Running '98

Who remembers but hopefully will. Good evening I'm Dave Hammack welcome to this special statewide broadcast of running 98 a debate featuring Alaska's candidate for the U.S. Senate. In addition to our channel 7 viewers from talkie to Homer tonight we'd like to welcome viewers watching via Alaska One Alaska two and arcs as well as listeners of KSK FM and other APRA and member radio stations in communities around Alaska. We're pleased to be able to present the entire field of candidates seeking your vote for the U.S. Senate. The incumbent senator is Republican Frank Murkowski. First elected in 1980 Frank Murkowski is seeking his fourth term in the U.S. Senate. So Robert Koski welcome to running 98. We invite you to began our U.S. Senate debate by sharing your opening remarks. Well thank you very much Dave and thank you. KHK a.m. public television I think this is certainly a noteworthy effort that you had for some time in informing the electorate on the candidates that are running for various

offices and I think as we relate to the candidacy for the United States Senate recognizing a historic time frame we're in the next year will be an anniversary the 40th anniversary of statehood and when you look back at the contribution of Alaskans and well in our conflicts the Cold War the Korean War the Vietnam War while Aska has really done more than its fair share. And I think as we relate well even on the contribution of oil we've been contributing about 22 percent of the total crude oil this country has produced over an extended period of time. So Nancy and I take pride in the accomplishments that we've contributed. You know we've got a balanced budget for the first time in 30 years we we have a surplus in the United States Treasury now that we've had a miss for some time as a consequence of a Republican controlled House and Senate.

As we look at some of the issues that we've been successful on the fight for the export of Alaskan oil we were able to get through Anwar through the House and Senate unfortunately the president saw fit to veto it. But as a consequence of these and other efforts whether it be our fisheries terminating the drift nets on the high seas maintaining the timber industry or the $500 per child tax credit these are significant accomplishments. We fought a mining bill off that would have run our mining industry off shore. We've opened up tourism we've gotten a moratorium on subsistence. We got recognition of the Medicaid increase in Alaska of 100 million dollars these are all accomplishments and I assure you that Don and I are a voice and a team to be heard from in Washington D.C.. Thank you very much Senator Murkowski Republican incumbent seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate. The winner of a contested Democratic Party primary for a senatorial nomination is Joe

Solomon a long time Democratic Party activist. Joe Saddam is making his second bid for U.S. Senate seat. Joe welcome back to running 98. We invite you to share your opening remarks. Thank you very much and thanks to all the stations around Alaska that are carrying this program. Two minutes of course is not really enough to say everything so please check my website at PTI Alaska dot net slash tell the senator I'll say that again it's PTI Alaska Slash told a senator. And if you don't have a computer that's OK. Just check your official election pamphlet and read the page there. I'm a veteran member of American Legion and back in high school I went to American Legion boys state where I learned to participate in government and I still do. This campaign is about improving every day life. I believe government exists to help people in need. And so I will work to save Social Security. I believe Alaska needs to heal its rural urban split. So I will work for a rural

preference and subsistence and for Rural Water and Sewer. And I know parenthood ecclesia that federal law already provides for increased powers for tribes that ratify and adopt their own constitution so I respectfully suggest that method to Alaska's native tribes. I believe Alaska needs to transform itself from a 19th century colonial economy just export raw or partially processed resources to a 20 and 21st century economy with a clean value added in state processing of those resources. I believe government needs to help working Americans. And I suggest new labor laws that would have equal pay and benefits for part timers and temporary workers and instant vesting for retirement. I believe we need a better health health care system like our Canadian neighbors. I believe we need fair taxes that. That would ask those who earn

the most from this great American system to pay the most back. And I believe that after 18 years it's time for a change. Thank you Joe Saddam and Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. The Green Party of Alaska candidate for the U.S. Senate is Jeff godly. Jeff welcome to running 98 would invite you to share your opening remarks. Thanks very much I'm glad to be here. I hope convinced the electorate out there to vote for me. I hope to make this a government that's more open to its people a government basically that the public out there will have nothing to fear but fear itself from a government that is not oppressive is not hinder it in the education of its young people and development of church people which I think it's doing now. Thanks. That's my opening remark. Thank you Jeff Gottlieb Green Party will ask a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Rounding out our field of candidates is Scott told us on the battle of the nominating petition. Scott Cole house is a member of the Libertarian Party. Scott welcome to running 98 we invite

you to make an opening statement. Thank you Dave. Again my name is Scott Cole Haasan the Libertarian Party candidate for the United States Senate and I'm probably not going to be Senator Murkowski. But in a way my campaign is already a success because I'm the first candidate for the Libertarian Party on a statewide ballot other than president in 12 years. So the drought has ended. Everybody's got a chance to vote for the Libertarians. And more than that we want our party to grow. We want people to register as libertarians and join the party because we want to build a real alternative in Alaska for less government. This party is the only political party that believes in a free market economy. We want to get the government out of the economy. We support a strict respect for your civil liberties. I want to get the government out of your personal life and we support a non interventionist foreign policy. We want to get our government out of other governments. We would trade with everyone but we would be strictly neutral. Now the idea here is for libertarians to run for these offices to win them and hold them and

prevent them from being used by the other parties which do not share our principles. We would be supporters of individual rights property rights capitalism freedom of choice and libertarians would always in every situation place the individual good above the common good. Thank you Scott go House Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate. That's a field of senatorial hopefuls seeking your support on November 3rd. This is a candidate debates that will move to our first candidate question around. Each candidate will give an opportunity to pose a question to one of your opponents your opponent will have and it will have a minute will have two minutes to answer. You will then have an opportunity for a follow up or rebuttal and your opponent will have a second response. Will began with Democratic challenger Joe Solomon. Well of course my question will go to Mr. Murkowski. And it's the question about everyday life because here you have a lot of friends powerful friends friends in big business and corporations while I've worked in Alaska as

a as a fisherman on a trail crew as a pipeline operating engineer postal worker and even cab driver which taught me a lot about people in WA and Alaska before I finished grad school in law school. What I see is that the whole idea of a permanent job has disappeared. Fortune magazine even had an article about that as big business becomes more flexible more project oriented more temporary. And so that's why I've suggested things like equal pay and benefits for part time or part timers and temporaries and instant vesting for retirement. My question is What would you do for Alaska's part time and temporary workers. What would you do have accounts do you have two minutes to respond we are in radio as well so I will be calling you but obviously you make a good point and part time workers seasonal workers and so forth are a product of the times in Alaska as a consequence of our economy.

We have a construction. Season that traditionally has been the summer months you've worked construction so why and as a consequence of the weather it's impossible to have these a full time jobs yet I think if you look at the pay scales under the unions and the structure of the stewardship work the wages are not necessarily represented on any factor that suggests that it's not your own. Construction workers make during the season very very high wages now you get into the the part time work the seasonal work associated with other industries and there are some variances but Joe there has to be some regard for experience. You know you can have a part time person with no experience a part time person with lots of experience and you can't justify an equal wage because the experience and the contribution are entirely different so I think there's factors to consider here and I don't think it's an effort by big business or corporations to penalize part time workers I think it's a

recognition of experience a recognition of the type of business or activity that's associated with the work and you know again I'd refer to the union. General union structure of payment for wages worked its is traditionally quite like a senator was asking Joe Saddam when you have a minute for a follow up or a bottle. This would be a follow up on everyday life but about rural Alaska where I've suggested native tribes can get increased rights under 25 USC 476 by ratifying constitutions. I've also suggested the federal government should pay up to a billion dollars for Rural Water and Sewer as a result of getting lower than usual royalties on NPR-A. And you were in favor of NPR. And finally I've suggested. A rural preference for subsistence. And you pushed for a moratorium without

consulting native leaders. So my question is what proposals do you have for improving everyday life for rural and native Alaskans you know Murkowski you have a stock that's got you got several questions of a couple of minutes to answer it. Naval petroleum reserve Alaska obviously the royalty share was set some time ago on that and you know we've yet to get it open because there's environmental opposition and hopefully we'll be able to get Lisa's very shortly. We need to replace what is the decline of crude obey with something ongoing and new drilling reserve Alaska certainly offers that pick up. Relative to rural water and sewer we continue to recognize it probably the highest priority in rural Alaska safe drinking water and adequate disposal of sewage and we're continue to fund that. It can't be done overnight but cooperation with the federal government Bureau of Indian Affairs in the state of Alaska remaking significant progress in

that area. As far as the moratorium is concerned I felt it my duty as an elected representative to ensure that the federal government didn't take over the management of our fish. I can remember when we were a territory part in 1989 in the federal government did a very poor job of managing our fisheries we had our runs down 25 30 million fish what we have two years ago two hundred eighteen million fish I'm not ready to let the federal government take over. We must have an Alaska solution to our subsistence not a federal dictate. Thank you Senator Murkowski thank you. Joe's ottoman for the question. Jeff Gottlieb to whom will you address your first question. My question is for their own crowd of candidates a Masonic and Democratic Party is fairly proud of its heritage and rightly so especially the four freedoms by FDR. And it's. Union with unions I don't have that sound but it's pro labor stands. What then if I ask is your position on our trade with China

being that China does not have free unions labor unions and does not respect human rights too much so I don't think it does. What is your opinion on that. Just let me have two minutes to respond. China is of course a great and sovereign nation with a long history. I think that there were reservations to get in the World Trade Organization to ensure that worker rights and environmental rights would be protected. But I think that progress on human rights with China has been made behind the scenes that China does not like to lose face by appearing to give in to official public demands but that through back channel diplomatic methods we have been able to get China to release political prisoners and more can be done behind the scenes with China. I believe then directly.

Thank you Joe Sodom and Jeff Gottlieb you have a minute for a follow up or rebuttal. Well I think our policy with China is actually a dangerous policy I think the reaction of India and Pakistan and with the explosions recently is basically as a result of our policy there we've built up China as a world economic power and we've neglected our allies in that area namely India and to some extent Pakistan and Taiwan and they are fearful. And their fear is being shown to a world you know is becoming a world danger in the sense insofar as they become not nuclear powers and they threaten our security and I think the answer to that is to make China are less of a Theophile nation by demanding that it become a democratic nation before we fully trade with it. Thank you Jeff Gottlieb goes on about you have a minute for a second response. I've suggested before that and I say again that I do not believe that China responds well to demands nor would we if China demanded things of us. Instead I think we have to use negotiation and

diplomatic channels. And and we have made progress in that area. I hope we can make more. Thank you Joe Solomon. Thank you Jeff Gottlieb for the question. Scott Cole to whom will you address your first question. I have a question for Senator Murkowski Dave. Since you went to the Senate in 1901 the United States of America has invaded several countries Grenada Panama and Iraq are just a few. This summer you voted against prohibiting funding for U.S. troop presence in the Balkans. The powder keg of the Balkans. Now recently we see the United States government that you represent launching cowardly and dastardly attacks against Sudan and Afghanistan. Now Senator you are privy to information that we are not in spite of our enlightened Western press. So I ask you how many people died at the hands of the United States government by our attacks on

Sudan and Afghanistan. It will cost you a few minutes to respond. I recognize your genuine concern and it is of concern to me. First of all with regard to the Balkans I feel it's a mistake for our nation to initiate an action that would result in sending American troops into harm's way without a clear and definitive objective. How long are we prepared to stay there. What is our clear objective. What do we intend to have accomplished and by what time. Is there a plan to get out. And I didn't feel in this particular case that the administration had adequately done its homework in answering those questions and that's why I voted against. Supporting if you will on on ending commitment I support the placing of our troops our president obviously has the obligation and the

authority to protect as the first responsibility under the executive branch. Of course interpretation the Constitution as far as Afghanistan and other areas of conflict there have been lives lost. The unfortunate part of any action of course is the danger that American lives will be lost. But these actions were done in order to combat terrorism and we clearly have had an opportunity to observe that there's there's no conceptual process of of trying to deal with terrorism by negotiating simply doesn't work you have to take a firm consistent stand and I support the administration's stand in combat terrorism with an action when appropriate. Senator Murkowski has got a call I'll have a minute for a follow up or a bottle. It seems like the United States has adopted a policy of shooting first and ask quit

asking questions later. Naturally on the domestic scene we see that in Waco and Ruby Ridge. But now and for the last 50 years this country has had an interventionist foreign policy. Now the only solution is the libertarian solution of a non interventionist foreign policy where we pull our troops back and protect our own country. And we would be like a giant Switzerland. We would trade with all nations but we would be strictly neutral and it seems like the United States has foregone the the judicial precedent of trial by jury innocent until proven guilty. And libertarians would call these acts murder. So that is my rebuttal. Scott called houseroom a callous get at me if I can just go back in history briefly to the situation and when President Bush handled the

Iraqi Saddam Hussein there was a message delivered that Saddam Hussein either terminated his efforts to expand and basically control the oil in the Mideast which was what he was after. What President Bush was able to do and President Clinton hasn't been able to do is rally the nations around a common goal and that was to cut off the availability of support for Saddam Hussein now these actions I think a been lacking in the Clinton administration but I think that's the solution to these renegade regimes that are out there trying to bring the other major countries of the world to come together with the United States and take an action that they can understand the problem we continually have is we can't get the other nations to come to grips with this. But President Bush proved that it can be done so I would suggest it might be a lacking of our current foreign policy which I don't always agree with.

Thank you Frank Murkowski thank you Scott Coles for the question. Frank Murkowski To whom would you like to address your first question. Let's start with with Scott. Scott I was out in Bethel earlier this year and was attending a health care conference and there were two or three hundred people that had come in from the village in the first question I was asked after I made a brief statement and was Senator can you get can you help me help my grandson stop. Sniffing inhaling gasoline. And I was taken aback because here was an appeal to government that's bothered me and sense that time I found that the rate of inhalant abuse is very high in Alaskan rural Alaska. It's about 22 percent. The average in the United States in the last about 15 percent. And we've just kind of taken upon ourselves to try and make an awareness we've got national inhalant Awareness

Day which was the 15th of October. I wonder and it's hard to relate to these young kids because they're indestructible if you have any thoughts about how we can make young people aware that this is really dynamite they're playing with you know. An A-list that can scramble brains do permanent damage like every workout. You gotta go out you have to minister Senator. It is a problem. But as you know the libertarian solution to this problem is to legalize all drugs. We don't want to legalize heroin and crack. We have to because in a free society you have to have the freedom of choice to be able to purchase these products if you want it's not up to the government to come in and say no we will decide for you. So I would attempt to educate not legislate. I would attempt to help in any way short

of having the government come in and dictate what people can do. So while I understand the problem I would have to say that the the best thing I can do for the young people is to give them that freedom of choice. And people say Scott what if your niece overdosed. How would you feel. And I wouldn't feel very good. But again the best I can do for my niece and any other young person out there is to give them the freedom of choice in a free society to decide for themselves. Well I appreciate the point of view of the Libertarian Party. My point here is that these inhalants are already legal. They're on the shelves. I was in Sitka the other day and they told me that if you wanted to buy canned whipping cream in the in the spray aerosol can you had asked for you could buy it off the shelf gives you some idea of how rampant this effort is. When you have things that are legally available to young children the question is how can we impress upon them the necessity

of saying no and I agree with you. Government isn't the answer but government's got to provide some kind of support and assistance in making people aware of the consequences because government has to take care of those people once they get. And are afflicted with mental disorders and so forth. Thank you. Right work out of a better perspective response. I would disagree that the half that the government has to get involved when when they have destroyed themselves they own their lives. Senator they own their bodies and they are allowed to do whatever they want with those bodies as long as they don't infringe on someone else. And the best we can do again is try to educate them. But you're right. Government is the problem. It's not the solution. Young people today have forgotten what this country is about because America has lost her way. They don't they don't believe in America anymore and so they are more prone to these types of disasters. So again the best we can

do is give them a free society and show them that we respect their individual choice and their decisions and try to help them when they fail but not steal from one to pay for another and support them through the government. Thank you Scott Cole House thank you. If I were Koski for the question we'll move on to our second candidate question round works just the same but this time we'll start with Green Party of Alaska candidate Jeff Gottlieb and ask you to whom you would like to address your address your uh second question this is for us in McCaskey. We've had your opinion on workers pensions rights. I don't agree with but recently I know the army has received some funding that would increase soldiers pay soldiers by the way do have the rights or at least a government has a right to change their job and they still keep their pension. The problem is I think their pay and pensions are is rather low especially the pension afterwards that they're not automatically entitled to Medicare they have to go through the Army health service which is not always adequate and

they are somewhat underpaid I don't know I don't know in this we agree with all the jobs that they've done in this world but I'd like to see our soldiers. Well well maintained I mean living according to the American standard which I think in some cases are not. What have you done to help our army in that respect. So regardless of you have two minutes to respond. Thank you very much Jeff. We can never properly repair our obligation to those who served in the military and certainly there are survivors. And as a former chairman of the Veterans Committee in a long time and continuing member of that committee I continue to work on behalf of veterans benefits. There are transitions that are occurring in their benefits and their health care. And there are certain consistencies within that transition process that we're attempting to relate to. We have a system of course

where we here in Anchorage operate a very very large outpatient clinic for veterans. We have never felt that it was practical to have a veterans hospital here because the distances between ferry banks Ketchikan and Juneau just don't lend themselves to that it seems that we can serve our veterans better by having them select a position of their choice. Now for many of the retirees we anticipate that there will be changes in their medical health care. Providers that will be more responsive than that currently is the case. But this requires significant adjustments and the opening up perhaps of some of the Department of Defense facilities for veterans and their spouses. And I'll be quick to point out to you Jeff that we still have a lot of work to do in that area but nevertheless that's an obligation that we must meet. And I

certainly intend to work towards meeting it in the very fullest possible manner that I can. Thank you Frank Murkowski Jeff Gottlieb you have a minute for a follow up or rebuttal. Well I think the very least veterans should be allowed to receive Medicare without many of them that have to pay have a pension would show does not allow them to afford the premium for Medicare and they do not take advantage of the Medicare system because they can't afford to at the very least I think they should be entitled to that avenue of choice for doctors and. A V.A. hospital here would probably be a good idea a bit being that we do have a large army population in this town and I think we're a center town where there is no other town nearby. I would advocate that but more importantly I think the veterans in this country should be allowed to have Medicare without paying the premium for Medicare. Well they will. The response that we can address your concern and insure that the full benefits and the quality of

medical care the selection of the physician the availability of access federal facilities be made available to our veterans and their spouses and we are working to under achieve that now. But it's not entirely in place. But I I think it with each passing year we are making meaningful progress and I know I hear from many veterans on the necessity of getting the medical benefits to be more responsive to their needs as as those veterans age. Thank you Frank Murkowski for the answer. Jeff Gottlieb for the question. We move now back to libertarian candidate Scott Kohl house and to whom would you like to address your second question. I have another question for Senator Murkowski. Senator I've been talking to conservatives all around the state. And frankly when they look at your voting record. They scratched their head. You voted to continue funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. You voted to for the

minimum wage and frankly I think I speak for all conservatives when I ask you to please give us the meaning your meaning of the term conservative. Well I think if you look at the accomplishments of this first time in 30 years that we have had a balanced budget you know that didn't come about as a consequence of liberally controlled House and Senate. We have achieved a surplus of well it was 70 billion dollars prior to the conclusion of the Congress where the president insisted on the threat of closing government that we fund another 20 billion dollars. So I think if you look at those two items you'll see responsible fiscal conservatism being expressed not in words but in deeds. You can cite the NEA the NEA as a hot

potato. I've seen some of the activities of the NEA that I would not support their funding I've seen other typical art. And other types of artistic expositions that clearly deserve some assistance and encouragement. You know if we look at the new ferry that we just launched the Kennicott it is filled with Alaskan art and all that art had to be placed there as a consequence of state assistance. There were funding associated with that to fund artists under the NEA. I think has a reasonable place but I don't approve of all of it. We had the exhibits of some of the trash that we wouldn't even allow the interns in the Senate to view. But nevertheless you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The minimum wage has a place. I did vote for it on one occasion I did not vote for it.

Had Senator Kennedy been successful in bringing it up because there's a limitation on a number of factors one is the number of people that can come to work under it. But it does as the country progresses there is room for increases in the minimum wage so there's a balance and I have to stand accountable for my actions like a separate McCaskey got cost of a minute for follow up or a bottle. The Republicans have been unable to cut even one department from government cutting the rate of growth of government is not cutting government. It's not really a revolution as the Republicans would have us believe. And so if you really want less government. If you're a conservative you'll vote Libertarian. Thanks. Like it's got go out Senator Murkowski you have a minute for second response. Well I think I'll just let it stand there I think we've pretty much discussed the merits of the the issues that Scott has brought up

and I appreciate his views in that case. We will invite you to pose your second question of the debate and ask you to whom you address. Well why don't we have one for Joe. Joe I've been interested in your interest in the web page since you've done a lot of work on that and I commend you. I've also been quite a fan of and I think I've been. Revues is the seventh friendliest web page user so forth of the 535 members of Congress but I was I was interested in one thing on your web page you said it's time Alaska had a U.S. senator as good as Minnesota's Senator Paul Wellstone who incidentally is a good friend of mine. But I'm wondering if you'll stand on that statement. I certainly like a lot of what I know about Senator Wellstone. Obviously I'm not in the Senate yet so but there are limits to what I know. But

from what I understand about him I do like a lot of what he stands for. I would if in the Senate try to work with him because after all one senator is just one vote out of 100 it takes 51 to pass. So I would work with him I would try and work with people who I think are Alaska's natural allies the senators from Hawaii because we are non contiguous areas. Senators from other oil and resource rich states other states with. Large native populations he's not the only senator I would work with but I do like him. From what I know of him I think it was a lot of one Senator Murkowski have an opportunity for a follow up or rebuttal thought I was just kind of amused with your pick him because I haven't been able to convince him on many of our Alaskan issues he voted against the Alaska export of oil He's voted against us on on Anwar opening up Anwar he voted against the King Cove Road the other day that was to build that road for access for

emergency health services from King Cove to Cole Bay the Alaska Power Administration he voted for he voted against the law that we passed to mandate the balanced budget I voted against our $500 per child tax credit. He voted against ending welfare. So you know he's hardly regard us as a conservative in the United States Senate. I guess Joe by opinion of Falwell stone and your ideal is that his voting record certainly doesn't indicate that he's a friend of Alaskans and as a consequence you might check is his record because it's been pretty bleak on our issues. Thank you Frank Murkowski Joe sort of and you have a minute for second response. Well I think you correctly say that Paul Wellstone is hardly a conservative and neither am I. So that's certainly true. But by agreeing with him on the non conservative issues I would hope to sway his opinion on the Alaskan issues. And it's much easier to work with someone than to

constantly be battling and confronting them. So that's how I would hope to turn the opinion at least of some senators such as Senator Wellstone for whom I continue to have high regard on his not Alaskan issues. Thank you. Thank you Joe sort of. Thank you Frank Murkowski for the question. Joe we'll invite you now to pose your second question of the day. Well Mr. Koski you know that's one of the problems of being an incumbent you get all most of us asking you the questions for Alaska it seems to me is blinded by its resources. We are stuck in a colonial colonial economy exporting mostly raw resources and importing finished goods. And that way of life was very successful back in the 1903 but many economic studies show that in the 20th century the right way to earn money as a as state or nation was by processing resources because you made much more and more money. For instance Japan very few resources of their own. But by processing resources they made

great wealth. Of course the processing has to be cleaned to avoid cancer causing pollutants but then when you earn more money by processing resources you don't have to take as many resources. So I mean my question is given the benefits of clean instate value added processing Why are you so often pushing for the export of raw or partially processed resources. Well unfortunately. As the newest kid on the block the state of Alaska having been a state for only thirty nine years we're still developing our land patterns our resource base. Other states did it. Virginia's been a state for over 200 years. So what we have is a small population a huge piece of real estate tremendously rich resources a small population and transportation is dependent by air. If the quality timber of course in Alaska is primarily in Southeastern Alaska there's a modest industry left after the closure of the two pulp mills.

But by the time you put in dry kills planar male and wrangle and you try and ship the product up to the markets in Anchorage and Fairbanks you're fighting transportation costs that allow you to ship a carload of dimensional for from Tacoma or Olympia up to Anchorage and Fairbanks cheaper than you can ship it from Wrangell simply because there's not enough volume. And the transportation routes everything's full going north and empty coming back. That's just a small example. But if we look at our minerals we have very little opportunity to market them in Alaska with the exception of coal our fish products for the most part hard to get at even Kodiak. When I was over there the other day some fresh king crab because it's marketed outside this market where the populations and the markets are now that will change as we develop. But it takes some time and you have to begin to identify specific niches of where we can fit in and we're doing it in the tourism industry and doing a better job but it's

still a short season. But in oil and gas in mining minerals forest products it's tough to find any significant niches where we have enough volume so that we can really be competitive with products that are coming from outside. Everything we see in this room has come from somewhere else we could produce here but not economically. Thank you Frank Murkowski Joe sought a menu of opportunity for a follow up or rebuttal. Well I think elections are about differences and I think we differ on the right way to handle Alaska's resources we differ on other things too for example you're pro-life and I like most Alaskans I'm pro choice I'm in favor of higher tax rates and those who earn the most from this great American system and perhaps you like Congressman Young want to give a tax break to the rich. And by having the same rate everyone under a flat tax or national sales tax I know you have many friends especially big outside businesses but other Alaskans you don't always seem to listen to quite so well.

And so my question in this is a real question not a rhetorical one. My my question is when Alaskans have different opinions from you and would like to change your mind or at least your vote. What's the most effective way for them to present those ideas to you and get you to change your vote. Well to give me a call. Write me a letter. Our offices are open we share offices and many communities but I have individual offices in Anchorage and Fairbanks and were very responsive to considerations from constituents and recommendations but you know you talk about many things you talked about flat tax and tax rates. You know this is just one example Joe of what's wrong with our system and it's the current system. There's three thousand three hundred forty pages. I don't know of a man or woman in the country that's ever read the whole thing. Now that's the problem we need to throw this out and start again. I'm on the Finance Committee and I'm committed to have a fair simpler tax

structure I'm committed to having the IRS accountable. And we've started on that we've held hearings we actually had what had witnesses that came in from the IRS to testify on the lack of accountability within the internal revenue system. So you know it's very. We can all generalize but these are some of the specifics that we're looking at here and I look forward to input I changed my mind from time to time and I try and make the best judgment I can oftentimes people forget that you know we can only vote yes or no we can't vote maybe we can't say well we'd like to consider and get a little more information. Like many consultants do we have to vote yes or no and we're taken to task by our constituents and that's the way it should be. Right thank you Senator Murkowski for the answer Joe Haldeman for the question. Thank you all for the candid question around. There's just time I think for me to ask one question before we go to our closing statements. One issue that hasn't come up a lot tonight is subsistence. There

was a moratorium on allowing the federal government to spend the money they would need to take over fisheries management in Alaska. The moratorium in theory gives Alaska a chance to do something. There is a growing concern of there are certainly people who say that a recent state Supreme Court action raises questions whether a constitutional amendment on a subsistence priority would be upheld by the Supreme Court's state Supreme Court. And that's something that significant needs to be is a revision and would have to go to a constitutional convention. Even if this view is not upheld it creates the real danger of not being able to resolve the question before this moratorium runs out. So if elected to the U.S. Senate what would you do next. What is your view on how to resolve the current subsistence impasse and to prevent federal resumption federal assumption of fisheries management. Or do you think that's a bad thing and we'll start with Scott Coles.

Will Dave whenever I'm asked about subsistence I think about a radio ad that Senator Murkowski ran where a bear was terrorizing a neighborhood and then retreating on to federal property. And so because he was retreating on federal property Senator Murkowski stepped in and they shipped that bear off to the lower 48 and you know that could have been any bear. But luckily for Alaska that was the smartest bear they'd seen in 20 years. But the point we're trying to make on subsistence is that the Libertarians believe the federal government shouldn't own that land in the first place. It's kind of funny to see Democrats and Republicans squabbling over the subsistence issue and they're both wrong the only answer is private ownership. Libertarians would favor individuals corporations conservation groups anybody to own this land over the over the government we would favor separatism sovereignty and independence before we want the federal government taking control of this land. So when it comes to subsistence we believe the only answer is private ownership of land.

Thank you Scott Cole house. Senator Murkowski has taken 20 years for the question to develop we'll give you a minute to solve it. Well first of all the bear would have been shot if we hadn't shipped him to Montana and whether that fits in with the jury and you know government I don't know but the bear is still alive. Let's talk a little bit about subsistence briefly. It mandates an Alaska solution as opposed to a federal mandate. And when I was elected by the people asked it was not to allow the federal government to take over the management of fish as a consequence things are a little different now because while we have a moratorium until October of next year there are some conditions in there and there's a discipline there's 11 million dollars appropriated a million of that will go to the secretary of the Interior who will have an obligation to publish his rules so that the legislature can see them and they may be somewhat onerous. So the legislature's going to have that advantage. Then there's 10 million dollars available if the state. Addresses its

obligation to conform with Anelka addresses its obligation I mean that. Then there's ten million dollars that will be given to the state to manage fish on federal land if the state doesn't do it then the federal government will have that 10 million to initiate its management of fish on federal land. Now that's the discipline. So I think the legislature is going to address this and I think we're going to have an opportunity to look at an elk because there are some technical amendments that expire that Senator Stevens put in the emergency supplemental So we will go back into and milk as well. And I think we're up to the obligation. Thank you Senator my fault for asking a complex question. Joe you have a minute to solve subsystems management. Well here's the United States Constitution and it says in Article 6 that the federal law is supreme. Federal Constitution federal law is supreme over contrary state law and even state constitutions. So that means that a New Yorker is the supreme law of the land

and Alaska's Constitution gets overridden by that supreme law so rural preference is the supreme law. I think that the moratorium should not have occurred that Alaskans should have had to live with the difficulty of not having changed their constitution. But although I have great respect another possible solution is that although I have great respect for the Alaska Supreme Court I think that the decision that it violated our Constitution was wrong because people have an equal opportunity to move to a rural area and get the preference so the legislature could overrule that decision. Thank you Joe Solomon Jeff Gottlieb. Well I think a council of Constitutional Convention Alaska at least if I'm elected would make some sense because when our Constitution was written the native people here were rather disempowered they didn't have the educational. Achieve impossible which they can reach today they hardly have the right to vote.

There were a shouted people to some extent and there was a lot of conflicts between native people in the state and the outside people in the States which may be a constitution. Constitution Convention could resolve and maybe a good idea but I'd like to see those the freedoms. The superior freedoms of our Constitution pursuit preserved. Well I don't know lore as much as as well as Supreme Court of the state and I'm not quite sure what the answer to that legal question is but I would not be completely opposed to a cost of constitutional dimension if that's needed. Thank you Jeff Gottlieb thank you all Frederick my question. You come out of the end of our debate we just have time for the Canada closing and closing remarks. We'll reverse the order of our opening statements and invite a Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate. Scott Kohl house to leave us with a parting thought. Thank you. No offense senator Senator Murkowski seems like a pretty nice guy but Frank Murkowski is an over spending

big government career politician. You know it and I know it. Sending him back to Washington would be the wrong message to send to our federal government. It's because of his overspending overtaxing overregulating and over imprisoning that has brought this country to its knees. This country is going down. It's like being on the Titanic the ships going down. And Frank Murkowski is in the mess hall screaming for more state for Alaska at stake and all the trimmings for people in the Alaska cabins and will eat steak Alaska if we send Frank Murkowski back to Washington we'll eat steak right up until we choke on the salt water. Now it's important. That we send a message vote Libertarian. Thank you very much Scott co-author of the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate. Jeff Gottlieb is the Green Party of Alaska. Jeff your closing remarks I'd like to address the fact that Mr. Koski was co concerned about inhalants abuse. That's

very important I think that's a consequence of the government spending more money on prisons than on education and crushing our youth thereby. Thank you Jeff Gottlieb Joe Saddam a. Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate will give you an opportunity now for closing remarks. Well I'm going to say much the same thing I said in my opening remarks that's called consistency and I hope people will bear with me when I do. But I really do believe the government exists to help people in need and I will work to save Social Security for example by removing the cap on income subject to the tax which should be a progressive tax not a flat rate. I believe that Alaska really does need to heal its rural urban split both by working out a rural preference for subsistence and by providing rural water and sewer. I really do believe that Alaska needs to transform itself from a 19th century resource exporting state to a 20th. 20th century modern resource

processing state with clean value added in state processing so the high wage jobs and profits stay in Alaska instead of being exported with the resource. I believe working Americans need new labor laws so that we get equal pay and benefits for part time and temporary workers an instant vesting for retirement because in this downsizing project oriented world few people qualify for retirement. I believe we need a better health care system like our Canadian neighbors I call it American basic care a b c you pick your own doctor. Doctors remain in private practice but are paid by government. I believe in a fair tax system so that those who earn the most from this great American system should pay the highest rates in Social Security and income taxes bet. And I believe that after 18 years it is time for a change. Please vote for Joe Saddam and for United States Senate. Thank you. Thank you Joe Saddam a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. The Republican candidate seeking re-election to the U.S. Senate is Frank Murkowski Senator Murkowski would give

you a chance now for closing. Thanks very much for the show Jeff. Scott it's been a privilege and an enjoy away evening to participate in this debate with you. Let me just tell you that I spend most of my time in Washington fighting against the government that wants to mandate certain covenants over Alaska that as a state we achieved rights that haven't been forthcoming. And that's what the government is relative to the everyday activities that we're confronted with but we're nearing that 40th birthday as I indicated earlier. There's a lot of things that we still don't have we still don't have our land grant university system we still don't have access to much of our communities and resources. King Cove issue for example but the greatest resource we do have is our people. And what we've got is we have a very powerful Republican delegation the Congress I think it's a historic time for Alaska. The seniority of our delegation the chairmanship means that we

can address certain things and it's really time to build on that foundation that we have. I urge everyone out there to go to the fold to vote get involved. Make your voice heard and fight big government and the interest to keep Alaskans basically from Alaska. We've got a lot of important choices on this ballot. I would hope that you would vote for the Republican candidates to keep a Republican majority in the State House and Senate and not to forget to write in the Republican gubernatorial candidate. And that's Robin Taylor. I think together we can expand on our communities protect our environment improve our schools build an economic foundation that we can be proud of provide jobs and keep our greatest resource our youth here in Alaska so I'd like to see a start again today to keep Alaska first. Nancy and I are honored to have your trust and confidence as we seek. Re-election to the United States Senate. Again thank you Dave for this

public forum I think it's been very valuable and very helpful and very informative. Thank you Senator Frank Murkowski Republican incumbent seeking re-election to the Senate. And those are your choices on November 3rd for this important job U.S. Senate. Libertarian Scott Kohl House Green Party of Alaska candidate Jeff Gottlieb Democrat Joe Saddam and and Senator Frank Murkowski Republican. What with that. That concludes this program and running 98 coverage of the 1998 general election. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the crew at K came TV especially our director John Law for days for their sterling work behind the scenes. To put to produce these programs it often requires an enormous amount of a last minute arranging and rearranging to accommodate candidates sketch candidates schedules and thus the press of election business. I want to thank Alaska's public radio and television stations for carrying these forums. These stations get

no compensation for adding these programs to their schedule and if their commitment to public service that provides these forums on these broadcast viewers and listeners across Alaska. I'd like to make a special thank you to the platoon of dedicated and public spirited volunteers from the League of Women Voters who have helped us throughout both the primary and general election series of programs helping us to meet and greet the candidates. Schedule them and get them into the studio at the appropriate time. Carol Dickerson has been coordinating the league's volunteers and we could not produce the show without their assistance. We like to give them a big thank you. Last of all and most important thank you for taking the time to watch and inform yourself on the issues and candidates seeking your support on November 3rd. I'm Dave hammock producer and host reminding you to get out and vote next Tuesday. This is been running 98. Good night. This presentation of running is made possible by the auto

Alaska funny open dialogue. Thing with health bill that's going to care more about this is a good thing and I think it's going to tune into writing on this a lot. Public television station and he spoke on taking me through the University of Alaska southeast quietly offering quality education with a personal touch in the rain forest of southeast Alaska. Visit our website you a s a university of excellence you know a place of beauty and by West Mark hotels a lot of people would counsel. I.