have hidden the cost from the american people. i will give you an example of when this came up recently. when the president proposed hundred million dollars with american-made weapons and three weeks of vetting, there was a hidden cost. when you give troops american-made weapons coming you have committed american caliber bullets. that we can ask those questions. i stood up to my own president. i supported that. working for america. >> the question out to you. usingthe case of isis, special forces in the united states air force, we don't need boots on the ground. we need boots overground. the iraqi military moves forward

and identifying targets for the u.s. air force that will make rapid ground. it is very likely to capture multiple. the key thing is to look at what happens afterwards. afterwards, when we have your iraqi military which is muslim, iraq., represents this point, our candidates have a chance to question each other. you have 30 check -- 30 seconds to question each other. you can answer and have another 30 seconds to respond. senator kirk, you have the first. >> i will ask my opponent to meet me for a summit and bury

the hatchet. the day after the election, we can meet and have a beer and make sure we can. the hatchet. the democracy is the best thing. >> certainly, i would be willing to meet with you. i will take a diet coke because i am allergic to alcohol. let me have a diet coke and i will meet with you there. >> yes. >> senator. >> the question i have to ask you has to do with your vote on the paycheck at. ct. you called it the most sexist legislation. $12,000 a year less. i don't understand how you can vote against that and how you can call it a sexist piece of legislation when it hurts much as women, but families as well.

ont is $12,000 less education, every day -- how could you possibly call the act a sexist piece of legislation? pay -- >> i'mqual for equal pay. anyone will people pay and to find out how much of the people will say that. in the case of the act, it is written by the house democrats with the american trial lawyers. the troubling part was it gave the right of a big democratic connected place to give the right of women just because immigrants were given. do not deserve to have a

politically correct flopper taking truculent because you are female. i thought that was very sexist. the tagline, equal pay is a good one. in this case, if you work in the workplace, you should not have legislation passed that allows politically correct trial lawyers taken georgia writes the workplace and that is incredibly sexist. that is the reason why i voted against that. senator does not understand paycheck fairness. it is not sexist legislation. it will allow women to earn just inmuch, something i enjoyed the military and a member of congress. i think all women should be making the same pay for doing the same work no matter where they work. i disagree.

equal pay for equal work is not legislation. >> thank you. we will turn back to the panelists. we will go back to senator kirk. 2010 work toed in repeal obama care. does that remain your position? >> in the case of obamacare, i think we should keep -- the long-term legacy to come with covering people up to age 26 and make sure the pre-existing condition is stay in. alternativeublican and a couple of key reforms. we have to reform losses and places and we have to where you cannot get confidence

ob/gyn care because of malpractice concerns. we have to make sure we lower .he barriers be haveve the right to insurance on any state of the union if you can buy insurance anywhere. you should have complete national competition across the country. >> think every much. >> the senator has voted to repeal the act. he has voted consistently to repeal it. >> i voted to repeal it but also preserve it. i wanted to get rid of the medical act because we have to test it on to individuals. i think we can do many things to fix the affordable care act.

to of the fixes is to work allow people to close a loophole that allows you to sign onto a grace period and drop it. sayloophole would actually that if you sign into affordable care act during the open to keep theyou need affordable care act for the entire year and that alleviates the cost of the cost for the year. we cannot put millions of americans out. with presidente clinton calling obama can't make races as them where we have seen an embarrassment and offering no coverage to people. making sure we offer -- in the 50% andt, -- illinois, making sure we restrict health

care. question.r next this electionnt into social security. actually, most people my age will not be able to either -- how would you ensure 60 million plus people and the future onerations can count government aid when they retire? >> excellent question. one of the things we can do would be to raise the payroll contribution cap. if you make $1 million, you only pay into social security race on 10% of your income whereas hard-working americans make $50,000 a year. you would actually a stand and

extend the life of social security for another 30 years. that is one thing you could do. what i am not willing to do is what my opponent has afforded ways raise the age social security. my mom relies on social security. when i went to granite city, when i talked to health care workers, they tell me they need social security to retire, please do not raise the age. i don't know how i can make it beyond that. another thing we can do is extend the life this security is comprehensive immigration reform. we have another one million table and thate would help social security. >> there is a difference but in my opponent and i. i want to spend less in taxes and get out of the red. if we had big spending

if thels, $60 billion, government goes on a spending spree, it will hurt people. we have to protect people. ricans, we of puerto have social services that gets the government defaulting and we have to make sure that never happens to the people of the u.s. >> my opponent says he is a contributor. it boat, his leadership, accounts for 50% of our national abt by 2019 and that is trillion dollars. it is sitting right next to me. what we can do to make sure that social security is bear to lift

the cap and make sure in the top 1% pay their fair share and i do want to invest in our economy. thank you very much. >> my next question to you senator kirk. nominatednt obama garland to the supreme court. sayingublican majority they want to wait for the new president to make the nomination. if hillary clinton is elected president, they would be happy to go. and would meet with garland encourage republican senators to talk to me. mosts been rated as

effective members of congress. leaning people against the own party. >> where we are right now. four more years with the u.s. supreme court. >> it is unreasonable to say ted cruz that we are not able to do that. why it is the first : - blican to meet with it >> i disagree with ted cruz. i don't think it is reasonable. you cannot hold up the system for years and years. that is not what the constitution says. >> if the democrats win the presidency -- that is the way the system works.

fact, he had his nice photo pop with mayor garland but at no point did he say i will not vote for you senator mcconnell if you don't have the hearing and vote. he sent a letter but after he did that, he got on talk radio and told the conservative talk radio station that it would never happen. he was encouraging this to happen. you should have gathered his colleagues to send a leader to his colleagues. we will not vote for you until you have this hearing. you did not do that. it was smoke and mirrors. democratsa hope the take control of the senate because of the very least, these nominees, regardless of whether thes president trump --

american people will see whether or not these nominees can do the job. >> how do you fix it? >> exactly what i said. if democrats have control, i hope republicans take control, we can have the hearings. the american people can save how qualified these candidates are. it is pure construction. not allowing us to have a hearing. >> thank you. senator kirk. >> i disagree with the republican leadership. senator mcconnell that a hearing would be in interest of the country. think about what that would be like. national television -- young americans, the current issues inside this country. the nominee answering questions. very healthy for the country. we should do a hearing because

it is the right thing to do, because the constitution gives the impetus to the president to give an admonition. >> thank you. charles thomas, next question for you. >> i want to ask the question. why did you vote for mitch mcconnell in the senate, majority leader, given the fact you have such profound differences with him and some of the leadership? >> when i stood for the election, i said i was pro-choice, pro-gun-control. i will be pro-whatever hillary is. the leader understands that somebody coming from hillary is going to have tend to the left. >> wide vote for him? pro-lifemcconnell is and anti-gun-control. i disagree with him. you disagree with out being disagreeable.

>> do you ask him to say about this? >> i said he has to make his case. he doesn't take any real leadership role. you should tell mitch mcconnell i went out though for you in 2017 unless you agree to have this hearing and this vote and he is not willing to do that. >> this is the congresswoman duckworth. policylabor, economic institute reports your state, your home state, illinois, the land of lincoln, has the highest african-american unemployment rate among all 50 states. if you are elected, what will you do to reduce the african-american unemployment rate in illinois, specifically african-americans? >> one of the things i am my work on charles,

federal procurement reform and working off the state -- i have been talking to senator cliburn -- a federal contract. we have a national infrastructure. when those dollars come forward, we need to pull those accountable and hiring minority owned businesses. black owned businesses, hispanic owned businesses -- >> african-americans . >> absolutely. an economic plan is part of what i am proposing. tax incentives into these communities. we provide the support of training for the workforce which is where we should have free technical education programs that they can get into the workplace immediately. this is why we need to invest for college education.

>> thank you very much. senator cook. >> i would say entrepreneurial have, to put the business plan first, in the case of the competition -- the company's place. i open up my rolodex and saw the clients. you say african-american owned -- operations -- people will say sometimes it will be in the southside. -- of our ironic moments cornell university -- the wealthiest cornell graduate asked him to back it and he said he will not talk to us. senators.reak through

to see everything -- >> thank you. congressman. >> incorrectly what we can do actually did not hold those contractors accountable for keeping those jobs in the community. infact, indiana firms came to hire people from indiana. we have to make sure those jobs remain in the community. we can actually enforce guidelines. i will do that to make sure we provide those black-owned businesses, minority owned businesses in the communities so they can have a chance at having these contracts and win the contracts. >> the best idea i put forward was, vacant lots. i put together legislation, if you have a vacant lot where nothing significant happened,

you get new investment, there will be no federal taxes for the first year. this breakthrough the quandaries of the community. if you want to operate without that, -- >> next question. >> four states legalize marijuana and 23 states for columbia have had medical use of marijuanam would yo, support that? >> no. this country has seen long-term use of marijuana and being lower physical and mental performance. i don't think this country is high enough. i worry about young drivers. driving while high. about sometimes you see medical marijuana places like

colorado, where the clinics are prescribing 10 times the amount there it would be normally prescribed. it seems like back with legalization. i'm worried about the effect on the young people. >> there is no data to support one theory or the other. >> i think it lowers intellectual performance and that is why people get high. >> congresswoman? >> i disagree. i think in illinois, we should be expended the use of medical marijuana. it has the potential to really help people with severe medical issues, for example, children with epilepsy. they have seizures. veterans with ptsd. my opponent says he opposes veterans.

does not know about people suffering with ptsd. it is helping with other more logical disorders -- cancer patients, eight patients. i think if we were actually to .an and fully implement you support medical marijuana? >> yesa. .im >> there is a gag order. >> final word.

>> i would highlight the words of my colleagues. there are 7000 chemicals. substanceng immigrant . most people would not consume the marijuana. i want to make sure all the things that are bad about smoking. right through the long-term health risk. >> the next question is to congresswoman duckworth. the investigation of a new set of e-mails relevant to the hillary clinton private server probe in july. --a result, currently harshly criticized on the election coming up for days now. you believe he overstepped his

bounds and he governed these ?inds of relief committee ofe reform that looks at this before. i'm looking forward to looking at both sides of the issue. i hope to happen in this case is i am calling for the director to come forward with everything he has two table. it breathing. i don't think it is helping the democracy i want to see what the evidence is. i want him to bring it to the table and i have happy to listen to that tomorrow. in i think transparency is required. >> it is about the timing of the revelation.

i think when it comes to law enforcement, you have to follow what you think is right and i trust the judgment of this mad. that only goes so far. i want him to bring ford what he has got. i have not seen what he is looking at but i will certainly look at it. >> we will see what he is talking about. >> i admire director comey. respect the fact that it is larger. i agree with all the good things he has said about comey. everybody in this country is under that. the investigation should go

wherever the investigation goes. if you are running for president, you should not have a get out of jail free card. >> so close deal election, that was a bad idea or should he have done it? withthink director comey republicans is not credible. >> time someone? congresswoman? >> it is highly suspect. i trust a man who will be a professional. that i figurere out what exactly is happening in the committee. question will be 45 second responses from each of you, no rebuttals. it comes from charles thomas. >> both of you are outspoken in

your opposition to donald trump's candidacy, president of the united states. what if these elected? what will be your relationship with donald trump? >> i have not endorsed donald trump. what he said, one mexican-american judge -- >> how will you work with him? >> i will have a lousy relationship with him. i have felt he doesn't have the temperament to be a good commander-in-chief. >> you would oppose him? >> i have said he should step down from the nomination. many times, people will sell their soul to the party of their allegiance. i will not do that. i will call it the way i see it. it does not mean he is the best for the country.

he is not the right one. >> thank you. congresswoman. donald trumpume loves his country as much as i do. he is sick and tired of a country that does not work. mitch mcconnell says they will witherything, i will work donald trump for the good of the country when they make sense. i am not going to be someone who will oppose everybody. we already have that and it is not working for the people of illinois or this great nation. i assume he loves his country and he is a good commander-in-chief. i will hold them accountable for making good decisions. when they are bad, i will oppose him. >> thank you. closing statements -- you get each one minute. for want to thank everyone

holding this forum. i want a nation that reports hard work, not one that wrote words have -- rewards wealth. you are trying to make ends meet, trying to have the down .nd you want to dignify retirement. that is what people are asking for but don't see that happening in the realm down. whether it is across this great state and i traveled the state from north to south to ease the west, we have a great work to do. i will work for economy that andsts in manufacturing invests in hard-working families first and will put those who seek this overseas behind the families that work and are the

engine of this economy. thisask for your vote in incoming election. completely independent of the party. in the case of so many people in , ahington, in my case typical republican, gun violence in illinois and broke from iparty like i should have. we have to put somebody in the mix. to glue between both parties make sure the entire senate works for the people. >> thank you very much. that concludes this debate between the candidates for u.s. senate. we think both candidates. we also thank abc charles thomas and erica maldonado. what you will hear here will

make you have informed decision. please vote. thank you. have a good night. ♪ >> washington journal is life everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. and eric baxter,

they will be talking about the role of religion and politics in campaigns and the ongoing debate over the rights of religious groups. drucker. journal.hington >> now a debate for the u.s. seerace. supreme court nominations and the health care law. it is about one hour. ♪ media presentsc election 2016 -- the alaska race for united states senate. maury.s

>> good evening. tonight is the final face-off among candidates for u.s. senate republican incumbent is the chair of the senate and ray metcalf is a real estate broker. margaret stock is an immigration attorney and retired army reservist. joe miller is a libertarian and attorney and an army veteran who won the republican primary in 2010. for publicirector media and i will moderate this evening.

i have a series of questions from our journalists and analysts and our news reporter from fairbanks. we are in anchorage on public radio and television. we had video questions from alaska and we might have a question. timed andrs will be we have the first question. , competing inican the republican primary. they had their nominees that beside.

plan and ite hunt was something that provided alaskans with a tremendous and i'm excited to and i am excited by the platform of the party which brings decision-making closer to home where you could be in charge and bring accountability to the government and had a hand in making changes which would make greatness back to the state of blacks a. you have also put in a campaign with the democratic party -- are you and independent candidate by name only? againstrunning incumbent republican and i need

access to defeat him. the republican party was not willing operate with me and and i thoughtses i was a problem solver and they offer me the opportunity to coordinate with their campaign .nd hope i can defeat her >> i have been participating with them on the basis that i throughd cooperation the database so i am not a democrat and i am simply using the campaign resources they made available to me. republican and you are saying you are a bernie sanders democrat.

why should voters take you >> iusly as a candidate don't have the segments of the when it boils down to from within the party the otherwho support ones who support what i am trying to do. those who don't support me are the ones who support what i'm trying to do in weeding out the corruption, and those who don't support me are the ones who frankly adjourned the state convention to avoid allowing the platform that had been proposed by the platform committee to be adopted, because it had my proposed anticorruption leg which in it, and it had been adopted by a 27-6 vote, and the old guard adjourned the

convention to avoid ever having to deal with it. >> ms. murkowski, six years ago you ran as an independent and you won. your voting record shows you to be one of the most moderate republicans. you do not support donald trump. how sure are you you are a republican? sen. murkowski: i think it's important to correct the record. i ran as a right and in 2010. i was not my party's nominee. but i was a republican. i think this series of questions is interesting, because it demonstrates that you have a republican who has actually changed from being a republican five different times to run in the general as a libertarian, you have a republican who switched to an independent supported by the democrats, you have a former republican who has

at least been true to the democratic party who has not supported by his party. i look at what i have done representing alaska as being one who supports alaska 100% of the time. when i think about my voting record, it's not as a moderate, it's not as a conservative, i have not changed my party label to be someone i am not for the purposes of an election. i have remained true to alaska. >> we will move on to an energy question. >> the dakota access pipeline would move oil to major markets

in the lower 48. at the same time, the pipeline route threatens lands and waters that are valued by the standing rock sioux tribe, both as sacred lands and as a water source. using this case as an example, mr. miller, how does the federal government balance the broader need for economic interest like development of a pipeline across the country with those of individual native american tribes? mr. miller: i am a tribal sovereignty advocate. i think we need to have local control. people in control of their land need to be able to make decisions. thankfully in alaska, we are not confronted with those issues. the real ogre in the room is the

federal government. it's not that we have landed in private hands where we can get transit for pipelines. it's where you have a situation where overbearing federal agencies are cutting off the ability of agencies who want to invest in alaska, stopping that. i think the way forward for alaska is to ensure that when we say we want to open and what are, we use our political leverage. that's a problem we have. we send people to washington dc, but that easy money is getting smaller. we've got to rein in the federal government. >> how would that he's the conflict between the standing rock and the developers of the private land? mr. miller: if we had access in this state to the billions of gallons of oil under the ground that the government has prevented, there would not be fights like that. we would not be looking at uneconomic ways to get at, things that create conflict with other people. >> thank you. >> mr. metcalfe, how would you balance national economic interest with tribal rights? mr. metcalfe: if the federal government would have done a better job of consulting with the traditional elders prior to the planning process, this whole mess could have been avoided.

that's just what should have happened. >> ms. murkowski, tribal rights versus national interest? sen. murkowski: we need to move our resources, and most would argue that a pipeline is the most efficient way to move oil. we have to move resources for the benefit of the economy, for jobs, and for the country, but we also have to work with the tribe. it's called consultation. this is where i think we have lost sight of some of the trust, responsibility, an obligation to make sure there was confrontation well in advance. in alaska, we have done that. we did it with the trans-alaska pipeline. we could not move forward without making sure that the obligation we had to native alaskan people was settled.

we were able to do that, and we moved forward with an alaska pipeline. >> ms. stock, what is a way out of this? ms. stock: that's a great question. the standing rock sioux tribe believes that their interests were not taken into account, so we have protests going on. it is true that the pipeline is on private land. also, pipelines generally are safe, but we have had problems in alaska with the taps having spills and linkages, and we try to get them cleaned up, but the tribe is worried about their drinking water. we are familiar with that in alaska. that is something the tried is very much concerned about, because they felt their interests were not taken into account. in permitting processes, it is important to take into account the local community, the folks around the private land on which the pipeline is being held,

because the pipeline can have effects beyond. and now, because of the protests, the government is paying attention. i have heard today that they are considering an alternative route that may reduce some of the impacts. >> mr. metcalfe, to get things done in the senate, you have to have allies, relationships matter. who among today's senators has an approach to senate politics that you would aspire to? mr. metcalfe: i would have a fabulous ally in bernie sanders and elizabeth warren. i'm sure they would be my mentors as a freshman senator. by the way, i'm the only person on this stage who has embraced the entirety of bernie sanders' agenda. >> what is it about mr. sander'' approach to senate politics that

you would emulate? mr. metcalfe: he would become the chairman of the budget committee. i would support his agenda, what he wants to accomplish. he would have largely my support, and he will have 20 of allies, and i am sure he will have more allies given the outcome of this election. his national support is clear. >> ms. stock, the same question. who among today's senators takes an approach to senate politics that you might emulate? ms. stock: there are actually a number of senators that take approaches i would like to emulate. i like senators who are very hard-working, who spent time working on bills, holding committee hearings, and her moaning oversight.

as you probably know, i don't take money from corporate pac's. one senator i do admire is angus king, an independent from maine. >> ms. murkowski? sen. murkowski: in order to be successful in the congress, you have to be able to work with everybody. i have worked with and will continue to work with those who are the most liberal and those who are the most conservatives and those in between. i have worked with senator barbara boxer on fishery regulation issues and afterschool learning programs. i have worked with senator lee from utah, very conservative, on issues relating to privacy and civil liberties. i have worked with -- in fact, i

set up the arctic caucus with the independent angus king from maine to work through some of our arctic issues. it's the ability to work with all of your colleagues, and to reach out and bridge the differences that we clearly have, but make things happen. those who would suggest that you have to just stay in your corner and hope that others come to you is not a realistic approach to legislating. >> mr. miller, in the past you have spoken of your admiration for senator cruz. does that admiration extend to his approach to senate politics? mr. miller: the main reason why, i think americans across the united states, alaskans, we have, want to come 11% approval rating in congress? the reason why is because most alaskans regard the senate and congress as corrupt. it is broken. it is not broken because it is not getting along well enough. it is broken because it is

getting while long enough just getting along well enough to give themselves pay raises, exemptions from laws. it's a club, and it is a club that is destroying america. we are at $20 trillion in debt right now. alaska is the essentially a federal colony. alaska does not have access to most of its resources because things are not getting done in the right directions. there are a few outliers. bernie sanders has some great ideas. i'm not a socialist, most people understand that, but he wants to rein in the big financial powers. mike lee is a quiet guy, but he has expanded the resource bases that states can access. >> thank you. >> i'd like to follow-up, when was the last time congress voted themselves a pay raise? mr. miller: several years ago, but the problem, 11% approval rating is the consequence of a congress that constantly exempts themselves.

the wealth of congress members goes up exponentially when somebody gets there. why? because there is insider trading, and those in congress refuse to apply those laws to prevent insider trading. >> we will have to leave it there. let's move on to immigration. ms. stock, this is your area. what do you say to those who look at the terror attacks in san bernardino, manhattan, and orlando and say it is unsafe to admit muslim immigrants because they or their american-born sons could become radical jihadists? ms. stock: we have always had a problem in america with folks who get angry at the government and attack it. timothy mcveigh blew up the oklahoma city federal building in an act of terrorism that was initially attributed to muslims,

and it turns out he was a roman catholic. we are always going to have a problem with terrorism in the united states, and what is important is to figure out what causes the terrorism. it's not necessarily tied to a particular religion, though at one point in time lots of the folks committing the terrorist attacks for best believe in a particular religious system. most important thing to fight terrorism is to have good intelligence, and that includes intelligence that talks to the communities from which the terrorists might come to try to find out who is going to radicalize them. most terrorists in the united states today were a result of people getting radicalized over the internet, and we do not have a good handle on how to stop that. we need to have a conversation about how people get radicalized over the internet. >> mr. metcalfe, do you believe the u.s. should admit more syrian refugees to help with the massive crisis? mr. metcalfe: in our largest immigration port, there is a big statue of liberty, and i remember why it's there.

we are a country of immigrants. just before the second world war was heating up, we turned a way a ship load of jews who got returned to germany, and many of them died in the camps. it is a stain on our history for having done so. we should vet as best as we are able, but when there is a humanity crisis like this, we have an obligation to open our arms. i ask myself once in a while, and i'm not a religious man, but what would jesus do? i think jesus would open his arms and say take care of these people, they are my people. >> mr. miller, what is the right response during this refugee crisis? mr. miller: i think it is absolutely insane that we would be living in thousands of refugees with inadequate background checks. we know it is not being done properly. the government intelligence agencies are telling us it is not being done properly. in this time of hyper security

issues, why don't we address those issues? i keep on hearing about how, oh, we've got to attempt down individual liberties, we've got to have an nsa surveillance state that listens to everything you say on the phone, that is able to track everything you do on your computer. there are a lot of common sense things we can do like not letting in radicals. you look at this refugee program, it does not make sense. we are letting in many people, some great people, but a lot don't have adequate background checks. we need to maintain security. >> ms. murkowski, last year you call for a pause for allowing syrian refugees into the united states to allow for time for an assessment of the vetting process. what is your take on that now? what do you think of the vetting

process? is it sufficient, and is it time to let more syrian refugees into the country? sen. murkowski: if you listen to all three of us, we agree that the vetting is an important part of it. making sure we put the intelligence there, making sure we really understand who is seeking to come in. i think it is important to note, though, that the refugee process, the screening process that we have, is much more rigorous. the time period in which it takes someone to go through that full process, to actually come into a state like alaska, is almost a two-year process. there is a level of vetting that is a higher standard than you would see if you just got somebody who is going through a regular immigrant process. am i satisfied with where we are? no. do i think we need to be doing

more to make sure that we have the level of assessment and analysis, and then making sure that we know what's happening with these individuals come into our country? it's important. >> our next question is going to come from us from our media partners in fairbanks. it is a question from a question from longtime fairbanks resident mary bishop. >> hi. my question is about tribal jurisdiction over certain lands in alaska. certain tribes cannot put their land in federal trust. do you think this is a good thing for alaskans? >> all right. let's start with you, ms. murkowski. how do you square the alaska data claims settlement act with the territorial jurisdictions that tribes would gain by putting land into tribes?

you have one minute. sen. murkowski: in alaska, landed to trust was not considered as part of an opportunity, if you will, simply because we do not have reservation status here in the state of alaska. it was not until, as mary said, a recent decision out of the administration that would allow for land into trust here in alaska. i have been pressing on this issue because i think there is a great deal of controversy about what does this exactly mean. there is not agreement in the state itself as to what this means. it does not mean more federal resources to allow for greater public safety. that's an issue that we need to address. this is still something that i think we are all, as alaskans, looking to determine, what does this really mean in a state like

alaska where indian country does not exist? >> thank you. mr. miller, would you try to put the brakes on alaska tribes who want to put land into trust, or should the process proceed? mr. miller: it's tricky, because land into trust is not clear to a lot of people, especially in alaska. it's been done before, and it may end of causing land to not be able to be modified. there are a lot of natives that are divided on this issue. what we have to do is seize upon those issues that we can work together on. with tribal sovereignty, we can join the state and push out the ogre in the room, the federal government. the federal government is keeping you away from your resources, has overtaken 100 million acres of alaska lands. could you imagine a cooperative approach of the state and the tribes to manage the resources of the land, and displace the feds on federal land? better yet, imagine a scenario where we take the federal land

and start divvying it up to the stakeholders in the state? we can do it together, but we've got to put aside these old divisions and work for a bright future. >> mr. metcalfe, your thoughts on federal protection for tribal lands. mr. metcalfe: the question was, is a good for alaskans? i think the first question needs to be, is a good for villages? the villages do need better local control. they need protection from being overwhelmed by the corporations around them that they are a part of. but as other people have said, it's new. congress needs to get out in front of this.

it does not have to look like a reservation. it's already happening. there has been tribal recognition across the state by the federal government. there is one application already processed which will probably go through for land of trust. we need to get in front of it, shape what it is going to look like, and make it work. >> ms. stock, same question. ms. stock: we have a very unique situation in alaska. our alaskan native corporations are a unique institution, and the relation between the tribes and corporations is unique. the land into trust idea has been proposed as a way to solve local problems. it will take years to figure out what the process will be and how it will work in alaska, because it is being applied in a unique situation. i do support tribal sovereignty and the idea of government-to-government relations, and i think it is worth exploring the idea of land into trust because people are asking for it. >> thank you, candidates.

for our audience, this is debate for the state with candidates vying for u.s. senate. we are getting close to half way through the evening, and i would like to now offer time for candidates to ask a question of one of their opponents. you have 20 seconds to ask your question, so please be succinct. 60 seconds for the response. let's start with you mr. , metcalfe, do you have a question for one of your opponents? mr. metcalfe: i have a question for margaret. what do you call it when a mayor is found to be hiding gifts of alaska's largest real estate developer, gifts worth tens of thousands of dollars while the same mayor was giving tax exemptions of over $10 million? ms. stock: i don't know what

you are talking about. >> i gave you a copy of a investigative report done by the news detailed a gift from alaska's largest real estate developer to mayor baggage. it detailed he was arranging exemptions. >> what is the question? >> i asked if she classified that as bribery. ms. stock: i don't understand the question he is asking. i went on a three hour tour with ray. he accuse most of the democratic party leaders and ted stevens of corruption. he told me he had helped to convict various politicians in alaska's past. he also gave me papers i could not make heads or tails of. he has a history of taking things to prosecutors. they found them to be of no concern.

>> 30 minutes to follow up. mr. metcalfe: they flew a crew up here from juneau to take the same tour, then a crew from washington dc to take the tour. it resulted in an expansion of polar pin, and the indictment of several legislators. ms. stock: how long ago was this an what relevance does it have? >> we are going to move on. you have the opportunity to ask the question of one of your opponents. sen. murkowski: we have been talking about health care around the state. we have been debating health care for years pre-democrats in

the state and nationally have been pushing a single-payer system. i disagree with this approach but as the democratic nominee in this race, why do you think this will work for alaskans? mr. metcalfe: i believe in bernie sanders proposal for a single-payer health care system. the system we have is not working. i have been in the private insurance department before. i have had a company that provided insurance for employees. the insurance company is refused to pay when they had an obligation to pay. they would constantly come in and say here is your new policy. they would double the policy in short order. it just didn't work. when you have an accident, they would forget who you were.

that system never did work. i am now on medicare. when you turn 65 years old, you can get on medicare. it works. there is no reason in the world we can't expand medicare to simply cover everybody. >> thank you. sen. murkowski: i voted against obamacare largely because it puts the government in control of choosing what care is covered. access is a critical issue here in this state. the aca is collapsing because of federal mandates and lack of flexibility. what states need is more choice and not less. >> mr. miller, do you have a question? mr. miller: this is a question for senator murkowski. you have been opposed to obama's political nominees yet you have rubberstamped most of them.

voting for cloture on most of them. how can you criticize the courts when you have helped elevate many of these activists to the bench? sen. murkowski: i would remind you that the two nominees president obama has put before the senate, justice kagan and justice sotomayor, i voted against these individuals. i have taken approach when it comes to ensuring there is an opportunity for an up or down vote, particularly when we look at district court judge nominations, filibustering is not an approach that i think is appropriate. i have allowed for judges to go forward so they can receive an up or down vote. in terms of a rubberstamp on any president's nominees, i have not

done that. i think it is reflected in the boats that i have made as it relates to the supreme court justices. >> thank you. mr. miller: part of the standard announced by your senior judiciary staff, this is a recent wikileaks e-mail, your staff was quoted as saying this is respect to judge lou -- i don't think that's the appropriate standard to be applied. i would also note when you supported merrick garland, there is a split in the supreme court. had he gotten the vote and going forward the second amendment would be dead. >> your question for one of your opponents?

ms. stock: joe, you stated at this debate that the central government has no role in providing for a government health care plan. in your current campaign you bow to replace the aca with a market-based system. presumably you are also aware prior to the aca thousands could not be insurance on any private market because they had pre-existing conditions. they didn't have a profession that would allow to abide the health care. isn't hypocritical to rail against government provided health care when you have regularly participated in government provided health care, the military v.a. system. mr. miller: i am a combat veteran.

i qualify for programs. i will fight for every veteran in the state to ensure it. i know what the system is like to ensure that you have the coverage your service demands and that trust between the government and those who have served is upheld. it is something that has not happened. my position on obamacare has been destructive to alaska. our choices are going away when obama claimed you could keep your doctor. that was a lie. most of us were not able to do that. i talked to one guy who is an employee, his rates went up so high it was a 20% reduction in his income. when we get government involved, it results in inefficiency and less choice. that is not what alaskans want. they want a system where you can choose your doctor. it is something i pledge to help alaskans with. >> would you vote to get rid of all government health care?

>> it is not your rebuttal. ms. stock: i'm under the impression, he does not have private health insurance on a private market. the only health insurance you have is through the government. since you are against all government provided health care that would mean medicaid, medicare, the v.a., and river everything to a market-based system. mr. miller: not true. >> we're going to take another video question from a voter who lives in telling him. the question -- in dillingham. the question is regarding mining and the epa. >> it is no secret -- they are the cornerstone of our cultures

and our economy. my entire adult life we have lived with the threat a large-scale mine could destroy our way of life. for tribes to ask the epa to take action, will you support the epa's use of the clean water act to protect crystal bay? >> ok. let's start with you. you have 45 seconds to respond. >> i am opposed to the pebble mine. i think it is the wrong mine in the wrong place. i'm opposed to the idea that we mine in a place that would potentially harm a renewable resource, and the bristol bay salmon watershed is an incredible resource. it is important we don't harm that for the future.

i am not opposed to mining but it has to be done anyway that protects the environment. the epa does play a role in that. republicans have talked about rolling back the powers with regard to clean water. water is a critical resource in alaska. many alaskans depend on the water in the ground. there is no way to treat it. it is critical we protect the environment. >> thank you. you have been critical of the epa intervention. sen. murkowski: i have been critical of the epa's intervention. i have said that there needs to be an appropriate process. not only for pebble but for any development project that we have. the epa should not be moving forward with a preemption of a project, before the project has been laid down. i have had many conversations with people who have concerns about the balance. none of us want to exchange one resource for another. we are not going to trade fish for gold.

we need to know we can access the resources safely. we have to have a process that we will respect. >> thank you. mr. metcalfe: i do believe that for the pebble mine ever is breaks ground it needs to comply with the clean water act. it should be used and enforced. that is not the only problem. we don't get paid for it. why would we. leave it in the ground. >> mr. miller. mr. miller: i'm an advocate of state and local control. the answer to many of our problems is jobs. i think that part of the reason we have lack of purpose, i was talking to people about how they want jobs. when we have opportunity for jobs such as the goldmine, we should seize those and make sure we are hiring alaskans in those communities where that resource development occurs.

it is the state and locals who need to be in charge of the process. if you are at risk you should take part in the rewards or have the ability to stop the project. >> thank you. >> we are in the midst of the longest-running vacancy in the supreme court and the country's history. you said you respected republican leadership in the senate's decision not to hold hearings. are your concerned that sets a precedent any president will not be able to get a confirmation of a nominee when they are facing opposition? sen. murkowski: we all recognize that this political environment

that we have been in has been intense to say the least. when you inject a nomination as critical as that of the supreme court justice, i think it is important that you allow for -- to have that political temperature to subside a little bit. sherman grassley was not going to move forward with a hearing. i am not on the judiciary committee. i am a chairman and i know when i call a hearing, i expect the people in my committee would respect what we are doing. i have respected the role chairman grassley has played in this. as we deal with a vacancy that does need to be filled and will

be filled. i believe when we have a new president. >> is this the right decision to hold up the nomination? mr. miller: originally she said the name ought to go forward. in mitch mcconnell got involved. mitch mcconnell said no, no you can't do that. she lined up on it. right now it is for-four. four justices who say the second amendment is a collective right. if mayor garland would have got the vote and gone forward, your second amendment rights as you know them would be over. i can assure alaskans i will do everything to fight every bet i can to stop any radical justice that is coined a take away your second amendment rights. if that means i have to stand alone filibustering a judge or justice that is going to take away your rights you can bet i will do that. that is what i am obligated to do deserve you and satisfy your needs, and protect those liberties that this country great. sen. murkowski: he suggested

somehow i supported merrick garland. what i support is a process that would allow us to get to confirmation to allow for the advice and consent process to move forward, which is the role the senate plays. >> is that different from a confirmation hearing? >> it is the hearing. he has suggested i have supported merrick garland. we haven't had an opportunity to weigh in on merrick garland. i want to make sure people understand. i sit down with mr. garland. mr. metcalfe: merrick garland is not a radical at all. he is considered very middle-of-the-road by most court observers i have listened to. i think it is wrong to try to delay the hearing all the way through to the next presidency. if elected i can tell you i will vote my conscience. i will not bow and lockstep with the conscious which goes the wrong direction.

>> you are stock on this? ms. stock: it's a terrible situation. it's the longest vacancy in history. it is a result of partisan obstructionism, . simple. she said you had to hold a hearing and give a vote up or down. there is no tradition of leaving it vacant in an election year. senator murkowski's colleagues said they will hold up the a vacancy for four years. this is partisanship that is hurting alaska. we can't get decisions. we are going to have a tie on the supreme court which means no decisions. it is a copout to blame this on the judiciary committee. if you are a leader you take a principled position and you stand up to the cheers of your

party who hold seats in the judiciary committee. you speak out and you don't copout. you caved in. you caved in. you tweeted the nomination get a hearing or a vote. sen. murkowski: that is not correct. ms. stock: that is what happened. two days after antonin scalia of passed away. >> we have to move on. liz has our next question. it will draw some heat. it is on abortion. you will have one minute for your response.

>> we know you have the endorsement of alaska right to live. what course would you follow to change american abortion laws. mr. miller: a nation that basically sacrifices the most defenseless, if we don't protect life, and that is a 14th amendment thing, then what rights are up for grabs? they are all up for grabs. an indicator of a nation willing to defend or not willing to defend the defenseless is something we all need to consider. i'm going to make sure we have judges that are pro-life. i think that is a standard that needs to be applied through the judiciary. life itself is again kind of the bellwether. is the federal government going to protect life? if it is not, what are they willing to take? >> what statutes would you write to change the policies and laws? mr. miller: i think the constitution is sufficient. the 14th amendment says no life may be deprived without the due

process of law. we need to have judges that protected in that way. >> you are a pro-choice candidate. will you support for funding for planned parenthood that provides health care as well as abortions? mr. metcalfe: i would. >> ok. why? mr. metcalfe: for one reason, from a libertarian point of view, the libertarian party, they believe that a person has a right to control the wrong body. mr. miller: that is not the platform. mr. metcalfe: the national libertarian party subscribes to that. i have no desire to control a uterus, frankly. i can't imagine why someone, a group of men in a u.s. senate would want to. >> throughout your career it seems no issue has been as thorny for you as abortion. your votes related to planned parenthood funding have angered both sides. can you clarify where you stand? sen. murkowski: i do not like abortion. i don't think any of us like abortion. but i recognize that the supreme court has said that a woman has the right, the reproductive right to choose. i've supported that.

i also recognize it is important that when it comes to federal funding for those who just cannot abide the thought that their taxpayer dollars would be directed towards abortions, that there be a separation. i have unequivocally and clearly supported the hyde amendment that would prohibit federal dollars from being directed towards abortion. i support women's right and ability to gain access to women's health care, for the services they need whether it is planned parenthood or mammograms, for pap smears. std screening. this is where so many alaskan women receive their services. it is important to sustain that. >> you have declared your

support for keeping abortion legal and for funding planned parenthood. you believe taxpayer support for planned parenthood amounts to subsidizing abortion? ms. stock: no. i support a woman's right to control her body. women have a constitutional right to make a decision about their pregnancies. there is a balancing test involved as the lawyers appear are aware. i support planned parenthood because planned parenthood makes great efforts to reduce abortions. it provide education, family planning, and those are terrific ways to reduce abortions in america. planned parenthood has been doing a lot of work with regard to the zika virus. they do zika outreach in florida where women are likely to get bitten by a mosquito. the senator did not want them to

have the funding necessary to warn women about the zika virus. >> dan has a question. >> how do you weigh the cost and benefits of involvement in foreign conflicts? do we have a responsibility to assist the repressed? you can use an example. >> we are engaged in syria and all of this stuff. none of this would have happened if we had stayed out of iraq in the first place. the adventures that we have gone into from vietnam, most of them have been ill-advised. we wished we had not gone there. we need to be more careful about where we go. if we are not threatened we should stay out. with the exceptions where we can step in and stop genocide. that still needs to be on a case-by-case basis. >> miss stock, same question to you. when do we have a responsibility to get involved?

ms. stock: we often act emotionally when congress votes on war. congress doesn't consider the second and third order side effects of a conflict. we have seen that repeatedly over the last 15 and 20 years. members of congress will vote without getting full information and what the actual costs are of engaging in a conflict and bringing it to a conclusion. we saw that with iraq. people were very emotional and did not consider the wounded. they didn't consider the deaths. they didn't consider the veterans ministration. the most important thing we need to do is consider our national interests. it is going to tug at our heartstrings when we see terrible things happening in the

world but we simply don't have the resources to intervene in every conflict. >> mr. miller, same question. when do we have a responsibility to help others? mr. miller: i'm the only combat that standing up here. when you have been in combat, you know the horrors of war. it causes you to have much greater apprehension about engaging. i remember i was going to lose two thirds of my unit, thinking why are we here? the men and women brought into combat, we need to make sure we're taking on vital national interest. most of the service members i talked to, they look at what is going on in the middle east, the disaster made of the middle east, the spread of terrorism and isis is absolutely crazy how we have done an incredible disservice to america. we spent billions of dollars on this. >> you have been involved in these debates. how do you balance it?

sen. murkowski: it is a difficult balance. i tried to keep in the forefront that we want the united states that we do this by an appropriate mixed of soft power and military strength. i am one who believes that isolationism doesn't do us good. and yet, despite our nation true weariness about where we are with international engagement, it is important that we be aware that often times we must not disengage. making sure we are ready, that is what we are doing here in alaska with a buildup of our military. >> now it is time for closing statements. you have 30 seconds for your close. we will start with you. sen. murkowski: thank you for the opportunity to be in front of alaskans this evening.

i have been honored and truly privileged to be able to represent the people of this amazing state for the years that i have, as one who is born and raised here, as one who is passionate about my state and one who is passionate about the purpose that we have, not only as a state, but as a people. and our contributors to our country. this is what i am asking, your continued support for yet another term. i would respectfully ask for your vote november 8. >> mr. miller. your closing statement please. 30 seconds. mr. miller: the the 30 year dynasty of senator murkowski, it has given us less jobs. we need to have a new course. we can't have the second half of our pfd taken next year. we have to bring about new jobs. we can do it together. we have to vote in a bold way.

vote for me on november 8. my commitment is i'm going to do everything i can possibly do to bring good lives to people in alaska, to open up the resource base like we have never seen it before. >> miss stock, 30 seconds. ms. stock: congress has an 11% approval rating thanks to folks like senator lisa murkowski and her palace and -- person colleagues who have done nothing over the last six years but engage in partisan gridlock. i am an independent. i'm a problem solver. i have a proven track record of getting things done in washington. alaska is ready for new leadership. i am ready to be your leader. vote for me on november 8, i am all work and no party. >> and your closing statement. mr. metcalfe: before you vote, ask one question. what has that candidate done for alaska? i was the co-author of the language that established the investment program for the permanent fund. it has held up pretty well.

i will continue my efforts to root out corruption like i did with their bribery of the legislators to give oil away. i will do everything i am able to do to end the pay to play game congress is so heavily involved in. >> thank you. thank you, that is it for alaska public media's 2016 debate for the state. thank you to our reporter's. thank you to the candidates for participating, and thank you for joining us. stay with us for a few minutes of analysis of the senate debate with alaska public media reporters zachariah hughes, and andrew kitchemen. early voting is underway and election day is tuesday, november 8. good night. ♪

>> how the media got smarter about calling elections. let me begin with that question. how so? 2000's, therly media messed up a lot. 2000 election

for gore and then for bush, so in the wake of that they put their heads together and changed a few things. a form national election pool. they hired a new pollster. they hired edison research. they pledged before congress they would not call an election based on exit poll results before they had the final polls had closed. that was a major difference. networks would call it elections before the polls had closed. the last thing they did that was really interesting is instead of to leak exit poll data to newsrooms, to become available to anchors sitting at , they actually chose to

put it into quarantine. outlets allbag news have data analysts in a room with no phones, no computers, no tablets. they look at this election date all day long and analyze it, poke and prod it, make sure it is robust before reporting back to their individual outlets before the polls close. begins at 6:00 in the morning east coast time and then continues throughout the day. how this edison research determine where they send canvassers? what are they asking? >> that is a great question. it is an army of people. -- research ish 1000 surveyors. that haveir own army

4000 more people reporting back. between the two of those outlets, there is an absolutely enormous amount of people on the ground. edison is hired by the big media outlets as part of that national election pool and the national election pool comes up with the questions on this questionnaire. it is a two-page questionnaire. about 20 questions. we don't know what they are right now. they were arrived at by committee. they will go out to randomly selected precincts. that's an interesting difference than years past. key will not choose tracings.

they are randomly selected. whatever data they get from there they will have surveyors. they will talk to 100,000 people leaving the polls. that information will be combined with telephone poles edison re-church has been conducting with people who voted early and absentee voters. >> to learn not only who voted on election day so networks can call it early, but why they voted the way they did? >> exactly. on that questionnaire, we don't know exactly what's on their but we know generally. every voter who has called ahead of time or who is asked at the polls when they are leaving, they will be asked who they voted for in state and national elections. why.will be asked they will be asked their general feelings about the major candidates, and they will be

asked about which issues are important to them. on this questionnaire, there are questions of debt, euthanasia, marijuana, big topline issues. from 1948. along way >> that is right. that is the chicago tribune deweyne which says defeats truman. it is the specter that hangs over the media on election night. you don't want to screw it up that badly. there is a robust understanding. a lot of people will be in that quarantine room. there's a profound feeling that this time they have got to get it right. if there is a question, if it comes down to close calls, it is a tight race. they are not going to call it.

>> we will look for you reporting. >> thank you for having me. >> live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. they will be on to talk about the role of religion and religious institutions, and the debate over the rights of religious groups. and david drucker for the washington examiner will discuss key senate house races. watch washington journal sunday morning. join the discussion. tomorrow, c-span's road to the white house coverage continues beginning with vice president biden and a hillary clinton rally in scranton, pennsylvania.

live at 1:00 eastern we will have donald trump is in sioux city, iowa. at 3:25 eastern live coverage as president obama speaks at a hillary clinton rally near orlando, florida. that is all tomorrow in c-span. senator tim kaine of virginia spoke to supporters at a rally in fort myers, florida. here is a portion of his remarks . it is almost 20 minutes. senator kaine: hillary and i believe that we should do something similar to what president reagan did in a bipartisan way, comprehensive immigration reform. it will involve a number of different things. it will involve more border

security, helping employers figure out the immigration status of employees my but it will also involve a path to citizenship for people who are paying taxes, following the law, undergoing criminal background checks -- we do not want to divide families. we want to keep them together. [applause] this is not democrat or republican, polls show that the american public supports, you have agriculture and technology, mayors and governors and charge organizations, there is a broad consensus on this. we got nearly 70 votes on this in the senate and we have not gotten the house to take up the matter, but the american public likes the idea of reform. on the other side, donald trump basically want to build a wall and have a deportation nation, deporting 16 million people. not just 11.5 million you are here without documents, but he

also says 4.5 million citizens, they are citizens my but if they were born to parents that are undocumented, they should be part of the deportation. i do not want to live in a nation, i do not want to live in a nation where officials go house to house and business-to-business and school to school and neighborhood to neighborhood, to deport 16 million people. that is not who we are. [applause] so, let me just, let me just finish. you guys have been good. when i get rolling, sometimes i really get rolling. i am a u.s. senator. i like to talk. let me tell you how we will win. this is the important thing. it is close. it is close in florida and all over the country.

i like where we are. i would rather be us than them. i have you on my side, so i would rather be us. i know that. but the last thing i want to tell you is, we cannot take anything for granted. because even if we look at the polls and we like them right now. the polls can be wrong and they can tighten up. we cannot take it for granted. we have the government of russia and the director of national intelligence who says, along with our entire intelligence apparatus, saying they are undertaking steps to attack before the election. remember, that was impeachment when nick said was president, going into the dnc. it is more than that. it is hacking into the e-mails of colin powell, tapping into state boards of elections.

we have caught them doing that. we have never seen it. we cannot take anything for granted. we cannot take anything for granted. donald trump is going around saying the election is going to be rate. he is trying to set up for afterwards when he can complain and whine. the better we do and be more powerful message we send -- he can whine all he wants, but everybody will know that those are just the words of a sore loser. [applause] senator kaine: that is what we are going to do. we cannot take anything for granted, because it would be good to have a congress and a senate that is willing to work with a president clinton. the better we do for hillary, the more people we will put in office and work on the issues. the last reason we can't take

anything for granted -- hillary is trying to do something that has never been done before. if it had been easy for there to be a woman president in this country, there would have been a woman president. another statistic that surprised me a little bit. right now, congress is 19% women, that is the most it has ever been. there is my punchline. that is 75th in the world. below the global average. our best we have ever been, we are below the world average with the percentage of women we have in our national legislative body. in iraq, the percentage of women in the national legislative body is 26%. we are at 19%. afghanistan, it is 28%. rwanda is number one, about 65%. we are so good at so many things in this country. we are so good at so many things with respect to women, but a great nation should be willing to look in the mirror and say,

here is something we are not good at. we are uniquely bad act electing women to federal office. so nobody should think this is going to be a breeze because hillary is trying to do something that has never been done. i'll bet there are people in this room that have tried to do something that has never been done. in your own personal life, your neighborhood, family, workplace, schools, you have tried to do something and have been a path breaker. in your life, you have tried to do something that was a dream of yours that was important, but you had people tell you, the time is not right for you. there is somebody else. you are not the most qualified. you should consider doing something else.

you have had people pour cold water on you when you tried to go after a dream. i think that is a universal human experience. i will tell you, hillary clinton has heard that her whole life, that this is a profession more for men and women and it is going to be hard for this, how come she is not more likable? donald trump says she does not look very presidential. she has been running into a headwind all her life. i know that she does not take anything for granted. what do you do at the end of the day when it is so important and you are trying to make history and it is not going to be easy. what do we do to have the discipline we need for the next three days? i will give you a tip. i am assuming everybody is voting. i want you to rev up. here is my tip. i will tell you something good about me and something bad about me.

the something good is that this is my ninth race, i am 8-0, and i am not planning on losing tuesday. i do not lose elections. you can beat me at scrabble, you can be made at trivial pursuit, but i do not intend to lose. that is a good thing. the bad thing is, i barely win. i am 8-0 before today, but i am mr. barely likable enough. and in politics, that is not bad. there is no other occupation where you can be at 53% to be a winner. it doesn't work except in an election. the reason i barely win is i run in virginia. we are barely blue. so, to run and tough real estate and win, or run like hillary is doing against a headwind and win, you have got to have discipline. and this is what i tell myself in every race i have ever run. i am the underdog until they call me the winner. i am the underdog until they call me the winner. and i want you to put that thought in your head. i am the underdog until they call me the winner. we are the underdogs until they call us the winner. that will give you that discipline. it is not just about the election. it is about life. i think it is about life. >> we love you.

senator kaine: i love you guys. thank you. [applause] senator kaine: this is about life. what is it that unifies democrats? i used to wonder about that. traveling around the country as democratic committee chair i will be with the blue dogs here, progressives there. over time, i would see that we democrats are a big, quirky, eccentric, motley family. i say it with love and affection. will rogers said in the 1920's, i don't believe in organized politics, that is why i am a democrat. 90 years later, still a ring of truth. this is the oldest continuously operating political party in the world. what is it that unifies us? and it struck me, we are underdogs. we're underdog people. i do not know if it is our dna, or we choose to be that way. in my church, we talk about a story that is well-known. the story of the good samaritan. somebody is at the side of the road who is beaten up and they need help. they are at the side of the road

and they are asking for help. and everybody is on the road and they are all on the road and a whole lot of people walk right on by. they know better, there are leaders, religious leaders, people with titles, people who are smart. and they walk on by. and i bet back in the day, somebody walked by and said, you are a loser. that is probably what happened. [laughter] senator kaine: in the story, the samaritan in that story is an outcast. the samaritans were in kind of a marginalized position. this is not a story about yesterday. this is a story about today and tomorrow. that person had somewhere to go. there is something that he was doing. when he saw the person that needed some help, he said, i'm going to set aside what i'm doing and go over and help. you know this. in every zip code in florida,

virginia and every zip code in this country, there are people on the side of the road asking for help. they might have been a victim of violence, in a neighborhood, victim of a shooting like the tragedy in orlando. families torn up. they might be a person grappling with a cancer diagnosis or who can't figure out how to afford college for their kid. it might be a middle school are getting bullied and not knowing where to turn for help. it might be somebody that made a mistake when they were younger and they are looking for somebody to give them a second chance. it might be somebody that just needs a friend. you know what i am talking about. we are all on the road and we have a choice. do we just walk by, or do we decide to go over?

the thing that is cool about this story is, you do not have to have all of the answers. you do not have to have any of the answers. you do not even have to know the words to say. all you have to be willing to do is to say, i will roll up my sleeves up and i will figure it out instead of doing just the thing for me, thinking about me, i will put somebody else and the needs of someone else at the same level of my own and i will help this person. i will tell you this. hillary clinton is not a person that will walk on by. i am not a person who is going to walk on by. i don't think y'all are people that will just walk on by. you put that underdog mentality in your head. i am the underdog until they

call me the winner with an attitude of, let's be helpful to the underdogs around us. we will have the energy we need to face off against donald trump, the kgb, or anybody else, and win a big election on november 8. remember what i told you, if you do it in florida, it is done. it is done. let's go win! thank you guys, good to be with you. ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

>> a look at the safety of voting systems with officials involved in overseeing voting. the president of the national association of secretaries of state and tom mistakes, newsmakers, sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> election night on c-span. watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome.

watch of victory and concession speeches starting live. on-demand on c-span, or listen to our live coverage. >> alabama senator jeff sessions campaigns for donald trump. he is accompanied by bob smith. this is 20 minutes. >> if you can wait in front of the bus. face this way. [indistinct chatter]

>> this way. are you ok? >> i got it. >> hi, how are you? [indistinct chatter] >> great to see you. great to see you. how are you doing? thank you.

[applause] >> thank you. >> glad to see you. >> senator jeff sessions. [laughter] >> this hat has been signed by everybody he was anybody. kelly ayotte. >> i would be honored. >> you were now famous for the first time in your life, right? thank you so very much. >> welcome to new hampshire. great to be with you. thank you. >> we're going to do pictures. >> this is our local senator. >> nice to be with you.

>> nice to meet you. >> we are from mississippi. >> rene powers. a good friend of mine, i went to elementary and high school with her. >> you stuck with a guy from the very beginning and i can't tell you how proud of you we are. you are not quite dressed for this weather, are you? [laughter] >> i still want a quick picture with you. >> how are you, young lady? >> look at that. [laughter] >> hi, rebecca. peek-a-boo. >> i'm sorry.

>> thank you everybody for coming out. >> thank you, thank you. >> you are going to win for sure. >> i think so. >> the barbecue in beer bash. thank you so much. >> you get moving. >> are you in charge? >> camera get a quick picture? >> we will do pictures afterwards. we will delay couple of speeches. >> if we can bring it in, the senator will say a few words. >> it is good to be in your neighborhood.

it is a real privilege for me to have an old friend, a really great guy, a great conservative. it's exciting to have senator sessions here today from alabama. he is not dressed quite appropriately, but he will be all right. we will keep him warm. it will be a great night on tuesday. thank you. [cheers] >> i will let senator sessions say a couple of words the. senator sessions: thank you for coming here and working. i have been told repeatedly you probably have the best organized. state in the nation you are knocking on doors. making phone calls, doing the bread and butter work that takes a close election to victory. that is where i think we are

headed, don't you? [cheers] >> this is a people's movement. you can feel it. there are people who are never been engaged in politics before. i was just at a hotel at manchester. two guys came up to me. they left connecticut and are traveling around here to try to make a difference. they have never been active in politics. when i endorsed trump back in the early part of the year i said this was a movement. it was more than a normal political campaign. i believe that is true. i believe people are not happy with washington. they are correct. they should not be happy with washington. it has not delivered for them. the economy has not done well. we have not had the standards of ethics and management we need to validate the money we send to make sure he gets spent wisely. we need a lawful system of immigration.