chairman hicks: i spent 11 years working in the united states congress and the committee on house administration. what i first got there, there was a lot of camaraderie on different issues. one, we would save you might have your point of view and i have my point of view, but there has to be some sort of common ground. and we would work towards getting that kind of common ground and passed legislation that we felt that was beneficial to the american people. not necessarily to a political party, but to the american people. i hope that -- that's not our role at the eac, our role is to interpret the laws congress sees fit. but in my own capacity as an american, i hope the we can get back to that. host: and we will have to end it there in the last "newsmakers," before election day. secretary merrill, chairman hicks, thank you for your time and good luck in the days ahead. chairman hicks: thank you. secretary merrill: thanks. host: and thank you as well for

help of the questions today. jeff mason is with reuters, anna palmer is with politico. a busy week for you coming up as well. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> election night on c-span. -- the results and be part of the national conversation about the outcome. bl location of the hillary sitesn and donald trump and watch live on c-span on demand at c-span.org or listen to live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> now, a debate for the race for the u.s. senate seat in alaska. the candidates discuss abortion, foreign policy, and health care law. it's about an hour.

♪ >> alaska public media presents debate for the state: election 2016. the race for the united states senate. >> good evening. welcome to alaska public media's debate for the state. tonight is the final face-off among candidates for u.s. senate. republican incumbent lisa murkowski is the chair of the senate energy and national -- natural resources committee. democrat ray metcalfe is a real estate broker and former state lawmaker. independent margaret stock is an immigration attorney. and retired army reservist.

and joe miller is a libertarian, an attorney, and an army veteran who won the republican primary for the seat in 2010. i'm lori townsend, news director for alaska public media, and i will moderate. we will begin with a series of questions from our journalists, our panelists. we are in anchorage, simulcasting on public radio and television. we will also air video questions from alaskans in fairbanks and dealing and. ngham.li candidates, your answers will be timed. the limit for your first round is 60 seconds. liz has the first question. >> mr. miller, you have run for

the senate twice before as a republican. why didn't you file as a republican this year and compete in the republican primary? mr. miller: i was very honored to receive the unanimous endorsement of the board of directors of the libertarian party. they had their nominee step aside. i was not planning on running for the united states senate. i had a moose hunt planned for the week i declared. it turned out to be something that i think has provided alaskans with tremendous opportunity this season to have a conservative choice and have somebody who is going to fight for their liberties. i am excited to be in this race. and i am excited about the platform of the party. it talks about bringing decision-making closer to home, where you can be in charge of the decisions that are made, you can bring accountability to your government, and you can actually have a hand in making changes that bring great impact of the -- greatness back to the state of alaska. >> ms. stock, being an

independent party candidate has been central to your campaign, but you have also donated your campaign with the democratic party. are you an independent candidate in name only? ms. stock: i am an independent like 54% of alaskans. i needed access to the campaign resources necessary to defeat an incumbent republican senator. the republican party was not willing to cooperate with me. in terms of sharing databases. the democratic candidates did not feel they have a viable candidate, and they felt i was a pragmatic problem solver who had a lot of experience in washington, and they offered me the opportunity to coordinate with their campaign in hopes that i would defeat lisa murkowski and return a sense of a compliment to the united states senate and the partisan gridlock. >> how beholden do you feel to the democratic party, if you are successful? ms. stock: not at all. i am not a democrat.

i purchased cooperation through the voter database. i am not a democrat. i am simply using the campaign resources they made available to me because i purchased them. >> mr. metcalfe, you used to be a republican. now you say you are a bernie sanders-style democrat. you don't have party support. you don't have money in your campaign account. why should voters take you seriously as a candidate? mr. metcalfe: liz, i don't have -- to say i don't have party support is not quite accurate. i don't have the support of some segments of the party. there is a split in the democratic party, and it boils down to efforts to remove certain corrupt practices from within the party, certain corrupt practices that are commonplace within our system. those who 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 -- language 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 wright-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 since 2008, who is 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. fortunately in alaska, we are , not confronted with those issues. the real ogre in the room is the federal government. the federal government is preventing development of the resources. 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. rather than grabbing at the ever shrinking federal pot of money. that's a problem we have. we send people to washington, d.c., but that easy money is getting smaller. we've got to rein in the federal government. >> how would that ease 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 barrels of oil under the ground that the government has prevented, there would not be fights like that. we would have so much oil, we can refill the taps pipeline. we would not be looking at uneconomic ways to get at, things that create conflict with other people.

if we actually had access to the full resource base of the state of alaska. >> 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 knowledge of the 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 knowledge that a pipeline is the the mosty to move oil, 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.

we know from the refinery at flint hills where 1500 people lost their drinking water because of contamination. that is something the tribe 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, -- build 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 as opposedoversight, to calling corporations and asking their executives for money. as you probably know, i don't take money from corporate pac's. in contrast to my opponent. one senator i do admire is angus king, an independent from maine. >> ms. murkowski? who among the other senators has a political approach to senate politics that you admire? 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 and 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, d believe the -- do you think 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 letting in thousands and 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. those are the risks we can undertake -- can't undertake as a country if 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. the bia says alaska drives

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 natives claims settlement act with the territorial jurisdictions that tribes would gain by putting land into trust? you have one minute. sen. murkowski: in alaska, land into 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 not been done before, and it may end of causing land to not be able to be modified. there are a lot of restrictions. there are a number 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. they are now maintaining fish and wildlife management over it. 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 the placeholders in the state. we can do it together, but we've got to put aside these old divisions and work for a bright future i think alaska can promise. >> thank you, mr. miller. mr. metcalfe, your thoughts on federal protection for tribal lands. mr. metcalfe: the question was, is it 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. unlike the lower our alaskan 48, native corporations are a unique institution, and the relation between the tribes and native 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 between the federal government and the tribes 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 will be allowed for the response. you have 30 seconds for a follow-up bottle. mr. metcalfe, do you have a -- follow-up rebuttal. 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? would you call this bribery? ahmad khan raham 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 told me he had a corruption tour that sounded quite interesting. we drove around anchorage, and he accused 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. none of them being mark begich. -- baggage. 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 seconds to follow up. i. metcalfe: the same tour gave her, gave to an fbi agent. they flew a crew up here from juneau to take the same tour, then a crew from washington, d.c. 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. evening voting for some of them when they come overcome -- when they come up for confirmation. 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 votes 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 judge lou -- if

he is not a child molester, 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 know that the aca is based on a republican idea for a market-based system. presumably you are also aware prior to the aca thousands could not get 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. premiums of gone skyhigh.

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? or just obamacare. >> 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 -- the military health care system, and revert everything to a market-based system. mr. miller: not true. >> thank you, candidates.

we're going to take another video question from a voter who lives 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 bristol bay? >> ok. let's start with you. the stock, 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. the epa plays a key role in that. >> 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. i see no point in developing the pebble mine with the current tax system. 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. chairman 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. and then mitch mcconnell got involved. mitch mcconnell said no, no you can't do that. she lined up on it. i will tell you, right now it is , four-four. four justices who say the second amendment is a collective right. if merrick 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 -- every bit i can to stop any radical justice that is going to take away your second amendment rights. if that means i have to stand alone for a whole week filibustering a judge or justice that is going to take away your second amendment 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

individual 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. what i supported was a process -- you can absolutely have it both ways. i sat 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. , on this?ck your take ms. stock: it's a terrible situation. it's the longest vacancy in history. it is a result of partisan obstructionism, plain and 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 -- hold up the vacancy for four years. if hillary clinton gets elected. 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 chairs 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 -- shouldn't get a hearing or a vote. sen. murkowski: that is not correct. and you know that. ms. stock: that is what happened. two days after antonin scalia of passed away. >> we have to move on. liz has our next question. this question will probably also 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 life. if elected, what course would you follow to change american abortion laws and policies? 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 am unambiguously 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. if the constitution already says that, we need to advance judges that protected in that way. >> you are a pro-choice candidate.

will you support full 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 correct platform of the alaskan libertarian 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. the supreme court has said that women have a constitutional right to make a decision about their pregnancies. there is a balancing test involved is all the lawyers up here 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? as a free nation, do we have a responsibility to assist the repressed? you can use an example. of a recent situation that supports your philosophy on this. you have 45 seconds. mr. metcalfe: right now, 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. in the rearview mirror, 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. how do you weigh the benefits and costs of involvement in foreign conflicts, and when do we have a responsibility to get involved? ms. stock: we often act emotionally when congress votes to go to 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 about what might happen if there is an intervention, and 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 cost to the veterans administration. 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 as a country, 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 vet 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? what are we doing here? the men and women brought into combat, we need to make sure we're taking on vital national interest. most of my friends who are still

in, 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 to be a force for good. 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 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 the built-up of our military. >> now it is time for closing statements. you have 30 seconds for your close. 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.

mr. miller: the 36 year dynasty of senator murkowski, it is time to chart a new course. we can't have the second half of our pfd taken next year. we have got to the state to bring about new jobs for our kids and grandkids. we can do it together. we have to vote in a bold way. 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. ms. stock: congress has an 11% approval rating thanks to folks like senator lisa murkowski and her 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 yourself one question. what has that candidate done for alaska? i was the co-author of the language that established the investment program for the 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 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 the candidates for participating, and thank you for joining us. stay with us for a few minutes of analysis of the senate debate with zachariah hughes, and andrew kitch