[upbeat dramatic music] Hello, I'm Lisa Adams, along with my colleague Ethan Kibbe.

On behalf of Erie News Now, and our partners here at WQLN PBS, welcome to a debate between the candidates in the 16th Congressional District here in Western Pennsylvania.

We'll introduce those candidates to you now.

They are incumbent Republican, Mike Kelly, Congressman, and a businessman from Butler who is seeking a 7th term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Democrat Dan Pastore, an attorney and businessman from Fairview, co-founder and chairman of the business called FishUSA, who is challenging the incumbent and seeking his first term in Congress.

We'll begin with a one-minute opening statement from each candidate, then Lisa and I will ask a series of questions on the issues of concern to voters in the 16th District.

Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to a question.

Their opponent gets 30 seconds for a rebuttal as needed.

LISA: At the end of the questions, the candidates will each have two minutes to make closing statements.

Now, based on a dice roll that we just did before hand here, Congressman Mike Kelly will give the first opening statement and will take the first question, and then Dan Pastore will have the final closing statement.

So let's begin now with those opening statements.

Congressman Kelly.

Thanks, Lisa, and thanks, Ethan, and thank you so much to WQLN to have us on.

I think today's debate, though, is not so much Republican versus Democrat, it's policy and the where the policy is going, and this is about America and where America stands right now.

I think it would be hard for any of us right now to look at the cost of living and possibly try to understand why is this policy in place?

Where does it lead us, and does it ever get any better?

And the answer is no.

The answer is no.

So it does come down to a situation where both of us have an opportunity to serve in the U.S. Congress.

We're both gonna have a chance to work on policy.

And I think that the main thing is forget about the politics of it and start thinking about the policy.

Is it good for the American people?

I don't know at any time in my life that the American people have had less trust, confidence, and faith in the way we vote, and I think that's a major issue in this election and in elections to come.

We have to make sure that every American feels with every election that it was free, fair, and accurate, so looking forward to the debate.

It'd be fun.

All right, and now the first, the opening statement from Dan Pastore.

I'm running for Congress because Mike Kelly tried to take away the votes of his own constituents and overturn the election results here in Pennsylvania.

After he lost that lawsuit, and just hours after the January 6th attack on our Capitol Building, he still voted against certifying the election results here in Pennsylvania.

I found that so unacceptable and un-American that I decided to run.

I grew up working as a carpenter in my family's construction business in Erie.

I practiced law throughout Western Pennsylvania in both state and federal court.

In 1994, I co-founded Erie Net, the first internet service provider in Northwest Pennsylvania.

In 2000, I started the business I own today, FishUSA.

We're one of the nation's leading e-commerce retailers, and we operate out of our facility in Fairview, where we have about 60 employees.

I look forward to this debate tonight so that people can better understand us and where we stand on the issues.

Well, thank you to both of you for the opening statements, and so the first question now goes to you, Mike Kelly, and we're gonna start on the economy today.

Inflation is hitting all Americans very hard right now at the grocery store and at the gas pump, so what's your brief explanation on what caused it and what needs to be done to bring consumer prices down?

Well, I think if you look at the last 20 months under the Biden administration, we've spent over $9 trillion.

We've also decided that producing energy domestically is not a good idea.

And so, the president shut down our domestic energy supplies and nobody can figure out why then, would you go to the worst actors in the world and say, please, please, we've shut down our supplies, but we want you to supply it for us.

Now, there's hardly any place I can go that people start looking at it am I gonna pay for food or am I gonna pay for fuel?

Where am I gonna be?

Am I gonna heat or eat this winter?

Because the cost of living has gone off the charts.

There's a reason for all that and it's called policy.

It's called policy.

I'm interested to see what my opponent thinks when it comes to the Biden policy.

I think if you were to look at most Americans, they cannot figure out what happened to the America they knew, and in the last 20 months, we have seen incredible inflation that we haven't seen in over 40 years.

So when I talk to people, I talk to people, I say what do you think needs to be done?

And it has to be policy changes.

The other thing is we have to make sure that every one of our children is getting a great education.

We look at education today and say something's wrong in the way our children are being educated.

The other thing is government accountability.

Our office has been doing the work of the IRS for the last three years.

We also do Social Security's work.

When you don't know what you don't know, it leads to this type of a performance, that's why I'm so proud of our team and what we've been able to do for Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District.

All right, Dan Pastore, your opponent is talking about the Biden administration policy when it comes to why prices are high at the grocery store and the gas pump.

What's your brief explanation about why consumer prices are so high, and if elected, what would you do to bring 'em down?

Well, thank you.

Inflation is the biggest concern of people here in the district.

And you see it at the gas pump, you see it in the grocery store.

We have to put it in perspective.

This is a global problem happening across the world, not just here in the United States.

So we talk about energy production, actually, we hit a low point in energy production under the prior administration.

We've been producing more energy for the last two years since in 2020, under the prior administration when we hit the low point.

I agree, we have to continue to develop our oil and gas resources here in Western Pennsylvania.

That will help bring down the cost of fuel here.

We also have to reduce regulations on small farms in our region so we can produce food closer to where we consume it here in the district.

One of the things we can do is negotiate prescription drug prices.

My opponent has voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, both previously and in the Inflation Reduction Act.

And we also need to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

That will shorten the supply chain and help alleviate some of the inflation concerns that we have.

The CHIPS and Science Act is designed to do exactly that, to bring the semiconductor industry back to the United States.

And again, my opponent voted against that legislation that would be good for jobs here in Western Pennsylvania.

All right, a whole lot of information in that answer there.

You have 30 seconds to rebut anything that your opponent said.

Yeah, sure, well, my opponent either hasn't read the legislation or doesn't understand the question.

When it comes to energy, it wasn't the previous administration that shut down the development domestic energy.

When you talk about what it is we do when it comes to regulations, my goodness, this administration has laid more and more, more regulation, more regulation, more regulation, and it keeps going that way.

There's nothing more obtrusive to success in America than a government that overreaches, over taxes, and over regulates you.

That's as plain as the nose on your face.

I mean, I quite frankly, I don't understand what he's saying.

All right, so you have 30 seconds to rebut and explain what you're saying.

Well, sure.

What I didn't hear is any actual solution to the problem, so it's very easy to complain and blame somebody else for what is a global problem, but I didn't hear any actual solutions other than just generalities.

And again, the facts don't bear out what he's saying.

Domestic production of oil and gas has actually been increasing for the last two years.

It's not shut down, and I would support further development of oil and gas here in Western Pennsylvania.

Mr. Pastore, the next question is for you, and you both had talked about gas prices in your answer to the previous one, so I'd like to stay on that topic.

Fuel prices have dropped from their peak, but they remain stubbornly high.

President Biden has called for increasing domestic production and he has released more than 100 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserve, so Mr. Pastore, what more do you think can and should be done to drive down those gas prices?

Well, again, this is a global problem, and really the price of gas spiked after Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted the world's supply of gas.

We saw the price coming down again until OPEC decided to restrict output, and that caused the price to go back up again.

So, again, it's easy to blame domestic policy on the rise in gas prices, but it is a global problem happening across the world, so I do think that there are certain steps that we can take.

We've talked about expanding production here in the United States, and no one knows how to do it better than we do here in Western Pennsylvania.

We're the birthplace of the oil industry right here in Titusville within the 16th District.

We've been doing it longer than anyone, and we have to continue to develop our natural resources, our oil and gas here, as we transition to a clean energy economy.

I would also support suspending the federal fuel tax for a short period of time to help bring down prices at the pump to help people, the hardworking people here in Western Pennsylvania.

But very quickly, I'd like to follow up with you there.

We have just a couple of seconds remaining.

Then, are you saying you would be in favor of increasing domestic oil production?

We need to be energy independent and we have the ability to do that, and as we transition to clean energy, we will have to consume some oil and gas.

It has to come from somewhere.

We should produce it right here in the United States, and what better place than here in Western Pennsylvania?

Many people's jobs depend on it, and we know how to do it as good or better than anyone else.

Sir, thanks, Congressman Kelly, 90 seconds now for you.

Again, gas prices still high, what can and should be done to drive them down?

Well, it's domestic production, and we know that.

You know, Pennsylvania was called the Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

When you look at the regulations that have been put into place, if the government wants to shut you down, they can shut you down with taxation or regulation.

This is an administration that has decided fossil fuels no longer have a place in our future.

They talk about all the above, but forget all this below.

We have centuries worth of traditional supplies of energy.

The energy permitting process has been shut down.

Now, my opponent can say anything he wants about what he believes in the future, I wanna talk about the now.

I wanna talk about families, families that can't afford to fill up their car with gas or fill up their basket with groceries.

All of it comes down to one issue and one issue only, and that is the cost of energy.

The cost of energy drives the price of every single product or service that we have out there.

Now, we can tiptoe around this and say, oh no, it's a global problem, it's a global problem.

The United States of America has shut down its domestic energy production.

It's that simple.

You can go back to when this started.

20 months ago, we did not have this problem.

What happened 20 months ago?

President Biden got sworn into office.

What was the first thing he did?

Shut down the Keystone Pipeline.

This is a global supply chain, and when you start to mess with a global supply chain, it causes prices to rise.

It's just that simple.

And to say that somehow we're gonna look to the future, let's look to the now, when people are facing a winter and they're hoping it's not too cold, so they can either heat or eat.

It's an incredible position for us to be in, as America.

Unbelievable.

It's just untenable.

You can't sit and watch this and think this makes sense.

It doesn't.

Mr. Pastore, 30 seconds to respond to Congressman Kelly.

Thanks, so the the facts don't actually bear that out, and it's easy to talk about too much regulation, but he hasn't identified any regulations that he's talking about.

The reality is most of the regulation is at the state level, not at the federal level, and the facts simply don't bear it out.

Production has been rising in the last two years, hit a low point under the prior administration, not under this administration, so we're ramping production back up, it's been happening.

And it is a global disruption of the supply chain, and it's not closing down the Keystone Pipeline didn't disrupt the global supply chain.

If anything did, it was Russia attacking Ukraine and disrupting it on a global basis.

Congressman Kelly, 30 seconds for you, sir.

It's fantasy to talk.

It's absolute fantasy talk.

You wanna know about the cost of energy?

Go to a gas pump.

You wanna stand there at an island and watch people trying to fill their car or truck up with gas, and wondering where does it stop?

And then going into grocery stores and seeing people take objects off the shelf and then putting them back because they're too expensive.

This has happened in the last 20 months.

This wasn't the previous administration's fault.

This all started with the inauguration of this current president.

And this man supports every policy of his.

It's untenable.

It's unbelievable that we would do that to our own citizens.

It makes absolutely no sense.

All right, the next question, we'll start again with you, Congressman Kelly, and we're gonna stick with inflation here.

President Biden recently said, "Republicans talk about inflation, but everything that they propose will make it worse."

"Plans," he says, "Include repealing lower prescription drug prices, raising drug prices, cutting social security and Medicare, and passing permanent massive tax cuts for the wealthy."

I think he used the words "holding us hostage."

So is this the Republican plan as you see it, and how is it different from what House Democrats might do?

Well, I think this is a president that has trouble keeping track of what things are really going at.

This is the same president that's reduced our strategic petroleum supply.

That's supposed to be saved for war time.

He's doing that to bring down the price at the pump.

Why?

Oh, convenient.

There's an election a couple weeks from now.

Look, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania, Saudi Arabia of natural gas.

America has centuries worth of energy right below its surface.

The answers lie right in that.

Every economy is based on supply and demand, so to try and say, oh, it's somebody doing something here or somebody doing something there, I say, no, Mr. President, it's what you did yourself with an executive order to shut down domestic energy production.

Now, we can tiptoe around that and try to make it something else, but it's not.

I just tell anybody, if you don't believe what I'm saying, go and try to fill up your car or truck with gas tonight and see what you have to pay.

Go to the grocery store and see what you have to pay, and then come back and tell me, no, no, the Republicans don't have the right plan.

Open all our energy supplies, domestic energy supplies.

Why wouldn't we?

It would have an effect on the global market.

I believe, I do.

I do believe the same thing, and that America shutting down its supply had a tremendous effect on the global market.

That's what drove prices up.

Now, we're trying to buy energy from the worst people in the world, people who wanted to see us destroyed.

And were going to them and saying oh, please, please, please, supplement what I just shut down.

Now, Democrats can tiptoe around that, and I said earlier, this isn't about Democrats.

This is about Americans trying to fill their car with gas, fill their grocery cart, heat their home in the winter.

This is a fact that took place in 20 months.

Okay, time.

Dan Pastore, the same question.

I mean, is the president mischaracterizing what the Republican plan is?

And what's the democratic plan, because inflation continues to rise?

Well, I think what you didn't hear is any response from Mr. Kelly about the question that you actually asked, because he's running away from what the Republican policies actually are.

So you're right.

Lowering prescription drug prices would help control inflation.

Medicare has the ability in the Inflation Reduction Act to do that for the first time ever, and not only did Mr. Kelly vote against that, but the Republican plan is if they take control of Congress, they're gonna repeal that provision and take away Medicare's right to negotiate prescription drug prices.

Talk about tax cuts for the wealthy.

Notice that Mr. Kelly didn't talk about that?

Because that is what they plan to do.

Impose more, enact new tax cuts for the wealthy, and what happened the last time they did it?

In Mike Kelly's 2017 tax plan, the deficit actually went up.

It didn't go down.

So they can talk all about, all they want about trickle down economics and how it's gonna make the economy better, but history shows us that that's not the case.

They also made it clear that what they wanna do is cut Social Security.

They wanna cut back on Medicare and privatize it.

And again, you know, they wanna wait until after the election's over to make it clear that that's their policy, but the Republican Leadership Committee that Mr. Kelly is on has made it clear that those are their priorities, and they intend to hold America hostage during the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations to force these changes on to Medicare and Social Security.

Mr. Kelly, 30 seconds to respond.

Yeah, sure, I would suggest that my opponent take a look.

I'm a Medicare champion, have been ever since I got to the Congress.

I get all kind of awards in supporting pharmaceutical needs.

We are the lead in that.

This team that I work with every day is the lead in that in Congress.

We've done everything and are honored by being awarded the Champions Award each year, so to say this is what they're doing, look, this is a distraction from the real facts.

This is the one thing that we see happening in America right now today.

This administration cannot face up to the fact that what they have done has been a disaster to our economy and continues to be a disaster to our economy, and this gentleman thinks what they're doing is right.

Mr. Pastore, 30 seconds.

I think we need to leave it up to the voters to decide whether they think allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, bringing those costs down for working families in America, capping out of pocket expenses for Medicare at $2,000, is that something that people here in the district want?

I think they do.

Mike Kelly's voted against that.

And so, you know, we can talk about it all we want, but his actions speak louder than what he's saying here today.

Gentlemen, thanks, I'd like to move away from the economy for just a moment.

Mr. Pastore, this next question is for you.

President Biden said that after the Supreme Court decision repealing Roe v. Wade, he would make codifying abortion rights a top legislative priority if Democrats maintain control of the House and the Senate in this upcoming cycle.

Republican Lindsay Graham, for example, has proposed federal legislation preventing abortion after 15 weeks, so my question is, should the federal government be taking either of these positions, if either one, why?

Or is this a decision that should be better left to states?

I was disappointed to see the Dobbs decision come down.

For the first time in my lifetime, we actually rolled back the rights, Constitutional rights of women here in the United States, and I would support codifying Roe.

And you know, what we've heard from people like Mr. Kelly is we wanna send it back to the states and let the states decide.

But the reality is, even before Dobbs came down, Mr. Kelly introduced legislation in the United States Congress to ban abortion at just six weeks, with no exception for rape or incest, and that would dramatically roll back the rights of women here in Pennsylvania.

You know, I believe the decision should be between a woman and her doctor, and not politicians like Mr. Kelly telling women what they should do.

He's also endorsed Doug Mastriano for governor, who's made it clear that he would support a complete ban on abortion here in Pennsylvania, no exceptions, and even criminalizing women, sending 'em to jail if they have an abortion.

That's the person that he's endorsed, and so, you know, I think it's a shame that we have rolled back the rights of women here in Pennsylvania, and I think we need, I trust in women and that they can make their own decisions.

We don't need politicians like Mike Kelly making those decisions for them.

Congressman Kelly, now 90 seconds for you to explain your stance on abortion rights.

Is this a federal issue?

Is this a state issue?

And if there's federal legislation, what sort of legislation would you vote in favor of?

You know, interesting response by my opponent.

The decision from the Supreme Court was to ask all 50 states to develop their own position on abortion.

In Pennsylvania, nothing changes.

Now, I am unabashedly pro-life.

I believe in pro-life.

I believe the very essence of who we are as human beings is the life.

And I do have a bill called the Heartbeat Bill.

And why the Heartbeat Bill?

Because any of us that ever gone into a doctor's office or an emergency room or a hospital, the first thing they check is to see your pulse, because your pulse means you're alive.

Look, we can debate back and forth what Pennsylvania should do, but that's up to Pennsylvania, that's not up to me.

And the Supreme Court said, look, in '72, we overstepped what we should do.

This decision, this debate has to go back to the states.

Each of the 50 states has jurisdiction and responsibility to develop its own, its own legislation on this.

So trying to throw it over, and this is part of the deflection now, as we go into this election, we can't talk about what's really wrong with the country, so we grab it something like the Dobbs decision and walk away from the fact that the Supreme Court did one thing and one very important thing.

They said 50 states.

50 states have the responsibility and the jurisdiction to decide on this situation.

Do I believe in life?

Absolutely, and to my friends, to my friends who are pro-choice, I say, please, call your mother and thank her for being pro-life, or we never would've had this conversation.

I think it's kind of foolish sometimes when we talk about this.

Back to the states.

Let the states make the decision, the constituents with their representatives.

That's the answer, and that's all the Supreme Court decided.

Congressman, thanks, Mr. Pastore, 30 seconds to rebut what the congressman has said.

To say that this issue is simply a distraction, is really an outrage, and this is one of the most important issues in our election today, in this upcoming election, whether politicians like Mike Kelly should be deciding what's right for women here in Pennsylvania and across the country.

And what you didn't hear him talk about is his own legislation.

So he says it should be decided by the States, then why did he introduce a bill in Congress to roll back the rights of the state, here in Pennsylvania, and impose a national ban at six weeks?

Congressman?

Well, this is the typical Democrat, try to get away from the real issues.

It's about inflation, it's about the economy, it's about the police and the crime that's taking place right now, so we wanna deflect it to the issue on pro-life or pro-choice.

I get it, I get it.

If I was on his side of the aisle, I'd be trying to get as far away from these issues as I could.

I'm gonna repeat what I said.

All the Supreme Court said was each of the 50 states through their legislators and their people need to determine, need to determine the position on pro-life.

That's the real issue, and to get it away from anything else and try to blame it on the abortion issue, that's absolutely ridiculous.

All right, I'm gonna direct the next question to you, Mr. Pastore.

We're gonna kind of change gears here and talk about violence in our nation.

We've had a spring full of mass shootings that prompted the nation's first major gun control legislation.

More than a decade, guns have remained a major issue.

We've had a school shooting just this week in St. Louis, a tragedy.

So the congressman voted against that gun bill, Mr. Pastore, should he have voted for it, and what do you think needs to be done to prevent this gun violence in our nation?

I agree, gun violence is an unacceptable high in our country.

We have to have a strong police force.

I'm completely opposed to defunding the police.

We have to be sure they have the resources to keep our communities safe.

I think the Safer Communities Act is the legislation that you're talking about.

I would've supported that.

That was a modest proposal to help keep our communities safe.

With respect to gun regulation itself, it had almost no impact on gun regulation.

It expanded background checks for younger people buying a gun, between 18 and 21.

It also provided funding to make our schools safer, to make our communities safer, and so, you know, I think that's a reasonable step.

I understand this is a difficult issue and opinions are divided.

I'm a gun owner.

I respect the Second Amendment.

I understand people have the right to own a gun for safety, for their personal safety, or for sport, and that we shouldn't be regulating guns themselves, but, you know, I think we need to take steps to try to reduce gun violence.

And I would support universal background checks, which was in that legislation originally, but didn't make it to the final passage.

You know, we wanna be sure only people who can lawfully own a gun have the ability to do so, and universal background checks is one step that we can take to make sure that happens.

Congresswoman Kelly, now you have 90 seconds to talk about why you didn't support that measure, and again, it seems like both parties wanna solve this problem, but the mass shootings are proliferating, so your thoughts on what should happen.

Yeah, well, the legislation that was proposed, in some places was fine and other places where it was not.

When we're talking about the checks and who we prevent from having a gun.

Look, we know the biggest problem we have when it comes to this gun safety issue is there is usually a mental illness involved in the shooter.

And there's never enough in these bills to attack the real problem.

I am a big supporter of the Second Amendment, as is my opponent, apparently, but if that's who you are, then that's who you are.

And that's one of the great things about being an American.

You're allowed to own guns.

You're allowed to be able to defend yourself.

You are allowed to have home castle law.

You're allowed to do all of these things.

Some of these, some of this legislation is so overreaching that people sit back and say, wait, they're taking my guns away from me.

The Second Amendment is such a crucial amendment, and in the district that we're in, you would be hard-pressed to find somebody who said, I want more gun regulation on top of me, I'm with this.

There's already regulation in place.

We know the major problem right now with every one of these, these shootings, and it's horrible.

It's horrible.

There is a mental illness factor in there, and we say constantly, if you see something, say something.

If somebody's having a problem, don't wait until it reaches a crisis, get there ahead of time.

So when it comes to legislation, listen, I am all for legislation that makes Americans safer, but also protects their Second Amendment rights.

When you start tinkering with the Second Amendment and then tap dancing around what you do and what you wouldn't do, I think that's a disservice to the people that we serve.

So, look, oversight, yes.

Too much regulation, no, and as far as the mental illness, we need to have more dollars spent.

We need to see people get institutionalized that need help, instead of self-medicating.

Mr. Pastore, care rebut on the mental health piece of that, or anything your opponent said?

Sure, so what he didn't say is what part of that legislation he didn't support.

So he did say there were parts of it that he did support, so why is it that he didn't vote for it?

What was it about that legislation?

You know, it actually does provide funding to address mental health issues, and I agree, that is a significant cause of the gun violence.

There was funding to address that as well as making our schools safer, so I don't know what it is that caused him to not vote for it, but it was, you know, it had bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate, but our representative voted against it.

Congressman Kelly, 30 more seconds.

Oh, okay, we can keep debating this back and forth, and it really comes down what was really in the bill and how much limit did it put on gun owners and their ability to have guns?

When you start restricting the rights of law-abiding American citizens and overreaching, and this administration has a huge problem with overreaching on everything, look, do all of us want safer schools?

Absolutely, do we want safer communities?

Absolutely, did we wanna support our police forces?

Absolutely.

Do we wanna lose our rights to the Second Amendment?

Absolutely not.

I will always stand for our Constitution, and I'm gonna try to avoid any legislation that slips these other issues in, and it's not a one size fits all where you get to pick what you like.

You either vote for the whole bill, or you vote against the bill.

Voting against the bill was the right thing for the citizens that I serve in Pennsylvania's 16.

I'd like to stay on the idea of guns in crime, and Congressman, the next question is for you.

We've heard a lot about crime here in Pennsylvania.

It's become a hot button issue in a lot of races.

We hear a lot going on in Philadelphia.

We've seen it here in Erie, even a seven-year-old being shot and killed within the last year, so what can the federal government do to try to drive down crime throughout the Keystone State?

Well, first of all, you can't have an attack on your police force.

You can't constantly go after those that run to danger and don't run away from danger, and then make them the bad guy or the bad girl in these institutions, these situations.

So I've watched this.

Now, all of a sudden we've watched the Summer of Love.

We've watched people burn down buildings, we've watched people in shootings where people were killed, we've watched this overrunning of our cities, and we've sat in virtual silence and said, well, that was all right because people will do what people will do.

People will say what people will say.

Now, all of a sudden when it reaches a crescendo where the American citizens say, wait a minute.

Wait a minute, start supporting our police.

Stop making it harder for them to make our community safe.

If you talk to most of the police, and by the way, I've been endorsed by virtually every police situation in Pennsylvania, my opponent has not been endorsed by any of the police groups, so I just think, you know what?

Look to the people who are actually in those situations and find out what they think.

Well, it's fun, we can sit here and say you should have done this, you should have done that.

Oh, you didn't vote for this bill and you should've voted for the bill.

No, the answer is did you read the bill?

Did you really know what was in the bill?

And why would you make a statement that you don't know anything about it, and I can tell you this.

In this city alone, our ability to recruit and keep police is getting harder to do because they've been under so much pressure about doing the wrong things when they run to help us.

I think they need to be supported.

I support every single police organization that's out there, and I've been endorsed by them.

My opponent has not been endorsed by even one of them.

Mr. Pastore, 90 seconds for you.

What can the federal government do to drive down crime rates?

So I actually did read the bill.

I don't know where he's coming up with, you know, I think he's just making that up that I didn't read the bill.

So, you know, I'm a lawyer, I understand how to read legislation and I have actually read it.

So what I didn't hear was any solutions to the question that you asked.

How do you reduce gun violence?

I didn't hear any solutions.

So, you know, I think we do have to support our police force.

We have to be sure they have the resources that they need to keep our community safe.

We need to provide additional support for our schools because, people, our kids need to be safe in our schools.

The legislation that just passed did provide funding to address that.

As I mentioned, you know, universal background checks is another way to help reduce gun violence.

It allows, it requires that all gun transactions have a background check, not just some of them.

It closes some of the loopholes that allows people to transfer a gun without going through a background check.

We need to be sure that only people who can lawfully own a gun have the ability to get one, and that's what the universal background checks would actually do.

So it has widespread support across the country, across the district, but Mike Kelly is opposed to that, that solution that would help address gun violence here, so.

And we also have to address the root causes of poverty and mental illness, and again, that funding in the most recent bill did exactly that.

Congressman, 30 seconds to rebut what Mr. Pastore has said.

Well, Mr. Pastore could say anything he wants because he's not in office right now, and he can say he read the legislation, but he wasn't involved in the forming of the legislation.

I get that.

I get that.

Look, do we believe there's too much gun violence?

Absolutely.

The one thing we all abhor is the fact that our Constitution is constantly under attack.

The Second Amendment is critically important to us.

And when you read these bills and you start looking at what's being taken away from private gun owners, it is chilling.

But this is an administration, this is a party that thinks the answer to everything is not one American should ever have a gun, especially a gun that they don't like.

And the answer to that, they don't like any guns.

Mr. Pastore, 30 seconds.

Well, that's certainly not my position.

I've owned guns all my adult life.

I have a tree stand in my backyard.

I have a gun case in my house, and I respect people's rights.

You know, I go to hunting camp.

I know friends, all my friends own guns, and so, there may be some Democrats who take that position, but that's certainly not me, and I respect the Second Amendment and people's right to lawfully own a gun.

We just have to be sure that we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with serious mental illnesses.

All right, the next question is for Dan Pastore, and I'm going to change the subject a little bit here.

So, the January 6th Committee recently subpoenaed former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in the Capitol attack, an attack which included people from right here in this district.

So should the former president appear, and do you respect the work of the January 6th Committee?

No one's above the law and Congress has the right to investigate this.

This was an unprecedented attack on our Capitol Building, and some people wanna try to downplay the significance of it, but I think we need to know what happened.

And the evidence, everybody who was involved should be questioned, and there is a legal process, and just because he's the former president doesn't somehow insulate him and make him above the law.

So, you know, I think we have to get to the facts and understand what happened.

I think the January 6th hearings are important for the public to understand what happened, and what we're seeing play out is that this wasn't just some accident, it didn't just happen by chance, that there was much planning and strategy that went into it, and it was the work of many people.

You know, Mike Kelly was one who undermined the rights of people here in Pennsylvania, tried to take their votes away to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania.

He's still out there talking about the election being stolen, and what is the result of spreading this type of misinformation to people in America?

We watched it unfold on January 6th, so we have to stop that.

Our politicians need to speak the truth.

We know the election wasn't stolen.

We need to stop saying that and tell people the truth, and we need to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th.

So, Congressman Kelly, do you respect the work of the January 6th Committee?

Have you learned new things there about people in the president's own administration who weren't supporting what he was doing, what was happening that day, and should he appear?

Should he answer the subpoena?

Yeah, good questions, all of them.

The question really is, why do we have this investigation where there's no cross examination, there's two former Republicans sitting on the dais with the panel, Ms. Chaney and Mr. Kinzinger from Illinois.

These are two people that were anti-Trump people to begin with.

Now, when it comes down to January the 6th, there's no American that can say I fully support what happened on January 6th.

That is an abomination of who we are as Americans.

The difference between myself and Mr. Pastore is that I was actually there.

I saw what was going on.

I understand how it got out of hand.

I get all that.

Should it have happened?

Absolutely not.

The relentless pursuit of this president, regardless of any information that's gathered, should be shocking to any person that lives in this country, and say why are we doing this, this constantly running this man down?

They show up at Mar-a-Lago, bust into his home, they ransack the former first lady's closet, looking for what?

This is a sham investigation, and for one reason, they're doing this.

They are looking at a distraction from how poorly from January 6th on, how they've handled this economy and how they've handled this country and our national safety, our domestic energy supply.

So when you look at it and say what is January the 6th about?

It's about coming up, again, with a narrative to deflect away from what really happened and is taking place inside this administration right now, in this economy, and in this country.

I understand and fully agree, January 6th should've never happened, but when you look at some of the people who are still imprisoned with no way of getting out, and you ask yourself is this really America?

Is this really America?

I think your time is up.

Mr. Pastore, your rebuttal.

Mike Kelly said earlier in the press that he wasn't even watching the January 6th hearings, so I don't know if he even knows what's going on or if he's actually seen the evidence that's come out in those hearings.

The vast majority of witnesses who have testified at those hearings were either Capitol police or actually Republicans.

These are, this is... What does he propose, that we simply brush it under the carpet, that we don't try to look at what happened, what caused the attack on our Capitol Building that is really unprecedented in our lifetime?

And so, I think it's important that we get to the bottom of it, and that's what we're trying to do in the January 6th hearings.

And your response?

Well, I think we've had enough response about this.

I really do.

I mean, I look at what's going on in the January 6th Commission.

It's so stacked.

There's no rebuttal, there's no questioning of anybody else that appears before this committee.

You're not allowed to ask them questions.

You're not allowed to look into depth of what it is that they're saying.

It's a one size fits all put together by this committee for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to attack the 45th president of the United States.

It's shameful, and no president throughout our history has ever been attacked the way this president has been attacked after he left the presidency.

So, look, you can rebut with anything you want, you can football that back and forth.

He knows it as well as I do.

It's a sham.

It's a sham investigation.

Thank you.

I'd like to talk now about congressional spending.

Congressmen, this question's for you.

For the first time in more than a decade earmarks return to congressional spending bills.

Do you support that move?

What do you see as the biggest needs and priorities in this district, and what sort of projects would you push to fund with earmarks?

Yeah, yeah, good, good question, but using the term earmarks is what poisons the well to begin with, and you know that.

This is congressional-directed spending.

This goes into our communities in projects that are needed.

I will gladly stand here and say you know what?

We got $21 million in congressional-directed spending for our bay front, right?

We got that.

We got $12 million for sand for Presque Isle.

We got $500,000 for Gannon for their IHACK program.

You can go down through what it is we've been able to do, that $4 million for the airport to improve their hangar area.

So you can call it anything you want, I call it community-directed spending.

When I can say, this is taxpayer-funded and the taxpayer is gonna get a good return on that investment, that's what we're about.

It's not about not doing it through the appropriations party, or a panel, and then shoving it on to the executive branch, and then blaming the executive branch for not spending the money the right way.

I've spent too many years in Congress where hardworking, American taxpayer money has been wasted.

This comes down to a couple things, and in Pennsylvania there was two bill grants given.

25 million to the cranberry problem down in Butler County, 21 million up here to the Bayfront Project.

If somebody wants to tell me that's an earmark, I'll gladly, I'll gladly say yes.

We were able to go against everybody else and present a project that needed public funding that would give a good return on those taxpayer dollars.

That's what we should be doing.

Mr. Pastore, your thoughts on the bringing back of the idea of letting Congress people decide on specific projects for their districts that they'd like to see funded?

If I have the honor of serving the people of the 16th District, I will do everything in my power to bring as many resources from the federal government here to the 16th District, so I would support the current earmarks, as you call 'em, to allow us to bring more resources into our district.

So there are a number of things that I would prioritize.

We need to create more jobs here in the district, and any funding that we can do to improve workforce development and job training so we can have a workforce that is able to support the jobs that we need here in the district.

I see the clean energy economy as a tremendous economic opportunity.

These are jobs of the future.

And so, we just saw in Lordstown, Ohio, they're building a huge battery plant.

Unfortunately, it's on the wrong side of the state line.

We need to bring those clean energy jobs here to our region.

These are jobs of the future.

You know, we can complain about the transition to clean energy or we can embrace it, and as an entrepreneur, I see tremendous opportunity there, and bringing the resources here, whether it's wind, solar, battery technology, clean hydrogen, even nuclear power, we need to look at all those options and bring those resource here so we can develop that economy here in our district.

We wanna continue to rebuild our schools, and we see some of that coming from the bipartisan infrastructure law that Mr. Kelly voted against, and we also need to continue to expand broadband internet throughout the district, and again, that's something that really helped develop jobs and the economy here in the district.

Congressman Kelly, 30 seconds, and I'd like to ask specifically, in the next two years, what sorts of projects in this district are you looking at as ones where you would really try to push for funding?

Yeah, one of the things we're looking at right now is with Bishop Brock over on Parade Street, and saying we need to revitalize that area.

We can use hardworking American taxpayer money as an investment and get a good return on that.

My opponent does speak well on this.

It is about jobs, it is about creating financial stability, so again, we need to get away from this earmark.

Take a look at the return on that investment.

Those are hardworking American taxpayer dollars.

I will never, ever walk away from anything we've been able to get from the federal government and say I'm ashamed to look at it because I'm really taking advantage.

No.

They're all plus-ups for everybody in this district.

Mr. Pastore, 30 seconds again, on some priorities for earmarked funds.

Well, I agree, we need to revitalize the city of Erie, not only the downtown, but many of the areas where they're economically challenged.

I see the same issue in many other cities across the district, whether it's from New Castle to Tionesta.

So that would be my top priority, to try to rebuild those parts of the district where we need to revitalize.

We need to keep people here in our district, and to do that, we need to have good paying jobs in the district.

I'm going to stay on how we spend taxpayer dollars, but kind of inch into education a little bit here.

President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan is on pause right now after it was challenged by the states, and the courts are deciding if the executive order is constitutional.

So Mr. Pastore, should the president have used an executive order?

Can taxpayers afford the $400 billion plan?

And would you vote for such a measure if it came before Congress?

Well, generally, I support the action of trying to provide debt relief for students here in the Commonwealth and in our district.

You know, it really should've never come to this, that Congress has been aware of this growing debt problem, the predatory nature of student lending, the escalating costs of higher education here in the United States, but Congress has failed to act, and so, is this the best solution?

It's not a perfect solution, but I think it does provide some relief for people.

You know, there are students out there who have graduated 20, 30 years ago and they're still paying down their debt, and in some cases have barely paid it down at all.

So I think this is a reasonable approach to address a problem that really should have been addressed by Congress years ago.

Mike Kelly's been in office 12 years.

What have we done to address the student debt problem?

There are things we need to do going forward.

Raise the amount of Pell grants that are available and then index them to inflation.

We should either reduce or eliminate interest rate on student loans, and so, there are certain steps that we can take to address the problem going forward.

And so, I think it would've been... Congress simply never acted on it, and I think that the President did what he can, and we'll see as it plays out in the courts.

And if it gets struck down, I hope that Congress will take it up and provide relief for the students who need it.

Congressman Kelly, your turn.

90 seconds to say whether the president had a right to do this, to offer this loan forgiveness, and if it did become something that was a measure before Congress, would you support it?

Well, first of all, I can't answer if it came before Congress because I don't know what all it'd in it, but I will say this.

The executive office exists to enforce our laws.

Congress, all spending starts with Congress.

What the President did, and he only took student loans by the way, that we're through a government issue.

He didn't take it if you came from a private spender or a loaner, if you did it outta your own pocket, that was ignored.

Votechs, no, you don't get to qualify for this.

We know we so much need that, so when it comes to student debt, the president did not forgive student debt.

He shifted the responsibility onto hardworking American taxpayers.

Some of those are men and women, who on their own, couldn't have sent their son or their daughter to college, but now the president, and strikingly just a couple weeks before an election, decides I wanna forgive student.

That is beyond the powers of the executive branch.

I have objected to it.

It's an abomination of the president's power, and again, only, only loans that were structured through a federal lending service.

Private lender, no, votechs, no.

Those people sit with those same loans, so who was it that we were trying to attract?

I just am really against any politician who tries to use an issue like that to get votes when he knows he doesn't have the power to do it, and as far as the courts, is still in the courts, and it was held up right now, so the president stepped way beyond his ability as an executive to do what he did, but it was all to gain votes.

That's the only measure that he was looking for.

You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Pastore, and maybe address whether this was a politically-motivated action.

Well, I think that, you know, Mike Kelly had a PPP loan forgiven by the same hardworking Americans that he's complaining now about, who are theoretically bearing the cost of this student debt.

And again, it's not a perfect solution, so in the 12 years that Mr. Kelly's been in office, what have we done to address the student debt problem that just continues to go on?

So the courts will decide, we'll see how it plays out, and we'll just have to wait and see, and if they don't, if they strike it down, I hope Congress will take it up.

Congressman, 30 seconds.

Well, it's a foolish debate.

The president does not have the power to do what he did.

And again, as my opponent first said, this is only for people that borrowed money through the federal government, not private institutions, not votechs.

This is gonna grow to over $500 billion, that's with a B, and who does that fall on?

We've shifted the responsibility of repaying the loan, not by those who took out the loan, but for those sitting on the sideline saying hey, you know what?

Taxpayer, guess what?

You're just picking up the tab of half a billion dollars because President Biden decided to do that.

He does not have the power to do that as the executive.

LISA: Thank you.

We're running low on time, so I'd like to ask you each, to answer this question quickly.

Congressman, this question goes to you first.

What question would you ask of your opponent?

You have a chance to ask one question.

What is that question and why?

Yeah, it's pretty easy.

Why are you running for this office?

I come from the private sector also.

I ran back in 2010 because the government, under the Obama administration, came into my business and took one of my franchises for no reason at all.

General Motors borrowed money from the government and the administration decided, you know what, Mike Kelly?

You're no longer gonna be a Cadillac dealer.

My question was why?

The question is because we can do that.

I ran for Congress because I saw, in a government that's grown way too intrusive with no limits to what it is that they can do, where we are right now, right now, as a nation is the most dangerous point we've ever been, where we are being overtaken by that same government whose justice system has failed us.

The FBI is now looked at as a danger by most people.

When you lose the faith and trust and confidence in your very government, and for many, many reasons, we can talk about the January 6th thing all the time, the biggest loss on that day was not the loss of the presidency by Donald Trump, it was the loss of faith, trust, and confidence by the American people.

I did not try to take anybody's vote away.

What I tried to do was say this state overstepped the constitutional rights.

If you wanted to change our voting laws, you can do it.

Yeah, it's called an amendment to our Constitution.

You just can't do it by a popular vote.

What a travesty.

So that's what I'm fighting for, a government that's fair and accountable.

Mr. Pastore, the congressman took 90 seconds, so I'll give you 90.

We won't have time for rebuttals.

What question would you ask your opponent and why?

My question would be, do you agree that the last presidential election was not stolen from Donald Trump, that he lost fair and square?

Just back in May at a rally for Dr. Oz, standing next to former President Trump, Mike Kelly said that this election was the biggest steal in American history.

Every time somebody asks him "Do you agree that the election was not stolen?"

He dodges it, he weaves, he won't admit that the election wasn't stolen.

He's so beholden to the former president that he just can't cross him, he just needs his endorsement, and so, he will not say that the election wasn't stolen.

We know it wasn't stolen.

We know President Biden won fair and square.

Mike Kelly needs to speak to the truth to the American people and stand up and say the election wasn't stolen.

President Biden won fair and square.

And let's talk about that lawsuit that he brought.

He keeps saying they had to amend the Constitution.

He apparently doesn't understand how our legal system works, because that's the claim he made and he's lost it.

He lost it the first time.

It went all the way to the Supreme Court and he lost it.

The case got brought after the election was over, a new case, that claim was rejected finally.

So if you understand the Constitution and you respect the Constitution, you would understand that that claim has no merit.

You've lost it, and to continue to say that the only way to allow mail-in ballots is through a constitutional amendment is simply lying to the public because that is not what the law is today in Pennsylvania.

All right, we are out of time, so I will ask you to move to closing statements, and in your closing statement, please include whether you will accept the results of this election.

Hey, good question, good question, but I think that I have to go back to what my opponent said, because obviously we didn't lose our law case, it was never heard.

That was the final issue for the American people.

When the courts won't even hear your case, that's a travesty.

Now, the results of this election.

Now, I don't like the way this election is set up.

I don't like the no-excuse mail-in ballots, there's absolutely no oversight.

And my opponent can say anything he wants about he won't accept, he won't accept, he won't accept, what I won't accept is the destruction of America and the confidence that we need to have in our government and in our elections.

This was an unconstitutional change to our voting process.

It's plain and simple.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand there's a Constitution, and in order to change that Constitution, it's a little thing called an amendment, and there's a way to go through that.

That was not done in Pennsylvania.

He knows that, but they can dodge that all they want.

My worry, my worry is I have too many people that come up to me and say I will never vote again because this election was so unfair.

The no-excuse mail-in ballots are absolutely, unquestionably, too ripe for fraud.

People need to know that when they cast their ballot, it is for real.

And it's one person, one vote.

That's the way it works.

Doing some of the things we did in the last election cause people to wonder, and when people wonder, they walk away from the one-and-a-half million men and women in uniform that died, that died to protect this Constitution.

Now, we can play games and talk about he doesn't accept, he didn't accept.

I don't accept the voting process.

Do I accept the election results?

I can't do anything about that, that's the final tally, and now Mr. Biden is in the office.

It's a shame for the American people that he is because of the policy that he's initiated, but the voting process has got to be crystal clear and people have to feel that one person, one vote, and that it's safe, and that there's oversight, and that everything is counted fairly.

Thank you.

Mr. Pastore, your closing statement.

So certainly I would accept the results of the election and Mr. Kelly apparently doesn't understand that after he lost his case, a second case was brought making the same claim that a constitutional amendment was required, and that claim has been rejected also.

So that case is over.

So, you know, I knew we needed a new representative in Congress when Mike Kelly tried to take away the votes of his own constituents and overturn the election results here in Pennsylvania.

Remember, that happened after people had already voted.

What would've happened if he actually won, that you'd actually throw out millions of votes here in Pennsylvania and change the outcome, override the will of the people here in Pennsylvania?

That's an affront to the people in the United States, and it undermines one of the basic principles of our democracy, that everyone's vote should count.

You have a clear choice in this election.

I will protect your vote.

Mike Kelly's prepared to throw your vote out if he doesn't like the outcome.

Mike Kelly thinks that politicians like him should decide whether a woman has the right to choose and what a woman's rights should be with respect to reproductive care.

He even wants to roll back the rights of women here in Pennsylvania by imposing a national ban at just six weeks with no exception for rape or incest.

This is an extreme position that is really outta touch with people here in the district.

I trust in women and believe that they can make their own decisions.

Mike Kelly's facing an ethics investigation for insider trading, and I think we need to strengthen our ethics laws in Congress.

I support term limits.

Mike Kelly said he supported term limits and didn't like career politicians when he first ran for office, but here he is, running for his 7th term in Congress.

Holding office should be a matter of public service, not an opportunity to hold onto power and grow rich while you're in office, so I look forward to this election, and to learn more about my candidacy, please go to DanPastore.com.

I humbly ask for your support and your vote on November 8th.

Well, thank you, gentleman.

Thank you to Congressman Kelly and to Dan Pastore, and thank you for joining us.

We hope this helps you decide how to cast your votes on election day.

For Lisa Adams, I'm Ethan Kibbe.

Thanks for watching.

[upbeat dramatic music] [upbeat dramatic music continues]