unfortunately the u.s. has a long history of voter fraud that's been documented by historians and journalists. opponents will say to you that it's something that is unneeded and that also it is intended to suppress the vote of certain voters, particularly minority voters. two of the states with the strictest photo i.d. laws, these require a state-issued photo i.d. laws.

turnout did not go down in those states. in fact, georgia, which has a large african-american also in 2010 when there was no -- when barack obama was not on the ballot. and in 2012, our last presidential election. do a survey reau election. their census shows that black voters actually voted at a higher rate in the state of georgia with its voter i.d. in place. indiana which has a photo i.d. law that's been in place since 2008, that's the law that the

supreme court upheld. according to the census bureau in the 2012 election, black voters outvoted white voters by more than 10 percentage point. so this idea that this is suppressing people's right no vote is simply not the case and the data shows that. in fact, i think president obama actually agrees with that. he gave an interview about a week ago in which he said, talk about voter i.d. and other laws that most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting. most people do have an i.d. most people do have a drive's license. most people can get to the polls. in fact, president obama said that the reason people don't vote in the country is basically appear think. that's what prevents people from getting out and voting. it's not these laws. now, the american people actually agree with that. there have been numerous polls

done on this particular issue. and the overwhelming majority of americans think that requiring an i.d. is a common sense requirement. and that polling by the way crosses all racial, ethnic and party lines. so a majority of democrats, a majority of republicans, a majority of independent voters, a majority of whites, a majority of hispanics, a voting of blacks think is a common sense reform. that's what we're here to talk about today. one of the problems that we have discovered in which a number of states are trying to solve that problem is the fact that it's very easy for someone who is not a united states citizen to register and vote in our elections. now, that is against the law. urn federal law that is a

felony. so a number of states, however, who have found noncitizens registering in voting have passed laws. kansas is one. arizona is another. georgia is a third. they have passed laws that require that when you register to vote, you have to find proof of united states citizenship. all of these laws have been attacked in the court. however, the opposition has lost the majority of those cases. with only a few exceptions, all of the cases filed in state court, all of the cases filed in federal court try to stop, for example, voter i.d. laws have failed. and the reason is, the courts have found that they are neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. the proof of citizenship requirement, the importance of that -- the importance of that was brought out just a week ago.

a week ago several professors released a study where they looked at comprehensive congressional survey data and they estimate that in the 2008 noncitizens in the united states voted illegally in that election. now, from a demographic standpoint the voting of noncitizens breaks down 80-20. in other words, about 80% vote for the democratic party. about 20% vote for the republican party. the professors in this study estimate that noncitizens voting illegally may have made the difference in a number of close elections in 2008. one of them being a united states senate race in the state of minnesota.

in minnesota the democratic challenger was finally declared the winner against the republican incumbent by 312 votes out of 2.9 million votes cast in the state. enough noncitizens may have voted in that election to have changed the outcome. was that significant? that was a very significant vote. why? because that democratic senator who was elected provided the 60th vote in the united states senate which passed obamacare, you know, the large health program pushed by the president and it's been very controversial. so the fraud in that election may have made quite a difference for every american in the country. the point is is that all of these new relatively new requirements although some of them have been around for many

years, all are intended to increase and improve the integrity of the election process. and the evidence all shows that it does not prevent people from being able to vote and getting o the polls. this is an important issue, but again, i will end by saying groups e spoken to many of election officials from around the world. i was on the federal election commission for two years which is the federal agency that regulates the financing of federal campaigns and frankly they were always a bit -- the foreign officials that we would talk to were always a bit mystified by the argument being -- going on here over these kind of very common sense election reforms and i think 10 years from now, once these measures have been in place for

many years, people will look back on these arguments and sit there and say, why in the world was there even any argument about this kind of a reform. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments and your information you shared. >> thank you very much, stephane. and i will join my colleague in thanking all of you for being here. it is a pleasure to be speaking to people from around the world and in particular talking about issue o demystify this that has become so controversial because i completely agree with my colleague, many of you are probably wondering what the fight is about. and part of that traces back to a very different system that we have here and that which you enjoy in some of the countries where you're from. like my colleague, i have both studied the issue of particular election administration requirements and also this

isn't just an academic exercise, i've also been a lawyer on the groundworking with nonprofit organizations, working with campaigns in order to help real eligible people to vote. so i too come at this from a very practical perspective. and i think i share with my colleague a little bit of concern that this issue has become extremely controversy tial. as you heard in the mornings program, it is one of the most controversial issues in american politics today in terms of the rules of the election. when there are other problems that, in fact, may impact far more voters, the way that the american system conducts and to call it the american system is already oversimplifying, the way that each state conducts its own different voter registration process almost certainly impacts more voters,

more regularly than the particular rules about photo identification. but i think there's a reason -- i think there are several reasons why this issue has become so very, very controversial here. one has to do with a fight, a vigorous fight over the extent to which majorities may set election rules that burden some minorities. when it comes to and i'll explain this in a bit. when it comes to requirements to show particular forms of entification at the polls, cervan is absolutely right, most americans have no problem presenting that documentation. and so it is unsurprising that most americans support rules showing documentation. on the other hand, some americans have a great deal of difficulty showing that documentation and the fight here is over the extent to

which most of us can make the rules harder for some of us. and that is a fight that resonates with our history and i think has a great deal of vigor behind it today. this is also something of attention between viewing voting as a mass process or viewing voting as an individual right. those are also two very -- there are two sides with the same coin. elections involve both. but think -- think you hear different perspectives in the american debate quite often and that can create a different controversy to whether we are doing elections or most of us are doing elections for each eligible voter. and i think the third reason this is so controversial is because it's a fight in some ways a proxy fight for the extent to which burdens on some

are either justified or unjustified by pressing need. that is an extent to which we are willing to allow the government to make rules where the justification may not support the restrictions at hand and i think those who disagree with some of the rules that some of our states have put in place question the justification as much as anything else. so as a background, you heard sad home, om the not every person is eligible to vote. this varies state by state even by federal election and that is something that is also unusual. but in most states you have to be over 18 years old. you have to be as he mentioned in most elections a citizen. you have to have legal residents in the jurisdiction,

and you have to not be disenfranchised bacon conviction. and you heard yesterday some of the limitations on that. and buzz of this eligible requirement, it's important that we know that individuals who present themselves to vote are who they say they are because we have determined whether they're eligible or not and it's important that we know that they are who they por port to be. and think there is wide, if not universal agreement that states have to have some way to make sure that voters are who they say they are. the controversy in the us is not whether states have to have some way to make sure that voters say who they say they are. that is the controversy is not over a fight between everybody has to show one particular identification card or no safeguard at all. the fight is over the means by which states can require that

people show that they are who they say they are. and that is a vigorous fight, indeed. as he mentioned, every state sets its own rules on this differently. there is no overriding federal standard even for federal elections. most states give a fairly wide menu of ways in which a voter may arrive at the polls and he that he or she is who or she por ports to be. but some say that an eligible voter may not cast a valid ballot if he or she does not have a particular a type of government issued i.d. card. and those relatively few states is where the bulk of the controversy is is where almost all of the controversy is. why do we have this controversy? i think as i mentioned before, it's because this restriction is put in place by why some

believe is not a sufficiently good reason. if the procedure for proven identity were very easy for every voter, this wouldn't be a controversy. and if the procedure for proving identity were easy for most voters, difficult for some voters, but were in response to an enormously pressing problem, that is if the need were urgent and sufficiently severe to burden the rights of a few, we probably would have a controversy but nowhere near the level where it's at today. i think the controversy arises because the procedure is easy for most, hard for some and at least there's a perception that that burden is not sufficiently justified by a pressing need. and that characterizes not just fights over i.d. but i think the reason that

this battle has been pitched is because of a concern of that sort of regulation. burdens on a few on the elect system. as we heard today and yesterday part of the reason that's a concern is because our system has the -- not unique but also not common feature where those who are -- who stand for election make the rules for elections and so there's a concern that they will be making the rules an imposing burdens, not by happen tans and not at random. -- happenstance and not at random. >> i will talk a little bit and then i will stop talking. it can be hard for some and that burden may be unjustified. and here's where i will differ with him. and i recognize that the notion that one may have to present a certain form of government issued i.d. in this room in

particular will seem unusual that that amounts to any sort of a burden. because in most of your countries that's common place. and as he mentioned, we are one of the only western democracies where this is a controversy in part because we're one of the only western democracies that has decentralized the system as we have and one of the only democracies where we put the bulk of the ownness on voters rather than on affirmative government outage. what do i mean by that? we don't have really any universal government identification system. don't have a national identification that is affirmatively outbound to every resident. every resident is not given an i.d. we don't have a national registry. we don't have a system where the government seeks to provide

documentation to every citizen and where there are -- and we don't have a system where there's a very important benefit like a national health care system which would naturally encourage every american to seek this national i.d. in many of your countries, you have -- in some case as smaller population but also national systems where the government is far more actively involved in the lives of its citizens and also each eligible voter. and you have to understand the fight here by understanding that that's not the system we have. indeed, if we had such a system, you would probably see less controversy over the voter i.d. requirement issue in elections. the sort of s have identify caution they need in the few states that require a particular card. but in, a small percentage but a large number don't.

in one recrept piece of litigation, the estimate was several hundred thousands eligible citizens in the united states did not currently possess the sort of identification that they would need in order to vote. and in america, if you don't have i.d., it can be quite difficult to get i.d. it's easy for me to show it. it's easy for me to renew it. but if you aren't already in the system, it can be quite difficult to get. even when the identification card is free we require underlying documentation. once again, we don't have national birth registries. we don't have national institutions like that. and so some people are born off of the government grid and in order get back on the government grid can be quite

expensive, quite a bureaucratic hassell and quite difficult. some people have underlying documentation that does not reflect its current name either because they've gotten married or because there was an error originally. and getting the appropriate kind of identification can require a court process which is as you might expect quite cumbersome. adds a result and there have been reliable studies that show this that the rules show one of several cards fall disproportionately on those of lower socio economic status. so that disproportionately burden the poor, the very young and the elderly and they disproportionately burden racial ethic minorities. he's not sure that these have an impact because you can look

at turnout and see that the turnout hasn't fluctuated much and in some states it's gone up particularly monk racial minorities. i don't think turnout is the right measure. one easy process proves this. if we had a law that said, if you did not vote in 2012 you ay not vote, period. turnout this year would not be much effected. most of the voters that come to the poll in 2014 would have voted in 2012. it's relatively uncomforttial. no impact on turnout. but 80 million americans would have lost the franchise. these laws are about those who have chosen to vote in the past but they are also about those that are eligible to vote and may choose to exercise that right in the future. even if turnout were the right

measure, he has presented two elections with states that have had i.d. rules for quite some time, georgia and indiana. and both of those states have the unusual feature of a presidential election that was contested with a minority candidate at the top of the ticket that in some ways drove turnout far more than what you would expect. the bottom line is there's very little even if turnout were the right measure, there's very little that we can know about the impact of laws like this by looking at turnout, period. the right way, i contest, is to ask voters to conduct surveys. do you have the i.d. that you would need? would you face difficulty in getting the i.d. that you need? and those surveys show and repeatly show that a small percentage by a large number of individuals don't have and would face difficulty getting the i.d. that they need. one note and then i'll wrap up

on the other side of the ledger. so there's a burden for some but not for many. is there a pressing need to exact that burden? the united states has a low rade problem of photo fraud. he is right that it exists. i think he exaggerates. responsible observers claim there is no voter fraud in the u.s. and you heard yesterday doug mentioned local elections, most of the local elections is where you're going find this low grade level of voter fraud including spying votes, includes postal ballots, includes fraud by officials and these are serious problems. but they are not problems that require a particular i.d. card at the poll can possibly fix.

many of the instances that he mentioned earlier in missouri -- in mississippi, pardon me, in connecticut, in tennessee involves fraud but not any sort of fraud that a rule requiring i.d. at the polls could possibly fix. he did mention one case from yesterday. i saw it too. i'm not surprised that he brought it up from new mexico of an individual who went to the polls and found -- somebody else had voted in his name and that is the sort of fraud that some sort of identity verification could fix. i've looked as many examples as i could find. allegations since the year 2000. and in those 14 years, i'm now thanks to yesterday's instance to 35 instances in 14 years. 1 's at the same time that billion with a b ballots have

been cast in america. it happens but it's very, very rare. and already many voters than indiana and georgia alone, the states that he mentioned have attempted to cast ballots and been unable to do so because they did not procure the proper i.d. in time. already more voters in those two states have been unable to cast a ballot. >> then all of the instances of this type of fraud that we know of going back 14 years. how do we resolve this problem? >> i think there are many ways to verify that someone is who they say they are while accommodating those who cannot easily procure a particular type of photo i.d. card and that's really what this fight is about, whether there are accommodations for a few or whether there are not

accommodations for a few who may have trouble meeting the standard that the majority has imposed that are relatively easy for many. the outcome as policy matter i think is uncertain. the outcome is a legal matter i think is uncertain. courts are still weighing in -- each state law is slightly different and so courts are still weighing in state by state on whether these laws are lawful or not whether they are constitutional or not. and i think we will have to wait for several years yet before we arrive at a consensus. i think once we arrive at a consensus, i agree with him that we will think back and wonder what this fight was about. but i'm not sure the consensus is going to be on the most restrictive laws that we have currently. >> thank you, professor. -- for your presentation. we have two very, very good presentations that have been clearly articulating the views and their data supporting their

views on it. i think they're eager to hear your take on the debate in the u.s. and see how we can learn from each other. a couple of the housekeeping issues before we embark upon that. please state your name and your affiliation when you're asked a question. we're having some of my colleagues here with microphones since this is being broadcasted life so it's being captured properly -- live so it's being captured properly. we do have head seths for trance lakes. hannel 7 english, 10 arabic, 11 for spanish. we have about 25 minutes for q&a. please raise your hand if you have a question and we will take it from there. why don't we start with the gentleman in the front here, elliott or -- >> thank you very much.

for ery interesting -- . , we come from nefan we have our own history and we have our own system and i'm slightly confused. the u.s. democracy is -- we have to learn and follow. or we have to give simplicity to have a system here or tomorrow. i don't know what we should do. a then we would have part little rule for -- of these . ters , that it could

help. and we know that the federal law is passed by the country and each state has the -- some sort of unique identification for erything including this country and that we are doing the same thing for nepal. i was thinking that somebody voted on somebody else. and what is the finality working for somebody else? and do you have some sor of penalty for the person you .dentified as somebody else metimes i get confused

because i think the democracy is twice. nd you are free to decide on your own. i.d. and em have -- some don't have anything. if we take back to nepal and in the previous election we didn't have i.d. distributed to each voter. and we had a very big bulky little room and a lot of voters might have voted for somebody else. so we introduced both to system. nd the and then this time around in 2013, we had a very good turnout from 1961 to 2013. each voter has been given a voter identification card.

and that's how -- that made much difference because in elections some other party has gotten the poison in the house because there's no identification set belt. >> and then some other has the opportunity to come and the first one in the 2008 elections starting to be hard, right? so i think the largest i.d. -- this would be i.d. and proper system car, providing the opportunity to exercise the important rights of individual cities. and that's where i don't understand that. >> we wonder if it's something from the u.s. we would like to be identify like this. live on their own?

what would they like to do? that is a democracy? let's watch this. >> maybe we can take one more question and let the panelist ask. that's middle -- fine. from the electoral council of haiti. thank you for the presentations that were very clear. i should like to add one question regarding the need to have the photo i.d. card. if i understand the presentation, the american system is based on trust, a system of trust. and so you say that according crime of fraud

has increased. nd i'd like to quote the it ssor who studied whether it was demonstrated -- the fraud is what made the difference. so my question is do you not think that since you are not able to agree on the very need of having a voter i.d. card to vote. please do not think that this will have an invoice on presidential elections in the united states. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> well, my first question, part of your question was about, you know, what's the punishment for what we call election crimes?

as you know and this is related to the second par of your question, we have a federal system here. so we have both a federal government and state government. and under state law and under federal law election fraud is a crime. depending on what you do, it may be a felony which means that you can go to prison for more than a year. or it could be a misdemeanor which is a more minor cry. the problem isn't there aren't sufficient punishment, there are. he problem is that prosecutors don't tend to prosecute. i mean some prosecutors do. but election fraud is a low priority because, you know, they're faced with very soo serious crimes. murder, rape. armed robbery. >> and an election crime -- to be on like a

the serious side. they don't like these cases because they're going to make one or the other political parties mad if they pursue that. and i give you a good example of this. you know, we talked about noncitizen voting. when i was at the u.s. justice department where i worked for four years, the justice department prosecuted a number of people who are not u.s. citizen who is had. that's a federal crime. i don't believe this administration has prosecuted a single and i know because i was there. three years ago in fairfax county, virginia where i'm on the election board, we discovered almost 300 people who are not u.s. citizens and registered to voight and about em have voted in another

election. they did nothing about it. >> we have a question from the second -- the second question was about the case in minnesota that, could ot that have ramifications in the next election? >> well, in fact, sometimes i didn't get to say which was that, in the study about noncitizen voting, the process ors concluded that another race which may have affected the u.s. presidential race is that in north -- in as at stake that north carolina was at stake. north carolina has six million registered voters.

according to the calculations of these professors, that's well within the margin of noncitizens who may have voted in the state. two weeks eek ago, ago, official discovered that individual who are in the united states illegally but who have gotten amnesty through the president's deferred action program, they found, i think almost 200 of them registered to vote in the state. so that is clearly at issue. >> and if i could just respond for just one moment. actually on both questions. the study to which he keeps referring has been i think with , heavily ustice heavily criticized. i hate to do this because it

would be nice if somebody said the professor's found. everybody just agreed and to nod their head. i like that rule quite a bit. t the study has been heavily emphasized. and i think for very good reason. authors extrapolated based on five individuals on a survey that massive numbers of noncitizens were voting. was it really five people? how could you'll do that? it really was, five people? those sorts of conclusions when you blow them up nationwide, look rather large. but i don't think that that's the study that actually proves what it's set out to prove. well be -- and the

question for is is is the policy that stops that going to create a bigger problem than itself. so if in an effort to stop a few hundred noncitizens from s of g, we stopped 10 thousand final a better home. that's doing more harm to the integrity of the election. that is missing. yes, it was decided by a few hundred votes. but if eligible, legitimate voters had been preventing from casting they ballot by a law that secured them more broadly. that too would have been seen as red and unfare. the calculation here is no different fri any other public policy, which is the benefit

should exceed your cost and how restrictive are the measures to get out the scale of the problem. there are many alternatives to having one or two or three or four particular government issued i.d. card. and one of the alternatives having the government affirmatively sup i.d. in any of the kay cases. it's much harder to do in a country the sail and scames of the united states. but that's one option. a biometric solution. if you happen to have i.d., show that and we'll take your picture. >> have you signed an that too is a means of testing your identity without excluding those. and think there are many other options besides options.

fight is is about the range of policy and that increased security without excluding the voters. that's the crock. some more questions. i'm looking to see if there are some of these women who want to ask some questions as well. i see there is one in the back that's willing to participate. so -- >> he hello. >> you're welcome. >> i believe a system should be built to acome it. i'm not bothered by that. but a good system would have for lack of a better term off ramps to accommodate those who don't fall. >> i was wondering what some of hose measures are. nd if you can say why you feel

here's significant and they're not. provided tates have that anyone who do not have one, can be provided one for free. what's interesting about that -- is that the huge number of people predicted by opponents who don't have an i.d. has proven to be completely wrong over the years. and i'll give you an example of that. i have handled out a copy looking at the state of georgia. in addition to showing turnout. it also shows the number of free ideas issues. and the numbers every year were like .5 of 1% of the number of registered voters. a tiny amount of people

vegstered voters. ompare that to the predictions of those who opposed the law that there would be hundreds of millions of people without an i.d. secondly, one of the reasons i don't take the claim seriously, not being able to -- and i did this. i actually went and looked up the names of the witnesses that were presented in the law suit filed eight years ago. these are people who swore under oath in court that they didn't have an i.d. but most importantly they wouldn't have get it. >> the -- what i did i is i went and got the names of all

these people who swore and i checked their voting records. since the law suit. and i found out that all of them had been voting in election after election on this day. now every state also provides what's call a provisional ballot. so if you show up and you don't ave your i.d., many states say that they will give you five days to come back to the election office with an i.d. and your vote will count. some states have gone as far as to allow -- another off raunt to a photo i.d. requirement. there's something is what happens. where two other voters for example can swear that they know you and that you are a resident of the state. and then you get to vote.

but my point is is these law have been in place for many years. it just hasn't been a problem for people able to get an i.d. sort of. so from indiana, from the very same state that he mentioned, there have been thousands of provisional ballots cast by people who went to the polls and did not have the proper i.d. there. that were not counted. many of which were cast by individual who is had been casting ballots for decades. law in due to secrecy the state. >> no for sure who those people are only the government in the state knows. but you would have to believe that none of those people were actually eligible. these sorts have not had an

impact. as he mentioned most of these states that have the most restrictive laws require that you show an identification in order for those ballots to count. placebo on eful election day. it does them no good to cast this ballot that will be thrown in the trash rather than count it. it is true that states allow you to get the i.d. card themselves for free but the underlying documentation is not and can be burdensome. not every -- there are very few humans i'm aware of who emerge from the wound, with papers in hand to prove her able. we do not have a national birth

registry. some people have the certificate, some do not. you often need one of those government issued birth the birth to get certificate. people are trapped in a bureaucratic catch 22. they do not get the documentation they need because they need the documentation to get the documentation they need because they need documentation -- you can see the loop. those people actually don't show up to vote because they know that they can't. there's one other offramp that i'm troubled by. these are laws for people coming to the poll. >> actionly has quite -- liberal, quite permissive. and the argument is made that we don't have to worry about

the requirements to present particular identification at the polls because these individuals normally the elderly often have permission, again, vary state by state to cast a postal bat lot. ratings is how some of the people whom he is talking about is how they've cast votes in elections. the problem with that is that i believe that there's widespread agreement. surprised that they did it differently. absenteeism is where there is fraud. using postal ballots is for more efficient and far more elections than doing so in person. and so the most broad off-ramp

is actually staring a group in our system where we have the most trouble. interns are protecting the integrity of the vote. >> i certainly agree with that there's a lot of frade in the absentee ballot process. but that's why a number of states have passed photo i.d. laws that require you to show a photo i.d. not only for in-person voting for also for absentee. some other states also. that in fact, is a fail. those tapes only require a photo i.d. for inperson voting need to extend that quality. >> so with this back and forth from the panelist, i want to conclude this session and thank them for their participation

and also yours for being so active. i think we can give them a hand for a job well done. [applause] we are struggling with two principles when it comes to the election. the debate will continue for some time to come. so thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] > coming up on c-span, the senate debate between mark begoich and dean sullivan. the south dakota between the candidates. and later the new york 24th

house district debate between the incumbent democrat dan la faye and republican challenger casco. tuesday, jonathan greenert discuss the naval operations. starting at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. secretary of state john kerry speaks about the charter relations. at will be on c-span2 from the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. >> c-span has brought you more than 130 candidate debates. in races that will determine control of the next congress. and this tuesday night watch c-span's coverage to see who wins, who loses and which party will continue the house and

senate. . you'll see candidate victory on concession speeches and some of the most closely watched senate races. we want to hear from you with your facebook comments an twits. campaign the election night coverage on c-span. >> now the alaska senate debate between mark begich and dan sullivan. , this is al reports is a toss-up. the public y of media.

>> alaska public media presents debate for the state. and now your moderator rory townsend. >> good evening and welcome to debate for the state for u.s. senate. i'm maury townsend, for the alaska public radio network. our program is coming to you live from anchorage where other reporters have gathered to make our production a real collaboration. our guests tonight are candidate for u.s. senate who have registered more than 5% in recent public opinion polls, senator mark begich is running for a second term. he was mayor of anchorage. he served on the anchorage assembly for 10 years. his republican challenger is dan sullivan. he is a lawyer who served as an

attorney general and -- for the state of alaska. of state. assistant and dan brock who is a senior news reporter for kuac in fair banks. welcome to all of you. >> thank you. >> first a few rules. i'll let you know how much time you'll have to respond to each question. when you see a yellow light off to your side that means that you have a few more seconds to complete your response. when you hear this bell. [ding] >> the time is up. ly enforce this as politely as possible. earlier we tossed a coin and be started let's start with a question from dan brock. >> your campaign is that you'll talk to anyone. how concerned are you about the negative campaigning and the

effect that you've had? >> as you just said i'll go anywhere, talk to anyone about what's important for alaska. i go all over the state. i've travel as many plays as you can imagine. doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with me, i will sit there and have a conversation i go on conservative talk radio. and as you can imagine people are unhappy but we sit there and have a conversation. but your broader question is important we talk about the record of my opponent or others. when you think about the campaign commercials i've talked about the oil and gas development in the arctic or veterans care, the issues of women's health which i think are really important issues. but i'll go anywhere, talk to anybody about what's important to alaska. >> mr. sullivan, you maintain that mr. begich supports the agenda of president obama and senate majority leader harry reid. who among politicians would you align yourself with? >> well, one of the things on

this campaign we had a bunch of -- several u.s. senators who have endorsed my campaign. what i like about it it's a very broad based coalition senators. kowski.nator mc rand paul had done an add on tv. we have senator corker up here campaigning for me. so i'd like to -- what i've been very interested in both in terms of republicans but even beyond republicans is working with all different elements of the republican party. a lot of candidates are republican and i like marco rubio, young. cross as many bridges in terms of that. there are a lot of democrats that i would like to work with it. >> you just named everyone across the board. which of those would you say you are the most alike. >> that i'm most alike?

>> i'm going to come to the u.s. senate if i have the honor of being elected as a dan sullivan republican. and that's somebody who works with all different groups to develop strategies to address challenges. that's been my record. and as will the demernl the marines. so i'm more freedom and very focused on rolling back the obama administrations agenda. but it depends on the issue, i would say. nator mckowsky is ready to win. i think he'll be the chair of the energy and resource committee. >> let's move on. as of this afternoon, nearly $57 million has been spent on this race. what's your assessment as how

this has served to inform and motivate alaskan voters. have there been benefits. >> one of the things we we nized is and it was -- recognize there was going to be a challenge. >> supporting me. and supporting mark and so we felt that it was a challenge not only in our race but for all races. i think it's kept many other races off the air. both tv and radio. i put forward an agreement. it was very similar to the agreement that was put forward in 2012 massachusetts senate race. elizabeth warren and scott brown. kept the outside money off the air waves and it was unl fortunate that mark did not get -- he had plenty of time to

sign it. i would have helped. >> 57 million is unprecedented. does this level of spending help voters understand the issues and propel them to the poll? >> i think it's no exaggeration. voters are agitated by youtube ads. i think people don't like it. let me respond. that was a press release and sent it over before they announced it out there. 50% of this -- an group will come to us. we can go back. here's the real fundamental issue. we can overturn citizens united. the supreme ruling had said that individuals are our citizens. . we have not supported that idea. i also support legislation on a

federal level to disclose like we have for the last law who the top three >> campaign finance reform. >> what mark has proposed is something radical. amending the first amendment. everyone from the aclu to ted kennedy two conservative groups is against that. with all due respect to mark and harry reid, i will stick with james madison rather than a rewriting of the first amendment. he talked about the money being spent -- we knew this was going to be a problem. we gave him that agreement. there was not a press conference. you had five weeks to sign that. >> no to campaign finance reform? >> i am not in favor amending the first amendment of the united states constitution.

>> i like to give you 30 seconds. >> the supreme court decided that corporations are people. they are not people. the reality is that you want to get this third party money out, you have to amend the constitution back to what it means. individuals are individuals. corporations are not. i know you like to use harry reid and obama. those are your talking points. a simple law change that would require disclosure. we have that here. when you run an alaskan campaign, you have to disclose the top three donors. that is alaska. >> that bill is pending right now. >> we are off to a lively start. let's go to military issues. you will have one minute to respond. >> mr. sullivan, the u.s. is

using airstrikes. at what point would american ground forces be warranted? >> 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 give them 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 corps reserve unit was very mission is to call in 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 question. i am in support of funding 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. this 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 there, 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 sing it with isis, we are seeing it with regard 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 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? >> 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 that, lawyers would be with that. there have been proposals in the national defense authorization of 2014 to make it so that commanders cannot overturn convictions. to make it so every victim has an assigned jag officer to them.

>> what about the argument that unit commanders can deal with bad soldiers more effectively, and where victims have been ignored or worse, it is because of that commanders. >> the bill has all the conditions to go after these commanders. the difference is you take it outside the command structure when it is time to deal with these perpetrators and protect the victims. you can still deal with these commanders who are doing bad jobs. here's what i have heard from victims. victims who have been in the military, people currently in the military, if they can have a process where they're not threatened by their commanders, or the potential of being demoted. 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. clearly, if you have someone who has been a victim of sexual harassment or assault, the commander will have to be dealt with also. that is in a separate process to 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 encourage and in washington dc. >> we will allow some time for candidates to ask questions of each other. 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, do you support an advanced appropriations? >> can you repeat the question? >> you support advanced appropriation bills or processes for federal agencies? >> what i support is the funding. i have talked to many communities in rural alaska. the process of the continuing resolution is no way to run a government. it is no way to help with regard to entities, whether it is clinics, agencies, 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. what i am for is a budget process where the senate undertakes its constitutional duty to pass a budget, which is what every household, every business in alaska does. that is what the u.s. senate has only done twice in the six years in which you have served in the u.s. senate. 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. >> advance funding pressures that we did this. when there is a shutdown or eruption, the payments are not stopped. the idea of this is to assure -- that is why i cosponsored bills -- that we don't have government interruptions.

ted cruz 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. it is a great way to move funding forward. >> so it's passing a senate budget, as the constitution requires. >> your opportunity now to and's -- to ask a question. >> mark, one of the things i have discussed is your record of voting with president obama on 98%. 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.

i made that statement. my record is an alaskan record. the president has been wrong. we are now moving forward on national petroleum reserves. the arctic is opened up. it was wrong when he tried to raise the rates on postal services to alaska by 50%. we fought that and one 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? right in the middle. alaskans understand prodevelopment, believe in our civil liberties and rights,

pro-choice. >> thank you. >> 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. you have supported his policies the majority of the time. that is the congressional quarterly roll call, nonpartisan, ranking. 98% of the time. what is the critical issue in this election -- i say it's critical. the obama agenda, the tens of thousands of pages of regulations, are going to be cemented into our society or we will start to roll them back. 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? that will come from the congress soon enough. as well as your views regarding the nsa. would you re-authorize 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. 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 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. medical information, the most private information, is given to government bureaucrats. it is overseen by the irs paid when you are talking about personal privacy and laws, it is a little ironic, given that obamacare is one of the most invasive laws and u.s. history with regard to personal privacy, federal bureaucrats, and overseeing by two agencies. they don't have a good record with regard to personal privacy. >> i wanted to focus on the patriot act. you did not answer the question. the patriot act comes in front of us as reauthorization. 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 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 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. when i decided to run for office, i called him out. we had a conversation about that. he said, good luck on the campaign trail. as an alaskan, born and raised to, i did not disagree with what was happening. we had a debate right here in this room. 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 pretty 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, we talked about the record. i had a great record. >> thank you. would you like 30 seconds? >> sure. i think campaigns are about character. one of the things that has been disappointing this campaign, i think that your campaigns are receiving national attention, which is an embarrassment for alaska. 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. >> thank you, gentlemen.

thank you for that exchange. lets move on to the u.s. economy. we 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. it has 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 it should be abolished? >> i am somebody who believes in the constitution and abiding by it. the consumer financial protection bureau is actually underneath -- there are serious questions on the constitutionality. let me make a broader point. that was part of dodd frank.

not only legislation that was passed, but the regulations that came out. very similar to obamacare. you talk to a small community of bankers in alaska, they are so overburdened by regulations from dodd frank. they feel they cannot move forward. it is crushing our small community bankers. 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. overregulation of the banking system. 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. >> thank you. do you think that the consumer financial protection bureau is

doing his job? are you concerned that it is hampering commerce? >> it is doing its job. as you identified at the beginning of the question. it has saved consumers billions of dollars. also, military people. 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. the credit unions are getting overburdened. they were not part of the financial crisis. the financial situation in this country, which was a disaster when i came into office, we had to do something. we no longer have taxpayer bailout situations. these banks that did so much harm to this country, many people lost retirements, educational accounts, it is

important that these banks are held accountable. it is critical that we have regulations protective of the consumer. i think the consumers got the short end of the stick when those banks failed. it was outrageous. this helped to bring that into alignment. >> thank you. according to the federal reserve, the richest 5% of american households have 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 cap? >> your statistic is right. it is one of the things i hear about so much on the road talking to people at tom cole 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. all the special deals put in there over the years are benefiting the top 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. 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. we strip that out and lower it so we are more competitive. we also raise the minimum wage on the national level. that will make a big difference. >> mr. sullivan, same question. >> income inequality is an issue. i think the broader issue of the last several years has been economic growth. 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 great steep and strong. unfortunately, we have have the weakest recovery out of any major recession in u.s. history. 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, clinton, and the first term of bush. what we need to do is release our economic and energy potential. there is no mystery. 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. largest producer of oil.

largest producer of metro gas in the world. alaska should be leading that. again, we need a federal government that is a partner in seizing that opportunity. right now, not only alaska, they have been an obstacle. >> we have come out of the great recession. the income gap continues to grow. if we grow the economy, that won't solve the wealth gap, will it? >> 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 leaving the workforce. the unemployment rate comes down when people are 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. the cost of going to college is too high for many americans. what can the federal government do? >> 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 have when it gets the rate lower. i supported legislation to fix that rate. 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 and lower the rate of 4%. that is a better one, i think. we loan banks at three quarters of percent. why not make it 1.75%? the best return. if you want to grow an economy, education is where it is at. my sister is an educator. education is a core to building the economy. lowering the cost is critical for long-term growth. >> thank you. >> the best thing we can do for students is 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 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. one of the things that i'm concerned about is you see this encroachment with regard to the federal government getting very involved in our higher education system. i don't think that is healthy for these world-class institutions. the federal government can play a role, particularly in research. under this administration, the encroachment of a greater federal government involvement with our institutions is not a healthy trend. >> what about with students? supporting them? >> in terms of student loans? those are important and programs. they 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.

we need to make that competitive. to me, the best way for students to pay back loans is to have a healthy economy and good jobs. we have not seen that in the last six years. >> let's move on to some issues that are important to alaska natives. you have one minute to answer these questions. we will start with liz. >> mr. sullivan, current federal law does not allow native tribes to issue restraining orders against nonmembers. do you favor changing federal law? >> i think that is an issue that is important to work with tribes, the state. the department of justice, the federal government. there are some acts -- the village safe families act -- the department is to looking at that

issue. one thing i haven't focused on it my career was working in the rural communities, going out to the world communities, recognizing we have challenges and taking action. under governor parnell, we recognized dramatically increase law enforcement in the rural communities. we did that. we have been increasing that. we almost triple the numbers of the last five years. we celebrate examples. we need to do more. the key is having tribes, the state, and the feds working together on these issues, and building capacity. >> the question was about tribal authority. you think they should have the authority under their own power?

the authority to issue domestic violence restraining orders against non-members? >> the state is already enforcing those orders. 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. this is why having people working together on it, the state, the department of justice, the tribes -- it is an important issue. it is not an easy one. that is the approach i would take is a u.s. senator. i would be very focused on law enforcement in the rural communities. >> thank you. the same question for you. >> it is interesting that dan

talks about being focused. 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. we're moving forward on this. it makes sense. when i was mayor, and someone visited my city, if they were in a resident, i dealt with them. 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. they want to deal with these problems of sexual assault, domestic violence. we need to have tribes being engaged.

look how it has worked with our health care law. 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 incarcerated. we have high rates of sexual assault, domestic abuse. we need to try something different. this is an opportunity to make a huge impact. >> when we are talking about enforcing tribal law against nonmembers, what are the limits of that? the municipality of anchorage has borders. >> our legislation lays out a geographic region.

>> as far as anchorage? >> no. in rural areas. they work with the justice department. they define those areas. there is this fear. the state opposes my legislation. they believes the whole state will be trouble control. 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 into see what we can do. that is what this bill does. >> the commission has funded a lot of village infrastructure, safe water, fuel tank upgrades. emission funding has gone from a high of 140 million in 2005 to the current budget request of 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. what of i done in the meantime? securing the base like funding that you're talking about. we are doing things that impact rural alaska. the small boat harbor program. the used to be for guam, court puerto rico, and why. there is money going to petersburg, to help a small ports. $50 million funding for telecommunications legislation. these are funds -- 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 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 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. 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. the other area that i think that the commission can be very focused on -- there is a huge amount of opportunity -- it's bringing down the high cost of energy in the rural communities.

the number one issue that is undermining the opportunities there. >> within the commission? >> within the commission. 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 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. private sector companies that are looking at small-scale lng projects. when we have more resources in 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? is this an overbearing regulatory process? >> i know my opponent and i have a little disagreement here. 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 starting next year coming out of national petroleum reserves for the following year will bring another 30,000. we are now putting oil into the

pipeline. the national petroleum reserve -- he believes it is all locked up. that is incorrect. we are in negotiations with the state -- federal government to see how much we can develop. the governor walker away from the table. i don't believe in that. you don't walk away from the table. you stay in there and keep fighting. you don't walk way from the table. number what the obstacles are. >> thank you. that decision that came out yesterday with the preferred alternative, too little too late? >> i'm not one who celebrates it. i'm glass half full guy. people said it was dead. it is booming. particularly with the npr a, isn't obama administration that

overreaches and delays resource development. you keep talking about this is some kind of success, mark. in 2010, when everybody thought you were going to get the approved, what happened? i veto letter was put into the corps of engineers and they delayed it. you were not able to move the obama administration to do what every alaskan wanted, to have that bridge permitted. i spent over two years with the commission working with senator murkowski's office, david hays to try to get that decision reversed. we did. it was another two-year delay. you're talking about some of writing in pra. the obama administration did take off half of the national petroleum reserves. the executive order. >> hold on.

gentleman. >> commerce is increasing in the arctic. nations are laying claim to the region. how do we protect u.s. interests best? >> i support the law of the sea treaty. there are some tweaks and need to be done. what is interesting is industry supports a common environmental group supported. where we can't get support is from the republican party the senate. senator murkowski is one of the few senators on our southern supportive. we need more support of their good second, what we are doing now is charity. we are adding more resources to the coast guard. we have written into the legislation two years ago as well as a new bill coming up to get more resources for the coast guard to have access and continue to develop. we need presence there. along with that, the military

has now recognized -- they did not see the arctic has an important until china and russia said we need to go up there. it is critical to what is going on there. we have seen moves very recently by secretary of defense and changing the way. that is important for the arctic. the arctic is a critical keys to the future of alaska in this country. we now see more recognition, and the coast guard and military are part of it. we don't have support from the republican side. >> mr. sullivan, same question. arctic interests. which of the federal government be doing? >> it is a great opportunity for the state. one thing we need to be doing is making the case for the opening of the arctic for alaska and the country. there does need to be more infrastructure in terms of

ports. there does need to be more coast guard cutters. the russians are outclassing us in this categories. we also have great opportunities in fairbanks for the university can play an important role in terms of research. those are critical and important areas to seize this opportunity. we do need to do a better job. i'll to you this, one of the things that was frustrating working with the obama administration and getting them to recognize the opportunity in the arctic is the viewed alaska as just another stakeholder. biological diversity in all these outside groups. we kept arguing that we are not another stakeholder. the only reason we have arctic opportunity is because alaska. it is important to have a federal government that sees this as the first among equals at the table on the arctic. not just another stakeholder.

>> a new icebreaker, arctic port, new infrastructure? >> yes. >> my bill and the coast guard bill does that. >> we are running short on time. we have a little bit of time left. you have a question on the second amendment? we have about 30 seconds for each of you to answer. i'm trying to get the timing straight. >> both of you say you are strong supporters of the second amendment picture there be regulation to prevent some people with certain mental illnesses and histories of violence from being able to buy guns without an additional level of screening? how should such a system work? >> i am not for additional regulations. i think we have plenty of laws

in place right now, even with regard to people with mental illness. as a u.s. senator, i will be a strong supporter. i was a strong supporter as attorney general. i participated in the chicago versus mcdonald case. the most important second amendment case in supreme court history. unlike mark, where he confirmed to supreme court justices who were in the dissent. >> let me answer your question. first, as a lifetime member of the nra. i took on the president. we do not agree on gun control legislation. there is a problem in the way it works right now. under federal law, if you've been to decatur park court not to have a gun because of mental issues, there are 20 something states that do not do that. they don't have their records

tied into the records for the federal government. i have a bill with republican, and array supported, mental health supported. >> we will have to wrap up. we are out of time. thank you so much. this concludes tonight 2014 debate for the u.s. senate. thank you to all. election day is november 4. the polls open at 7:00 a.m. and close it and talk p.m.. please remember to vote. thank you for joining us. good night.

>> you can see debates and ads around the country at c-span.org. here's a look at ads running in the alaska senate race. >> i am megan sullivan. you have seen a lot of ads attacking my family, so i want you to know the facts. alaska has been my family's home for generations. my dad taught me and my sisters to handle a rifle, and be strong independent women. we learned a lot about sacrifice. we are all proud of his work to protect alaskan women from domestic violence. dad will be a great senator for alaska. >> i am dan sullivan. i approve this message. >> when we're young, our father left to bring us here to the spot. when things seem impossible, i do what he would have done. when i took on obama to protect our gun rights. i am fighting like held to fix the health care law.

i approve this message. i will go anywhere and work with anyone to do what is right for alaska. >> i served with dan sullivan in the united states marine corps. >> dan sullivan led by example. >> then sullivan trained hundreds of marines to be ready for cold weather conditions. >> the state was built by people like dan sullivan. >> he cares about his fellow alaskans, follow countrymen. if he says something, i believe him, because i approve them. >> or was his real record? over 9000 new jobs. invested in police, firefighters, and schools. as senator, he took on obama. he is taking responsibility for fixing the health care laws.

i approve this message because i will go anywhere and work with anyone to do what's right for alaska. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span has brought you more than 130 debates from across the country and races that will determine control of the next congress. this tuesday night, watch c-span's live election coverage to see who wins, who loses, and which party will control the house and senate. our coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with results and analysis. you will see candidate victory and concession speeches in some of the most watch senate races. we want to hear from you, your calls, comments, and tweeps. campaign 2014 election night coverage on c-span. on the next "washington journal," a political report for

the midterm elections. then we will get analysis from jessica taylor, aaron blake of the washington post, and larry sabado. journal" is live every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. you can join the conversation with calls and comments. tuesday, a discussion on the technologies and biomedical research and work to create an hiv vaccine. the director of the national institute for infectious diseases takes place in an event. coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the 2015 c-span student can

video competition is underway, open to all middle and high school students to create a 5-7 minute documentary on the three branches and you, showing how policy, law, and action are the branches has affected you or your community. two -- there are 200 cash prizes, totaling $100,000. for rules, go to student can.org -- studentcam.org. >> now, the south dakota senate debate. the winner of this race will be replacing the retiring senator. rate the racerts as leaning republican. >> live, a special report, the

south dakota u.s. senate debate. now your moderators. >> good evening, and welcome to this special report. you will hear from the four candidates vying for south dakota's open senate seat. >> this is a conversation with the candidates. only the opening and closing statements will be timed, so mike rounds, rick weiland, gordon howie, and larry pressler will be answering questions. >> we determined the order of the statements in the seating arrangements. we will begin with the first opening statement with mike rounds.

>> president obama has said his policies are on the ballot this november. a vote for any one of my opponents is a vote for president obama's failed policies. as south dakota's governor, i used common sense to balance our budget every year. we had to get good tax policy and we literally got to improve our state's economy. washington is dysfunctional. they need a good shot of south dakota common sense. tonight you will hear two different visions of what we should do with america. my opponents think big government is the answer. i disagree. i think we need less federal and more local control. our country faces major issues facing. thank you. >> we have rick weiland now.

>> so that the votes of all versus the wealth of the few will direct the course of this republic -- that is the first sentence in the constitutional amendment that i will be introducing as your next united states senator. that is what this election and this fight is all about. big money owns our politicians. it runs our government and it controls the political process, and until we get the money out of our politics, we are not going to be able to help everyday folks in this country. i think people need a chance to deserve a chance to live out their life in some dignity,

deserve a chance for affordable health care. i believe in the power of the american vote, and i am asking for your vote next tuesday. >> opening statements are a minute long. mr. gordon howie, your opening statement begins right now. >> i think it is important we all acknowledge this has been a very unusual race. one of the things that makes it unusual is that governor rounds is trying to present something that is not accurate. he is suggesting that we have to vote based on an inability to trust harry reid or barack obama, and the question we're hearing is as we go across the state is, can we trust mike rounds with the senate seat? even your opening statement, governor, was misleading. you said all your opponents are for bigger government.

you know and i know that is not true. that has characterized the rounds campaign. they are perpetuating things that are not true. i hope tonight as you are listening you see that actually there is a conservative in this race, and i am running because south dakota voters deserve -- one who will support [no audio] support. >> we heard from three of the candidates. now former senator larry pressler, an independent candidate. your opening statement starts right now. >> i am running as an independent. i'm running as an independent to end the poisonous relationship between republicans and democrats in the united states senate so we can finally get something done. also, running as an independent i find myself right now under attack by the republican party, the democratic party, and all sorts of groups aligned with them.

your mailboxes are being flooded with false information about me, and the two parties are so afraid that i might win because it would disrupt the power structure in the senate. they're telling you that i voted against social security. i did not. you're getting their television ads almost twice every 15 minutes. i just saw two of them saying that i voted against social security. i did not. also, i have a 22-year record of voting against big government. i'm the only candidate up here with a fiscally conservative record in the united states senate and congress. i can take my seniority back to the united states senate and help south dakota. >> thank you. let's begin with our first question. with so much national attention on this race, is this race about represented south dakota or more about taking or keeping control of the senate, and if so, how is that going to help south dakota?

first question goes to mr. weiland. >> i think it is about representing south dakota. i challenged my grounds the other night at another debate to vote against mitch mcconnell. i said i will vote against harry reid for democratic leader. i distance myself from the democratic party because i do not think they are interested in someone who is interested in fighting the big money that controls our government. so this is all about standing up for the people here in south dakota, which i have done all throughout this 18-month campaign. >> thank you for your response. now to mr. gordon howie. is this race about representing south dakota or taking back control of the senate? >> i think really it is about both, but i want to disagree with governor rounds when he makes the assertion that the only way to defeat barack obama's agenda is a vote for mike rounds. that is the obama agenda.