tv Alaska Senate Debate CSPAN November 2, 2014 1:00pm-2:01pm EST
the president's appearance in philadelphia is expected to be his last campaign stop before election day. we will have president obama for you tonight on c-span. his remarks are scheduled to begin shortly after 7:00 p.m. eastern. we will have the campaign stops with the president and rand paul campaigning for pennsylvania governor. those remarks for both of those people start and 9:35 eastern on c-span. >> throughout campaign 2014, c-span brought you more than 113 candidate debates from across the country in races that will determine control of the next congress. this tuesday night, watch live election coverage to see who wins. our coverage begins at 8 p.m.
eastern for analysis. some of the most closely watched senate races throughout the country. watched races across the country throughout the night and into the morning. we want to hear from you with calls, facebook comments, entry -- tweets. >> now to alaska, where democratic senator mark begich it is running for reelection against dan sullivan is an. tossup. is considered a the recent debate was in anchorage, courtesy of alaska public media. this is one hour.
>> the debate for the state. your moderator. >> good evening. welcome to debate for the state for u.s. senate. i am the news director for the alaska public media and public radio network. we coming to you live from anchorage. we have gathered to make our production a collaboration. our guests are the candidates for u.s. senate. mark is seeking a second term. he was mayor of anchorage. his republican challenger is dan sullivan. the resources commissioner for the state of alaska. he was secretary of state in the bush administration. ruskin, washington dc
correspondent. and dan, a senior news reporter. welcome. first, a few rules. i'll let you know how much time you will have to respond to each question. when you see a yellow light, that means you have a few more seconds to complete your response. when you hear the spell -- bell, the time is up. earlier we tossed the coin. you will have 45 seconds in this particular round. >> your campaign slogan has been that you will go anywhere and talk to anyone. how are concerned are you about negative campaigning and the effects?
>> i will go anywhere and talk to anyone. i go all over the state. i think it does not matter if you agree or disagree. i will have a conversation. i going conservative talk radio. we sit and have a conversation. that is important. the broader question is that it is important that we talk about my important -- opponent or others. we talked about the oil and gas development. issues of women's health. other very important issues. i will go anywhere and talk to anybody about what is important to alaska. >> mr. sullivan, you maintain that he supports the agenda of president obama and harry reid. who among sitting politicians would you align yourself with? >> on this campaign, we had a bunch of centers -- u.s. senators who endorse my campaign. it is a very broad-based
coalition of senators. senator murkowski, rand paul, senator barrasso, senator corker. i have been very interested in is working with all different elements of the republican party. marco rubio, young, crosses many bridges in terms of ideas. there are a lot of great republicans and democrats that i would work for as a u.s. senator. >> which of those would you say you are most aligned with? >> i'm going to come to the u.s. senate as a dan sullivan republican. that is somebody who works with all different groups, stakeholders, to develop strategies to address challenges. that has been my record in alaska. as an assistant secretary of
afternoon, $57 million has been spent on this race. how has the spending serve to inform and motivate voters. have there been benefits? >> one of the things we recognized early on was how much money was going to be spent in this race. we recognized it was going to be a challenge. a flood of outside money, third-party, outside money supporting me, mark. we saw that as a challenge for all races. i think it has kept many other races off the air. we put ford an agreement called the alaska agreement, very summer to the agreement put ford in 2012 massachusetts senate race. it worked. it was between elizabeth moran and scott. it kept the outside money off the airwaves. it was unfortunate that mark did not -- he had plenty of time to
sign it. he did not. the vast majority of alaskans wanted that to be signed. >> 57 million is unprecedented. does this help voters understand the issues and propel them to the polls? >> voters are agitated by the mail. the youtube adds that my opponent has on attacking me, people don't like it. let me respond to the agreement that dan talked about. that was a press release that was sent over 15 minutes before. an independent group came to us, i supported that. we can go back and forth on that. here is the fundamental issue. are we going to overturn citizens united? they are not people. my opponent has not supported that idea. i supported a constitutional amendment to change it. i supported legislation to disclose who the top three donors are in these groups. he has refused to support those pieces of legislation. >> campaign finance reform. >> what marcus proposed -- mark
as proposed is something radical. amending the first amendment. everyone from the aclu to ted kennedy two conservative groups is against that. with all due respect to mark and harry reid, i will stick with james madison rather than a rewriting of the first amendment. he talked about the money being spent -- we knew this was going to be a problem. we gave him that agreement. there was not a press conference. you had five weeks to sign that. >> no to campaign that -- finance reform? >> i am not in favor amending the first amendment of the united states constitution. >> i like to give you 30 seconds. >> the supreme court decided
that corporations are people. they are not people. the reality is that you want to get this third party money out, you have to amend the constitution back to what it means. individuals are individuals. corporations are not. i know you like to use harry reid and obama. those are your talking points. a simple law change that would require disclosure. we have that here. when you run an alaskan campaign, you have to disclose the top three donors. that is alaska. >> that bill is pending right now. >> we are off to a lively start. lets go to military issues. you will have one minute to respond. >> mr. sullivan, the u.s. is using airstrikes. at what point would american ground forces be warranted?
>> we have talked about this and debated it. those are combat troops already engaged. there is some confusion. from my perspective, it depends on what the mission is. there are ground forces to go rescue pilots. i was a commander of a marine task force that did that. also, to save american personnel. we had an incident in benghazi where we had a company of marines on the ground -- we would not have had a dead ambassador. he is saying that we should never have ground forces on the ground. i say it should be a contingency. why would we want to signal to our enemy that we will never have ground forces on the ground
and given that comfort. we should not give that comfort to our enemies. it is a contingency. my broader criticism is that this administration is not together a broader, comprehensive strategy, with all instruments of american power to defeat isis and lay out a clear mission. >> despite an individual unit going in, what about the response we had in afghanistan or iraq. >> i've never called for a massive amount of ground troops. and the debate last night, mark said i was gung ho to get ground troops in there. that is not the case. i am the commander of a marine corps reserve unit was very mission is to call in her strikes. -- air strikes. i am interested in having a clearly defined mission and being able to carry that out. we have not had that yet from this administration. >> we know you oppose boots on
the ground. is there a trigger point where that would be justified? >> your question is a good question. you're absolutely right. i don't support massive forces on the ground. we have tried that in iraq. what happened? we thought we train these troops. iraq backed up and left military equipment for isis to pick up. let go back to the broader question. i am in support of funding rebels. the president was wrong. today, they are someone else. tomorrow, they could be another group that becomes our enemies. we have so much need here in this country. that is where i want to put our resources. i supported the airstrikes because their multinational. we should be harder on the money issues, oil wells, refineries that isis is using to fund our operations.
they should be dealt with aggressively to cut off their money. the arab countries need to step up. this is the region. they need to be at the table. they need to be on the ground. we have embassy there. we have personnel. we need to protect them. putting massive ground troops on their, no, not interested. >> any trigger point for that? >> we continue to go back to this region. we try to solve the problems that the region is unwilling to take on and solve themselves. look at turkey. you can reed the articles about it. they are reluctant. they are supposed to be our allies. they like what is happening -- iran is now a partner with iraq. it is a zone that we go in and metal in. they need to step up to the plate. >> you mentioned that you were reluctant to fun or arm rebel groups. what about funding rebel groups? >> i will support it. one of the things i have been critical of markup is saying no to every option is not foreign policy. as we've seen over the last
several years, and action greets its own consequences. there is no doubt that we have a serious threat, not only with isis, but other areas in the world. one of the areas that i have been critical of for this administration is that during the first term they should weakness and withdrew from the world, in terms of american engagement. talked about leading from behind. from my perspective, when you show weakness, that is provocative. we are not only sing it with isis, we are seeing it with regard to iran.
i think there were four a nuclear weapon is the biggest threat. a terrorist regime in to ran with a nuclear weapon. a huge threat to the united states and our allies. we have a lot of challenges in the world right now. one of the things that i have been saying is that i'll be ready to deal with them on day one. >> next question. >> the military has been struggling with sexual assault. do you support bringing sexual assault cases outside the chain of command? >> we had a discussion on this last night. i am someone who is very focused on this issue as a u.s. senator. i will be very focused on it. the one concern i have about the proposal is that what we really need is more accountability with regards to the commanders of
these units. one thing i fear about that proposal is that it takes accountability a way. let me give you an example. if there was a soldier who was assaulted, normally you would want to have the culture of that unit make sure that does not happen. if it does, there is accountability. taking it away from the chain of command could bring up the prospect of the soldier could go to a commander and the commander would say that, oils -- lawyers would be with that. there have been proposals in the national defense authorization of 2014 to make it so that commanders cannot overturn convictions. to make it so every victim has an assigned jack officer to them.
-- jag officer to them. >> what about the argument that unit commanders can deal with bad soldiers more effectively, and where victims have been ignored or worse, it is because of that commanders. >> the bill has all the conditions to go after these commanders. the difference is you take it outside the command structure when it is time to deal with these perpetrators and protect the victims. you can still deal with these commanders who are doing bad jobs. here's what i have heard from victims. victims who have been in the military, people currently in the military, if they can have a process where they're not threatened by their commanders, or the potential of being demoted. they want to have a separate situation, separate plan, how
they can go after an do with this issue. that does not mean that the commander is not going to be held accountable. clearly, if you have someone who has been a victim of sexual harassment or assault, the commander will have to be dealt with also. that is in a separate process to the command structure. i do believe there is a fear among people within the military. i have talked to victims. i've had several here and encourage and in washington dc. >> we will allow some time for candidates to ask questions of each other. you will have one minute to respond. the person who is asking the question what have 30 seconds for a rebuttal. we will start with mark. >> as a member of the appropriations committee, i know you are concerned about federal spending, do you support an advanced appropriations?
>> can you repeat the question? >> you support advanced appropriation bills or processes for federal agencies? >> what i support is the funding. i have talked to many communities in rural alaska. the process of the continuing resolution is no way to run a government. it is no way to help with regard to entities, whether it is clinics, agencies, schools, to get consistent funding. one of the things that i have been critical on in terms of the last few years, particularly
the last six years that you have been senator, there have been only two budgets passed in six years. what i am for is a budget process where the senate undertakes its constitutional duty to pass a budget, which is what every household, every business in alaska does. that is what the u.s. senate has only done twice in the six years in which you have served in the u.s. senate. i am for consistency, planning, and the budget process that is required by the constitution that harry reid and you have not been undertaking. >> you have 30 seconds to respond. >> advance funding pressures that we did this. when there is a shutdown or eruption, the payments are not stopped. the idea of this is to assure -- that is why i cosponsored bills -- that we don't have government interruptions. ted cruz is the king of shutting down the government. what would this bill -- it would ensure that we don't have delays in disability payments, g.i. benefits, worst basses are taking care of wounded warriors. it is a great way to move
funding forward. >> so it's passing a senate budget, as the constitution requires. >> your opportunity now to and's -- to ask a question. >> mark, one of the things i have discussed is your record of voting with president obama on 90% -- 90 a percent. can you explain why you voted for barack obama twice during his election? >> i know there are no commercials. i figured obama would be brought
up multiple times. i made that statement. my record is an alaskan record. the president has been wrong. we are now moving forward on national petroleum reserves. the arctic is opened up. it was wrong when he tried to raise the rates on postal services to alaska by 50%. we fought that and one that. my record is in alaska record. i'm very proud. for example, i voted 80% of the time on every signal issue in front of us. on top of that, when you look at the national journal, all the senators, where do i fall every time? right in the middle. alaskans understand prodevelopment, believe in our civil liberties and rights,
pro-choice. >> thank you. >> what you have been saying is that president obama is irrelevant. i could not disagree more. he said it himself. his policies are on the ballot this election. you have supported his policies the majority of the time. that is the congressional quarterly roll call, nonpartisan, ranking. 98% of the time. what is the critical issue in this election -- i say it's critical. the obama agenda, the tens of thousands of pages of regulations, are going to be cemented into our society or we will start to roll them back. my goal is to roll them back. your role is to continue. >> thank you. you have on a particular ask another question. >> i would be happy to. you and i had a conversation after the primary and i ask your question about privacy issues in regards to the patriot act. would you support reauthorization of the patriot
act? that will come from the congress soon enough. as well as your views regarding the nsa. would you re-author rise the patriot act that will come up? >> what i have said is that the patriot act -- it's not a yes or no question. the patriot act needs reform. particularly as it relates to the issues of personal privacy and the nsa. i think the congress has not done a great job in terms of oversight with the nsa. i think you have two different cases going to the court systems. when you talk about personal privacy, mark, one of the things
i find ironic is that the deciding vote on obamacare, that has to be one of the most invasive federal laws in u.s. history. medical information, the most private information, is given to government bearcats -- bureaucrats. it is overseen by the irs paid when you are talking about personal privacy and laws, it is a little ironic, given that obamacare is one of the most invasive laws and u.s. history with regard to personal privacy, federal bureaucrats, and overseeing by two agencies. they don't have a good record with regard to proposal -- personal privacy. >> i wanted to focus on the patriot act. you did not answer the question. the patriot act comes in front of us as reauthorization. what's more amazing is some of
the invasions of privacy by groups that support you. these letters that have been sent to people about their voting history, threatening them. these are people that support your third-party groups. they're trying to make a difference in this campaign. they are the people that are the financial supporters of years. i'm not sure your view of privacy is in line with alaska. >> would you like to ask another question? >> yes. campaigns are about character. both of your campaigns have attack your opponents, saying alaskans can't trust them. you did this to 10 stevens and 2080. -- ted stevens in 2008. he was an honorable man throughout his career. you regret the tv ads you red -- ran against him? >> i don't know if you saw that campaign, but i ran ads about what i wanted to do. i don't run attack ads.
i was here. the fact is the campaign i talked about was important for alaska. when i decided to run for office, i called him out. we had a conversation about that. he said, good luck on the campaign trail. as an alaskan, born and raised to, i did not disagree with what was happening. we had a debate right here in this room. i believed there was an issue he had to do with that. the issue was that i believed i offered a different future, different perspective for alaska. that is what i campaigned on pretty issues of alaska. we talked about the issues instead of attacking people. you should go back and look at those campaigns. the campaign commercials i paid
for, we talked about the record. i had a great record. >> thank you. would you like 30 seconds? >> sure. i think campaigns are about character. one of the things that has been disappointing this campaign, i think that your campaigns are receiving national attention, which is an embarrassment for alaska. time magazine, the l.a. times, usa today, they have also your campaign is running some of the most dishonest attack ads of the entire election cycle. what i want to do is talk about the issues. if you look at the sullivan for senate campaign ads, they don't get those kind of awards. it's about my record and vision. >> thank you, gentlemen.
thank you for that exchange. lets move on to the u.s. economy. we have our first question in this segment mr. sullivan. keep your answers to one minute. >> i'd like to ask you both about the consumer financial protection bureau. this was created by the dodd frank legislation. it has delivered $3 billion to consumers and settlements with financial institutions over fraudulent lending. mr. sullivan, you said you would vote to abolish the consumer financial protection bureau. why do you think it should be abolished? >> i am somebody who believes in the constitution and abiding by it. the consumer financial protection bureau is actually underneath -- there are serious questions on the constitutionality.
let me make a broader point. that was part of dodd frank. not only legislation that was passed, but the regulations that came out. very similar to obamacare. you talk to a small community of bankers in alaska, they are so overburdened by regulations from dodd frank. they feel they cannot move forward. it is crushing our small community bankers. throughout the state. one of the most famous bankers in the state mentioned to me that the bank that his family started -- they could not do that today. overregulation of the banking system. they mentioned, in particular, the consumer financial protection bureau as an entity that is not helping, but actually a burden to getting loans up to small businesses. >> thank you. do you think that the consumer financial protection bureau is doing his job? are you concerned that it is hampering commerce?
>> it is doing its job. as you identified at the beginning of the question. it has saved consumers billions of dollars. also, military people. a lot of our active military have been ripped off by payday loans and other programs. this organization protects her military families. they have done a good job. there are cases where they have gone too far. the credit unions are getting overburdened. they were not part of the financial crisis. the financial situation in this country, which was a disaster when i came into office, we had to do something. we no longer have taxpayer bailout situations. these banks that did so much harm to this country, many people lost retirements, educational accounts, it is important that these banks are held accountable. it is critical that we have
regulations protective of the consumer. i think the consumers got the short end of the stick when those banks failed. it was outrageous. this helped to bring that into alignment. >> thank you. according to the federal reserve, the richest 5% of american households have more than 60% of the nations wealth. is this trend compatible with the high-value americans place on the value of equality of opportunity? do you think congress should try to shrink the wealth cap? >> your statistic is right. it is one of the things i hear about so much on the road talking to people at tom cole meetings. this huge continuing gap. i sponsored a piece of legislation with the finance chairman and republicans. we have not had a tax reform
since 1986. all the special deals put in there over the years are benefiting the top and. this these of legislation does something very basic. it flattens the rate. it ensures middle-class americans have their deductions. the childhood tax credit. mortgage interest on her homes. the basic things of make a difference to the middle class. we also strip out these loopholes. we give tax breaks to corporations who send jobs overseas. we strip that out and lower it so we are more competitive. we also raise the minimum wage on the national level. that will make a big difference. >> mr. sullivan. same question. >> income inequality is an issue. i think the broader issue of the last several years has been economic growth. we did have a major recession. no doubt about it. what is typical in american
economic history, when you have a deep recession, the recovery is great steep and strong. unfortunately, we have have the weakest recovery out of any major recession in u.s. history. until the last quarter, we have been growing at 2% gdp growth. this is anemic american growth rates. it is much less than it was under reagan, clinton, and the first term of bush. what we need to do is release our economic and energy potential. there is no mystery. the overregulation of the u.s. economy, which is every issue on the campaign trail. if we can do that, rollback this mountain of regulations that come from these bills like a obamacare and dodd frank, and release our energy potential. largest producer of oil. largest producer of metro gas in the world. alaska should be leading that. again, we need a federal
government that is a partner in seizing that opportunity. right now, not only alaska, they have been an obstacle. >> we have come out of the great recession. the income gap continues to grow. if we grow the economy, that won't solve the wealth gap, will it? >> i think we talk about job growth. we see these lower unemployment rates. what that is masking is that is not because of significant job growth. that is because americans are leaving the workforce. the unemployment rate comes down when people are looking for jobs.
we are at the highest level of americans who are out of the workforce as the late 1970's. what we need to do is to create an economy with growth rates to create jobs. to me, that is the number one issue. job growth over income inequality. >> a proven means of personal economic advancement is higher education. the cost of going to college is too high for many americans. what can the federal government do? >> we have loans we were able to give to students. we also have other programs. first off, i supported two pieces of legislation that would lower the rates on loans. we have when it gets the rate lower. i supported legislation to fix that rate. second, we have people out there that have loans in the private sector as well as from the
government. i propose an idea to consolidate and lower the rate of 4%. that is a better one, i think. we loan banks at three quarters of percent. why not make it 1.75%? the best return. if you want to grow an economy, education is where it is at. my sister is an educator. education is a core to building the economy. lowering the cost is critical for long-term growth. >> thank you. >> the best thing we can do for students is have great opportunity for them in alaska and throughout the country. the other thing that is a comparative advantage for the united states in terms of our economy and future -- we have the best universities, the best systems the world by far. i've had the great privilege of attending a few of those. one of the things that i'm concerned about is you see this
encroachment with regard to the federal government getting very involved in our higher education system. i don't think that is healthy for these world-class institutions. the federal government can play a role, particularly in research. under this administration, the encroachment of a greater federal government involvement with our institutions is not a healthy trend. >> what about with students? supporting them? >> in terms of student loans? those are important and programs. they give students opportunities to make sure they are able to pay those loans back. as you know, people who go for higher education, particularly beyond the four year degree, they have come out being doctors and lawyers with huge debt. we need to make that competitive.
to me, the best way for students to pay back loans is to have a healthy economy and good jobs. we have not seen that in the last six years. >> lets move on to some issues that are important to alaska natives. generally, you have one minute to answer these questions. we will start with liz. >> mr. sullivan, current federal law does not allow native tribes to issue restraining orders against nonmembers. do you favor changing federal law? >> i think that is an issue that is important to work with tribes, the state. the department of justice, the federal government. there are some acts -- the village safe families act -- the department is to looking at that issue. one thing i haven't focused on it my career was working in the rural communities, going out to the world communities,
recognizing we have challenges and taking action. under governor parnell, we recognized dramatically increase law enforcement in the rural communities. we did that. we have been increasing that. we almost triple the numbers of the last five years. we celebrate examples. we need to do more. the key is having tribes, the state, and the feds working together on these issues, and building capacity. >> the question was about tribal authority. you think they should have the authority under their own power?
the authority to issue domestic violence restraining orders against non-members? >> the state is already enforcing those orders. the state attorney general's office, the prosecutor's, they are ahead of federal government on these issues. to me, it is a complicated question, not only for alaska, but for the rest of the country. this is why having people working together on it, the state, the department of justice, the tribes -- it is an important issue. it is not an easy one. that is the approach i would take is a u.s. senator. i would be very focused on law enforcement in the rural communities. >> thank you. the same question for you. >> it is interesting that dan talks about being focused. the state does not recognize the tribes. we need to make that happen.
two-year issue. having tribes take responsibility -- i support that. the state family villages that does that. we're moving forward on this. it makes sense. when i was mayor, and someone visited my city, if they were in a resident, i dealt with them. if we want to combat these issues, we do need to engage the tribes at a level that they want. i met a gentleman, counsel village president, he talks about this idea. he is begging for this. they want to deal with these problems of sexual assault, domestic violence. we need to have tribes being engaged. the cowards work with our health care law. -- look how it has worked with our health care law. we don't need a state to tell them always what to do. it hasn't worked. we have a double the amount of people incarcerated. we have high rates of sexual
assault, domestic abuse. we need to try something different. this is an opportunity to make a huge impact. >> when we are talking about enforcing tribal law against nonmembers, what are the limits of that? the municipality of anchorage has borders. >> art legislation lays out a geographic region. >> as far as anchorage? >> no. in rural areas. they work with the justice department.
they define those areas. there is this fear. the state opposes my legislation. they believes the whole state will be trouble control. that is not the way it works. for us not to take advantage of a tribe that is wanting to change the way their system works, to improve the lives of their community, we should be jumping right into see what we can do. that is what this bill does. >> the commission has funded a lot of village infrastructure, safe water, fuel tank upgrades. emission funding has gone from a high of 140 million in 2005 to the current budget request of 14 million. it has been decimated. the have been efforts to zero it out. what is the future of the commission?
would you increase or decrease the funding? >> the delegation has been working on this. as you know, that was funded through earmarks. that's were that money came from. what of i done in the meantime? securing the base like funding that you're talking about. we are doing things that impact rural alaska. the small boat harbor program. the used to be for guam, court puerto rico, and why. there is money going to petersburg, to help a small ports. $50 million funding for telecommunications legislation. these are funds -- we were trying to find other avenues to do the exact thing in other ways. alaska got $40 million last year.
when you think of the farm bill, we increase that. we made sure that money goes to rural areas. the last six years, $3.5 billion to rural communities. >> thank you. the future of the commission? >> it has been decimated. it is from a lack of leadership. it is a lack of vision. my view is that it should be reenergized with the vision focusing on every structure. that would include sewer and water. again, having spent a lot of time in the rural communities over the last several years, that is an issue that i don't think anybody should compromise on. it is the health of alaskans and americans. the other area that i think that the commission can be very focused on -- there is a huge amount of opportunity -- is
bringing down the high cost of energy in the rural communities. the number one issue that is undermining the opportunities there. >> within the commission? >> within the commission. we have not addressed the high cost of energy. we have to look at opportunities for public-private partnerships. let me give you example. we now have a boom in terms of energy. i have been playing a leadership role for the last four years. we now have the opportunity to be shipping gas to some of the rural communities. that is a great opportunity. private sector companies that are looking at small-scale lng projects. when we have more resources in the state, it provides great opportunities for public-private partnerships. >> thank you. dan? >> the final supplemental environmental impact update. the preferred alternative
includes several points. is this to be celebrated as careful review of development? is this an overbearing regulatory process? >> i know my opponent and i have a little disagreement here. we got litigated on it. the one you're talking about. it is a glass half-full, not half-empty. it is important that we look at what this means. we are moving forward. this means that we are going to have 16,000 barrels of oil starting next year coming out of national petroleum reserves for the following year will bring another 30,000. we are now putting oil into the pipeline. the national petroleum reserve -- he believes it is all locked up. that is incorrect. we are in negotiations with the
state -- federal government to see how much we can develop. the governor walker away from the table. i don't believe in that. you don't walk away from the table. you stay in there and keep fighting. you don't walk way from the table. number what the obstacles are. >> thank you. that decision that came out yesterday with the preferred alternative, too little too late? >> i'm not one who celebrates it. i glass half full guy. people said it was dead. it is booming. particularly with the npr a, isn't obama administration that overreaches and delays resource development. you keep talking about this is some kind of success, mark.
in 2010, when everybody thought you were going to get the approved, what happened? i veto letter was put into the corps of engineers and they delayed it. you were not able to move the obama administration to do what every alaskan wanted, to have that bridge permitted. i spent over two years with the commission working with senator murkowski's office, david hays to try to get that decision reversed. we did. it was another two-year delay. you're talking about some of writing in pra. the obama administration did take off half of the national petroleum reserves. the executive order. >> hold on. gentleman. >> commerce is increasing in the arctic. nations are laying claim to the
region. how do we protect u.s. interests best? >> i support the law of the sea treaty. there are some tweaks and need to be done. what is interesting is industry supports a common environmental group supported. where we can't get support is from the republican party the senate. senator murkowski is one of the few senators on our southern supportive. we need more support of their good second, what we are doing now is charity. we are adding more resources to the coast guard. we have written into the legislation two years ago as well as a new bill coming up to get more resources for the coast guard to have access and continue to develop. we need presence there. along with that, the military
has now recognized -- they did not see the arctic has an important until china and russia said we need to go up there. it is critical to what is going on there. we have seen moves very recently by secretary of defense and changing the way. that is important for the arctic. the arctic is a critical keys to the future of alaska in this country. we now see more recognition, and thas are part of it. rerepublican side.ort from the >> mr. sullivan, same question. arctic interests. which of the federal government be doing? >> it is a great opportunity for the state. one thing we need to be doing is making the case for the opening of the arctic for alaska and the country. there does need to be more infrastructure in terms of ports. there does need to be more coas. the russians are outclassing us in this categories.
we also have great opportunities in fairbanks for the university can play an important role in terms of research. those are critical and important areas to seize this opportunity. we do need to do a better job. i'll to you this, one of the things that was frustrating working with the obama administration and getting them to recognize the opportunity in the arctic is the viewed alaska as just another stakeholder. biological diversity in all these outside groups. we kept arguing that we are not another stakeholder. the only reason we have arctic opportunity is because alaska. it is important to have a federal government that sees this as the first among equals at the table on the arctic. not just another stakeholder. >> a new icebreaker, arctic port, new infrastructure? >> yes. >> my bill and the coast guard bill does that.
>> we are running short on time. we have a little bit of time left. you have a question on the second amendment? we have about 30 seconds for each of you to answer. i'm trying to get the timing straight. >> both of you say you are strong supporters of the second amendment picture there be regulation to prevent some people with certain mental illnesses and histories of violence from being able to buy guns without an additional level of screening? how should such a system work? >> i am not for additional regulations. i think we have plenty of laws in place right now, even with regard to people with mental illness.
as a u.s. senator, i will be a strong supporter. i was a strong supporter as attorney general. i participated in the chicago versus mcdonald case. the most important second amendment kate -- case in supreme court history. unlike mark, where he confirmed to supreme court justices who were in the dissent. >> let me answer your question. first, as a lifetime member of the nra. i took on the president. we do not agree on gun control legislation. there is a problem in the way it works right now. under federal law, if you have -- if you've been to decatur park court not to have a gun because of mental issues, there are 20 something states that do not do that. they don't have their records tied into the records for the federal government. i have a bill with republican, and array supported, mental health supported.
>> we will have to wrap up. we are out of time. thank you so much. this concludes tonight 2014 debate for the u.s. senate. thank you to all. election day is november 4. the polls open at 7:00 a.m. and close it and talk p.m.. pleas or member to vote. -- pleas remember to vote. thank you for joining us. good night. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the alaska senate race is among several that could decide the control of the senate.
this morning on what all -- we have a look from "washington journal." will also discuss recent polling on how young voters a pollingo vote with director. and then steven wright, from the university of wisconsin law discuss his role in several elections. we will take your calls and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. liveington journal" is every day beginning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> monday night on "the ," the author and former technical advisor under president obama. >> if there is one message from the book to take away is it even though the state is characterized by handshakes and handoffs, it speaks to your question as to who should do what. handshakes are what washington has been doing lately.
.aybe behind the curtain shaking hands on the key principles of the state. opening up data, encouraging collaborative standards, issuing challenges and so forth. the opportunity to have a more open government starts with that foundation. what is critical in that state is that you are handing off to the american people, entrepreneurs and innovators on the local level, to take that moreata and develop interesting products
and services. >> monday night, 8 p.m. eastern on "c-span2." >> in south carolina, lindsey is running for his third term against democrat brad hutto . this is one hour.
>> thank you. good afternoon. my name is chris williams. i am honored to be here with these distinguished gentlemen. i would like to thank otis and julie, along with katie, from the south carolina journal to be -- for being down here. also, scott, where are you, scott? scott, thank you for hosting us. [applause] ofo, thank you for the words wisdom of whispering in the back something
that might not be appropriate. that will happen. so, i will introduce the gem and do not really needed introduction. exceptional public service. what happens during election season so much,