patient 2 exploded today. one crew member was killed. the debris is scattered in the mojave desert. details are not yet available. piloted spaceship one in 2003. he is no longer with the company but in a recent appearance he described the experience and gave advice to private citizens buying tickets to ride on spice that spaceflight. >> ok. we are going to go ahead with the second part, this is brian binnie. he is a private astronaut. he flew spaceship 110 years ago 1, ten years

ago. 2, richard branson is working on. i've got a ticket on spaceship 2. he was going to fly me. he has gone to xcorp now. arm welcome for brian binnie. [applause] >> thank you. the private side. i don't take your tax money. we do business our way. i'm working on our fourth spaceship. of my privates

availablet military, with a business card at the back. since been 10 years now the x-prize flights. coming up on 11 years. is c-spanten -- running? get this on screen. i have written a book about the experiences of the program. a lot of blogs they came out at the time that told pieces but the fun stuff is in here. i kept thinking if i could just that haslf in a city

,ome expertise in books publishing, editing, managing, and i could find myself in a group, a crowd of people that might actually enjoy reading what it is like to explore a brand-new private spaceship, then i thought here is an opportunity. with that said, i'm going to pass these around. i think there is enough for everybody in the room. thisu're in the book is in , my business card is on the back. please take one. >> i just handed them out. >> off they go. >> that is all i had to say today.

[laughter] >> to move on to our next presenter. greatis not only a aviator, he is a friend of mine. say in fullwould disclosure, he wrote the forward to one of my books call the right stuff. i took brian in a car at 200 miles per hour as a passenger. he has the right stuff. was that scarier? 1 wasn't as scary. the vehicle itself. 200 miles per hour is faster than any of the designs.

it was curious that it actually -- annd on the mobile automobile to get my attention on the runway there. >> we 10 years ago remember first of all many of us never thought the rise was going to be one because there were so many competitors. of of a sudden with a couple months to go you guys fly it into space. then you do it again but you do it twice within two weeks. it's fun 35 times and looked dicey to us on the ground. then you had to go and finish the job. you had to fly it again within two weeks to get the $2 million. talk about that a little bit. i know there is pressure. richard branson is there.

you had to make it happen. know, what i want to talk about is -- i will get back to that but walt's comment about cell phones, i'm not a cell phone kind of god. one day i was flying a plane. the only requirement was to have a commercial glider rating. it,ou start to think about it seems like it is a pretty low bar flying wise. i doubt that in the foothills -- i am out there in the foothills and i am practicing this baby airplane glider.

it weighs as much as i do. the plane takes us up over the mountains which are 8000 feet and then get released. things thati get are 1500 feet per minute. turn.aking a i'm coming down like a brick. the stick is swinging back and forth trying to keep the wings level. i decide today is not the day to be flying this thing. i start aiming back towards the field. i may be pointing that way but i am still flying this way. .here is no place to go

at some point you have to give up and say today i'm not going back, i'm going somewhere else. --re that somewhere else is i don't know. i ended between [indiscernible] in this baby airplane that has no canopy on it. eventually it makes a sharp term. this is where the windmills are. wrongindmills can't be most of the time. today was one of those days. i'm getting pretty low. i'm running in between these flashing blades of these windmills.

to parking for a place this airplane. roadsave these access that run up and down the valleys. 50 feet, 20got yards of road in the right orientation that is relatively flat. i have that much altitude. i did for a little bit of scarcity. it is that kind of turn. the thing settles my sling onto this access road. hey. go, i made it. how about that? i didn't break anything. that is when i realized i was

still flying. what's your point is after that that,your point is after it was going to be easy? inthe point is i am stuck this little airplane, i can't get out because if i get out it will just fly away, essentially. i am sitting there. it is a sunday morning. through andne gets starts to calm. go if i in my life i had a cell phone -- [laughter] >> the punchline. >> i could call someone. after that event i broke down and joined the cell phone generation. >> spaceship one. that day.

that was a lot of pressure. a tremendous amount of pressure. i hadn't flown the vehicle in 10 months. was on a monday morning. the night before sunday night was the first airing of the channel program called the black sky. there were two parts. the race to space, which was focused mainly on all of the effort it took to get to mike's first flight back in june. ont was being played out national tv.

segmentsroke between instead of going to commercial, a cnn reporter was at bert's house and mohave and would , how dow bert and say you -- first question was who was the pilot? bert wouldn't answer. miles push more and said how do you think it is going to go? of you knowmany bert. , an he has an audience crowd, he knows how to work it. here inhe world stage his hand. home up and, i'm at down listen to this. his response is not only are we

run, we are a home going to hit a grand slam. that was the quote. no pressure. i'm thinking, as if the bar isn't high enough, here is bert making it even that more difficult. three things have to happen. you had to get above the carmen line, 100 kilometers. >> thatis considered he is the new definition of space. walt would barely be awake by that point. that was one big deal. that was the $10 million part. we also had richard branson who wanted to invest in spaceship

number two. he had a multimillion dollar contract ready to go should we demonstrate not only can we get to get there without doing these twists and tumbles. >> which micah done. -- which mike had done. >> we kind of thought we figured out what was causing that particular problem, which gave so, thursday night was when it was announced i was going to be the pilot. point, the clever management way of doing business, not unlike george abbey at nazareth or the way the

chinese have conducted their programs, they leave it until last minute to tell you who is the crew. on thursday night i find out i'm going to be the guy. all the work i have done to date , to keep my hand in the game on the outside chance i might get an opportunity to fly this little beast of an airplane, now it is out the window because we need to change it. was, itit was changed was subtle. it is quite entertaining. it took a lot of orchestration between myself and mission control at the time, run by doug

chiang. pointed 60 degrees as quickly as you could get that happened. seconds. we took 50 seconds or so to coast from 60 degrees to 80 degrees. , the lastal endgame 20 seconds, we would be pulling on the vehicle to get up to 87 degrees. vernacular,in the keep an angle of attack across the tales, which mean you had better control, which meant this rocket motor on the backend doesn't try to knock you off

course. that we flewtors thatthen, that we fly now, flies, they are not steered for you. we are fixed in space. nozzlese a blade of toward the end of the burn. they have a thrust line. it skews off, and now you are in the upper atmosphere aerodynamically trying to counteract that thrust of symmetry. we figured we could fly to 150,000 feet before having to shut them down to avoid the rocket overwhelming the vehicle. do a littlecould

bit better than that. to 213,000i got up shutting the motor betweenich is somewhere 10-12 knots indicated airspeed. on the kill stall in terms of aerodynamic control. there is a new procedure, it worked great. there was no expectation that it should. we only had six powered flights of the vehicle total. this was the sixth fly.

the previous five had presented ,roblems, difficulties situations we hadn't anticipated or thought about, understood, thiso go back and say doesn't make sense, we have to change that, there is no reason flightct that this sixth that was critical not only for my personal sanity but for that of the team, for that of the company, of richard branson, for the hopefulness of the future of ,ommercial manned spaceflight that would all work out. we scooted out past the carmen 15., past the old x >> almost 70 miles.

muchich doesn't sound like but maybe in the city, 70 miles is a lot. house it doesn't even the -- doesn't even get me to los angeles. that is what we were doing. know that weight was a big deal. there was an anecdote that your mother-in-law spilled a 16 ounce soda on you before you went on. [laughter] love yourgot to mother-in-law. at the time i was 50 years old. if your mother-in-law wants to in your mature

errorand life, after the of mirroring her daughter, then you take it. it is about this time of year. it is cool in the morning. she had come from the local mcdonald's. shehad a cup of coffee and is the same personality as the mother and everybody loves raymond. so she pushes her way out of the crowd. i'm on my way out. , let'ses up and says hope. except there is this cup of coffee. she is approaching me and i am wondering what the game plan is.

me.arm sweep around it becomes that there is no game plan. it all just flows down the front on to myght suit t-shirt. now i am just wet. that coffee is hot. [laughter] >> but it weighs something. >> it was heavily sugared, vanilla flavored by the way. anyways, a about a pound. that we rule of thumb would kill grandmother for a pound. >> they had to make this altitude. >> one pound additional weight is 500 feet.

had on his first attempt just made it by 400 feet. >> a cup of coffee would have stopped them. >> i was reminded by our chief aerodynamicist, that i was now wearing an extra 500 feet. it was on that note that they close the spaceship door. off we go into history. >> is that in your book? mother-in-law is now one of the most famous mother-in-law's in the world because she knows i tell the story.

it is all true. it couldn't have been more disconcerting. it was not a big cabin. as soon as the door closes the just overwhelms. space. how we went to >> ok, so you are up there and you have seen these pictures. you are a fighter pilot and this stuff. when you got up that high, explain what you felt when you solve that? walt was too busy with his stuff to have any emotion. did you have any? 70 miles above the earth? >> shame on you, walt.

i'm here to tell you, it is the most fabulous ride in the world. motor -- riding a rocket motor it's the senses, because that rocket motor went off like an angry bull, like open,e slapped the gate and you are just trying to hang on for eight seconds. except, you were hanging on to this thing for a minute and a half. kings thundering, sha kind of experience. , wead a gauge that would

were not sure we would be able to read. the flight controls go from light off the mothership to within eight seconds you are supersonic and the control forces are so high. you think you are moving the stick but you are not affecting anything. then you have to transition to electric trams to control the trajectory. the in game, you're back to flying like an airplane again because the motor wants to adjust the thrust line on you. this,gic, and i do mean the magic is when you finally turn the motor off. read wonderful things happen. they happen in a blink. the shaking goes away. 1, thecase of patient

shrieking sounds, this big nitrous tank that is 10 feet behind you imaging itself making all kinds of -- it is like a possessed cat behind you. and, then you become instantly weightless. in, though you are strapped the tension goes away. your limbs, your legs have no weight. your sense of right side up no longer matters. when the motor is burning you are paying attention to the instruments. after, there is nothing much you can do to affect the trajectory

of the vehicle you are on. then you get to look out the vieww, and there is this you have never appreciated or never seen before. from a hobby, if you have ever been it is one of the most dreary, disappointing -- >> godforsaken places. >> but the view is spectacular. you have the pacific ocean, the theyains, weather patterns normally only show you on the evening news. void that ise space. separating these extremes is

this then blue electric curtain of light. that is the atmosphere. it is the first time you get to appreciate and realize that you are now in space, in a spaceship. that sounds cool to say. i cut the grass, i went to space and a spaceship. you worked pretty hard physically just to get there. so everything your body feels is wow. and everything you see with your eyes just because they're so much more dynamic than any camera or video is, you take in

his vista, is wow. i've told the marketing people at virgin this for years. that they're all going to be out of jobs as soon as they get into business. because it's an experience that's going to sell itself. -- you t need to be don't need to be coerced into this. people that come out from having had that experience are going to be doing the marketing for them. >> what you just described, i have a ticket on virgin glass tick spaceship too. will -- when it flies, will i feel the things you felt? i obviously will be a passenger. i won'ten be a pilot. but will i feel that rocket burn and the shouldering and shrieking and all that, is it going to be similar? >> absolutely.

it might be more intense for you because, as a passenger, you're not in control of anything, you're just, you now, along for the ride. anybody can tell you, in an acrobatic kind of airplane, there's a huge difference between whether you're making the control inputs to the airplane or sort of reacting to what somebody else is doing. youlike a man of od very quickly. >> i already am. but. the i was orchestrating spaceship, i would have a five-second countdown light after separation from the

mother ship. and that was the time between they arm the rocket motor and they fire it. >> like a drag racer when they take off. >> in those five seconds, your life is going to be changed profoundly. and then off you go. and it's such a compressed experience. it's not like, you know, you're not dazed in space -- you're not days in space, you haven't spent an entire career working your way up the competitive ladder to get there. but you still get all the same benefits, the view, the weightlessness, the experience . riding a rocket motor in spaceship 2, we'll see how it plays out. but it's got a pretty big cabin so you can unbuckle your

seatbelt and then you can wrestle with the other -- >> while they're puking? >> well, i don't think puking's going to be a problem. as long as you can reference an outside window an there's plenty of them, you'll do just fine. >> i'll remember that. >> and that's just getting up there. there's still the ride back an entirely different experience in itself. >> what's that like? >> i liken it to, if you're driving a car and it's starting rain and you get a little splatters of rain drops on the ind shield and if you're

driving into the thunderstorm, then the intensity of that rain just, you know, continues to grow. e-entry is very similar. where the rain is actually the noise of the atmosphere against the -- in spaceship 2's characters the belly of the vehicle. and you can actually sort of hear it go from a pinging sound to one that just grows and grows and then the intensity -- grows an grows in intensity, as the noise level grows, so does the g levels that you feel on your body. but unlike riding a rocket strange to his is articulate, but it is buttery smooth. ou are just getting heavy.

so it's like going over niagara falls. you're on your way down, there's nothing stopping you and it continues until the vehicle is in a thick enough tmosphere that once again it's subsonic and once the vehicle is subsonic in this funny configuration, the vehicle just doesn't quite know what it eally wants to do. it's sort of in a confused state and so you put the tails back down, you become a demrider and now you've got your -- flieder and now you've got your 10, 15 minutes to -- glider and now you've got your 10, 15 minutes to breathe again and look at your passenger who's sitting across from you and sort of mentally trying to assimilate to all that has just

happened to you in the last hour or so. the majority of the flight on the virgin side of the house is just climbing up underneath the mothership, which is probably where ssenger standpoint the co-pilot is going to have to have a degree in psychology or stress management or stuff like that. the concept is different in that from get-go you take off on the runway, under rocket power, there's four motors, you light them off is he consequentially so you don't equenially so s you don't get the big jolt. you take off like an airplane

and just keep going. >> now i want to get to that. brian worked for many, many years for scaled composites and when spationship 1 was a success and richard branson invested his hundreds of millions dollars into virgin glass tick and hiring brian -- ga lactic and hiring brian, why did you go over to excorps which is a competitor of virgin galactic? my motivation, there were several levels to it. given our friends in the back of the room, i'll just say we had spent close to 10 years tryinging to develop the rocket motor for spaceship 2. and i had read a book some time ago called design in nature.

and this book makes the case at if you, for example, take the size, the heart of a rabbit and compare it to the size of the heart of a shark or a alonzo or an elephant -- a lino or an elephant and you -- lion and an elephant and you plot them all out versus the animal's weight, they'll follow on a curve that is fairly predictable. i mean, there's always a little bit of noise in the data. but they follow this curve. and i just had the sense after 10 years of trying and crying and praying and saying, god, please show us the truth, light, the way for this spaceship ii rocket motor, that we weren't on the curve.

and that has been the holdup for spaceship ii. i'm not a rocket science guy. i felt like my contributions to the program were -- had kind of run its course. here's excorps next door, they've spent their last 14 years of their existence building a rocket motor, a very different type of motor, one a t's restartble, which is rationalble, clever thing to do for a rocket motor -- remarkable, clever thing to do for a rocket motor. it's reusable, it's gas go, it's standard liquid oxygen and kerosene. >> which are proven fuels over the years. the apollo guys used it. >> there's a lot of history out there versus these hybrid motors. and -- but now they're building an air frame around the proven

engine and if you think about airplanes, when you go to build a new airplane, you first find that the power plant that's going to make this thing work, then you build the airplane around it. you don't first build an airplane and then go, well, first my engine. and that's kind of the difference, if you will, between what was going on between spaceship i and spaceship ii and excorps' now in a position where i think i can be a lot more use in terms of flight test planning, helping sign new flight controls, take to layout, crew check lists, all that kind of stuff. >> now, when i drove you at 200

miles per hour in mojave, we made a deal and the deal was, i'll take you at 200 and you're going to fly me in spaceshiptwo. that can't happen now. so should i be selling my spaceshiptwo ticket and buying an excorps ticket? >> i'll just say this. has put an ranson wful lot of his own money into making this program work. i believe it will work. it's just taking audioles longer than anybody would have ever thought. >> tell me about it. > but on the other hand, for -- well, you'd be in the quarter million dollar category at this point. >> i bought the $200,000.

he raised it by $200,000 to $250,000 by now. >> you can get two rides for the price of one. >> at excorps. >> at excorps. >> i could save some of my 401 k plan. >> yes, you could -- 401-k plan. >> yes, you could. and we'll be sitting side by side. >> just like in the mcclarne, on the runway. >> you'll see what i see. you'll see all the instrumentation. you won't be in the back bumping elbows and niece. >> -- knees. >> with angelina jolie or whatever. >> if you're part of that flight, that might be worth it. [laughter] >> you know, i need to know, you have this great anecdote about meeting the late neil armstrong and i think this really goes to the heart of neil's character. can you tell us about that time that you guys met? so, it was a rather bizarre

-- the way it unfolded. because i didn't realize neil was anywhere near -- in town. but my wife and i were at disney land. and we had just finished dinner , had come outside and from about here to the end of the room, 0 yards away, whatever, -- 20 yards away, whatever, is -- there's neil armstrong. and he's standing by himself and there seems to be nobody around him. and i'm just thinking, wow. here's an opportunity to just ay hi. and i point out to my wife, do you know who that guy is?

and there's a saying in life, you never -- you never want to meet your hero. because they will just disappoint you. and i had this concern that, you know, neil probably gets bombarded with all this kind of stuff and he's sort of a receipt sant guy. he's not the --s remain sent guy. he's not the -- reticent guy. he's not the buzz aled are in-- >> there's the odd couple right there. >> but anyway, my wife, we went over, regard lts -- regardless, and under her encouragement, and i introduced myself and neil -- this was 2007. rocket motor a

accident at mow valvey where we killed three -- mojave where we killed three people, sent three others to the hospital. so things were not going well. and anyway i introduced myself to neil. neil was gracious enough i who e to pretend to know i was. >> i knew who you were. >> as it turns out his dinner party comes out of the restaurant and we all end up walking back to the hotel together and as i'm talking to him i just said, how bizarre is the world eemed in of glitter and fantasy land of isney land that we were unable to repeat what alan shepard had

done 40 however long it had been, 45 years ago. which was -- >> suborbital flight. >> just a suborbital flight, a lob shot. he was the first guy to do that. in the mercury cap sewell. -- sap sull. what neil said -- capsule. what neil said next just stopped me in my feet because he turns and looks at me and says, you know, none of this stuff is easy. it's all hard. it's all very difficult. just because you've done it once doesn't mean you can do it again. the only way you have a chance of succeeding, the only way you know you're on the right track is if you can come into work in the morning and look at the guy table from ffee being there iate

d then he used a word that i've heard out of burt's mouth for 12 years. he says, if you're not having fun, you're not -- you know, you're not doing it right. and you don't belong in the usiness. burt, since the day i met him, since the day i started working for him, always said, whenever he got anybody together, was, if we're not out here having fun, if we're not enjoying what we're doing, then we're not doing it right, we're not going to be successful, we're going things nto problems and will go badly. and here it was coming back on incident, f a tragic

but nonetheless now coming out of the mouth of neil armstrong. i was just blown away by it. >> one last question before i open it up to the audience. you mentioned burt. describe the genius of him. you worked with him. the guy is a genius. it's amaying what he's able to do. but -- amazing what he's able to do. but what about him that makes him special? >> other than him being a smart guy, he latches on to things and he won't let go. and he will wrestle whatever it is until he has squeezed the life out of it, until he understands every aspect off it and then he'll take that in the on and if it's

world of aeronautics and airplanes, he'll apply that knowledge to the next vehicle he builds. burt had a common saying that, whenever asked what's your favorite aircraft, he would always say, the next one i'm going to build. burt and i were also golfing buddies and before i started working for him, for a couple of years, and burt took -- was the same way in golf as he was as an engineer. he was tenacious. he practiced. he was exetive. -- competitive. he had in his back pocket these laminated cue cards that he would whoa show the loft and carry that would show the loft

and carry of a golf ball that would show whether it was out of a sand trap. a 60-degree lofted wedge, a sand wedge or pitching wedge, whether it was a half swing or quarter swing, the face was opened or closed. it was all there. that was sort of his nature . he went to extremes other people would not go to. but he was the man of great wit. he enjoyed having fun. he enjoyed pointing out inconsistencies in other people's behaviors. i went one time with him to singapore. singapore's a little island nation just south of malaysia, if you've never been there. at the time they were doing a

tremendous reclamation effort where they were basically pushing back the china sea so they can get more land. because they're running out of land, too many people. and burt was invited to talk to this rather large assembly, about a thousand people of bureaucrats, military types, students, you name it. just sort ments to of typify his thinking and his sense of humor was, he said, you'd be far better off, instead of this reclamation effort, putting these young men into the new f-16's that you've just bought from us and going and bombing malaysia to the north and getting your land that way. you motivate and tie the new generation, you take advantage

of hardware that you've spent you do it the nd old-fashioned way. of e the crowd could sort assimilate this -- oh, my god, did burt just tell us to go bomb malaysia -- you know, he ad moved on to other subjects. that's the kind of guy he was. he was a lot of fun to be around. he currently lives up in idaho on the lake. ng he's building himself a sea plane. and he plans to turn the sea plane into one that he can fly around the world without ever

visiting an airport, without having to deal with the f.a.a., with whom he has -- >> mixed -- >> a checkered relationship. even though he's retired, he's not. and he's still out there having fun and he's still pushing boundaries and he's still challenging the way people ink about conventional approaches to old problems. >> ok. we're going to open it up for a couple of quick questions. anybody have a question for brian? yes, way back there. >> hello. i have a question about burt's relationship with peter. prize rse the ex

foundation. hearing you speak about burt's personality. peter has a larger than life personality as well. did you see that burt kind of went to the next level after he decided to take on the project? what was the relationship between those two men? >> you know, these are the kind -- if i'm -- at if i'm writing it down after maybe the fifth draft, i'll get the words just right to where i can weasel my way through any controversy. but you're right. a strained as relationship to say the least. but peter was bringing something to the table that was attractive. t gave paul allen about 40% of

his money back if we won this thing. it put mojave on the map because we had to become a spaceport to satisfy the requirements of the exprize. it was -- peter's side of the house, what did he, i think is still fairly brilliant. without his efforts i would have had my, i wouldn't have had my opportunity, for example, i don't believe the vehicle would have gone straight to the smithsonian and that would have been the end of it. i've never met anybody to out-big dog burt. >> even peter? >> even peter. and burt's a big guy.

burt's not, you know, if he stands up next to you, he casts a shadow and he starts sucking oxygen out of the room and peter's, you know, not a big guy. but sometimes it's a little guy that, you know, -- sometimes it's the little guys -- >> the napoleon complex. >> that's right. it was an interesting battlefield. but it ended up being win-win. it all worked out good. >> one more question because we're a little behind schedule. anybody else have a question? right here. yeah, yeah. go ahead. >> you're a test pilot. what kind of courage do you need to have in order to be a est pilot?

>> it's not about courage. i'll go to what walt says. fear doesn't really come into play. alan shepard, also off the first suborbital guy, was a navy admiral and i think once he realized that he was going to receive his admiralship, he came up with a test pilot's prayer. and i believe this is one that most, if not all, live by. and it's a very simple one. and it's got nothing to do with fear or courage. it's, dear god, please don't let me -- >> f up. >> f up. [laughter]

and -- what he really means by that, i think, is that there's any number of things that can go wrong. here's probably four or five reactions you can take or make that are incorrect that make that wrong thing worse and there's one maybe right thing and the prayer's really to say, in the event something starts to go askew, give me the wisdom and the knowledge to do that one right thing. and bo wasn't about fear. it wasn't about currently. >> that's renata by the way. we're going to do our certainty funal training in a few -- centrifuge training a a few

weeks at nasa. any advice? >> i've never been there. i think it sounds like a great experience. they don't start you off at nine g's or i hope they don't. >> but they do get you up to nine g's. >> they can if that's where you're head. if you're going to assimilate the spaceshiptwo profile, they'll do sort of a half g simulation, then they'll build up. going to do spaceshiptwo. >> i think they're great people there. and i'm sure you'll have good memories of coming out of it. >> all right, guys. let's hear a big applause for brian binnie. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> at this year's washington ideas forum, the cook political reports charlie cook offered analysis on the midterm elections. including the house and senate races and the current state of the g.o.p. and the democratic party. >> notice she kissed my microphone. >> i did. >> anyway, last year i spoke at this ideas festival and i looked around the room and the audience was just as impressive as the green room before. anyway, it is a real honor, a real privilege to be here. listening to tom fanning, he was outlining what a tax deal might look like and i was talking to some people with a very large company the other day and asked them would you go along with raising the minimum

wage in exchange for lowering the corporate tax rate? without taking a break, in a second. those are the kinds of deals were used to put together in this town. let me get back on subject. i am glad everybody is seated because i don't want anybody to fall over and hurt themselves. we have this election coming up on tuesday. it is kind of a big one. his election, if you go back to early last year, early 2013, there were two very different plausible scenarios that we could have had in this election. one scenario might have been that some of the problems and challenges that plague the republican party, that hurt them so badly in 2012, might just flow into 2014. so that was one scenario. and the other scenario was that this would become a classic midterm election, particularly

second midterm election where it becomes a referendum up or down on the current president and policies. every once in a while, you will have one. 1998s a one. 2002 was another. mostly, midterm elections are up or down for the president and policies. the outcome is one of four ategories. light losses, heavy losses, and moderate losses and what i call extra crispy. those are the catastrophic losses. those are the basic categories. just to kind of look at these two, in terms of republican problems potentially flowing on in, if you think of 2012, there was an enormous disappointment for republicans. they were only three seats out of the majority. they only needed three more seats to get a majority in the u.s. senate and it looked very plausible that they could

get it and at the same time president obama's numbers were not very good, his approval numbers. every president that had a worse job approval than his wpn. he was in a gray area. we were coming out of a recession but the economy was stuck in low gear and people didn't -- the economy may have been recovering but most voters didn't think that their economy was recovering. fter all, median family income had not gone up since 2000 and that had been under democratic presidents, republican presidents, democratic, says and republican congresses. but it is stuck with whoever is there. republicans had every reason to think they had a good chance of winning. what happened in 2012? instead of gaining three seats and getting the majority, they had a net loss of three seats and they came out of that

election six sea side of the majority instead of just three. and mitt romney lost by a hair up under four percentage points. you can blame if you want mitt romney for the loss. mechanically, his campaign was inferior to the obama campaign. i think it also had some bad strategy. but there were broader, systemic problem's that were plaguing the republican party and damaging the brand that also led to romney losing by four points, republicans losing the national vote for that popular vote for the house of representatives, even though they held their majority, and came up short in the senate. challenges with minority voters, young voters, women voters, moderate voters, self-described moderate voters -- these were all real challenges. plus, this tendency we have seen in 2010 and 2012 for republicans primary voters to nominate candidates -- my wife

lucy is trying to get me to stop using the term while co--- term wacko. so i am going with exotic and potentially problematic. [laughter] it had cost them as many as five u.s. senate seats between 2010 and 2012 great all these were things that republicans had to have it on their minds coming into 2014 to worry them. then you go to the other side and you say, well, ok, where are we right now? the poll that i watch the most is the nbc wall street journal poll. for 30 years, they have paired up. fabulous poll. he poll from a couple of weeks ago, they asked people, do you think the country is headed in the right direction or do you think it is often the wrong track?

that used to be call thed dow jones indicator of american politics. what does it show? 25% think the country is headed in the right direction, 65% off on the wrong track. the president's approval rating is net -10. underwater, upside down. in handling foreign policy, even though americans rarely vote on foreign policy, clearly over the last year, people have been thinking more more, anxious about what is going on around the world for good reason and the president approval rating was -30. o just horrible numbers. two different courses of action. it has now become very clear which one it's going to be. while there were problems and

challenges that hurt republicans so badly in 2012, they were real. they are real. and i think they may be big problem's, challenges for republicans in 2016. but in the context of this midterm election, they have shunk in significance. the potential problems for the democratic party are just as big and broad as a year and a alf ago. in the house, nothing is going to happen. 96% of all the democrats in the house are in districts that obama carried. 94% of the republicans in the house are in districts that mitt romney carried. the house is kind of sorted out and not much is going to happen. the senate is where the action is. if you think about it, it's like a perfect storm of factors coming together that go against senate democrats. they have more seats up, 21 versus 15. number one. number two, but much more important, the map, the

geography. democrats have seven seats up in states that romney carried. there's only one republican seat up in an obama state. and that's susan collins in maine and she could lose re-election if she tried. but more importantly, six democratic seats, the same number that republicans need for a net gain, six of those democratic seats are in states that mitt romney carried by 14 points or more. montana, south dakota, west virginia, alaska, arkansas, louisiana. now, given that romney lost the national election by four percentage points, you show me a state that mitt romney carried by 14 points and i'll show you a state that i wouldn't want to be a democrat running this year. so the bottom line on this is that republicans don't need a wave to get a majority in the senate. obviously they'd love to have a wave. but they don't need one. all they need really is people who normally vote republican, who live in republican leaning

states, to vote republican in a very republican year. that's all they need. now, to the extent that they have weird things going on, you know, for montana, south dakota, west virginia, they're gone. facing rue, they're uphill. it's like a strong swimmer with a real, real horrible undertow. democrats are lucky if any one them survives. the ots are probably not. so -- odded are probably not. republicans obviously have some problems but i think it's going to come down to, besides georgia and pat roberts in kansas, it's going to be those four democratic seats in purple states. kay hagen in north carolina, new hampshire, colorado. and the open seat in iowa. so, that's what it's come down to. we believe there's a 60% chance that republicans get the majority. but keep in mind, there are a lot of really close races, a point or two one way or the

other. democrats, i mean, don't be stunned if democrats held onto their majority but the odds are good that the republicans will. for the first time in my life i've actually done this in 10 minutes and 30 seconds. and so i'm only 30 seconds over. thank you all very, very, very much. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> next, c-span's campaign 2014 coverage continues. we begin with a debate in the alaska senate race. then a forum featuring candidates running for u.s. senate in south carolina. after that, a debate among candidates running for u.s. house seat in virginia's seventh district. >> this weekend on the c-span networks. the funeral for former "the washington post" editor ben bradley. and sunday evening at 8:00 on q&a, author harold hoser on his newest book. saturday night at 10:00, on book tv's after words, james

mcpherson on the confederacy's president, jefferson davis. and sunday live at noon on in depth ourks three-hour conversation with author michael courta. >> find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. email us yalt comments@ c-span.org. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> next, the final debate in the alaska senate race. the race is listed as a tossup.

this is about an hour. >> alaska public media presents debate for the state. and now your moderator, laurie townsend. >> good evening. welcome to debate for the state for u.s. senate. i am the news director for the alaska public media and public radio network. we coming to you live from anchorage. we have gathered to make our production a collaboration. our guests are the candidates for u.s. senate.

mark is seeking a second term. he was mayor of anchorage. his republican challenger is an sullivan. he's a lawyer. the resources commissioner for the state of alaska. he was secretary of state in the bush administration. liz ruskin, washington dc correspondent. and dan, a senior news reporter. welcome. first, a few rules. i'll let you know how much time you will have to respond to each question. when you see a yellow light, that means you have a few more seconds to complete your response. when you hear the spell --

bell, the time is up. earlier we tossed the coin. you will have 45 seconds in this particular round. let's start with a question from dan. >> your campaign slogan has been that you will go anywhere and talk to anyone. how are concerned are you about negative campaigning and the effects? >> i will go anywhere and talk to anyone. i go all over the state. i think it does not matter if you agree or disagree. i will have a conversation. i going conservative talk radio. we sit and have a conversation. that is important. the broader question is that it is important that we talk about my important -- opponent or others. we talked about the oil and gas development. issues of women's health.

other very important issues. i will go anywhere and talk to anybody about what is important to alaska. > mr. sullivan, you maintain that mr. begich supports the agenda of president obama and harry reid. who among sitting politicians would you align yourself with? >> on this campaign we had a bunch of u.s. senators who endorse my campaign. it is a very broad-based coalition of senators. enator murkowski, rand paul, senator barrasso, senator corker. i have been very interested in is working with all different

elements of the republican party. marco rubio, young, crosses many bridges in terms of ideas. there are a lot of great republicans and democrats that i would work for as a u.s. senator. >> which of those would you say you are most aligned with? > i'm going to come to the u.s. senate as a dan sullivan republican. that is somebody who works with all different groups, stakeholders, to develop strategies to address challenges. that has been my record in laska. as an assistant secretary of state and that lieutenant colonel in the marines. more freedom. less government. rolling back the obama administration's agenda. it depends on the issue. senator murkowski and harry

reid -- i will work with them n energy and alaska. >> mr. sullivan, as of this afternoon, $57 million has been pent on this race. how has the spending serve to inform and motivate voters. ave there been benefits? >> one of the things we ecognized early on was how much money was going to be pent in this race. we recognized it was going to be a challenge. a flood of outside money, third-party, outside money supporting me, mark. we saw that as a challenge for all races. i think it has kept many other races off the air.

we put forward an agreement called the alaska agreement, very summer to the agreement put forward in the massachusetts senate race. it worked. it was between elizabeth moran and scott. it kept the outside money off the airwaves. it was unfortunate that mark did not -- he had plenty of time to sign it. he did not. the vast majority of alaskans wanted that to be signed. >> 57 million is unprecedented. does this help voters understand the issues and ropel them to the polls? >> voters are agitated by the mail. the youtube ads that my opponent has on attacking me, people don't like it. let me respond to the agreement that dan talked about. that was a press release that was sent over 15 minutes efore.

an independent group came to s, i supported that. we can go back and forth on that. here is the fundamental issue. are we going to overturn citizens united? they are not people. my opponent has not supported that idea. i supported a constitutional amendment to change it. i supported legislation to disclose who the top three donors are in these groups. he has refused to support those pieces of legislation. >> i'd like to ask a follow-up about campaign finance reform. would you support a law -- >> i think what mark has proposed, what harry reid has proposed is something that in my view is quite radical, that's never happened before. amending the first amendment. everybody from the, a c lmbs u to ted kennedy to conservative groups is against that. with all due respect to mark and harry reid, i'll stick with james madison writing of the first amendment. a rewriting of the first

amendment. again, we had the opportunity, you know, he talked about the money being spent at the end. we knew this was going to be a problem. we gave them that agreement. wasn't a press conference. you had two, three, four, five weeks to sign that. >> no to campaign finance reporm? >> i'll look at anything but as i mentioned, i'm not in favor at all of amending the first amendment of the united states constitution which he is. >> i'd live to give -- i'd like to give you 30 seconds to campaign finance reform. >> the supreme court decided that corporations are people. they're not people. you don't go down to a courthouse and get married. they're not people. the reality is, if you want to get this third party money out, you have to go and amend the constitution back to what it means. and that is individuals are individuals. corporations are not. i know you like to use harry reid and obama all the time. that's your talking points. but the other question is, a simple law change that would at least require disclosure. like alaska laws.

we have that here. when you run an alaska campaign, not a federal, you have to disclose the top three onors. that is alaska. >> that bill is pending right now. >> we are off to a lively start. lets go to military issues. you will have one minute to respond. >> mr. sullivan, the u.s. is using airstrikes. to combat isis. at what point would american ground forces be warranted? in an offensive manner. >> we have talked about this and debated it. those are combat troops already engaged. there is some confusion. from my perspective, it depends on what the mission is. there are ground forces to go rescue pilots. i was a commander of a marine task force that did that. also, to save american personnel.

we had an incident in benghazi where we had a company of marines on the ground -- we would not have had a dead ambassador. he is saying that we should never have ground forces on the ground. i say it should be a contingency. why would we want to signal to our enemy that we will never have ground forces on the ground and given that comfort. we should not give that comfort to our enemies. it is a contingency. my broader criticism is that this administration is not together a broader, comprehensive strategy, with all instruments of american power to defeat isis and lay out a clear mission. >> despite an individual unit going in, what about the response we had in afghanistan or iraq. >> i've never called for a massive amount of ground

troops. and the debate last night, mark said i was gung ho to get ground troops in there. that is not the case. i am the commander of a marine orps reserve unit was very -- whose very mission is to deploy with foreign armies to call on air strikes. i am interested in having a clearly defined mission and being able to carry that out. we have not had that yet from this administration. >> we know you oppose boots on the ground. is there a trigger point where that would be justified? >> your question is a good question. you're absolutely right. i don't support massive forces on the ground. we have tried that in iraq. what happened? we thought we train these troops. iraq backed up and left military equipment for isis to pick up. let go back to the broader uestion.

i haven't supported funding the rebels. the president was wrong. today, they are someone else. tomorrow, they could be another group that becomes our enemies. we have so much need here in this country. that is where i want to put our resources. i supported the airstrikes because their multinational. we should be harder on the money issues, oil wells, refineries that isis is using to fund our operations. they should be dealt with aggressively to cut off their money. the arab countries need to step up. his is the region. they need to be at the table. they need to be on the ground. we have embassy there. we have personnel. we need to protect them. putting massive ground troops on their, no, not interested. >> any trigger point for that? >> we continue to go back to this region. we try to solve the problems that the region is unwilling to take on and solve

themselves. look at turkey. you can reed the articles about it. they are reluctant. they are supposed to be our allies. they like what is happening -- iran is now a partner with iraq. it is a zone that we go in and metal in. they need to step up to the plate. >> you mentioned that you were reluctant to fun or arm rebel groups. what about funding rebel groups? >> i will support it. one of the things i have been critical of markup is saying no to every option is not foreign policy. as we've seen over the last several years, and action greets its own consequences. there is no doubt that we have a serious threat, not only with isis, but other areas in the world. one of the areas that i have

been critical of for this administration is that during the first term they should weakness and withdrew from the world, in terms of american engagement. talked about leading from behind. from my perspective, when you show weakness, that is provocative. we are not only seeing it with isis, we are seeing it with egard to iran. i think there were four a nuclear weapon is the biggest threat. a terrorist regime in to ran with a nuclear weapon. a huge threat to the united states and our allies. we're seeing it in russia and china. we have a lot of challenges in the world right now. one of the things that i have been saying is that i'll be ready to deal with them on day one. >> next question. >> the military has been struggling with sexual assault. do you support bringing sexual

assault cases outside the chain of command? is the current system, which puts a lot of power in the hands of a suspect's commander, defenseble? >> we had a discussion on this last night. i am someone who is very focused on this issue as a u.s. senator. i will be very focused on it. the one concern i have about the proposal is that what we really need is more accountability with regards to the commanders of these units. one thing i fear about that proposal is that it takes accountability a way. let me give you an example. if there was a soldier who was assaulted, normally you would want to have the culture of that unit make sure that does not happen. if it does, there is accountability. taking it away from the chain of command could bring up the prospect of the soldier could

go to a commander and the commander would say, hey, lawyers are going to deal with hat. there have been proposals in the national defense uthorization of 2014 to make it so that commanders cannot overturn convictions. to make it so every victim has an assigned >> we know you support the bill. what about the argument that unit commanders can deal with bad soldiers more effectively, and that where victims have been ignored or worse, it is because of a bad commanders, not a bad system. >> the bill has all the conditions to go after these commanders also. but the difference is you take

it outside the command structure when it is time to deal with these perpetrators and protect the victims. so you can still deal with these commanders who are doing bad jobs in the responsibility dealing with their troops. but here's what i have heard from victims. victims who have been in the military, people currently in the military. what they want to have is a process where they're not threatened by their commanders, or the potential of being demoted, or a situation that is talked about in the unit. they want to have a separate situation, separate plan, how they can go after an do with this issue. that does not mean that the commander is not going to be held accountable. because clearly, if you have someone who has been a victim of sexual harassment or assault, the commander will have to be dealt with also. through the command structure. but the victim should be dealt with outside of the command structure. i do believe there is a fear among people within the military. i have talked to victims. i've had several here and -- in anchorage and in

washington, d.c. >> we will allow some time for candidates to ask questions of each other. 68 --our question nct.stant -- susi you will have one minute to respond. the person who is asking the question what have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. we will start with mark. >> as a member of the appropriations committee, i know you are concerned about federal spending and the process. do you support an advanced appropriations with the va or other agencies? >> can you repeat the question? >> sure. do you support advanced appropriation bills or processes for federal agencies? >> what i support is the funding. and i have heard this as i have talked to many communities in rural alaska.

that the process of the continuing resolution is no way to run a government. and it is no way to help with regard to entities, whether it is clinics, whether it is agencies, whether it is schools, to get consistent funding. one of the things that i have been critical on in terms of the last few years, particularly the last six years that you have been senator, there have been only two budgets passed in six years. so what i am for is a budget process where the senate actually undertakes its constitutional duty to pass a budget, which is what every household, every business in alaska does. and which is what the u.s. senate has only done twice in the six years in which you have served in the u.s. senate. so i am for consistency, planning, and the budget process that is required by the constitution that harry reid and you have not been undertaking. >> you have 30 seconds to respond.

>> let me just respond. advance funding pressures that -- ensures that we did this. when there is a shutdown or eruption, the payments are not stopped. the person you are bringing up this weekend, ted cruz, the master of the shutdown. the idea is to make sure that -- that is why i cosponsored bills -- that we don't have government interruptions. ted cruz, you are inviting up your, -- who you are inviting up here are is the king of shutting down the government. what would this bill -- it would ensure that we don't have delays in disability payments, g.i. benefits, worst basses are taking care of wounded warriors. advanced funding is a great way to move funding forward. >> so it's passing a senate budget, as the constitution requires. >> mr. sullivan, it is your opportunity now to ask a question. >> mark, one of the things i

have discussed is your record of voting with president obama on 97%, and in this year, 98% of the time. you have not campaigned on your record of doing that. can you explain why you voted for barack obama twice during his election? >> i know there are no commercials. i figured obama would be brought up multiple times. because you do not have a commercial running. let me say this. i made that statement. but my record is an alaskan record. there have been times when i have disagreed with the president. the president has been wrong. on gun rights and gas development. we are now moving forward on national petroleum reserves. the arctic is opened up. he was wrong when he tried to raise the rates on postal services throughout alaska by 50%.

we fought that and won that. when you try to increase the aviation fees, we won that. my record is in alaska record. i'm very proud. for example, i voted 80% of the time on every signal issue in front of us. on top of that, when you look at the national journal, all the senators, where do i fall every time? about 48, 52. right in the middle. because alaskans understand i am pro-gun prodevelopment, believe , in our civil liberties and rights, pro-choice. >> thank you. >> i think that what you have been saying is that president obama is irrelevant. i could not disagree more. he said it himself. his policies are on the ballot this election. and you have supported his policies the vast, vast majority of the time. that is the congressional quarterly roll call, nonpartisan, ranking. 98% of the time. let me finish please. what is the critical issue in

this election, you are saying it does not matter. i say it's critical. the obama agenda, the tens of thousands of pages of regulations, are either going to be cemented into our society or we will start to roll them back. >> wrap it up. >> my goal is to roll them back. your role is to continue. >> thank you. you have on a particular ask another question. >> i would be happy to. , you and i had a conversation after the primary and i ask your question about privacy issues in regards to the patriot act. would you support reauthorization of the patriot act? as you know that will come from , the congress soon enough. as well as your views regarding the nsa. but specifically would you re-authorise the patriot act that will come up? >> what i have said is that the patriot act -- it's not a yes or no question. the patriot act needs reform.

and i believe it needs to take significant reform, particularly as it relates to the issues of personal privacy and the nsa. i think the congress has not done a great job in terms of oversight with the nsa. i think that what is positive now is you have two different cases going to the court systems. when you talk about personal privacy, mark, one of the things i find ironic is that the deciding vote on obamacare, that has to be one of the most invasive federal laws in u.s. history. where medical information, the most private information, is given to government bureaucrats. not just hhs, but it is overseen by the irs. so when you are talking about personal privacy and laws, it is a little ironic, given that obamacare is one of the most invasive laws in u.s. history with regard to personal privacy, federal bureaucrats, and overseeing by two agencies.

that, to be quite frank, do not have a good record with regard to personal property. particularly irs. >> i wanted to focus on the patriot act. you did not answer the question. the patriot act comes in front of us as reauthorization. that is how it is, in front of us three times. us front of

us. what's more amazing is some of the invasions of privacy by groups that support you. these letters that have been sent to people about their voting history, threatening them. these are people that support your third-party groups. they're trying to make a difference in this campaign. they are the people that are the financial supporters of years. i'm not sure your view of privacy is in line with alaska. >> would you like to ask another question? >> yes. campaigns are about character. both of your campaigns have attack your opponents, saying -- sayingis to alaskans can't trust them. you did this to ted stevens in 2008. he was an honorable man throughout his career. you regret the tv ads you red -- ran against him? >> i don't know if you saw that campaign, but i ran ads about what i wanted to do. i don't run attack ads. i was here. the fact is the campaign i talked about was important for alaska. as a matter of fact when i , decided to run for office, i called him up. we had a conversation about that. he said, good luck on the campaign trail. as an alaskan, born and raised here, with history and the state

, like ted stevens, a matter who did incredible things with the state, i did not disagree with what was happening. we had a debate right here in this room. and i did not have a conversation about it. because i believed there was an issue he had to do with that. the issue was that i believed i offered a different future, different perspective for alaska. that is what i campaigned on issues of alaska. we talked about the issues instead of attacking people. you should go back and look at those campaigns. the campaign commercials i paid for, began been commercials i paid for, the ones i was involved in we talked about the , record. i had a great record. and i was able to talk about it as the mayor. >> thank you. would you like 30 seconds? >> sure. as i mentioned i think campaigns , are about character. one of the things that has been disappointing in this campaign, i think that your campaigns are receiving national attention, which is an embarrassment for alaskans.

"time magazine," "the l.a. times," "usa today," they have also your campaign is running some of the most dishonest attack ads of the entire election cycle. what i want to do is talk about the issues. if you look at the sullivan for senate campaign ads, they don't get those kind of awards. it's about my record and vision. and yes, it can be about your record as well. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for that exchange. lets move on to the u.s. economy. iz will have our first question in this segment mr. sullivan. keep your answers to one minute. >> i'd like to ask you both about the consumer financial protection bureau. this was created by the dodd frank legislation in the wake of the lending crisis. it has, so far delivered $3 , billion to consumers and settlements with financial institutions over fraudulent lending. mr. sullivan, you said you would vote to abolish the consumer financial protection bureau.

why do you think of this bureau should be abolished? >> first of all i am somebody , who believes in the constitution and abiding by it. the consumer financial protection bureau is actually underneath the fed. and i think there are serious questions on the constitutionality of it. let me make a broader point. that was part of dodd frank. with not only legislation that was passed, but the regulations that came out. and it is very similar to obamacare. you talk to small community of bankers in alaska, they are so overburdened by regulations from dodd frank that they feel they cannot move forward. it is crushing our small community bankers. i have talked to them throughout the state. one of the most famous bankers in the state mentioned to me that the bank that his family started -- they could not do that today. given the overregulation of the banking system.

and, they mentioned, in particular, the consumer financial protection bureau as an entity that is not helping, but actually a burden to getting loans up to small businesses. -- small businessman, small smallss woman, -- business women, and keeping the economy moving. >> thank you. do you think that the consumer financial protection bureau is doing his job? are you concerned that it is hampering commerce? >> first off, i think that it is doing its job in certain ways. as you identified at the beginning of the question. it has saved consumers billions of dollars. also, military people. there is a special unit without there to figure out -- a lot of our active military have been ripped off by payday loans and other programs. this organization protects her military families. they have done a good job. there are cases where they have gone too far.

for example, the credit unions, i believe, are getting overburdened. they were not part of the financial crisis. everyone got swept into it because the financial situation in this country, which was a disaster when i came into office, we had to do something. so we no longer have taxpayer bailed out situations. these banks that did so much harm to this country, many people lost retirements, educational accounts and others it is important that these banks , are held accountable. it is critical that we have regulations protective of the consumer at the same time. i think the consumers got the short end of the stick when those banks failed. it was outrageous. so this helped to bring that into alignment. >> thank you. according to the federal reserve, the richest 5% of american households hold more than 60% of the nations wealth. is this trend compatible with the high-value americans place on the value of equality of

opportunity? do you think congress should try to shrink the wealth gap? >> your statistic is right. it is one of the things i hear about so much on the road talking to people at townhall meetings. this huge continuing gap. i sponsored a piece of legislation with the finance chairman and republicans. we have not had a tax reform since 1986. and because of that, all these special deals put in there over benefit the 1%, end.op and -- this these of legislation does something very basic. it flattens the rate. it ensures middle-class americans have their deductions. the childhood tax credit. mortgage interest on her homes. educational expenses, medical expenses. the basic things of make a difference to the middle class. we also strip out these loopholes. we give tax breaks to corporations who send jobs

overseas. it makes no sense. we strip that out and lower it so we are more competitive. i think that we can do that and also raise the minimum wage on the national level. that will make a big difference. to raise up the poverty level of this country. >> mr. sullivan. same question. >> you know, i think income inequality is an issue. i think the broader issue of the last several years has been economic growth. and we did have a major recession no doubt about it. , what is typical in american economic history, when you have a deep recession, the recovery is usually quite steep and strong. unfortunately, we have have the weakest recovery out of any major recession in u.s. history. so until the last quarter, we have been growing at 2% gdp growth. this is anemic american growth rates. it is much less than it was under reagan, under clinton, and the first term of bush. what we need to do is release our economic and energy

potential. and i do not think there is a mystery on how to do it. it is the overregulation of the u.s. economy, which is every issue on the campaign trail. if we can do that, rollback this mountain of regulations that come from these bills like a obamacare and dodd frank, and release our energy potential. you know, the u.s. is on the verge of being the world's energy superpower again. largest producer of oil. largest producer of metro gas in the world. largest producer of renewables in the world. alaska should be leading that. again, we need a federal government that is a partner in seizing that opportunity. on energy. and right now, not only alaska, but most of the country, they have been an obstacle. >> we have come out of the great recession. but the income gap continues to grow. so if we grow the economy, that won't solve the wealth gap, will it?

>> well, i think growing the economy is the critical issue issue.lso, -- also i think we talk about job , growth. we see these lower unemployment rates. what that is masking is that is not because of significant job growth. that is because americans are actually leaving the workforce. the unemployment rate comes down when people are looking for -- people quit looking for jobs. we are at the highest level of americans who are out of the workforce as the late 1970's. what we need to do is to create an economy with growth rates to create jobs. to me, that is the number one issue. job growth over income inequality. >> a proven means of personal economic advancement is higher education. but the cost of going to college is too high for many americans. what can the federal government do to help? >> the federal government has a significant role there read because -- there.

because we have loans we were able to give to students. we also have other programs. first off, i supported two pieces of legislation that would lower the rates on loans. we already passed one, that is in line now. aw now. we have when it gets the rate lower. i supported legislation to fix that rate. so that people have certainty in the years ahead. second, we have people out there that have loans in the private sector as well as from the government. i propose an idea to consolidate that and lower the rate of 4%. that is a better one, i think. and i do not know we can get that past, but it is on the table. we loan banks at three quarters of percent. to loan out. which sometime fail. why not make it 1.75%? the best return. if you want to grow an economy, education is where it is at. my parents were educators. my sisters are educator. education is a core to building the economy.

lowering the cost is critical for long-term growth. >> thank you. >> then, again, i think the best thing we can do for students is to have great opportunity for them in alaska and throughout the country. the other thing that is a comparative advantage for the united states in terms of our economy and in terms of future -- we have the best universities, the best systems the world by far. i've had the great privilege of attending a few of those. but one of the things that i'm concerned about is you see this encroachment with regard to the federal government getting very , very involved in our higher education system. which i don't think that is healthy for these world-class institutions. so the federal government can play a role, particularly in research. the great research universities that the federal government can play a role in. but under this administration, the encroachment of a greater

federal government involvement with our great higher institutions of learning is not a healthy trend. >> what about with students? supporting them? >> in terms of student loans? those are important and programs. we want to give students opportunities to make sure they are able to pay those loans back. as you know, people who go for higher education, particularly beyond the four year degree, they have come out being doctors and lawyers with huge debt. so i think we need to make that competitive. but again to me, the best way , for students to pay back loans is to have a healthy economy and good jobs. and we have not seen that in the last six years. >> let's move on to some issues that are important to alaska made in the state of alaska. gentlemen you have one minute to answer these questions. we will start with liz. four mr. sullivan. >> mr. sullivan, current federal law does not allow native tribes to issue restraining orders

-- domestic violence restraining orders against nonmembers. do you favor changing federal law to give them that authority? >> i think that is an issue that is important to work with tribes, the state. and the federal government, the department of justice, right? there are some acts -- the village safe families act -- the department of justice is still looking at that issue. one thing i haven't focused on -- have been focused on it my career was working in the rural communities, going out to the world communities, recognizing we have challenges and taking action. joe masters and myself, under governor parnell, we recognized dramatically increase law enforcement in the rural communities. not nearly enough law enforcement out there. and we did that. we have been increasing that. we almost triple the numbers of the last five years.

i was just in hooper they. . saw a great examples the key is having tribes, the state, and the feds working together on these issues, and building capacity for tribal courts and law enforcement. >> but the question was about tribal authority. you think they should have the authority under their own power? not just in cooperation with the state and government. but do you think they should have the authority to issue domestic violence restraining orders against non-members? >> the state is already enforcing those orders. so, in some ways, the state attorney general's office, the prosecutor's, they are ahead of federal government on these issues. to me, it is a complicated question, not only for alaska, but for the rest of the country. and this is why having people

working together on it, the state, the department of justice, the tribes -- it is an important issue. but it is not an easy one. and i think that is the approach i would take is a u.s. senator. i would be very focused on law enforcement in the rural communities. as i have been as attorney general. >> thank you. the same question for you. >> let me go first to one piece. it is interesting that dan talks about being focused. when he was attorney general or in one of the fundamental basis .ere is that -- general one of the fundamental problems here is that the state does not recognize the tribes. we need to make that happen. two-year issue. having tribes take responsibility -- i support that. the state family villages that does that. the justice department is working with us and like the bill. we're moving forward on this. it makes sense. when i was mayor, and someone visited my city, if they were in -- weren't a resident, i dealt

with them. it didn't matter where they came from. if we want to combat these issues, we do need to engage the tribes at a level that they want. i met a gentleman, counsel village president, he talks about this idea. he is begging for this. so their communities can deal with these problems of sexual assault, domestic violence. substance abuse. i'm a big fan because we need to have tribes being engaged. look how it has worked with our health care law. delivering health care throughout the state. give them ability and they will delivering credible results. we don't need a state to tell them always what to do. it hasn't worked. we have a double the amount of people from the alaska native community incarcerated. we have high rates of sexual assault, domestic abuse. in the rural communities. we need to try something different. this is an opportunity to make a huge impact. >> if i may ask a follow-up,

when we are talking about enforcing tribal law against nonmembers, what are the limits of that? because the municipality of anchorage has borders. are you talking about making quite borders around villages? legislationece of lays out, it is a geographic region. where the tribes have jurisdiction. >> as far as anchorage? >> no. in rural areas. they work with the justice department. so they can define those areas. i know there is this fear. the state opposes my legislation. they believes the whole state will be tribal controlled. that is not the way it works. for us not to take advantage of a tribe that is wanting to change the way their system works, to improve the lives of their community, we should be jumping right in there to see what we can do. that is what this bill does.

>> the commission has funded a lot of village infrastructure, including safe water and sewer systems, as well as fuel tank upgrades. commission funding has gone from million in 2005 to the current budget request of $40 million. it has been decimated. -- $14 million. it has been decimated. the have been efforts to zero it out. what is the future of the commission? would you increase or decrease the funding? >> the delegation has been working on this. as you know, that was funded through earmarks. that's were that money came from. but what have i done in the meantime? securing the base like funding that you're talking about. but doing several other things that impact rural alaska. the small boat harbor program. which we added to the corps of engineer bill. the used to be for guam, court puerto rico, and why. there is money going to

petersburg, to help a small ports. i would put aside in our telecommunications legislation is a $15 million fund. all we put aside in our telecommunications legislation is a $50 million fund. we were trying to find other avenues to do the exact thing in other ways. alaska got $40 million last year. when you think of the farm bill, we had money and therefore safe waters. -- in therefore safe waters we increase that. we made sure that money goes to rural areas. the last six years, $3.5 billion to rural communities. >> thank you. the future of the commission? it is -- a good pointu made that it has been decimated. it is from a lack of leadership. it is a lack of vision. my view is that it should be reenergized with the vision focusing on every structure. -- infrastructure.

and that would include sewer and water. again, having spent a lot of time in the rural communities over the last several years, that is an issue that i don't think anybody should compromise on. it is the health of alaskans and americans. but the other area that i think that the commission can be very focused on -- there is a huge amount of opportunity -- is bringing down the high cost of energy in the rural communities. it is the number one issue that i think is undermining the opportunities there. >> within the commission? >> within the commission. but i think that one of the things that we have not addressed the high cost of energy. we have to look at opportunities for public-private partnerships. let me give you example. we now have a boom in terms of energy. i have been playing a leadership role on that for the last four years. we now have the opportunity to be shipping gas to some of the rural communities.

that is a great opportunity. there are private sector companies that are looking at small-scale lng projects. when we have more resources in the state, and begin shipping to different parts of the state, -- we can ship them to different parts of the state, it provides great opportunities for public-private partnerships. >> thank you. dan? >> the final supplemental environmental impact update. the preferred alternative includes several points. is this to be celebrated as careful review of development? in -- andobody step overdue step in an overbearing regulatory process? >> i know my opponent and i have a little disagreement here. they forget that some of the situations were set up in the

past administration studies that were not completed properly read so -- properly. so we got litigated on it. the one you're talking about. it is a glass half-full, not half-empty. it is important that we look at what this means. we are moving forward. this means that we are going to have 16,000 barrels of oil om >> the national petroleum reserve, my opponent and i disagree on this. he believes it's locked up which is incorrect. he always makes that statement. we will figure out how much we can develop. the governor walked away from the table. and g.m.c. too is probably the next project. but you