The following is a New Hampshire election special presentation.

The New Hampshire candidate debates 2022 in collaboration with New Hampshire.

Public Radio, New Hampshire PBS and New Hampshire Bulletin.

Production support is provided by the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire.

Welcome to NHPR's New Hampshire's Governors Debate.

I'm Josh Rogers, reporter at NHPR, joined by Ethan DeWitt of The New Hampshire Bulletin.

These debates are produced with The Bulletin and New Hampshire PBS.

We're joined by incumbent Republican Governor Chris Sununu.

Challenger, Democratic State Senator Tom Sherman.

Welcome to you both.

Thank you for having us.

Great.

As you as you can hear, we do have a live audience today here at NH PR, a bit about our format.

We will have six.

Each count will get 60 seconds for an opening statement we'll then move to questions.

Candidates will get 60 seconds to respond.

Ethan and I may at times follow up with a question or to see clarity.

Candidates will get 30 seconds on those and in the case of a direct attack or invocation, we'll be allowing candidates 30 seconds to respond.

We did rely on the public's feedback in selecting today's topics and want to thank everyone who supplied input.

Now get started with the opening statement.

We did have a coin flip.

Senator Sherman, your first one minute.

Thank you.

And thank you for having the event.

I've spent my entire career helping people, whether as an EMT and high school, as a doctor, as a state rep, or as a state senator.

Over the years, my patients have taught me some incredible lessons.

The two most important is that every relationship must be built on trust and you have to listen.

So I've been using those in the legislature, and they've allowed me to lead on Medicaid expansion, lowering prescription drug costs, and most recently helping promote New Hampshire manufacture nurturing.

I've been listening for the last several months since we started out this campaign, and people are struggling.

The people of New Hampshire are facing astoundingly rising property taxes, energy costs, child care costs, housing problems, and businesses can't find workforce.

Chris Sununu has been off track, taking the state to places where I never thought we would go with the first abortion ban in modern history and blocking nearly every effort to expand our energy options and lower cost.

New Hampshire deserves a governor who will focus on the people of New Hampshire.

I'm running to do exactly that.

These are solvable problems, and we need a governor who knows how to do it.

I'm looking for your vote in November.

Thank you, Governor.

You're up great.

Well, thank you.

It's great to see live audience.

We're back in studio again, which is pretty cool.

Look, relatively speaking, we know the nation has a lot of challenges ahead of it.

Inflation is absolutely overbearing on folks, but New Hampshire is in a really good spot when you look at the strength of our economy far and away the strongest anywhere on the East Coast.

When you look at the fact we're only state growing in population for the first time, the biggest population increase in young families in over 20 years, which is pretty exciting.

The most personal freedoms.

The lowest poverty rate in the country.

Some of the highest wage, average wages in the country.

So we have a lot of great economic opportunity that comes with the responsibility and discipline of fiscal responsibility at the top.

We always deliver a budget a budget with surpluses, which allows the state to make investments in things like the new opioid system that we call the doorway, or the new mental health investments in terms of buying hospitals and making those, again, those onetime investments to really shore up our infrastructure.

So we have a ton of opportunity.

And a state that's going well doesn't mean we don't have our challenges.

But when you have fiscal responsibility at the top, it gives you that leverage, that offer that chance to really make investments the states never made before.

So it's all about earning the vote, though, right?

I don't ask people to vote for me on platitudes or anything.

Like that.

I do ask folks to just look at the record.

We have a tremendous record of success here in New Hampshire.

All right.

We want to build on it.

We'll be getting into that.

Ethan, good question.

Let's start with the topic of housing Senator.

The cost of an average home in New Hampshire hit a record high this year.

Rents are skyrocketing.

Housing availability is scarce.

Housing experts have long said we need 20,000 more units to create a stable market in the state.

What would you do during your first year in office?

To help us get us there.

60 seconds, Liz.

We have a housing plan on our website.

Has three components.

One is working with communities.

The second one works with commercial and nonprofit developers.

And the third helps build the work force behind the construction of that housing.

The plan that uses federal funding that the governor has proposed is okay.

It only provides workforce housing for the first five years.

So then it goes on to commercial.

That's a problem.

It only goes it only addresses about 2000 units and we need 20,000 units.

So my plan doubles down on that.

So in the first year, we would have the $100 million of federal funding that has that the governor has put forward.

But on top of that, we have another $35 million a year to build that program and really be thinking long term.

This is not a new problem.

This is a housing crunch that under Chris Sununu has become a housing crisis.

We've known for several years that this was coming and yet nothing was happening until it became a crisis.

And then he came up with a $100 million plan to do that using federal funds.

Thank you, Senator.

Many economists point to restrictive local zoning codes as a contributor to this problem.

Do you believe the state should ever intervene in local zoning codes to promote affordable housing?

And would you sign legislation that overrode local codes?

30 seconds, please.

No, I don't think that's necessary.

I think what local codes often people in local government often don't have the training or expertize to know how to upgrade their codes.

Many of those codes are from the 1960s so that's part of my plan is to make sure that people have the capacity and grants from the state that would allow that to happen in a way that was that allowed their town to grow the way they wanted to.

But people want to have their police, fire teachers and seniors able to live in their own town.

And that's what this would allow.

Thank you, Governor.

Also, same question to you.

We've heard for years that we need about 20,000 new homes and we're still not there.

You have $100 million housing plan, but those funds are limited.

What other plans do you have to get us there in the long term?

Let's look at what $100 million does.

Yeah.

So the 100 million.

Again, those grants we're not talking about it, are just putting up on paper those grants and that those dollars are literally go out in the next couple of weeks, which is incredibly exciting.

That's the first half of that.

100 million.

Part of it is pretty innovative in that we are actually incentivizing because I think Tom's right.

You can't have a state that just overrides local zoning and planning, but let's create incentives to offset the costs at the local level.

No one's ever tried that before.

We're going to have about $30 million and the cities and towns to permit the next phase of projects.

Tom's also right that folks are a lot of locals.

Cities and towns don't have updated zoning laws and all that.

We have $5 million.

Those grants are going out as we speak in terms of upgrading their plans, getting the training and expertize they need.

We created the Housing Appeals Board because a lot of projects were inappropriately being stopped.

And I created the Housing Appeals Board at the state level so folks could have the right checks and balance within that system.

A demolition funds get rid of all product out of town.

So we're being very innovative about how we're going about it.

We're not just talking about not just putting it on paper.

We're actually investing those dollars and making it happen.

Thank you, Governor.

As you know, the US Treasury Department appears to have ended funding to the state's emergency rental assistance program.

This was abrupt, but it was eventually going to happen.

What is the State's plan for the next two months to help those benefiting from that program?

Yeah, we were worried about eviction.

2 seconds.

It was incredibly abrupt, ending this program over Christmas which is unbelievable.

And it's not just for New Hampshire.

Dozens of states across the country.

The program's coming to an end, without a doubt.

So again, this is a Department of Treasury that's been an absolute mess.

For the for the last 18 months.

They said inflation wasn't was temporary.

We know that wasn't real.

They said the recession wasn't going to happen.

We know that some.

So there's just nothing you can really trust out of them.

And when we got a letter a week ago that said, by the way, don't call us, our call centers now closed.

And by the way, your program is going to end and they actually put the date December 29th.

It was a shock that it was going to happen in the middle of Christmas.

Sure.

But Governor, what is the state's plan now that this has happened?

Well, moving forward, what will the state do in the next two months, specifically in terms of rental assistance?

So again, the rental assistance programs rely on federal funding.

That was a federal program that is coming to an end all across the country.

Whether some states has already come to an end, ARDS is abruptly ending over Christmas, and then some states may last a couple of extra months.

But the original plan, we were told it was going to go to 20, 25 and now it's being absolutely it's actually ended.

So the state is not necessarily going to start putting forward hundreds of millions of dollars in rental assistance.

As we continue forward.

We our dollars need to go to new bricks and mortar, new buildings, which is exactly what the invest in H plan does now.

Okay.

Thank you, Josh.

Back to you.

Thanks.

Let's turn to the topic of abortion that's already been mentioned here today.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year overturned Roe versus Wade and with the constitutional right for abortion.

Governor, you described yourself as pro-choice.

You saw in New Hampshire's law limiting almost all abortions after 24 weeks, you endorse political candidates who supports stricter limits on abortion.

The summary also told the conservative podcast, quote, I've done more on the pro-life issue, if you will, than anyone.

And yet you say you'd block further limits on abortion here in New Hampshire.

Why should people take your word for that?

You have 60 seconds.

So, again, they put the legislature, put the abortion provision in the budget.

We weren't in the middle of a pandemic.

We weren't going to veto a budget.

There was no continuing resolution.

So we weren't going to shut down government in the middle of a pandemic.

But I made the I'm sorry, I got the crowd chiming in here, but we made the commitment to create more flexibility.

We got rid of the ultrasound.

We made the commitment to make sure we consider the life of the mother.

I think there need to be more flexibility put in there.

I believe in flexibility for rape and incest.

I believe in more flexibility for the health of the mother.

I believe that we shouldn't be putting doctors in jail.

I think that's where my point and I actually agree on a lot of that stuff.

We're not that far off the 24 week provision.

I think that exists in 44 other states, Massachusetts, New York, they all have 24 week provisions.

And I think we should add a lot of those flexibilities that a lot of those states have.

And one place where you and Senator Sherman disagree is on statements he's made saying that elective abortions late in pregnancy pretty much don't happen in New Hampshire.

You've said that, you know, since the state keeps no statistics on such procedures, it's hard to know.

Does that mean you'd back a law requiring providers to report the number of abortions?

They were the only state where we don't keep that data.

That makes no sense to me.

So you would favor that law?

Yeah, sure.

Yeah.

We keep medical data on everything here.

I mean, we don't identify individuals, of course, but we're one of the only states I think Tom voted against that in 2014 that we would collect data.

It's just about collecting data and knowing, knowing, you know, what's, what's actually happening there so we can make the best decisions in terms of policy.

Why we're the only state that doesn't do it, I don't know.

Senator, you say you'd repeal New Hampshire's current abortion law.

Do you believe the state has any role in regulating abortion?

You have 60 seconds.

I think the state absolutely has a role in making sure that a woman has a right to an abortion.

We don't have that in New Hampshire.

We're the only state in New England that doesn't have that.

So putting in an affirmative right, like the protections of Roe versus Wade into statute is absolutely appropriate.

And I just want to be clear that the governor actually signed this bill.

He signed all of these provisions into law in the budget and he vetoed a budget back in 2019 because it didn't have tax cuts for corporations.

That's what actually happened so to say that he couldn't veto this one because it took away the rights of half of the population of the state by putting in place an abortion ban is really not it's a little disingenuous since he actually vetoed a a budget two years ago for much less reason not you know, not take away people's rights but actually because we didn't give a tax cut for the four large out-of-state corporation because by the way a continuing resolution in 2019 so we could again when they tried to raise taxes I could veto that budget because we had a continuing resolution.

Government wouldn't shut down.

There was no point there was no continuing resolution in 20, 20 if I vetoed the budget government stops on July 1st because that comes at the end of June in the middle of a pandemic.

Right.

Trying to get the vaccines that administer therapeutics and all of that.

Now that we have obviously I was not going to put those things at risk, but we made the commitment like sometimes you pass a bill and you say, look, we can make it better and we did, we created more flexibilities and I think we could continue to do that.

But I'm going to move actually for one second.

What I mean, in terms of one question that a lot of voters have potentially governors, you know, where in the hierarchy of issues like everything is a balance, obviously.

But in terms of you did to Senator Sherman's point, you vetoed a budget because you wanted tax cuts in it.

You said there was a continuing resolution in place.

But, you know, in terms of abortion, you said you wouldn't want to disrupt the operation of the state.

But where in the hierarchy, where in the hierarchy of these issues, when you say I'm pro-choice, where the hierarchy of issues does abortion rights fall for you?

We're in the hierarchy.

Well, look, the fiscal management is obviously job one.

That's what the budget was designed for.

I never asked for that provision to be put into into the budget.

That was something the legislature did, because I'm a believer that the bulk of the budget really needs to be on on fiscal items and fiscal issues, of course.

So it's not about having a hierarchy of issues.

It's having to understand when a bill comes to your desk, is this something we can move forward with?

Is it something that we can provide more flexibility for?

Is it something that we can say no to and and revisit again?

But when you throw something in the budget with no continuing resolution come July four, first, everything would have shut down in the state.

And so obviously we're not going to do that.

That would be massively irresponsible.

29, 20, I guess it was 19.

Again, we had the flexibility to say no to the tax cuts, not stop government, not shut anything down, gave us three months to to make sure that the tax cuts were in there.

We got it done and we move forward and it was a big success.

Yeah, if I could just finish my thought, the it it was incredibly irresponsible.

I'm glad the governor pointed it out of this legislature in 20, 21 to give them a budget that he had no choice according to him we were in charge in 2019 in the Senate and in the House and we actually had that option.

We worked with the governors office because he was vetoing it.

That doesn't take away the choice, I think, of what he signed into law.

He signed a forced ultrasound on a woman wanting to have an abortion under 14 weeks.

That's a forced instrumentation of the woman for no medical reason.

Under no circumstances would I force a woman or a man to go through any medical procedure just because I or the State say so.

And to be fair, I completely agree, which is why we got rid of that provision.

But he signed it.

I think we're going to on sure.

Senator, moving on to energy, you've argued the state would have lower energy costs if it embraced renewable energy more aggressively.

But many granite are watching their electric and heating costs go up this year and they want relief.

Now, what would you do to provide immediate relief this winter if you took office?

And do you think fossil fuels would play a role in that?

60 seconds for three questions.

First of all, I do believe we'd be in much better shape like Maine, like Vermont.

And actually, Rhode Island just did procurement, which was vetoed by the governor in the past.

And they're offshore procurement is coming in at 7.9 cents per kilowatt hour.

That's a third of what we're paying right now.

So it's clear that renewables lower cost.

Second, what would I do right now?

We came together and we passed a relief act.

It's not an investment it's a one time relief act for people this winter to keep them warm.

It doesn't cover everyone.

It doesn't cover the woman in Berlin who's already facing a $11,000 property tax bill.

She's struggling every month to try to figure out how she's going to pay for her energy costs under Chris Sununu.

But the third one, which is what we tried to do on Veto Day, is really embracing renewable.

I'm sorry.

Whetherization and efficiency for our low income folks.

If we did that, we would be able to actually get that in place by this winter.

We could have actually done that and it was killed in the Senate.

Thank you, Senator.

Looking long term, you've called for an energy transition, but there will be long term costs of that.

How would you make that transition without harming those who are already struggling with energy costs?

30 seconds.

Well, look, nobody is talking about taking away natural gas or fossil fuels because every state right now is dependent on that to some extent.

Massachusetts right now is 20% renewable.

New Hampshire is around 1% or less.

And that's because every attempt to expand our energy options has been blocked by the governor.

We know that if we actually did that from studies at Massachusetts, from a study that was commissioned by the PUC and from the experience of our surrounding states, that the actual benefit goes to the ratepayer.

Thank you, Governor.

High energy prices have been a problem here for years, not just this year.

For a long time.

How should the state address that in the next two years?

60 seconds.

Okay.

So the bill that comes says we're going to increase our renewable portfolio standard.

The Department of Energy says, okay, that's going to cost you 180 million a year.

That goes right on top of your bill.

This idea that renewables or renewables lower your energy costs is completely wrong.

Like beyond wrong.

It's all on your bill.

And whether you're on a fixed income, whether you're low income, whether you're wealthy, you all every time you turn on that light switch, you all have to pay that subsidy.

So there has to be a transition, but it has to be at the right pace.

He's absolutetly right.

Massachusetts has tons of renewables and they have higher electricity prices than even we do.

I wanted Northern Pass right.

1200 megawatts of clean, renewable energy out of Canada.

Cheapest hydropower in North America.

Wouldn't that be awesome to have right now?

The Democrats absolutely killed it in 2017 TCI comes they say oh it's going to be this transportation climate initiative of New England.

I was the first governor who got up and I killed it and thank God I killed it because it would have started at another $0.17 per gallon on top of your gas and that's not it's not like debatable facts those are absolutely known.

So all of these renewables require a subsidy you've got to make the transition right.

You got to not overburden the biomass plants, right.

$20 million subsidy just to keep that frankly environmentally unsustainable biomass plants running Democrats wanted to keep those running.

I said, no, I vetoed that bill.

So first thing you always have to do to lower costs, what would you do to lower costs?

Not simply.

Yeah.

So we have to talk about the the heart in terms of fuel or in terms of electricity.

We'll start with electricity.

It's all it's all it's all related, right?

Biden.

Biden starts closing everything down, disincentivizes more production out of the Marcellus Shale.

Limits the amount of natural gas we can get in, which is the heart and soul of our electricity grid.

We need more natural gas.

You're going while you make that transition, you need the sustainability the reliability of natural gas into the entire New England region to sustain your system.

But what can the next governor do to address these issues?

Oh, it could be it could be a variety of things.

It could be first I think there's a northern pass hydro opportunity there.

I've been the champion of of offshore wind.

I'm the guy that actually not passing the administration.

It was the Sununu administration that actually started the entire process with the federal government to look at the opportunities of offshore wind and then making sure that those transitions are we're done.

We're doing it smart, not for political reasons.

That's what they do in Washington.

This is what they do in California.

California says more renewable, faster.

And California is an absolute mess when it comes to the electricity grid.

They're the Californians, the state that's telling you don't plug in your electric cars between certain hours because our grid can't hold it.

Because we're a long way from California, though.

But we're not.

Not with Tom Sherman at the helm because he wants more renewables faster.

Right.

He said renewables lower your costs.

He said renewables lower your costs.

Go ask the governor of California if renewables lower your costs.

It's an absolute disaster out there.

Why would we follow that path?

Well, you know, and actually take us further and faster down the road that this Green New Deal stuff is taking us.

All right, Senator, you even responded first.

Well, first of all, we're not anywhere near California.

And guess what?

California's dealing with climate change.

They've got triple digit heat their natural gas facilities are breaking down because it's too hot.

Their renewables are not adequate, and they are actually setting the standard.

Why are they embracing renewables?

Because they know that that's that the natural gas will not sustain them long term.

This is all about decreasing the impact on climate.

But if you look at the actual costs, what Chris just said is just not fact.

We would not have seen that increase in costs at that time.

We would have seen what we've seen in every other state that's embraced this, which is gradually decreasing cost.

Do you think California has climate change and we don't I'm saying they have to.

They have forest fires.

Governor, I said it heats up their plants or something.

What you did was that they are dealing with triple digit heat all the time and their natural gas plants are breaking because they can't because they can't keep going in that.

So it's gotten so hot in California, their natural gas plants can operate anymore.

That's exactly right.

Thank you.

I'm going to respond.

One quick question for both before we move on.

You talked about diversifying.

There are some lawmakers in the state who are looking to nuclear power in New Hampshire.

Really quickly from either of you, would you support that, Governor?

Yeah, look, I think small batch nuclear power, that's something that I think the country is going to really jump into.

It's probably like 40 or 50 years down the road.

But, you know, they're building the first nuclear power plant in a while in Georgia.

It's massively over budget.

It has its issues.

Small batch nuclear power with new safe technologies are absolutely going to be part of the mix, but probably nothing in the next five to ten years.

Okay.

Thank you.

And Senator.

Yeah, I you know, the problem with nuclear is still going to be storage of of used product.

What I'm very excited about though, is hydrogen we have it's a renewable it's relatively easily manufactured.

It's a it's not going to come in the next couple of years.

But being able to power generators using hydrogen is it's something that's already here.

It's already happening.

There's a there's a company in Menlo Park that's actually in California that's actually creating microgrids, using hydrogen powered generators.

They can work off of natural gas.

They can work off of hydrogen.

This is already here.

And this is something that can be it's portable.

It's very easily installed.

The problem is bringing the network of hydrogen production.

If I could, there's a company here in New Hampshire, Tom, that's already doing that, called huge hydrogen up in Grove.

And so we're already working on microgrids and hydrogen.

Yeah.

All right.

We're going to move on.

We've already been involved.

I want to talk about climate change.

Many listeners have told us they want to hear from both of you on this front.

Governor, I'll start with you.

You've acknowledged that humans have caused climate change and say that steps must be taken by us to address it.

What new policies do you think can be implemented at the state level?

Well, I think everyone understands it's the transition to renewables, right?

As we transition into more renewable energy, it makes that transition without overburdening that the the ratepayers, those that have to turn on the light switches.

Always looking at these policies through the lens of the ratepayer first.

Look, you want to do solar.

I think it's a great idea.

They want to build these massive solar grids all over the place where the developers make all the money.

I want to increase solar on apartment buildings, on fixed income housing, on senior facilities.

Those that can afford the subsidy the least should be the first to get the economic benefit.

And then we all get the environmental benefit right.

So there's a way to do this stuff, but there's a way to do it smarter.

And we've been doing a lot more of that, being a lot more focused instead of having these massive grids.

Tom says, we didn't we haven't moved on anything.

We signed the net metering bill, but we didn't sign this outrageous thing where all the developers made the money.

We signed a net metering bill where you could expand net metering specifically for towns.

So again, it can offset property taxes or the costs that towns might have for the wastewater treatment plants or their electricity.

Then you talk about hydro.

Hydro is a huge opportunity that Democrats keep trying to step on.

I think there's a way to do it, whether it's out of Canada Micro Hydro here in New Hampshire, and then we get to offshore wind.

Offshore wind does not cost $0.07 and I'm not even going to get into that because that that project is subsidized by billions.

And a subsidy, Tom, is taxes.

So there's other federal taxes and billions of dollars going in that allows the state to procure cheaper.

But the citizens are already paying for.

One follow up for you, Governor.

But I mean, you've you, you know, advocate the market the market driving, you know, a transition to to green energy, not so much the state, but but, you know, the state is heavily reliant on natural gas as is.

Yeah.

Lots of places in this region.

I mean, should the state be more involved in the development of alternative energy sources?

And what form should that?

I don't know.

It's a matter of more so a couple of things.

Should we have the same alternative energy and renewable portfolio standards as Arizona?

No, because they're going to be solar, right.

That fits them.

I think we need to do more hydro here.

You have to find the renewables that fit your region and fit, you know, your opportunities.

Offshore wind not going to do it in Kansas, but you can sure as heck do it in New Hampshire.

So it's not just about doing more.

It's about doing more smarter.

And those projects that fit your needs here.

That's where the costs are lowered.

The transmission costs into those systems are much lower.

And overall, the citizens have to pay less off their electric bill because all renewable requires a subsidy.

Okay.

Senator, on your Web site, you call for aggressive action to protect the state from from climate change.

What do you mean by aggressive action and what specific policies would you like to implement?

One of the as a physician, one of the most egregious types of pollution is particulate pollution.

And we know that cars and trucks and others that have emissions.

I was chair of the Emissions Commission and we looked at this from a health care standpoint as well as from a pollution standpoint.

Clearly, one place that the governor has not mentioned was blocked in the Senate, David Waters.

But some really great bills forward that would have moved us forward is electrification of our vehicles.

There's all sorts of interesting ways to do this, but one of the most important is that when our children rise in ride in diesel busses, they're actually getting exposure to diesel fumes.

That doesn't happen in electric busses.

And when the electric busses are actually parked, they can actually store energy off the grid and then give it back to the grid when when there's a peaking time.

So there's all sorts of creative ways to move towards electrification of vehicles, trucks, cars, busses.

And I'd be very in favor of that, too, is we in terms of offshore wind, which I think is really a powerful move forward.

And I'd point out that Maine has actually developed the prototype up and is going to be doing the beta test of the offshore wind floating turbines that kind of work that Maine is doing.

Massachusetts already has it in place.

We don't even have procurement in our in allowing for us to do something like what Rhode Island just did.

We need to work both legislatively and also with our industry to create those opportunities for Maine in New Hampshire partners in the in the offshore boom project.

So we're partners in that whole.

I'm on the project task force.

So I understand their partners, but they're moving forward and we're not we're not ready to partner with legislative.

So if we can, you know, we're partners with we're if I may, we're partners with the undertaking that we would love to use Maine's technology Maines not procuring.

We're not procuring it because again, the federal government controls the time of the process.

You can't procure the lease agreements.

The federal government controls that that won't even go out until 2025,2026.

We can actually procure right now for offshore wind coming from off from New Bedford.

We can do that right now.

We don't have a law that allows us to do that.

In fact, you vetoed that law back in 2019.

All right.

We're going to move on to the state budget.

Whoever wins this election is going to have some money to work with the surplus from the last fiscal year.

You know, his north of $350 million.

Governor, what would be your top priority in the next state budget?

And what's the best use in your estimation, one time money for one time funds.

You see a lot of Democrat run states that are putting their one time money into bigger government programs.

They're worrying about the politics of situations.

So it's everything from, you know, we're we're using we can use funds to again, we just purchased a mental health hospital for children, which is great, making repairs not just on our government buildings, but on the new New Hampshire hospital, expanding the secure psychiatric unit.

We're going to need a new Sununu Center, the YDC, which is an absolute disaster we've been pushing to to get that rebuilt and redone in a more programmatic way.

So, again, without having to to borrow money at these incredibly high rates, because inflation is such a disaster now, you don't want to borrow money to do these projects, but we have cash and we have cash, unlike a lot of states do, because I think we've been very smart fiscally.

So that gives us a ton of opportunity to make the right investments.

You do it with the legislature and the fiscal committee and the whole process.

But the key is one time money for one time investments.

We likely won't see a surplus like this again.

Well, Governor, how much of the state's good balance sheet over the past few years do you attribute to, you know, the state's access to federal COVID relief money?

How much of a role does that to that play?

And helping the states?

Look, the federal COVID relief money goes to federal COVID relief, all right.

I mean, it goes to the vaccines.

It goes to the therapeutics.

It goes to the, you know, offsetting the cost of the natural Guard, the National Guard or the doctors and the nurse.

I mean, isn't going to things like the Hempstead purchase.

That was federal money.

Yeah, that that can be done that way, too.

But I mean, how much I mean, guess what I'm asking is how much when we look at the balance sheet, how much do we should we attribute?

Well, the basis of state funds is purely state funds.

So that's certainly securely the funds we collect through the business taxes of the real estate transfer tax the meals and rooms, tax, whatever it might be.

Those are surpluses over and above, strictly on state funds.

Those those funds don't get intermingled with federal money.

Okay.

One more question.

You know, Governor, you you've obviously cut business taxes.

The sequence of times in the corner office.

Would you be proposing more tax cuts in the next budget?

And and I guess, you know, do you believe that that cutting business taxes inevitably lead to higher collections or is absolutely sure that it's not a belief?

It's it's it's the model, right.

So the Democrats said you can't cut you can't keep cutting taxes across the state, right?

Yeah.

We need the income tax.

You can't keep going.

And they said we're going to bankrupt our programs.

Meanwhile, we have a bigger surplus than ever before.

So by doing that, by cutting taxes, by being more business friendly, again, more businesses are flooding into New Hampshire in the Northeast than anywhere else.

I think.

4000 new businesses since just before the pandemic to today.

4000 new businesses right there.

And we have the fastest growing population that's not by accident.

It's purely by design.

Good fiscal management.

Having, you know, managing a strong economy with a lot of personal freedoms creates a lot of opportunity.

Do you plan to cut business taxes again with the legislature?

You want to do that?

I'd look at that, sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

But you're not unlike your budget.

I'm the first guy to get rid of the interest and dividends tax that's going from five to four to three to two to one.

So we are going to have we have built in tax cuts coming over the next couple of years anyway.

Okay.

Senator, what would you want your first budget and what would you do with the money available in the surplus?

Well, this is one of the areas where we absolutely differ fundamentally.

I believe that Granite Staters should hold on to as much of the money as possible, and that means no one is property tax cuts and number two, we should be investing in the Granite State.

I completely disagree that we don't have the money to with the surplus to do.

$35 million a year to tackle the 20,000 unit shortfall in housing, as you know, because when you have that housing there is a plant in Keene that can't open a third shift because when they find a workforce which is already pretty scarce, but when they find that workforce, they can't find housing for them.

Imagine if we tackled the four components of workforce which is instruct training education, childcare and housing using our surplus to invest in those.

And then we said to that factory in Keene, By the way, you've got enough housing now you can hire because there's housing available.

The people in Portsmouth where they don't have the ability to have parents come back from, from pregnancy leave because they don't have any childcare, those are now able to be in the workforce.

This is called productivity.

And I know our business is really want to be much more productive.

And when they are, that surplus actually gets even bigger.

I would invest it if I may.

I've returned more money to cities and towns to offset property taxes in terms of cash.

$100 million of property tax relief, all the stuff.

But thanks to my opponent just said, he's going to cut property taxes, the governor and the we have no ability to cut property tax.

So I would like Tom to explain how the state is going to force your property taxes lower.

I'm not going to force them lower, by the way.

Go do that.

That was me.

That was her that was our budget in 2019 that you vetoed that provided all that property tax relief and the state budget when when we signed it again three months later the Municipal Association said it.

I'll say it, but I want to know how are you going to cut taxes because I provide property here.

Well then let me say it.

Let's.

Okay, good.

So one, the governor decreased the amount of rooms and meals going back to towns and cities by 25%.

We need to put that back up to 40%.

Two.

Not true.

But this is the question is how are we going to property taxes.

You said you did, Governor.

If you want to hear people you care about their taxes.

I want to hear how are you going to do it because it's just it's not possible.

Do you know the rules or the rules of this debate are we don't want to talk over each other too much.

No I understand but I'm sure I love to hear.

Yes so the way we decrease property taxes is we actually provide relief for the towns.

We did that in 2019.

We gave back $40 million in direct aid.

20 of it was for education.

20 of it was block grants.

And we also increased the amount of state funding which is now the lowest in the country, by the way, for public education by $170 million.

That allows property taxes to come down and then we also have tried to get the, the amount that the state takes back the responsibility of municipal pensions by seven and a half percent.

And we couldn't get that through as a recurring benefit for the towns and cities because it was blocked in the Senate in the House.

But that would be a goal.

Yes, the governor is right.

I can't go in and cut property taxes, but I can give real property tax relief by decreasing the downshifting and the burden on our municipalities, whether it's cities or towns, we can do that.

We've done it before and the governor vetoed it.

So let's be clear who is on the side of decreasing property taxes and costs, other costs like energy costs.

We can do this.

Okay.

One quick question to you, Senator.

I mean, you you didn't support the tax cuts that the governor has shepherded into law, but you said if elected, you would not necessarily reverse them.

Why?

Why?

Because right now we have a surplus and we'd better have a surplus because we've gotten over $3 billion of federal funding, but we have a surplus.

So I don't think we need to be cutting taxes further except providing property tax relief and reinvesting that money into housing and our and expanding our energy options so that.

But right now, do we need to reverse on property tax on tax cuts?

No.

We have a surplus right now.

We've had a surplus the last three budgets running.

The first one, by the way, was thanks to Maggie Hassan.

So I just want to point that out.

Okay.

Well, let's just be fair.

The budget that I just signed that he voted against had a line item specifically for $100 million of property tax relief that the Republicans put in.

It went into law.

All your towns got it.

Everyone got a check.

Now, whether your towns, as Tom knows, whether your towns cut their property taxes when they get that type of opportunity, that's that's on them, right.

The state cannot force that as he admits he admitted the state cannot do that.

But again, I tell folks all the time, if you're not seeing a reduction in your property taxes, you should be upset.

You should go to your town hall.

Should you talk to them, you should talk to the city council.

You should go fight for those those cuts because so more money has gone back to cities and towns than ever before under my administration.

That's not even a question.

Okay.

We're going to continue discussing and fighting in a moment.

We've got to break this is NHPR's candidate debate for New Hampshire governor.

We're going to take a quick break.

Stick around.

We've got other topics coming up, education, voting rights and more.

We'll be right back.

Thank you.

The New Hampshire candidate debates 2022 in collaboration with New Hampshire.

Public Radio, New Hampshire PBS and New Hampshire Bulletin.

Production support is provided by the Business and Industry.

Association of New Hampshire.

Support for closed captioning is made possible by Proulx oil and propane, a full service fuel company offering home heating oil and propane, as well as service and installation for home heating and cooling products.

Family owned and operated since 1944.

Information available at Proulx oil and propane.com.

Welcome back to NHPR's Gubernatorial Debate.

In collaboration with the New Hampshire Bulletin and New Hampshire PBS, we're talking with incumbent.

Republican Governor Chris Sununu and Democratic State Senator Tom Sherman.

I'm Josh Rogers with Muse's Intuitive New Hampshire Bulletin.

We continue now with the discussion of education policy.

Ethan, go ahead.

Sure.

Governor the state is currently facing two lawsuits over public school funding.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ordered the state to create an equitable school tax system.

But today, more than 20 years later, a property owner in Charlestown pays 20 times more in school taxes proportionately than a property owner in Milton Borough.

Why hasn't this problem been fixed in 20 years?

And who's responsible for that?

Yes, I think it's look.

Do we need to re look at and evaluate the school funding formula.

Yes.

I'm 100% on board with that.

I mean the legislature really has to take it up.

We can look do commissions or study committees.

I, I created a group about three or four years ago that kind of did the initial work on this and COVID hit and I think it got put on the back burner.

But absolutely we have a larger surplus in the Education.

Trust Fund, not the state surplus of the general funds but the Education Trust Fund has a larger surplus than ever before.

We have less kids going into school about less than about one and a half percent decline in actual enrollment per year.

So the net dollars going into the system are less, and that results in a surplus more dollars per child in my administration than any previous administration.

But it's we still have the surplus.

So there's an opportunity there to reinvest those funds or find a more equitable formula.

But, Governor, if you're reelected, you will have the first crack at the budget.

The governor presents the budget.

So with that surplus, are you planning to change the education adequacy?

Oh, I would look to the legislature to yes.

There's no doubt the formula has to be changed.

Absolutely.

I don't think the just the governor should sit in a room and do it on the back of an envelope.

I think you need the legislature.

You want all the towns to have input.

There's an open and public process that has to happen, but there's no doubt it has to happen.

There was a school funding commission that met that two years ago.

And came out with a report.

Nothing has really been done with that report since.

Do you think that more needs to be done on the executive level to kind of get legislative action to be?

I think there's some good stuff in that report.

I think it got it covered.

Frankly, it took a back seat, to be honest.

So I think there's some some good stuff there that can all come, you know, you know, really be brought forward.

I don't think that report is the end.

I'll be all right.

I don't think three people should or one commission should decide, but that can provide the infrastructure, that backbone for discussion to make sure it happens through the open legislative process.

But you don't think you should propose something as governor?

If you see this, as I would propose to the governor, that the legislature look at the formula, I wouldn't know.

I don't think one person should should redesign the entire formula.

I should hope not.

I mean, I didn't have to come up on ideas.

But I mean, look, I think a governor obviously has to be part of that process and throw some ideas on the table and everything.

But these formulas again, when small groups try to do it or one political party tries to do it, it doesn't work.

And that's why it hasn't been done for, you know, administration after administration.

Not not Shaheen's, not Hassan's not Lynch's.

None of the administrations took it on.

I think Governor Lynch came the closest I think he was looking at a constitutional amendment, and that looked very hopeful.

It's got to be bipartisan.

There's no question.

About it.

I don't think there's anything really political about this other than understanding that we have funds and they probably need to be distributed in a better way.

That's a huge opportunity that we don't want to go wasted for our kids.

Thank you, Governor.

One more follow up before you turn to you, Senator, and your time in office.

In your six years, you've approved a program that allows parents to spend public money towards nonpublic schools.

That program is currently directed to low income families, but there has been some suggestion that it be expanded to higher earning families.

Would you support and expansion of that program to higher earning?

Yeah.

So, look, the amazing part of the Education Freedom Accounts is that we thought a few hundred families would take advantage.

Thousands of families have taken advantage.

Families that were never given an opportunity really before to to have a pathway for their children.

It's not our money.

It's not the government's money.

It's your money.

It's the family's money.

And it's been wildly successful.

Clearly, there is a lot of demand for this program out there.

We focused on lower income families first because they're the ones that are often given the least amount of opportunity.

So we're trying to open that door for them.

I know the teachers union doesn't like it, right?

They just want the traditional four walls of the classroom have to fit for everyone.

And we have the some of the best public education facilities in the country.

I think we're ranked like number four in the country by U.S. News and World Report.

So we have wonderful opportunities.

But it's not always for everyone and let the parents have some pathway in some decision and some say in the opportunities for their kids.

Thank you, Senator, to you.

I'll start with the first question on the education inequities.

What is your plan for dealing with the funding disparities that have persisted between New Hampshire public schools?

And how do you get that done without significantly raising taxes in the state?

You have 60 seconds.

Actually, we already have a blueprint for that.

It died in the house last year, but they are refiling it this year.

It came directly out of the commission.

I'm surprised the governor didn't know about it, but I would be.

I've already met with the leaders of both parties on that issue, and this is the way I would lead.

I would sit down with them at the beginning of the legislative process, work on something that we can all agree will solve the issue.

And that plan is coming out of the commission.

It does not raise property taxes, but it does address those inequities that the suits have brought forward.

I think the most shocking thing that I just heard is that the voucher program, which is now $10 million over budget, slated to be at $24 million currently 85% of the children taking advantage of it were never in public schools.

The Governor is willing to explain expand that to anybody at any income level.

That is shocking to me.

That is a budget buster.

And if you'd want to talk about impact on property taxes, open a program that provides subsidies to any parent at any income level for private and religious schools.

By the way, there's almost no oversight over this.

They formed a committee of the legislature to oversee it.

They've met once in the past year, just once.

That's not oversight.

So we need to make sure that you know, that first priority is public school children.

Thank you.

If I may.

Look, opportunity is for everyone, not just the wealthy and the wealthy.

Families have lots of opportunity and pathways for their kids education.

Low income families don't.

It's that simple.

We're trying to create an opportunity for low income families to have the same choice, the same opportunity as wealthy families do.

It's just that I think you can kind of rebut that, sir.

This is you know, it's appalling.

To me that in the state of New Hampshire right now, in Berlin, they can't afford a high school chemistry teacher.

That's wrong anywhere in the state.

Of New Hampshire, a child should be able to get a great public school education, period.

That's where we should be starting.

That's ground zero.

That's how we should be working forward.

And we actually have the blueprint to do that.

And that's what I will work on from the beginning, not waiting for the legislator legislature, but working with the legislature to create that program.

Thank you, Senator.

Back to you, Josh.

Okay.

I want to move to a voting rights and questions of of democracy.

UNHRC Civic Health Index reports a 20 year decline in trust in government at every level.

This lack of trust extends to elections.

Governor you often express confidence in New Hampshire elections, but you've also endorsed fellow.

Republican candidates who falsely maintain that the 2020 election was stolen.

Is that responsible and do you think that that erodes trust.

What you know when you endorse Caroline Levitt she said President Trump.

Well Hillary Clinton said that the election was stolen in 2019 so it's not about endorsements and all that kind of stuff.

Our system works our system of has massive amounts of voter integrity people believe in it.

It's one person one vote we get the result we have the first in the nation primary.

We have some of the highest voter turnout in the country.

It absolutely works here in New Hampshire.

So do you.

Do you support new policies I mean, are there any policies you would envision to to boost further confidence in our election?

No.

If you look at the state data, the citizens of New Hampshire have higher confidence in their system than pretty much anywhere else in the country.

We do it right.

We're the model for most of these other states that should be copying our model in terms of getting it right.

Having confidence in the system, the way we do our paper ballots, the way we do optical scan is the fact that we don't connect to the Internet.

We don't use these these computers.

We don't have the problems that Iowa has.

And you see in other parts of the country and again, our system really works.

I think we're a model.

But I mean, I want to get back to the initial question.

I mean, do you believe endorsing candidates who deny without evidence that elections were stolen Do you think election was stolen?

It's all nonsense.

It's absolutely nothing.

Why do you endorse a candidate who says that?

Because you don't endorse a candidate or support individuals based on one issue.

Right.

You endorse and support candidates based on fiscal responsibility, leadership, all the other pieces that come into play.

So if you're going to be a one issue voter, that's everybody's right.

But no, it's it's much bigger than that.

Okay.

Senator, I want to throw this to you.

Granite Staters are losing trust in our democracy.

According to the UNH Civic Index, what policies would you support as governor to increase confidence in our system?

Of government?

Well, first of all, we have the fundamental of New Hampshire, which Bill Gardner put in place.

And I worked with him on the Select Committee on the 20, 20 elections is number one.

Everything is based on a paper ballot, which I think really does a lot to instill that confidence Everything comes back to that paper ballot.

You know, you can do a deep investigation and why in one town it went wrong?

Well, it's because they got the wrong folding machine.

That doesn't put the entire system in New Hampshire at risk.

We need to recognize that there are some real strengths to our system, but we can expand it.

We can expand access to online registration.

We can make sure, though, along the way that we are verifying who people are.

We have the technology.

We know that there are secure PDFs that can be done so we can expand.

But fundamentally, I would never endorse somebody who says that the upcoming election will be stolen.

That's what Don Bolduc has said.

He's saying the 2020, the 2022 election is going to be fraudulent.

That's just irresponsible.

That's not leadership.

That's not.

You don't endorse somebody who's already saying they won, whether they lose or win.

Okay.

I've got another question for you, Senator.

About absentee ballots.

In the past, you backed legislation to allow no excuse absentee ballots for all voters here in New Hampshire.

Will you be pushing for that if you're elected governor.

Well, I'd be happy to work with we learned a lot from COVID.

I mean, we learned so much about, you know, how to expand Zoom meetings, how to expand access for people to our legislative process.

Also on how to expand people's access to voting.

We learned in the 2020 election that we can expand that access safely while making sure that there is no fraud in the state of New Hampshire.

With Bill Gardner leading the way with the Select Committee, three Republicans, three Democrats working together We were able to expand that.

We actually were able to do it in a completely bipartisan way.

We need to understand that that that's all good.

That expands people's access to voting.

And that's the fundamental of our democracy.

Where are you on that?

No excuse.

Absentee voting?

No, no, no, no.

We have a great absentee system here.

I mean, it works wonderfully You know, people have the option to come in.

They have time to do it.

It's a system tried and true system that we've that we have.

It doesn't really have problems.

So, again, when you start going down the path of some of these other states and they're trying to overdo things and they're trying to fix things that aren't necessarily broken, our system is not broken.

Well, what works really well when you say our is not broken.

I mean, you signed a law that essentially created a kind of a provisional balloting system for people who register at the polls and don't have an I.D.

if the system is broken, like why was something like that necessary?

Well, it was just about providing some more flexibility in folks at the local level.

Thought they could manage it with the integrity of the system.

Yeah.

All right.

The time is flying.

We are going to move to a handful of important issues thus far and thus far, not addressed.

Ethan, to you, Sure start with you, Senator.

Gun violence and school shootings were identified by many listeners as an important issue this election.

There is a proposal being for next legislative session to arm and train teachers.

Would you support that?

No, that's the short answer.

I would not support that.

I also, you know, I'm not taking anybody's guns.

I just want to work as hard as possible to make sure that guns aren't in the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place.

That's where those four bills that the governor vetoed back in 2019 were coming from.

That's where, you know, 1178 which was vetoed by the governor I'm sorry, signed into law by the governor actually took away our ability to enforce at the state and municipal level federal gun laws like school safety zones, no gun, no guns around schools.

I think we need to one, be sure we're listening to law enforcement whenever we make a decision on guns.

And that is something I have a great relationship with law enforcement and we need to make sure they have the tools they need to protect the public, protect our schoolchildren.

Number two, we need to do everything possible to decrease the illegal trafficking of arms.

And we can do this in commonsense ways that have been embraced across party lines nationally.

And also locally.

And that's where I would go with.

Thank you, Governor, to you.

Arming and training teachers, what do you think of the idea?

Well, a couple of things.

First, I think Tom's right.

You got to support law enforcement law enforcement.

The Police Association has endorsed my my candidacy for governor again.

And we're very appreciative of that.

We need to make sure that if a school wants a resource officer, that the opportunity is there to train that individual.

And it could it be a teacher if they so choose, yes, then absolutely.

I mean, it's not up for the state to determine who your best option for a resource officer might be.

Thank you.

All right.

As you both know, last year there was an effort to legalize marijuana here and sell it through state run stores.

You know, as governor, would you sign a bill like that if it comes to your desk elsewhere?

Well, it really depends what the bill looks like.

I've always said now's not the time and it hasn't been.

We're dealing with an opioid crisis, a drug crisis.

The southern border has gotten ten times worse in the past 18 months.

Drugs are hitting our streets in a very different form.

They're coming in everything from mixing with marijuana and cocaine.

It's not just overprescribing it.

So state run control you know.

So, look, there are some options there.

And I think I think ultimately the state could go down that path, but you better have the right system in place.

I didn't dismantle, but I created a whole new system called the Doorway, which has been phenomenally successful in terms of the treatment recovery.

We invented recovery friendly workplaces.

We made sure that we had the transitional housing piece, all those wraparound services, not just in Manchester, but in rural areas as well.

So wait and see on the legal marijuana if you're reelected.

Well, I'm just out of time If you're just trying to get go.

I'm just I'm not trying to you know, we're talking about marijuana legalization.

So again, you know, every state does it a little bit differently now is definitely not the time given given, you know, what we're seeing out there, to be sure.

But understanding that you're providing that backbone, that doorway system, which again has been phenomenally successful.

Do you know for two for the last two years, we're the only state that hasn't seen a massive increase in overdose deaths.

Right.

The country is up 60%.

Right.

Where we're the only state that hasn't seen that massive increase so something is working.

We're not taking a victory lap, of course, but whatever we're working, whatever we're doing is clearly getting some results.

We got to make sure that the systems in place is built for the long term before you start to understand.

What about what about you when it comes to the legalization of marijuana?

I think there are several really strong arguments for moving ahead with it.

Number one is we have some great models, whether it's Massachusetts or Illinois, on how to do this safely, too, is that we know that in those states, actually opioid use has not increased.

In some cases, it's actually decreased because people have the alternative.

It's legal.

And three is it is actually regulate the cannabis that's being produced and I did a visit down to place in Massachusetts last week.

It was fascinating to see the level of safety and quality assurance they have.

We don't know what people are.

Our children or our friends are buying off of the street.

It has been laced with fentanyl.

That means that they may overdose on marijuana and they have access to the dealer when they buy it off the street.

That's the gateway, not the actual product.

So we know that there are compelling reasons to move forward, not the least of which is the fact that we are currently outsourcing all of that revenue to every one of our neighboring states.

We can do this properly.

We can do this in a way that protects children because we've learned from alcohol, cigarets and vaping how to do that from a marketing standpoint.

Time is getting tight.

I've got 1 question for you both.

As you both know, New Hampshire likes to prides itself on its political independence.

Many voters identifies independent.

What's a major issue where you break from your party, senator I'll give you 30 seconds.

Probably the most important one that I break from my party on is going to be that I don't really believe that we I guess on guns I don't think we need to take away people's guns who are using them legally.

We if they have if they're hunting self-defense recreation or for work, they should have access to that.

And I've always defended that.

Do you think your party on a whole wants to take guns away?

No.

No, I'm just saying there is somebody I'm not sure he's going to be.

We have we are not just a partisan issue.

It's an issue for you where you consider you have to.

I set a record for vetoes.

When my party's in control of the legislature, we're not talking about bills.

Again, issue a topic that you know, I just did.

I just the big one most recently that just comes to mind was the redistricting.

Right.

So all the Republicans want to do the redistricting.

We said, no, I don't believe in gerrymandering.

I think I believe you signed into law five bills that were gerrymandered or five districts would House, Senate and three.

No, those are not gerrymandered.

We were talking about the congressional districts that were massively that we'll get I'm sorry.

I wish we had more time to pore over the district maps, but we are at the end here.

I want to thank both of you for participating.

Governor, Sununu, Senator Tom Sherman, also thank you to New Hampshire Bulletin and New Hampshire PBS will continue our debates Thursday at noon when we'll be joined by candidates for U.S. Senate.

For now, I'm Josh Rogers with along with Ethan DeWitt.

Thanks for joining us today on NHPR.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This has been a New Hampshire elections special presentation.

The New Hampshire candidate debates 2022 in collaboration with New Hampshire.

Public Radio, New Hampshire PBS and New Hampshire Bulletin.

Production support is provided by the business and industry Association of New Hampshire.