In the final weeks before the general election on November 3rd, NHPR's Morning Edition is sitting down with the candidates for U.S. Senate to dig into the issues that listeners tell us are on their minds. This week, we spoke with Democratic Congressman Chris Pappas.
Here are some takeaways from what Pappas told us. A full transcript of his conversation with Morning Edition host Rick Ganley follows below.
On affordability
- Pappas said he would push to add $1 billion to the federal LIHEAP program, which provides financial assistance to low-income households to cover home heating costs.
- He also said he favors suspending the federal gas tax.
On the cost of housing
- Pappas said he favors federal funding for cities and towns that “think creatively” about reforming local zoning regulations to encourage new housing development: “whether it's tiny homes that are being built in some towns, whether it's mixed-use development in town centers that both have commercial and residential development.”
On Social Security reform
- Pappas said he favors the creation of a bipartisan commission “to put good ideas on the table about the future of this program.”
- He said he opposes any cuts in benefits, and wants to ensure wealthier Americans “are paying their fair share” into the program.
On artificial intelligence regulation
- Pappas said Congress needs to establish “guardrails that will regulate big tech" and "that builds expertise within the federal government to ensure that there's an approval process before models are made public.”
- He said local communities need more authority to “vet and reject” proposals for data centers.
What questions do you have about this year's elections? Let us know at voices@nhpr.org, and we could help you get the answers.
Find all of our 2026 election coverage here.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
Affordability and the cost of living are huge concerns for New Hampshire voters. You've talked about these issues in your campaign. Can you point to specific legislation that you've sponsored, votes you've taken, or issues that you've championed during your time in Congress to bring down the cost of living?
Well, it's a crisis, and I'm hearing about it all across New Hampshire. Right now, I'm fighting against the war. I'm fighting against the tariffs. I'm fighting against health care cuts that are driving up premiums. And during my time in Congress, I focused on how we can make life more affordable for New Hampshire families, put more money back in their pocket.
I championed the expansion of the child tax credit. That was incredibly impactful to New Hampshire families during those tough pandemic years. I focused on how we can bring more resources back for affordable housing development in the state of New Hampshire. We passed a significant bipartisan housing package just a few weeks ago, and we have to follow that up with more work to invest in communities, to make it easier to build, to take on Wall Street's practices of jacking up the cost of single-family homes in our state and all across the country. So this is a moment where we need the Congress, the House and Senate to be focused like a laser on how we can get the job done.
But right now, Donald Trump stands in the way of that. He says affordability is a hoax. He thinks that the housing bill that we passed is not worth our time. So we have to make sure that we're changing things in Washington.
Specifically, how do you go about doing that in the Senate?
Well, you work to build coalitions. And the fact that that housing bill got across the finish line was not just because Democrats were fighting for it, but because we were able to build a bipartisan coalition of support. So that has to continue to be the focus. But right now, the cuts to health care, which are driving up premiums in New Hampshire, the war that continues to bring energy costs up to record levels — it's all too much for New Hampshire families. So this is both about holding the line against the reckless policies of this administration and finding opportunities to work in a bipartisan fashion to deliver results.
As we head into the colder months, many Granite Staters are likely to struggle to heat their homes. Now we know that oil prices are elevated due to the war in Iran. But what would you do specifically to address those high costs?
Well, I've introduced legislation on home heating oil because I am deeply afraid of what this winter has in store for us. The cost of home heating oil is estimated to be 31% higher than last winter. That could be about $2,300 more per household. And right now, the administration hasn't released the LIHEAP funding. In fact, in their proposed budget this year, they tried to zero out fuel assistance. While we're dealing with high costs in a war that's driving up energy prices, people can't afford it. So I've proposed legislation to add $1 billion to the LIHEAP program. We need to get as robust funding as we possibly can and get it out the door as quickly as possible to states like New Hampshire, so that they can manage the money and get help to families who need it.
LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
That's right, and it's oversubscribed right now. We have folks that are applying at local CAP agencies, but they're not able to get through because they don't meet the requirements. So we should open up eligibility to people within 75% of the median income in our state to make sure that more people have access, that there's more funding that's going through it, and that we're getting the money out the door as quickly as possible. So that's one solution — in addition to other ideas I have, including suspending the gas tax. That can help save people money on energy.
Let's turn to Social Security. The most recent assessments say it's expected to become insolvent within six years. What ideas for reform would you support to keep it sustainable?
Well, I supported bipartisan legislation just a couple of years ago that fixed a problem with Social Security, where retirees were seeing their benefits reduced if they had worked in certain public sector roles, like as a firefighter or as a teacher. So we got that fixed, done on a bipartisan basis. And I'm hopeful that come January, we can create a bipartisan commission to put good ideas on the table about the future of this program. It is an earned benefit, and it's unacceptable that benefits could be reduced by, on average, $500 within six years if Congress doesn't act. So I'm committed to preserving the program, preserving these earned benefits that New Hampshire families have earned.
I meet a lot of young people out there that doubt that Social Security will ever be there for them when they retire. But this is part of the American bargain, and we have great capacity to solve problems. We have great resources as a nation. The fact is, we're spending billions and billions of dollars on a war that no one supports in the Middle East right now. How about taking care of retirees, making sure they can retire with dignity, that we're meeting the needs of working families specifically.
So let's talk a little bit more specifics here about changes. Are you open to structural changes like cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, lifting the income threshold?
People can't afford a cut in benefits. That's a nonstarter for me. The fact is, I met a senior the other day in Pembroke who was talking about how she just had her food assistance cut. She's living off her Social Security. It's not making ends meet for her. So I think we have to ensure that those that are doing incredibly well, those that are earning $1 million a year or more, those that just received a huge tax break from Republicans last year are paying their fair share. But the fact is, reducing benefits, privatizing the program, like John Sununu wants to do — that is a recipe for disaster for today's seniors and tomorrow's retirees.
I want to get back to affordability in the housing market. In a recent interview with NHPR, you did advocate for ensuring that it's easier to build homes. So let's get more specific on that. How would you go about doing that?
Well, we should be providing grants to communities to be able to think creatively about the kinds of rules and regulations they have that often are a barrier to build for the future. Now, there are some cities and towns that are modernizing things in terms of their zoning, are thinking creatively — whether it's tiny homes that are being built in some towns, whether it's mixed-use development in town centers that both have commercial and residential development. We've got to open the aperture on building in New Hampshire.
We haven't been building in the way we should have since before the Great Recession. We are tens of thousands of units short of what we need for a healthy market, and that's driven the median home price almost to $600,000. It's out of reach for people.
So the programs that I've supported in Congress include the low income tax credit program that provides for affordable development, the Community Development Block Grant. Those are often the difference-maker of whether projects can be built. And I've toured so many across the state of New Hampshire, from the Pearl Street lot development in Manchester to the Avesta development up in the Mount Washington Valley — meeting people that are looking for an affordable opportunity in their communities. We need to just continue to work and be a good partner from the federal level to provide what our communities need in terms of funding to build and reimagine what development can look like.
Among other things, the so-called Big Beautiful Bill enacted a series of tax cuts, including extending expiring cuts and creating new tax breaks. Would you vote to undo those tax cuts?
Well, look, there were people who received tax breaks, billionaires, big corporations who don't deserve tax breaks. The fact is we have our nation's first trillionaire right now. And why should he be paying less in tax than a teacher, a firefighter, a nurse who's struggling to afford life right now? So we've got to make sure that we're keeping taxes low for working people. That's why I've supported expanding the child tax credit. That's why I support tax cuts for small businesses, especially as they're struggling under the weight of these tariffs and an uncertain economy right now. But there are extremely wealthy people and big corporations that seem to get all the special treatment in Washington, DC.
So you'd like to see those taxes undone?
Well, we’ve got to think about how we invest for the future of this country, how we invest in child care and health care. Those are things that grow the economic pie. But giving a tax break to a billionaire, like John Sununu voted to do when he was our senator — that doesn't make things better for everyday Americans.
Now, you've described our tax system as “rigged” to favor the wealthy in the past. And now what would you propose to change? Raising rates for wealthy payers, cutting taxes further for low income households? You know, what does a fair tax code look like to you?
Well, we should look at the pressures that families face. I'm on legislation to make the no tax on tips permanent. I know how hard people who work on tips, you know, the work that they put in each and every day. They should be rewarded for that and not have taxes on their tips.
I support efforts to expand the child tax credit, to make advance payments and to ensure that that is permanent. Much of what got passed in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year —temporary tax decreases for working people, permanent tax breaks for big corporations and the super rich. So we've got to focus on how we deliver results for people, address this affordability crisis, and I absolutely support keeping taxes low for hard-working Granite Staters.
Let's talk immigration for a minute. You're calling for “comprehensive, common sense” immigration reform. What does that mean? How would you achieve that vision?
Well, we have to respond to this moment that we're living through right now, this disgusting overreach with respect to immigration enforcement from the Trump administration. We've seen it play out on the streets from Biddeford, Maine, to Minneapolis. And this is not who we are as Americans. People in New Hampshire have spoken out loudly and clearly. You've seen that in the town of Merrimack, where there was broad, bipartisan opposition to the construction of a mass detention warehouse that was going to be run by ICE. People don't want that in our state.
So I've opposed legislation to give ICE a blank check. I've proposed legislation to go after the $75 billion slush fund that Republicans gave them, with no strings attached and no oversight, and divert that instead to local law enforcement to support community policing and things that make New Hampshire safe.
But we have to focus on how we treat immigration as an opportunity for the United States of America. This is a nation built by immigrants. People support their friends and neighbors who have come from other countries. This is an important part of our economic opportunity in New Hampshire to welcome more people here legally, to expand access to visa programs, and to ensure that people can build their American dream here. I think about all the sectors where we just don't have enough workers, whether it's in health care and education, in manufacturing. Immigration is one way that we can help solve those challenges and make sure our economy in New Hampshire reaches its full potential.
I know many in your own party say they want to see the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency abolished, that it's too flawed to repair. Do you agree?
Look, under the Trump administration, they have pre-funded ICE through the end of Donald Trump's time in the White House, without any oversight or strings from Congress. So we need to dig in and have meaningful oversight of ICE's activities. Why they should be able to operate unlike any other law enforcement agency with unidentified officers, without proper training, without body cameras — that's unacceptable.
So you want to see reform?
That's a place where Congress can absolutely dig in. If we want to use the Article 1 powers that we've been given under the Constitution, and we can do that if we change things in the U.S. Senate and change the balance of power. There's an important focus that needs to happen with respect to people who are breaking the law, who have no business being here in the United States. And I think most Americans support that. But what ICE has done is well beyond that, and it's time to hold them to account.
A big issue this election cycle is artificial intelligence, including here in New Hampshire, where there have been discussions about building data centers in several towns. Where do you stand on AI regulation?
We have to pass meaningful regulation to make sure that AI products are safe, that we're protecting the privacy, the safety, the health of the American public. We have heard deeply concerning reports from people who are involved in the AI space. Designers, technicians, who are coming out and saying that there's potentially a 10% chance that this could obliterate humanity. Who wants to take that chance?
So we can't wait until the genie's out of the bottle. Congress needs to act to set up guardrails that will regulate big tech, that will regulate AI, that builds expertise within the federal government to ensure that there's an approval process before models are made public, that there are minimum safety standards, that we're working on the liability issue, so ultimately, that it's the tech companies that are held accountable when things go wrong, and that we're giving the power to our communities with respect to data center development. If a proposal comes up for a town, they need to have every opportunity to vet that and reject it. We need to make sure that ratepayers aren't going to be on the hook for massive data center development in New Hampshire or anywhere else.
As a member of the Senate, you would hold certain checks and balances over the Supreme Court. Do you support age limits for justices?
We have that in New Hampshire, and it works well. I was on the Executive Council, and I used to get the resignation letters from judges and justices when they hit age 70. Sometimes, you know, they did not appreciate the fact that they had to retire. But it's good for turnover. I think there needs to be some meaningful limit on how long a judge can serve at the federal level.
What about expanding the size of the court?
I don't support that. I think that would be a never ending tug-of-war between both political parties. But I think term limits or age limits would be smart to realize greater turnover. And what's important over the next couple years is that Donald Trump isn't able to stack the courts with more right-wing nominees. You're looking potentially at two more appointments to the Supreme Court in Donald Trump's last two years in office. And I think we need to make sure that the American people have representation in the Senate that is going to hold the line against these unqualified appointments that are only selected based on their loyalty to Donald Trump, not their fidelity to the law and the Constitution.
