♪ ♪ >> next, candidates for u.s. senate. republican senator lisa murkowski, republican challenger joe miller, and scott mcadams. alaskan public broadcasting presents debate for the state. >> did evening and welcome to debate for the state. this is the last debate of this intense election season. we're coming to you live from kakm-tv here in anchorage. joining us tonight are the candidates for u.s. senate that registered at least 5% in polls. lisa murkowski's is the republican incumbent. she has held the seat since

september 2002. joe miller is the republican party nominee. he is from fairbanks. democrat scott mcadams this the former mayor. welcome, candidates. joining me is they donaldson. later in our program, laura townsend will also join us. we will also be hearing questions that we solicited from our viewers and listeners and we will include those in the program. our thanks to the studio audience for being here tonight. please remember to remain silent during the entire broadcast. candidates, each answer will be timed and you will see a yellow light at the 15 second mark telling you that you have 15 seconds left and then you will hear this sound when your time is up. i will try to enforce this as politely as i can. let's begin. you will each have 30 seconds to respond to this first round of

questions. mr. mcadams, what have you learned about yourself and this campaign? >> that as a great question. one of the things i have learned is what is possible when you put your mind to something and you work hard. we have a great campaign team and a great staff. i never thought i would be able to raise $1.2 million in six weeks for it you have to be a little bit of a statesman and a little bit of a share in part telemarketer to be good at this stuff. >> i have always been one that has the resilience, but i have learned that oftentimes, doing the right thing is often the most difficult thing to do. when it is the right thing to do, you do not quit. i have really been focused on that resiliency that i have known that i have had for a long time, but i see it playing out,

here. >> i have learned that when you run for public office, even though you may not be part of the public process, your life is an open book. it has been uncomfortable to a certain extent for my family and i. we doubled our commitments to the alaskan people to make sure that the right answers are reached at this time in our state's history. we have to have somebody in office that is willing to do the things that the people of alaska need for their future and for their children's future. our commitment remains. we will make sure the right things happen for the state. >> the next questions touched on top stories of the news this week did you will have 45 seconds to answer. senator murkowski, there was a list of write-in candidates at the polls and the democratic and republican parties are united on this. it is obviously a blow to your campaign. >> when you say that it is a

blow to our campaign, we have not counted, as a campaign, on providing information about my right in candidacy. we have been doing things the old-fashioned way which is ensuring that people know how to move forward with a rise in campaign. we have jingles that remind people that this is how you spell left. fill it in, right in, it has been a very concerted education campaign. i do not think that it has been a blow to us. the case is ongoing. the supreme court said they will deny the injunction. that will be determined in the next couple of days. >> mr. miller, documents released yesterday show that you say, "i lied about accessing the computers and then admitted

accessing them, but lied about why was doing." why did you do that? >> i made a mistake. i learned from it. i found out that anything that you do in your private life is going to be out there. initially, in this campaign, it appeared that some things might be off limits for it i have to tell you that in order for alaskans to understand level of commitment, we could have fought the release of those records and we decided not to. i believe that we may be the only candidate in recent american history to release a personnel file for it is important for alaskans to understand that our commitments cannot be slowed by these issues and it has to be focused on the fact that the state has to move forward. >> a quick follow-up. when you left the employment,

you deleted e-mail's. some of them were related to a case you were working on. the bureau has questioned whether they needed some of those females now -- females -- e-mails now. >> you have to understand that everything that is in that file is not accurate. we are over a year away from one of the position. my view of it is, for purposes of full disclosure, the bureau has a backup system. all those females were backed up. -- all of those e-mails were backed up. we have seen the concerted effort to help his campaign.

>> we will leave it there. >> mr. mcadams, your opponents is running with washington dc. but your on the winning team. >> i think that voters are very responsive to our message. it is not about anybody's personal issues for personal narrative or a sense of history, it is about alaska and alaskan communities and alaskan people. we need someone in washington d.c. that recognizes that we are young state and we are an infrastructure poor state. the environment, national, alaska does its own thing. alaskan politics tend to run counter to national politics.

>> we will have a lightning round three you will have 15 seconds to answer this question. he will only hear the bell when your time is up. >> should we extend the bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, which means those making $200,000 or more? >> no, we should not. we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but we should allow the tax cuts for members of the population who make more than $250,000 a year to expire. >> this will only exacerbate the problem. we need to stimulate the economy and it is not by raising taxes. >> senator? >> during an election is not the time to raise taxes. we need to extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts. we will take that up in november when we return. >> to clarify for me, is the contradictory to the goal of reducing the national debt?

>> reducing the national debt has got to be done by reducing spending for the that is the key. we have expanded the federal government beyond what it was intended to be to the point that we need to reduce spending. we need to take government out of those programs. >> tax cuts affect the national debt? >> this is not contradictory. when you were able to put more money out into the economy to allow for that job creation, for that private wealth, for that free enterprise system to actually work and that is going to help. >> mr. miller, name one thing that president obama is right about. >> i think that-if i might address the last question, i think that we have been in a cycle of borrow and spend four for two long in this country and

it is a matter of priorities. we should never balance the budget on the backs of infrastructure corestates and kids and seniors. >> my question for you, mr. miller. what is obama doing right? >> the additional troops and personnel provided to afghanistan is something that i agree with. >> senator murkowski's? what is the president doing what? >> i applaud the president when he named general petraeus to take over command in afghanistan. i think that that helped to allow for a transition that could have been very difficult for us. i applaud him for it. >> mr. mcadams, one thing that you agree with the republican minority leadership in washington? >> i think that democrats and republicans agree that the national debt is unsustainable .o

does the constitution's first amendment call for separation of church and state? >> yes. >> yes. >> a state-sponsored church is not authorized by the first amendment. the states are required to comply with that as well. >> would you like to see creationism taught in public school science classes? mr. mcadams? >> i am a methodist and i believe in god, but i recognize and i believe that science and religion should be taught separately, one in the home and one of the public schools. >> in for good science and good science includes origins that are based on creation.

clearly, there are different ideas. i do believe that children should be permitted to see both sides regard senator murkowski? >> i do not believe creationism should be taught in our schools. i believe that there should be an allowance for the process of evolution that is taught. i have said and i believe very strongly that god give us our soul, but when we talk about evolution, that is a process that should be taught in school. >> should the united states be involved in nonmilitary humanitarian missions overseas? >> i think that it ought to be limited to it cannot go around thinking that we can establish peace and prosperity around the globe. the deficit is such that we do not have the capacity to carry

on the efforts we have in the past. >> i believe that we should be involved in these humanitarian missions. i believe that our role in -- as liberal leader, we should do what we tend to eliminate disease and eradicate human trafficking. these are issues that we should be involved in three >. >> we have an obligation to those that are less fortunate around the globe to reflects this question comes from a listener. would you support eliminating the filibuster in hopes of breaking gridlock in the senate? >> i have suggested that we need to look at how the filibuster is applied. our judicial branch has been stymied by the process in the senate. is it will that has been here for years and i think it has

been abused. >> i think that washington d.c. is broken. i think that the filibuster-over 300 bills have passed on the house side that have not passed on the senate side. i am interested in the senate actually organizing. >> absolutely not. we have an administration that is marching so far to the love, expanding the role of government, even though it is one of the best tools that we have available. we need to stop this continued march towards the socialistic direction. >> now water questions for the candidates. you will have 45 seconds to answer. dave, your question? >> we have heard from southeast alaskans that oppose a

controversial issue. how significant is this? >> i have been working on this bill for probably three years. i am trying to finally deliver equity to the shareholders. some 40 years ago, but brazil last native corporation that had yet to receive conveyance. the real difficulty has been in selecting the lands that they were allowed to receive potentially. these are very sensitive areas such as watershed areas. we need to give them equity and finally resolve this after 40 years. we need to do so in a manner that helps the region, but helps to facilitate the problems of women 40 years ago. >> the concern has been and that it goes beyond the boundaries.

be outside the box is a problem. >> being outside the box has been a problem because we're talking about areas where people have created and they have finished. when we are talking about land in alaska, every acre is precious. it has created controversy. my effort has been too involved all the communities. there have been 200 different meetings and we have gone out to every community to make sure that their input is received and we are continuing to work to incorporate all the changes to make it as accessible as we possible can -- possibly can. >> many were opposed to the bill during which to oppose it when you get to the senate? >> we need a dialogue.

i called a meeting on one of the snowiest days in the past five years and we had four hours of testimony in 2 minute increments. we had a panel listened to the merits -- listen to the merits. from the very onset, we should include tribes and it is more properly conveyed. when i get to the senate, i will work with them regarding land equity. >> i opposed it. those that were standing on stage with center murkowski

saw it as an important bill. we have not just the timber tracts, which i think is an argument for, but it has not been afforded to any of the regional corporation in the state. these are selected parcels throughout the south east, not just timber tracts. we are seeing that alaska was not happy about that. my concern is that it disenfranchised a large piece of southeast alaska. >> less talk about the troubled asset relief program of 2008 which is often called the bank bailout is widely believed by many economists that it saved the country's finances despite his unpopularity. of the $250 billion spent on

banks, the treasury is now making a $16 billion profit for the what would you have done instead? >> anytime that you look at a business and say that it is too big to fail, it is a mistake. any time you look at federal government and say that we can spend a hundred billion dollars to bail out various businesses and say that that is a good thing, i think that we are fooling themselves. we have delayed the slowing of the process, but it does not diverted to fire occurred we have to ask ourselves whether or not it is a proper moral approach to burden the generations of tomorrow. that is effectively what we have done when we said that we would spend $800 billion that we do not have. we are putting a burden on our children. that raises the question when

you talk about businesses that failed. >> center macao's the, you voted for it. -- center rakowski, you voted for ait. >> when the authorization came through, you had subsequent efforts by the democratic some of those tarp monies that were being returned to the treasury and use those for other initiatives. that is not what this is all about. this is designed for you to repay that and it goes to reducing the deficit. that did not happen. it is interesting when you think about that vote, it was a very bipartisan vote. a very conservative member was one that joined us in that. it was an effort that needed to

be made at the time because we were going off a cliff. >> mr. mcadams? would you have supported it? >> i think that is important to see that one of the things that was left out is that in 30 years prior to tarp, washington-wall street became basically deregulated. -- wall street became basically the regulated. -- deregulated. i think that we are safeguarded from seeing another tarp happen. the thing about oversight is that it always feels like to match. that is until that moment in time where it is not enough. then you are scrambling. you can either vote for this bill or you can watch the rest of the world collapsed for it it was a difficult choice. >> the obama a administration is crafting a new education policy.

what changes would you like to see in it? >> regarding education, i have served as a local school board member and i have a degree in education. i can tell you that from the very beginning i have been opposed to the in criminal trend towards national standards. i believe that self- determination through local control, especially as it relates to curriculum and students, i had great concern with the child left behind. the problem with the national standards is that it calls for a national test. a special in a state like alaska were we need to be able to teach arctic survival. >> the incremental changes that scott was talking about started

in 1979 with the department of education. a lot of people believe that the department of education has been around for decades. it has not been. education has been within the sphere of the state and local level. the mandates do not fit the state of alaska. no child left behind is not fit the state of alaska. it is not about whether federal funds are collected. it is about who is in the best position to spend it and decide. i am confident that the state of alaska and the teachers and educators are better fit to make those decisions. >> when it comes to help reform, we need to understand how a one size fits all approach does not work for us in a state like alaska. i have introduced a legislation

several years back and we continue to work on it. is the accountability act. we want to make sure that all our kids receive the best education. eight. snapshot in time that dings school in one area does not recognize the good that comes out of our schools. we need to violate our schools on the progress that they have made. i have provisions within my legislation that would help to advance us as a rural state and not compromise the games that we have made. >> now, this is the top kennedy to ask questions of each other. please make your questions brief and to the point. responses can ask -- can last a minute and bottles are 30 seconds. -- and rebuttals are 30 seconds.

>> you sent out a flier that suggested that in threatening -- and threatening social security. you were originally quoted that this is something that is best reserved for the state will need to take care of people that are currently on social security because they paid into it. you have now backed off on that. so, the question i have is, where is the cut off? is that 50, is that sixty? is that 40? >> you are actually referring to a car that was sent out by the alaska republican party. the spending will have been in office has doubled. you have gone from six trillion

dollars in debt to even more today. my position has been very consistent on social security. it is that the fiscal house has to be put in order. if not, those dependent on security are going to be the ones that are most hurt. the cannot pull the rug out from under them. we have got to protect those payments because they have no other opportunity to provide money outside of social security. my parents are so security recipients. i'm on this and not cut off my parents primary income. >> center murkowski's, you have 30 seconds. >> i am confused by the response

because you said you have been consistent but it was earlier this year that you were quoted saying and that so security needs to be eliminated. you now say that you want to protect it for your parents, but what about the lower cost? how do you handle those that are age 50 and have paid into the system and now you were telling them that you may or may not get it. >> 15 seconds. >> i have never said to eliminate it. that has never come out of my mouth. it was reported in your arm peace in this entire campaign. that is not what i said. i said that we have got to go to a different system. we have to have the option of putting the money somewhere where it will not be stolen by the government. >> i am still waiting for an answer.

[laughter] >> youtube will have a moment to bond, here. mr. mcadams, insured -- mr. miller, it assured -- it is your turn. >> can you compare the experience that you have today. >> i think that is a fair question. i have stood before my community and i had to account to my community on matters of policy and budget. senator murkowski served her neighborhood in the state house for four years. i know that there was a time in alaska when there was a young

banker that served three years on a school board. he moved his family to juneau. that was from murkowski. .- frank murkowski' >> 30 seconds to respond? >> i think it is up to voters and i think you put it very well. make a decision what -- about what the canada can deliver. i know that we have differences of opinion. i think that we are near bankruptcy. we have to look in a different direction. the message that we have to be frank and very clear to the voters as far as where we stand and as far as how we are going to address the fiscal issue. it is important. >> mr. mcadams, your question

for senator mikulski? >> -- center murkowski. >> in a recent interview, you talked about the need for raising the eligibility age for medicare. my question to you is, what would that be your first from the? -- what would that be your first activity? why wouldn't that be the first fix? why would we balance it on the backs of middle-class seniors? >> i think the what we need to do is put the ideas and the options out there on the table. i think that both of us would

agree about social security being unsustainable at this time. you have more people receiving that payout of them are paying in. -- that pay out of them are paying in -- -- that payout than are paying in. what are the pros and what are the cons? i think that we need to be critical about where they come from on this. i think that it is important to make sure that the ideas that we put on the table are not shot them and we can have a good constructive dialogue. for our seniors and those that are in need, they need to be safe. >> 30 seconds. >> i have said this and other debates. i feel that the united states senate has been a club of millionaires.

if we were to lift that artificial cap and an ever- everyone pay the same payroll tax -- and have everyone pay the same payroll tax, the program would be sold for 75 years for it we need to put money in the hands of the middle class to build our economy. >> senator murkowski? dave and his quiet over here. -- it is quite over here. >> you have 45 seconds to respond and we will start with a question from dave. >> when should we leave afghanistan and what have we learned that there? >> not yet. it is not time to leave afghanistan yet. i think that we are waiting until there is some level of

secured government and there clearly is not at this point in time. we are in a difficult situation there. to put an arbitrary time line on the u.s. involvement there, it sends the wrong signal. i do not think that congress should be micromanaging the efforts that general petraeus has made. i think that we need to listen to the guidance of those that we have put in charge. for us to make that decision arbitrarily and say that now is the time to pull out, i think that would be a mistake for us as a nation. >> i think that we do need to give carol petraeus time to focus on our mission in afghanistan. al qaeda remains a threat. the television -- taliban

remains a threat. before i ever vote to extend an appropriation on a conflict abroad, i will ask the question to make sure that we have a clear purpose and have a clear definition of what success looks like. >> nation-building certainly is not the answer. when we can leave his when we release our military leaders to do what they're trained to do. we came into afghanistan to eliminate terrorism, but we engaged in nation building. men and women in uniform have to wait until they are shot at or killed before they can fire back. our military veterans who recognize that we cannot do what

we did in vietnam. that seems to be what is happening to our service members to read service -- service members. we have to think about why we get involved in countries. we need to eliminate the threat, s.t not build nations towar >> a 32nd follow-up. how do you deal with pakistan and the other countries in the region that are our allies. how you deal with him? >> the people of the united states need to be forewarned that if you are reading a thread, we will strike that threat and we will limit it. .- we will eliminate it

if iran develops and what of mice -- of mass destruction against the united states, if you do this, we will take out the threat and not rebuild the nation. that is the same thing that we did in afghanistan. >> mr. mcadams? >> there is no question. when you look at the roles and responsibilities of our soldiers and our marines in our armed services, we are asking these fine young men and women to not only be equipped in their primary areas, we are asking them to be ambassadors. we are asking them to be diplomats. we are asking them to build good will for our mission. -- good will for our mission.

>> how do we deal with pakistan and other countries? >> one of the reasons that we are in afghanistan is because pakistan has been a safe haven for some of those who would inside the terror -- insight -- incite the terror. we have got a very volatile situation in pakistan as well. knowing that pakistan has nuclear weapons, we have to pay attention to what is happening within the region. stabilizing afghanistan is important stabilizing the region. >> the bush a administration estimated a border fence at $80 million. if you do not support it, what should we do about illegal

immigration? mr. mcadams? >> as it relates to immigration policy, we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. in our border communities, we have safety issues. many of the communities are in the midst of a huge drug war in the southwestern portion of the united states. i do not support building a wall. walls are best left to desperate regimes. we need to look at the supply and demand for cheap foreign labor. we have looked the other way for too long while another coal businesses have continued to hire undocumented workers. that is will we have to focus on. >> building a wall is not the only answer here. you build a wall that is 12 ft. high and they will find a ladder

that is 13 ft. high and figure out a way to get across. we need to do better when it comes to enforcement of our borders. millions of dollars to build a wall defies logic. we have shipped a catch and release system -- we have a kitchen release system going on. we need to fund the level of border security so we can patrol it. when those who command -- come in, the defense is not the answer. >> center macau say has voted against funding for several times as well as many other people in congress are not showing leadership on this issue. we have to build a fence and we have to deal with not only an

illegal alien issue, but a national security issue. you cannot maintain national integrity without some form of border security. that absolutely has to be done on the southern border. there are other things that we need to do. we cannot vote for amnesty. you cannot allow people to break the law to gain a benefit in this country. >> a 15 2nd follow, east germany was able to protect its border. how far do we go? do we shoot mexicans trying to come over here? >> that was a reference that was designed to say that we are an advanced country. to sit back and say that you cannot build a fence to keep

people out, that is not the case. we are not talking about doing anything like that. we are the most powerful nation in the world. america has the most extraordinary and nation in the world. to suggest that when we are spending money on illegal aliens ever year, we cannot put it into a fence, i do not believe it. >> we are the greatest nation in the world because we are the freest nation in the world. we are the most humane nation in the world. we are the most just nation in the world. when we represent those values to our leadership, we are leaders of the world. i do not believe in building a wall. there was a time when the president stood up and told mr. gorbachev to tear down that wall. i want to make sure that we do not make a mistake from the

past. >> senator murkowski's? -- senator murkowski? >> why don't we use our intelligence to utilize new technologies, whether it is the technology that allows us to understand what is coming and going for it again, making sure that we have a level of enforcement. making sure that those that do cross over, there is a in immediate return. >> the federal government offers a guarantee. is that too much money? >> that depends on where we get the gas line. at the rate that we are going,

it may not be enough to rid of them that $30 billion is the right number right now. this needs to get through congress and get enacted into law so that that loan guarantee is there. is this helpful to producers, they can advance that project. they have the federal government behind them for this project has escalated in size and scope and cost, so that loan guarantee is important. equally important are other traditions included in the bill. anything that we can do to help facilitate that is good. >> i do not think that you pass a bill that you don't know what is in it. i will tell you that any gas line is a good investment. we have to make sure that the right amount of money is applied

to it. there are some things to be done to enhance the likelihood that any level of money would put it forward. you do not do a tax would increase the cost of gas. associated with the construction of the pipeline, the component costs were huge. if you reduce the costs in these areas, it will reduce the amount of money necessary. >> mr. mcadams, is $30 billion a enough, too much? >> my position on the gas line has always been to support

whatever brings the product to market and puts alaskans to work for it as it relates to climate change, i'll leave that climate change is real. -- i believe that climate change is real. we can incentivize the use of natural gas to help us transition from may corbin based energy platform. we need to create a market on the other end. >> we will now take a short break. thank you so much for joining us this evening. we will be right back. >> welcome back to debate for the state. candidates have 45 seconds to answer questions.

>> an act was recently signed a senator has proposed a villages and families act that would empower villages to exercise certain powers to address crime. the you support this plan or do you have a different proposal to address the high rates of crime and sexual assaults in these communities? >> it was my amendment in the tribal law and order at that would essentially provide for an opportunity for greater cooperation between the tribal states and the federal agencies in terms of how we can address some of the law enforcement issues in our villages after it

was not an expansion of either the civil or the criminal jurisdiction. this is where the senator's bill attempted to take it. i think that the tribal law and order and is a good act and it is important, particularly for those in the reservations for it is a good bill and one that i supported. >> -- reservations. it is a good deal and one that i supported. >> i think that we are a big state. we need to take a look at how we empower people who live in villages how do we meet this need in rural alaska? we need to empower private citizens at the local level whether it be in courts, a

health, education, community development. we are uniquely positioned to develop for alaska. >> i have direct involvement with criminal justice. i spent some time interacting with local villages that were dealing with the courts. the corps was effective because we combined with the councils that wished to participate in a way of the work able to address those problems we're seeing time and time again where they were not being addressed or health or rehabilitated. we brought them together, the end result was much more effective and i think that that is the direction that we have to go. we have to make sure that those who decide to be involved in

those types of communities ball. >> how do you convince your colleagues in a way that you have not been able to do before? >> it was an issue where he insisted and we were able to demonstrate that there would be no cost and he came back and said that it was an earmark. because it wasn't earmark, he was going to fight tooth and nail. >> mr. miller, the guy you admire? >> earmarks are a thing that will soon be of the past. >> was at an earmark? >> i do not know whether it was or not. they do not want earmarks.

it is the single most corrupting influence in legislation today. >> mr. mcadams? >> no, i do not believe it was an earmark. i think that the expansion of tribal sovereignty here in alaska is the right thing to do. >> thousands of alaskans age 65 and older can i get in to see a doctor because of their medicaid plans and doctors will not take them through what is the solution? >> i and the candid in this race that believes we need a fully funded medicare program. we have to manage a caseload of seniors at so that they can pay their bills. to many of our doctors are forced to write with a file cabinet. mr. miller talked about the need

to privatize medicare. senator -- senator murkowski voted to cut medicare by $6 billion to read in 2010, you voted to reduce medicare by 20% and voted in an appropriations bill to not fund a clinic. we need a united states senate- senator that can do this. >> we have to preserve medicare for those of our currently there. my parents are medicare recipients. but we do have a crisis right now. we are rationing care because of what is going on here. we are not providing the services that medicare would pay for. we need to allow vouchers and opt out. when you have elderly that are

taken advantage of with services that the pay for the they do not get, there has to be a reaction. it cannot just be a slap on the hand. at the base of that, we have to work and it takes more than 45 seconds to talk about it. >> it all comes down to reimbursement. when a provider is getting paid 33 cents on the dollar, you will not be able to get more eligible individuals. here in anchorage, there are around seven or as many as eight in the entire community. seven providers that are willing to take new individuals because the reimbursement rate does not make it. 35% increase to the

reimbursement rate to help facilitate this issue in this state. this was one of the bills that joe had singled out and said that i should have stuck with the party line on this. isre in a crisis and this about to providers. >> the next question is about health care. 45 seconds to respond. ago, the man's daughter was born with congenital heart defects. mr. casey wants to know what you will do to make sure that she has insurance when she ages out of her parents' plan. >> we need to make sure that those surpluses to the problem of providing answers for the problem. one of the issues that i have had to allow this campaign is that the states need to take a more leading role.

it is not a federal the government will. most of this has federal mandates. we as a state can do things better. we can create better responses and if we have greater wealth, we can even expand. >> i have always been one that has been brasilia. >> senator murkowski's? -- senator murkowski? >> she will not be denied because of a pre-existing condition. that was one of the big initiatives about how we deal

with that. we can get into but a big debate about whether or not we actual reform health care. we agreed that we needed to resolve this issue of denial of insurance because of a pre- existing condition. that is what is contained in this bill. there are a few things that need to be in there when we deal with health care reform down the road. pre-existing conditions are absolutely key. >> one of the 16 american workers -- a month in a 15 american workers are unable to improve themselves because there are afraid to do this. in 2010, you voted to reduce medicare by 20%.

we need to be careful what we vote on. i think that our votes need to be accounted for. senator murkowski voted to repeal health care reform. there were amendments that were attached to that bill. i think that the pre-existing condition reform is an important part of the bill. >> i'd like to ask a follow-up. please keep your answers to 30 seconds. time best spent repealing or defunding the health care legislation? mr. miller and her senator murkowski say that that might not be possible to repeal it. should they just work to fix the problems that are there? >> there are some things that we can do tomorrow if we were in session.

we can put in place medical not practice reform. -- malpractice reform. this could actually begin to work. they will determine whether or not there is a mandate. but to determine that it is unconstitutional. we have to do what we can to try to reduce the price of health care. we have got to fix it -- >> it is not constitutional, we have to get rid of it. the only other option is to defunde it. we should add another step to

the national health plan. this is something that we cannot tolerate. unless we stop now, we do not have is that way. >> i think that john is consistent with his position in that he would like to see it repealed. i would like to see elements of health care reform improved. i think that senator murkowski voted for the repeal and voted against it. i am not sure whether you would like to repeal or approved. health insurance companies have a greater role in the decision making than doctors and physicians do. >> now, a brief lightning round. you have 15 seconds to answer these questions. abortion, should it be allowed in cases of up -- of rape? >> a woman's choice.

>> i do not believe that it should be contingent on somebody else's criminal act. >> do you believe that tribes boston on >> i believe that they should be recognized as such. there have been opposition to recognizing the tribes as sovereign. i think that we should send a senator to washington d.c. that belize and that. >> as a matter of law, but are not. i absolutely recognize that they have ties to land and we need to respect the fact that there is a desire for communities. >> these are federally

recognized tribes. we need to be respective. we need to have a more formal consultation process between the delegation and our federal recognized tribes. i >> should federal money help fund public radio in the united states? >> my perspective, where we are at right now, my concern right now is where we are headed with bankruptcy and we need to transition into state control. i think ultimately those programs have to transition given the bankrupt position of the federal government, but don't expect that to happen soon. >> senator murkowski? >> i have long been a supporter of public broadcasting. it is more than just nice programs that you listen to.

if you live in alaska, this is your news source, your community source. it is important. >> i believe there is a role, and albeit not constitutionally mandated. there was a time in my life where kssk was the only media we have in our home. i think it is part of the fabric of alaska. >> as the patriot act help or hurt america? >> i had some real issues with the patriot act when we were first dealing with the reauthorization. i was very concerned there was encroachment on civil liberties. i joined with a small group of republicans to make sure that while we allowed for the protection that we did not encroach on personal liberties. >> i don't think it has made us any safer. in fact, i remember a bumper sticker that said i want my

inalienable rights back after the passage of the bill. i think any legislation that allows the government to spy on its own citizens is a breach of our civil liberties. >> there is no question that we have not had a terror strike since that date. i'm very concerned about the process in which it was adopted and the elements within it. it just because it has helped does not mean it is right. that is what we have to keep in mind. the constitution is the key. >> beyond the obvious constitutional qualifications, is sarah palin qualified to be president? >> now i am the one to get the first question. do i think that governor palin is qualified to be president of the united states? i think in a strict sense she is. she is not somebody whose ideology i support and agree with. >> of course she is. look at who we haven't office

now, there is no comparison. >> if she were to run right now, i would not support her as president. >> if you could go back in time to 1958, would you vote for or against alaska statehood and why. >> of course i would vote for it. the reason is the state has the capacity to do great things. you look at the resource base we have, you look it the ability to move forward in this nation, we have extraordinary opportunities. when states are in control of their resource base, that is what empowers us as a people. >> well, i had just been born. my grandparents were arguing about this at the time. the big fight was over the fisheries and who was going to control the fisheries. i think in view of what we have seen and how we have been able

to develop not only our fisheries but all other resources to the level that we have, of course the state had was a great thing and i probably would have been an advocate of it. >> absolutely i would have supported statehood. there is no question. i think there is plenty of reason to take a look at the fact that our constitution was ratified on the same ballot as the provision that removed fish traps from alaska. i think it is time to bring back the spirit of 1956 with the state constitution, stop allowing outside interest to import labor export wealth. >> not candidates get a chance to question each other -- now candidates a chance to question each other. let's start with mr. mcadams asking something of mr. miller. >> joe, as you know, lisa voted against justice sotomayor and justice kagan.

with 89 alaskan projects included, $400 million, lisa voted against extending unemployment insurance, voted in a pilot program to buy the stock -- to privatize social security. would you have voted any differently on any of those? >> it is tough for me to have all of those votes in front of me and describe them. there are a number of things i would not have voted for. i would not have voted for eric holder. i would not have voted against secretary bowen for the united nations. there are a number of things i would never have done, such as the capt. trade bill with arlen specter. i would not have supported another item, roe v. wade, which is contrary to my pro-life stance. there are certainly some votes out there that i agree with the

senator on. she did vote, there were still votes that were with her party and were conservative. that does not mean i agree with everything the republican party does as well. clearly the reasons we have grown government to the size we have is a bipartisan problem. i think we have to look at everything the government has done of the last several decades and look to the approach that has been taken. >> 30 seconds, mr. macadams. >> i appreciate that, joe, but i wonder as it relates to justice sotomayor and justice kagan and the $400 million of projects. would you have voted for those? >> i would have voted against sotomayor and kagan. i would have done everything in my power to have stopped those products because it represents a branch of government that are very activist in their approach.

i think there could have been a lot more fight put in that to make sure those were stopped. >> mr. miller, your question for senator murkowski. >> senator, you raised a flier that the alaskan party had it with social security. you have also sent out a number of mailer's recently, including one claiming that prominent democrats supported you cannot scott mcadams. also indicated that patty murray was supporting you. they stated, "lisa has lied about fellow alaskans to win. this is truly outrageous." your campaign apologized for that. after that, you sent out another flier, right here, and you know that you are the "and are re- nra-sed candidates, --

endorsed candidate," yet this shows that you are not endorsed. will you apologize to alaskans for lying about the endorsements? >> joe, i think you know, as well as scott, that the flier was sent out three, four days ago in which we take up quotes from steven berkowitz, patty murray, a couple of other democrats, these were absolutely in context. what was a mistake and error on the campaign, and as the candidate i have personally called steven berkowitz to apologize, because the headline made it appear that he did not support scott mcadams. i told him that was an error on behalf of the campaign. as the candidate, i accept responsibility and i apologized

and he accepted an apology. that is as clear on its face, and that has been made very public. i don't know that there is anything more that needs to be apologized for. i apologized to mr. berkowitz. >> senator, you did not answer the question. you state that you are the nra- endorsed candidate. >> i was endorsed by the nra in the primary. it cost you some consternation because you had worked very hard to try to get that. we received that without hesitation, without qualification, and i was proud to receive the endorsement of the of nra. >> senator murkowski, your question for mr. mcadams. >> scott, on monday we were talking in the chamber at their banks and one of the things that was asked of both you and joe was if you were to get to the

united states senate, which committees would you like to serve on. you did not answer at that point in time. yesterday when we were at the rotary, the question came up again and you responded that you would like to serve on the energy committee. i applaud you for recognizing the value to alaska of energy. in fact, we have had an alaskan on the energy committee, i believe, for least the past 30 years. the question is, why are you asking voters to replace my seniority on the energy committee as the ranking member, possibly the chairman of the energy committee, with a freshman senator hoping to be placed on the committee at the bottom of the list in terms of seniority? >> thank you, senator. in answering the fairbanks issue, you'll remember it was a two-part question. we had about 30 seconds to answer. we had run out of time, in fairness on that one.

regarding seniority, i think it is important that we have a united states senator who uses seniority appropriately. i look at alaskas national resources, i think we are all concerned that we need to bring our resources to market. we need an energy policy that does that. right now, this product are empty. we're not bringing energy to market in the state. we need a new approach and strategy because we cannot wait another six years to open anwar, the economy revitalized, and nobody is buying what we're selling in the senate last eight years. >> response? >> i think it is incredibly important as an energy producing states that we help set not only energy policy for our state but energy policy for the nation. that is what i have been doing the past eight years. that is what i will be able to do. whether it is taking on the epa so we do not have an emissions

policy that is brought about through regulation that will strangle this state, i have been leading the charge to make that happen. i am in position to do that. as an incoming freshmen, it leaves some doubt as to what would happen to our role in the senate as an energy leader. >> one last round. you can ask the candidate of your choice a question. mr. miller, whomever you want. >> senator, you have strongly criticized the alaskan republican party saying that you were for cap and trade, a bill co-sponsored with arlen specter, but you have also said you are a true believer in man- made global warming and you have even praised obama's commitment for his stance on acting on climate change. are you flip-floping?

what is the deal? >> no flip-floping. i have worked very hard to ensure that we did not have a cap and trade policy imposed in any kind of the energy bill. was my leadership both on the committee and actually sitting down with the president and cabinet members and other senators to ensure that they knew full well that not only was this cap and trade proposal that was before us kicking the economy in the gut, it would take the rug out from underneath alaska and our economy. and i made clear to senator lieberman and senator kerry that it was not want to happen, it cannot happen, they to not have the votes, and after that meeting in mid july we found out that we're not dealing with a cap and trade proposal anymore. senator stevens and i worked together to deal with how we reduce our emissions in a bill back in 2007. >> mr. miller, response?

>> your position has been one that embraces cap and trading carbon taxes. the new york times said that senator murkowski's vote reputation was a moderate republican willing to engage with democrats and pharmacists in the climate -- and environmentalists in the climate debate. you have also been noted as saying that you believe we must look at all possible options of regulating climate change, from carbon tax to cap and trade. are you advocating cap and trade? >> i would like to respond because i have taken the position that the deal with the tough issues before us. some of the tough issues before us are a changing climate where we can responsibly reduce our emissions, i believe we have the obligation to do so. i don't believe a cap and trade

proposal is the responsible way to do so, and i will work to oppose that. in every opportunity where we are hurting our economy. it is not an appropriate trade off. >> senator murkowski? per. let's see i will ask you this one, joe, because you have a rally tomorrow. it one of the individuals that you state that you admire most in the senate is currently participating in year rally. senator dement has stated he says not believe -- he does not believe that anybody was openly homosexual should teach in our schools. when he was criticized for this, he said he takes the same position on an unmarried woman who was living with her boyfriend, that she should not be in the classroom teaching.

do you share the same views? >> we live in an increasingly diverse nation. there are some people in this country who believe we ought to have state run health care. you have said that you think the government-run plan is not bad. you made that statement last fall. the fact of the matter is people want to pursue that type of thing, they should be able to do it within their states. that is what the residents of the state of massachusetts have done. the gay marriage debate is another example where we have a diverse opinion about where that all to go. i have my own personal beliefs, but i believe that ought to be exercised at the state level as to how you want to influence the public sphere. and but he challenges that just does not understand how law works. we regulate behavior. if massachusetts once a marriage, they can pass that bill. in the same way, the states that have different values should have the opportunity to decide

what they want to do within their states, and i believe that it is a state and not federal issue to make those decisions. >> i think you have said that you disagree with the senator, but i am not entirely sure. i raise this as an issue because you have stated on numerous occasions that the senator is someone in the senate that you admire, and yet he has been almost dogged in his attacked on the last the agenda. strip senator stevens and tried to expel him from the state. it was senator demint who worked against some of our alaska products, so i'm surprised to continue to allow him -- to line with him. >> senator mcadams? >> senator murkowski,"."

-- senator murkowski, i know that you are in support of marriage, but i want to ask a specific question about some of the position to have taken throughout the course of this general campaign which i believe are different from the position she took in the primary and in your service record, especially the last few years. according to mitch mcconnell, -- i like to ask on some particular issues, how it is it now you are working to gain democrat and independent voters after having a record in the u.s. senate that argue an "f" rating from planned parenthood, the naacp, the civil liberties journal? i wonder, how is it now that you position yourself as being a moderate, or maybe even a liberal, and core democratic

voters when you have been one of the most conservative people in terms of voting record? >> you are throwing around a lot of numbers in terms of how many times i've voted with senator mcconnell. i don't keep track of that. one i kept track of was the. i did with senator stevens. we voted together about 96% of the time. i am still trying to figure out where we disagreed. but the fact of the matter is i have not voted along my party line. i have not looked at where the democrats are coming from. i look to where alaskans are coming from on the issue. i am looking to alaskans' interests. it is not toeing the party line. that is where joe tried to take me down in the primary, and voted against my primary 300 times. i was not voting against my party, i was voting for

alaska's's interests, and that is what it should be about. >> i would take issue with the concept of voting for alaskas interests. given that we are such a young state that needs federal investment, to vote against $1.6 billion in federal projects including a research vessel, the $200 million hospital, 11 appropriations bills totaling $400 million, i came back to your office and advocate for the capital budget. to vote no on those types of projects and in combat -- and then come back and take credit for the things that you voted no on makes no sense to alaskans. >> back to the reporters asking questions. you have 45 seconds to answer these. >> mr. miller, on your website you suggested it was not appropriate for the federal government to assist after

hurricane katrina. are you suggesting if alaska were to suffer another major earthquake that we should not get federal aid? >> i am not sure what you are referring to. i like to see it in full context. when we look to the federal government for all the answers, and that is what much of this debate has centered on, what can we get for the state of alaska? how can we maximize the number of dollars coming into the state? we lose sight of the fact that if we don't look to the future, we are done. this country is headed toward bankruptcy. we saw what happened in great britain. we saw what happened to priest. if this state does not start fighting for the future and understanding that we have to provide for ourselves and we have an incredible opportunity to do that with our resource base, then the future that we are planning right now may be no future at all. it will be a dead end. >> what about the erosion in the coastal villages? should federal dollars help

that? >> again, my approach to federal funding for the state is not changing. it is just the emphasis of the direction of the fight has to be towards the resource base. we receive the funds that we're getting. nonetheless, the fight that senator stevens took, same aggression, but we have to go to the resource base. >> mr. mcadams, how you balance your economical of drilling in the offshore arctic waters with the concerns over climate change and coastal community fears about cleaning up oil in icy waters? >> first of all, we need to ensure that the alaska natural resource extraction uses the high standards for development and the world. i think we could do that as a matter of political will. when you talk about -- i believe that climate change is real and i believe that carbon emissions as part of the problem. but every energy realist recognizes this, including

president obama, regarding the bp spill. as we transition from a carbon based energy economy to what is next, we need new oil. instead of exporting to the developing world where they have no environmental standards or labor tradition, we need to do it in alaska because we do a better than anyone else. >> senator, he said recently that running as a right and give you freedom because you are not beholden to senator mitch mcconnell. were you before? have you not been voting your conscience? >> i have been voting my conscious. is it very clear and absolute when you are your party's nominee that you have a level of support that comes with the. joe is enjoying that now from the republican party. he is the republican nominee. i don't have those commitments that might be there, whether it

is a senatorial committee or to my republican party. i am still a republican. i registered as one when i was 18 years old and i get mad at my party every now and again but i am still a republican. when i go back to washington, d.c., i will have the duty of having come to this office from a true grass-roots perspective, representing all of alaska's's interests, not just republicans in the state. >> with that, we have to conclude. that is the end of our 2010 alaska public broadcasting for the debate. a key to the candidates and the panelists. -- mahnke to the candidates and the panelists. tuesday, november 2 is election day. polls open at 8:00 a.m. and close at 8:00 p.m. if you have not done so already, please remember to vote. thank you, and good night. [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by >> the anchorage daily news reports about 150 people flat alaskas division of elections yesterday just in time to register as right in candidates for the senate election. the movement is largely meant to protest the alaska supreme court order on wednesday that allowed for a list of certified write-in canada is to appear in polling

places. it is viewed as helping incumbents senator lisa murkowski in her bid as a write- in candidate. they said the wanted to make the list so long that it would be difficult for voters to find senator murkowski's name. that is from the anchorage daily news. next, a new hampshire senate debate between paul hodes and kelly ayotte. are running to replace the republican senator, judd gregg, who is retiring. this race is rated as leaning republican. this part of the granite state debate series in manchester and the new hampshire union leader. this is about an hour. >> wmur news 9 and the new

hampshire union leader present the greatest a debate. now the candidates for u.s. senate. >> appearing in tonight's debate, the former attorney- general, khalid ayotte. and a two term congressman, paul hodes. and now the granite state the date. -- granite state debate. >> good evening, and welcome to the fourth and final night of the debates held at the new hampshire institute of politics. after three terms and the senate, judd gregg is leaving office. tonight, the two major candidates vying to replace him. candidates will get one minute to respond to each question. for major topics, that may be expanded to 96. we will allow for 30-second rebuttals. will also have questions from

viewers and readers, and will be questions to each other. the candidates tonight had their padilla positions determined by draw this afternoon. they are republican kelly ayotte and congressman paul hodes. other candidates are on the ballot, but they did not meet the requirements to join the debate. we have asked the audience to hold their applause, but at this time we ask them to walk on the candidates. [applause] we have three panelists tonight. one is from the union leader, one is from wmur political scope, and josh rogers from new hampshire public radio. our first question comes from john. >> good evening, ms. ayotte.

why should voters for republicans -- why should voters put republicans back in control of congress? why should they trust that going back to republican control will result in a country that is in better shape at anomaly -- better shape economically? >> i have never run for political office before, and i think there were times when republican spent too much in this country as well. we have a $three -- $3 trillion debt. we have to cut spending, get our fiscal house in order because this generation is the first generation poised to not allow our children and grandchildren have the same opportunities as we have had. it is why i am running and i will stand up to my own party if they want to spend too much money. >> mr. hodes, the vice president said that voters are angry at democrats. do you agree that he says this

is a referendum on anchor, and democrats will lose? >> i don't think the voters are angry at any particular party, i think they're angry at what does not work and watch a temporary i was sent down as a congressman to fix what was broken. what is important in this election is the simple choices that face the voters. are we going back to the policies of borrow, spend, and waste that drove us into record deficits, 1.3 trillion dollars when we had a budget surplus with president clinton? are we going to be about come together as a nation and afford to cut waste? my opponent wants to go back to the exact same policies that the bus into the hole we're trying to get out of. we cannot do that. we have to afford. are you on the side of the people, or are you on the side of the special interests, multi millionaires that my opponent wants to give the tax breaks to

it and drive the deficit deeper? that is a prescription for another disaster. >> the candidates have 90 seconds to respond. >> mr. hodes, the national on the plan rate remains around 10%. what bills will be sponsored help create jobs? >> you know, josh, i think it is up to business to create jobs. what is critical is for government to set the policies that enable businesses to create jobs. but i won't do is i won't vote for tax cuts for multimillionaires that will drive our deficit $700 billion deeper. i favor tax cuts for middle- class families and working families. that is why i voted for the recovery act which contain the biggest middle-class tax cut in history. i think it is critical we help small businesses, not give tax breaks to multinationals to ship jobs overseas. we have to help small businesses.

that is why we provide research and development credit for businesses who want to create jobs here, that would give them tax help, to hire people unemployed. that is the kind of prescription to help small businesses, which are the backbone of new hampshire economy hire again and thrive. >> i come from a small business family. my husband has a landscaping and snow plowing business. the last thing we should be doing is raising taxes, yet that is what congressman hodes wants to do. when he talks about putting those tax cuts expire, it is keeping tax rates stable at a time when we are facing a difficult challenge nationally. those taxes impact 750,000 small businesses in this country. half the businesses employ 25% of the workers in this country. we need to the war taxes on small businesses, cut through

the part of some regulations like the new 1099 form that congressman hodes photophore that every small-business owner will have to file when they -- that congressman hodes voted for that every small-business owner will have to file when the purchase goods. we have to help small business owners. >> how in the world are tax cuts for multi millionaires and billionaires that drive our deficit $700 billion deeper into the hole going to help our economy? how does that help the deficit? what does that do for small businesses? the facts are only 3% of small and some filers would be affected by sane and reasonable tax rates. we need to help the middle class and small businesses. how was that possibly going to create jobs in this economy? >> congressman hodes, i understand why you want more money to be spent in washington, because your record of spending is one that said to have served

in congress, the deficit has increased 500%. just last year, you voted for 9000 year marks. what i would like to do is keep money in people's pockets in new hampshire. the tax increases he wants to vote for, those are ones that will cost people in new hampshire $300 million, just impacting small businesses. >> time to move forward, the next question is directed towards miss ayotte. >> most economists believe that true recovery is tied to the housing market. prices are down from the peak, the benefits from the home buyer tax credit or short-lived, and nine and out of 10 new mortgages are backed by the government. to what extent should the government increase or decrease its role at this point? >> we have to get the economy moving, and that will help the housing market, and that is

creating a positive climate for business with lower taxes and less regulation. but when it comes to the housing market, we need to address fannie mae and freddie mac. congressman hodes sat on the financial services committee, took donations from fannie mae and freddie mac, and the financial reform bill did not address fannie mae and freddie mac. i have seen a recent report, $124 billion might have to go to sustain fannie mae and freddie mac. we have to address that so we don't keep putting our taxpayer dollars into it and really get a vibrant, private housing market going with our economy. >> what is critical is that we stop the abuses that led to the crisis. i voted against the wall street bailout. i voted against it because i said we need to help small businesses and we need to deal with the foreclosure problem at the beginning, not wait until now. we should have done it when there was 20% in the subprime

market. now we have to have stronger reform. my opponent wants to repeal wall street reform. she favors policies that will let wall street run wild again and do exactly to was what they did before. barney frank and i did not see eye to eye, and i think we should have done something about fannie mae and freddie mac earlier. as a senator, i will make sure that we put in place tough new regulations to make sure that homeowners are not disadvantaged. >> congressman, that is false. you sat on the committee that had the opportunity to address fannie mae and freddie mac. rather than doing that, you took donations from them. when it comes to looking forward and addressing these issues, you have a very consistently with our refract and you have also voted very rigid with barney frank and you have also flooded very consistently what nancy pelosi. >> moving on to the part of the campaign that a lot of our

viewers are familiar with, your television ads. not everybody likes these. we will start with one of the campaign ads. it calls out your opponent's claims. >> politics needs more life, and paul hodes' commercials are fine. he became a fiscal conservative about 20 minutes ago. >> he voted for obama-care, and the bailout, and it was to continue raising taxes. >> paul hodes and voted with nancy pelosi 94% of the time. >> your response? >> it is clear that i am wrong when i am with them at -- we need to cut wasteful spending. that is why i propose reinstating budget constraints on discretionary spending.

that is why i gave of ear marks. it is why i said everybody should take a 10% pay cut. we should put a hiring freeze on the federal government for not security positions. it i proposed an energy plan that has $100 billion of cuts and the national taxpayers union points out that i in the only member of the congressional delegation would actually proposed an overall cut to the federal budget. my opponent wants to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires that will drive our deficit 7 hunter billion dollars deeper into the hole. that deficit is a prescription for disaster and is wrong. >> miss ayotte, justify why that ad was fair. >> congressman hodes, the national taxpayers union gave you an "f" three years and wrote in that advertisement was accurate. since he has been in congress,

he voted for 9000 year marks. -- 9000 ear marks. he voted for the all the mobile bailout and the stimulus package that has not been affected been growing private sector jobs. the deficit has increased over five other% while he is in congress. if he is a fiscal conservative, is nancy pelosi if a conservative? we are in deep trouble? >> let me just follow up. going back to the ad, it mentions the health care bill, the automobile bailout and the stimulus package. or those conservative votes? >> they are fiscally responsible. in the first place, for talking points don't mention that when president clinton handed over to president bush, he left a surplus as far as the eye could see. when president bush handed to

president obama, there was 1.3 trillion dollar deficit because of republican borrowing and spending. the economy was in free fall in 2009. the recovery act was necessary to prevent a second. depression. the congressional budget office said it reform will save us a trillion dollars in the deficit over the long term. that is real money. it is absolutely critical. for the automobile bailout, one in 10 jobs depend on the automobile industry. >> we have to move on. we will try to get back to this. all right, mr. hodes, we will go back to one of the first ads of your campaign that attacked miss ayotte on the resources scandal. >> i had no personal knowledge of this. babbitt was the biggest ponzi scheme in new hampshire history -- >> it was the biggest ponzi scheme in new hampshire history.

kelly ayotte docter responsibility, but who was on her watch? two days before she resigned, at she made sure that her emails would be erased. >> you have said this is dirty politics, but how do you defend those claims? >> first of all, the claims made in that ad are false. that that has been criticized by many papers in the state. as many of you know, my e-mails have been released, nearly 30,000, and i have testified before the legislature on this matter. the claims he made in that ad are absolutely false. he is making those claims because he does not want to talk about his votes on the stimulus or his votes for the auto bailout which bell that private industry with taxpayer dollars. >> why is it fair?

>> this ayotte based her campaign saying that she was a prosecutor, not a politician. when it came to frm, she let the people of new hampshire down. a nine-year ponzi scheme that her office failed to investigate. she issued a directive that ordered her e-mails erased. we've found going back to 2006, she was using her public office in the briggs case this spring or her personal political career. sad day for the attorney general's office, sad day for justice in new hampshire, and she was a prosecutor, not a politician. she was playing politics and public office as far back as 2006. i think it is a matter of integrity and credibility. >> rebuttal? >> that is absolute false. i serve the people of this state as attorney general five years.

i worked very closely with law enforcement and i can tell you that the lead detective in the manchester police that worked on the bridge case with me it says the claims to have made are absolutely despicable because they know that i worked with them and my only concern in that case was that justice was done. that was my concern as the attorney general of the state when i press a key to politicians from both parties that engaged in illegal acts. -- when i prosecuted politicians from both parties that engaged in illegal acts. i will take this duty if i have the privilege seriously as well. >> let's get back to frm. what does it say about your management style and leadership qualities that this case did not make it your desk? your predecessor said has said mistakes were done. your successor has said that mistakes were made at the department of justice. you have never suggested in any way that you believe any

mistakes in this matter were made. why don't you agree with that? >> i testified on this matter before the legislature. what became clear is that the legislature in 2002 removed jurisdiction over banking and security matters from the consumer protection bureau. when i testified before the legislature, said reinstate that, make sure this does not happen again. that has been the focus of what i testified and releasing all of my e-mail, i think that these be the focus going forward. >> now we move to candidate questions. they will get up to 30 seconds to ask their questions and 90 seconds to respond. mr. hodes has the first question. >> it is well known you have been endorsed by sarah palin. you both share extreme views that fall far out of step from those of many new hampshire

voters, including opposing a woman's right to choose. can you name three areas where you disagree with sarah palin? >> congressman hodes, i received the endorsement of governor palin. i was proud to have that endorsement, along with the endorsement of senator judd gregg and many others in this state, including shares and law enforcement. when it comes to governor palin, i kentucky during the presidential campaign that she supported the tarp bailouts. i would not have supported that. she has also said she would support a federal marriage amendment. i think that to be left to the states. >> miss ayotte, a question for mr. hodes? >> congressman hodes, you have one of the worst at his records in congress, missing more than 100 votes since the nothing you are running for the senate. earlier this year you missed a vote on unemployment benefits

and when you were asked by a newspaper why you missed the vote, he refused to answer, even though you had posted a video that a before on your website saying that you are going to vegas. i have a quick question, where were you and why won't you tell the taxpayers of the state who you work for where you are? >> it was campaign season and i was unfortunately out of state. i had a scheduling conflict and cannot get back for the vote, whose result was already predetermined. the real point is, where we stand on helping those who need unemployment insurance? i voted three times to make sure that those who need help for unemployment got that help. three times. mr. ayotte opposes that help for people who need unemployment insurance. she supports tax. for multimillionaires -- she supports tax breaks for multimillionaires. i think it is a part to help folks who are in the middle

class who have lost their jobs and need help. that is why i supported unemployment insurance. my record of attendance and congress is 96%. i am proud of my record and votes. it is a good attendance record. i'm especially proud of standing up for those who need unemployment help as opposed to offering tax cuts to multimillionaires that will hurt our deficit. it is beyond me given the recession we are and that miss ayotte and her party continue to oppose helped for those who need it at a time of such great distress. that is the real issue. i support unemployment benefits, ms. ayotte opposes extending unemployment benefits for those who need help during -- who need help. >> congressman, you have the 371st worst voting record in congress. you have not shut up for votes. i have the privilege of serving, i will be there to vote on

behalf of the people of new hampshire. my only point with unemployment benefits is we need to pay for them. we cannot continue to pass programs in washington without finding a way to pay for them, and we could have done that while paying for them. >> we will try to come back to this. we have to go. it is time for a viewer question. catherine rights, i would prefer more and punish senators. it can you give me an example of a major issue -- i would prefer a more independent senator. can you give me an example of how you differ from your party? >> i think in the pundits is very important. as attorney general i work with the legislators on both sides of the aisle to make sure that our children are protected from internet and sexual predators' and we have tough laws in place to deal with drug dealers. when it comes to breaking with my party in washington, on ear marks, republicans have asked

for them as well as democrats, i will stand up to my party on that issue because i think that process has been used in many instances to add to our deficit and for the bridges to nowhere and we have to stop that and our fiscal house in order. >> congressman? >> i have broken with my party on a number of occasions. i opposed the wall street bailout because i do not think was good for middle-class families and working folks. i did not want ceo's of all street banks reported. today it is those wall street ceos were behind the flood of ads supporting my opponent or try to buy this election, taken away from the people of new hampshire and flood our airways in support of my opponent. those are the ceos to wants to give multimillion-dollar tax breaks. there is not a justice department investigation into pay for play, that link between ear marks and contributions

which was happening in my own party. i have worked across the aisle to make sure an investigation would start and i am a strong supporter of second amendment rights, which is something my party quickly digenerally does e with. >> which senator to you admire? >> that is an interesting question, josh. i think there have certainly been occasions when senator graham has taken positions and work in a bipartisan way which i have appreciated. not likely, however, and there have been instances unfortunately where, for example, senator gregg, who i also admire, sponsored the deficit reduction commission. there are a number of republicans who co-sponsored it and walked away from the vote. i think it is a good idea. my opponent opposes her own mentor, senator gregg, for reasons i have no clue about,

but i think that senator greg has done a good job on being a watchdog of this responsibility. >> same question, except you are not allowed to say the other senator. >> i think there have been some measures. importantt is very that we reform our tax code because it has become so complicated. the only person that benefits from the tax code are the lawyers and accountants and irs agents. we need to simplify the tax code. i know that senator why then is making an effort to do that. and maybe clear, senator gregg, i am proud to have his endorsement, but we don't need a commission to do the work of congress. congressman hodes has continued to vote for spending bill after spending bill, rather than do the job of congress which is to put together a balanced budget. he voted to adjourn without a

budget for this country. without a budget, how do we have this course must build it? >> -- how can we have fiscal responsibility without a budget? >> on immigration, millions of illegal immigrants come into this country, most across the southern border. back in the spring, you classify this as an invasion. do you still feel that way? >> i think we have to address the legal immigration in this country. if you look at what arizona has gone through, that is an invasion. to have a rancher almost killed on his own property, people kidnapped and drug dealers on the streets. we have had people coming over our borders, some of them who don't have the best intentions. we need leadership in washington and that means securing our borders, and forcing our existing immigration laws in making sure that we hold people

accountable. finally, let's make sure that people who are waiting diligently to contribute to this country and played by the rules, that we are a country of immigrants --that they participate legally. >> congressman, we know that you are for border security, but which to do to address the illegal immigrants in this country? >> i would not want to see unconstitutional ariz.-type laws come to new hampshire. miss ayotte supports the sheriff in arizona and supports the unconstitutional lot in arizona. as one of the symptoms of a broken washington that a comprehensive bill has not yet been signed into law, because we need comprehensive reform. we need to enforce the laws on the books to make sure that employers are not hiring illegal

aliens. i voted a number of times for increased border security and we need to secure our borders. we need to have a comprehensive approach to making sure that those who are here illegally get to the back of the line. they should learn english, weed out the criminals, and they should pay police. finally, we have a broken bureaucracy in terms of emigration and has to be reformed to make sure that people to follow a path to legalization. but it is not amnesty i imagine -- but it is not amnesty i am interested in. >> instead of spending -- instead of sending reinforcements to arizona, let's talk about the of law. if a police officer for some other purposes stops someone asks them for their identification, it is close to federal law.

arizona had to act because the federal government has failed to act to secure our borders and keep people here say if. >> it was found to be unconstitutional. it used to support the unconstitutional law? -- do you support the unconstitutional law? >> that case is being repealed. it is very similar to federal law. it is one that arizona had passed to protect their citizens and i'm confident that it will be upheld. >> congressmen, we went into afghanistan nearly nine years ago to take out al qaeda. they suggest a some a bit laden is hiding out in pakistan and al qaeda fighters have been crossing over the border to attack our troops in afghanistan. should the u.s. military be involved in the strikes inside of pakistan? >> what is clear is it is critical that we keep relentless

pressure on terrorism and terrorists. it is critical. the heartbeat of al qaeda is probably located in pakistan, on the border with afghanistan. that is why the attempt has been to prevent a failed state in afghanistan and try to prevent the spread of terrorists from pakistan into afghanistan. i think we need to reassess our counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan in light of what has been going on with the karzai government. the president has been very clear about pursuing terrorists wherever they may be and we are pursuing a very effective program in pakistan that has severely disrupted al qaeda in pakistan, but we have other problems. we have al qaeda in somalia, yemen. in addition to pursuing terrorists, without stop wherever they are, we have to make sure that we are pursuing them also in other parts of the world. >> i am part of a military family.

my husband served in the iraq war and that is very important that we root out terrorists were that are pretty if they're within the pakistani government, working with that government, if there is -- and unfortunately, al qaeda has been operating at times within pakistan and we have to do whatever we can to stop them. one thing which not do what comes to terrorists is treat them like common criminals. within our own country, which not be trying terrorists in new york city. i think that is an approach where congressman hodes and i differ. >> how open and it should our commitment there be? >> when it comes to our mission in afghanistan, the conditions on the ground have to dictate what we're doing in afghanistan. general petraeus, i have great confidence in general petraeus. we need to assess his reports in terms of what he is talking

about our mission. we should be constantly assessing to make sure our troops have what they need, that we are stabilizing afghanistan, allowing them to put up their own government and also making sure that we are not allowing afghanistan to again become a launching pad for terrorist attacks against our country or allies. >> i think this is an area where there is some disagreement between us. i supported an amendment that would move up the time to reassess our strategy in afghanistan. i don't believe that military means alone will accomplish an effective mission in afghanistan. i think it is time we have a new definition of our mission, strategy, and reassessment as to whether the current strategy is working. our troops are doing a magnificent job in afghanistan. they have gone above and beyond, but we need to make sure that we are pursuing the right strategy and we have to make sure that there are time constraints,

because we cannot have an endless commitment to a third century country with a corrupt government. >> one thing we should not have done is to signal to our enemies exactly when we are going to leave. that's just emboldens our enemies, and we should not be doing that to our troops. we need to make sure that our military commanders are assessing the situation and reporting back to the president, rather than announcing a deadline for when we're living. >> the next question comes from josh rogers. mr. hodes, the obama administration has begun working on a $60 billion arms deal with saudi arabia to send fighter jets, helicopters, bombs, and missiles. congress can block the transaction but the opposition has surfaced. it as a u.s. senator, where we stand on selling tens of billions of dollars of u.s. weaponry to saudi arabia? >> it is