend our retirement money on everything but our retirement. they passed stimulus packages, pork-barrel legislation is, we have programs like social security that has to be preserved. there are others in this race that support privatizing social security. >> i can see that social security will be a big issue in this race because there seems to be a difference between where republican todd young stands on the issue and where his democratic challenger stands. you have to distinguish where there's challenges lie. barron hill will try to

distinguish his opinion from that of todd young. they will talk about privatizing social security. todd young will spend a lot of time bringing up some of barron hill's past votes. there will be some debate about that. there is a big concern in the district about federal spending. barron hill is considered somewhat conservative and i -- somewhat conservative in spending. i expect todd young to spend a lot of time talking about the federal budget. there are so few races in the country with the districts are competitive. those of the places where we always watch to see what is going to happen. this happens to be one of them. this is a big race.

you have a democrat here that did vote for some of the major things president obama was seeking. he is also a guy that is somewhat conservative. it will be a test of how voters are feeling about incumbents in the democratic party. >> c-span is local content vehicles are traveling the country visiting committees and congressional districts as we look at some of the most contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections. >> for more information, go to c-span.org/lcv. >> if you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, the debate to be i was governor. after that, president obama campaigns in connecticut for richard blumenthal. later, a conversation with vermont senator bernie sanders. >> for a when considering public

service, the real question is do you have a positive vision for the direction the country should have? a specific idea that can implement that vision ensure that you can handle it and get it done? >> tim pawlenty on a potential presidential run, growing up in minnesota, and his eight years as governor. that is sunday on c-span. >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal" donna edwards joins us to talk about her party's prospects in the november election. after that, david limbaugh discusses his new book. after that, brigham mccown will discuss last week's pipeline explosion in northern california.

watched "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern. the two major party candidates for iowa's governor met for their first debate this week in sioux city. chet culver, a democrat, is facing a former republican gov. terry branstad. this debate is courtesy of kcau television.

>> good evening, i'm channel 9 tv in sioux cit >> and i'm with woi tv in des moines. we are your moderators for tonight's debate. this is your first chance to see and hear iowa's two candidates for governor make their case about issues that are important to iowa's future and yours. >> and we are fortuteo have tonight's event here in the sioux city, auditorium. the beautiful sioux city orpheum theater in downtown sioux city. it's going to be broadcast and streamed live across the state of iowa by kcau-tv and by woi-tv in des moines and whbf-tv in the quad cities. >> our partners in this debate, lee enterprises and their newspapers, the sioux city

journal, the quad ty times, waterloo courier and the mason city globe gazette will be streaming this debate live on their web site as well as doing some live blogging this evening. additionally media com cable is making this broadcast available to other parts of the state that they serve on connections channel 22. >> here's how tonight's debate will work. the panelists will have 30 seconds to ask the candidate a question. that candidate will then have a minute 30 to answer. his opponent will get a minute to respond. but amanda and i will have the option of asking either candidate a follow-up question. if we do, that candidate will get 30 seconds to answer. >> the panelists who are asking the questions this evening are all journalists with lee enterprises. first, we have mike gore, the editorial page editor for "the sioux city journal." josh nelson is sitting next to mike, a political reporter for the waterloo courier. on the other side of the stage are ed tibits and arian, an on-line editor at the mason city

globe gazette. >> in addition to the questions being asked by the panelists, the candidates will also have an opportunity tonight to ask each other a question, will also feature a question from the viewer of kcau-tv as well as a reader from "the sioux city journal." >> for audience, we have asked the audience live here in the theater not to applaud during the debate so we can get to the issues that are substantial facing iowa. >> there is one exception. that exception is now, let's introduce the candidates for v governor for the state of iowa. governor chet culver is the incumbent and democrat nominee. [applause] >> and before serving as governor, he was iowa's secretary of state. >> republican nominee terry branstad. [applause]

he was most recently the president of in university, governor of iowa from 1983 to 1999. >> now, we have determined that governor branstad will get the first queson of tonight's debate. that first question coming from mike of "the sioux city journal." mike? >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you, mike. >> governor branstad, under your watch as governor, the number of state workers increased by 8,000, spending increased by $390 million and the conservative cato institute gave yourerformance as a grade of d citing overspending and lack of tax reform. why should voters believe your campaign rhetoric of governor culver is anything more than the pot calling the kettle black. >> first of all, if you look totality of my record, you can see that we not only made iowa more competitive, we took iowa

from being one of the high-tech states to below average in terms of taxes and cut taxes by a net of $150 million. we reformed government, reduced the number of agencies from 60 some agencies to 25 agencies. and i left the state in a strong fiscal position after reforming the budgeting process, putting in place the spending limitations and we put the cash reserve and economic emergency in place and had the budget balanced for the first time on principles, we reduced the generally accepted accounting unemployment rate from 8 1/2% to 2 1/2% and i left office with a $900 million surplus. contrast that with governor culver. he's taken the state in the other direction. the unemployment rate has increased from 3.7% when he took office to 6.8% today. we have 50,000 more people unemployed and we have a projected budget deficit of $1 million and you've just gotten your property tax bill. the biggest increase in school

property taxes in 30 years, that's the difference. that's why people want my experience and leadership again in iowa. >> governor culver, you have a minute to respond. >> first of all, i want to thank kcau and lee newspapers for hosting this debate. i appreciate the fact that terry branstad has joined us here tonight and welcome to the panel and it's wonderful to be here at the orpheum theater. what a magnificent, historic place. mike, i think that's a great question to start with tonight. i am hopeful that we can really get the facts on the table. terry branstad has been misleading iowans throughout the course of this campaign. recently, "the des moines register" said he was not being honest with respect to our record. the fact of the matter is, we have a triple a bond rating. the budget today is smaller than it was when i started the job. we have fewer state employees. we've reorganized state government, saving iowa taxpayers $250 million.

according to the pugh center, we're number 2 in the nation in fiscal strength and we have the second lowest debt load in america. i look forward to a spirited debate on the facts, on the record tonight. >> our next question comes from "quad city times" reporter ed tibbits. >> i thought that was supposed to be a response. isn't there a rebuttal? >> there's a minute 30 response originally and then a one minute rebuttal from the opposing candidate and we have thoption to ask the follow-up, moderators. >> there is no 30 seconds after that. >> correct. only if we ask a follow-up. >> very good. thank you. >> sure. ed, your question, please? >> thank you. governor culver, your office said in august that the ijobs program supported nearly 7100 jobs in june. but with 115,000 iowans out of work and critics complaining that each of these jobs comes at a cost of at least $100,000, governor branstad's campaign has said that the cost per job i as

high as $240,000. could you please explain why this is a good investment for the iowa economy? >>well, thank you very much, ed, for your question and i look forward to highlighting the importance of the iowa jobs and infrastructure initiative here tonight. again, terry branstad has been misleading iowans about the facts. the fact of the matter is we've bonded for $800 million to do 1700 projects across this state, to put people to work, short term in the month of june, 7,000 people were working on ijobs projects. right here in woodbury county, 31 separate projects creating job opportunities for local folks here, investing in one of the largest sewer and water projects right here in sewer and water -- right here in sioux city, in the city's history, and terry branstad has been misleading people about the record. the fact is when he was governor, he bonded for four times as much money, he bonded

for $3 billion in short-term bonds st to keep the lights on. just to pay the bills during a time when he was cooking the books, keeping two sets of books according to richard johnson, the former republican auditor. second, ed, we're focused on flood recovery. i want to do all i can to help those communities, cedar rapids, oakville, coralville, all of those flood impacted communities recover and so we had a choice. to do something to help invest in those communities, bring the university of iowa'sampus back with $100 million in the ijobs funds or pay as you go flood recovery. as terry branstad suggested which would result, i guess, in having bake sales all across the state. >> with all due respect, you need to move on to governor branstad's response. you have one minute. >> i'm not going to resort to the personal attacks. instead, i think we need to compare the record. since i left office, state debt has tripled and it's getting a lot worse, of course, under

governor culver. i believe in a pay as you go system and iowans do, too. in fact, iowans are reducing their credit card debt. we have the lowest credit card debt in the country in this state and yet, our governor has increased the debt dramatically and the money that would have gone for infrastructure is going to pay back those bonds. it's going to cost us $55 million a year for theext 23 years. i believe in doing things on a pay as you go basis. he believes in doing it with debt fincing and he likes to brag about the triple a rating. the same wall street bonding agencies gave enron and lehman brothers a triple a rating before they went under and the stockholders lost everything. >> governor branstad, i have a follow-up question for you and you will have 30 seconds to respond. under your administration, how do you see specifically iowa's unemployment crisis being addressed and how quickly? >> well, i came in when unemployment was even worse than it is today, the beginning of the farm crisis and i worked day

in and day out, hands on to bring industry business and jobs to iowa. i want to reduce the tax burden. i want to get rid of this dysfunctional department of economic development where culver has either fired or five people have left who have mismanaged the film office. instead, i want to replace it with an effective private/public partnership that you have in the siouxland and other development groups have across the state of iowa. >> all right. our next question comes from josh nelson of "the waterloo courier." it's for governor branstad. you'll hava minute 30 to answer. >> governor, since 1962, iowa has used a nonpartisan merit based system to select the judges. how would your proposal to give the elected governor sole authority on judge selection do anything to ke partisan politics out of the courts? >> unfortunately, it's become very partisan under governor culver. we have on the judicial nominating position 12 democrats and many that are very partisan. i believe it needs to be balanced. i believe that it should be like

the other boards and commissions and state government where you have not only gender balance which you have in the judicial nominating commission but party balance as well. and if you don't have a balanced board where you have an opportunity to have somebody that you think would be a strict constructionist to a point, then you need to change the system. but i think that's one way you can do it, make sure the board is balanced and instead of having a situation where you now have a very partisan situation and you've had very partisan people appointed, many people are very upset with this. and i believe that we need to restore balance. back when i was vernor, i did not look at the party consideration of the people that came up for appointment and we chose judges on the basis of merit. in recent years, culver has appointed some very partisan including he and his predecessor both, including the spouse of a democratic senator. this is not the kind of partisan politics we should have in the judiciary of the state. we need to restore what we had

when bob ray was governor, when i was governor, doing it strictly without regard to politics so that we have merit. >> governor culver, you have a minute to respond. >> well, thank you very much, larry. josh, i think that's a great question. it's a real difference in this race for governor. i believe as a former government teacher in the importance of an independent judiciary. terry branstad wants to take that independence away. it's interesting, when he was governor for 16 years, he was all for the merit-base system. suddenly, now, as a candidate for his fifth term, he has changed his mind. he's done the same thing on bonding. i think it's time for terry branstad to be honest with people. he bonded for $4.3 billion. he never earned a triple a bond rating. he kept two sets of books. he was cooking the books, according to the republican auditor so there's really a terry vs. terry campaign going on here.

he said one thing when he was governor and now as a candidate, he's saying something else. we need to keep the independence of the judiciary system and i support that and will continue to support it as governor. >> we now turn to arian from "the mason city globe gazette" for his first question. arian? >> hi, governor. i have a question from here in sioux city. en smithfield announced on january 19th it was closing the john morel & company plant, you promised a state rapid response team would meet with displaced workers within two weeks. it took seven and still today, many former workers are confused about how to seek state help. have you done enough to assist morel workers in sioux city? >> thank you very much, arian for the question. you know, the first thing i did is i came here quickly to meet with those displaced workers. my thoughts and prayers continue to be with those that were

affected by that plant utdown. again, that was a corporate decision. not a decision that the local folks here made. i've also worked tirelessly with local economic development leaders like debbie durham here in sioux city, we've foughtor extension of the unemployment compensation benefits at the federal level, something that terry branstad opposes so the fact of the matter is those workers would not benefit from those extensions of those unemployment benefits if terry branstad were the governor. there are 30,000 people today collecting those benefits. i fought for them. i went to washington and testified in front of senator harkin's subcommittee, and fortunately, we're getting those benefits. in addition, our work force development office has worked extremely hard. we have provided services to more than 250,000 iowans. we've placed successfully 100,000 people into jobs and we've created 16,000 new jobs

since december in iowa and i will fight for those that have lost their jobs not only at morel but a any other part. any other part of the state and finally, working with western iowa tech, we have secured millions in terms of green collar job training program dollars that we hope to enroll a number of workers into those programs. >> governor branstad, you have one minute. >> the workers at john morel are not the only people that governor culver made unrealistic promises to and didn't fulfill. we have the same thing in lake mills where i came from originally, they never sent anybody to help the workers up there and i went to lake mills when i heard from the workers how upset they were that they didn't get the help. and this is the problem. we have a pattern of big promises, but they don't follow through. they don't have the people that do what needs to be done. when i was governor, i was very hands-on, involved working with the departments and agencies and we worked to bring jobs to iowa

and replace the ones that were lost. it's not always easy and you're not going to win every one but i can tell you, i will work day in and day out to bring business and jobs to replace the ones that are lost and to revitalize the siouxland economy and that all across the state of iowa. >> governor branstad, follow up with you on this. again, you'll have 30 seconds. if you could be more specific, how would you bring these jobs back? would you use a rapid response team or some other mechanism to quickly as these displaced workers? >> first of all, i'd have work force development people here right away to meet with them and then work with them and also work with the community college to help retrain people and also work with debbie durham and the siouxland -- the siouxland economic development people to bring new jobs here to replace the ones that have been lost. i work closely with debbie durham and work closely with the siouxland alliance. they are great people that are very aggressive and there's a

lot of opportunities, i think, in this area. >> thank you, governor branstad. >> all right, we have come to the point in our program where the candidates will get a chance to ask each other a question. now, the coin toss has determined that governor branstad will ask the first question and governor culver, you'll have a minute 30 to answer. governor culver, you recently had an ad that you said you'd made mistakes as governor. would you tell us what were the three biggest mistakes that you've made? >> well, terry, like all governors including you when you were in office for 16 years, we've made our fair share of mistakes. the difference is that we've taken responsibility for those mistakes. in your case, you had 20 different scandals in 12 separate state agencies you continue to not be honest with the people of this state. you attack day after day after day and i think tonight, it's important that you, you know, be

straight and honest with the people of iowa. what happened during your administration at the alcoholic beverage division, at elder affairs, at the department of transportation. agency after agency had scandals. go to chetculver.com we'll bring you with a list of those and we've taken responsibility for everything that happened on my watch. like most humans, i've made my fair share of mistakes. i've learned from those mistakes. i'm a better governor because i've learned important lessons and unlike terry branstad who has never owned up to his, we're moving this state forward and govern govern g governing better. we've made staff changes and we have terrific new leadership in place including at the department of economic development. terry branstad is not being honest but the record is 251

companies, 20,000 jobs have been promised to this state and i've worked tirelessly to bring those jobs to iowa. >> with due respect, thank you. now back to governor branstad and now you have a choice for asking a question again or having a minute response to what you've heard and governor culver, you'll have 30 seconds to respond. >> in response to my question about the mistakes he made, governor culver just launched an attack on my administration and i want you to say that i think he's made me huge mistakes. one was in 2009, passing the biggest budget in state's history when the whole nation is in a recession a then denying what the auditor and the legislate service agency said about the budget problems facing the state, ignoring it and ignoring it all year until october and then doing a massive across-the-brd cut that led to property tax increases that were now seen to replenish the money

in the school aid formula and also pushing through the legislature this massive bonding plan which has put the state in debt. money that could have gone for infrastructure over the next 23 years to the tune of $55 million is going to pay back these bonds for this ill-fated program. i believe in doing things on a pay as you go basis. that's the way we did things before. that's the way iowans do thin. that's why we have people with low debt in this state. >> governor culver, it is your chance to ask your opponent a question. governor branstad, you'll have a minute 30 to answer. >> you didn't believe pay as you go when you bonded for $4.3 billion, terry. you have been accused by a number of statewide newspapers and -- including "the des moines register" of not being honest about our record, especially as it relates to bonding. the fact of the matter is, you know that that is not adding debt to the people of iowa because it's being paid for with

a sustainable funding stream. you also know that we're number 2 in the nation in terms of having the lowest debt load. yet, you try time and time again to mislead iowans about the real record. my question for you is tonight, will you admit in front of all the voters that 100% of those bonds are being paid off with gaming revenue? >> minute 30. >> those bonds are being paid with gaming money that would have gone to the rebuild iowa infrastructure fund, a fund that i started when i was governor to pay for iowa's infrastructure. if you do it on a pay as you go basis, you can build twice as many roads and twice as much infrastructure. governor culver, on the other hand, decides he wants to do it with debt financing. and he brags aboutthe bond being paid back with revenue coming from the gaming receipts but the fact is those receipts

would have gone for good projects all around the state of iowa a we could have done it on a pay as you go basis and could have twice as much work done over the next 23 years. instead, we're going to be paying back that debt. i just believe and first of all, i guess it's important that people compare the record. when he talks about all the bonding that wt on when i was governor, the debt load has increased three times since i left office. the fact is we were very low in terms of debt financing. one of the lowest in the country under governor culver, it's gone up dramatically. yes, we're still low but we're going in the wrong direction and the people of iowa know it because they're reducing their debt while the state is following the federal example of increasing its debt. it's not sustainable. we've got to change directions. >> governor culver, you look like you'd like your one minute to response. >> so the answer in a long winded way was yes, 100% of the bonds are being paid off with gaming revenue and only if you go to a casino in iowa will you

pay one penny for the 1700 ijobs projects. let me try again. you promised to create 180,000 new jobs in 1982. that did not come true. you promised again in 1994 to create 300,000 new jobs. why and you came up a total of 470,000 jobs short in those unlfled promises that you made to the people of iowa so why should we believe your promise in 2010 to create 200,000 new jobs? >> well, let's compare the records. while i was governor, we created 300,000 jobs. while you've been governor, we have lost 50,000 jobs. 114,000 people are out of work right now. so i took iowa from 8 1/2% unemployment to 2 1/2% unemployment. you took iowa from 3.7%

unemployment to 6.8% unemployment. >> quit interrupting. let the people decide for themselves who has the best record of creating jobs in this state. >> thank you, governor branstad. >> all right. we go back now to our panelists tonight. mike has a question from a reader of "the sioux city journal." marvin nelson of sioux city. >> thank you. mr. nelson asks -- the cigarte tax was raised by $1 a pack. other fees like driver's license, auto license, hunting and fishing licensehave also been raised. if the tax on beer alone was raised, he says it would bring in millions of dollars. why has the alcohol tax not been raise ed? >> again, this is for governor branstad. you have a minute 30 to respond. >> i don't think we ought to be raising any taxes. under governor culver, yes, they did raise a bunch of fees in taxes and fines and the worst thing is the huge increase in the property tax. the property tax is the most unfair tax. it hurts people that are laid

off. it hits people that are on fixed incomes and we've just had the biggest property tax in iowa history. i mean in, the last 30 years, the biggest property tax in the last 30 years, why did that happen? because governor culver mismanaged the budget and then he panicked and instead of bringing the legislature back to make thoughtful reductions in a program, he does this massive across-the-board cut. schools have already hired their teachers. what do they have to do? either lay off teachers or raise property taxes so they use their cash reserve money, now they haveo replenish it by raising property taxes and iowans have just gotten their property tax bill. all across the state we're looking at double digit property tax increases that he hoisted on the federal government. that's not right. that's not fair. we should not be raising taxes on beer or anything else at this time. we should be reducing the size of government and i said i will do that. like governor of indiana is doing, governor mitch daniels, like the new governor is doing

inew jersey, we neeto make those tough decisions. reduce the size and cost of government and not raise taxes. >> governor culver, you have a minute to respond. >> thank you, larry. another perfect example of a promise that terry branstad did not fulfill and it has to do with taxes. when he ran for -- first time for governor in 1982, he promised the people of iowa, i will not raise your taxes. the first bill he signed as governor in 1983 was an increase in the sales tax. terry branstad suppois not tell the truth abo his record. he's raised taxes 60 times on hard working iowa families. those are general taxes, gas tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, business tax, bob vander plaats and i don't agree on a lot but both of us agree that terry branstad is not being forthcoming and honest about his

record on taxes. he's done it before and he will do it again. i guarantee you that he will continue to resort to the tax increase, something that i have resisted for four years as governor. >> ed has a question from a kcau-tv viewer. ed? >> thanks. this question comes from paula from ottawa, iowa. and she as what are your short-term and long-term goals for early education? >> governor culver, you have a minute 30. >> thank you very much for the question. this is another real choice in this race for governor. i'm the proud parent of two amazing children. my daughter claire is 9. my son john is 8. i believe with all my heart the importance of investing in our kids. my kids and all iowa children. i have fought successfully to increase preschl to 21,000

kids across the state of iowa. when i took office, only 5% of iowa 4-year-olds were going to preschool. today, that number is 90%. terry branstad wants to take $90 million in funding for our preschool schools across the state. he would take that away from our kids. and instead, he'dive it in the form of a tax cut to out-of-state corporations. this could be the defining issue in this race. again, as a teacher and coach, i believe in investing in our kids. terry branstad wants to take that away from our children and maybe tonight, he can explain why he wants to shut down those preschools for 21,000 kids in 325 school districts. in my second term, i pledge to expand preschool to every school district, all 359 of them so that every 4-year-old in this state has the opportunity to go

to preschool. >> thank you, governor culver. governor branstad, one minute. >> there he goes again making another promise that he knows he can't fulfill and won't keep. you know, when you promised the preschool and so what happens? we had a 10% across-the-board cut. hundreds of teachers are laid off across the state of iowa. and that's not the way things should be done. i support the universal preschool. but i don't think it should be a new entitlement program paid for totally by the taxpayers. i believe people that can afford it. my wife and i provided preschool for our children. and i know many dedicated parents across the state do so. some can't afford it. we should provide financial assistance for those needed. we should provide preschool for all. but it shouldn't be an entitlement program. it ought to be need based. >> thank you. >> all right. josh nelson has our next question. it will be directed to governor branstad first and he'll have a minute 30 to respond. >> governor, you've criticized gornor culver's handling of the floods -- flood relief in

2008 saying he overpromised and under delivered. if you would have been governor, what specificalhy would you have done different sldifferently? >> first of all, i would have had somebody in charge. when we had the flood of 1993, i had tommy thompson, deputy general in charge of that. we responded quickly. we had flood recovery coordination. we worked to maximize federal dollars. we had state dollars. we had unsolicited contributions that came in if people saw me on tv and wanted to help and we tried to see that nobody fell through the cracks. and we did it without borrowing money. you know, in cedar rapids, it's real -- i've sat down with businesspeople and also homeowners there. $4 million has been allocated to deal with the floods of 2008. and still, only 33% of it has gotten out to the people that need it. so he's promised all kinds of things. he's been there all kinds of times but nobody is in charge and they say that ty keep getting the bureaucratic run around from the department of economic development and from

the federal people that are involved in this. there's no excuse for that. need to have somebody in charge and that's accountable. i had tommy thompson in charge of that. in fact, he did an outstanding job and he gave a report. it was all completed and done by 1994. the flood was in the summer of 1993. less than a year later, it was done. cedar rapids flood was over two years ago and they still haven't gotten the help to the businesses and the residents that need it today. it's a crime. >> governor culver, you have a minute to respon >> thank you. wish i had a couple of minutes to respond to that. i think terry branstad just showed the people of iowa how out of touch he is on a lot of issues including flood recovery. general ron dardis, terry, has been put in charge. he's from right here in sioux city. he's a three star general. i appointed him to rebuild -- to the rebuild iowa office as the executive director. he has done precisely what you've described.

he's coordinated all of our efforts. he's working with federal officials. because of general dardis and our administration, we have secured 4.2 billion dollars. we've also created the iowa jump-start programs and iowans helping iowans programs. $100 million has gone directly to small business owners and homeowners that needed help after the floods of 1993, terry, you devoted $14 million. we devoted a half billion in state funds. >> now, governor, i have a follow-up question for you. looking back on it in hindsight, what would you have done differently with the flooding and what would you say the people of iowa city and cedar rapids about the flooding? many of them, obviously are still affected. >> well, larry -- >> 30 to respond. >> yes. you know, it just broke my heart when i drove through the night from des moines to the little sioux camp right near the camp

to meet with aaron eilhart's parents. tragically lost four scouts at that camp. i did everything in my power for months and months on end to help those impacted communities. i have been to cedar rapids 100 times to help on flood recovery. i am focused and committed and my second term -- >> what would you have differently now, though, looking back on it? >> i think our response was exactly what it needed to be. we evacuated 40,000 people from 35 cities. i called up as the commander in chief 3,000 troops from the iowa national guard, the largest deployment since the civil war in ourtate and we moved people out of harm's way. and we saved lives as a result of getting people out of the way and my lieutenant governor patty

judge, i might add has been an outstanding homeland security advisor and she will continue to be. >> with due respect, thank you. we're out of time. >> we have to move on. our next question is from arian. arian? >> governor culver, i w iowa i of 2 it 2 states with right to work laws. yet, the big labor unions that support your campaign would like to see you champion fair share, prevailing wage and expansion of collective bargaining. would these measures be good for iowans especially in this economy? >> another good question and a difference in this race for governor. i have said since my first condition of the state speech in 2007 that i believe a governor's responsibility is to try to bring labor and management together. we want this to be the best place in america to work. we want our businesses to succeed. so i've always encouraged dialogue and discussion.

i believe we can find common ground on prevailing wage, on fair share, on choosing your own doctor. i believe it's important that we try to do all we can to reform our labor laws, something terry branstad has said unequivocably, he will have no interest. without receiving a bill, he said any and all labor reform legislation is dead on arrival. i think that's a very narrow view for a governor. i think we should try to bring labor and management to the table. i believe in collective bargaining. i believe in the rights that hard working men and women that have -- that belong to unions, they have a right at the table. they have a right to have the best possible work force with good wages, workplace, i should say, with good wages and good benefits and i will continue to strike the right balance in terms of labor and management in this state and terry branstad

needs to tell us why he doesn't even want to talk to labor about any of these issues. >> you have one minute, governor branstad. >> you ow, i talk a lot to labor. you'll be surprise about the kind of support i get from labor in working with them and you'll see it. but here's the thing, prevailing wage would drive up the cost of all construction projects. try to lobby to try to push that through. i vetoed that back in 1984 and nine states have repealed it. you couldn't convince six of the democrats in the house of representatives to vote for it because they knew how bad it would be for the iowa economy. we don't need these kind of job killing ideas that are going to drive up costs and drive jobs out of the state of iowa. i will work to bring prooif sector jobs to iowa and revitalize our economy as i did before. remember, compare the results. 6.8% unemployment vs. 2.5%

unemployment when i left office and we had a record number of people working. i want to do that again. >> governor culver, follow-up for you. at the end of the day, do you feel obligated to big labor because they do support you? >> i feel obligated to fight for hard-working men and women in this state. i feel obligated to help businesses achieve their goals. terry branstad won't come clean on the facts here. we have successfully worked with 250 businesses in the last 36 months. they've agreed to create 20,000 jobs and invest $5.2 billion in our state. microsoft, ibm and google, "forbes" magazine and others have said this is the best place in america to have a business. >> thank you. we have to move on. >> we now go back to mike of "the sioux city journal." mike has a question. governor branstad will have a minute 30 to answer. >> thank you. in light of the recent ag recall

and salmonella outbreak and revelations about how one egg producer with a checkered past got around regulatory hurdles. do you really believe as you've proposed that now is the time to streamline state's ag regulations? >> let me say that i think jack decoster is an outlaw and we had a habitual violator law. we are in the process of putting him out of business when i was governor. unfortunately, after i left office, they let him transfer ownership to his son and then back to him. now, he gave $10,000 to the attorney general and $400,000 to governor culver through the democratic governors association, your largest contributor is a democratic governors association and the family gave $400,000 to him. i believe that is absolutely wrong. we have a lot of good people in ag production in iowa. and those people that abide by the law, we ought to work with th them. those people that violatehe

law should be put out of business for the bad work they've done. let me tell you what they did, they not only violated the environmental laws and the health laws with salmonella but violated bringing in illegal immigrants as well. they are bad actors and been trouble from the beginning and they seem to get off much easier than other people because they give big money to democrats. that isn't right. iowans want clean, honest, open government. i want to restore that in this case. we've had too much of this pay for play going on. >> governor, minute to respond. >> thank you. thank you. >> it is getting in the way o truth when it comes to governor branstad. question is who brought decoster to iowa? terry branstad calls him an outlaw. itas during his administration that he brought him to iowa that s former economic development director, jack bailey wined and

dined and testified in front of numerous boards about what a man of character jack decoster was so i think you've fgotten the past. it's been so long ago that you don't remember in the first place. now you want to reregulate the industry and you're not telling the uth about the contribution. the fact of the matteis your former chief of staff represented him. he got him the first hog permit and we got the record to show it at chetculver.com. >> we have to turn to ed tibbets with a question for governor culver. ed? >> governor, iowa has twice lost out on a bid to gai g ways to the top funds to help improve education in the state. do you regret supporting legislation that required school boards to negotiate with teacher unions over ways to overhaul

troubled schools in the event that money were to come forward? >> thank you for your question and i do not regret moving this state forward on education reform. what that process allowed us to do is bring people to the table. our final application will the overwhelming majority of the school districts sign on to so we can still use it as a template, as a blueprint. in terms of offering more science and math in the classroom, in terms of implementing our model core curriculum so we can raise the bar in terms of what we teach and when we teachit. i will continue to fight for our teachers. i am proud of the fact that i was endorsed by the iowa state education association. i delivered unlike terry branstad on my promises to our teachers. i've raised teacher pay from 42nd in the nation to the national average. as i promised. another broken promise and an area where terry branstad is not

telling the truth, he promised the teachers time and time again that he would raise their pay to the national average. when he started in 1983, they were 26th. he continued to promise. term after term after term. when he left office, in 1999, they had slipped all the way to 35th in the nation. i'm going to continue to fight for our teachers. i'm going to continue to fight for our kids. we're going to expand preschool to every school district in this state and we're going to continue to lead america when it comes to education in this state. >> thank you, governor culver. governor branstad, one minute. >> under governor culver education reform has failed and he hasn't been able to convince the democratic adminisation in washington to support his race for the top approach much when i was governor, we passed three phase educational excellence program working with teachers and school boards and we provided more money for beginning teacher salaries and reward good teachers that become

board certified under the national board for professional teaching standards. since i left, that's been dismantled. in fact, the last bill at the last night of the session in 2009, the democratic legislature and culver signed it, eliminated phase one money for education. so that was a big hit toany small schools that lost that money for their teachers salary and he did 10% across-the-board cut that has caused massive teacher layoffs across the state and the property tax increases that we're now getting to replace the cash reserve funds. this is not the way education reform should be handled. >> all right. our next question tonight comes from josh nelson of "the waterloo courier." josh? >> governor branstad, specifically, how would your proposal for a public/private economic development agency result in the creation of more jobs in iowa and how many jobs would be lost by immediately eliminating the current state economic development agency? >> well, the present economic

development agency has been discredited under governor culver's watch by mismanaging the film office now required or five peopleavquit from that agency. the travel budget has been dramatically slashed. they're not making the outreach efforts. if you want to sell people on jobs, you need to have people that really understand it involved. what you have here in siouxland, what they have in dubuque and many other places in iowa is a public/private partnership. i did it before when i was governor, when we started the iowa blue ribbon foundation for the state there and we revitalized the fairgrounds. so that's why i think businesspeople, not bureaucrats can be the best sales people that convince decision makers that they ought to locate and expand in iowa and having a pro business, pro growth, hands-on governor, not somebody that ignores a problem for months and now the taxpayers on the hook for over $200 million for the mismanagement of this office, and signed the bill that lets

people that don't even owe any taxes in the state of iowa get a tax credit and then sell it to somebody else. that was a bad idea from the beginning. and then it was mismanaged. they didn't have financial expertise involved in overseeing it and still, we don't know what the final result is going to be, somewhere between $200 and $300 million, the taxpayers are on the hook for and we have nothing to show for it. that's why we need a new approach to economic development and i have the experience to do it. we did it before and we created all kinds of jobs. highest unemployment in the state's history. >> the time is up. governor culver, you have a minute on respond. >> thank you, larry. and josh, that's a great question. for some reason, terry branstad has a love affair with indiana. indiana today has the 10th highest unemployment rate in the nation. it's 50% higher than it is in iowa. they are ranked -- one cy is ranked in the top 10 in terms of

cities to do business. iowa has seven cities in the top 10. their program has failed miserably. there's been scandal after scandal in indiana with respect to them lying about the number of jobs they've created. and what terry branstad doesn't know is that i've travelled to germany, to denmark and to spain. i've fought to bring nine wind energy companies to this state. we're now making the towers, turbines and blades. ibm, microsoft and google have come to iowa on my watch and we're the sixth best place in america to do business here today. >> your question, ease. >> yes,, governor culver, governor branstad just briefly touched on this matter but do you believe that the film tax credit scandal has undercut your authority and credibility when it comes to economic development

in iowa? >> not at all. in fact, we have one of the best roshdz in the nation over the last 36 months, successfully negotiated with 251 companies, just recently cgf tires from the czech republic decided to go into charles city, to create 150 new jobs. i've met with the leaders of that company for years now. we've successfully landed that company. microsoft looked at 12 states in the nation in the last few months, they decided to invest $100 million in iowa to create 50 good paying jobs. the wind energy companies that are coming here are coming for a reason. this is a great placeo do business. we're the renewable energy capital of the united states. he silicon prairie of the midwest. we now have 200 companies in the supply chain in 26 counties

supplying those nine wind energy companies. we have a record second to none, i wouldn't trade places with any governor in america tonight. this is the best place to do business. it's the best place to get an exciting job, information technology, renewable energy, instead of a brain drain. we're going to have a brain suck because we're going to keep young people in this state so they have the ability and the opportunity for those new, high-tech andexciting jobs of the future and terry branstad wants to follow the indiana model with the 10th highest unemployment rate in the nation and we're the 10th lowest unemploymentmen the nation tonight. >> governor branstad, one minute. >> well, i don't know what fantasy land governor culver lives in but i know there's 114,000 people out of work in this state. 50,000 more than when he took office. i don't think that's -- >> that's not true. >> not a very good record. and i can compare that to what i accomplished in the past. but more importantly, what i want to do in the future, by

reducing the tax burden on business and most businesses, most people that expand and create jobs are small business. we need to reduce the commercial property tax, he promised to do that four years ago and has done nothing abouit. we have one of the highest commercial property taxes in the country. we need to make iowa more competitive and we need to be pro business and pro growth and have a governor that's going to be there to help small business and not threaten them with all kinds of new taxes andurdens and labor regulations. that's right. yes, taxes. the property taxes in iowa are now commercial property, second highest in the nation and we just had a huge property tax increase across the state as a result of your mismanagement and property tax by the across-the-board cuts. >> we have one final question, we don't have enough time for a full question from the panel but here's the final question. it's a shortened version, if you whll. you'll each have 45 seconds, governor branstad, you'll be the

first to respond. i'm sorry, you're going to have a minute to respond. you'll have a minute to respond to this. >> thank you. >> so far, we have seen attack ads on tv fro both of you. so how do each of you plan to move forward with your mpaign advertising and the time left before election day? >> well, we run a very balanced approach in terms of our advertising. we've had positive ads and we've done comparison ads and i think the people of iowa have an opportunity to compare my record with his record. most importantly, we're going to share with people my vision for the future that i will be hands-on to create jobs and work with the private sector, not some kind of government debt approach which hasn't worked at the deral level and certainly is not working at the state level and it's burdening us with additional debt. iowans don't want more debt. iowans have reduced their own debt. we need a government as good as the people of this state. >> ok, governor culver, same question. >> again, i started the debate tonight asking terry branstad to

be honest with "the des moines register" number of newspapers across this state have said that he's misleading iowans, that he's not telling the truth about our record. he's saying it again tonight. we are number 2 in the nation in debt load. second only to nebraska. we have a triple a bond rating. the budget has been balanced every single day that i've been governor. yet, terry branstad continues to be dishonest about the record. what we're gonna do is we're going to continue to create the exciting green collar jobs of the future. we're going to continue to invest in power fund projects in places like emmetsburg, in shenandoah, she first commercially viable algae plant. terry branstad keeps talking about property taxes. he has proposed $2 1/2 billion of new spending in this campaign. he's proposed reducing the commercial property tax rates. the state would pay $2 billion over five years so you'd have a

$2 billion property tax increase under terry branstad. >> we've reached the point in the debate where we'll let each of you give your closing remarks and you'll get two minutes to press your ideas. that was determined by a coin toss earlier in the day. >> i want to thank our sponsors and i want to thank the people of sioux city for hosting us at the beautiful orpheum theater. this is a wonderful city. this is a wonderful state. we're facing some challenging times right now. john morel has laid off a bunch of peoe here. we have 115,000 people out of work in the state of iowa. we have an office that has mismanaged the film office and we've had all kinds of problems with in-state government but i think the people of iowa are much better than the government we have. iowans have made the tough decisions and they've reduced their debt. we have the lowest per capita credit card debt of any state in

the country. businesses have made the tough decisions. government needs to do the same thing. i want to lead a revitalization of this state. and i have set ambitious goals from the very get go of what i want to do. i want to see us create together working with the siouxland partnership and others across this state, i want to create 200,000 new jobs. i want to see family incomes increase by 25%. you know, today, last year, the task force cam out and iowa ranked 26th in terms of eighth grade math and 28th in fourth grade reading. that's terrible. when i was governor, we were either number one or number two. i want to get us back into a leadership position in education. and i want to reward good schools and good teachers. i want to restore the money that we had for teachers that became board certified under the national board for professional

teachers, that honors and recognizes the best teachers and i think we need to have strt state standards and hold schools accountable so we can get the best quality education for our children. i'm proud of this state. and i'm proud to have the opportunity to serve again. i would ask for your vote and support in the election on november 2nd. thank you very much. >> governor culver, you now have two minutes for your closing statement. >> you know, this election like all elections needs to be about the future of this state. we don't want to go back to the past with terry branstad. i am for expanding preschool to every 4-year-old in the state f iowa. i am for health care for all of our children. i am for embryonic stem cell research so that iowa can lead america in terms of finding the cures to parkinson's, diabetes and alzheimer's. i'm for iowa becoming the renewable energy capital for america. beming a net exporter of our

wind energy to places like chicago. i will continue to fight as commander in chief for our troops and our thoughts and prayers are with those troops who are in afghanistan tonight, we'll continue to fight and do all we can for t families of those troops. i will fight for our senior citizens. i believe in iowa. i believe in our future. the choice is november 2nd is to go back to the past. terry branstad is against health care for kids. he's against presoo for 4-year-olds. he's against embryonic stem cell research. he's against the iowa power fund that has allowed us to distinguish ourselves as a national leader in renewable energy he's against women's rights. he's against civil rights. he's against independent judiciaries and i am for the people of iowa. i am for moving this state forward. and i'm also here tonight to humbly ask for your vote and your support on november 2nd. we have governed through some

very challenging times. the floods of 2008. the tornadoes of 2008. the great recession that we all had to deal with, not only here in iowa but across america and around the world. iowa is coming back strong. we are growing again. we have created new job opportunities and our best days are ahead of us and i ask for your vote. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you! >> now like to thank everybody. >> thank you. >> we'd like to thank our debate sponsors, lee enterprises and citadel communications for hosting tonight's debate. we'd like to recognize mediacom for their technical support. >> and, of course, the great folks here at the orpheum theater in downtown sioux city. thank you very much for all of your support as well. and thank you for being with us

tonight. >> all right. >> thank you. \ >> thank you for turning us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> sarah palin does the annual rate in dinner. live coverage begins at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

president obama was in connecticut thursday to campaign for richard blumenthal who is running for u.s. senate. christopher dodd is at the end of this year. this is 35 minutes. >> barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you.

>> thank you all. thank you ford being here tonight. you can stand again when the president of the united states speaks. for now, please, take your seat. thank you for being here. if my family could please stand. [applause]

my oldest son matthew is not here tonight because he is finishing infantry training at a preserve. mr. president, blumenthal respectively sensed his congratulations again you are making the difference that counts but there might upon it may have more money. i've got 20 years worth of friends. you are here tonight. how let me tell you, you and i have been through tough fight before. we have celebrated victories. with your help, we will celebrate another victory this november.

a special thanks to president obama. i appreciate your suspect. it to mean semis to cynthia and me. you are encouraging our supporters and helping us raise the funds ween need to counter a $50 million attack machine. you are doing it tonight by being here. thank you. my opponent thinks she can buy this election pur we know the people of connecticut want an election