we have to do something to solve the issue. we cannot he talking about it. that is why i worked hard with john mccain in the last congress, which legislation is the same as the one we are working on now, to stop talking and do something about it. but the next question is also about immigration. in a television -- >> the next question is also about immigration. you said that senator reid voted to give the eagles benefits. and -- to give the illegal immigrants benefits. most fact checkers have called that falls. the advertisements or even criticized by the chair of the republican caucus. would you like to denounce the ad as deceptive or give voters documented evidence about its accuracy? >> not at all, i am glad to give voters the opportunity to see that harry reid has voted to

give social security to illegal aliens. not only did he vote to give it to them after they have become citizens, but even before they were citizens you voted to give them the benefits of our social security. the social security system needs to be addressed then we are not. we need to make sure that we keep our promise to our senior citizens and make sure that our younger folks have the opportunity to have a personalized social security retirement account similar to the thrift plan that senator reid has. and if it is good enough for him, it should be good enough for the rest of us. >> my opponent did not answer the question. everything she said in that advertisement is false. not true. i have never voted for tax breaks for people that are here illegally. that is not to lock in this

country. she knows it and she should stop saying it. that is why she moved on to social security issues that have nothing to do with what u.s.. >> i think that the question as innate -- everything to do with what is going on in our system. we have not secure the borders or enforced laws. senator harry reid talked about comprehensive immigration, but what he is really talking about is something that did not work in 1986. i am a great fan of ronald reagan, but he was wrong when he gave amnesty. >> on this next question i will ask for a simple yes or no. would you be in favor of the constitutional amendment establishing english as the official language of the united states? >> yes. >> english is already the

official language. >> of like to remind everyone that youtube has partnered with us in providing issues for the candidates. so far there has been 50,000 hits on the web site. by far the biggest issue for the users is our next one, health care. senator reid, you will get this question. according to the actuary, the health care reform bill will actually increase costs. including the addition of the medicaid budget. in light of the extensive mandates on small business and the intense voter backlash, why did you and president obama and not focus on jobs and the foreclosure crisis first, knowing how the data has suffered more than any other state? >> for a long time in this country, insurance companies have dominated the health care delivery system. you pay your premiums, you get

sick or hurt, they walk away from you. we pass health insurance reform because we have no choice. i do not know where you got a question, but the facts are wrong. we have been told that we will reduce the debt by 1.3 trillion dollars. we allow people that have children that have pre-existing disabilities like diabetes to no longer be denied insurance by those folks. something that we had to do, including extending the life of medicare for 12 years. the fax that you gave are simply wrong. we had to do health insurance reform to remain competitive in the world economy. it has created jobs, thousands and thousands. >> why did you and president obama and not focus on jobs and the foreclosure crisis first knowing how the data has suffered more than any other state -- knowing how nevada has

suffered more than any other state. >> we moved into that very quickly. to prevent these people who were taking advantage of folks that were in trouble for homes. we have had indictments across the country to do that. remember what i said earlier. health insurance reforms create jobs. we are bringing on 500 new people because we now have 2000 pharmacists as a result of what the health care reform bill did. >> obama ferrum cut half of a trillion dollars -- obama care cut half a trillion dollars from medicare advantage, with the seniors need it. it also cost less half of a trillion dollars in new taxes. the solutions to health care problems are simple, they reside

within the free-market. we need to the government out so that we can go across state lines to choose insurance companies. we need to get the government out of the process so that we can take out the mandated coverage. we need to get the government out so that we can have for reform. solutions to the health care cost of insurance, the free market. >> the facts are wrong. i am with the medical people today here today. medicare advantaged people in the state of nevada will pay less rather than more. there will be no more medical -- medicare abandon people on the rolls now. my opponent does not like insurance companies that do anything. against children with autism?

that is extreme. >> we will go to the next question, senator harry reid paraphrase it. voting in the state assembly to do away with mandated coverage of mammograms and colon cancer tests. you have come up as eliminating caught him and maternity leave. is there anything that you think insurance companies should be forced to cover? >> america is a country of choices. but we want is a basic policy where we can add to the coverage is that we need. i taught autistic children. i know that this is a medical disorder and it needs its own insurance code so that families can get the right treatment can also be covered. the insurance mandates that we passed in this state only care

for 25% of the one out of every hundred and children that have autism. we need to stop making band- aids for applications and look at real solutions when we talk about health care. forcing someone to purchase something that they do not need is not the way to solve a problem. >> let me rephrase that again. is there anything at all that you think the insurance companies should be mandated to cover? if anything? flex anything at all? >> yes. >> i think that what we have here is a choice between the free market and americanism. america is about choices and we need to allow the people have those choices. the free market will be out the country's -- companies that do not have a cost-effective system. let the people decide where they

want to buy their insurance. you do not have to force them to buy anything. >> no insurance mandates. senator harry reid? >> insurance companies. insurance companies do not do things out of the goodness of their hearts. they do it out of a profit motive and have almost destroyed our economy. 20% of all costs were health care costs. if we did not do something to change it, it would go up in 15 years to 36 out of every $10. we need them to be forced to do mammograms. that is why you see breast cancer awareness month, baseball players wearing pink shoes. pink helmets. because people dread breast cancer. you do not get breast cancer, you detect it with mammograms. colonoscopy.

the things that they find when they go up, no more. we need to have the insurance companies doing this in the long run. >> thank you. >> pink ribbons are not going to make people have better insurance plans. what makes people have better insurance plans is competition. which is what i have been saying all along. we need more competition so that they will cover the things that we need them to cover because those are the things we want to buy. that is how the free market works. that is why our solutions reside in the free-market. when we talk about what has destroyed this economy, obama care has destroyed this economy. i know a company that has laid off five people because of this. >> do you think that the health care reform act should include coverage for abortion? >> no.

>> harry reid? >> maintain the amendment. >> yes or no? >> under the law that exists today, the hyde amendment, the law in this country is still there. >> nv has the highest foreclosure rate in the country. las vegas has the highest unemployment rate in the country. the jobless rate has soared since president obama has taken office. at what point will you stop putting the blame on president bush and start blaming the current president, barack obama? >> there is plenty of blame to go around. the fact is, if i have worked hard to do something to help beleaguered nevada homeowners. working on mortgages that are under water. 40,000 people in nevada have homes as a result of the first- time home buyers tax credit.

as a result of my pressure on bank of america we have no more foreclosures from them. there is a moratorium there. of course we have to do more. but we must understand that they will not be able to do to us again what they did to us before. we have passed wall street reform that will stop these really bankers on wall street from taking advantage of homeowners. >> do you think that president obama shares with us as much blame as they did with president bush? >> of course not. when president bush took office, he had a surplus of $7 trillion. we were paying down the debt in the clinton years. we are in this whole. we are trying to dig out of it. 8 million jobs, no one is satisfied where we are, but

let's realize how far we have come. we have made progress. >> the housing bubble came a long time before this recent recession. the first problem is the problem with the federal reserve. we need a true audit of the federal reserve. secondly, freddie mac and fannie mae have never been truthfully dealt with. they kept sweeping that away and the way. in fact in this last finance reform bill certainly this

problem has been going on ever since senator harry reid has been in leadership. that was the obama administration. they failed to deal with that in the obama administration as well. >> to find out what really happened to the collapse, we are on top of that. the federal reserve, i called for the audit in 1987. we have not gotten the audit yet, but we have made progress. fannie mae and freddie mac, they are all experts the need reform. you cannot do away with them, for heaven's sakes. we would have no way of sustaining the housing market we have today. >> mrs. angle, you were told --

you were reported as saying that you could make more with unemployment and getting some of those honest jobs. that we have put so much entitlement into our government that we have spoiled the citizenry. two questions. one, do you think that the unemployed are spoiled from carson city, they want to know what you plan to do to fix the unemployment problem >> i do not think that -- to see an employment problem? >> i do not think that the unemployed are spoiled, that was taken out of context. we need to get nevada back to work. but we need to do to do that is to encourage them to do what they need to do best, with

government and gives them confidence to go forward. they are in uncertainty holding back to dollar trillion that they would like to invest in jobs for the people of nevada and america, holding back because of more taxation and regulation because of senator reid's administration policies. >> do you believe that getting jobs for nevada is not your job? >> i believe that my job is to create the policies that will encourage the private sector to do what they do best, which is to create jobs. >> that would be no. >> yesterday and the day but were we have a company from china come here to create 1000 jobs, making lighting. they are also building windmills. that is a result of tax policy footing the bill. we have $2 billion worth of work going on in nevada with

renewable energy jobs as a result of tax policy incentives. mccarron airport, a result of tax policy. we have a budget going on there today. as a result of language in the bill, they save 31,000 jobs at harris followed. my opponent is against those things. she would not do that. my job is to create jobs. what she is talking about is extreme. we have been doing it since the hoover dam was created. >> your response? >> once again, harry reid, it is not your job to create jobs. it is your job to create policies that create the confidence for the private sector to create those jobs. they have lost confidence because of things like obama care. there was a business in reno where he wanted to hire 25 more

employees both types of policies actually crushing our economy over the last 20 months. >> the last question goes to senator harry reid, having to do with the supreme court. one of the most important duties given to a senator by the constitution is the approval of someone to the supreme court. name a current or former supreme court justice that you admire and why, and name a current or former supreme court justice that should never have been approved by the senate. >> this may surprise everyone, i do not agree with justice scalia often, but he is a masterful mind. he does good things. i do not always agree with his opinions, but he is a great

example to anyone that appreciates the law. lloyd, i like him because he has good opinions and as a football player. we can go far back in this country with the opinions dealing with slavery that were told the wall. but my opponent keeps talking about obama care. remember, 30,000 small-business is in the data had the ability to get health insurance supplements. an insurance policy that gave them a reduction. she keeps talking about people losing and women because of health care. i would be happy to sit down and talk to them because they should be able to do much better now because of health care. they simply do not understand a lot. >> the supreme court's question. let's thomas, the -- >> thomas, because he understands his constitutional boundaries. we need justices that will sit

on the supreme court and do their duty, and not legislate from the bench. i would not have concerned -- confirmed elena kagan or sonia sotomayor. neither one of them understands the constitution. they said they would vote against things like our second amendment rights. things that are dear to us as americans. we know that our founding fathers wanted supreme court justices that would stand up for the constitution, a constitution that was created for the people to be freed. >> we need to stop running down the supreme court. i do not agree with all of the opinions. i did not agree with gore v. bush. but i do agree with the constitution. even though i disagreed with an opinion, when they did that immediately george bush became

my president. this country is about the rule of law and we need to lead the supreme court alone in the best lawyers we can find. >> we of talking about don't ask, don't tell. the order of a federal judge to halt the enforcement of the policy was hailed by gay activists as a landmark ruling in their struggle to expand their rights. do you not think it is time to end the discrimination of gays and lesbians in the military? how do you feel about republicans like dick cheney and laura bush coming out in favor of gay rights? >> the policies within the military, especially this one, are under review right now. we should be waiting for the review of our military to make those decisions, not jumping ahead and making those decisions as senator be tried to do when you put that provision in the defense bill. in the data we have been very

careful between the elections. 70% of the population has voted to define marriage as between a man and woman. i support what nevada has done in will support constituents on that basis. >> what you think about laura bush and dick cheney coming out in favor of gay rights? >> that is their personal opinion and prerogative. every american has freedom of speech and the freedom to have an opinion, which is great. >> senator reid? >> my opponent simply does not understand what went on in washington. bill said that it could only be done away with the secretary of defense signed off on it and

the secretary of the united states signed off and it's not hurting. they can only do that if the pentagon worked with the military. they said that a republican secretary of defense would have to certify that they could do no harm to the trip only after it down. >> i submit to you that that is a small way to do legislation. just like when nancy pelosi said we should pass the bill and then beat it. we should look at the review before we make decisions based on the review. the review needs to come out first, then the bill. senator, i would submit that i know the process. read the bill first, and then pass it. >> we have questions of social security. earlier in the year was announced that this year the social security system will pay

out more in benefits that receives in payroll taxes. the threshold was not expected to be crossed into 2016. your opponent glance you for the shortfall, claiming that you rated the trust fund to offset the deficit. you -- your response? >> social security is a promise that we have to keep. that is what we work so hard to protected. i feel so strongly about this, i took on the president when he tried to privatize it and we won that battle. social security is an important program. they have said within the past month that social security will pay out 100% 25 to 30 years. understand that even after that, there would be a shortfall of 15% to 20%. 35 to 40 years fresnel, do not

frighten people about social security. a deal was made by president reagan. to for a meal is holding strong. the money is there and it is taking care of our folks and will for the next 35 years. >> harry reid, a man ofman -- up. we have am -- aman up. the problem was created by the government. in 1990 he said that it was a ceiling and then he voted to take that social security money. when you did that, you left special treasury bonds kept in a filing cabinet in west virginia. what we need to do is keep our promises to our senior citizens by putting our money back in the trust fund and going forward to

allow the workers to have the option of a person was social security retirement plan that he is an asset to them, just like your thrift savings plan is an asset to you. good enough for you, good enough for the rest of us. >> i said cbo. there is plenty of money in that trust fund account. during the clinton years, we did not use that money to offset the deficit. we strengthen social security but not using it to offset the deficit. her facts are wrong. >> you said that during a primary election debate, moderated, that we need to phase out social security and medicare are in favor of something private. before the primary you used the words privatized.

no use the words personalized. why did you change your position of social security? >> because of the idea of a personalized coverage covers both private and public. as i stated, harry reid and many government employees have a personalized retirement accounts. it is called a thrift savings plan. an account that is personalized with them. if it is good enough for harry reid, it should be good enough for the rest of us. when we talk about social security and the money game, remember that we are there nell. if we do not do something to fix it by 2037, anyone under 40 years of age will not be receiving the benefit for the money that they paid in. >> senator reid? >> cbo, i repeat for the third

time, said that for the next 35 years, everyone gets all the money they want. the arrangement that was made by president reagan and to for a meal -- tip o'neill recognized that as time went on, it would have to pay out more. talking about hitting with social security for years. not just something during the primary. why not have a program like that hat in chile? monies in. -- it will destroy social security. >> there you go again trying to hedge on this idea that what is

the one non is that our social security system has $2.50 trillion dollars in it, and that has iou's. we need to make sure that we keep our promise to our senior citizens. >> the net question is on yuca mountain. agency scientists were directed to stop working there. this was cheered by the opponents. this is what an mrs.gl angle has said about you. you have demonized the nuclear industry. that we have potential for job creation and diversification. did we miss a goldblatt opportunity to create jobs and receive benefit from the federal government during a time when we badly needed it? >> for 28 years we tried to

subsidies from the government and they gave us nothing. yucak mountain is not good for the country and it is not good for nevada. people said that we could not kill it, and it is that. my opponent suggests using it for a nuclear reactor. there's not enough water in the entire state of nevada to build a nuclear reactor. .

we should not be dependent on foreign oil and should be developing all of our resources. we should allow coal-fired plant to be built which. reid killed because he said it would make us sick. we have to stop this extreme environmental outlook and ketchup to the technologist's of the day to use those things -- catch up to the technologists of the day.

>> we have something better now. we had the power plants from the north to the south using renewable energy except for one which will use not only natural gas, which is an american product with 40% less polluting than diesel fuel, and it will also be solar. we make great products and i and the and admire what they have done. -- envy and admire what they have done. >> our next topic is education. you have said on multiple occasions that you want to eliminate the department of education which means you favor eliminating funding to schools with low-income students, you favor eliminating pell grants for low-income college students, you favor eliminating headstart, and early childhood education program for lower-

income children, and you want to zero out funding for 3-year-old children with disabilities. is that correct? >> totally incorrect. as i said in my opening statement, i was a teacher for 25 years and i sold -- and i served on the school board and was on the education committee in the nevada state assembly. what i know about the department of education at the federal level is that it is an agency that makes one size fits all policies that it's no one like in a child left behind. we send our money to washington, d.c., to be skimmed off by 6000 bureaucrats in the amount to $69 billion in the form of underfunded and unfunded mandates. we need to keep the money here in the state has closed the local level as possible where parents and teachers are the stakeholders. they should be making the policy. that is our 10th amendment

right. >> senator reid? >> match, the department of energy does -- department of education does wonderful thing. they reduce the amount of interest that parents have to pay for their children's loans. we have been able to get the more money to programs which will help keep the children in college. we have brought $400 million to the state to help k-12. we have brought $350 million to our university system. we need to protect the department of education. ronald reagan had an idea when he first came to office that maybe we should try to get rid of that. when he left office he knew it was the wrong thing to do. some of the best departments we have were initiated by ronald reagan. >> the department of education has been around since the late

1970's and since then the quality of our education has diminished the year after year. we would be some much better off taking our 10th amendment right just the way arizona did with illegal aliens and just the way misery did with obamacare and take our 10th amendment rights -- just the way missouri did with obamacare and take these as local as possible. parents and teachers need to make the policies. >> our next question is on iraq. senator reid, you're quoted as saying the following, "the war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as noted by the extreme violence pico de you believe your statement demoralizes the troops and war and accurate as judged by the success of the troops? >> imad general petraeus in iraq. the statement that i made was made following general petraeus the saying, "the war cannot be won militarily."

i said it could only be won militarily, politically, and it diplomatically. we made our statement and did the surgeon then and not later. -- we did the surgeon then. we brought in the economy. we brought in diplomacy. they started fighting the people causing the trouble. general petraeus has done a good job. he is my friend. i am glad he is in afghanistan. i have supported the troops with wounded warrior of legislation. i have been to afghanistan and iraq and have seen how courageous they are. i have been endorsed by the veterans for foreign wars. they know what i do for our troops. >> i do not have the access to special security briefings. not only our military and the

service right now, both -- but both veterans and their families. that is a priority in the enumerated powers of our constitution. we should be setting our priorities on our military. when you said the war is lost and said it general petraeus was dishonest, that emboldened our enemies, demoralized our troops, and in danger to them. you need to apologize to them, senator. >> i have been endorsed by the largest military organization in the country, the veterans of foreign wars. listen to this idea. my opponent wants to privatize the veterans administration. think about that. we have a a veterans hospital being constructed here that will be the finest in the whole world. we have not had a new one in 15 years. and will be a beauty. i am glad i worked on that and

the wounded warrior legislation. i appreciate work of paramilitary and will continue to work for them for the rest of my military career. >> on saturday, you are at a political rally and referred to "favored buying a fork" referring to senator reid. -- "favored buying pork." would you provide for if he wanted to drop out of the race? >> i offered the access to government that all people want when they have a representative in the senate. they want to know that when they come to washington, d.c., that they will be heard. when they request a town hall meeting, they will be heard. i would like to go back to the veterans administration. my father is a veteran of world war ii and the korean war.

he is 88 years old. he has social security, medicare, and the v-8 yet he pays $800 on month -- and the v.a. we need to do better for our soldiers, military, and their family. >> i would suggest her father come to my office and get case work on that. he certainly should not be paying that much. the political juice is your question. i have been rated on health care -- been berated on health care. i have federal health insurance. i want others to have that same health insurance that i have which is one reason we worked so hard to get reform passed. my opponent, her husband ted, they have a pension from the

federal government and they live on it. they have health care just like to do from the federal government. on which to help those who do not have what i have come to have the same insurance i have. that is why setting up exchanges will do that. >> 30 seconds. >> certainly obamacare is nothing like the insurance policy that my husband and i have. every year there is a window and we get to make a choice. obamacare offers no choices. it is not at all like what senator reid has. what we do need is something like senator reid has which is that we should all have the choices to pick and choose our own insurance companies and policies rather than having the government dictate and mandate the coverage that we buy. >> the next question is on the bush tax cuts. the bush era tax cuts are going to expire at the year's and. the taxes americans pay on

income, dividend, and capital gains will rise. why do you want to raise taxes, even on the wealthy, in the midst of a recession? >> mitch mcconnell is my republican counterpart and we agree on one thing. we have to wait until we get back after the election to figure out what the economy will be. i guarantee there will be no increase for middle-class people in america. we have to see what we are told by the experts on what we should do with people who make more than that. i, personally, and not in favor of the billionaire tax cuts right now. we both do that when me get back. my time is not up so i want to say this. my friend keeps talking about the fact that these exchanges, we have them every year just like the people who have a that under the health-care and insurance we have. i will repeat this. i want everyone to have the same

forces i have. she does not want to give people the same choice she has. she can pick and choose. so canada. i want 50 million people to be able to do that also. >> the bush tax cuts are set to expire without congressional action. taxes on income, and capital gains, and dividends will rise. i asked him what he wanted to raise tax cuts in the midst of a recession. >> they need to be made permanent. if they are not, we will experience the largest tax greece -- tax increase in the history of america. voting for over 300 tax increases, senator, we cannot trust you with our taxes. not only that but you came from searchlight to the senate with very little. you are now one of the richest man in the u.s. senate. on behalf of nevada taxpayers,

we would like to know how you became so healthy on a government payroll. >> that is a low blow. i was a very successful lawyer. i did a good job in investing. i have been on a fixed income since i went to washington. i lived off of what i made in the private sector. i put my five children through college. her suggestion that i made money. senator is simply false and i am disappointed that she would suggest that. i will further same that if she wants the tax cuts made permanent for everyone that we have a deficit problem to worry about also. $4 trillion is what it would cost to have these extended in the future. that is quite a load. >> let's continue along these lines. we are talking about the bush tax cuts. it would become indeed, cost the federal government $4 trillion over the next decade and would

double the deficit. are you concerned these tax cuts place an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren? >> first of all, let's really talk about whose money that is. it is not the federal government's money. it is our money. when he says we are squandering the federal government's money, it is really squandering our own money. the tax cuts will create the confidence that businesses need to go forward and provide those jobs. as i said before, they are holding back because they can only see a climate of taxation and regulation. we need to give them that confidence by making this tax cut permanent. if we do, then a business like the one in reno where a senior partner is 82, if he should die and the tax cuts arnett -- are not made permanent, 33 employees will lose their job. we need to make the tax cut

permanent for us. >> senator reid, 60 seconds. >> we reduce the load of debt on the american people during the clinton years. after we had a pay-go system. if you wanted program, pay for it. we have the most significant economic surge in this country. we reduced the debt by going through with that. when my friend president bush came and -- into office, it was squandered by two wars and taxes and paid for. we now have an $11 trillion debt. we have to meet the demand for this country and pay down that debt. we are trying to dig out of the whole we are in now. we need to reestablish the pay- go rules. it is now the law of the land and we did that together.

>> we will go to closing statements. senator reid, you will have 45 seconds. >> ok. i need to find my notes. a lot of paper here. i have a few notes i have made. thank you very much, mitch, for when you have done here. my opponent favors big banks. she is against a wall street reform. she says oil companies like to bp to have to much regulation and a french -- and insurance companies. i have a different philosophy. i am for the middle class. what we talk about here is the jobs. the only way to solve the problem is to create more jobs. she mocks renewable energy jobs. i am a fighter and i will continue to fight for what i believe is best for the american people. we have a long ways to go but we have made some progress and i will continue to do everything i can do for the people of nevada.

cracks people often ask me why i smile so much. and is become i'm an optimist. i believe in america? actualism like ronald reagan. with the god's help, we, the people, how the solution to the problems which are as simple as cut back spending, pay back the debt -- the debt, and repealing policies like obamacare. we have the right message for america, lower taxes, less government regulation, more individual freedom, and stop the spending. i am sharron angle and i am asking for your vote. >> we have come to the conclusion of tonight's debate. thank you to senator reid and sharron angle. thank you for being a part of this event. do not forget to vote. early voting begins this saturday and election day is november 2nd. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it is 20 minutes past 12:00 p.m. here in washington, d.c., and here is a live look at the capitol. all politics today on c-span as related to the final days of campaigning for tuesday proxy ballot. we are pleased to have you with us. we brought you the last matchup between the senate majority leader harry reid and sharron angle, his challenger, who has been supported by the tea party in the state of nevada. it is one of the too close to call races by most accounts and lots of money has been going into that race. we have a few minutes to open up our phone lines to your reaction to this race in general and what you just heard of the two

candidates in their face-off. the phone numbers are on your screen. we would especially like those in the state and that its economy and give us your decision if you have made it or if you are still holding out tell us why. we would like to hear what is on your mind, specifically those from nevada. republicans -- democrats -- and are live for independent voters is -- in a couple of notes here. there's a mention of a lot of money going in to nevada. opensecrets.oth is one website you can go to -- opensecrets.org. based on this chart here, harry reid has had $1.1 million in

support of him from outside groups. $7.5 million spent on opposing him. sharron. outside spending supporting her is to $20 million. opposing her is $4.5 million according to the tally being done for the center for responsive politics and their org.site, opensecrets. caller: a couple of comments, he said -- how much do senators get -- $150,000 per year? i with my salary was that high -- i wish my salary was that high. him and president obama keeps saying that they want people to have the same insurance everyone else has. i was watching the health-care debate.

the republicans said they wanted exceptions for the white house and majority staff. if people think they do not have the death panels, they should talk to the people of tennessee. when our governor got elected, the first thing he did was to kick a bunch of people off and the people who ran the appeals department for our state medicare program said if you are about to die, do not call less. keep in mind that our governor was the number two behind kathleen sibelius. host: next is a democrat calling us from decatur, alabama. go ahead. caller: i just finished watching the debates. harry reid it represented the university of alabama going up against a high schooler. in my opinion, sharron angle needs to go back to teaching

high school or wherever she was and get out of politics. the state of alabama is virtually wrapped up by the republican party. are two u.s. senators, shall be in the session, received money from blue cross blue shield of alabama -- shelby and session, received money from lacrosse and blue shield. if that is not evidence that the republicans are bought off by insurance companies. host: your perspectives on the senate race in your home state? caller: i was born and raised in nevada. harry reid has become out of touch with all nevada residents. he is never here. he will become a lobbyist in washington when he visits to sharron angle. we have 16 houses on our streets and at one time we had eight and the houses. that is due to harry reid and his out of touch policies with

the state of nevada. furthermore, for all of america out.plan to vote him i already voted for osharron angle. that is what i have to say. host: what type of campaign the thing sharron angle has run? caller: she has run a wonderful campaign. we can get ahold of her. i support her tremendously. i have never been involved in politics or donated and this is the first time ever. i support her 100%. i believe in what she is doing and so should the american people. host: next is a democrat from belvidere, illinois. you are on the line, jim. caller: hello, c-span. i would like to ask a question for republicans out there. what legislation in the last 100

years has the republican party down for the betterment of society and the american people? i cannot think of one piece of legislation that has created any advancement for the betterment of the american people to promote, protect, provide, and prosper. go specifically to the harry reid reelection bid. what do you think about that? caller: i think she exposed her -- how are we going to trust the republicans are going to lower the deficit when they just increased at the last time and now they want us to trust that they will lower it? they did not care about the on pay for wars -- unpayed for wards. -- wars. this is the most liberal thing

they can do. who are the real conservatives, you know? host: manhattan, kan. the. -- kansas on the independent line. caller: i have watched the campaigns nationwide as much as i have been able to. if i live in nevada i would be against harry reid. host: why is that? caller: i believe that harry reid is part of the crummy system that we needed to get out of washington. i basically am voting against incumbents because i want new blood. what i want is to see an elected official go through a campaign and be honest and truthful with the american people.

even this year the republicans and democrats, both, spend some much of their time perpetrating falsehoods against each other to make themselves look better. i do not want skewed truth. i want the truth. i want men and women who are honest, who have good character, and who will tell us the truth. i do not believe republicans or democrats, either one of them, are doing it. the majority of the candid its are doing it again this year. -- a majority of the candidates are doing it. as for the 100 years of doing nothing? abraham lincoln was the first republican and chief -- and he freed the slaves. host: our next call from arkansas on our republican line. frank, we are talking about harry reid's reelection in nevada. your comments?

caller: i just heard the comments about the va hospitals. i am a disabled veteran. i go to these the hospitals. basically they are a joke. the treatment that you get is inferior. of the congressmen, senators, and representatives say that the v.a. hospitals are a good example of what we have and that they will take care of the people. it is not true. they needed to visit some of them to find out exactly what kind of treatment the veterans are getting. host: think you for your call. next is minneapolis on our line for democrats. caller: [unintelligible] host: our connection is bad and we will move on to a call from maryland. this is on ourinecaller: thank y

call. they are being presented with a false choice in nevada between harry reid and sharron angle. harry reid has run out of ideas. they want to replace him with a grossly incompetent neophyte when it comes to politics and policies of this country. sharron angle is the least qualified candidate for the united states senate. i do not know where this country is headed for. a country that has submitted to anger and frustration determines who goes to the senate does not have a future. people like sharon and go, -- angle, o'donnell have no place

in the senate. it is not enough to go and pander to the right wing extremists who are represented by the tea party who is to look incompetent people like sharron angle and christine o'donnell. host: john ralston has been a fixture in nevada politics. he is someone that national reporters often go to to get closer to around -- to ground locally. his last column before the election in "the loss vegas sun" today is about harry reid winning by a hair. he is the most resilient figure in the nevada political history. he lost the race in 1974, and burst himself in 1975, but he

found a way to win it 12 years ago and he will again on tuesday. equally important, republicans managed to nominate the one person who could lose. this is not what a senate race is it about. her campaign could never find a comfortable way to reconcile her past controversial statements. in the end, if she loses i believe the six weeks following the gop primary win when she had a double-digit lead in the polls were pivotal. the real campaign to find her so starkly and turn enough people into angle-phones. -- phobes. our next call from kentucky on our republican line. caller: i would like to comment about the two just briefly. i support ms. anglin's approach

-- ms. sharron angle's approach and the direction she was to take this country which is back to the foundations of the constitution. i support rand paul in the state of kentucky. . rand paul and go sharron angle. we appreciate you people very much for stepping up and being the americans we need. host: next up is cincinnati on our democratic line. big races going on in the ohio, too. caller: yes, there is. i am a democrat. we will probably lose a lot of seats to the republicans because this is the first time hamilton county ever won obama. it was since 1850 since the republicans lost any kind of power here. the reason i'm calling is i was

watching the debate between sharron angle and harry reid. i am astounded how a woman with her schoolteacher's credentials is so far-fetched and so far out there with what is happening in this country. we had a man come here in 2008 had to go with this government when it was at the bottom -- when it was at the bottom. he has passed the out -- something that were unpopular and some things that were popular. he has done the best the can do. this country is so unappreciative that they have to have the tea party come in and wreck the election process. i totally back president obama and i know he is doing the best they possibly can. i hope the country stands by him and gives them another two

years to complete what he is trying to do. if he cannot do it, threw him out of office. that is what the process is about. i have been voting since 1961. i am a veteran. i appreciate are men going over there and fighting for our right to vote. that is our right to vote. everyone should get out whether they are voting democratic or not and do what our boys over there are fighting for. host: thank you. ohio is so pivotal. the president is making a return trip there and we will be covering that later this afternoon. he will be at cleveland state university on his last local campaign swing before returning to washington, d.c. we have another senate debate coming up in alaska. this race has really been one of many ups and downs.

people are taking note of a column of his sights a high- level unnamed gop source told him that party leaders had essentially given up on republican candidate joe miller because of his recent problems and are now banking on a victory by the write-in murkowski. she defied party leaders by running game -- a write-in campaign. they are now worried that democrat nick adams has a shot of winning -- mcadams has a shot of winning. the national republican senatorial committee has been forced to spend precious resources in alaska, but take a look at theme last ad.

they spend 25 seconds attacking mcadams. >> his record? higher taxes, bigger government. he supported the sale of the stimulus. he supported sales taxes. he supports raising social security deficits. he supports raising income taxes. higher taxes, bigger government? alaska cannot afford scott mcadams. to get us back on track, we need joe miller. he is on our side. host: i went to show you some numbers concerning money. opensecrets.org is run by the center for responsive politics. this is looking outside spending. for joe miller, the republican nominee, they have spent $1.5 million supporting him and only

$118 logged in the opposition. murkowski has had $1.3 million supporting her. not much money at all for scott mcadams spent by outside groups. here are some of the numbers in the alaskan senate race. let me tell you about this debate as we lead into this year. it is the final debate among the three candidates. republican john miller, scott mcadams, and republican in some -- lisa murkowski. this is moderated by the alaskan public radio network. a poll of 1500 voters showed

miller and murkowski tied. with the three candidates, this is what everyone is watching closely. here is the alaska senate debate, the final matchup. >> next, candidates for the u.s. senate. republican senator lisa murkowskia, joe miller, and democrat scott mcadams. >> good evening and welcome to debate for this date, the last statewide debate. we're coming to you live from kakm here in anchorage.

this is a joint operation. joining us tonight are the candidates for the u.s. senate who registered at least 5% in recent political polls. lisa murkowski has held the seat since december 2002. she lost in the august republican primary and is a write-in candid. joe miller is an attorney from fairfax -- fairbanks. scott mcadams. welcome, candidates. later in our program, lori townsend will join us. we will include some questions from listeners and viewers in our program. our thanks to the audience to be here tonight. please remain silent during the entire broadcast. candidates, each dancer will be

timed and you will see a yellow light at the 15 second mark telling you have it 15 seconds left. he will hear this bell when your time is up. i will try to enforce this as politely as i can. thus began. you will have 30 seconds to respond to the first round of questions. what have you learned about yourself during this campaign? >> great question. they know, one of the things i have learned during the course of this campaign is what is possible when you put your mind toward something and you work hard. we have a great campaign team with a great staff. i never thought i would be able to raise $1.2 million in six weeks. i think you need to be a little bit of a statesman, and little bit of a vision, and a telemarketer. >> center -- senator murkowski, same question. >> i have learned oftentimes

doing the right thing is offload -- is also the most difficult thing to do. when it is the right thing to do, you do not quite. this is focusing on this resiliency that i have not have had for a long time, but i really see it playing out here. >> mr. miller, same question. >> when you run for public office even though you have never been part of the public process before coming your life is opened up. it has been uncomfortable, but it has redoubled our commitment to the alaskan people to make sure at this very crisis time at our states history that we need have someone that is willing to do the things that the people of alaska need for their future and their children's future. our commitment remains without any less commitment than at the beginning of the race which is to make sure the right things happen for this state. >> the next question will talk balk -- touch on top stories in

the news. senator murkowski, a judge says we are violating regulations by giving them a list of write-in candidates. this is a book your campaign. is this fair? >> when you say this is a blow to our campaign, we do not count as a campaign on providing a formation one way or another about my write-in candidacy. we have done things the old fashion way which is how people know how to move forward with a right in the campaign. -- write-in campaign. we have jingle's reminding them how to spell it. it has been a very concerted education campaign. i do not think this has been a blow to was, but the case is still ongoing in the supreme court. they made the decision that they would deny that injunction so

that will be determined in the next couple of days. >> mr. miller, documents released yesterday showed you saying, "highlight about accessing computers and admitted to accessing them but lied about what i was doing." >> i made a mistake and i learned from that. anything that you do in your private sphere will be out there when you run for office. one thing that we have learned from this is initially in this campaign, it appeared that certain things may be off limits. i have to tell you that in order so that alaskans can understand the level of commitment, we complied to the release of those records even though i believe we may be the only candidate, in recent american history nationwide, who had to release their personal e- mail file. our commitment cannot be slowed

by this issue. this state has to move forward and it needs to move forward by someone who will not be in any way limited by things from the past. >> a quick follow-up, 15 seconds. other things came out was when you left the employment of the bureau, you deleted emails, some of them related to cases you were working on. they have questioned whether they needed some of those emails now and that there could of been things to discover. why do that? >> do have to understand that everything in that file is not accurate. another thing you need to understand is that we are now over one year after i left that position. that was the situation at the time, why was it not raise the then? for the purposes of a full

disclosure, they have a backup system. all of the emails were backed up. again, this is trying to play this one political card at a time to get alaskans not focusing on the issues. we have seen a concerted effort of raising things on related to the issues. >> mr. mcadams, and you are on the democratic team of. the leaders in congress and president obama how is your message when there is so much anger? >> voters are really responsive to our message. it is not about anybody's personal issues or personal narrative or a sense of history but this is about alaska. it is about our communities and our people. it is about sending someone to washington, d.c., who recognizes that we are young state and reporting infrastructure and we have a case to be made before a

national audience. we need to be invested in with the help of washington, d.c. alaska does their own thing. in fact, alaska politics tend to run counter than national politics. >> we will now go to a lightning round. you will each have 15 seconds to answer and you only hear the bell when your time is up. >> should be extended the bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest americans which means those making $200,000 or more? mr. mcadams? >> we should extend them for the middle-class, but we should allow the tax cuts for members of the population to make more than $200,000 per year. >> absolutely. we are going to enter into a double-dip recession. it will exasperate the problem. we need to stimulate the economy and it is not by raising taxes. >> during a recession is not the time to raise taxes.

we need to extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts. whether we will be able to do them beyond one year or two will be taken up in november. >> clarify for me, is that contradictory to the goal of raising the national debt? >> reducing the debt needs to be done. we have expanded the federal government so far beyond the scope of what it was intended to been that the point that we need to do, and i think the best way to effect the reduction, is to reduce spending and get government out of the programs they should not be involved in. >> do tax cuts effect the national debt? >> they are not contradictory when you are able to put more out into the economy to allow for that job creation, for that private wealth, for that free enterprise system to actually work and that will help us.

>> mr. miller, name one thing president obama is right about. >> if i could address the last question, as relates to the national debt, we have been borrowing for far too long. we should never balance the national budget on the back of children and seniors while we continue to provide seniors -- continue to provide tax cuts for the richest americans. >> what is president obama doing right? >> when men and women are deployed, clearly they need support. the additional troops and personnel is something that i agree with. >> senator murkowski? >> i applauded the president when he named general petraeus to take over command of afghanistan. i think that was a wise choice. i think that helped to allow for

a transition that could have been very difficult for us. i applaud him for it. >> mr. mcadams, something you agree with the republicans? >> a $30 trillion national debt is unsustainable. efforts to reduce that are what i agree with. >> is the constitution party first amendment calling for separation of church and state? >> yes. >> yes. >> a state-sponsored church is not authorized by the first amendment. that is with the separation means. the government at a national level cannot do that and the states are required to comply as well. >> would you like to see creation andism -- creationism taught. >> i am a methodist and believe in the ministry of christ, but

at the same time recognize and believe that science and religion should be taught separately, one in the home and one in the public schools. >> good science includes origins better based on creation. anyone sitting here that do not think they are created, think again. we all are. there are different ideas about origin. there are good signs on both sides and i do believe that children should be permitted to see both sides. >> senator murkowski? >> i do not believe it should be taught in our schools. i believe that, in fact, there should be our balance clearly -- and allowance for the process of pollution that is taught. i believe very strongly that god gave us our souls so that when we talk about evolution, that is the process that should be taught in school. >> should the united states to be involved in non-military

humanitarian missions overseas? mr. miller. >> i think it should be limited. we can go around thinking we are in charge of establishing peace and prosperity throughout the globe. we are at a point in our nation's history where we did not have the capacity to carry on the type of efforts we have in the past. >> i believe we should be involved in humanitarian missions. our nation, as a world leader, recognizes what we can do to eliminate disease, what we can do to eradicate him and trafficking, these are issues we should be involved in. >> the richest nation in the history of humanity does have an obligation to those who are less fortunate. >> this question comes from a listener. would you support eliminating the filibuster in the interest of breaking gridlock in the senate? senator murkowski?

>> we need to look at how the filibuster is applied when it comes to the process. our judicial branch has been somewhat stymied by the process that is allowed in the senate. it has a -- it has been there for years and i think it has been abused as of late. >> mr. mcadams? >> washington, d.c., is broken. the filibuster -- over 300 bills have passed on the house that have not passed the senate and it is a problem. i images did in the senate actually organizing on to whether or not they will adopt the filibuster. >> we have and the administration that is marching us so far to the left and expanding the role of government even though we are bankrupt. the best tool we have available when we do not have a majority is out to stop the continued march toward socialism which is

increasingly bankrupt in the country. >> you will have a 45 seconds to answer. your question. >> senator murkowski, a bill introduced to give it is corp. a choose of land -- a tres of land, we have heard from plenty who oppose it and it has been controversial. how significant is this to your campaign? >> i have been working on the sea alaskan bill to deliver equity. they were promised to these lands some 40 years ago now. they are the last native corporation that has yet to receive conveyance. the real difficulty has been in selecting the lands they were initially allowed to receive. they were in environmentally sensitive areas. we want to give them equity and finally resolve this after 40

years and do so in a manner that helps the region but also helps to facilitate the promise that we made some 40 years ago. >> the concern has been that it goes beyond the boundaries. >> correct. >> being outside the box is the problem. >> being outside the box has been a problem because we are now talking about areas where people have a right created. they have picked berries, they had gone fishing. when we talk about land in alaska, every acre is precious. it has created controversy. my effort has been to involve all the stakeholders in of the communities. we have had over 200 different meetings and have gone to every community to ensure that their input has been received and we are continuing to work to

incorporate all the changes to make it the best we can. >> mr. mcadams, many people were opposed when you were mayor. would you support or oppose it when you get to the senate? >> i think they needed a broader dialogue involving the sea alaskan bill. we had four hours of testimony and we tried to keep it under two minute increments when we heard from communities. we had a panel who came to listen to the merits. based on my values, on the way i would have addressed this if i had been in the senate is from the very onset i would expanded the conversation to include all of the tribes, take a look at ceremonial sites. that would more appropriately convey that. when i get to the senate, i will

continue to work with alaskan natives on this land. >> mr. miller, do you oppose or support? >> i oppose. those standing on the stage with senator murkowski, it was a very important bill. our main criticism was how the lands were selected. i think there's an argument for it. in addition, the sweet hard bill -- sweetheart bill has never been extended. these are selected parcels throughout the southeast, dozens of sites and tracks selected. happy. that is why they are supporting the write-in, but i'm concerned that its disenfranchised

members. >> let's talk about the tarp. it is widely believed by many economists that it may have saved the country's finances despite its on popularity. they say may have averted a global recession. the treasury now expects to actually make $16 billion in profits. mr. miller, would you have done instead? >> anytime you look at a business and say it is too big to fail it is a mistake. that is not based on the free enterprise system. if you look at a government nearing bankruptcy and think you can spend $800 billion to bailout businesses that make bad business decisions, i think we're fooling ourselves. effectively we have delayed the inevitable. we have the created a slowing of the process but it does not diverted entirely. we need to ask ourselves as to whether or not it is even a

proper moral courage to sit back and say we will burden the generations of tomorrow because that is what we have done when me spend $800 billion we do not have. we put the burden on our children. that, again, raises the question as to whether it is appropriate. >> senator murkowski, you voted for it that you say you now regret that. is that because it is unpopular? >> not so much because it was unpopular. what happened under tarp and the authorization came through, we had subsequent efforts by the democratic majority to basically go in and use this as a slush fund, if you will, some of the tarp money being returned to the treasury for other initiatives. that is not what this is all about. you repaid that and it goes to reduce the deficit.

that did not happen. it is interesting that when we think about that vote, it was a very bipartisan vote with 78 different members. dr. tom coburn joined us and it was an effort that needed to be made at the time because we were going off of a cliff. >> mr. mcadams, would have supported it? >> one of the things left out of the conversation regarding tarp is the 30 years prior to tarp where wall street became basically deregulated and there was no oversight regarding the way the business of the financial practices that ruled the roost on wall street. i am happy they passed wall street reform. we are safeguarded now from seeing another car happened. the thing about safety and security with oversight is it always feels like to much until

the very moment in time when it is not enough and then you are left scrambling. secretary paulson walks in and says you can vote for the bill or you can watch the world collapse. it is a difficult choice. >> next question. >> the obama administration is crafting a new education policy. what changes would you like to see, mr. mcadams? >> regarding education, i have served as the president of the school board in alaska, i have an education degree, and i have been an employee of school districts. from the very beginning of serving as school governor, i have been opposed to the incremental trend toward national standards. i believe in self-determination for local control especially as it relates to curriculum and students. my great concern with the no child left behind and now a race to the top is the problem with the national standards is that it requires a national

curriculum and eventually a national test. we do not have a standardized kid or a standardized community especially in a state like alaska. we need to be able to teach survival and other things unique to our state. . funds are to be spent. whether our natives or other

areas, they are better met to those decisions. >> when it comes to how we reform our education laws, it's fits all approach doesn't work in a state like alaska. i have introduced legislation several years back. we continue to work on it. it's the school accountability act. we want to make sure we have the quality teachers. assigning things like temporary snapshot in time. when in fact, they have made progress doesn't recognize the good that comes out of our schools. we need to evaluate our schools, based on the progress they have made. i have provisions within by legislation that would help upon to advance us as a rural state and not compromise the gains we

have made. first of two opportunities you will have this evening to ask questions of each other. candidates make your questions brief and to the point. responses can last a minute and rebuttals, 30 seconds. murkowski your question. >> i sent out a letter that i'm threatening social security, yet you were originally quoted as saying," social security is best reserved for the states," and we need to take care of the people to social security. now you have backed off and need to provide about those currently on it and about to go on it. where exactly the cut off? is it at 60? 50? 40? what do you do to provide for those then, that don't make the

cut off? are they going to get some kind of a return on what they have in? >> senator, you are referring to a card sent out by the alaskan republican party. to 13.5 trillion today. my position has been very consistent on social security from the very beginning. the fiscal house has to be put in order. request we don't. those that count social security are going to be hurt. we have got to protect those payments. they know no other source or opportunity to provide for money outside of social security. my parents are social security recipients. obviously, we aren't going to cut off my parents helping me

with this campaign. we have to look at all situations. including if we have privatization and those things that limit the cost and allow us money and not allow the government to sell it. >> i am somewhat confused with the response. you said you have been consistent. yet, it was earlier this year, you were quoting as saying social security needs to be eliminated. to take care of it for your parents. in fact, what do you with those that have a lower cut off? how do you handle those at 50 and paid in the system for all of their working years. you are saying, you may or may not get it. >> i never said to eliminate it that never came out of my mouth >> it was represented in the bridge daily news >> it was basically your arm

piece in this entire campaign. i have said we have to go to a different system. people have to have the option to put their money somewhere stolen from the people. >> i think we need a group hug. [laughter] >> you guys are setting awfully close to each other. >> you too will have a moment to bond here. mr. miller it's your turn to ask >> mayor mcadams and the ktva debate. i want to you compare the senator you you had today and the time you were appointed in 2002 >> that's troy, i think that's a good question. i have had to account to my community. to friends, constituents and

friends. i have worked on eight budgets. between 18-$25 million. senator as served well. moved his family to juneau ran for state wide senator and that was frank murkowski. to locally-elected leaders throughout the state >> scott, it's up to the voters, you put it very well. vote your values. determine what the candidates stand for and what they can deliver. i know we have differences of opinion about where the federal government is headed. i believe we're at bankruptcy. we have to look in a different

direction. i think the message we have to be frank and very clear to the voters as to where we stand as far as where those issues go and how we address that coming fiscal issue is important for voters to make a decision on. >> mr. mcadams your question for senator murkowski. during our debate at ktu, you refered to social security as an entitlement in a recent interview, you talked about the need for potentially raising the question to you is why for social security, my question is why would that be your first remedy? when we have $106,000 marker, multi-millionaires pay the same

as the northern slope worker. why would we want to balance on the backs of middle class seniors. >> i'm not suggesting, scott, this is the first fix. i think what we need to do is put the ideas and options on the table. you haves social security in an unsustainable position at this point in time. you have more people receiving that pay out from social security than on are paying in. we know how that graph kind of intersects and it doesn't work. so we've got to address it. right now, there's two bipartisan commissions that are ta what is good? what is bad? we should all look critically where they come on this. i think it's important to make sure the ideas we put on the table are not shot down, but that we can have a good, constructive dialogue. this safety net for our seniors,

for those that are in need, needs to be saved. >> 30 seconds. mr. mcadams. >> i believe the u.s. senate has become a club of millionaires. if we were to left that article official cast at $106,000 mark and have everyone pay the same payroll tax all the way up to multi-millionaires. it would be solvent. >> senator murkowski, are you feeling the group hug? >> i am over here with dave. it's all quiet over here. >> we will go back to our reporter questions and give you a chance to ask each other questions later on in the program. you have 45 seconds to respond upon and we will start with

something from dave >> what is it time to leave afghanistan. >> senator murkowski. >> not yet. it's not time to leave afghanistan yet. we are waiting still until there is some level of secure government and there clearly is not at this point in time. um, we are very cognizant of the very difficult situation that we have there. but to put an arbitrary time sends the wrong signal. i think we need to listen to the guidance of those that we put in charge. but for us to make that decision arbitrarily and say now is the out, i think is a mistake for us as a nation. >> mr. mcadams. >> i think we do need to give

general petraes time. should we create a vacuum in afghanistan. before i vote to extend an appropriation on a conflict abroad, i will be dogged with the administration. that we have a clear purpose, mission. to continue to be engaged in nation building and end will world. >> nation building is certain the mission. not now. politics

of the situation. we came into afghanistan to prevent terrorism. we can't do what we did in vietnam. that seems to be what's happening to our service members. we have to release our leadership to the military without being slowed by the politics of the day and re-think why we get involved in re -- countries not to engage in neoconservative policy on the men and women. >> how do you deal with pakistan and the other countries

al-qaeda, enemies of united states need to be forewarned, we will strike and eliminate that threat. doesn't mean we will strike upon your country and take over your leader. whether the president that announced his intent to utilize some force go israel or may be the united states, look, you do this, we're going to take out the threat. but not rebuild the nation. that's what we do with affect afghanistan and pakistan. >> there's no question. when you take a look of our rules and responsibilities of marines, we are asking them to be equipped in their primary

areas but ambassadors. have tea with tribal chieftains mission. you know, i think that it's difficult -- or it's amazing to me, these young service people are able to carry out this mission. >> senator murkowski. how do we deal with pakistan? >> one of the reasons it's important we're in afghanistan. pakistan has been a save haven of those who would insight the terror of jihadists. you squeeze the balloon in afghanistan, go to pakistan and yemen, the reality for us, we have a very volatile situation as well.

knowing pakistan has nuclear weapons. is important >> do you support the building of a wall between mexico? >> we first need to enforce the laws on our books. in our border communities, they are in the mix of a huge drug war. i don't support building a wall. i think they are best left to desperate regimes like the soviet union. we need to take a look at the supply and demand problem we too

long and looked the other way while businesses hire undocumented workers. that's where we need to concentrate on the fix. >> senator murkowski. only answer here. you build a wall 12 feet high, they are going to find a ladder 13 feet high and figure out a way to get across. to spend the dollars and build that wall defies the logic as scott says, if there's still that incentive to come to your country, how do we respond? we have a catch and release. that needs to be addressed. need to fund the level of border security to truly patrol this. when those who come in, that we have a process to immediately turn them.

the fence is not the only answer. mr. miller. >> the fence has been authorized in congress. senator murkowski voted against this. we have to build a fence. we have to build something. that's the first step. dealing with an illegal alien issue. but a national security and health issue. we have third world diseases showing up like wildfire. it it absolutely has to be done on the southern border. you can't vote for amnesty as senator murkowski has. people decide to break the law to benefit access to the country >> 15 second follow up.

you have gotten heat references east germany, how far do we go? do we shoot mexicans trying to here? >> come on. that was a reference to say, we are an advanced country beyond all other nations. to sit back and say, you can't build a fence that keeps people out. throughout the world today. doing anything like that. we are the most powerful nation in the world. to suggest, when we're suffering hundreds of billions of cost with illegal aliens and can't take a part of those savings and put into a fence that won't work >> mr. mcadams. >> we are the greatest and freest nation of the world. we are the most humane and just nation in the world. when we represent those values through our leadership, we are a beacon to the world.

so i don't believe in building a wall. i think we do need to enforce the laws we have on the books. there was a time in the history of the country where the up and said, mr. gorbachev, tear down that wall >> senator murkowski >> we are the greatest nation and so smart. what are we doing building a we use our technology to utilize these technologies. whether the uav's. the technology that allows us to understand what is coming and going. again making sure we have a level of enforcement that works. when there are those that crossover, there's an immediate return. >> dave >> the federal government now offers an $18 billion guarantee

for a gas line. transcanada says they need that pumped up to 30 billion. is that too much or not enough? >> senator murkowski. >> depending on when we get the gas line. might not be enough. i think $30 billion is the right amount. that loan guarantee is there for safety. guarantee is helpful to the producers so they can advance that project. they have the back stop of the federal government behind them. this project has escalated in size and scope. not necessarily size. but the cost so that loan guarantee is important. equally important are other provisions we included. access to the federal financing bank. anything we can do to help

facilitate is good for this good line. >> well, i don't think you pass the bill with the senate. any gas line obviously is a good investment. we have to make sure the right is plied -- applied. you don't do a carbon tax on the north slope. something else we need to look at. regulatory burden of the pipeline. if you look at the trans-alaskan pipeline. it will make it a much more cost

effective thing. >> there's no question. expdeiated permitting is the goal to help facilitate a gas line. my position on the gas line and bringing alaska's product to work. i believe climate change is real. i think as a matter of national policy. we can incentivize this to help us transition. gas. clean burning. we need to do whatever we can. not to just bring the gas to market. but create a market where that gas goes. >> we will now take a short break. we will be right back.

>> welcome back to debate for the states. lory townsend joins us. >> the tribal law and order act was recently signed into law before it was passed a $50 million project, was struck from it. has now proposed the safe village and families act. do you support this plan or do you have a different idea, proposal to address the high crime and sexual assault in native communities. >> thank you. it was my amendment in the tribal law and order act that would have allowed for this pilot project. it would essentially provide for

an opportunity for greater collaboration between the tribes issue the states and the federal agencies in how we can address some of the law enforcement issues in our villages. it was not an expansion of either the civil or the criminal jurisdiction. this is where senator bagget's bill. i think the tribal law and order a good act. i think it's important particularly for those in the reservations. its a good bill and one i supported. >> thank you. and mr. mcadams. support our 229 self-identified tribes. i think we're a big state.

when you take a look at how do we empower people that live in villages? how do we address the great need to rural alaska? i think finding ways to empower tribal citizens at the local level whether through tribal courts health. education. i think they need to re-double and triple and is better for alaska. >> i have direct involvement with the criminal law villages. i spent time with those villages. one of the most effective programs of therapeutic drug we were able to address those

problems. we see times when they come to the court system where they weren't being helped or rehabilitated. in fact i think that's it is direction we need to go. the only caution there needs to be 100% consent. >> senator murkowski demanded that be taken out or you wouldn't let it go forward >> how do you convince your colleagues in a way you haven't been able to so far. >> it was an issue to the cost. he insisted there was a cost involved in it. we were able to demonstrate cost. he then came back and said it was an earmark. because it was an earmark. he was going to fight tooth and nail. >> mr. miller a guy you admire.

coborn said no, we're not going to let this fly. earmarks will be a thing of past. the way we're headed. when you see the leadership of the house. earmarks are going. it's the single-most corrupting part of legislation. >> no. i don't think it's an earmark. it's an appropriation made by a local or special interest. i think that expansion of tribal sovereignty is the right thing to do. can't get it to see a doctor. what's the solution? >> let me begin saying, i am

wants a full insurance program. i think it's important that we point out that during our depate at uaf, mr. miller talked about the need to private healthcare. >> senator murkowski voted to cut healthcare. in 2010. you voted to reduce healthcare and not support the anchorage health center. >> i agree with scott. we have to preserve medicare for there. again, my parents are medicare recipients. we do have a crisis point.

we are rationing care because you don't have enough providers providing the services medicare pay for. there have been to be co-pays and prosecuting fraud. when you have elders that are taken advantage of services they don't need or services they pay for and don't get, there has to be a reaction. those are ways to clean up of the cost areas. i think at the base. we have to work and it takes more than 45 seconds to get free enterprise back to the system. >> it comes back to reimbur reimburseme reimbursement. you're not going to see providers willing that take more medicare-eligible individuals. here in anchorage. there's around seven, there may many as eight in the

entire community. our largest state. seven providers that are willing to take new medicare recipients. it was the effort i made in senator stevens to get a 35% increase to the reimbursement rate to help facilitate this state. this was one the bills that joe singled out and said i should have stuck with the party lines. we're in a crisis and it's about the providers. >> this next question is about healthcare. we will have more time to talk about health issues. 45 seconds to respond. michael casy from eagle river showed his personal story. his daughter was born with congenital heart failure. he just graduated from college and he wants to know what you

to make sure she has insurance when she ages out. >> i think the population has heard me loud and clear on this. people. it's not a federal government role to make a decision for all. the state of alaska has made decisions for its people. most of which have federal mandated sort -- associated with them. we can create better responses to the problems we have. if we have greater wealth, to develop our resources that have not been fully developed, we can expand programs if the people desire to have them. what the state does for its people and is the state in the position to provide that. i believe the state is in that best position. >> senator murkowski

>> what this young woman needs won't be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. that was one of big initiatives, how we deal with exactly that. now we can get in all kinds of debate in healthcare reform and reformed healthcare. one of the things that republicans and democrats alike agreed on, we needed to resolve this issue of denial of insurance because of pre-existing conditions. that is one thing contained in this healthcare bill. i voted against it. there are a few things that need to be in there when we deal with healthcare reform down the road. but pre-existing conditions is key. >> mr. mcadams what do you say?

>> many americans are in job lock. to leave their jobs because of pre-existing conditions. vote no or yes. senator murkowski voted to appeal healthcare reform. there's 150 republican amendments attached to bill. it could be called mitch o'connels bill. >> please give your answer in 30 seconds. is congress' time best spent toward working forward or defunding the healthcare plan in

law now. mr. miller and senator murkowski suggested that might not be possible. should they work to fix the problems that are there? >> senator murkowski? >> there are things we could do we were in session. we can put in place medical malpractice reform. we can allow for purchasing of insurance across state line that is begin to work to help address problem. the courts are going to go ahead to their path to the litigation and determine whether that individual mandate is unconstitutional. i think they will determine that. until that point in time, we have an obligation to try to reduce the cost of healthcare. this bill doesn't reduce the costs. >> so fix? >> we got to fix it? >> we can start that without waiting for it to be repealed.

>> if it's not constitutional, we got to get rid of it. the appeal isn't going to work. the only power is to defund it. this is a take over the 20% of the economy and a national health plan. limiting access to healthcare and something we cannot tolerate. something that must be stopped now. we do not have a second to waste >> mr. mcadams. >> well, i think joe has been consistent in his position that apeeled. so i'm not sure why you're at senator murkowski. whether you would like to appeal or repeal. >> we live where insurance

companies have a greater role than the patients do. >> now a lighting round. abortion, should it be legal? >> mr. miller of an isn't should be contingent on somebody else's act. i not pro-life >> do you believe tribes are autonomous? >> they have been part of state for 30 years. i think we need a senator in washington d.c. that legibles that >> as a matter of law.

they aren't. but the fact of the matter is, i absolutely recognize the first aboriginal alaskans have the right. >> leave it at that >> these are federally-recognized tribes. they need to be respected. i suggested that we needed to formal consultation process between delegation and federally-recognized tribes >> should federal money help >> wow. my perspective as least where we're at now. this is a position i have made throughout this campaign is where we're headed with bankruptcy. a need to transition. i think those programs have to

transition. >> senator murkowski. >> i have long been a supporter of public broadcasting. it's more than nice programs that you listen to. if you live out in the rural communities, if you're out there in alaska, this is your news source. your community source. it's important to us here in alaska. >> mr. mcadams. >> yes, i believe there's a role. mandated. that was a joke, joe. there was a time when the only media was in our home. act help or hurt america? >> i had real issues with the patriot act. i was very concerned there was

encroachment on our civil liberties. we did not encroach on civil liberties. >> i don't think it's helped. i think any legislation that allows the u.s. government to spy on its own citizens is a breech on our civil liberties. concerned about elements in it. just because it's helped doesn't mean it's right. the constitution is the key. >> thank you. >> beyond the obvious institutional qualifications which she meets. qualified to be president? >> mr. mcadams. >> remember your answer from

earlier. >> do i think governor palin is qualified to be president of the united states. in a strict sense. she is. she isn't somebody's ideology i agree with. >> of course she is. you look at who we have in office. there's i don't comparison. >> if she was to run right now, i want not support her as president >> here's a question from robert jacob son. would you vote for our against alaska statehood, for or against? >> of course i would vote for it. the state has great capacity to things. you look at the resource base. you look at the ability we have to move forward, when states are in control of the research base. what was intended with the act was the people.

>> well, i had just been born. my grandparents were arguing about this at the time we were living down in ketchitan there. i think if view of what we have seen now and how we have been able to develop our fishers but all other resources, statehood is a great thing. >> absolutely, i want have supported state hood, there's a reason to take a look at the fact that our constitution was the same document that removed the fish traps. stop allowing outside interest to import labor and export wealth >> now candidates get a chance

question each other. let's start with mr. mcadams requesting of mr. miller. >> as you know, joe, lisa voted against justice sotomayor, with 89 alaskan initiatives. she voted to privatize healthcare. >> would you have voted any differently? >> it's touch to see the votes to describe them. there are a number i clearly want not have voted for. general we have. i would not have voted for the secretary of the united nations

and endorsing rowe v wade. there are votes out there that i agree with the senator. she did vote, even the most liberal senator running for re-election. there was votes she voted that were with her party. clearly, the reason we have grown government to the point we have grown it, scott, is a bipartisan problem. we have to look at everything government has done over the last several decades. >> 30 seconds, mr. mcadams. appreciate that. i wonder with justice kagan and

justice sotomayor, would you have voted for those? >> certainly voted against both sotomayor and kagan. i could have done everything in they represent a branch of government that are activist in their approach. i disagree with an activist perspective >> senator, you raised an issue on a flyer and sent out a flyer yourself, you also indicated that patty murray was supporting you. if response to these, chair woman of the democratic party. patty hague an said. fellow

alaskans". after that, sent out another flyer. the "nra-endorsed candidate". and this reflects you were not endorsed. will you apologize about that. >> scott, you know the flyer that was sent out 3 or 4 days ago from which we take the quotes from patty murra and bob, these are quotes that were absolutely in context. what was a mistake and error on the campaign.

candidate. i have personally called ethan berkowitz. i said that was an error and apology. that is as clear on its face and made very public. so, i don't know that there is anything more that needs to be apologized. i apologized to mr. berkowitz. >> i was endorsed by the nra in the primary. and you know that i received that because i think it caused you consternation because you worked hard to get that. we received that without hesitation. without qualification. and i was proud to receive the

endorsement of the nra. >> senator murkowski, your question for mr. mcadams. scott, monday, we talked at the chamber on monday and one. questions that was asked of you and joe. if you were to get on the u.s. senate. which committees would you serve of you did not answer at this point in time. the rotary, the question came up again, you responded that you would like to serve on the energy committee. i applaud you on recognizing that for alaska. we have had an alaskan on the energy committee, i believe for at least the past 30 years. where are you asking voters to replace as the senior commitment

with a freshman >> thank you. senator, in regards to answering the fairbanks of answering the question. seconds. we did run out of time in fairness. i think it's important we have a u.s. senator who builds seniority and uses it appropriately. concerns we are a resource state. we need energy policy that does that. right now. those projects are sitting empty. we can't wait another six years to open an war and nobody is buying what we have been trying to sell in the u.s. senate over the last eight years >> response. >> >> i think it's incredibly important, again, 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's what i have been doing for the past eight years. that's what i will be able to do. so whether it's taking on the emissions policy that is brought about through regulation that's going to strangle this state. i have been leading the charge to make that happen. i'm in a position to do so. as an in-coming freshman. what would happen to our role in the senate as an energy leader. >> one last round. you can ask the candidate of your choice any question. we'll start with mr. miller. >> senator, you have strongly criticized the alaskan party for saying you're with cap-and-tr e

cap-and-trade. you have also made public statements that you are a believer in man-made climate change. are you flip plopping or what's the deal? flopping. i worked hard to make sure we didn't have a cap-and-trade policy imposed in any kind of energy bill. it was my leadership both on the committee and actually sitting down with the president and other senators to ensure they knew this cap-and-trade policy was before it, it will kick the economy in the gut and take the rug out of the alaska and our economy. made clear to senator lie

berman. we did work together to deal with how we reduce our emissions in a bill back in 2007. >> mr. miller, response. >> but your consistent position has been one that embraced carbon taxes. the "new york times" that murkowski's reputation has a moderate republican willing to engage with democrats in the climate debate. even the hill says, i appreciate addressing that and congress does need to address climate change. we must look at all possible options from carbon tax to cap and trade. is your position advocating cap

and trade. >> i would like it respond. i have taken the position that we need to deal with the tough issues before us. some of those are a changing climate. i believe we have an obligation to do so so. i don't believe a cap and trade proposition is the responsible answer. in every opportunity we are hurting our economy. trade off >> senator murkowski. >> let's see. i will ask you this one, joe. because, you have got a rally tomorrow and one of the that you admire most in the senate, jim demint is participating in your rally. senator demint has stated he does not believe someone that is

openly homo sexual should teach in our schools. he takes the position on the unmarried woman living with her boyfriend shouldn't be teaching in schools. do you agree with this? >> we live in a diverse nation. there are people that say we need a state run healthcare. you made that statement as a hall meeting last fall. if people want to pursue that, they should be able to pursue that within their states. that's what the state of massachusetts has done. stance. i have my own personal beliefs. but they should be addressed at the state level. frankly, law is values.

there's no question about that. anybody that challenges that doesn't understand how law works. in massachusetts wants gay marriage. they have the right to affect that. the states that have same power, have the opportunity to make those decisions as a state and not federal level. >> i think you said you disagree senator demint. >> you said it's someone you admire, yet he has been dogged on his attacks on the alaska agenda, he was he who sought so from his assignment and expel him from

the state. it was him who worked stridently. i am surprised you continue to align yourself. >> mr. mcadams, your question. >> thank you. i will ask senator murkowski a question. if reference to the nature of your question for joe, i think you support the bill, i want to ask you a question about the positions you have taken throughout the course of this campaign, which i believe are different from the positions you took in the primary and especially over the last two years. voting with mitch mcconnell 90% of the time. particular issues, how is it now, now that you're working to gain democratic and independent voters. after having a record in the u.s. senate, they garnered from parenthood.

the naacp, garnered you in the civil liberties journal. how is it now you position yourself as being a moderate or may be even a liberal in court democratic voters when you have been one of the most conservatives when it comes to voting especially when you entered leadership. >> you're throwing around a lot of numbers in how many times i voted with senator mcconnell. one i did keep track of was the pairing i did with senator stevens. he and i voted about 96% of the time. i'm still trying to figure out where the areas we disagreed. i have not voted along my party lines. not looked at where the democrats are coming from.

but where the alaskans. party line. that's where joe tried to take me down saying i voted against me party 300 times. i was voting for alaska's interest and that's really what it should be about. >> and i guess i would take issue with the concept of voting for alaska's interest, being we're a young and infrastructure-poor state. to vote against $1.6 million and a research vessel for uaf and vote against 11 appropriation bills. i have come back to your office and advocated for $40 million capital budget. to vote no on those projects and come back and issue a press release or take credit for the things you voted no on, makes no

sense to alaskans. >> back to the reporters asking questions. you have 45 seconds to answer these, lori. miller. based on a comment on your website, you suggested it wasn't appropriate for the federal government to assist after hurricane katrina. are you asking if alaska were to suffer another major earthquake, we should not get aid. >> i am not sure what comment you're referring to. i will tell you, when we looked at the federal government for the answers. that's what much the debate is 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 if we don't look for the future, we're in terrible. we saw what happened to greece several months ago. if this state does not fight for the future and understanding we ourselves and we have an incredible

opportunity to do that with our resource base, then, you know, the future we're planning right now may be no future at all. it's going to be a dead end. >> as a follow up. 15 second answer. the coastal villages. should federal dollars help there? >> again, this is the point i made early on in the campaign. my approach is not changing. it's the emphasis the fight has to be toward the resource base. the fight, in other words, the fight that senator stevens took. same aggression. but got to go to the base. >> mr. mcadams, how do you balance your economic goal drilling in offshore rigs and cleaning up oil in icy waters. >> sure, first of all, we need to ensure, the natural resource

extraction using t