brothers, and big oil. they are running these ads against me because they want her to return to washington so they will have a reliable vote for their agenda. moderator: 30 seconds to respond. ms. ayotte: i offered her the people's pledge, the same language in place in the massachusetts race to keep the money out. she wants the money in, because you have seen it on your tv. harry reid super pac mike , bloomberg, over $7 million, the you can see it on your tv right now. all of those false, misleading attacks that come forward. that is because she wanted the money in this race. she could have kept it out. going.e got to get final question before closing statements. talk about veterans foes. you're well aware there is no full-service va hospital.

you still think we need a full-service one. why? gov. hassan: we need a full-service hospital for our veterans. i am the daughter of a world war ii veteran. as of the things i focus on governor is how we can make sure veterans have the benefits that they deserve and have access to employment, to housing. i am proud of the work we have done in new hampshire to expand the veterans home, add more beds to it, and create a new unit.ion unit -- dementia i think we need a full-service veterans hospital pier 1 because veterans in new hampshire deserve it. they should not have to travel long distances to get the care they need. i also think it is very critical that as we have more and more people -- veterans -- who have specific injuries because of the new and evolving kind of threats that our enemies and adversaries have, they have different and

new kinds of injuries, we need to bring the expertise of the veterans medical community. josh: at one point, senator, you were in favor of a full-service hospital, but you say it is not as urgent because of the va choice card. sen. ayotte: one of the first bills i introduced in the senate was to have new hampshire have a full-service hospital. i am the wife of a combat veteran. my grandfather served in world war ii, my stepfather in vietnam. we are a family of service. as i think about all the issues that are out there, we have to get this right for our veterans and their families. i have been working with senator shaheen to get the v.a. choice program right. there is too much bureaucracy in the v.a. right now. our veterans should be able to get the best care. without waiting in line. there should be more accountability in the va. i have introduced legislation to claw back bonuses for people who

committed misconduct and did not serve our veterans. there is no more important issue to me than making sure our veterans get the care that they have earned defending this great nation. and i have been proud to work with senator shaheen on this and , we will continue to fight to make sure the choice program is right and also continue to fight for a full-service hospital. josh: thank you. we have carved out sometime at the end of the program for you to deliver closing statements. we start with you, senator ayotte. sen. ayotte: first of all thank , you, josh, and governor hassan for being part of this debate. most of all, i want to thank you at home for listening. this election is not about the negative, misleading ads you see on your tv. this election is about you and your family and who is going to stand up to be that independent voice for new hampshire with a positive vision for our country. i have one of the most bipartisan records in the senate, because i know the only way we are going to get things done is by working together. like the law i worked on to address our heroin epidemic, or solutions i have worked on to help our small businesses or

to make college and health care more affordable. there is so much more work to do. i am proud to fight for those who keep us safe in a dangerous world as the wife of , the combat veteran. but i know the only way we are going to get things done is to stand up to both sides when they are taking us in the wrong direction and to find common ground, when we can agree to deliver results for our state and country. that is what i have done in the senate. that is why i am running again. i ask for your vote on november 8, so we can continue the work we have started together for this great state. thank you so much. josh: governor, your closing statement. gov. hassan: thank you so much. thank you, senator ayotte, and josh, our panelists, and to all our viewers. growing up, my dad, who fought in world war ii in the battle of the bulge, would sometimes look at us at the breakfast table and ask, "what are you doing for freedom today?" well, dad was serious, because my father along with his generation -- who we have come

to call the greatest generation -- by believing in a cause greater than themselves saved the world and build this country into the greatest military and economic power the world had ever seen. that is the spirit i have tried to bring to my work as governor, and it is the spirit that should inform our work in washington, d.c. unfortunately, what we see is the nation's capital captured by corporate special interests. the choice in this election is really clear. are we going to continue to have a senator who votes with those corporate special interests, whose agenda is shaped by them? they already have enough senators in washington. or are we going to have a senator who has a record, as i do, of always putting the people in small businesses of new hampshire first? that is my commitment to all of you. i will always put you first. and i respectfully ask for your vote. josh: candidates, thank you for participating. test of luck to both of you in the final days of this campaign. thanks to our audience and panelists for participating. thank you for watching.

back here again tomorrow night with night number three of the granite state debate. have a great night. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] friends ofes and antonin scalia it will gather this afternoon to remember and honor the late supreme court justice. there will be live coverage in the great hall. figures include the acting solicitor general and former law clerks. youting at 1:45 eastern, will be able to see it on c-span. and vice presidential candidate mike tenses rallying supporters today. he tweaked out "great to be in lansing, michigan. wheels up to greenville for this afternoon's rally." mapusiness put this together showing the clinton campaign's rallies. hillary clinton goes to colorado. hillary clinton is in michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania. tim kaine is in florida.

president obama is in north carolina, and chelsea clinton is in new hampshire. we will bring you like coverage of hillary clinton's rally at 5:15 eastern. donald trump will be in new hampshire today. he also campaigns in hershey, pennsylvania. we will be live with that evening at 7:00 eastern. election night on c-span. watch the results. be part of a national conversation. be on location of the hillary clinton and donald trump election night headquarters. watch victory and concession speeches in key senate races. starting live and throughout the following 24 hours. andh live, on demand, listen using the c-span radio app. first hampshire's congressional district, paul show incumbent frank into a

falling behind former congresswoman carol shea-porter. the margins differ among polls. add a debate last week, they discussed health care, congressional term limits, national security, and the presidential candidates. this one hour debate hosted by nh1 news. paul: tonight, the general election debates in the first congressional district to you in our studio, two-term congressional or president of frank into. rep. guinta: i've spent almost last two years focusing on my job, representing people in the state of new hampshire. i think that has produced great results. paul: and three term democrat candidate carol shea-porter. ms. shea-porter: we are anxious to get back into it. paul: this time around, they have company. independent shawn o'connor. mr. o'connor: my message is resonating with voters. i am all about upsetting the race and the party system. paul: hour debate begins right now. ♪

keke: good evening. it is debate night in new hampshire. we welcome the candidates and thank them for coming to our studios and taking part in the important discussion of the issues that matter most to you, the voters at home. paul: first, the ground rules for the debate. the candidates will each be asked questions and have one minute to respond. at the end of the minute, the candidates will hear an audio cue. at the discretion of myself or paul, your moderators, a 30

second rebuttal will be allowed at the end of the debate. the candidates will give one minute closing statements. earlier today, there is a coin flip to determine which candidate would give their final closing statements first. here's the order. frank into the, carol shea-porter, then mr. shawn o'connor. paul: before we jump into the issue here some important campaign questions in the wild race. mr. o'connor, you once ran for the democratic nomination. you accused carol shea-porter of personal attacks and threatened to sue her. all this before dropping your democratic bid. we have two questions. first do you think you have a real chance at winning the election or are you trying to be a spoiler in the shea-porter-ginza showdown? when i firster: ran into thousand six, i was not the so-called chosen candidate. what i worked hard and walked across the district and talk to people about my gender and -- about my agenda and convinced them that i had the best vision for this country in representing new hampshire.

this time, i was not the choice for the national democrats, but i did let it stop me. i brought my $50 down there, signed up, and spent two years walking around the district and talking to people about what my vision was on that. so nobody got kicked off the ballot. $50, you you can be on the ballot, that's the law. paul: mr. o'connor, are you more than a spoiler in this race? mr. o'connor: absolutely. as you know, there is criteria to get into the debates. one is demonstrating viability. i'm proud to be the first independent candidate to offer voters an alternative in the history of new hampshire politics. we have had a decade of congressman guinta and congresswoman carol shea-porter. i think voters are ready for a change and i am proud to represent a change. obviously, i've decide not to litigate. the new hampshire democratic party sued me twice, and i just cannot imagine that this would've been against congresswoman carol shea-porter's wishes. both times we won 4-1.

as an independent, it is not just $50. it is 1600 signatures, and you have to collect more than that, because they toss out more. even even hollingsworth was candidate for governor here and he supported me both times. paul: congresswoman, d one to respond? ms. shea-porter: he was not sued. that was not my issue. it was the new hampshire democratic party. he's a lawyer, he notes he wasn't sued. it was a hearing. i think that's an important distinction. you know, distinction. you know, welcome. i think it will make it interesting. mr. o'connor: i look forward to it. paul: thank you both very much. keke: and now a question for congressman frank guinta. your controversy from the last election continues. a you agreed to pay a fine and pay back your parents for their contribution to your campaign, but there were new allegations the summer. during our primary debate last your republican

challenger rich ashooh said the fact of the matter is that frank broke the law. it is not minor, it is the largest scandal of a campaign-finance issue we've had. worst, he broke the trust of the voters. he lied. our simple question tonight is, should voters trust you? rep. guinta: well, thank you to host saying the debate and i want to thank you for inviting shawn o'connor to this process as well as congresswoman carol shea-porter. six years ago, i apologize for a mistake i made. and 18 months ago, this has been settled. i appreciate the fact to be the nominee, not just for the republican party but for the work i have done for all granite status. focusing on my work as chairman of the task force for the heroine and opiate crisis where we were able to bring money in a very bipartisan way, working across the aisle to stop the tax hashe cadillac tax that

impacted so many employers, nonprofit individuals and operations, as well as colleges, universities, and municipalities in our state. that is what i think people want us to focus on. the public policy issues that will impact families, middle-class families in the state and in the country. keke: ms. shea-porter, would you like to respond to that? ms. shea-porter: i hate to have to respond to it, but it was not just a mistake. hated p.a.d. you you know that your attorney drag it out for years. he said that i was lying, when you really had done that. and your primary opponent this time said that when you are right, you fight. but you did not. you settled. and he said that when you settle, it is because people do not want to get prosecuted. i think people know that. i don't want to linger on that. other people can do very good work and washington, d.c. with integrity. paul: congress -- keke: conga men, would you like to respond? rep. guinta: the reality is this

is a six euro complaint that was settled a year and half ago. unfortunately, my opponent carol shea-porter also has an fec complaint filed against her, who mr. o'connor said that people should focus on. one that carol shea-porter refused to attend. i welcome that we should be focusing on public policy issues. that's what i'm happy to focus on, and i hope we continue, this evening, on the policy issues that affect granite state families and the rest of the country. keke: ms. shea-porter, your response? ms. shea-porter: well, we looked at the one email we received, and it obviously was a mistake, because it said "please come in for an interview." but i know that we have five debates and three forums, and i look forward to them.

mr. o'connor: so i think what is interesting is that carol shea-porter saying she's a woman of integrity. the truth of the matter is she has been dishonest with new hampshire voters for a decade. she has said and you can check it on the website that she has never taken money from d.c. lobbyists. that is not true. i will give you three examples. robert mclaughlin of mclaughlin and jarvis. he gave her $200,000. his clients include hsbc, a foreign big bank. the alpine group represent shell oil, and blackstone and the empire consulting group that represent -- i think it's a bit hypocritical for congresswomen to imply that she is the voice of integrity. keke: thank you. we will give give you the final word. ms. shea-porter: we went back and looked, because we were concerned. out of the nine, seven of them were not lobbyists and two of them, we returned one check right away, and the other did not self identify. but i think it is important that

you admit that you took pac money for a year and that you also have pac, which you just closed in june. i don't really understand what you're saying this. but it's okay. mr. o'connor: if i may, if it comes down to corporate pac money, i am happy to have that debate. you took a check from smith & wesson, the gun manufacturer which is quite shocking and kept , it for a year. if you're going to debate who has returned checks quicker, let's review the record. you can go to my website, and click on check the facts. you'll be be able to see the $1 million that she has taken from register lobbies. you'll be able see that both she and commerce begin to have taken more than $2 million in pack money. keke: the final word please. ms. shea-porter: i have to say that this, like a lot of other things you have made up. , we'll just leave it there. paul: candidates, thank you very much. we want to get to the crucial

issues that our voters care about. but i have to ask you one more question campaign related. i think everybody can be honest and agree that this has been a very unique presidential election. we've had two candidates like never before. it's been very polarizing, and i think it is also fair it has impacted down ballot races, like the first congressional district. two questions to congressman guinta and ms. carol shea-porter. mr. ginza, do you believe donald trump's claims that he has never sexually harassed women, and carol shea-porter do you think , that hillary clinton has been honest with americans at all times? keke: congressman, we begin with you. rep. guinta: i share the frustration that granite staters and americans have with the choices at the top of the ticket. we now have a binary choice choice between mr. trump and secretary clinton. i have met them both. the concerns i have with hillary clinton are a long list of concerns relative to how the middle

needs to try to get upward mobility and focus on economic growth. we have not had that under the obama-clinton years. i'm concerned with the size and scope of government she wants to create. something both my opponent's favor. carol shea-porter has identified herself as a liberal in the race. up until recently, he was in the democratic primary until essentially the way carol shea-porter and the democratic party treated him required him to want run as an independent. i admire him for that, but those are the realities. i do hope that what people and up focusing on our issues that matter to families, and that's family, healthcare, and jobs. paul: we will get to this issues. wgir andice morning on nh1, donald trump again to nine -- denying some of the allegations. do you believe him when he says he never sexually harassed or

grabbed any of these women? rep. guinta: i don't know facts of the case. we have to take the candidates that what they say. the reality is that in two weeks that voters will make a decision as to who they want to lead the nation. the current concerns i have with hillary clinton are long. and the reality that both of my opponents you this evening are likely to support hillary clinton, or maybe mr. o'connor would write in bernie sanders, i am not sure, but the reality is we have a binary choice between secretary clinton and the challenges she has with mr. trump. paul: -- keke: the shea-porter, as paul mentioned, it appears that american voters have an issue with trust when it comes to hillary clinton. a new poll out shows many americans do not necessarily trust her. do you think hillary clinton has always been honest with the american people in your opinion? ,ms. shea-porter: i think hillary clinton made a mistake with the emails, and she said that. if i didn't think she was honest, i would not have endorsed her. i was very interested in the answer that we just heard from frank into a, because the reality is that frank hasn't

spoken about all. when we heard trump attack women, he said nothing. when we heard trump attack war heroes, he said nothing. when we heard trump attack hispanics, he said nothing. you have not said anything, -- let me correct myself. you said recently he is a man of great vision and leadership. that you found him refreshing. you have in embracing him all along. this is not the time to back off. you should stay right with them, because he's your guy. paul: congressman, if you would like to respond? rep. guinta: sure. we have a binary choice between secretary clinton and mr. trump. i am very concerned about the path, the policy path that hillary clinton would take. and my two opponents would support the big government she wants. they would support the single-payer system despite the , fact that just this evening the president of the united states announced that obama care is now going to have a 25% increase and a 20% reduction in choice.

this is exactly what ms. shea-porter supported five years ago because she was told to , support it. paul: we will get the health care in a moment. good tease there. but mr. o'connor, i would like you to weigh in. are you supporting either of the presidential candidates? mr. o'connor: i am not. i am a true independent and i will work with whoever is elected by the people of the country. i want to want to make a couple of corrections from statements by congressman frank into. i'm the only person on the stage who has worked for a republican member of congress. and a democratic lieutenant governor. i've been able to bring people together across party lines. i do not support single-payer, i support a public choice. and i endorse bernie sanders, because i believe he understood the problems with the two-party system. and i think now that the emails have come out, it's become quite clear, the parties with the two-party system and he was , right. i don't support nor do i endorse all or many of his plans.

i think what the voters want is they do not want to ban hyper-partisan choices that they've had for the last decade. they want a new fresh choice that represents granite state values. ms. shea-porter: i think it is really interesting, because i have listened to you for your talking about how bernie needed berniecrats with him in congress to make a difference. so you absolutely did embrace them. but you are right. you once worked with a republican on wall street, and then a corporate democrat. then a bernie person and then you became an independent. it has been a rapid change. it's hard to keep up. i have to say is stunning to hear you say that you are not supporting what bernie stood for because you absolutely did. , he didn't endorse you but you were definitely. you sent fundraising letters out that you were the person and bernie needed the team in d.c. and that would be you. it was a rapid change. which your certainly allowed to paul: -- which you are certainly

allowed to do. paul: caucus men the last word. ,rep. guinta: i feel like i met a democratic primary debate. the reality is congressman shea-porter has been running for this seat since 2006. and shawn o'connor is in the general election because of the fact that she and the leadership did not want him to participate in the democratic primary. i welcome him to the debate stage. at the reality is he is a self identified progressive who did support bernie sanders. and i think my opponent, carol shea-porter, is a little frustrated with that because she has to deal with a primary in the general election debate. paul: thank you all very much. you brought this up a few minutes ago. the obama administration today confirming premiums will go up for those on health insurance exchanges on healthcare.gov. this is the number of insurers serving the federal market. to 157.drop from 232 that is a loss of about 20%.

-- 28%. the question is if you're in congress in january, what are you going to do to reverse these trends? ms. shea-porter: first, we have the correct something frank said. the "hill" article said that new hampshire premiums would go up under 5%, that's important. the other thing is about 75% of the population will not pay a premium higher than $75. and they also need to know that, if you are receiving a subsidy, it will never be more than 10% of your income. you also need to know what the aca has done, the affordable care act. it is very important, because we have heard frank talking about the opiate crisis. we all are. and the reality is the money, the medicaid expansion, comes from the affordable care act. used toey is being ensure 50,000 more people but being used to provide treatment for 2000 people. it gives us the tools in the communities in new hampshire to get people into treatment because we have the affordable care act. it's not good just to say over

and over again and vote over and over again that you are just going to repeal it without a plan behind it. i tell people you bought a brand-new car and you push it out of the dealership and promised you would never do any maintenance, and that is what you have done. you have hoped it would not work. it is working. we need to fix it and make it stronger, but it is working. it's here to stay. paul: congressman and then mr. o'connor. rep. guinta: i can only tell you what the president of the united states said a few hours ago. he announced that the premiums will increase toys &, and there will be a 28% reduction in insurance carriers participating in the exchanges. that's not good for new hampshire or the country. you have $1 trillion that has already been borrowed and spent for this program and you promised that people would have greater access to care and more affordability. neither is happening. here in new hampshire, just last summer, there was a great increase announced of 42%. it's unfortunate because of the challenges they're having with

obama care. the real ideas it is $300 per person. for a family of four, that is a $1200 month. i don't think families think that's affordable. i don't think so. we need a different approach , which is why i have not supported a government run program. need a patient-centered approach that will create more competition, more choice, provide opportunities for hsa's. that is the better path, and after five years we should go in , a different path. paul: mr. o'connor, do you try to repeal or pair obamacare? mr. o'connor: i think what we have just witnessed is the hyper-partisanship of congressman guinta and miss carol shea-porter that has frustrated voters and that's why i entered the race. there's a lot of buzzwords but not specifics. i'll give you two. we need a regional exchange. that includes maine, new hampshire, vermont, rhode island and massachusetts. ,this will solve a lot about problems. we will increase competition,

because right now, we are too small of a state, and that punishes us. and by the way, i am probably the only one on this stage that buys my insurance on the exchange. it will lower costs. the second thing is we should allow young people who are affordablepletely coverage to bind to medicare which allows us to simultaneously provide them affordable care for the country if they choose. but also maintain the solvency of medicare without raising taxes. those are specifics and those are independent ideas that you will not hear from either my partisan friends. rep. guinta: that's a true progressive approach. that is essentially a single payer system. we do not have, after five years, a solution to what ms. shea-porter voted for or what mr. o'connor's trying to achieve which is lower rights and , greater access. what you have to do is get rid of the affordable care act which is a top-down approach. the regional approach is still a

top-down approach from washington. it's not a patient-centered approach. so both of them are identical in not only their support for the affordable care act but the approach to a single-payer system. paul: the final word? ms. shea-porter: clearly, neither one of them read the bill but i did. the regional approach is in the affordable care act. the reason they're not doing it is because were an older state -- because we are an older state, and some other states are not interested. connecticut, for example, younger and healthier. they are healthier. they don't want to do it. massachusetts is saturated so they don't have the incentive to do that. i also like to talk to frank a moment about how this insurance has worked. first of all, it is private insurance on the exchange, i think you know that, and the other part of that is it has really brought insurance to most people in the country. if you talk to the hospital, they will tell you it is good to

have people with insurance come to er. keke: thank you. much more to come tonight. we are back after this quick break. ♪ keke: welcome back to our first congressional district debate tonight at our nh1 use studios. we continue tonight with an important issue in new hampshire. that is the drug crisis. congressman guinta, you worked to secure money to help fight the heroin problem in new hampshire. but more people are expected to die this year than last. is new hampshire allocating money in the right places, and is it being used correctly? rep. guinta: thank you. i do serve as the chairman of the congressional task forced to fight opiate abuse. i did something that most republicans do not often do. i asked ann kuster to chair the commission with me.

we have now over 90 members of congress equally divided amongst republicans and democrats focus ed on solving this problem. that's a good first step for washington d.c. we have 18 bills signed into law bipartisan way. we've started the funding in september, $192 million a year for the next five years. that was the first step. we need additional drug courts in the states, more recovery centers. we work with our counterparts to provide that ability for those who have illness of addiction. keke: still, more people are expected to die this year than last. what does that suggest you? rep. guinta: suggests we still have an epidemic in the state new hampshire. we had 439 people passed last year of a drug-related overdose. this is not going to go away soon. we need to make sure that we focus all of our resources and effort on the illness of addiction, making sure that we

have those resources getting to the individuals and we are starting that now. but we also have to stop this apply. we are only interdicting the percent to 5% of heroin. it's coming across the border and getting into the state of new hampshire. i have to stop. keke: if elected, what would you do differently? mr. o'connor: i have a specific plan. i talked to healthcare providers. my father operated a pay what you can clinic, so i am very familiar with health clinics and those in recovery themselves. what we need is 90 days of inpatient treatment for any granite state are struggling with opiate addiction. and then we need six to 12 months of outpatient follow-up. under the watch of congressman guinta and miss carol shea-porter for every dollar , that we sent to washington, we only get 72 cents back. that's not okay in my book. i would go fight for a more robust program to make new hampshire since were the

epicenter of this epidemic. make it the pilot case for how to treat it nationwide. get the funding for a pilot program with 90 days and -- inpatient, and six to 12 months outpatient. under the watch of my two opponents this has more than , tripled. we are expected to lose almost 500 lives this year. keke: what would you do differently? ms. shea-porter: i'm happy to see frank working on this. it's really important to work on it. when i said we needed treatment years ago, he said no, so i am glad he is working on it now. i was the vice chair for the addiction caucus. i was at patrick henry. we were at treatment centers, and we traveled the country, talking to people. the problem is they have not appropriated any money. they can't treat if they don't have the money. we need more beds. we need prevention programs. we have done a good job getting narcan out there to resuscitate people.

that there is a lot more to be done. i put in a bill back when i could see this coming, because i had run a nonprofit social service agency that dealt with a lot of issues, and i put in a bill that would help people dispose safely of drugs and educate the community. we had a number of hills, and the problem is we were not able to move those. i am delighted that we have that focus now. i hope we keep it there. but we have to recognize that we need more treatment beds. shawn is right, we need 90 days. but it will take money. rep. guinta: i would just like to make a correction. the funding actually has started in september. the president of the united states did sign our bill into law over the summer, and we started appropriating those resources a month ago. it is per year for each of the $192 million five years. secondly, it is not 90 days, we need a year and a half of high intensity inpatient treatment. the idea would be to have more drug recovery courts in each large community in the state.

move that individual into long-term treatment. that has has proven to be the highest rate of success, in terms of exceeding the addiction issues. keke: thank you, candidates. paul: congressional term limits are back in the news thanks to some advocacy by republican presidential nominee donald trump. my question to all three of you is where do you stand on congressional term limits? mr. o'connor: i support congressional term limits. i've never been a politician, i am proud not to be a career politician. in this district, we do have term limits, and i understand that is not true in a lot of district's. i would support any reasonable term limit proposal, four, six, eight years. i think it years. i think it was meant to be a citizen's legislature, not a lifetime profession. paul: congressman guinta. rep. guinta: thank you. new hampshire has a rich tradition of public service. i have served the public as a

state legislator, as a city alderman, as mayor, and in my second term as member of congress. that is all after my private business sector support and experience. what i do believe in is term limits. absolutely. i want to see what we have many people experience, is people serving 420 and 30 and 40 years. that is not the idea people have about public service. so i would support term limits both in the house and the senate, so you have new and fresh ideas, and people who are passionate about the issues and serving the public. paul: congresswoman shea-porter. ms. shea-porter: i seem to remember frank saying he was going to put in a bill for term limits, and he didn't. he is been in politics since 2006. do think public service is a wonderful thing, and it is a great place to be an advocate for the middle class which is , why i am running. but i think we should leave it up to the voters. the voters are smart. when they decide they want to change, and i know that. our district is only 26% of a

40% independent, and 34% republican. we have to work hard for every single vote. when you don't get them or they do not come out, that is the decision. but it has to be left to the voters. it is heavy-handed, and what you're are asking for is the government to make the decision. rep. guinta: it's not heavy-handed. you been running since 2006. it's about what the people want around the entire country. i think people are frustrated with the lack of action and activity in washington. sometimes, people want fresh ideas, they want outsiders that will come in and do their best. it is an -- it is interesting, because you have been running since 2006. you and the leadership of the democratic party didn't allow mr. o'connor, essentially to run , a campaign in the democratic party where he first began. i was viewed as the outsider getting things done. working with any custer -- annie kuster on the drug issue. ms. shea-porter: wow.

you did not get six bills signed. but the reality is you said that you were going to put in a bill for term limits. and if you believe that, then good for you. you should put in a bill for term limits. but you have been involved. you cannot have it both ways. you talk about being a public servant. you have done two terms, i've done three so it's close. but you have been around since 2006, running for every office. and you say it is because of public service. and good for you. public service is a wonderful thing. paul: i want to give shawn o'connor essays -- a set. mr. o'connor: i think the one thing i can agree on is people want an outsider. they're tired of the debate. iv" of thisky debate. it's gone back and forth both of them. it's a good thing that they've been in politics since 2006. but if you want the same gridlock in washington, then we should elect another

hyper-partisan politician. each votes with the party 95% of the time. if you want an independent, common sense idea from someone who has built a successful business i would be proud to , represent you in washington. ms. shea-porter: it is bewildering that you ran as a progressive democrat when you are worried about hyper-partisanship and suddenly you decide to be an independent. whatever issue it is that drove you out, it is your choice to do that. but the reality is we do have to leave it up to the people. i respect the voter and i think we should all respect the voter and the voters' decisions. that is the way to supposed to be. rep. guinta: i served in business and then decided to offer my opportunity to serve to the public. that's what i've done. carol shea-porter has been running for the seat since 2006. people want an independent minded person. i got six different pieces of legislation signed into law this term with this president, in addition to working with my

colleague in the second congressional district and 45 other democrats on the heroin and opiate crisis. that is the kind of leadership that people are looking for. paul: definitely some disagreement. we will leave it there. keke: moving onto gun laws tonight. our question this evening, should there be background checks for all gun purchases? ms. shea-porter: yes there , should be background checks. the second amendment protects everybody's right to have a gun, except, we all know that we should not have guns if we are a danger to ourselves or others or if they are terrorists or criminals. and so the only way that you can find that out is to do a universal background check. because right now, you have folks who are abiding by the law, but you also have people who are selling guns and selling on the internet, do not get that check. it is like going to a metal detector at the airport. 60% go through the metal detector and 40% are told you do not have to, just go around.

so for our protection we want , law-abiding citizens to have guns. but we do not want people who are danger to themselves or -- we do not not want people who are danger to themselves or others or criminals or terrorists. that something americans support because you can see the numbers in the polls. republicans as well as democrats. it's very nonpartisan. people want to be safe on the streets, safe at home. keke: thank you. congressman guinta. rep. guinta: i think seriously of the second amendment of the rights that individuals have under the constitution. we do have background checks. any federally qualified dealer has to provide a background check for somebody regardless of , where that purchase takes place. that occurs in the state of new hampshire now. what is not occurring is something that troubles me greatly. not just this attorney general, of the united states but the , previous attorney general had 48,000 cases of documented individuals who went into purchase a gun, went to the

state check and the federal fbi check and failed. therefore, trying to purchase a gun illegally. and each and every one of those cases was referred to the attorney general and unfortunately, all they did was prosecute 44. we have laws on the books to go after individuals, already, that carol shea-porter identified. we have to get this attorney general to go after those individuals when they're breaking the law. keke: mr. o'connor. mr. o'connor: for those of you who saw the "union leader" article this sunday, the front-page article you saw that , in new hampshire, universal background checks are not working. we had a homeless individual in manchester who had a criminal history who was able to purchase a gun because it took too long to process the background check. and he went on to shoot two manchester police officers very tragically. i do support universal background checks. i think it should be instantaneous, because we have the technology to do that.

a new hampshire, the state has not chosen to take that on. we have it at the federal level. close the need to gun show loophole and the online loophole. but i find it ironic ms. shea-porter is for gun control, her last term, she voted against a bill, that was supported by many gun control advocates, that would have prevented children from risking their lives and houses in the district of columbia by overturning rules that the district of columbia wanted. keke: thank you. ms. shea-porter, a quick response? ms. shea-porter: yes. that was a court decision, as you know. and i said that i would respect the court decision. so i did. and i have always said that i will respect the court decision. paul: we have a lot more issues to tackle. our nh1 congressional district debate returns in a moment. keke: we will be back.

♪ paul: welcome back. you're watching the nh1 news first congressional debate. keke: we continue tonight with the issue of national security. candidates, we would like to ask you what three things are we not doing as a country to confront the threat of isis and terrorism in general? congressman guinta, we would like to begin with you. rep. guinta: the president refuses to continue with the authorization of military force act. i think it is incredible very -- incredibly necessary. we need a clear decisive plan to eradicate isis. third, we need to have greater opportunity to forge through leadership from the executive branch to work with our allies around the region and around the world. that is just not happening today.

earlier this week, we lost another american soldier in the fight to try to retake mosul. that should not have happened in the first place. i feel it we are not seeing from the president the real leadership that is necessary from the united states of america. this is something that continues to concern me, particularly because there's continued loss of american life. we want to minimize that. the best way to do that is to have a clear plan to radicalize -- to eradicate isis. keke: thank you. ms. shea-porter: i spent six years on the armed services committee, so i am well aware of the challenges around the world. i am surprised frank said that the president is refusing to do an authorization to use military force. what that is is the congress. we were asking at the time speaker john boehner to do that, because if you do not do that, then president obama will use the same one that president bush used. congress needs to do an authorization to use military force.

so it is not really fair to pass it off. i hope republicans will do that when they go back. because i think it is important. i agree with that. i think we need to do more funding, need to make sure we have a special or says we need. and the final part of this is we have to really keep working with the countries in that region. they have a lot at stake as well. exert the carrot and the stick. exert pressure and also the incentives for them to do that. keke: mr. o'connor? mr. o'connor: i oppose additional ground forces in syria and iraq, other than the u.s. special forces, which are already there. what we should do is forge with our nato allies and attempt to work with the russians, if possible. if that improves impossible -- if that proves impossible, we need to enforce the no-fly zone over aleppo. over civilians on the verge of 250,000 being slaughtered. we can't be the world's

allowman, but we cannot another genocide, as we have done in uganda and kosovo. we need to put into place a no-fly zone and work to bring the parties to the table. i think this is a place where we may have to exert real influence on russia because they are the , key player in this. they're bringing the backing of iran to support the assad regime. having had experience, working out the u.s. embassy in ecuador, with a secret security clearance, you can exert a lot of pressure as the american government. we can bring the parties to the table and have a diplomatic solution. paul: thank you. cox and ginter, we heard the shea-porter mention your name. rep. guinta: sure. and i'm a little concerned about what mr. o'connor's said. i don't know why he would want to implement a no-fly zone before we start working with her allies. that that be viewed as an escalation. we have to make sure that we have support in the region and our allies first before we consider that. secondly, relative to the

shea-porter, the reality is the president does not want to change the arumf. he wants to work under the old aumf. he has refused to tell congress, what his true plan is to eliminate and eradicate isis as a threat, domestic and foreign. keke: quick response. mr. o'connor: i think that's a mischaracterization of my statement. i said we need to work with our nato allies to put together a force that could implement a no-fly zone over aleppo. we are the world leader. we are the only world leader and we need to protect 250,000 civilians. i'm not going to support the u.s. allowing a genocide to occurred. ms. shea-porter: this makes it fun, because i agree with frank. and frank, clearly -- my experience is showing here -- that you do not want to do that go aswe sit down and heavily as shawn o'connor once, which would be a mistake. you need to work with the countries.

also, you need to use the u.n. and you have to bear down on everybody who was a player in that region. it is complicated, because there so many different players in there. they're all in there for different reasons. i agree with frank on that way. it is up to congress to do the aumf. i do not know why you will not say that. keke: we are going to move on this evening to the environment. do you believe climate change is an urgent issue, and if so, is it caused by nature or humans? mr. o'connor? mr. o'connor: absolutely. the evidence is abundantly clear that climate change is caused by human activity. winnie to both reduce the cost of energy in new hampshire, which is a terrible tax on our businesses and individuals and their ways living here, but at the same time, we need to do that in a environmentally sustainable way. for example, i would support northern pass if we did it in the same way that northern new york has done it, vermont has

done it, and maine has done it, which is to bury the lines along andinterstate routes, 89 we'll be allowed to collect a 93. licensing fee which federal , government would allow the state to keep. it would have to be dedicated to transportation to address our 400 bridges on the red list, some for up to ten years. keke: congressman guinta? rep. guinta: thank you very much for the question. not every scientist agrees whether this is man-made or not. there are a couple of things that need to be done. first, china and india need to play a greater role in what they're doing. here in the u.s., we have reduced carbon emissions more than any other nation around the world. that's a good start. when i served as mayor of our state's largest city, i voluntarily put a green roof on city hall. the only mayor to do it in the state without taxpayer money. we entered into conservation agreements focused on making sure that we were being energy conscience and energy-efficient. those are some of the steps i've

taken and i would continue to take, should i was able to serve as your next member of congress. ms. shea-porter: it is clearly a result of man-made activity. i'm surprised to hear congressman say that it's not proven. if you talk to any young people, whether democrats are hopkins, they want us to take actions. i spent four years in the natural resources committee and i know there are great problems but i am also optimistic about the solution. they're using about 30% green energy right now. we need to do it in this country, because because economically we can save money. it's healthier for lungs and the planet and will make us more secure, because we will not be as vulnerable as if we have to rely on an outside energy source. let's do this. i have supported investments in renewables. we should not be giving subsidies to mature oil topanies, we should give it

renewables because businesses , need about seven years to launch and invest. we know it is working. the cost of solar has dropped dramatically. there are cities doing this. so let's get this done. i would love to jump in. look she supported stimulus and provide more taxpayer money to the cylinder type companies. she talked about action. that's not the not the action we need. the kind of action that we need is what i have done. first of all, i am the only mayor in the largest city of new hampshire who put a green roof on city hall without taxpayer money. because we wanted to send the message that we are respectful and responsible to the environment. we put in conservation-based plans and programs in the city of manchester, which reduced the amount of energy we were using. the united states is doing that as well with co2 emission reduction. keke: thank you. we have a lot more issues you want to get her. paul: let's do a lightning round. answers would be

wonderful. let's start with northern pass. shawn o'connor, right now the plans are that they would he partially buried, do support it partially buried, d supported as is? mr. o'connor: no. rep. guinta: we can find a way where it is mutually beneficial for everyone. ms. shea-porter: keep working to bury the lines. i think it will be good if the lines were buried. but terrorism is so important in new hampshire, when each part that -- we need to protect that and the environment. paul: we've heard about the transpacific partnership during the presidential campaign. both nominees oppose it. if you're in congress in january and if it comes to a vote, would you support it or oppose it? ms. shea-porter: i would oppose it, because it allows outside businesses to sue countries. it really takes away a lot of our independence. and we don't have a way to enforce fair labor practices so , i would oppose it. rep. guinta: i announced my opposition to it months ago, because it doesn't address some of the key issues that i think are critically important for job

growth in the united states. mr. o'connor: i would oppose it. two reasons. number one, it invites a race to the bottom in regards to wages and labor. it also invites a race to the bottom with regards to bimetal -- environmental protections. we would be ceding our sovereignty to a multinational organization to administer our labor relations and environmental regulations, and we can't support a race to the bottom. paul: minimum wage, do you support raising it and if so what wage? ,mr. o'connor: i support incrementally raising it with a 50% small business tax credit each year. rep. guinta: the way to rich their minimum wages to have economic growth and have the competitive opportunities for the private sector is raising it because there's need to do so. ms. shea-porter: we do need to raise the minimum wage. studies have shown, when they look at states that border one another, that raising the minimum wage has not damaged it.

it puts more money in the local community. keke: final 1 -- would you support a federal bill legalizing recreational marijuana? ms. shea-porter: i think people should be allowed to grow, for personal use, their marijuana. i do know i you idea of stores and an economy that is using it. but we should meet -- we certainly should be decriminalizing it. rep. guinta: i have a 13-year-old and 11-year-old and we are not sending the message to them that marijuana is good for their use. i have seen a harvard study that shows is highly addictive. the fact that were in this heroin and opiate crisis to just to me that we should err on the side of caution and get alternatives. mr. o'connor: i support medical use for marijuana. i'll close any use of marijuana for individuals under the age of 21. when it comes to recreational use, we need to look closely at

what happens on november 8 in massachusetts. if they were to legalize that, they will capture the tax dollars. we would not be able to stem the marijuana coming into the state. i think we would then need to revisit the issue at that point. keke: thank you so much. we appreciate it. time now for closing statements. ms. shea-porter: i'm running again because we still have work , to do. it's been my goal all along to try to restore the american dream. i grew up in a three generation family. we all worked very hard. i saw the problems and the joys. my parents told me that my mission here is to serve others. i have in a social worker here. i have been a teacher. and i have committed to the people of this state and this country. i think it's in our dna to solve our problems. i know are facing difficulties, but i'm positive and optimistic about the future of the greatest country the world. i want to be there because, as they say, if you're not at the table, you are on the menu. i want to be on the table for

the middle class people in new hampshire, to make sure children can afford to go to school, they can get a house or pay their rent or whatever it is they wish to do, that they can retire with dignity and they have safe streets and good infrastructure, clean water, clean air. basically, it is just what we have had and recognize. and we know we need to do that for the american dream. so i ask for your vote. rep. guinta: thank you very much. i'm asking for your vote on november 8. we have someone -- carol shea-porter has run since 2006, supports obamacare, dodd-frank, things that are massive challenges to our economy. we also have a newcomer to the race, shawn o'connor, who is a self identified progressive who supported bernie sanders who could not run in the democratic primary because of how he was treated by the leadership of the democratic party. he doesn't share the same views i do and he's very close, if not further to the left then carol

shea-porter. i think we need a different path. someone will focus on solutions. i've been able to get six pieces of legislation signed into law. i've worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. i am committed to making sure that every granite stater is represented, not just people from one party. keke: thank you. mr. o'connor: first, i want to paul, for keke and moderating. what we just witnessed was our every two year exercise in hyper partisanship since 2006. i think you want to change and that's why i'm running. i'm the only candidate on the stage that has worked for democrat and a republican. i'm the only candidate who is million int least $2 or $10 million or more

in super pac and party support. i will never take a penny. i'm the only person on the stage who signed the front and backs of checks and balance budgets and a multimillion dollar company for a decade. i'm the only candidate who is not going to washington for personal enrichment. i will work for $14,000 per year and i will return of your money $160,000 to new hampshire charities that you choose. we need to put service back in the public service. paul: thinking -- thank you for taking part in tonight's debate. keke: that is it for our first congressional district debate. if you want to watch part of it, head to our website or our facebook page. the action continues tomorrow night with the congressional second district debate between any custer and her challenger. that showdown starts at 8:00 p.m. his anc chris sununu and challenger will take the stage. we wrap up when kelly ayotte and maggie hassan debate important

issues to you right here on nh1 in our studios. it all starts at 8:00 p.m. remember, we want to hear your questions. head to our website. keke: thank you so much for watching. have a good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the supreme court is hosting an immoral for the late justice antonin scalia a. -- scalia. we will take you there at 1:45 at the supreme court bar honors justice scully left -- scalia. on the road to the white house, a look at the trump campaign schedule today.

members of his family are campaigning in arizona, new mexico, and michigan. pence is making subs in florida, north carolina, and michigan. the republican presidential nominee taking three stops in three states -- ohio, pennsylvania, and new hampshire, all considered electoral battlegrounds. we will have live coverage of clinton's rally later this 5:15,oon in detroit at and we will be with donald trump in pennsylvania as he holds a rally this evening at 7:00. election night on c-span, watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be on location at the hillary clinton and donald trump election i headquarters, and and concession speeches, starting life at 8:00 p.m. eastern and the following

24 hours. watch live, on-demand at www.c-span.org, or use the radio app. call" reports the balance of the senate depends on six states. south carolina is solidly republican. here is one of the debates between tim scott and democratic candidate thomas dixon. ony debated in greenville what the senate's role should be on advising and consenting supreme court nominees. scott and senator tim thomas dixon joining us this evening. [applause]

gentlemen, i want to give you the same opportunity i gave the house candidate to talk about an issue that your campaign is important to you. talk about the same issues, so you get the double deck. we try to make -- dip. make everyone happy. senator scott, what you want congress to do? senator scott: having been a kid in a single-parent household who 14, whofrom seven until forgot of high school as a u.s.man, i may be the only senator who failed six, and i failed spanish and english. they do not call you bilingual. differentt to four

elementary schools by the time i was in the fourth grade. when you are poor, you are fairly transient. i would love to see congress create more actions that access for families. $700 billion about on education. we do not have control of education. there are hundreds of funding streams into each district around the state. it is creating chaotic results. so if we were able to get rid of avenues forreate parents to have more options in education, the more choices a

parent has, the greater the chance were the child. nor is success academically, because your academic success will have a large role to play in your success in your profession. >> mr. dixon, what about you on education? mr. dixon: has the good senator explained -- and i definitely understand your explanation -- and a lot of your platform has been school choice. when the reality is school choice, it illuminates a portion of our and whose parents nn to be in school or even be cost or bused to a particular -- or driven to a particular location. until we understand that every child deserves a quality public

education, what we are doing is we are setting up our society to be an unsafe society. our childreng up in the schools-two-prison pipeline, by not giving them early childhood education that proves they will lead to a more productive child in the educational system, by assuring in our public school system that every child has access to a quality public education that will eliminate, ep them from pipeline.l-two-prison we can begin to produce -- have greater productivity as our children go from the elementary level to the post-elementary and secondarye canary -- levels, and we will have built a stronger society as opposed to segregating segments of society

education.ity i understand that. choice,look at school there is a strong possibility to read this and why your grandfather did not read is he was subject to school choice. --was subject to school segregation. he was not allowed to get a education because he was not part of a certain ethnic of our ivy and might not have been able to afford it. we need to move forward with the educational process with all of regardless of color, race, creed, economic background, zip code, or anything. doubt --senator scott: no doubt my grandfather who passed away grew up where the access to opportunity and education was not available. no doubt. i think god that i grew up in a

state that has evolved in tremendously -- evolved tremendously. we have so much to be proud of south carolina. -- thet education bill last seven years, the education bill did not see the light of day. this is the first time we were able to pass legislation to fund k-12, and title i spending this cycle allows for or prekindergarten funny. if you're in one of the fragile areas zip code wise, and you have access to use some of your title i funding for pre-k. university'sman campus, a private school. it receives public funding. receivesgrant -- it

public money from the state. withs it that we are ok colleges and universities around the country receiving public dollars for private universities, with those kids who grew up in my neighborhood in north charleston may not have a quality choice in their neighborhood and will never have the opportunity to have a pell grant? another question is, and this is another awesome opportunity, the next generation of choice. they are called charters fool's magnet schools, virtual schools. are these are in the apparatus education, all public. there is a new phrase called ment where the charters will becomes a local school freight never heard, similar to

the schools that i grew up in. these schools are neighborhood schools. toy charter schools can ta t pce of thosscol that are failing. if we give parents more public options, i call that a victory. so while i will go the extra guard without any question, the extra mile for school choice, the reality of it is embedded in the public apparatus today is choice. the question is, can you find it in the neighborhoods that are most vulnerable, and the answer is very clear, because the outcomes tell us what the answer is. no.er is too often [applause] mrdin: that is exactly where our legislators have leilen dowo children down. we are smarter, clever enough to locate the funding.

we are smart enough to pay the teachers in order to educate our children. we are smart enough and well-verenough in order to look into best practices that can be utilized within our public school system, but to schools,t charter magnet schools, when i have see their effect in north charleston, right there, where they started out with its great concept in min time, it went out to be 98% white and 2% black. that is not the exception. that rule. what we need to do, and we need to talk about solutions, because weekend go around on the issue -- we can go around on the issues -- the solution is going to be continually that everybody in america, every child in america deserves a quality public education. i'm not discounting the fact that those who can afford to pay

for privatechooling or take advantage of school choice that th should n have that opportunity also. i fully agree with that. we cannot overlook those who are not just as advantage. let me say this, because i think we are on similar pages. senator scott: here is what i am suggesting. it is not working. in why charleston county that the graduation rate for an in fouramerican male years is around 40%. there is a reason w nth charleston high school and -- high school, both in the place where we both live, or almost segregatedchls again.

virtually african-american at northstar stunt. the premise that charleston -- charter schools create segregated schools is reinforced by the public schools in the area. if you want to see a great example in our state, we can give you a couple of. i was in philadelphia, heart of the city, great charter school school.a cachement the parents are excite this. in new york city come out of the 4000 public schools in new york, this fes athe success can make goes over2% african-americ and hispanic whose average income is under $40,000 a year. and three of the best five

schools in math, and 97% of the kids are proficient in science, the reality is all kids can learn. we have to embrace tt. whatever it takes, whatever it takes to make sure that a quality education is in the backyard of a student, i'm going to do. what do we say for the kids that are failing today? it is because they are in they are stuck.. if the school in the neighborhood is not working, the least we can do is give more options to the parent. if we do that, i think we'll find ourselves with better statistics in employment. mr. dixon: once again, i find no problem with giving more options the parents whatsoever. hole that allows thosehat there who caotit into those

options that cost -- let me just put it this way. i haven't been able to afford to go to new york and to this place and that place, but i have been to charleston county school stct antheir ar consistently over the quality of education and the investment that they made in the mehirethat you are talking about in these so-called failing school i know for a fact that that investment that they have put into these schools is substandard. they have not done their job like so many that we have heard and will continue to hear until we see people being treated in america the way that americans should be treated. theyave nodo tirobo ensure that every child within charleston county school district receives a great education. they have not done it. as a matter of fact, the last term, they wound up losing $18 million of taxpayer money that should have gone into it. then, the cfo, the chief

financial officers, quit, walked away, no accountability whatsoever. that money goes to help those schools. we knoth meyumd to schools ensures that schools will be more sucssl. but i'll let you talk. senator scott: i don't dispute with you. i would just suggest that when you look at the apparatus of education as a nation, we spend $700 billion. in the high-income countries we , are 14th, 17th, and 26th in math, science, and reading. our schools are failing the poorest kids. e poorest outcomes are where the poverty levels are the hies we have to do better. mr. dixon: we turn around and offer charters and we offer incentives to help to subsidize those schools. that's money that could be poured bacinto the public schools.

we have to find a way to ensure we don't have our students graduating or being released. i call it released from 8th grade with a 3rd-grade reading level. that's ridiculous in america. rough segregation. that'extlwh you are talking about when you are talking school of choice. you are talking segregation. senator scott: unfortunately, our public schools, especially in our city, are segregated. i woulsuggest on the funding mechanism. let's remember, that charter schools receive less than half of the money of a public school. the options are very clear. if you are in a school, let's create more options in the public apparatus. i would even go further, as we have had to do in d.c. with the support of the city council and the mayor of d.c. you have to have charter schools and school choice for kids to be

able to succeed. in d.c., the average, because we are talking about america's education, not just south carolina's education. an average student in d.c. is $22,000 per pupil. they graduate 56% of the time. the school of choice, with satisfaction rate among african-american and hispanic parents, graduates 93% of the time. 91% of the time, those kids go on to a two- or four-year education. in other words, it is 40% of the cost. for about $10,000, you get a higher quality education than you do for $22,000 and there is a 25,000 student waiting list for the charter schools. mr. dixon: my last comment. very simple. washington, d.c., new york city,

all of these things. why are we number 42 out of 50 states for education? f the answer, by the way,at's a. is that in south carolina, 44 ce 46 cents on the dollar goes to the classroom. the average nationwide is 65 cents out of the dollar. said differently, we could have another $1 billion in the classroom if south carolina changed its formula and the legislators and governor would veo ve a robust conversation on how to get there. but part of the reason we are so far behind, from my estimation, we have $1 billion lost in administration and not getting to a child. quite all right. >> all right. we're going to shift gears a little bit. pastor dixon, one of the issues you said is important to you is gun violence. if you were a member of congress, what would you do

about gun violence? mr. dixon: the first thing i would do and the same thing i have been pushing for is that we actually need to close the brady backgrou that allow guns to ands of those who are notto have guns, that shouldn't have guns. i want to make it perfectly clear right here, right off the bat that i am not anti-second amendment, that i am amendment, that i am pro-constitution when it comes to the right to bear arms. but we are americans and we are charged with the fact of keepins that should be our first and foremost consideration. right now, through the proliferation of guns that are flooding into the communities throughout america, guns that are getting into the community through the background check loopholes that allow online sales without any kind of identification of anything. i'll put it out here right now. i am an ex-felon.

i can buy a gun online. straw gun purchases that are flooding guns into the community. people like to talk about chicago and the gun violence going on in chicago, my home. the guns in the community that are being used for gun violence in chicago, they are not made or sold in those communities. they are being brought in, purchased from bad apple gun dealers, that 5% of the legal gun dealers who are responsible for 90% of the guns used in crimes. those loopholes need to be changed and they need to be changed immediately. it has been estimated -- i can only speak on an eate on this, because i am really unsure on this -- since brady was enacted in 1994, erhabe aut mli guns kept out of the hand of those who should not have guns in their hands. h bn titebyhe stiscis atha translates into 2 million lives sad.

those are estimates. what i say to that is if closing the background check loopholes, if prosecuting, getting rid of the protection of lawful commerce and arms act that protects bad apple gun dealers, if we do those things and one life is saved, wha de at we are supposed to do. i have stood with lost their loved ones to crime. i have stood with the families who have lost their families in mother emanuel because of what is called the charleston loophole, a legal loophole that dylan roof got his hands on that gun. a dealer gave him that gun because the background check wasn't over 72 hours. that's a problem with the background check system.

but common sense, why have that option to sell to a person? we have nine people in a church dead because of the charleston loophole that now we know this shouldn't have happened. we still don'ha icled i don't understand that. many people say, the gun rights people say, well, you know, nothing prevents a person from killing those who -- a person athouldn't have a gun from killing people other than those who have guns. the e the preventative force. the reality is, when we look at dallas, you had armed law enforcement, armed to the teeth. at the end of the day, one man with a military-style assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine, killed five and kept the entire department at bay. my whole thing is, when it comes to firearms, and i said it already, if we don't do

everythingcainur means to stop the violence in order to stop people from dying by the hands of those who shouldn't have their hands on guns anyway, we've let our american public down. that's un-american. we're americans and we take care of our citizens. [applause] >> senator scott, your thoughts on gun violence. senator scott: i was looking at my text from the pastor at emanuel and how happy he was when i was chosen for the senate and how he invited me down to his church to introduce meo his congregation. i remember sitting through those

nine funerals and wakes. rember coming up here and flying to flying in to see the school where jacob hall was shot. i remember coming in my superman t-shirt to his funeral. i remember being at walter scott's funeral. the truth on the charleston loophole, dylann roof was a prohibited person. it was already against the law for him to get a gun. g o. there is no way to close the loophole in the charleston case that was already closed. it was illegal. he should not have had a gun. he should not have had a gun. i think about the issue of gun violence in this country, think about this. 30,000 people in this nation lose their lives because of a gun.

65% of those folks take their own lives. 65%. 20,000 people out of the 30,000 took their own lives. out of 35, according to philip co, o supposedly the researcher on gun violence and guns, 3%, that's the number of folks who legally buy a gun at a show, buy a gun ywre, has been that person who uses that gun in a crime. the vast majority of folks steal their weapons to commit the violence. if you take the 30,000 number down to the ,000, 've taken 20,000 out because of suicide, about 5,000 to 6,000 of those

gun deaths are homicides. four cities out of 35,000 cities in america represent 25% of those gun deaths. even in those cities, chicago, baltimore, detroit, d.c., those cities havthe mo rtricted gun laws in the country. so when we have a conversation about how to make people safer with more gun laws, even chris murphy, friend of mine, democrat from connecticut, filibuster, when asked a question on, i any think it was, "face the nation,"

certainly, it wasn't fox news, e t oer shows. it is running in my head. he said the laws he was pushing would not have saved the lives in the massacres in connecticut. they broke 41 gun laws. >> so what do we do? senator scott: the challenge is, congress aren't law enforcement officers. nor are we the courts. our law enforcement officers arrest these folks, put them in jail. sometimes they get out. our law enforcement officers are doing their job. >> are we giving them enough resources to do the jobs and crack down on the people that senator scott: a couple things. we have grants that help support firsi ve a legislation, safer officers, safer citizens. it would provide $100 million more to assist law enforcement officers. the resource question doesn't seem to be the answer to stop the crimes from happening. the answer is not within the realm of congress to stop it from happening. we have taken up last year and

this year, we have all heard, no fly, no buy. we put a lid on that but it failed because of due process. we can make progress if we get both sides to say yes to due process. that's the biggest dilineation in congress. mr. dixon: both sides need to come together. as i listen to your conversation, i was there. i have been with judy scott and thsct family. i have been with the survivors and wiamika myers' mother, whose daughter went out on her 19th birthday and didn't come back home. i have been with mely faenwhose niece went to myrtle beach and didn't come

home because somebody shot opened fire on them there. we can break down those numbers and everything and play the numbers game. ththg , unless we do everything within our power in order to stop tamika meyers from losing her daughter or melody from losing her niece or judy scott from losing her son, then we've let americaown. you kind of sort of made light of it, it seems like to me. with all due respect to you, and i have the utmost respect for you. senator scott: yes, sir. yes, sir. mr. dixon: and i would love to work along with you somewhere in the future. but when it comes to gun legislation, common sense gun legislation that's going to reduce the violence that we see in america, if we don't do everything we can within our power, then we are letting americans down.

when will it touch you or when will it touch anyone in this audience today? it is not bound by color, race, creed, gender orientation, or anything. gun vien wl va anyone's house. the proliferation or the amount of guns that are in the community are because of the standard law enforcement answer. that's a lie out of the pits of hell. i come fm a community. i come from the projects of chicago. i know how guns came in back then when it was better than it is now. it is still going on. i can look for that guy to pull 8-year-old with $20, ien it up. could buy a gun. mon-sense gun legislation, we close the backgrouheck loopholes. we shut down bad apple gun dealers. we identify them and repeal protection of law for common

arms act so they are not precd yme. we stop online gun sales. i'm not going to say when it comes to mity sault-style weapons. there does need to be more training involved and more licensing involvedn this. i am not going to say licensing. anyway it goes, though, we are charged with this. i am not yet into the senator's spot, which i am going to occupy. we are charged with the task of taking care of americans, because that he what we do. when we send our volunteers off to fight for their country, they make a pledge to die for this country. there is no reason why abo on any day in america should not get up in a situation of safety

, in a country of safety where you don't have to worry about to the miewhere you don't have to worry about going to church, where you don't have to worry about going to school, where you definitely don't have to worry about a group of 6-year-olds. you don't have to worry about about somebody coming up in the elementary school gunning them down. senator scott: i am with you. i would suggest if you could take a look at the chicago statistics spefically about whether or not those guns were legally purchased, the stats are clear, in black and white, number one, and number two, i would suggest the reality of it is that in each case that you just mentioned, dozens, if not 40 laws broken in connecticut. each incident you have mentioned, at least a dozen laws were broken. ifhe laws we have on the books aren't working, what law do you suggest?

because i'll tell you, charleston, the charleston loophole was actually a law that said that he should not have had the gun. so it was breaking that law. mr. dixon: how about the law of love that says that i am my brother's keeper? how about that law? senator scott: i am a g fan of first corinthians 13, the entire chapter, faith, hope, and love. mr. dixon: i didn't overtalk you. let's show some love in here. senator scott: i want to be on ct we can't each have our own facts. mr. dixon: i am not disputing your facts. what i'm saying is that, any time that we fail to do anything that we can in order to stop someone from dying, the way you broke it down, suicide, you got if down to this little number. i don't know what you are saying

about chicago, the fact is, in chicago, these are not legal guns that are killing people. senator scott: that's rit. theyre not legal guns. mr. dixon: i don't know the comments you were making. senator scott: they are illegal guns. mr. dixon: because of that, in chicago, where this massive amount of illegal guns are, those folks don't make no guns. there are no gun stores in their community. the guns are coming from somewhere. if they are coming from somewhere, they must be coming out of the back door of somebody's gun shop, online purchases, straw purchases. they are getting in there from somewhere. yes, it is a matter of enforcing laws. but until we do that, we can not overlook anything that's going to make america safer for americans. nothing whatsoever. senator scott: i actually agree wi you, sir. >> good, we have agreement and we are going to go to another question. [applause] all right. one of the unique responsibilities of senators is

to provide advice and consent on the president's nominees to the courts. judge merrick garland was nominated in march. he has not yet received a hearing or a vote. there are dozens of vacancies on the lower federal courts. some of these nominees have been itg r rehan a year for senate action. i am notskg u at you would do regarding a specific nominee currently nominad. is that confusing enough? i want to know what you think the senate's responsibility is regarding nominations. ou ty gen hri and or aotanwhat ctea would you use to determine whether you would confirm a president's nominees to the ur let's start with pastor dixon -- unless you would rather i start with senator scott. mr. dixon: i think i will defer to my senator.

>> this is how conversations work. mr. dixon: to my seated senator, yes. senator scott: a couple things. on the lower courts, bruce smith was just put on the bench within the last 24 months. mr. coggins from the upstate, other we held a hearing on. on the supreme court, in the last 100 years, the party that occupies the white house at the same time has a different party controlling the senate, the last 100 years, one time has there been a supreme court justice allowed in that last year. to use the words of vice president biden, chuck schumer, and dick durbin, when asked if they would allow for president bush to have a nominee in his last year, the answer was no, we woulnodoo. >> to clarify, that question was asked inunofhe presidential election year and it was a hypothetical question. there was no vacancy at the time.

senator scott: so, to continue my point here, because i think you helped me build that point. >> i want to make sure we are all clear on that. senator scott: which is a very important point, because even the moderator, who is moderating this, has a strong opinion on where we should go much the reality of it is simply this -- >> i didn't say they were right. i just said that was the timing of when they did it. i strongly disagree with what they did. senator scott: you sure? go ahead. >> i know you are fired up. senator scott: the reality of it is that both sides have consistent oos aomee in the last year. there is a reason why. as president obama said, elections have consequences. therefore, we are waiting until this election is over before there is an appointment. i'm sure there will be. the fact of the matter is that

for us who believe a more conservative justice would be helpful, the president is not going to provide us with a conservative nominee. so our advice and consent, we have advised him that we are not going to consent. if they would like to come back with a more conservative nominee, i am sure we would consider it. ith your criteria? senator scott: i want the most conservative candidate i think i can get. >> pastor dixon? mr. dixon: i think it is dangerous to set in stone our actions today based on how things went in the past. if just because things were done a particular way in the past, we say, oh, it has been done that way, even though it is not law, that we have to continue doing

things and we justify our behaviors based on the way things were done, i think that's dangerous. and we have every opportunity this year to confirm a supreme court justice that was not only extremely moderate in his opinions, but someone that most those on the aisle seemed to gravitate to a bit. but we have a republican- controlled congress that basically says no, because president obama has nominated the supreme court justice, the same way they have done consistently for the last eight years. [applause] mr. dixon: i don't want to make this about president obama. he is not running for this office. the reality is congress is arged thhe task of doing its job, not based on the way things have been, but the way things are right now. so let's get the job done.

that's e whole thing. [applause] mr. dixon: and the nominees, the nominee was someone -- is someone that could be acceptable to both parties across the aisle, if it was just simple thing of saying, let's get the job done, let's get it done. some good candidates, qualified ndat, mawhe rals are impeccable, who is acceptable for both sides of the aisle. but the only reason i can e -- this is only a personal opinion. and it has to be with the same obstructionist view we have seen consistently over eight years, that says, anything this president puts out, we are going to say no and we are going to wait to gain an advantage to get someone who leans more to the right than toward the left, when the people of america deserve somebody who understands both

sides of the aisle and will vote in the best interests of americans at large. [applause] >> one of the cops debated, -- topics debated, judge america merrick garland's nomination being debat. speakers here will include the general.licitor you are watching live coverage of the memorial for the late chief justice antonin scalia out here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> ladies and gentlemen, please

question mark -- please? good afternoon, and welcome to the supreme court of the united states. all electronic devices must be turned off at this time. prohibited at the bar meeting and inside the courtroom. at the conclusion of the bar meeting, remain seated until you are directed to go inside the courtroom. color-codedyour card to show the ushers before you go into the courtroom. thank you very much.

members ofernoon, the scalia family, never's of the court, members of the bar and friends, this meeting of the bar of the supreme court of united states has been called to honor the memory of antonin

scalia a, who served as an associate justice of the supreme court in 1986 until 2016. in addition his time on the court, justice scalia served his country as a judge on the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit, and in the executive branch where he was among other things assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel at the department of justice. over the course of his decades of service, justice scalia made a profound contribution to the nation and to our legal system. it affected ways generations of lawyers, judges, professors, and citizens understand the law. he was a man of deep faith, less with a towering intellects, a wonderful sense of humor, and an abiding respect for the constitution. he was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, a valued colleague, and inspiring teacher, and irreplaceable mentor, and a loyal friend. we all miss him greatly.

i want today to express my appreciation to kristin windley who cochairs the committee. and the members of that --mmittee i also want to express my deep gratitude to judge jeffrey sutton andauclenwh cochaired the resolutions committee and the members of that committee. [naming members of committee]

mr. gershengorn: i want to thank for his wise counsel. i now turn the podium and the meeting over to paul. paul: thank you, mr. solicitor general. thank you, mr. chief justice, justicee justice, stevens, madam attorney general, and each and every one of you were here today to help with what seems like a nearly impossible task, to pay adequate tribute in a few speeches and resolutions to the extraordinary and impact of justice antonin scalia. antonin scalia a was born march 11, 1936 come in trenton, new

jersey, and was raised in queens, new york. scaliahe son of salvador and catherine louise scalia from trenton, new jersey. both of his parents were teachers. and while of relatively modest financial means, the household in which the future justice was to be raised was by all accounts very wealthy, in faith in values, and in the love of and dedication to learning and teaching. so let us not forget today to remember and to thank justice scalia's parents who gave our country and the law such a tremendous gift in the person of their only child. as you will hear presently, has had a nearly unrivaled impact on the courts, the law legal education, and the legal profession, as well as on

generations of people in these fields. i would like to think of justice gravitationt as in the way that that term is understood by modern science. he is like a bright sr ose s is soctual mats weighty it been in a manner that curves the path of any celestial body that comes anywhere near it. some of us ended up in his orbit, and i may say proudly so. and others sibley had the trajectory of their thinking forever altered. but everyone in the courts and in the legal profession felt the pull and was affected by the weight of his ideas and intellect and the force of his arguments. i should probably add i once used this gravitational description of his legacy on a panel that justice scalia and i were on to get it.

when i finished, he looked at me with that look of equal parts slyness, contempt, self-satisfaction, and affection and said, you are wanting to describe me as a large mass? [laughter] cappuccio: you could hear us, right? justice scalia was a treasure in a way that is all too uncommon today. when he believed he was right, he was uncompromising. and his pen often took no prisoners. but he was often uncompromising in his genuine affection for people who disagreed with him strongly. his deep friendship with an great affection for his is of course well-known, but that is not the exception. is thetice scalia, it rule. his life was rich with a

seemingly never ending an expanding list of people with in broad,sagreed fundamental, and even sharp he nevertheless respected, enjoyed, and just plain like to a great deal. i never asked him about this, but i suspect if i had he would have shot back with that signature grin and said something about hating the sin and loving the sinner. , theurse, this quality ability to disagree strongly while maintaining genuine respect for and affection towards each other, is perhaps one of the greatest hallmarks of this court, but is nonetheless a great loss of all of us to witness the passing of one possessed so thoroughly this ounce of spirit that is so essential to our republic. this morning we are going to hear from four speakers, i each a former clerk of the

justice about how our great mentor and friend affected them as well as their professions. rachel, a former and add al join us few words and move the resolutions. our first speaker today were we who clerked for justice scalia in the 1989 term. >> thank you, paul. i will share some thoughts about what we learned from justice scalia and his i points on the legal profession. he had been on the court only three years when we had the good fortune to work for him. he had just begin the process of trying to persuade his

colleagues to rethink the way they approached the law, statutory and constitutional. drafted opinions from other chambers, he would rail against common phrase, we begin as always with the text of the statute. what do you mean you begin with the text? why not begin and end with the text? that turkey insisted on writing separately in cases where the main opinion relied on policy, fairness, or legislative history. he would refuse to join a lone paragraph because the author cited a paragraph from an office report. he would write the only legitimate statutory law is that passed by congress and signed by the president. not hidden meanings stuck through such easily manipulated sources. that his clear to us adherence to the enacted test an not as formalism, but

approach compelled by our constitutional search for government. judges reachedr statutes -- read statutes, they improperly alter the constitutional bounds and transfer power away from congress. it into the step or for rent the house report or to the senator or to the unelected judges. if that means we must give effect to awkward language, so be it. it was not the judge's job to change the enacted law. strong views on constitutional structure were by no means tentative or still in formation when we began our clerkship, or when he began a justice a few years earlier. deeplyre already ingrained and affected every case he encountered. we had already his dissent in morrison v. olson.

it was filled with quotable maxims including my own personal favorite, he who lives by the i dies by the ipsy dixit. no one articulated a vision with more passion and lucidity on cases large and small band did justice scalia. early in his tenure, we saw his constitutional vision play out. he insisted that the andtitutional words structure must control, not the views of a majority of justices. and that if any further elucidation is needed, it should come from the historical context of the relevant phrases. method was a new mediated in the constitution and should be given effect and not watered-down because of new social mores. if it was not enumerated, the

urt should not included. this approach affected his efforts to text and response to the of the legislature to make the law. after my clerkship, i ended the practice of law with support from justice scalia. he had worked in a well-regarded law firm and encouraged us to spend time in the practice before going into teaching or other pursuits. ain and you will g understanding of how the law works and have a professional home. i decided to stay in the practice and over the past 26 years i have seen justice scalia's influence on the profession. shift to a more textual approach hass really signified an improved practice of law, especially in statutory

cases. before justice scalia, lawyers would have to analyze vines of gatheringe history, passages from the congressional record to support their preferred reading. this was done at significant cost the clients on both side and really was tangible and helpful with results. now lawyers focus much more on the text instructions of the statutory schemes, contract, or constitutional provisions. this shift can be traced to justice scalia. the first is his influence on legal teaching sheet by the fact that law professors across the opinions atsign important statements of the law, even if they disagree with conclusions. unlike when i was a student, --t law to death schools schools teach interpretation.

moreesult is lawyers are inclined to focus on legal texts and the proper version of judges within our and as more and more young lawyers are trained in this way, the profession naturally shifts as well. this trend parallels changes in .he judiciary good lawyers always shake their arguments to what judges unpersuasive and judges in the post-scalia world are less likely to be. influenced live policy considerations, general notions of congressional purpose, or legislative history and more likely to focus on the .ext they have been given all of this has affected the profession, but with one caveat from justice scalia himself. as he was quick to tell us with a smile, not all judges shared all of his views and ultimately a lawyer's duty is to his or her client, not to advance that lawyers view of what the law should be. so hul