september 2002. joe miller is the republican party nominee. he is from fairbanks. democrat scott mcadams this the former mayor. welcome, candidates. joining me is they donaldson. later in our program, laura townsend will also join us. we will also be hearing questions that we solicited from our viewers and listeners and we will include those in the program. our thanks to the studio audience for being here tonight. please remember to remain silent during the entire broadcast. candidates, each answer will be timed and you will see a yellow light at the 15 second mark telling you that you have 15 seconds left and then you will hear this sound when your time is up. i will try to enforce this as politely as i can. let's begin. you will each have 30 seconds to respond to this first round of questions. mr. mcadams, what have you learned about yourself and this campaign? >> that as a great question. one of the things i have learned is what is possible when you put your mind to something and you work hard. we have a great campaign team and a great staff. i never thought i would be able to raise $1.2 million in six weeks for it you have to be a little bit of a statesman and a little bit of a share in part telemarketer to be good at this stuff. >> i have always been one that has the resilience, but i have learned that oftentimes, doing the right thing is often the most difficult thing to do. when it is the right thing to do, you do not quit. i have really been focused on that resiliency that i have known that i have had for a long time, but i see it playing out, here. >> i have learned that when you run for public office, even though you may not be part of the public process, your life is an open book. it has been uncomfortable to a certain extent for my family and i. we doubled our commitments to the alaskan people to make sure that the right answers are reached at this time in our state's history. we have to have somebody in office that is willing to do the things that the people of alaska need for their future and for their children's future. our commitment remains. we will make sure the right things happen for the state. >> the next questions touched on top stories of the news this week did you will have 45 seconds to answer. senator murkowski, there was a list of write-in candidates at the polls and the democratic and republican parties are united on this. it is obviously a blow to your campaign. >> when you say that it is a blow to our campaign, we have not counted, as a campaign, on providing information about my right in candidacy. we have been doing things the old-fashioned way which is ensuring that people know how to move forward with a rise in campaign. we have jingles that remind people that this is how you spell left. fill it in, right in, it has been a very concerted education campaign. i do not think that it has been a blow to us. the case is ongoing. the supreme court said they will deny the injunction. that will be determined in the next couple of days. >> mr. miller, documents released yesterday show that you say, "i lied about accessing the computers and then admitted accessing them, but lied about why was doing." why did you do that? >> i made a mistake. i learned from it. i found out that anything that you do in your private life is going to be out there. initially, in this campaign, it appeared that some things might be off limits for it i have to tell you that in order for alaskans to understand level of commitment, we could have fought the release of those records and we decided not to. i believe that we may be the only candidate in recent american history to release a personnel file for it is important for alaskans to understand that our commitments cannot be slowed by these issues and it has to be focused on the fact that the state has to move forward. >> a quick follow-up. when you left the employment, you deleted e-mail's. some of them were related to a case you were working on. the bureau has questioned whether they needed some of those females now -- females -- e-mails now. >> you have to understand that everything that is in that file is not accurate. we are over a year away from one of the position. my view of it is, for purposes of full disclosure, the bureau has a backup system. all those females were backed up. -- all of those e-mails were backed up. we have seen the concerted effort to help his campaign. >> we will leave it there. >> mr. mcadams, your opponents is running with washington dc. but your on the winning team. >> i think that voters are very responsive to our message. it is not about anybody's personal issues for personal narrative or a sense of history, it is about alaska and alaskan communities and alaskan people. we need someone in washington d.c. that recognizes that we are young state and we are an infrastructure poor state. the environment, national, alaska does its own thing. alaskan politics tend to run counter to national politics. >> we will have a lightning round three you will have 15 seconds to answer this question. he will only hear the bell when your time is up. >> should we extend the bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, which means those making $200,000 or more? >> no, we should not. we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class but we should allow the tax cuts for members of the population who make more than $250,000 a year to expire. >> this will only exacerbate the problem. we need to stimulate the economy and it is not by raising taxes. >> senator? >> during an election is not the time to raise taxes. we need to extend the 2001-2003 tax cuts. we will take that up in november when we return. >> to clarify for me, is the contradictory to the goal of reducing the national debt? >> reducing the national debt has got to be done by reducing spending for the that is the key. we have expanded the federal government beyond what it was intended to be to the point that we need to reduce spending. we need to take government out of those programs. >> tax cuts affect the national debt? >> this is not contradictory. when you were able to put more money out into the economy to allow for that job creation, for that private wealth, for that free enterprise system to actually work and that is going to help. >> mr. miller, name one thing that president obama is right about. >> i think that-if i might address the last question, i think that we have been in a cycle of borrow and spend four for two long in this country and it is a matter of priorities. we should never balance the budget on the backs of infrastructure corestates and kids and seniors. >> my question for you, mr. miller. what is obama doing right? >> the additional troops and personnel provided to afghanistan is something that i agree with. >> senator murkowski's? what is the president doing what? >> i applaud the president when he named general petraeus to take over command in afghanistan. i think that that helped to allow for a transition that could have been very difficult for us. i applaud him for it. >> mr. mcadams, one thing that you agree with the republican minority leadership in washington? >> i think that democrats and republicans agree that the national debt is unsustainable .o does the constitution's first amendment call for separation of church and state? >> yes. >> yes. >> a state-sponsored church is not authorized by the first amendment. the states are required to comply with that as well. >> would you like to see creationism taught in public school science classes? mr. mcadams? >> i am a methodist and i believe in god, but i recognize and i believe that science and religion should be taught separately, one in the home and one of the public schools. >> in for good science and good science includes origins that are based on creation. clearly, there are different ideas. i do believe that children should be permitted to see both sides regard senator murkowski? >> i do not believe creationism should be taught in our schools. i believe that there should be an allowance for the process of evolution that is taught. i have said and i believe very strongly that god give us our soul, but when we talk about evolution, that is a process that should be taught in school. >> should the united states be involved in nonmilitary humanitarian missions overseas? >> i think that it ought to be limited to it cannot go around thinking that we can establish peace and prosperity around the globe. the deficit is such that we do not have the capacity to carry on the efforts we have in the past. >> i believe that we should be involved in these humanitarian missions. i believe that our role in -- as liberal leader, we should do what we tend to eliminate disease and eradicate human trafficking. these are issues that we should be involved in three >. >> we have an obligation to those that are less fortunate around the globe to reflects this question comes from a listener. would you support eliminating the filibuster in hopes of breaking gridlock in the senate? >> i have suggested that we need to look at how the filibuster is applied. our judicial branch has been stymied by the process in the senate. is it will that has been here for years and i think it has been abused. >> i think that washington d.c. is broken. i think that the filibuster-over 300 bills have passed on the house side that have not passed on the senate side. i am interested in the senate actually organizing. >> absolutely not. we have an administration that is marching so far to the love, expanding the role of government, even though it is one of the best tools that we have available. we need to stop this continued march towards the socialistic direction. >> now water questions for the candidates. you will have 45 seconds to answer. dave, your question? >> we have heard from southeast alaskans that oppose a controversial issue. how significant is this? >> i have been working on this bill for probably three years. i am trying to finally deliver equity to the shareholders. some 40 years ago, but brazil last native corporation that had yet to receive conveyance. the real difficulty has been in selecting the lands that they were allowed to receive potentially. these are very sensitive areas such as watershed areas. we need to give them equity and finally resolve this after 40 years. we need to do so in a manner that helps the region, but helps to facilitate the problems of women 40 years ago. >> the concern has been and that it goes beyond the boundaries. be outside the box is a problem. >> being outside the box has been a problem because we're talking about areas where people have created and they have finished. when we are talking about land in alaska, every acre is precious. it has created controversy. my effort has been too involved all the communities. there have been 200 different meetings and we have gone out to every community to make sure that their input is received and we are continuing to work to incorporate all the changes to make it as accessible as we possible can -- possibly can. >> many were opposed to the bill during which to oppose it when you get to the senate? >> we need a dialogue. i called a meeting on one of the snowiest days in the past five years and we had four hours of testimony in 2 minute increments. we had a panel listened to the merits -- listen to the merits. from the very onset, we should include tribes and it is more properly conveyed. when i get to the senate, i will work with them regarding land equity. >> i opposed it. those that were standing on stage with center murkowski saw it as an important bill. we have not just the timber tracts, which i think is an argument for, but it has not been afforded to any of the regional corporation in the state. these are selected parcels throughout the south east, not just timber tracts. we are seeing that alaska was not happy about that. my concern is that it disenfranchised a large piece of southeast alaska. >> less talk about the troubled asset relief program of 2008 which is often called the bank bailout is widely believed by many economists that it saved the country's finances despite his unpopularity. of the $250 billion spent on banks, the treasury is now making a $16 billion profit for the what would you have done instead? >> anytime that you look at a business and say that it is too big to fail, it is a mistake. any time you look at federal government and say that we can spend a hundred billion dollars to bail out various businesses and say that that is a good thing, i think that we are fooling themselves. we have delayed the slowing of the process, but it does not diverted to fire occurred we have to ask ourselves whether or not it is a proper moral approach to burden the generations of tomorrow. that is effectively what we have done when we said that we would spend $800 billion that we do not have. we are putting a burden on our children. that raises the question when you talk about businesses that failed. >> center macao's the, you voted for it. -- center rakowski, you voted for ait. >> when the authorization came through, you had subsequent efforts by the democratic some of those tarp monies that were being returned to the treasury and use those for other initiatives. that is not what this is all about. this is designed for you to repay that and it goes to reducing the deficit. that did not happen. it is interesting when you think about that vote, it was a very bipartisan vote. a very conservative member was one that joined us in that. it was an effort that needed to be made at the time because we were going off a cliff. >> mr. mcadams? would you have supported it? >> i think that is important to see that one of the things that was left out is that in 30 years prior to tarp, washington-wall street became basically deregulated. -- wall street became basically the regulated. -- deregulated. i think that we are safeguarded from seeing another tarp happen. the thing about oversight is that it always feels like to match. that is until that moment in time where it is not enough. then you are scrambling. you can either vote for this bill or you can watch the rest of the world collapsed for it it was a difficult choice. >> the obama a administration is crafting a new education policy. what changes would you like to see in it? >> regarding education, i have served as a local school board member and i have a degree in education. i can tell you that from the very beginning i have been opposed to the in criminal trend towards national standards. i believe that self- determination through local control, especially as it relates to curriculum and students, i had great concern with the child left behind. the problem with the national standards is that it calls for a national test. a special in a state like alaska were we need to be able to teach arctic survival. >> the incremental changes that scott was talking about started in 1979 with the department of education. a lot of people believe that the department of education has been around for decades. it has not been. education has been within the sphere of the state and local level. the mandates do not fit the state of alaska. no child left behind is not fit the state of alaska. it is not about whether federal funds are collected. it is about who is in the best position to spend it and decide. i am confident that the state of alaska and the teachers and educators are better fit to make those decisions. >> when it comes to help reform, we need to understand how a one size fits all approach does not work for us in a state like alaska. i have introduced a legislation several years back and we continue to work on it. is the accountability act. we want to make sure that all our kids receive the best education. eight. snapshot in time that dings school in one area does not recognize the good that comes out of our schools. we need to violate our schools on the progress that they have made. i have provisions within my legislation that would help to advance us as a rural state and not compromise the games that we have made. >> now, this is the top kennedy to ask questions of each other. please make your questions brief and to the point. responses can ask -- can last a minute and bottles are 30 seconds. -- and rebuttals are 30 seconds. >> you sent out a flier that suggested that in threatening -- and threatening social security. you were originally quoted that this is something that is best reserved for the state will need to take care of people that are currently on social security because they paid into it. you have now backed off on that. so, the question i have is, where is the cut off? is that 50, is that sixty? is that 40? >> you are actually referring to a car that was sent out by the alaska republican party. the spending will have been in office has doubled. you have gone from six trillion dollars in debt to even more today. my position has been very consistent on social security. it is that the fiscal house has to be put in order. if not, those dependent on security are going to be the ones that are most hurt. the cannot pull the rug out from under them. we have got to protect those payments because they have no other opportunity to provide money outside of social security. my parents are so security recipients. i'm on this and not cut off my parents primary income. >> center murkowski's, you have 30 seconds. >> i am confused by the response because you said you have been consistent but it was earlier this year that you were quoted saying and that so security needs to be eliminated. you now say that you want to protect it for your parents, but what about the lower cost? how do you handle those that are age 50 and have paid into the system and now you were telling them that you may or may not get it. >> 15 seconds. >> i have never said to eliminate it. that has never come out of my mouth. it was reported in your arm peace in this entire campaign. that is not what i said. i said that we have got to go to a different system. we have to have the option of putting the money somewhere where it will not be stolen by the government. >> i am still waiting for an answer. [laughter] >> youtube will have a moment to bond, here. mr. mcadams, insured -- mr. miller, it assured -- it is your turn. >> can you compare the experience that you have today. >> i think that is a fair question. i have stood before my community and i had to account to my community on matters of policy and budget. senator murkowski served her neighborhood in the state house for four years. i know that there was a time in alaska when there was a young banker that served three years on a school board. he moved his family to juneau. that was from murkowski. .- frank murkowski' >> 30 seconds to respond? >> i think it is up to voters and i think you put it very well. make a decision what -- about what the canada can deliver. i know that we have differences of opinion. i think that we are near bankruptcy. we have to look in a different direction. the message that we have to be frank and very clear to the voters as far as where we stand and as far as how we are going to address the fiscal issue. it is important. >> mr. mcadams, your question for senator mikulski? >> -- center murkowski. >> in a recent interview, you talked about the need for raising the eligibility age for medicare. my question to you is, what would that be your first from the? -- what would that be your first activity? why wouldn't that be the first fix? why would we balance it on the backs of middle-class seniors? >> i think the what we need to do is put the ideas and the options out there on the table. i think that both of us would agree about social security being unsustainable at this time. you have more people receiving that payout of them are paying in. -- that pay out of them are paying in -- -- that payout than are paying in. what are the pros and what are the cons? i think that we need to