not we have privatization, including those things that limit the costs and allow us to save our own money. >> senator murkowski, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> i am confused with the response, because you have said that you've been consistent, and yet it was earlier this year that you were quoted as saying that social security needs to be eliminated. now you're saying you're going to take care of it for your parents, but, in fact, what do you do with those that you're saying we're going to have a lower cutoff? how do you handle -- how do you handle those who may be at 50 and have paid into the system for all of their working years and now you're saying, well, you may or may not get it. .

>> you are getting close together. you two will have a moment to bond because mr. miller it is your turn to ask a question. >> senator murkowski said you are unqualified to be a senator. i want you to compare the experience you have today with the experience she had in 2002. >> that is a fair question. i have stood before my community the last eight years and had to account to constituents, friends, neighbors. i worked on eight public budgets between $15 million to $25 each.

senator murkowski served her neighborhood in the state house for four years and served well when she was appointed by her dad. i know there was a time in alaska when there was a young banker who served three years on the school board and moved to juneau then to fairbanks, ran for office and lost and that is frank murkowski. so to say somebody who was a locally elected leader eight years is unqualified is a bit of an insult. >> 30 seconds to respond. >> i think that scott, it is up to the voters and you put it well the other night when you mentioned that vote your values. determine what the candidates stand for. make a decision based on what the candidate can deliver. i know we have differences of opinion about where the federal government is headed. i believe we are near bankruptcy and what we have to do is look in a different direction. i think that the message is we

have to be clear to the voters as far as how we will address that coming fiscal issue is important to make a decision on. >> mr. mcadams, your yquestion for nsenator murkowski. >> you referred to social security as a troubled entitlement if i recall correctly. in a recent interview you talked about the need to find reductions in both social security and medicare, potentially raising the eligibility age for medicare. my question to you is, is why -- for social security -- why would that be your first remedy when we have the $106,000 wage marker from which multimillionaires pay the same payroll tax as a slope worker making $106,000. why not balance it on the backs

of middle class seniors? >> i'm not suggesting that this is the tpeufirst fix. we need to put the ideas and options on the table because i think that both of us would agree you have social security in an unsustainable position at this point. you have more people that are receiving that payout from social security than are paying in. it is not sustainable. we know how this graph intersects and it doesn't work. so we have to address it. there are two bipartisan commissions tasked with doing exactly this, trying to figure out what are the options. what is good? what is bad? what are the pros? what are the cons? we should all look at where they come from on this. it is important to make sure that the ideas we put on the table are not shot down but we can have a good constructive dialogue because this safety net for our seniors, for those that are in need, needs to be saved.

>> 30 seconds. >> i shared this in other debates. i feel the united states senate has become a club of millionaires doing the bidding of billionaires. if we lift the cap at $106,000 per year and had everyone pay the same payroll tax in an equitable fashion all the way up to multimillionaires it would be solvent for 75 years. we need to put hands in the middle class to build the economy, not continue to give tax breaks to millionaires. >> senator murkowski, are you feeling the group hug love? >> i'm over here with david and it is quiet. >> we will go back to the reporter questions and give you a chance to ask more questions later. for now, you have 45 seconds to respond. we will start with something from dave. >> when is it time to leave afghanistan? and what have we learned there?

>> senator murkowski? >> not yet. it is not time to leave afghanistan yet. i think we are waiting still until there is some level of secure government, and there clearly is not at this point in time. we are very cognizant of the very difficult situation that we have there. but to put an arbitrary time line on the u.s. involvement there, i think, sends exactly the wrong signal. i don't think congress should be micromanaging the efforts that general patraeus has made. we need to listen to the guidance of those that we have put in charge. but for us to make that decision arbitrarily and say now is the time to pull out, i think, is a mistake for us as a nation. >> mr. mcadams? >> i think we do need to give general patraeus a chance to refocus the mission there.

we have been there almost a decade. al qaeda remains a threat globally to the western world. they are partners in the taliban, stand ready to re-emerge should we create a vacuum in afghanistan. here is my pledge to alaskans. before i ever vote to expand an appropriation on a conflict abroad i will be dogged with the administration. i will ask the questions to assure we have a clear purpose and a chris technicalized mission -- crystallized mission and we can afford in human blood or national treasury to be continued to be engaged in nation building and endless war. >> nation building is certainly the answer but we we can leave is when we release the military leaders to do what they are trained to do and now they are slowed by the phreutsz. we came into afghanistan with the intent to eliminate terrorism and engaged in nation

building. that is why we have men and women in uniform have to wait until they are shot at until they fire back. all military veterans in this state who have season combat recognize we can't do what we did in vietnam, yet that seems to be what is happening. we have to release the leadership to do what they are trained to do without being slowed by the politics of the day and we have to rethink about why we get involved in countries. it has to be to eliminate terrorism and the threat but not to build nations and not engage in some sort of neoconservative objective to build a country on the sweat and blood of our men and women. >> 30-second follow-up. how do you deal with pakistan, the other countries in the reasonab region? they have governments that are syrup they could to -- sympathetic to al qaeda? how do you deal with them? >> the united states needs to be forewarned if you are

creating a threat to our nation we will strike that threat and eliminate it. it doesn't mean we will descend upon your country and change your leadership. it doesn't mean in the example of iran, for example, developing a weapon of mass destruction a president that announced his intent to use some force against israel, maybe against the united stat states. you do this, we are going to take out the threat but not rebuild the nation. that is the same thing we deal with with afghanistan and pakistan and other nations that may threaten us. >> there is no question that when you take a look at the rules and responsibilities of our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines that we are asking these fine young men and women to not only be equipped in their primary areas, we are asking these young service pe people to be ambassadors and diplomats. we are asking them to have tea

with tribal chief tans. i think it is difficult to -- it is amazing that they are able to carry out this mission. >> senator murkowski, how do we deal with pakistan and other countries in the region? >> one reason it is important we are in afghanistan, pakistan has been a place almost of a safe haven for some of those who would incite the terror of the jihadists. you squeeze the balloon in averages and they go over to pakistan and yemen. the reality for us, we've got a very volatile situation in pakistan as well. and knowing that pakistan has nuclear weapons, we have to pay attention to what is happening in the region. stabilizing afghanistan is important to stabilizing the

region. >> do you support building a fence on the mexican border? the bush administration estimated the cost of $8 billion. if not, what should be done about illegal immigration? >> let me start by saying that i think as it relates to immigration policy we need to first enforce the laws we have on the books. it is true that in our border regions and communities we have safety and security issues. many of our border communities are in the mix of a huge drug war in the southwestern portion of the united states. but i don't support building a wall. i think that walls are best left to regimes like the soviet union. i think that we need to look at the supply and demand for cheap foreign labor. i think that we have turned our heads too long and looked the other way while unethical businesses have continued to hire undocumented workers. that is where we need to

concentrate on the fix. >> senator murkowski? >> building is wall is not the only answer here. you build a wall that is 12 feet high and the line is that they are going to find a ladder that is 13 feet high and figure out a way to get across. we need to do better when it comes to enforcement of our borders. but to spend the dollars to build the wall defies the logic, as scott says, if there is incentive to come into the count country. we have a catch and release system and that needs to be addressed. we need to make sure we fund the level of border security so we can truly patrol this. we need to make sure that in fact when those who come in that we have a process to immediately turn them around. the fence is not the only answer. >> mr. miller? >> the fence has been voted on

in congress is authorized but senator murkowski voted against the funding several times as well as many others in congress that are not showing leadership. we have to build a fence. we have to build something. that is the first step. otherwise you not only are dealing with an illegal alien issue but a national security issue. and even a health issue. we have third word diseases springing up like wildfire in southern states particularly california. you can't maintain national integrity without border security. it has to be done on the southern border. but there are other things to do. we can't vote for amnesty as senator murkowski. you can't build something so people break the law to gain benefit. we have to take care of the problem. the fence is the first step and then design other reforms to make sure they are not able to get in. >> you have gotten heat for referencing east germany as a country that was able to protect its border, have a wall.

do we shoot mexicans coming over? >> come on, that was a reference that was designed to say, look, we are an advanced country beyond all other nations and to say you can't build a fence that keeps people out is not the case. throughout the world today there have been -- and we are not talki talking about doing anything like that. but we're the most powerful nation in the world. we have the most extraordinary nation in the world. to suggest when we are suffering hundreds of billions of dollars of cost with illegal aliens and can't take part of the savings and put them into a fence that won't work i don't believe it. >> it is true we are the greatest nation in the world. the raoeeason is because we aree freest nation in the world. we are the most humane nation and most just nation in the world. when we represent those values through our relationship we are a beacon to the world. so, i don't believe in building a wall. i think we need to enforce the

laws we have on the books. but there was a time in the history of this country when the president stood up before the world and said mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. i will fight to make sure we don't make a mistake from the past once i'm elected to the senate. >> we are the greatest nation. we are so smart. what are we doing building a wall? why don't we use our intelligence to utilize new technology, whether they are u.a.v.'s, whether it is the technology that allows us to understand what is coming and going, again making sure we have a level of enforcement that works, making sure that when there are those that do cross over, that there is an immediate retu return. >> the federal government now offers an $18 billion loan guarantee for a gas pipeline to the lower 48. trans-canada says it needs that

pumped up to $30 billion. is that too much money or is it still not enough? >> it depends on when we get the gas lane. at the rate we are going it might not be enough. i think $30 billion is the right number right now and our efforts to ensure that this gets through the congress and gets enacted into law so that loan guarantee is back there as that safety. because that is what that is. it is that loan guarantee that is helpful to the producers so they can advance that project. they have the backstop of the federal government hyped them. this project has escalated in size and scope, not necessarily the size but the scope and cost, so that loan guarantee is important. equally important are other provisi provisions that we have included which is access to the financing bank which helps reduce the financing cost. anything we can do to facilitate it is good. >> i don't know.

that is the frank answer. i would have to study the demands to make sure it is a good investment but any gas line is a good investment. we have to make sure the right amount of money is applied to it. some things can be done to enhance the likelihood of it going forward and enhance the likelihood any level of money would put it forward. you don't do a carbon tax that would increase the cost of the high carbon gas on the north slope. something else is the regulatory burden that is associated with the construction of a pipeline. if you look at the trans-alaskan pipeline and its construction and component of cost was due to regulatory burden was huge. so if we reduce the cost where we have the ability at the federal government level it will reduce the amount of money necessary to build the line and make it more cost effective. >> mr. mcadams, $30 billion enough? too much? >> no question that ex-pediatric

united stated performing and loans are the steps of the government. my position has been i support whatever line brings the product to market and puts alaskans to work. as it relates to climate change, i think that is real and there is a human influence on climate change. i think that as a matter of national policy and priority we can incentivize the use of natural gas to help us transition from a heavily reliant carbon base platform to what is next. natural gas is clean burning. we need to do whatever we can to bring it to market and create a market on the other end. >> we will take a short break. thank you to dave donaldson for joining us and we will be right back.

>> the tribal order wabgt was pass d and before that a project was struck from it. the senator has proposed the alaska safe villages and families act that would empower tribal villages to exercise certain powers to address crime. do you support this plan or have a different proposal to address the high rates of crime and sexual semiautomatic -- sexual assaults? >> it was my amendment in the act that would have allowed for this pilot project. it would essentially provide for an opportunity for greater collaboration between the tribe,

state, the federal agencies, in terms of how we can address some of the law enforcement issues in our villages. it was not an expansion of either the civil or criminal jurisdiction. this is where the bill attempts to take it is an expansion of jurisdiction. we sought not to give that particularly by way of an amendment in the traoebl law and order act. i think that is a good act and it is important particularly for those in the reservations. but it was a good bill and one i supported. >> mr. mcadams? >> i do support our tribes and their ability to self-determine through local control including expansion of jurisdiction for courts. we are a big state. when you look at how do we empower people that live in villages and address the great

need in rural alaska, i think by finding ways to empower tribal citizens at the local level, whether it be through tribal courts, health, education, community development. i think that alaska's next senator needs to redouble or maybe retriple their efforts to working with the tribe because they are uniquely positioned to develop rural alaska. >> mr. miller? >> i have directed the criminal systems. i spent time interacting with the local villages that were next toed courts. one of the most effective programs we have, the first rural therapeutic court in the state because we combined with the village councils that wished to participate in a way we were able to address those problems. we are seeing time and time again people coming through the court system where they were not being addressed or helped, where

they are not being rehabilitated. when we brought the communities together the end result was more effective. that is the direction we have to go. the only cautionary note is we have to make sure those that decide to be involved there has to be 100% consent. >> senator murkowski was a fellow republican demanded that would be taken out or wouldn't let the entire act go forward. how do you convince colleagues in a way you have not been able to do thus far? >> it was an issue as to the cost. he insisted there was a cost involved. we were able to demonstrate to him that there would be no cost. he then came back and said it was an earmark. an because of that he was going to fight tooth and nail. >> mr. miller, senator co-burn said no, not going to let it fly. >> earmarks clearly are a thing that will soon be of the past.

>> was that an earmark? >> i don't know, but the way we are headed right now, when you see the leadership of the house that will be republican on the second earmarks are fore sworn. the reason is because it is the most corrupting influence, it creates the big budgets. >> i don't think it is an earmark. an earmark is an appropriation made by a local or special interest. i think that expansion of tribal sovereignty here in alaska with the tribes is the right thing to do. >> thousands of alaskans 65 and older can't get in to see a doctor because of their medicare plans. the doctors won't take them because of low reimbursement rates. what is the solution? >> i'm the candidate in this race who believes we need a fully funded medicare program. the primary care physicians in alaska have to manage a case load of seniors with other work to pay their basic bills.

too many doctors are forced to write for the file cabinet instead of provide services. it is important to point out that during our debate at u.a.f. am miller talked about the need to privatize medicare. senator murkowski over the last few years in 2004 and 2006 you voted to cut medicare by $6 billion. in 2010 you voted to reduce medicare by 20% and voted in an appropriations bill to not fund the anchorage medicare clinic. it is a promise we need to keep to seniors. >> mr. miller, what is the solution? >> i agree with scott and i have said this many times. medicare, we have to preserve it for those currently there. those who are getting ready to go into the program, my parents are medicare recipients. but we are rationing care because of what is going on because you don't have enough that are providing the services

medicare would pay for. so there have to be reforms to allow co-pays and opt out and vouchers. we have to look at prosecuting fraud. when you have elderliys taken care of services they don't need or don't get there has to be a reaction. there can't be a slap on the hand. those are some ways to cheney up the cost -- ways to clean up the cost but the whole system as a whole we have to work and it takes more than 45 seconds to talk about how to get free enterprise back in the system. >> it comes down to reimbursement. when a provider is getting paid 33 cents on the dollar, you are not going to see providers willing to take more medicare eligible individuals. you see it time after time. here in anchorage there is around seven, may be eight, in the entire community, our largest state, seven providers who are willing to take new medicare eligible individuals

because the reimbursement rate doesn't make it. it was the effort i made in 2008 with senator stevens to get a 35% permanent increase to the reimbursement rate to help facilitate this issue in this state. this was one of the bills that joe has singled out and said i should have stuck with the party line on this. this is too important to alaska. we are in a crisis when it comes to access to medicare. it is about the providers. >> the next question is about healthcare so we will have more tile. 45 seconds to respond. a navy veteran shared his personal story. his daughter was born with a congenital heart defect. surgeries have been numerous but she has a pacemaker. she just graduated from college and he wants to know what you will do to make sure she has insurance when she ages out of her parents' plan. >> i think the first thing is to make sure that those that are

closest to the problem are providing the answer to the problem. one position i have had and i think alaskans have heard me loud and clear is the states need to take more of a leading role. as to what they design as to being beneficial. it is not the federal government to make a decision for all. alaska has made decisions in various programs for its people. most of them have federal mandates that are associated with them. we can do things better as a state and create better solutions and better responses to the problems we have. if we have greater wealth, which hopefully we can generate through the development of our resources that have not been fully developed, we can expand if the people desire them. but what it gets down to is what does the state wish for its people and is the state in a position to provide that? i believe that the state rather than the federal government is in the best position. >> what this young woman needs insurance of is she won't be denied coverage later on because

of a preexisting condition. that is what has been going on. that was one of the big initiatives in the reform of healthcare, how we deal with that. we can get into all kind of debates about healthcare reform and whether or not we reformed healthcare. one thing republicans and democrats alike agreed on was we needed to resolve this issue of denial of insurance because of preexisting conditions. that is one thing that is contained in this healthcare bill. i voted against it. there are a few things that actually need to be in there when we deal with health care reform down the road but preexi preexisting conditions is key. >> what would you say? >> one in 16 american workers is stuck in a state of job lock where they cannot move and improve themselves because they

are afraid to leave the workplace because they have a preexisting condition. just a little back to the last question, in 2010 senator murkowski voted to reduce medicare reimbursement rates by 20%. we need to be consistent on what we vote on. i think our vote need to be accounted for throughout the course of the campaign and the rest of the debate. but senator murkowski voted to repeal healthcare reform. it is not a perfect bill but there are 150 republican amendments attached to it. it could be called mitch mcconnell care as obama care. the preexisting condition reform is an important part of the bill. >> i want to ask a follow-up. is congress's time best spent working toward repealing or defund being the healthcare legislation in line? some have suggested it might not be possible. what should congress do, work to

repeal, defund or just work to fix the problems that are there? >> there are things we can do tomorrow if we were in session. we can put in place medical malpractice reform. we can allow for purchasing of insurance across state lines that would actually begin to work to help to address the problem. the courts are going to go on their path as it relates to the litigation out there. they will determine whether or not that individual mandate is unconstitutional. i happen to think they are going to determine that it is unconstitutional. until that point we have an o obligation to try to reduce the cost of healthcare because this bill didn't reduce the cost. >> we can start that without waiting for it to be repealed. >> if it is not constitutional we have to get rid of t. the

repeal won't happen because the only option is defund and we will work to make sure that happens. this is a takeover of 20% of the federal economy and another ste-- step to a national health plan and a step toward limiting access to healthcare and something that must be stopped. we do not have a second to waste. >> mr. mcadams. >> i think joe has been consistent in his position that he would like to see the healthcare roller bill repealed. i have been consistent that i would like to see some of the more problematic elements of it improved. i think senator murkowski voted to repeal and voted against so i'm not sure where you are at, whether you would like to repeal or improve. we live in a system where health insurance companies have a greater role than doctors and patients. that is the problem. >> a brief lightning round and

you have 15 seconds to answer the questions. abortion. should it be allowed in cases of rape or incest? >> yes. >> a woman's reproductive health services should be part of the portfolio of all healthcare servic services. >> i don't believe that the life of an innocent should be keupbt on somebody -- contingent on somebody else's criminal act. >> do you believe traoeublgs -- tribes are sovereign autonomous comforts. >> i think they should be recognized as such even though they are not her in alaska. there's been opposition to recognizing our 229 tribes as sovereign and have been part of the state for 30 years. we need to send a senator to washington, d.c. who believes in that. >> as a matter of law they are not but the fact is i absolutely recognize the first alaskans

have ties to land and we need to respect the fact there is desire for communities to direct their affairs. i'm very much a local control individual. >> as federally recognized tribes we conduct relationships with them and they need to be respected. i suggested we need to have a more formal consultation process between the delegation and our federally recognized tribes. >> should federal money help fund public radio and tv in the united states? >> wow, i knew you were going to call on me first. my perspective of where we are and i made this consistently, my concern is where we are headed federally with bankruptcy and need to transition into state control. i think ultimately those programs have to transition in that direction given the bankrupt position of the federal government. don't expect that to happen.

>> i have long been a supporter of public broadcasting. i recognize it is more than nice programs you listen to. if you live out in the rural communities, if you are out the there, this your news source and community source. it is important to us in alaska. >> yes, i believe there is a role albeit not constitutionally mandated. there was a time when kfsk was the only media we had. i think it is part of the fabric of alaska. >> has the patriot act helped or hurt america? >> i had some real issues with it when we were first dealing with the reauthorization. i was concerned there was encroachment on civil liberties. i joined with a small group of republicans to make sure that

while we allowed for the production of defense we didn't encroach on personal liberty. >> i don't think it has made us any safer. i remember seeing a bumper sticker that said i want my inalienable rights back. any legislation that allows the united states government to spy on its own citizens is a breach on civil liberties. >> we haven't had a terror strike since it was passed. concerned about the process of which it was adopted and concerned about elements within it. but just because it helped doesn't mean it is right. that is what we have to keep in mind because of the constitution. >> beyond the obvious constitutional qualifications which she meets is sarah palin qualified to be president? >> no, now i'm the one that got the first question. >> do i think that governor palin is qualified to be president of the united states?

i think that in a strict assemblsense she is. i don't support already idea kwrlg. >> of course she is. you look at who we have in office and there is no comparison. >> if she were to run right now i would not support her as president. >> from is from roger jacobson. if you could go back to 1958 would you volt for or -- vote for or against alaska statehood. >> i would because the state has the capacity to do great things and even then it did. you look at the resource base we have here and the ability that we have to move forward this nation, we have extraordinary opportuniti opportunities. and when states are in criminal of the resource base which is what was intended. >> i had just been born. my grandparents were arguing

about this at the time. we were living down in ketchikan and the big fight was over the fisheries and who would control them. i think that in view of what we have seen now and how we have been able to develop not only our fisheries but all other resources to the level we have, of course statehood was a great thing and i probably would have been an advocate with them. >> absolutely i would have supported statehood. it is no question that i think there is plenty of reason to take a look at the fact that our constitution was ratified on the same ballot as a provision that removed the fish traps from alaska. i think that it is time to bring back the spirit of 1956 with our state constitution and stop allowing outside interests to import labor and export wealth. >> now you can question one another. responses can last a minute with rebuttals of 30 seconds. let's start with mr. mcadams

something something of mr. miller. >> joe, as you know, lisa voted against justice sotomayor and justice kagan and 11 appropriations bills from the competent with this we are with 89 alaskan projects for a total of $400 million. she voted against extending unemployment insurance. she voted on the pilot program to privatize social security. do you think you would have voted any differently on any of those issues? >> i think that it is tough to describe those votes. there are a number of things i would not have voted for. i wouldn't have voted for eric holder. i would not have voted against secretary bolton for the united nations. there are things i would never have done such as co-sponsor the cap and trade bill in 2008. i certainly wouldn't have supported a number of other things she voted for including

endorsing roe v wade. i there are certainly some votes that i agree with the senator on. she did vote, i think, even though the most liberal senator running for re-election, there were still votes that she voted that were with her party and were conservative. that doesn't mean i agree with everything the republican party does as well. clearly the reason we have grown government to the point we have is a bipartisan problem of both democrats and republicans. we have to look at everything government has done the last several decades and relook at the approach that has been taken. >> i appreciate that, joe. i do wonder as it relates to justice sotomayor, justice kagan, and the $400 million in projects over 11 appropriations bills would you have voted for those? >> certainly have voted against

sotomayor and kagan. i would have done more to fight the appointments. i would have done everything to stop them because they represent a branch of government in the judiciary that are activist. i disagree with the activist role of the judge and believe there could have been more fight put in that. >> mr. miller, your question for senator murkowski. >> you raised a flyer the republican party sent concerning social security and your perspective on that. you have sent out a number of mailers including one claiming that prominent were supporting you and not scott mcadams. you indicated patty murray was supporting you. in response the chairwoman of the democratic party stated that lisa this is a quote she's lied by fellow alaskans to win. this is outrages. i would like to note your campaign apologized for that. after that, you sent out another

flyer and that is this one. on it you note that you are the n.r.a. endorsed candidate and is a strong supporter of the second metal yet on the american rifleman the november 2010 cover it reflects that you were not endorsed. will your campaign apologize to alaskans for lying about the endorsement? >> you know as well as scott that the flyer that was september out about three or four days ago, in which we take the quotes from not only ethan berkowitz, patty murray, a couple other democrats, were quotes that were absolutely in context. what was a mistake and an error on the campaign and as a candidate i have personally called ethan berkowitz to apologize because the headline made it appear that thaoefrten

did not support scott mcadams. and i told him that that was an error on behalf of the campaign. but as the candidate i accepted responsibility and i apologized and he accepted that apology. that is as clear on its face and that has been made very public. i don't know that there is anything more to apologize for. i apologized to mr. berkowitz and that is where it was appropriate. >> you still haven't answered the question. you state you are the n.r.a. endorsed candidate yet they say you were not. >> i was endorsed by the n.r.a. in the primary and you know that i received that because i think it caused you a little bit of consternation because you had worked very hard, i think, to try to get that. and we received that without hesitation and without qualification and i was proud to receive the endorsement of the n.r.a. >> senator, murkowski, your

question for mr. mcadams. >> scott, on monday we were talking at the chamber in fairbanks and one question that was asked of both you and joe w was, if you are to get to the united states senate which committees would you like to serve on. you didn't answer at that point in time and then 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, at 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, with a freshman senator hoping to be placed on the committee at the bottom of the list in terms of seniority? >> answering the fairbanks issue

of answering the question, you will remember it was a two-part question. we had about 30 seconds to answer. so, we did run out of time, in fairness. regarding seniority, i think it is important that we have a united states senator who builds seniority and uses it appropriately. i look at alaska's natural resources and i think we all share the concern we are a resource state and we need to bring them to market and need energy policy that does that. right now those projects are sitting empty. we are not bringing the energy to market. we need a new strategy because we can't wait another six years to open them and get the economy revitalized. and nobody is buying what we have been trying to sell in in the senate the last eight years. >> i think it is incredibly important as an energy producing state that we be helping to 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 and what i will be able to do. whether it is taking on the e.p.a. 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'm in a position to do so. as an incoming freshman, it does leave question, 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 final question. we will start with mr. miller. you may ask whomever you like. >> senator you strongly criticized the republican party for sending mailers saying you are a poor cap in trade citing the bill you sponsored with specter. you made statements that affirm

you are a true believer in man made global warming and praised obama's commitment on climate change. during the election cycle you profess to opposing cap and trade. are you flip-flopping? >> no flip noning at all. i worked very hard and aggressively this summer to ensure that we did not have a cap in trade policy imposed in any kind of energy bill. it was my leadership on the committee and actually sitting down with the president and cabinet members and other senators to ensure they new that not only would this cap and trade proposal before us kick our economy in the gut, it would take the rug out from underneath alaska and our economy. and i made clear to senator lebronman and kerry that it couldn't happen and they didn't have the votes. and after that in mid july we find out we are not dealing with

a cap and trade proposal. senator stevens and i did work together to deal with how we reduce our emissions in a bill in 2007. >> mr. miller, your response. >> your consistent position has embraced cap and trade and carbon tax. the new york sometim"new york t reputation in her eight years is a moderate republican willing to engage with democrats in the climate debate even the hill says and this is a quote i appreciate the president's commitment to addressing that and the congress does need to act on climate change. you have you also been noted as stating, and this is from your website, that you believe we must look at all possible options it regulating climate chan change. so is your position advocating for cap and trade? >> i would like to respond because i have taken the position that we need to deal with the tough issues that are

before us. some of the tough issues that are before us are change in climate. and where we can responsibly reduce our emissions i believe we have an obligation to do so. do not believe a cap and trade proposal is the responsible way to do so and i will work to oppose that at every opportunity where we're hurting our economy. it is not an appropriate tradeoff. >> senator murkowski, your question of one of your opponents. >> let's see. i will ask you this, joe, because you have a rally tomorrow and one of the individuals that you say you admire most in the senate, jim demint, is apparently participating in your rally. senator demint has stated that he doesn't believe that someone who is openly homosexual should teach in our schools. when he was criticized for this, he went on to say that he tax

the same position on an unmarried woman who is living with her boyfriend, that she should not be in the classroom and not teaching. do you share the same views as senator demint? >> we have a diverse nation with different values. there are some people in the country that believe we ought to have state run healthcare. you believe a government run plan is not a bad thing as long as it works. you made that statement at a town hall meeting last fall. but if 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 very diverse opinions in this country about where that ought to go. i have my own personal pwhroefrs but i believe they ought to be exercised at the state level as to how you want to influence the public sphere. anybody that challenges that law doesn't understand that law

works. we regulate behavior. if massachusetts wants gay thaeurpblg r marriage -- marriage they have the right to pass a bill. the same way the states that have different values should have the opportunity to decide what at the want to do within their state. i believe it is a state and not a federal issue to make the decisions. >> i think you said that you disagree with senator demanipulative but i'm -- demint but i'm not sure. i raise this as an issue because you have stated on numerous occasions that senator demint is someone in the senate you admire, yet he has been almost docked in his -- dogged in his attacks on the alaska agenda. he sought to strip senator stevens of his committee assignments and try to expel him from the state. it is senator demint that has worked strident ly against so many of our projects.

so i'm surprised you continue to align yourself with him. >> mr. mcadams, your question of a candidate. >> i will ask senator murkowski a question. in reference to the nature of your question for joe, i know that you are a supporter of the defense of marriage act which many in the gay and lesbian community find offensive. but i want to ask you specifically a question about some of the positions you have taken throughout the course of the general campaign which i believe are different from positions you took in the primary and service record in the senate especially the last two years. voting with mitch mcconnell 90% of the time the last year, i want to ask on some particular issues how is it now, now that you are working to gain democratic and independent voters, after having a record in the senate that garner you an f from time parenthood and tpfrpblts from naacp that got you an f from the civil

liberties journal, i wonder how is it now that you can position yourself as being a moderate or even a liberal and court democratic voters we you have been one of the most conservative in the senate since you entered leadership two years ago? >> well, you are throwing around a lot of numbers there in terms of how many times i voted with senator mcconnell. i don't keep track of that. one i did keep track is the pairing with senator stevens. we voted together about 96% of the time. i'm trying to figure out where the areas were where we disagreed. but the fact of the matter is i have not voted along my party lines. i have not looked at where the democrats are coming from. i look to where alaskans are coming from on the issues. i'm looking to alaskans' interest. it is not towing the party line.

that is why joe tried to take me down in the primary that i voted against my party 300 times. i was not voting against my party. i was voting for alaska's interests. that is really what it should be about. >> i guess i would take issue with the concept of voting for alaska's interests being that we are such a infrastructure poor state and one that needs federal investment to vote against $1.6 billion in federal projects including a research vessel for u.a.f., the hospital in nome, to vote against 11 appropriations bills of 89 projects totaling $400 million. i have come back to your office and advocated for a budget to vote no on those types of projects and come back and issue a press release to take credit for things you voted no on makes no sense to hrfrbgens. -- alaskans. >> back to the reporters asking

questions. you have 45 seconds to answer these, laurie. >> mr. miller, based on a comment on your website you suggest it wasn't appropriate for the federal government to assist after hurricane katrina. are you suggesting that if alaska were to suffer another major earthquake we should not get federal aid? >> i'm not sure what comment you are referring to. i would like to see it in full context. when we look to the federal government for all the answers, and that seems to be what most of the debate is centered on, what can we get for the state of alaska? how can we maximize the dollars coming into the state? we lose sight of the fact if we don't look to the future we are done. this country is headed toward bankruptcy. we saw that in great britain a week ago and what happened to greece. if this state doesn't look to the future and understand 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. >> as a follow-up, what about coastal villages, should federal dollars help there? >> this is a point i made early on. my approach to federal funding of the state is not changing. it is just the emphasis and direction of the fight has got to be toward the resource base. we continue to receive the funds we're getting. nonetheless the fight that senator stevens took, same aggression but we have to go to the rebase. >> -- resource base. >> mr. mcadams how do you balance your economic goal of drilling in the offshore arctic waters with the concern over climate change and coastal fears about cleaning up oil in icy waters? >> i think that first of all we need to ensure that alaska natural resource extraction is -- uses the highest standards for development in the world. we can do that as a matter of

political will. when you talk about -- i do believe that climate change is real and that carbon emission is part of the problem. but every energy realist recognizes including president obama who talked about it regarding the b.p. spill, that as we transition from a carbon based energy economy to what is next we need new oil. instead of exporting degradation to the developing world where they have no standards for law and labor tradition that allows the working people to share in the wealth, we need to do it here because we do it better than anyone else. >> senator murrkowski you said running as a write-in gives you freedom because you are tphno n hold-in to anybody. were you before? have you not been voting your conscience? >> i have been voting my convention but it is very clear and absolute that when you are your party's nominee you have a level of support that comes with you.

joe is enjoying that from the senatorial committee now, from the republican party. ers the party knowlednominee. i don't have those commitments that might be there to do, whether it is the senatorial committee or my republican party. i'm still a republican. i registered as one when i was 18 years old and i get mad at my party now and then but i'm a republican. when i go back to washington, d.c. i will have the beauty of having come to this office from a true grassroots perspective representing all alaska's interests, not just the interests of the republicans. >> with that we will have to conclude things. that is the end of our 2010 alaska public pwraud kasbroadca debate. thanks to the candidates and panelists. rory townsend and david donaldson our audience and crew. tuesday november 2 is election day. alaskan polls open at 7:00 in

the morning and close at 8:00 p.m. if you have not done so already, please remember to vote. thank you and good night.

>> make a video on washington, d.c. and you can win the grand prize of $35,000. the deadline is january 20, 2011. for details go to studentcam.org. >> coming up "washington journal." we will attack your questions and comments. following that our political coverage continues with a pennsylvania senate debate