[Kay Henderson] It's been 28 years since Iowa's last open governor's race.

Which republican will be on the ballot in November?

Adam Steen, Brad Sherman and Eddie Andrews are here to make their case to primary voters in this special live Iowa Press Debate.

♪♪ [Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

[Announcer] The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

[Announcer] The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family -- proud supporters of educational programming seen only on Iowa PBS.

[Announcer] Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions.

Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships.

Iowa banks, your partner through it all.

[Announcer] For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond.

Celebrating more than 50 years on statewide Iowa PBS, live from Iowa PBS Studios in Johnston, this is a special Iowa Press Debate - the republican gubernatorial primary.

Here is moderator Kay Henderson.

[Henderson] The June primary is five weeks away.

Five republicans are vying for their party's nomination for governor.

We invited all five candidates to be here tonight.

Three of them are here on the stage.

Let me introduce them.

Adam Steen lives in Runnells.

He served in Governor Reynolds' administration as director of the Iowa Department of Administrative Services.

Prior to that, he worked in business development and consulting.

Brad Sherman is a pastor from Williamsburg.

He co-founded and was president of Informed Choices Medical Clinics.

He also served one term in the Iowa House of Representatives from January of 2023 to January of 2025.

Eddie Andrews is a tech entrepreneur and a minister from Johnston.

He's serving in his third term in the Iowa House, representing communities in the north and northwest areas of the Des Moines Metro.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Good to be with you.

[Henderson] Joining me at the desk are Erin Murphy, Des Moines bureau chief for the Gazette in Cedar Rapids, and Brianne Pfannenstiel, chief politics reporter for the Des Moines Register.

[Brianne Pfannenstiel] We have a lot of issues that are important to voters that we're going to be talking about tonight.

First and foremost, we want to touch briefly on electability.

Congressman Randy Feenstra is seen as the frontrunner in this race.

He's got millions of dollars behind his campaign.

In order to beat him on Election Day, one of you is going to have to consolidate support.

Adam Steen, we're going to start this one with you.

Why should primary voters consider you the strongest alternative to Randy Feenstra?

[Adam Steen] Yeah.

Well, Brianne, thank you for the question.

Erin.

Kay.

Thank you for being here and putting this on.

This is an incredible opportunity for Iowans to get a chance to look at who that candidate is, who that primary candidate is.

We need to look at this election as a whole right now.

I jumped in this race for one reason, and that was to beat Rob Sand.

Rob Sand right now has a tremendous head start in this election process.

He's been pretending to be auditor for seven years.

I've had the opportunity to work alongside Rob Sand for five years.

I know who Rob Sand says he is.

I know who he actually is.

I know what he says he does.

I know what he actually does.

From an electability standpoint, it's unfortunate that Congressman Feenstra is not showing up for this debate.

It's unfortunate that he's hiding in D.C.

right now.

It's unfortunate that he continues to run away.

If you look at the polling right now, Congressman Feenstra is down 12 points to Rob Sand.

From an electability standpoint, that's why I jumped into this race.

I'm a candidate that has a business background, has a faith background, has a government operations background.

I've got a vision for the future of Iowa, and I'm not going to back down.

I'm not going to stray from that vision.

We have an opportunity in Iowa right now to be a shining light in this country.

And a Steen administration is going to keep Iowa free, it's going to keep Iowa safe, and it's going to protect our families and our children.

[Pfannenstiel] Eddie Andrews, same question.

Why are you the strongest alternative to Randy Feenstra?

[Eddie Andrews] Well, thank you very much.

Before I say anything else, thank you.

Brianne and Kay and Erin.

And thank you to everyone who's actually watching and taking time to be involved in this election.

So, you are in my district right now.

Johnston.

I currently represent Johnston, Urbandale, part of Ankeny, part of Saylorville.

Do you know how many republicans win in that district?

I do.

President Trump did not win in this district.

Neither one of our two in either of those six years.

Neither one of our U.S.

Senators who are both republican, who won the state, did not win this district.

Our congressman did not win in this district.

Do you know why I say those things?

Because you need someone who can actually, like Ronald Reagan, hold the conservative banner high and still attract others to them.

Said another way, I have added more republicans than any other district in the entire state of Iowa.

Those are receipts.

Those are not words.

Those are actual receipts.

And so, if you're looking for someone to in November, be able to look at the race and look at voters and say, that's someone I can trust, whether I'm a republican, democrat, or libertarian, that's Eddie Andrews.

And one more thing on that.

When we talk about electability, you have to have someone who has actually been in the battle, someone who actually knows how that building works, knows how to get legislation through.

I'm the promises made, promises kept candidate, not just promises made.

And if you look at my track record, I have gained support every year from people who are not even republicans, because they see the work ethic that I have and that I care more about issues than checking boxes.

[Pfannenstiel] Brad Sherman.

Why do you believe you're more electable than your colleagues here tonight?

[Brad Sherman] Well, when we got into this race, we were the first ones to get into the race.

And since we got in, we've been to 358 meetings.

And all around the state.

We accomplished all 99 counties in January before the caucuses, actually.

And so, we've been hearing from a lot of different people around the state.

And I think that's one of the most important things that comes to the grassroots when you get into Iowa.

And so, one of the things we've been hearing in the grassroots is that people are frustrated.

Some of the people are looking at Rob Sand, you know, they're saying, well, I like a couple of his ideas, and they're frustrated with some of the things that have happened on the republican side.

And so I believe this hard work is going to pay off because whenever I look at those people that are frustrated with what's happening, you know, regardless of whether I agree with why they're frustrated or not, the fact is they are frustrated.

And so, we need to give them a candidate who is willing to challenge the status quo.

And I'm the only guy in this race that did I got in, I was the first guy in this race, and the only person in this race who got in when Kim Reynolds was still expected to run.

In fact, her campaign guy called my campaign guy and said, are you ready to rumble?

So, I'm pretty sure they were planning on running.

And so, I think that's something that -- how are we going to tell these people to stay involved and keep voting our direction -- by assuring them that we have somebody that's not going to be controlled by the establishment, we're going to keep going.

And so, this I think this level of hard work that I've put in here is a big thing.

You know, when we when I ran for Statehouse in 2022, it was a new district.

And the new district had no incumbent because they had redrawn the lines.

So, I got in first in that race as well.

And we worked very hard.

And so, everyone said -- but it turned out to be a six-way primary and most in the entire state -- and everybody said, well, that's going to go to a convention.

And so but we worked hard and I won that race with 55.5%.

The closest person had 13%.

And so, I believe there's something to be said for hard work.

You know, I'd love to see a repeat like that.

I don't know if that'll turn out that way.

I'm not predicting that.

But we're working hard and we believe that that grassroots work is going to pay off.

So, I think I'm the candidate that can assure those people that are thinking about voting to Rob Sand are the ones that are thinking about staying home.

Hey, now, here's a guy that's not going to be controlled by the status quo.

[Erin Murphy] We're going to jump into policy.

And I want to ask each of you about education savings accounts, which of course are the state financial assistance for private school tuition, a program for which all of you have expressed support.

Eddie Andrews, you voted for ESAs when they were created in 2023.

Do you agree with Randy Feenstra when he said recently that private schools that accept students with ESAs should be required to take all students, including those with special needs?

[Andrews] Well, first of all, let me just say you have to be present to win.

Seriously, why are we taking quotes from someone who's not here?

I will say that not only did I vote for ESAs, I voted for school choice.

The options before that, whether it's public school choice, whether it's public charters, all forms of school choice, because I believe that parents deserve the right to decide the best way that they educate their children, whether that's in homeschool, whether it's in public charter, whether it's in private, nonpublic, traditional or nontraditional.

And when you talk about all, think about this, if you are, it sounds great on the on the surface, right?

But think about when you say all, do you mean that a non, a person with a non-Christian background who won't accept the, won't sign the statements of faith or the statements of requirements for a Christian school should be required to attend that school.

I think what you're trying to get to, if I understand your question right, is should people with maybe mental disorders or health challenges -- I think if I'm reading your, if I'm understanding, I think most private schools want to accept those and are now looking to expand to their change their infrastructure, invest in their infrastructure, and certainly some of the larger ones are already doing that to a company.

All of the influx of people who are now coming to the private colleges, private schools.

[Murphy] Brad Sherman, some people have argued that the ESA program should have income limits, that not all families need that financial assistance.

Do you agree with that?

[Sherman] No.

I think whether a person has a different level of income or not is really not the issue.

The issue is, is the content of the education that the children are getting.

That's why so many people are looking at ESAs because they are not satisfied with the with the education that's coming out of the public schools.

And so, this issue, this issue of the whether you should receive all the other students or not.

It's another issue that I've heard Rob Sand talk about as well.

You know, he says they should have to.

You shouldn't use public money for private schools.

Well, first off, that's kind of a misnomer.

Public money is really the people's money.

It's the taxpayers money.

And so, you've got parents that are paying money to their taxes, and yet they have no say on what the education that their students are getting in some cases, in fact, I mean, they have a say, but they're often not listened to.

And so that's, that's why people are moving away.

And, you know, last numbers I saw, when you add federal money and everything together, the average money spent per student per year in Iowa was $24,000.

Well, the ESAs are only $8,000.

So that's like one third of the money.

So to suggest that you should take every student and provide all the same services and what have you, which has been suggested, you know, is a little bit ridiculous when you're only getting one third of the money as well.

So, you know, this is one of the issues that, you know, I think applies to the ESAs.

[Murphy] Adam Steen on this, Governor Reynolds pointed out that public schools that educate students with special needs also get extra state funding to help schools provide those services should.

Do you think the ESA program should be expanded to require private schools to accept all students, and then also provide that additional funding?

[Steen] I agree with the additional funding for children with special needs.

Right now we have a child that goes to public school.

Both our boys go to public school.

One of our children has an IEP, has a one-on-one and works with the AEA.

So, we fully support the concept of a private or independent school receiving the same IEP support.

But let me back up to Randy Feenstra's comments.

Randy Feenstra making those comments saying that every school should be required to receive any student that walks in those doors shows just how ridiculously out of touch he is for him to make those comments.

There's one person that agrees with him, one person, and that's Rob Sand.

There's no difference between Randy Feenstra and Rob Sand in this issue, and I think that's a horrible thing for Iowans, because if he is the supposed front runner, they need to know that Randy Feenstra's not only out of touch, but he's got a liberal woke perspective and he's going to be forcing Christian schools to take government intervention, which flies in the face of the whole purpose of the process and the program.

So, I don't believe we should have income limits as well.

I don't believe schools should be forced to receive who they want to receive.

And because we have a situation right now in our family, we're not going to force a school to accept kids that they're not prepared for.

But I've been traveling the state.

I've talked to independents, private Christian schools.

They want to receive these kids.

If they don't have the services ready for IEPs, they're preparing for them right now.

They're not trying to keep kids away.

They're trying to keep to bring kids in.

And the reason is our public school requirements and standards being forced upon teachers, not allowing teachers to teach are wrecking our educational system.

That's why the program is so popular, and that's why I'm going to protect it, expand it, and make sure our families and our children are protected.

[Henderson] All three of you have said that you believe life begins at conception, and state law should reflect that.

A proposal in the Iowa House this year would declare abortion a crime.

Brad Sherman, I'll start with you.

Is that the right approach?

[Sherman] Well, this whole issue revolves around one question that would, if we answer one question, we answer pretty much all of them.

Is the baby in the womb a person?

If it is, then all these laws apply and there's the bill.

I've seen the bills and that sort of thing.

So, it's really, I think 80% last I heard this number a while back, 80 or 80 plus percent of people in America believe that late-term abortion is wrong.

And so, if it's if late term abortion is wrong, then where do you draw the line?

Is it 30 weeks?

Is it 20 weeks?

Is it 15?

Is it six?

Or is it conception?

Well, it's just an arbitrary line in time.

And so, you know, the arbitrary line has to be defined.

And of course, as a Christian, I believe Jeremiah 1:5 provides the answer where God told Jeremiah said, before you were formed in the womb I knew you.

And so, there's only one place that you can go to avoid just an arbitrary line and that's conception.

So, if it's a person, it's a conception.

Now whether people should be prosecuted for participating in abortions or having an abortion, I mean, that's going to depend on every single situation.

I don't think you can make a one size fits all on that.

But if it's a person, we have to protect that life and there should be prosecutions in some cases for that.

[Henderson] Adam Steen, you said last fall on Iowa Press on this network that abortions need to be eliminated fully.

How would you, as governor accomplish that?

[Steen] Yeah, the first thing I would do is, is expand upon the heartbeat bill.

The heartbeat bill was tremendous legislation for the state, but we need to expand that, and we need to turn that into life at conception.

And back to the crime.

I tell you, what's a crime are when these abortion pills are being shipped into the state right now, and we don't know how many abortions are taking place, we don't know how many abortions are happening around the heartbeat bill right now.

So, the first thing we need to do to protect life here in this state is shut down those abortion pills and keep those from entering the state.

That is a crime because they're breaking the law right now.

And we need to protect life at conception.

And how we get there is through conversation.

It's through collaboration.

But the focus is on a culture of life.

The focus is on a culture of protecting the unborn.

[Henderson] Eddie Andrews, you're still a member of the Iowa House of Representatives.

[Andrews] Yes, ma'am.

[Henderson] What sort of abortion restriction do you want to vote on before your term ends?

[Andrews] Well, first of all, let me just say I think this ends in a week.

I think it ends this week.

So, I actually signed on to one of the life at conception bills.

I think you may have -- there are actually two, there's more than the one.

The one that I would not sign on to was the one that criminalized and put would put young women in jail.

And I'm not for that.

Here's what I believe.

I think we should worry more about how to why that person feels like they have no choice.

Yes, I am a pro-life person.

I believe in life at conception until natural death.

However, putting those young ladies in jail, that was a step too far for me and I did not sign on to that bill and I will not sign on to that bill.

But as people of faith, I have worked with the funding of the moms bill to support young mothers during their pregnancy, during their birth, after their birth, with housing, with funding the moms bill.

For those who aren't familiar with it, it's kind of a recursive name.

I believe it's more options for mothers.

And what it does is it wraps a bunch of people in love around that young mother to support them and help them get their lives together, and so that they don't feel alone and that they don't feel vulnerable and strengthen that family as they go forward.

[Pfannenstiel] Iowa has one of has the second highest rate of cancer in the country.

It's one of only a few states where that rate is rising.

Eddie Andrews, what concrete steps would you take during your first year in office to start reversing that trend?

[Andrews] Well, thank you very much for that question.

Because of all the candidates who are running for governor, I'm actually the one that's actually made progress in steps already.

For instance, when we heard that devastating news a year ago, we were in session and I was like, we were shocked, just like everyone else.

And I looked to a doctor who a medical doctor who's a representative, a democrat, and there was another person on our right who's a republican and we all got together and I said, dude, what do we need to do?

How can we solve this problem?

And all of us immediately agreed that we need research, first of all, because the state will spend, whether it's millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars to solve this problem.

We were all convinced.

I led the effort to immediately commence a study at the University of Iowa to study the root causes of why we have this such a high rate of cancer.

As you know, the preliminary results just came out.

There was also another -- the Harkin Institute also did a study.

And so, we were looking at all of those combining those.

We've already taken steps on radon.

We were looking at all the, you know, the first assumption is farming and glyphosate and all of those.

We looked at all those.

One thing, though, that the Senate version took out and that was pediatric cancer research.

That's a little different.

And so, there are several of us who are working hard even now as we come to finish our current session with restoring pediatric cancer research.

I introduced a young lady, ten-year-old cancer advocate, Marie Post, and the Iowa House who was advocating for her twin brother.

And if you think about that, you have mixed feelings because you're proud of this young lady.

But at the same time, we adults need to do more.

So, looking at all of those, the research, finding concrete steps that we can do.

I'll give you two.

One, we are making radon kits available.

I proposing early, if not free, but certainly reduced cancer screening for all Iowans.

It won't stop the cancer, but obviously it, early detection will help mitigate that.

Thank you.

Adam Steen, how do you move us quickly beyond the research phase and into action?

[Steen] Yeah, that's a great question.

Let me let me back up and just mention, and I've mentioned this publicly all across the state, that my family was hit hard with cancer.

My father, who was my hero, my mentor, the guy that I would call after long days at DAS, in the Department of Administrative Services, he passed away of cancer.

This July will be four years.

My mother, who's probably watching tonight, just survived breast cancer.

So, we're not immune as a family to the cancer issue.

And what I see on a regular basis is the need for really one thing that will lead to three things to answer your question very directly.

The first one is we have to stop the political talking points around this problem.

There's too much rhetoric.

There's too many people talking about cancer to get political points.

And we can't do that.

This is too serious.

It's too serious of an issue across the state of Iowa.

So we can't say, well, we're going to blame the farmers.

This isn't on the backs of farmers.

And I've said that very loud on a regular basis.

So, there are three things that we need to do right out of the gate, and we can actually move the needle very quickly.

First, is we need independent research.

And just a week and a half ago, I sat on a call with the Iowa Cancer Consortium.

There are 70 organizations involved in that consortium that are doing independent research right now.

And I sat there for an hour and a half.

I was the only republican candidate on that call.

And the point of the call was to teach the candidates about cancer and the research that they've done.

So, I learned a lot of things.

It's a very broad problem, and we have a very big challenge in this state.

And a big challenge requires the second thing, I will create an enterprise within the Department of Administrative Services that is purely focused on solving the cancer issue.

We're going to focus on prevention, and we're going to focus on treatment, and we're going to put a project together.

We're going to bring smart people to the table, people that know what they're talking about, people that don't care about politics, people that are nonpartizan, that just want to solve the issues, prevent it and treat it.

And lastly, the third thing is we're going to fund it.

We're going to fund it, fund it appropriately.

Right now, I believe we give $1 million into cancer.

That's not enough.

We need to give a lot more.

It needs to go to pediatric cancer research.

It needs to go to prevention and treatment of adult cancers as well.

But we will do that.

Number one, we're going to look at independent research.

Number two, we're going to create an enterprise within my former department.

Number three, we're going to fund it appropriately so we can stop cancer in its tracks.

[Pfannenstiel] Brad Sherman, do you believe Iowa's cancer crisis is linked at all to its problems with water quality?

[Sherman] Well, that's a that's a big topic everyone talks about.

Now.

I've been saying also from the beginning of this whole issue, that we have to have studies by people who, as the old phrase goes, don't have a dog in the hunt.

And so, you know, that's something, you know, because there's a big level of mistrust out there in the public right now, even with our medical institutions and what have you.

You know, we have to have people that and I know chemists who can really look into this.

And so as governor, I'm going to make sure we have the right people who as who can have the skills to look at these studies and decide whether they're independent and whether they're actually doing the right kind of study or not.

It's like, I'll give you an example.

So how can we trust Big Pharma to do a study on a drug that they've just produced to see if it's safe for people?

Well, that's the kind of mistrust that's out there.

You know, that's the sort of thing we have to make sure is not happening.

It's more than just funding, but there are other things that we can do as well right off the bat and that is, you know, just begin the screening.

It's very important.

The radon that Eddie mentioned is an important thing we can do.

But that's only one kind of cancer.

That's radon usually just causes lung cancer.

And so, there's so many different kinds of cancer and things that are out there.

So, but one of the big things that I would like to see done is I'd like for us to start growing the food that we eat right here in Iowa.

You know, we import about 90% of the food.

And a lot of it comes from far away into the food that we eat in Iowa.

If we had good natural food, everybody knows that a good diet is important when it comes to stopping cancer, and whether it stops, whether you ever have cancer risk or not, eating good food is good for you.

So that's something we can start working on right away, is to get the right kind of food growing.

I'd like to see regions developed in Iowa and this this goes into so many different areas.

You know, that it's not just about cancer, but I'd like to see regions developed in Iowa where, where we grow our own food, where we reduce the regulations so that the local people can sell their food to local people.

And we have a situation where we're eating healthy again, you know, our food supply is, I think, part of the problem and of course, we can't just guess at this.

I mean, obviously we can all have our opinions, but we have to do the studies so that we know exactly what's going on.

Then we can make the steps that that make a difference.

If we're guessing at it, we're just going to create a lot of conflict.

[Murphy] Well, speaking of water quality, and Brad Sherman, we'll start with you on this one.

Economic development officials say that young people, when choosing a place to live, want recreational opportunities, which includes clean water.

Is this state, which has had years of slow population growth, hurting itself by not putting more into water quality efforts?

[Sherman] Well, I think that's certainly part of it.

You know, recreation is, you know, everybody enjoys recreation, water sports, and we've had troubles with some of our lakes and streams that are so polluted that they have to put signs up, you know, to say, don't go swimming, you know, but this is not just unique to Iowa.

I was in the Smoky Mountains a year or so ago, and I was stopped and pulled off, and there was a crystal clear stream running down out of the mountains.

And I'm thinking, boy, this is the way it ought to be.

And then I look over here and there's a sign that says, do not eat fish from this river.

You know, and so this is a broad problem.

It's not just Iowa.

We have to, you know, clean up our water.

And I think, you know, there are a lot of things that we can do.

Again, the studies have to be done, but clean water is important for that.

[Murphy] Eddie Andrews, you mentioned we're in your district.

Nitrate levels have been dangerously high again in central Iowa, and utilities are warning about their ability to filter drinking water this summer.

What further action do you believe needs to be taken on water quality?

[Andrews] So, thank you very much for that question.

Just echoing or building on what I just heard, water quality and what we call quality of life and recreational water and is important.

Not only do I live in Johnston right here, but right up the road is Saylorville Lake, right?

We want to make sure that those recreational tools are still available.

Funny that you should mention that because the last two days we've been putting together a plan at the House to really address this.

We're going to build upon the nutrient reduction plan.

We're going to introduce and strengthen our regenerative farming.

And it's this will involve a lot of money.

We will have, I believe, $600,000 that are going directly to the measuring tools and really just taking what we've already learned, I should have started with the fact that we've actually started studying this.

And this is one of the preliminary results that we that have come back.

And so, we are taking action as a state.

I would even accelerate that as governor.

[Murphy] Adam Steen, the Make America Healthy Again movement within the Republican Party has been vocal in its opposition to legal protections for weed manufacturers.

Glyphosate was mentioned earlier.

Statehouse republicans have been divided over the topic, too.

And there's a bill out there.

Would you, as governor, sign into law a bill that would add a layer of legal protections for herbicide manufacturers?

[Steen] Before we sign anything into law, what we need to understand are the facts and to back up to water quality.

Again, I sat with the Iowa Cancer Consortium for an hour and a half, and at the end of the conversation, I said, what is one stopgap?

I want one stopgap as governor that I could put in place right now that's going to make a dramatic effect on the cancer rates.

And I thought that they'd say something about glyphosate.

I thought they'd say something about nitrates.

I said, what is going to what is going to impact cancer rates?

And the first thing they said, we got to get people to quit smoking.

That was the first thing they said.

And then the second thing they said, back to water quality is they said, we need to be testing our private wells.

I didn't hear them talk about nitrates at all.

I heard them talk about private wells and the arsenic that is in our wells, and that hit me like a brick.

Let me tell you why it hit me like a brick.

I grew up on a private well.

Our home, our former home, has a private well.

And it makes you wonder, did we test that water?

I don't know if we did or not.

So, before we start signing bills, before we start claiming that we know what laws to put into place, we need to be talking to experts, smart people at the table who are living this, who are boots on the ground, who are actually making strides in prevention and treatment.

Otherwise, we're going to sign things into law and we're going to look back and we're going to regret it.

[Henderson] Adam Steen, next question to you.

Last fall, you said you would be watching the legislature and what they would do on property taxes, and then come up with something to follow that.

Well, as of tonight, there's no deal.

[Steen] I'm still watching.

[Henderson] Do you have something that you're going to present to voters as a promise for what you would do as governor on property taxes?

[Steen] So where I'm at right now on property taxes, where I was before, we need to watch what the legislature is going to do, what the House, what the Senate, what the governor's bill is going to look like.

And I use a story a friend of mine sent me a picture of a headline article, I believe it was in the Des Moines Register, and the headline was property tax reform is the number one issue in this legislative session.

I looked at it and I said, yeah, I mean, that's kind of obvious, right?

And he said, well, look at the date.

The date was 1996.

This is a decades long issue that really no true reform has come out of.

But what I've seen over the last decades is a continual increase in government spending.

So, regardless of what the House, the Senate and the governor come up with from a property tax reform perspective, I will attack spend.

The government spends too much money, the executive branch spends too much money.

Cities, counties, school boards.

We need transparency and accountability on government spend.

And if we don't get there, there's no amount of reform that's going to help.

[Henderson] Brad Sherman, you said last fall that you would like to see property taxes eliminated, but it might require raising a different tax, like the sales tax.

What's your view on property taxes?

And what are you telling voters?

[Sherman] Well, first off, everybody knows that we have to have taxes of some kind, you know, to pay for the services that we have.

Now, there are some plans.

I've spoken with some people who have some plans to who over a period of time to build a fund that has a has a dividend paying that would cover that.

But that's a long-range plan.

The short-range plan is that is, you know, that we, like Adam said, we need transparency.

I've been saying that all over the state.

We have to have transparency, you know, and then we have to have common sense budgeting.

But transparency, I think, will go a long, long do a lot more to fix this problem than what we've realized.

Because, you know, I heard a story and, you know, not to pick on schools, but there's lots of different agencies.

But I heard a story about one school superintendent was making $400,000 a year.

Well, the people didn't know that.

And that same person, or maybe it was a different one close by, had a $400 a month clothing budget as part of the salary.

And so, you know, when the people see these things, and if we had a real auditor who would help produce that transparency, then people would see what's going on.

Because when you make a bill in Des Moines and you try to send it out to the public, it's usually it's pretty often a one size fits all bill.

And that's just not the way government is supposed to work.

I need to I believe in pushing government to the local level as much as possible.

And when we have local control and the people will see, well in this school district, we're going to get a new school board because let them hire a new a new superintendent if they need one.

But all of them don't need one.

Some are doing a really good job budgeting their money.

What others maybe not.

And so, we have to, it's not a one size fits all thing.

We have to get people involved on a local level.

And so that's where I think the transparency will make a huge difference.

The people will take care of this.

You know, there's a reason why our Constitution starts out We the People.

And when people in government start to think that somehow we're supposed to start fixing everything and we're supposed to have answer for everything, well, some things we do need to have an answer for, but I'll tell you, we need to push things to the local level, because those are the people that know what's going on on a day-to-day basis.

They're the ones that can fix it, and they're going to have the best answers.

And, and somebody who doesn't, isn't there and is out of touch is not going to fix the problem.

[Henderson] Eddie Andrews, you have said that you have a seven-year plan for eliminating the property tax in Iowa.

How would you then fund essential services like police and fire departments and public schools?

[Andrews] So thank you very much for the question.

And by the way, I as far as I know, I'm the only candidate who has mentioned the possibility of abolishing and removing those.

So, I'm not maybe I'm maybe you heard something that I didn't hear, but yes, as I mentioned, I, we currently are in Johnston and right down the street there's a young lady, a young lady in her 90s, as she says, who's on fixed income.

And every year she needs support not to be property taxed out of her home.

She's obviously struggling.

She's beyond working age.

She's not really doing that well.

And so, a few years ago, I started trying to work scenarios in which we could actually reduce our property taxes and eventually I asked, I think I'm up to about 5,000 people right now, and I've asked, who likes the existing system?

Who would design a system just like the one we have right now?

Exactly.

Two people out of about 5,000 times.

I've asked this question.

And then, so I've always been a premise challenger.

So, if no one would design the current system, then why do we keep it?

So, let's revise something.

And so far I've tested this on three different counties, two small ones, one medium sized one.

And as you can imagine, the reactions initially were a little bit hostile, or at least skeptical.

Eddie, how are you going to do this?

And one even said, Eddie, I thought you liked first responders in schools.

And yes, so the first thing you do is you start out slow.

You start buying the 540 levy down 200 million at a time.

We also invest with incentives.

We bring new businesses here.

We will again, we will make this the most business friendly state in the entire country.

As a person with an entrepreneurial background who has worked with all of the big companies that, you know, whether that's Casey's or John Deere or Ag Leader, I know something a little bit about incentivizing businesses to come.

And I see you.

Okay, you're moving on.

[Pfannenstiel] For the second year in a row, the state of Iowa is projected to spend about $1 billion more than it takes in in revenue.

Republicans say this is by design.

They plan to dip into reserves, to cover to cover those differences.

Brad Sherman, is this sustainable?

How long can Iowa plan to spend like this?

[Sherman] Well, that of course, that depends on how the revenue looks.

You know that, of course, as you said, that was what we were told in 2022, when the income taxes were cut and what have you, that we have a rainy day fund and we have some reserves built up.

We knew there was going to be a deficit, you know, and so now we're in our second year now of about a $1 billion deficit.

And the new budget that came out is close to 10 billion.

And so so we're looking at that deficit now, you know, I'm not going to be a Pollyanna and say, oh, it's all going to be okay.

You know, we have to watch this very closely.

And, you know, if this doesn't work out, then we're going to have to take some drastic action.

But I think spending cuts, again, is one of the big issues.

Back to the whole transparency issue.

You know, I'm again, this when it comes to the budget, this is common sense stuff.

You have to you can't spend more than you take in.

Now, if this plan plays out, if the money back in people's hands ends up producing more stronger economy.

And so, we end up increasing tax revenues.

That's the idea.

It's the Laffer Curve idea, et cetera.

But I'm watching it.

I you know, it's something we keep an eye on.

And so, we'll see we'll see how it plays out.

[Pfannenstiel] Eddie Andrews, two of the largest portions of the state budget are Medicaid and education and costs continue to increase for both of them.

How would you manage those two budget items?

[Andrews] Okay, so if you if I could kind of combine those two questions, both of them deal with the budget.

So first of all, when I came in in 2020, I think I asked the most questions about our budget.

And even then we started looking at the seven and ten year plans.

And so yes, the, the dip is, has, is part of the plan.

And I would also say that during these times, Iowa is in a three-peat named as the most fiscally responsible state by the Cato Institution three years in a row.

I would continue that.

So, in terms of continuing education and medical expenses, yes, you do need to toe the line and continue to watch those investments.

But I got to tell you, if you look at what we're spending per capita and per student on and say an ESA, which is the K-12 is 45% of our entire budget versus what a public school is spending on 19,000, excuse me, 20,000 versus 8,000.

I think we need to be watching majorly what our public schools are spending and put more of those resources on the teachers and the classrooms and less on administration.

[Pfannenstiel] Adam Steen, you've said we don't have a budget problem, we have a spending problem.

So, what specifically would you cut at the state level to bring that spending in line?

[Steen] Yeah, right now we do have a spending problem, and I've talked about that on a regular basis.

We have operational challenges not just within the executive branch, but within our cities and our counties and our schools.

We have efficiency problems in those same areas, and we have wasteful, wasteful spending across the board.

And so, with what's being called, the republicans are being told that, oh, they didn't budget appropriately and didn't budget.

They budgeted appropriately.

They knew we had a surplus.

They knew that they wanted to put money back into the pockets of families all across Iowa.

That was the responsible thing to do.

We have a democrat opponent right now that just announced one thing he's going to do to bring new tax revenue into the state of Iowa is he's going to legalize recreational marijuana.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

That's absolutely outrageous.

If you look at other states who have done that, there's a spike in revenue.

And then the black market shows up and the revenue starts to go down.

It kills the culture.

It hurts the streets of the cities that they're in.

I can't take my boys to a baseball game in big cities without it smelling like marijuana.

So, I've got I've got another idea.

I've got an option.

We've all talked about nuclear and the importance of it.

We've all talked about small modular nuclear reactors.

We need to be manufacturing those in the state of Iowa.

Why are we not talking to large companies, large corporations that have used our incentives, that have used our land, that have used our grid, that have used our water, bring them to the table and say, you have trillions of dollars now, and now invest that money into the state of Iowa.

Let's manufacture those here in the state of Iowa.

Let's put them across the state.

It'll bolster the grid.

It'll make us energy independent.

It's safe, it's efficient.

And oh, by the way, we can sell that power outside of the state of Iowa to generate new lines of revenue.

[Henderson] Lots of issues left.

Not a lot of time.

Erin?

[Murphy] The issue of eminent domain and hazardous liquid pipelines has sort of divided Statehouse Republicans for the past three years.

Adam Steen, will stay with you to start this one.

Last year, the Iowa Legislature passed sweeping eminent domain legislation.

But Governor Reynolds vetoed it.

Did she make the right call?

[Steen] Her veto surprised me, just like it surprised many others.

One thing that I appreciate is the bill that's in the Senate right now, and I think the Senate needs to pass this bill because it has an amendment to it.

Senator Collins just put an amendment to it that allows an expanse of the corridor that allows for different timing on negotiations, but it keeps eminent domain from being used for carbon sequestration.

That is middle ground.

We have to find middle ground on this.

But middle ground includes middle ground, includes eminent domain cannot be used for carbon sequestration, expand the corridor, given the opportunity to have private negotiations, but do not allow eminent domain.

[Murphy] We're going to move through these a little quicker to get as much as we can.

Forgive us.

Brad Sherman, supporters of a proposed carbon pipeline say killing the project would hurt Iowa's ethanol industry and corn farmers.

Is that a valid concern, in your view?

[Sherman] Well, I've heard I've spoken with people on both sides of the issue.

It's split, I think.

Of course, the idea is that if our we're supposed to have a green ethanol, methanol, not methanol, but ethanol footprint.

And if we if we have it, if it's green, then California will buy our fuels and what have you and other things like that.

Well, I just don't buy that argument.

I think I think that it might help a little bit for a little while, but there are other things that we can do with this CO2.

We can put modules on our ethanol plants that produce methane, and methane is a very marketable product, and nobody, literally nobody would be interested in building a pipeline to capture CO2 if it wasn't for the federal 45 Q and 45 tax credits.

This is just a scam to get a few people, make a few people very rich.

And so back to this whole issue of, you know, a private company who's not a common carrier for a product that's not a public utility, should never, ever get to use eminent domain.

And we hear a lot of people talking about how economic development is a reason for economic domain, economic eminent domain.

Well, it's not because anybody could start a business and say, well, I need your property because this business is going to help everybody.

And so, we have to really draw the line on this issue and make sure it's bigger than just the carbon capture issue.

[Murphy] Eddie Andrews, we know where you stand on this because you voted for the House bills that would ban eminent domain for hazardous liquid pipelines 100%.

If nothing is approved this year, would you, as governor in next January, take executive action on this.

[Andrews] On day one.

[Murphy] What would that look like?

[Andrews] So even today, if you look at my social media, Facebook Eddie for Iowa, you will see a picture today.

I attended, I believe the 60th event, standing alongside farmers, standing alongside landowners against eminent domain abuse.

And as governor, I will not put up for not one day eminent domain for private gain.

As was mentioned, for those of you guys who do not understand this, this burns me up even as I'm talking right now.

It's someone with a business plan who says, hey, I've got the greatest thing in the world.

I just need your property to do it.

Oh, you don't want to sell?

I'll get the state to issue eminent domain and take it against your will.

George Washington would be rolling over in his grave, and I will not stand for that.

It's given a middle finger to the Declaration of Independence.

[Henderson] Some Iowa voters are expressing concerns about data centers.

The legislature in Maine passed a moratorium, a temporary moratorium on data centers that state's governor vetoed it.

But we'll start with you, Eddie Andrews, should Iowa have a moratorium on data centers?

[Andrews] I think we do need to.

The biggest concern is not the data centers themselves, but the waters and the aquifers that they're taking up.

Yes, there are some that are now self-contained.

But I think all of the initial ones were are still using continual water supplies.

And I mean, we brought up water earlier.

We we're concerned about clean water.

And here we are letting people dirty our water and giving them tax breaks to do that.

[Henderson] Adam Steen, is a data center, economic development and worthy of state and local tax credits?

[Steen] From an overall economic development perspective, I'm a free market capitalist.

I believe the private sector needs to reign.

I do believe in public private partnerships.

But if we are to incentivize a business, what I believe a business should be incentivized for is a few things.

Number one, businesses that do research and development to innovate and create.

Because right now in the state of Iowa, we have an unbelievable opportunity to innovate and create within businesses.

I've traveled all across the state, meeting with business owners, manufacturing businesses, ag businesses, healthcare businesses.

We need to innovate, but we also need to and be willing to incentivize businesses that are investing into their employees.

Right now, we have an opportunity to invest into high schools, into children, so that they realize they don't have to go to a community college or a four-year university.

They can get jobs right out of high school.

And we need to we need to incentivize those businesses as well.

And lastly, we should be incentivizing Iowa companies to create joint ventures and strategic partnerships to grow and scale their businesses right here in Iowa so that we can build our economy from within.

[Henderson] Brad Sherman, is the data center industry, if you will, exploiting Iowa?

[Sherman] I believe it is.

You know, they don't produce very many jobs at all.

There's only a few.

They produce some construction jobs.

But then after they're finished, there's there are very few jobs there, and they use a lot of power.

And I've been talking about the SMR, small modular reactors, ever since 2023.

And, you know, this is one of the things that we have to do.

They should be able to produce their own power.

But we also need to look at the tax breaks that are getting.

We have 105 data centers in our state, and some of those data centers are have billions of dollars being that they're spending.

They even get tax breaks on the, on the racks and the computer parts and things that they buy.

They get tax breaks for sales tax, you know, so they're basically paying almost nothing.

And so that's a big issue that we can address for our state budget as well.

And then when we come to those small modular reactors, you know, this is something that we really have to do.

We talked about this before, you know, how this is one of the issues that this state really needs and that can begin rebuilding and create the grid to rebuild our rural communities, get our population growing again, because population growth is another answer when it comes to it's a long range, but it's an answer to the lack of tax revenue.

[Pfannenstiel] Each of you is running to fill a seat left open by Republican Governor Kim Reynolds, who is not seeking reelection.

What is Kim Reynolds' legacy in this state?

And what parts of it would you continue or deviate from?

Eddie Andrews, we'll start with you.

[Andrews] Well, as you know, I think Kim Reynolds, Governor Kim Reynolds has done a phenomenal job in many respects.

You also are aware of the differences that we've had, whether it was the AEA reorganization that I think I was the loudest pepublican against that.

And certainly, the vetoing of the eminent domain bill was concerning to me.

But overall, I think she has done a phenomenal job leading on school choice.

We already talked about that.

The ESAs that I helped champion within the House, and we got we protected girls sports and we are protecting girls private spaces from guys.

And we're we are making sure that our education does not have porn.

Seriously, that we even had to do that through K through 12.

And we've done a number, we've championed a lot of family policies.

I led on the landmark parents' rights bill, and it obviously became eventually known as the Governor's Parents' Bill of Rights.

But that was my bill.

And so, we've done a lot of great things together.

She has done she's proven herself to be a very hard worker and a very good leader.

And one thing as a person within the Statehouse, let me tell you, there are there are things that we appreciate her leadership.

And as governor, I want to make sure that we use that bully pulpit for good.

[Pfannenstiel] Adam Steen, when you launched your campaign, you said that you support everything Governor Reynolds is doing.

Would your administration be a continuation of her legacy?

[Steen] When I met with Governor Reynolds and told her that I was going to resign my position and jump into the race, we had a wonderful conversation.

And one thing I told her was that it was an honor to serve her for five years.

It was an honor to sit back and watch her champion bold conservative values.

She championed life, protecting life.

She championed protecting girls sports and protecting school choice.

So absolutely, I will continue to push those forward, but I have a different background.

I've got a business background.

I've got a background that that fortunately put me in front of the democrat nominee, Rob Sand.

And I'll tell you who won't champion life is Rob Sand.

Rob Sand won't champion life.

He won't champion school choice.

He won't champion conservative values.

If Rob Sand is our governor, we will be the next Minnesota, Illinois, Dearborn, Michigan, California, Virginia.

The list goes on and on.

And so, my job, first and foremost, is to win this election so I can beat Rob Sand.

The key is we have to keep Randy Feenstra from being the nominee.

He can sit in D.C.

and watch this from afar, but we have to beat Rob Sand.

[Pfannenstiel] Brad Sherman, you announced you were running for governor before Kim Reynolds announced her retirement.

Why is it time for a new direction?

[Sherman] Well, I called Kim Reynolds.

Actually, what I did is I texted her and I said, I need to talk to you about something.

And that was in November of '24.

And the reply I got back was, oh, I know what you want to talk about.

You want to talk about the satanic altar issue or the Satanic Temple people trying to put something into Capitol again for the second year in a row.

And I said, well, no, that's not what I want to talk to you about.

And so, she said, oh, so she called me and I said, well, it's a little awkward making this call, I said, but, but I feel like I've prayed about it and God's made it so absolutely clear that I feel like I'm going to run for governor.

And I just wanted to I wanted you to hear this from me out of respect for you.

And she said, well, I bet that was an awkward call to make.

And so, but we had a good conversation.

So, I felt like I have a high level of respect for her.

I don't always agree with her.

I disagreed with the eminent domain issue.

I knew early on in '23, based on some conversation we had, that she was probably not going to be on the same side that I'm on on that issue.

But that's why I ran and, and so I think, again, I think that willingness to challenge the status quo, that some people feel like has been out there is puts me in a good place to beat Rob Sand and who I think, you know, they asked Rob Sand here a while back on, on video.

They said they said how many genders are there?

And he couldn't answer the question.

He danced around.

I've come up with a name for that dance.

It's called the Shifting Sands Shuffle.

And so that's what he did.

He's going to shift to the right.

Then he's going to shift to the left.

And that's what we can't have in Iowa.

So, I'm excited about unpacking some of his baggage.

[Henderson] We have a minute left.

This is a very quick question.

If none of the five republicans running meet the 35% threshold to win the primary, delegates at the state republican convention will choose the nominee.

Brad Sherman, is that a state law that should be held in perpetuity, or would you change it, yes or no?

[Sherman] No, I'm fine with that.

I mean, that's how it works.

I'm comfortable with it.

I've seen it happen.

I've been involved for a long time in these things.

I've seen it happen for different races.

And so, we feel good about it, how that works out.

[Henderson] Eddie Andrews, Brad Zaun won the most votes in the 2010 primary for Congress.

Then he wasn't the nominee.

Was that fair?

[Andrews] Well, it's the laws you got to play with the existing rules.

And I would keep them the same.

[Henderson] What's your view, Adam Steen, of the law?

[Steen] Let's keep them the same.

No change.

[Henderson] Well, we appreciate all of you for being here tonight on this edition of Iowa Press Debates, a live look for voters to see how each of you share your views on these issues.

Thank you for being here.

[Andrews] Thank you.

[Steen] Thank you.

[Sherman] Thank you.

[Henderson] Next week, we'll hold another Iowa Press Debate with the two candidates seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for Senate, Josh Turek and Zach Wahls.

That's on air and online Tuesday, May 5th, live at 7 p.m.

And stay tuned for continuing coverage of election 2026 right here on Iowa PBS from now, through the June primary, through the general election in November.

For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching this evening.

♪♪ [Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

[Announcer] The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

[Announcer] The Bob and Doreen Sheppard Family -- proud supporters of educational programming seen only on Iowa PBS.

[Announcer] Banking in Iowa goes beyond transactions.

Banks work to help people and small businesses succeed, and Iowa banks are committed to building confident banking relationships.

Iowa banks, your partner through it all.