breakup of the soviet union. we tried to expand a democratic and more unified europe. that is obviously a big challenge right now. i think the project was, was pushed forward. . .

>> that's what motivated all three of them, that's what -- and i think if she does decide to run and she is elected president, she'll get up every day, as president obama gets up every day, as president clinton got up every day, and go into the oval office and think what could i do to help the middle class and to help working people? and and, of course, you've known hillary clinton for a long time. if you were going to choose three adjectives that would describe her presidency, what would they be? [laughter] >> disciplined, tough and determined. >> jeff. >> yeah. wonder if -- [inaudible] on the hill with the bergdahl deal -- [inaudible] so my question is as the president was chewing this over, weighing the pros and cons, what was his bottom line as far as what terms he might be able to live with that would insure

security, and to what sense does this become a political rob for you guys if these guys are walking around, getting on the internet this some way that gets broadcast? >> well, the secretary of defense made the determination that the transfer was in the national security interest of the united states and that the threat posed by the detainees to the united states or u.s. persons would be substantially mitigated. and there were assurances given by the qataris. i can't get into that. there are also ways that we have to monitor them beyond what qatar is doing. but i think that first and foremost the president thought that we had a commitment and a duty to leave no man or woman in uniform behind on the battlefield, and he exercised that. he's talked about it several times this week. and so he thought it was the right thing to do, and the secretary of defense -- who had

to make those findings -- felt like, first, it was in the national security to move forward with this and, second, that the threat posed by the detainees, now the transferees, could be substantially mitigated. and that's what the discussions and dialogue with the qataris was all about. >> [inaudible] monitoring outside of the qatari -- >> well, as you probably know, we have a lot of ways of knowing what people are doing around the country and around the world. >> david. >> yeah. i think it's fair to say we'll keep an eye on 'em. >> yeah. i know you've been this your current role -- in your current role in this administration for a relatively small portion of this administration, but the president had nearly six years, has had nearly six years to go big on climate change. and specifically, to address carbon emissions from power plants.

why did he wait until now to do it? >> well, the, you know, i have to say that in the first two years we were seeking, he was seeking legislation. and a bill passed the house. it ultimately didn't pass in the senate. that was an economy-wide approach that i think if you're an economist would say might be more efficient, slightly more efficient in getting those reductions. in the meantime, you got very, very substantial reductions out of the transportation sector. came back into office and immediately began to work on the climate action plan in the second term. and, again, the centerpiece of that was to take reductions out of the power sector which is the largest sector for co2 emissions in the country. as i mentioned, 40% of all co2 emissions come from the power sector. so i think he's been deliberative, first trying to get legislation. when that failed, an assessment

that the congress was unlikely to really move forward. in the meantime, i think he was working in sectors of the economy to reduce co2 pollution as much as possible. and that's why we're in the position to keep our copenhagen pledge with this rule to reduce carbon emissions by 17%, in the range of 17% by 2020. had the president not taken the actions in the climate action plan -- let me start that over. had he not done anything, including the transportation improvements -- to those of you who think this is all about fracking and natural gas and these emissions were going to come down anyway -- if he hadn't done that, emissions would have been about 4% above 2005 levels. having done those actions in the first term, there would have --d

have been 5% below 2005 levels. as a result of the climate action plans, we'll be in the range of 17% below 2020. so a very significant movement, i'd say. and if you look across the globe, the united states has reduced its emissions more than any other country over this period of time, and i think that's a testament to his leadership both in terms of the investments that were head in clean energy at the beginning of the administration with the recovery act and these important regulations including much more efficient appliances and commercial appliances. >> karen? >> [inaudible] do you have the benefit of -- [inaudible] this administration from the outside and more recently from the inside, and you also have the experience of serving in the clinton administration. some critics lately, including some democrats, have accused this white house of political tone deafness lately on the rose

garden appearance on bergdahl and perhaps the president's maybe in some people's view slowness to take action on the va scandal. and i'm just wondering what you think about those criticisms. >> look, i think the president, you know, that's sort of having it both ways. i think the president knew this was a controversial decision, this was a decision that -- and he's spoken to this -- that he's taken ownership of, that he went out in the rose garden because it was important to explain to the american people that this was about an actual human being who was under great distress being held by the taliban, and that while controversial, he needed to explain that to the american people. and he, he makes no apologies for that as he said yesterday in

europe, and i think it was the right decision, and we'll move forward with it. with respect to the va, he asked secretary shinseki to do a review. after those reviews were done, i think the secretary decided that the department would be better led by someone else, and he accepted his resignation. so, you know, these are tough calls. i think particularly the decision to bring back sergeant bergdahl was certainly a tough call. we knew it would be controversial, but it was the right thing to do. and as chairman dempsey said, this was our last clear chance of bringing him home, and the president made a decision to do that and took the heat for it. >> alexis? >> john, because of your role in the transition and now, i wanted to come back to the guantanamo question -- >> could you speak up for the

aged among us? >> sure. because of your role in president-elect obama's transition team, i want to go back to the guantanamo question. does the president believe he has the constitutional executive authority before the end of his term to close guantanamo on his own say so, believing that a national security issue to transfer the detainees before he departs? >> look, i think the president wants to close guantanamo, and he's working very hard to do it, and i think he's doing it within the bounds of the law that is being, are being passed by the, by the congress. so i think that we've let our friends on capitol hill know what restrictions are unacceptable in the current round of negotiation, and i think that we'll just keep working to insure that the remaining detainees there are moved or tried and that

guantanamo is closed by the end of the administration. >> [inaudible] there's a quote in "the new york times" today from a senate democrat saying that we've got to stop putting out fires relating to guantanamo after the va. are you sympathetic to senate democrats who feel that way? >> look, i think that we'd like to be talking about the economic future of the country. but when the president has an obligation, when there's a problem as we found in the scheduling at the va, you have to tackle it. when there's a opportunity to bring sergeant bergdahl home, it's a tough call, i but you have to make it. and that just gets served up to you. and i think that the president's going to make those tough decisions, and i think the context for that is he will keep

coming back and coming back and will do it when he comes back from europe and talking about an economic program that'll deliver better results for the american people. but, you know, you just don't get the choice in this game to say, you know, i'm sorry, i'm going to wait until after november to deal with the opportunity to bring one of our young soldiers home. who's been, you know, who's been captured by the taliban. that doesn't, you don't get to make that call. you have to headache a decision right then -- to make a decision right then and there, and he made it, and he made the right decision to bring sergeant bergdahl home. >> ken? >> thanks -- [inaudible] john, i wanted to ask you about -- [inaudible] the white house has asked jeh

johnson and the pentagon to stand down for now on any actions that, administrative actions that could be taken presumably because congress, you think the house can act between now and august. >> we hope they can act. >> but i wonder if just the mere threat of taking action is jeopardizing your position, because republicans will say, well, you know, he's still going to do something on his own. and at the same time, given the limits of what you can do through executive action, aren't you also putting yourself between a rock and a hard place with the advocates of legal status who want broader action from you? >> yeah. i never really tried to make a living is psychoanalyzing a republican, so i think there is an opportunity. i think that speaker boehner would like to see legislation move forward. that's what i think.

and i -- i think that that's what the president thinks, there's an opportunity to get comprehensive immigration reform done. that is a much better solution and a permanent solution for a broken immigration system and the pain that it's causing across the country. so if that means we have to wait to see whether the republican leadership can get a compromise together that can earn bipartisan support over the course of the summer, the president's prepared to do that. but i think the secretary is reviewing his authorities about how to particularly alleviate the pain of family dislocation that he's focused on, and we're, you know, i think we'll have to

think through what our options are if the congress is just unable to act. and, you know, that's -- i think that if we went ahead and acted, i'm fairly certain that they would use that as an excuse for inaction. so we'll have to wait and make an assessment, you know, sometime during the course of this summer about whether they have the capacity to act. >> [inaudible] are the moves that you have at your disposal broad enough to even satisfy be people who want -- satisfy people who want something comprehensive done? >> i'm not going to forecast that. >> lauren? >> i want to follow up on -- [inaudible] administration determined this week that the number of unaccompanied minors coming across the border has risen to the level of a humanitarian crisis. i'm curious, you know, how the administration is looking at that issue in the context of

immigration reform and how that might propel them to act now where maybe before they were willing to hold off a little bit longer. >> well, we've seen a big bump this summer that's largely coming from central america, as you know. and the law requires that unless the children, unaccompanied minors are coming from canada or mexico, they can't be returned. they need to be turned over to the department of health and human services. and the, that surging number has put real pressure on the system. secretary johnson has pulled together an interagency group to work this problem with a task force that's led by fema and craig fugate to find and insure that the children -- this, you know, is a heartbreaking situation where you see 10, 12-year-old kids unaccompanied by their parents, fleeing

violence particularly in central america trying to find their way up to the u.s., often to be reunited with their parents who are living up here. it's another reason why i think we need to reform the system and get a legal immigration system that's going to work and be viable. but in the meantime, we have to deal with the humanitarian crisis, and so all the agencies of government led by dhs and hhs, be but now -- but now coordinated by fema are finding appropriate places to house and headache sure that those kids -- make sure that those kids are safe and well taken care of. >> is there any indication that the republicans in congress are looking at this issue as a reason to expedite their actions? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> todd? >> let me get back to the epa issue. so the critics of what the

administration's doing point to these figures like from the chamber of commerce that show that this rule would cause job losses averaging about 224,000 per year for the next 15, 16 years. and you said earlier something that struck me, that climate change is an existential issue. so i'm wondering if it's truly an existential issue, are you even taking into account whether there are potential job losses -- >> sure. >> -- and economic costs? >> sure, if you look at epa filings, you'll see what our able sis is of -- analysis is of the effect on jobs. and we think it'll have a positive effect because we'll build out more clean energy infrastructure in the short term and much more building efficiency, efficiency in general in the electric system over the long term. so i think that these claims of massive job losses have largely

been debunked. they're raised -- they're based on a set of assumptions that have zero to do with the rule that was put on the table. so they're fantasy job loss numbers. they've basically been debunked by independent experts who have looked at them. and that isn't to say that there aren't going to be places and occupations where you'll see some job loss, and i think we need to be sensitive to that, attend to it, make investments in communities that might be affected by job loss whether that's the loss of a plant or otherwise. and insure that we have the -- and we in the white house are martialing our efforts to make sure that we can respond to that. but i think that the congress also has an important role to play in smoothing that transition. but every time that an

environmental regulation has been put forward, they say massive job losses, you know, likes going off, electricity system crashing, bills going through the roof. they're wrong before, they're wrong now. i think that the particular chamber study you referenced, as i said, is based on assumptions that have absolutely zero to do with the rule that the epa put forward. so it's a fantasy analysis. >> okay. so i'll take that, but in terms of your motivation, if you see climate change as an existential threat to the country and maybe the planet -- >> i'd say -- >> right now it's anything at all -- [inaudible] >> well, because i see it also as, you know, we're paying the cost. we had over $100 billion of losses last year from extreme weather events. we're already paying the costs. the question is, which side is the risk on? we think we can build a stronger

economy, a better economy based on a clean energy future. the people who are invested in the status quo, the polluters, want to keep getting the rents out of the current system. so that's what the debate is. but there's no question that the opportunity to build new industries, to create jobs, to create new technology, to make the world a global leader in clean tech is available to us. question is whether we'll put the right policy environment this place to insure that that -- in place to insure that that goes forward. so i think we're very much about trying to build a strong and powerful and good economy. but that will come through investments in cleaner energy systems, not in reliance on the systems that we've had in place which are now increasingly burdening our economy through

these losses from -- in agriculture, in forestry, in extreme weather losses, in storm surges, in sea level rise, that, you know, if you want to, if you want to ask the question where's the risk, clean or dirty, i'd ask the reinsurance industry. >> leslie? >> yeah, thanks. you mentioned that the president's commitment to veterans got a little lost with all the furor over the wait list times. i was just wondering if there's any review in the executive branch of the fact that there were so many ig reports on the waiting list problem and that it wasn't identified sooner. also whether or not sort of a review with the bergdahl decision and not to notify be congress within the level -- those notify congress given the level of angry over there. >> well, with respect to the second, i mean, the people who make the decision are up

briefing the congress, so they'll hear why. but i think that there was evidence that, or at least there was an analysis that a premature disclosure could result in the loss of his life because of divisions in the taliban, etc. so they'll answer those questions. with respect to the former, i think we're always trying to take a look, and in this case in particular i'm sure that sloan gibson and -- who now is the acting secretary -- rob neighbors, who's gone over to the va from the white house, when we have a full complement of people at the top at the va are going to drill down and look at that at that question. and i think we all, we owe it to our veterans and we owe it to

american citizens to always be asking why did we miss that a. not just in this particular case, but across, you know, other issues in government to increase the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. so you try to learn from error rather than just, you know, run from it. and i think that's what we'll have to do here. with respect to the specifics, the specific question you asked me, again, i think that that's what, that's what rob and the acting secretary are in the process of doing, trying to figure out why was, you know, this wasn't a one-off problem in phoenix. there was more systematic err or record -- error here, and why wasn't that attended to earlier. >> i'm going to take a moderator's prerogative and ask you you've talked about how the

presidents were different. how's your role different? why'd you come back? >> a lot better to be counselor than chief of staff. >> okay. [laughter] i guess -- thank you for doing this, john, very much. we appreciate it. hope you'll come back. >> okay. >> thanks. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> both chambers of congress are in today. the house begins legislative work at 2:00 eastern time. beginning work on a bill to fund federal transportation and housing programs for next year. and nine suspension bills including one reauthorizing nasa programs. the senate's also in at 2:00 eastern. after general speeches senators will vote to move forward on three district judge nominations for virginia, massachusetts and nevada. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate live on c-span2. >> and live today on the c-span networks, china/russian relations and their impact on u.s. foreign policy with former australian prime minister kevin rudd. live at 1:00 eastern time over on c-span3.

and at 3:30, the u.s. border and security with officials from u.s. customs and border protection and the national border patrol council. that's a labor union representing border patrol agents. they'll appear before a senate panel to testify about changing the border patrol pay system. live on c-span3. and at the white house today, president obama's expected to announce plans to help people with student loan debt. allowing millions of borrowers to qualify for programs to better manage their debt by the end of next year. we expect the president's remarks to begin at 1:45 eastern, and you can watch them live online at c-span.org. >> c-span's new book, "sundays at eight," includes kenneth feinberg who oversaw the 9/11 victim compensation fund. >> from the perspective of the victims, i don't see any distinction. the you try and justify -- if you try and justify my program on the basis of the victims

lost, i can't convincingly explain why 9/11, yes, '93 world trade center, no. i think the only way you justify this program as a special carveout is from the perspective of the nation. a recognition that 9/11 was, along with the american civil war, pearl harbor, maybe the assassination of president kennedy and 9/11, its impact on the american people was such that this was really a response from america to demonstrate the solidarity and cohesiveness of the american people towards these victims. >> read more of our conversation with kenneth feinberg and other featured interviews from our "book notes" and q&a rams in

c-span's "sundays at eight." now available as a father's day gift at your favorite bookseller. >> yes, a u.s. senate candidates' debate from south carolina. incouple bend lindsey graham and six others debated ahead of tomorrow's primary. the candidates responded to a number of issue is including -- issues including immigration, the health care law and the role of the federal government. the debate comes to us courtesy of south carolina educational television. it's one hour. >> etv, the state, the greenville news. the island -- [inaudible] the sun news of myrtle beach, the herald of rock hill and the item of sumter present etv debates. tonight, republican candidates for u.s. senate. and now your moderator, dean of usc's college of mass communications and information studies, charles bierbauer.

>> good evening and welcome to tonight's primary debate. among the republican candidates for the u.s. senate. joining me tonight to ask questions of the candidates are beth package jet of the greenville news and jamie self from the state newspaper. candidates joining us tonight are bill connor of orangeberg, lindsey graham of seneca, nancy mace of charleston, richard cash, lee bright and benjamin dunn also of columbia. before we begin tonight, some brief ground rules. each candidate will have one minute to respond to the question. if necessary, i will allow a 30-second rebuttal. we drew names when the candidates arrived for the order in which we will start, and that first question will go to mr. connor and then to all of the rest of you in turn. this has been a contentious race by most assessments. we have a two-term incumbent, and we have six aspirants to

replace him. some of you have made some fairly harsh accusations this the course of the campaign so far. senator graham can defend himself, that's not my role here tonight, but what i'd like to know and i think the voters would like to know is if this is a referendum on lindsey graham, why then, senator, do you have a target on your back, and why specifically, candidates, is this such a verial campaign? >> thank you, senator graham, for being here, and thank the rest of the candidates. >> thank you. >> twenty years is too long, and, senator graham, i think when you fist came in with newt gingrich, a lot of great ideas. but after things like voting for justice sotomayor, justice kagan, the t.a.r.p. bailout, a number of these things, it's come time, senator, quite frankly, for somebody else to come in. it's not personal. i think you're a good man. but the issue is that we need new blood. i've already said i'm staying for only two terms.

twelve years is long enough to get what i need done. george washington took eight years and set the country on its course. that comes down to the issues, and we'll go be through various specific points. but i think all of us have gotten tired over time of the various things we've seen where near an election period a lot of conservative rhetoric, but in the six years, five years leading up to it, not as hutch in the way of -- as much in the way of action, senator. >> senator graham? >> we're awarding a senator for the next six years. ladies and gentlemen, i think i'm the best qualified to represent our state, and i say that humbly. i know how to deepen the port of charleston. when my state needed me to fight the unions, i was there in an effective way against the nlrb's effort to shut down boeing. i'm proud of my record. i have been endorsed by the chamber of commerce, the nfib, i've got a fiscally conservative

record, a 100 percent pro-life record. our country is at risk. barack obama's foreign policy is failing. radical islam, contrary to what he will tell you, is on the rise. those who have fought so bravely since 9/11, there's nobody in the senate that'll have their back better than i will. i understand the threats we face, the needs we have here at home. and if i go back to the senate, it's with a purpose to rebuild this party and to take care of those who have had our back and make sure that we in south carolina have a voice that people will listen to and respect. >> thank you. ms. mace? >> first of all, i want to thank you all for having us here this evening in our first debate with senator graham. i first want to say that i am not a politician. i'm a wife and a mother and a successful small business owner. in fact, six years ago i started my own company called the mace group doing technology and marketing consulting, and i've worked with small businesses, start-up companies,

entrepreneurs and also some larger companies as well. i believe that career old decisions are the -- career politicians are the problem, they're not the solution. and i've spent months over the course of this campaign listening to the people of south carolina, and i firmly believe that they are ready for someone new, they're ready for a principled leader, they're ready for a new voice. and i'm here tonight because i am ready and willing to step up to the plate and serve the people of south carolina. i will be a conservative voice every year, not just in an election year. >> mr. cash? >> senator graham, you often say that you are a conservative leader who gets things done, but art of my challenge and reason -- part of my challenge and reason for being in this race is it doesn't matter if you're getting something done if it's the wrong thing. in 2007 you championed immigration reform that became known as grahamnesty. you have brought it back this year because you feel it's like

what you think is best for south carolina. you're not listening to south carolina. i believe that you don't show what your core principles are. no one knows what your principles are, how you make these decisions. i have campaigned for a year. i believe the american heritage is built upon the principles of christianity, capitalism and the constitution. those are my guiding principles. i've made that clear and up front and i believe it's not enough to say that you're someone who can get things done. i present myself as a principled leader who will get things right. >> senator bright? >> i think many of us on this stage would much rather have said senator graham made a good fight. we like to criticize john mccain, but he took the floor fighting against supreme court nominees that senator graham voted for. we would like to have someone to

fight for success principles, fight for success beliefs and not run so hard to work with the other side, to work with the democrats. i mean, for goodness sakes, there's social media trying to get democrats to vote in our primary that ought to be closed. and that is just -- if you stood for republican principles, you wouldn't have to resort to those type tactics, make phone calls to -- making phone calls to known democrats. if you did not support amnesty, if you did not support much of obama's agenda, we wouldn't be here tonight. you haven't done the job. we're here to tell south carolina you haven't done the job. you high the money, but we've got the message, and we hope to see you in a runoff in two weeks after the 10th. >> mr. bowers. >> in 1775 there was a shot that was heard around the world. it began in lexington and concord, wasn't long before it was at baucus hill, and then it was in king's mountain, camden and chattertown.

it's -- charlestown. i have five granddaughters, and their birthright is being taken away from them. the reason i'm in this race is i have an awareness of the duty that's placed on us for the next generation. there are those who is greatest interest is in the next election. or the special interests of special interest groups. that's not my interest. i do have a special interest my spent interest is the interest of the founding fathers and those who come after us. the next generation is critical. and i hope lies in all that we give to them. we cannot afford to take away what's been given down through the ages, and i'm here to fight for that hope. >> mr. dutton. >> in terms of senator graham, if you truly are conservative, it is not necessarily to spend several million in advertisements to prove it. i would like to decrease spending across the board, to divest power from the federal government back to the states where it belongs and to do everything i can at every stage of the process to advance

conservative principles. that's why i'm running, and that's why i'd appreciate your support. >> next question will come from beth pabgett, and she will start with senator graham. >> i'll tweak it just a little bit for the rest of the panelists. senator graham, one of the main criticisms we've heard from you in this election is that you're too eager to compromise with democrats, that you rush across the aisle to form -- to forge a come prize and weaken the republican party's position sometimes. how do you deal with that criticism? is. >> well, at the end of the day, my job is to put my nation ahead of the party. i love the republican party. the reason i'm going to win the primary, overwhelmingly i hope, is because i'm a ronald reagan republican. i like ron paul, but i'm not a ron paul republican. i'm a ronald reagan republican that believes it's not good to get to the left of president obama on foreign policy. immigration is a problem that's not going to get ticketed by yelling -- fixed by yelling at

it. president bush led the effort to fix immigration, and, god with, i wish we'd been successful. why do you have 111 million illegal immigrants? they come for a job. we increased border patrol agents by 20,000. we've put technology on the boarder to secure the border, but they keep coming here to work. we're not being overrun by illegal canadians. you've got to sit down with the other party on occasion like ronald reagan and tip o'neill saved social security from bankruptcy. i'm a good conservative. check my record out. but i'm also a problem solver. and this cub needs to solve problems. >> thank you, senator. >> and i'll tweak the question. why is it so wrong for like-minded democrats and republicans to occasionally try to find common ground on the big issues such as the federal debt, immigration, social security reform? how does anything get done in washington on these big issues if each side just digs in their heels? >> well, certainly, we need to see change, but we don't need to

fundamentally transform america. we need to transform washington d.c. i believe as a republican in limiting the size and scope of our government. i believe in a smaller government. i believe in less taxes. i believe this these core, this core foundation that we all do as republicans, and senator graham has had 20 years to go up there and get the job done. it's time to allow somebody else another turn right now. and after that length of time and listening to the people of south carolina, we need a principled leader. we need someone who will reach across the aisle, but to negotiate and bring the others to our side and not just walk across the aisle to the democrats and stay there. we need someone who's going to be strong. we do need to stand up and fight for what we believe in which is to limit the size and scope of government. we need lower taxes in order to create jobs and move this country forward. >> mr. cash. >> senator graham, you're

describing yourself as a ronald reagan with republican -- ronald reagan republican, but i believe a lot of us really believe you're a john mccain republican, that you seem to be doing john mccain's bidding, that he is your mentor, not ronald reagan, and i find it interesting that john mccain has not even been in the state to campaign for you when you went all around the country to campaign for him in 2008. as to the question of can we have compromise with the democrats, certainly we can have compromise within certain parameters. but if we're talking about the national deficit of $17.5 trillion, we have to have some parameters about which the compromise takes place within. in that example i would say the compromise has to take lace within the parameter that we actually have structural reforms in place before we raise the debt ceiling again. we just can't keep raising the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling and not getting anything in return. >> thank you. senator? >> it seems when we compromise

in this time, it seems we're always giving the democrats what they want, and it seems like senator graham's definition of compromise is he gives in to the democrats, and then he get toss go in front of the press and congratulate himself for giving in. we've got to take the fight to the presidents. they said god something else america, and this man has been trying to dismantle this republic ever since. the next two years are going to be crucial. once you decide, you sitting at home watching, talking to your friends, what you decide is as important as the battle of -- [inaudible] because if you don't get it right, if you don't elect the right man or woman for the senate seat, there could be catastrophe around this nation. the rest of the country's looking to us. is south carolina going the make our stand? and i'm asking folks that are watching if you want a principled conservative that's going to go hold the line when it comes to conservative principles, the things that south carolinians believe in, i will do it in washington like i've done in columbia for the

last six years. >> thank you. mr. bowers. >> one of the distinctions between those who hold their principles dear and those who do not is what the moderate does if he carries his principle to the point of personal sacrifice. and at the point of personal sacrifice, he drops the principle. all of us are reasonable people. we have primary, secondary and tertiary principles in our lives. some of those are vital. for example, for me, fidelity in marriage is a principle that i'll never compromise. but there are other issues where we will address them differently. we'll negotiate. as an attorney for 20 years, i negotiated for my clients. but i also did what the client wanted. in this instance the client is the constitution of the united states and the state of south carolina. that's who we represent. and unless we represent them

well, we should not be there very long. >> mr. dunn? >> you know, compromise is an innately conservative principle. but over the last couple decades conservatives have become terrified of the concept because far too often in practice compromise has meant democrats trying to grow the government as fast as they possibly can, and republicans growing the government as tsa as they can get away with. -- as fast as they can get away with. now, the reason for that is increasing the power of the federal government supports the status quo, it supports the career politician. therefore, what we need to do in this coming primary on tuesday is to change up our course to get somebody new who's going to tight for conservative principles. and, again, that's why i'm in this race. >> and mr. connor. >> 24 years ago after graduating from citadel, i swore to protect and defend if this document, the constitution of the united states. the same document you swore to

defend, senator. i volunteered for afghanistan because i believe in a foreign policy that defends us, and i'm not some guy who would cut our troops down to almost nothing or be this that boat. i believe -- i'm a ronald reagan conservative. but here's the thing, this is why i'm in the race. people have fought and died for this document, and we have compromised this document. and that's what's led us to where we are. and all the blood that was spilled to put us, take us to where we are with this document is what's gotten us here. i want to get us back to that. for example, i want to aboll withish the national department of education because there's no constitutional mandate for it. you've not proposed it. i want to propose it. it may seem to some people to be a bit far, but it's not. we need someone to get us back. and democrats will come along when they see, in this case, what it's going to bring our country. >> thank you. jamie self has the next question, and it will start with ms. mace. >> thank you. i think you all would agree that current immigration policy isn't working, that it's led to more than 11 million undocumented

immigrants currently living in the united states. however, you disagree on whether giving them a pathway to citizenship must be part of the solution. so my question is, what is your specific plan for dealing with the 11 million people already here illegally, and does that plan include asking them to leave the country voluntarily? >> with regards to immigration, we've tried amnesty in 1986. it's almost as if our federal government, the administration and those career politicians in washington, d.c. are stuck on repeat. we tried it before, and it didn't work. i believe that we first need to secure our border, and secondly, congress can and only congress should have the authority to approve when that border is secure and not another federal bureaucracy. third, i believe that if you're here illegally, then you shouldn't have access to welfare benefits or entitlements. if you come here legally and you

speak english, you work hard, you pay taxes and you work hard like every other hard working american, then citizenship can be earned. ultimately, i feel personally on this issue that folks who have been in d.c. for so long, they don't get or understand our values. and i want to be a voice for the seem of south carolina. >> thank you. mr. cash. >> illegal immigration is a hot topic because, as i said, it's something that senator graham proposed in 2007. it took on his name, grahamnesty, it's come back in 2012. many south carolinians care about this issue. why? because, first and foremost, we are a country that is based upon the rule of law. from the chief executive down to the lowest person in our nation, we believe in the be rule of law. and providing a pathway to citizenship to those who have broken the law to enter this country is simply undermining our own foundation. what it did in 1986 and ever since is create a further incentive for the next wave of

illegal immigrants. and i believe if senator graham's bill is passed, and i hope it won't be, that in five or ten years we'll be having this same conversation about what we're going to do with the next five or ten illegal immigrants that would have been -- five or ten million illegal immigrants that would have been incentivized. you need to apply legally like the others have and come here on lawful terms. >> thank you. senator dwight? >> we -- bright? >> we need to have the rule of law observed. it's that simple. and we've got a president right now who is ignoring laws that have been passed by congress and creating his own laws by executive fiat. he has ignored his signature piece of legislation, the unaffordable care act, or as he likes to call it, the affordable care act. he's ignored that signature piece, changed that law, modified that law without consulting congress. he's done it with the dream act on ill gration. this president's -- immigration. this president's absolutely out of control. and now that he's traded one

deserter for five terrorists, folks are realizing maybe we need to talk about impeachment. this president is dangerous, and he's got to be stopped. what he wants to do is wring this these -- bring in these immigrants. senator graham went in front of la raza and said he was going to tell the bigots to shut up. he meant us who want to stop these folks who are here illegally from staying here. this is our opportunity to be heard. on june 10th you can tell lindsey graham that we need to tell illegal immigrants to go home. >> thank you. mr. bowers? >> we live in the greatest country in the history of this world. most of the people in the world want to come here. we don't hear about people breaking into north korea. we don't hear about them trying to get into china. they come here because you are the most exceptional people god has ever placed on the face of this planet. our culture is special. all cultures are not equal. they're not. and anyone that thinks they are, just ask someone who risks to

come here illegally. that person knows they're not equal. what we need to do is we need to remove the magnets for those who come which is not in favor of amnesty. we have three sons, and when they were little, the one room my -- the one rule my wife and i had was never reward lawless conduct. it works with child rearing, it works with nation building, it works with immigration. >> thank you. mr. dunn. >> yes, sir. i cannot support am nsse for illegal immigrants -- am nsse for illegal immigrants. i think you don't earn some sort of benefit just because you've been able to break the law for a certain period of time. that undermines respect for the rule of law as well as cheapens the value of the very citizenship that these folks are supposedly here to get. what i do support is expanding the e-verify program nationally. now, unlike senator graham, i don't believe that the federal government has any business keeping tabs on individual

citizens, and i don't support any kind of program under which the federal government would issue some sort of national id card. but when it comes to foreign nationals who are in our country, then we do have an interest in knowing who these folks are, what they're doing and what their plans are. and the beauty of the e-verify system, if it's imposed nationally, is that the enforcement is on the employer end. and so once you dry up that labor pool, that largely takes care of the problem. it's not 100% solution, but it's 90 plus, and we already have it in place. >> thank you. mr. connor? >> thank you. what you see in the military as you go to different countries, you see if immigration's not controlled, countries do fall apart. and it's not just the illegal problem right now. and, frankly, we've got the laws on the book, there's a constitutional mandate to set uniform be rules of naturalization. i'm going to go somewhere that people say is politically incorrect. our legal side is out of control. we're using a diversity lottery. in the 1970s it was about a

quarter million a year. it's now over a million a year. it's, we have really got very few controls so we allow chechnyans that caused the boston bombing. so i think there needs to be all around change right now to fix our immigration system. and it comes down to our nation. we are the greatest nation on earth. we are. the people have got to become american, and it takes time to have the same values, the same ideals, the same constitution. and we're losing that as a people. and that's one of the reasons i'm in this race. i have three children right now, and i really worry for their future if our nation will stay the nation we were given. >> thank you. senator graham, you're the last on this question. >> you know, one principle i have that i try not to abandon is not to worry so much about me, but my country and my party. i don't take the path of least resistance. why? what is in it for a republican in south carolina to be talking about this issue? not much. george w. bush brought up illegal immigration, and he tried to fix it. god bless you, president bush. it is a national security

problem, it is a economic problem, it is a cultural problem. amnesty, folks, is doing nothing. there are no democrats here, but where i work there are 55 of 'em. and here's my goal s to fix it once and for all. not do what our friend ronald reagan, by my great hero did, give free men amnesty and not secure your boarder and control who gets a job. it is a job problem. that's the magnet. we're not being overrun by illegal canadians, we're being overrun by people in poor and corrupt countries. be practical with 11 million. nobody stays without learning the english language, get in the back of the line, pay taxes, wait ten years before you can apply for a green card. that is a racket call solution to a hard problem -- >> thank you, senator. relate me ask you -- let me ask you this, all of you. initially, i asked if this were a referendum on senator graham. i'd like to similarly ask if this is in some way a referendum on the tea party. in this primary season in

various states we have seen where some of the mainstream republicans, if you choose to call them that, have rebuffed some of those who have been supported by the tea party. so help us gauge where you are on the spectrum, each of you. are you a member of the tea party such as it is? it's not a formal party. are you sympathetic to the tea party? are you aligned with the tea party? or might you have even been somewhat influenced by the tea party movement to sort of shift your views? and give me some specifics. one reason why you are where you say you are. we'll start with you, sir, mr. cash. >> okay. i first got involved this politics running for congress in 2009 and 2010. i made my decision to run before the tea party began which, as you'll remember, was in 2009 as a result of the stimulus money. people rose up in arms can said we just can't keep spending $800 billion here, $800 billion there. it's not going to work. so the first principle of the tea party, quite simply, was

fiscal responsibility. we cannot keep spending 40 cents on the dollar that we're boar e proking. that's not going to work. the second thing is it adheres to the constitution. the idea that the constitution really means something. it's not just a piece of paper that we can just conveniently ignore when it suits our ends. and i think sometimes, senator graham, that's what you're willing to do. when we get to the nsa, you're willing to ignore the constitution, bend the rules hike the liberals do. we -- like the liberals do k. i call myself a god and country candidate, but i love the tea party, and i'm glad to have their support. >> thank you. senator bright? >> i have been rated with a hundred score by all the tea party scorecards i've seen. the tea party group is for limited government. the media has done a terrific job in demonizing people. they constantly try to demoralize them. but i've got to say that, you know, you look at the way these elections are taking place, if you read the comments from one of senator graham's own supporters saying he co-opted

the tea party, i mean, people love to take credit for the tea party, and then they push them away in certain instances. i've got to say tea party, you know, we're taxed enough already, and i believe that 100% we are taxed enough already. our government spends too much. we have got to hold folks in washington accountable. it was just a cry out from the people. i'm hoping they stay rejuvenated and come out and vote june 10th. i look at that gadsden flag and what our forefathers thought when they were being trampled by a tyrannical regime an ocean away by a king that was running over 'em, and now we have a president in washington who thinks he's a king, so i hope the tea party comes out june 10th. >> thank you. mr. bauers? >> i think most of us up here recognize what the tea party stands for, and we appreciate what they stand for. as we get in individual conversations with those who are in the tea party, i think we're going the find differences. that's true in every area of life. we're all reasonable people, and we're going to address issues from our own perspective and

from the perspective of the generations to come. our responsibility is to bring people together. and what we find in so many areas of life is everyone's trying to divide rather than to unite. you know, i think if god was here today and you asked god, god, what party are you a part of, he would say i'm a party of i am my brother's keeper. we cannot bring people together if we continue to look for ways to divide. are there differences? there will always be. we're reasonable people. but what our responsibility is, is to be the adult in the room and bring people together so we can move forward. and that's the only way it'll happen. >> mr. dunn? >> the tea party came into being because conservatives could no longer tolerate what they were seeing coming out of washington. and, frankly, that's the reason why i entered the race. the other thing, i think, to keep in mind is why -- we must each ask yourself why am i conservative? in my case, first, as a

christian i have certain key, fundamental horl and religious beliefs that i'm not going to alter from. so on certain issues that explains and is the root of my conservativism. but in addition to that i am a conservative because it's practical, it actually works. the stuff that comes from the liberals and the progressives makes for fantastic rhetoric, but when it's seen in practice, as we've seen with the affordable care act, it's just an absolute train wreck. so conservative principles always work when tried. that's why i believe the way i do, and that's why i would like to go to washington, to implement it. >> mr. connor. >> thanks. look, i'm the first person in my family to really get involved in politics. grew up as a military brat, military career. here's the thing, i'm one of these people that came in in 2007, 2008. 2008 i got back from overseas, i saw the t.a.r.p. bailouts which, senator, you voted for both of them. came to realize in addition to everything else, our country was going away from the constitution. so i spoke at the first tea

party in the history of the state, february 27, 2009. it's not a party. it was a bunch of people that saw the stimulus package. and by the way, the stimulus package wuss something that barack obama -- was something that pointed back at you, john mccain, so for a lot of us it was the party needs to be reformed. the republican party has got to be brought back to conservative principles. that's what it's all about. it's a movement, not a party. some groups are trying to co-opt it, but the overall tea party is about the constitution and small government, low tacks. >> senator graham? >> well, the one thing i would say is that we've given away four seats over the last four years because we nominated people who couldn't withstand scrutiny. if you nominate me, that's not going to happen. i'll beat the democratic candidate's brains out. they know it. they're not going to spend 15 cents here. the tea party is rightly frustrate with the the size and scope of the government, but what good are the parties if they can't take care of our country, if they can't solve the immigration problem? and when it comes to the nsa,

any friend, i understand constitutional checks and balances, but these guys in qatar, these five terrorists, taliban killers, al-qaeda sympathizers, if they're calling back into our country, i want to know who they're talking to. i'll get a warrant, make sure the judge oversees the phone call. but we're under siege. radical islam is in our backyard. we're not going to get to the left of barack obama. as to judges, the constitution is not a republican document, it is not a democratic document, it is a document about a process. how do we get all of our judges and they never get theirs? 60% of the supreme court nominees never had a roll call vote. >> thank you, senator. >> strom thurmond voted for 23 supreme court judges -- >> thank you, senator. >> and only voted no twice. >> thank you, senator. ms. mace, you have the last response or this question -- on this question. >> this is not a referendum on any corner of the republican party. this is a referendum on

washington d.c. this seat has been held for 60 years, 6-0, by two people. and be senator graham's been in washington for 20 years. many people that i've talked to across the course of this campaign have lost trust not only in president obama and his administration, but also in our government at every level. and we don't trust those who have been in washington for too long. the beltway insiders, if they were serious about making the changes necessary to turn our economy around, they would have done it already. but they're not. this is about living rooms versus the lobby be. this is about -- lobby. this is about big government versus small. if you trust this government and this administration and career politicians, i'm not your gal. >> thank you. next question is from jamie self, and it will start with senator bright. >> are great. so on the campaign trail we hear a lot about out of control

spending in washington. we hear a lot about a $17 trillion deficit and how, you know, we need conservative principles and we can't change washington until we change who we send there. so tell the viewers, tell the voters now if you are elected, what specific federal program or service should south carolinians be willing to cut or live without in order to help reduce the nation's spending and deficits in a meaningful way? how deep will those cuts be? >> senator? >> we're going to have to make some tough decisions. i'll give you a prime example. we have boeing here in south carolina. they're a large benefactor of the ex-im bank. we can't subsidize any companies with this federal budget. that's a tough decision. what happens is, you know, when i ran for the first time in 2004, i made this comment on the campaign trail and was able to win an election in 2008 and 2012. but what i said is i'm not going to columbia to get a piece of

the pie, i'm going down to shut down the bakery. i'm going to go over to washington to try to stop that wasteful spending up there. it's out of control. corporate welfare, personal welfare. we've got to get back the constitution. temperature. ..

significantly the budget of the internal revenue service, health and human services and the epa. you take away their regulations that are strangling the businesses. i was with a gentleman in the day before yesterday, a republican gathering and i asked him to tell me how the present regulations are affecting you and he said i presently have 100 employees and next year at this time i don't think i will have over 22 to 28 of them because we cannot comply and keep our business going. profits are what make the business work. >> mr. dunn? >> yes, sir. we see the repeal as a turning wreck and it's just writing the health insurance system and will shortly destroy the nation's health delivery system. in addition to that, the department such as the u.s. department of education, energy commerce and labor, much of the

spending needs to be eliminated or merged into other departments, that the cost that is going to kill us or the entitlement programs in social security, medicare and medicaid. the only thing we can do with those as we have to cut spending in the out years particularly with social security and medicare you have citizens who have paid into the program for their entire career and are depending on those benefits to get by on a daily basis. folks my age we have to look at serious reductions in benefits over time. >> mr. connor? >> i want to mention one thing the senator talked about. you went to egypt and basically supported the muslim brotherhood over the military. i served there and i have relatives and the christian community spoke out about that. i appreciate what you've done in other areas of radicalism but

that isn't a good decision. when it comes to cuts i talked about the department of education. it goes back to the powers article one and section eight. we kind of forgot that but it didn't come until jimmy carter speak lifetime perco so we want to take things like the loan performance and put it in the treasury. there are ways we can do this and we have to go through with slashing entitlements, so we are not talking about social security. we have almost doubled the number of people on food stamps, so people have been working harder to pay for those but right now in the back and we can't do it and he will become greece. >> the first thing i would do is be honest with the public. by 2042, the entire revenue to be collected in taxes stance for medicare and social security because 80 million baby boomers are going to retire in the next 20 to 30 years. we are living longer. living like strom thurmond that south carolina senator 1935.

today we are looking into our 70s and 80s. check out my solution to rand paul and likely where we means tested benefits for social security. when i was 21 my mom died and when i was 22 might have died. if you were not for the survivor benefits, we wouldn't have made it. that meant a lot to me and my sister and aunt and uncle. you are not going to save the country unless you deal with medicare and social security. the program is worth saving. 67% of the budget interest on the debt and entitlement eliminates department of defense not have a drop in the bucket to balance the budget. >> thank you senator. >> with regards to spending john adams once said that there are two ways to capture the nation. one is by this word and one is by the debt. we need to cut the balance and

cap the future spending and we need to pass the balanced budget amendment. what's happening today and we are all the witness is that the establishment in washington they are not serious about making the difficult decisions that we need to. they are serious about kicking the can down the road and that their policies are literally choking the life out of small businesses. i've talked to many small-business owners over the course of this campaign and it doesn't matter what industry it is, but i constantly hear about tax policies, health care, and the government getting in the way of their growth and to grow the economy the government has to be tracked and cut regulatory burdens and taxes and spending it we have to get serious. >> of the last responder flex >> we certainly do have to repeal obamacare.

it is a drain on the economy there are some agencies we could live without the department of education being the prime example. i do agree we will have to have structural e-forms in the major programs. i agree that we will have to raise the retirement age gradually so that reflects the advances in modern technology and the longevity of life. i'm a little more concerned about the benefits because that sounds an awful lot like paying your fair share where we are going to penalize people that have done well in life. people should be able to keep the money that is entitled to them and they can do a better job than the government can. we have to look at programs have been unintentional consequences. we've gone from 17 million people to 47 million people in 12 years. we can't keep doing that. we have to get back to everybody

works in america. >> we will start with minister bowers. >> republicans in south carolina have rallied around the idea of repealing the affordable care act formerly called obamacare. if you strike old in november and have the vote repealed on the affordable care act, what do you replace it with? and are there parts of obamacare that are good that you would like to keep, such as denying insurance companies the ability to take people off when they have pre-existing conditions or even allowing the requiring insurance companies to keep children on their parents insurance until they are 26? what do you do if you repeal its? >> there are a number of plans that have been proposed and if you look at one that i would single out is by senators coburn and senator hatch and if they address those same issues, pre-existing conditions. but what they do and what is the essential is the responsibility has to fall upon the person whose aspect could most deal

with whatever the issue is. there needs to be negotiation and prices that we accept. ben carson has addressed this in some detail. i think it offers this. we need the premiums to be tax deductible. we need to invite people to buy the insurance, to purchase it. we do not need individual mandates. we are people that pride ourselves on our freedoms and liberty. there are a host of conservative principles and politics that we can implement that would help contain the information or a healthcare cost that got obamacare in the first place. we could expand the health savings account that give

individuals both responsibility and choice in managing their own health care and in addition we could even repeal or at least modest -- modify and that allows them to develop much larger risk pools that brings the cost down for everybody particularly folks in pre-existing conditions. remember that the obamacare is certainly a dream that pretense that it was also the result of a republican feeling when president bush was in office the inflationary cost was that republicans did not implement a conservative principle and so when we see the field we ended up with obamacare. >> this is near and dear to our heart. my wife is an ob/gyn. we are married 23 years and we've seen the effect leading up to obamacare and it wasn't just obamacare. we took the wrong direction with obamacare but there were a bunch

of problems going back to the 1950s into the decision for the government to get involved and the problem was it got involved and only reimbursed at a small fraction and what happened was doctors and practices and hospitals have to raise the price prices into thew head of the law forcing every hospital to take everybody despite the fact of the institutions tha they could have covered a lot of those issues. that was voted on by a number of republicans as well and that caused problems in the private practice including practices like my wife. we need to go back to look at the free market principle free-d government regulation. that's why take the competition and a number of things we can do but look at the problem of the government. >> senator graham. >> the democratic party owns obamacare. every democrat voted for it and obamacare is not about the uninsured is about driving the private sector out of

healthcare, getting the private sector to drop coverage and hurting these exchanges so you will have government run healthcare from cradle-to-grave, the european model that obama has been dreaming about. people that signed up for the exchange 90% get a subsidy. the whole idea is to be strollinthe storythe private het and put us in government run healthcare. the idea that we believe is open up the market. jim demint has a heck of an idea. take the employer deduction and and give it to individuals to have deduction for their purchases so individuals can buy policies all over the country, not down this monopoly of states and let the purchases go everywhere. it's all about winning and turning around the country. >> we need to repeal obamacare. i believe in the free market and

competition. under obamacare there's not even competition in the county line let alone the state line. we need a competition among the state lines and we need portability whereby if you have insurance with your employer and a change jobs you are able to take that insurance plan with you. these will be able to drive down the cost of health care and increase the quality of care for more people so more people have access to better care less of a price. i know i sound like a broken record but i've spent a lot of time listening to the people in south carolina. the small businesses are the backbone of the economy. i talked to one of small business owner a few months ago in his scenario is very similar to others. the previously, before obamacare were able to pay their employees and they see a 36% increase they are no longer able to afford to do so and they don't know how

the end for years well either. >> we have to begin with the first principle which is health insurance is not the governments response ability. taking care of my health insurance is not the governments responsibility any more than if the government responsibility to feed me or to house me or close me. so, let's begin there. obamacare isn't going to work. it's just a shadowing of what is coming for all of us along the obamacare going on. so we have to get rid of obamacare and we have to have portability and the ability for the insurance to follow you from one job to do next. i don't think insurance companies need to be forced to cover people with pre-existing conditions if they didn't have pre-existing conditions is a distortion of the free-market principles. i believe one thing that is important is we need tort reform. we need tort reform on the

medical malpractice reform and you voted against that in 2004. >> you have the las had the laso this question. >> is a disaster, and we are -- if you look at china now people are paying for healthcare. we have to have responsible individuals for healthcare and this is selling across the state lines. this was when we had the controls and people couldn't havhave raises so this was a backdoor for the union and then they started providing benefits and all of the employers have to provide benefits so let's remember the genesis. it's when the government got involved and created the problem and now the ultimate solution is the single pay system where obama wants to go but i think that it's usually the fact that senator graham, everybody that is watching this they remember that ted cruz filibuster.

he was trying to keep that budget from coming to the floor that was going to eventually end up with obamacare being printed and he knew that. i would like to give each copy the chance to answer a question and i would ask for a 32nd response in this round. >> three members of the state's congressional delegation voted against the recent $1.1 trillion spending plan for deepening the harbor. but supporters say the project is vital to expanding the port in the state economy. at the time the chairman of south carolina ports authority criticized the move and he'd hold the post if these votes would have prevailed, we are stuck. the vice chairman said we look to our officials to watch out for south carolina in our arena. so my question to you is do you agree that as a senator your

responsibility is to watch out for south carolina and does that include voting in support of the budget and include money for projects back home? >> 32nd answer starting with mr. dunn. >> what you have to understand is why all the senators and members of the congress absolutely can and should take account of the interest of the particular state that comes at a cost and if you constantly try to bring back money, bring money back home, then the cost of that is our citizens aren't going to bring money back from the other 49 states therefore we have the very judicious ports and regulating the systems. >> we should take care of the people in south carolina and the problem is if we take ourselves to greece but isn't taking care of anybody in the state. this budget increases. it is increased by $30 billion that is not right. i do understand to panel we have

seen the opening and the big shift will come so i'm going to fight tooth and nail but i'm also going to try to reduce and i talked about ways to do that. >> there was a delay voted for and i helped to write and spend at the 2008 levels. it was a fiscally responsible budget, but it also had money for charleston and other ports to cause the economy would die in south carolina if we don't get charleston deep in. so it was a spending reduction of the 2008 levels within the budget control act, and they had money for charleston. i understand if we don't get this issue right our economy is bad and i would rather lose my job and the port of charleston. >> the senate was given 48 hours to read a 1600 page budget and the mandatory spending which is 60% of the budget is going to increase by 80%.

i support the port of charleston and belief in the port of charleston and the infrastructure is a core function of government. however i also believe when it comes to earmarks into special project spending, we need to have an up or down vote and that project needs to weigh in or fail on its own merit separate separately. >> iem with jim demint. the fiscal conservative republican. i believe obviously that we need the port deep end and that is in the government and in the constitution. but i believe we have to go about it in a certain way. if he was able to get away from the earmark process which is so corrupted to how the money is distributed, the port of charleston brings in a lot of taxes that money needs to be allocated with five states having more say to it. >> i wouldn't have supported the budget and we have to fight against the spendin spending ana

17 trillion-dollar deficit we are going to break our country. if you noticed the xm bank i won't stand for the principle if it is like jim demint voted in the senate and i'm willing to take on these type of issues. you can support the federal issue that i will not be held hostage when you take the fight in washington and make the case in the u.s. senate and the congress to get budgets over and fund the priorities and the constitutional objectives in the port of charleston that is a federal government. the federal government. >> you have the last response to this question. >> our primary responsibility as a united states senate is to uphold the constitution. that comes first. second is to represent the people of south carolina and there is no conflict there because our people are constitutionalists. the difficulty that we have with the earmark is that the political class is lacking the political will to do what is right and to do what is right in public and in front of everyone.

it's playing behind the scenes. that's not inappropriate conduct for the trusted officials. >> you have the justices and the second. second. that's my next question is if -- why should the next republican president in the united states not be shown a degree of deference on his judicial nomination especially to the supreme court and with strom thurmond when he adopted the same principle and voted to confirm ruth bader ginsburg and stephen breyer? >> hester connor, 30 seconds again. >> i studied the constitution anand it says advice and consent to the senate. it doesn't say the qualification does that mean graduate law

school class they were radically different justices in the qualification is knowing the constitution and you understand the second amendment and first amendment. it gives a prayer for two of the justices that are nominated and so that's something i just would not do. >> if you want conservative judges, let's elect the president because i don't think that he would make sure that we get all of theirs and they get none of tears when you look at it it's never worked that way. i broke the filibuster. choosing the logic against br to conservatives. my god they represented the senate and they represented the big companies against the environmental groups. they were qualified. the elections have consequences and strom thurmond voted for the 23 supreme court justices voted now twice because the elections matter if you want conservative judges like when the white house

and don't tell the people of south carolina that we are going to go to washington all of us and we are going to lose the supreme court won't change. that is not true. >> thank you so much. it is to advise and consent the appointments. iab leave that when you are determining those individuals, they should have a belief and understanding of the constitution and bill of rights. these are rights that are god-given. they are not the rights of politicians let us have. these are the rights that all of us are allowed and what the folks in washington, d.c. don't understand is that they are completely out of touch with our values with regards to these issues and you're right, senator, the elections do have consequences. the primary is on june 10 and onto his au have a decision to make. >> the judge is not qualified if

they don't believe the constitution should be interpreted to the intent. the judges did claim to be constitutionalists in that regard but the track record was otherwise. they were caught on tape but they want to get on the appeals because that is where the policy was made and everyone laughed nervously because she realized she was caught on tape. this was the judge that you said was well qualified and would never vote to overturn roe v. wade. she's already voted against religious liberty. >> by the consent does not mean automatically approved. and i would like to take this opportunity to ask the senator if he would rape you th of his n light of the what is happening -- but in the order to give the remaining candidates, we have to get a just a minute with mr. bowers.

>> i have been a pastor. i've been in the room when she made the decision and i was in the hospital when that child was born. a litmus test for the supreme court justice and the rights to life. if we do not uphold that we have lost the republic. >> advice and consent of the senate if there is an aspect of this. we can only support the justices that understand the constitution otherwise we are giving away the public. they haven't come up with all of this debate i'm the only candidate that has supported the actual plan to fix the administration and i would support folks checking out my website. >> there's lots more we could

have addressed but our time is up. thank you to all of the candidates for joining us this evening and thanks to beth padgett and for any of the previous debates visit the website. for the june primary watch on thursday at 7:30 and don't forget to vote on tuesday. for every one at etv, i am charles.

>> from the perspective of the victims i don't see any distinction. if you try to justify basis o ti can't convincingly explain why. 9/11, yes, 93 the only way you justify this as a special carveout is from the perspective of the nation, a recognition that 9/11 was, along with the american civil war, pearl harbor, maybe the assassination of president kennedy then 9/11.

the impact on the american people was such that this was a response from america to demonstrate the solidarity and the cohesiveness of the american people towards these victims. going live in a moment to the floor of the senate about to dabble in in a period of morning business until 5:30 eastern when the senators will vote on whether or not to move forward on the district court nominations for virginia and massachusetts and nevada. after the votes of about 6:15 a group of senators will take the floor to engage in a debate on climate change. so far only democratic senators have signed up to participate in that.

why now to the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order, and the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. king of glory and peace, your love sustains us. each day you give us your peace and joy, providing rest to the weary and renewing the strength of those