[lively music] Hello, I'm Lisa Adams.

And I'm Mike Ruzzi.

On behalf of Erie News Now and our partners at WQLN PBS, welcome to a debate between the candidates in Pennsylvania's 49th District State Senate race.

The candidates are incumbent Republican Senator Dan Laughlin, first elected in 2016, and now seeking a third term in the Pennsylvania Senate, and Democrat Jim Wertz, an educator running for elected office for the first time, but no stranger to politics as former chair of the Erie County Democratic Party.

MIKE: We will 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 49th District.

Each candidate will have 90 seconds to respond to a question, with the opponent given 30 seconds for rebuttals as needed.

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

Now based on a dice roll before the debate began, the first question and the first opening statement will go to Jim Wertz, and the closing statement, the first closing statement will go to Jim Wertz, and Dan Laughlin will give the final closing statement.

So let's begin with opening statements, Mr. Wertz.

Thanks, Lisa and Mike, and thank you to all the viewers at home for taking time out of your busy schedules to take part in this important conversation.

I'm Jim Wertz, and I'm running for the Pennsylvania State Senate right here in Erie County because we deserve better, more authentic leadership at the table in Harrisburg.

I'm the proud son of a single mom, and I was the first in my family to attend college.

Now I'm a teacher, a husband, and a father of three beautiful kids, 15 and 11-year-old girls, and a 3-year-old son.

I've lived the story of so many of the people that I've met on the campaign trail this year, and I've learned that the concerns you have for you and your family are the same as the concerns that I have for mine.

Every day we're struggling to make ends meet, and we're concerned about the future and our kids' future and how we get there together.

I look forward to having that conversation with you tonight.

All right, and I will turn to Senator Laughlin for his opening statement, you have one minute.

Thank you, Lisa and Mike.

Friends, eight years ago, you sent me to represent you in Harrisburg, and I gave you basically four straightforward reasons on why you should elect me then.

I told you that I would work on the economy, and I've done just that.

I told you that I would represent your rights in Harrisburg, whether they be your Second Amendment rights or a woman's right to choose, I've had your back on all those issues and I have the votes to prove that.

I told you that I wouldn't raise your taxes.

Every year I've been in the Senate, there have been multi-billion dollar tax increases proposed by both Governor Wolf and Governor Shapiro, and we have fought those off.

And I might add, we just passed the biggest tax cut in Pennsylvania history and it awaits action in the House.

The other reason that I ran was the state of the Erie School District.

They were on the brink of financial collapse.

And I have to tell you, I got to work on that, and by God, we've really delivered for them.

So I look forward to the debate tonight, to answer your questions, and set the record straight because the truth matters.

Thank you, Senator Laughlin.

So the first question, now will go to Jim Wertz, and we are going to start with the economy, it's what everyone is thinking about across the nation and here in Pennsylvania, it's really a top issue.

The cost of groceries, housing, really basically everything.

Figures out today for September show inflation moderating, but still prices are up 21% from 2020.

So what will it take to bring those prices down?

What role could you play in the state senate?

Well, I live this every single day.

As the person who does the grocery shopping in my house, I've watched my basket of goods shrink as we try to stay within our budget for our family of five.

But the truth is is that there's very little that the state legislature is going to be able to do to control those prices, but there's much more that they could be doing to put money in your pocket.

Senator Laughlin has claimed to support a raise in the minimum wage, yet none of the proposals for raising the minimum wage in the state Senate have received any traction or have much attention from him at all.

He talks about it here at home and he ignores it in Harrisburg.

Meanwhile, there are more than 30,000 people right here in the 49th District who are working for less than $15 an hour, the new proposed minimum wage.

Half of those people are working full-time jobs and about 40% of those people are folks with children.

It's time that we do more for the people of the 49th District and the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania so that they can help themselves overcome the rising costs of goods and utilities that we all face here in Pennsylvania.

So I'll turn to Senator Laughlin with essentially the same question.

The economy is on everyone's mind, prices, consumer prices continue to be way high.

So could you play a role in this in the state Senate?

Well, at least to some extent, Lisa.

Obviously the inflation that has run rampant the last four years is mostly from the federal spending, that has clearly driven the inflation.

But on the local level, one of the things that the Senate Republicans have done to try and put more money in working people's pockets is we passed the largest personal income tax cut in the history of Pennsylvania, but the Democrats in the House are holding that up.

So you could certainly point fingers at both sides of the aisle on some of these issues.

Mr. Wertz mentioned the minimum wage.

I've been the prime sponsor of that bill for two sessions now, and a bill like that is what's considered a pretty heavy lift.

It takes a lot of collaboration on both the Senate side and the House side, and it's not just a straightforward, here's the bill and let's get it done.

It's never that simple.

Since we have a little time, just a quick follow-up there, talk about that a little bit more.

You raised your hand for a rebuttal, talk a little bit more about the minimum wage.

Why is it a heavy lift?

Why can't you push that through?

Well, there's a lot of business groups that aren't thrilled about it, and as legislators, we have to listen to both sides of the coin when we're trying to propose something.

Now, I will tell you that if you go onto deed.com and look at your phone right now, most of the entry level jobs are already paying in the $12 to $15 range so I would argue that the private sector has already addressed this to some extent.

I would argue that that's not enough.

I would argue that the Pennsylvania legislature needs to address this and can address this.

With just a one seat majority in the Democratic House of Representatives, they're prepared to pass legislation to raise the minimum wage here in Pennsylvania.

There are 22 Democrats in the state Senate who are willing to step up and do that.

Senator Laughlin would make 23, that means he needs to bring just three more votes to the table from his caucus.

If he doesn't have the power to do that, then what can we trust him to get done?

Our next question is for Senator Laughlin.

Pennsylvania has one of the largest veteran populations in Erie County.

So what revenue streams can you generate to assist Erie County veterans with programs that would enhance their quality of life like reduced driver license fees, free hunting or fishing licenses?

Well, we've passed multiple bills that address some of these minor issues for veterans to help out.

But quite frankly, some of the property tax relief bills that we passed this past session, in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, that the Governor Shapiro also supported, the property tax relief and rent rebate program is certainly helping some of our veterans with their day-to-day expenses.

But there's more that can be done, I admit that, and I think that as we move forward, we certainly have an open door to our veteran population for them to come in and express their concerns to us.

As you know, each year we do the Veteran's Breakfast, and I hear directly from veterans on days like that, which is very nice.

Candidate Jim, what's your response?

Well, there's much more that we could be doing for veterans here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

It's nice to show up for the announcement of memorials and to host breakfasts, and everybody appreciates that.

But we could be passing legislation that helps develop workforce pipelines from the skills learned in the military to the jobs that we need filled here at home.

We also need to do much, much more to help support those veterans once they get home, helping them with healthcare and mental health resources and to the extent necessary from what they lack from their service, those job skills that might help them find pipelines into union apprenticeships and other industrial work.

But we also can't forget about our aging veterans in this population.

We happen to be home to the Soldiers and Sailors Home, the Pennsylvania Soldiers and Sailors Homer, one of our best resources in Pennsylvania for aging veterans.

And we need to ensure that we continue to fully fund and provide the resources that the Soldiers and Sailors Home needs to take care of that aging population of veterans over and over again.

The next question is for you, Mr. Wertz, and this has to do with the CRIZ.

Erie is in the process of applying for the CRIZ, deadline looming, I understand, and this is the City Revitalization and Improvement Zone.

It's an economic job creation tool for up to 130 acres where state and local taxes are used to repay debt service.

This is something we know Senator Laughlin fought for.

In your view, what would this do for Erie and is there any downside to it?

Well, I have said over and over again, I've written about the CRIZ in the Erie Reader, and folks can go and check that out at eriereader.com.

I've always said that the CRIZ was a good tool, but just one tool in the economic development toolbox.

Senator Laughlin's obsession with only the CRIZ has left millions of dollars of economic development money on the table in Harrisburg.

And as a result, Erie County has suffered.

I also have a lot of concern about the current CRIZ legislation, how it was crafted and what it means.

One of the last details of the CRIZ legislation as it now stands is that Senator Laughlin gets a majority of appointments to the CRIZ authority that is there to oversee and make sure that there's accountability with the money that flows to and from this district.

With one person having so much power over that CRIZ authority, I'm concerned that the folks that are investing the money will also control the authority and be the ones who ultimately are the only ones who benefit from these programs.

A real economic development strategy is comprehensive, and it makes sure that we're addressing folks at all levels of the community, not just those that are here to make the largest investments.

So you support the CRIZ with- I support the CRIZ with other programs.

In Redding, the primary driver of the CRIZ this cycle in the Democratic Majority House of Representatives, the CRIZ was in fact requested so that it could be paired with a TIF, a different tax incentive with a longer period of time.

What we see is where these programs are most effective is where they are paired together.

It's how Allentown was successful with theirs, it's how Redding hopes to be successful with theirs.

But here in Erie County, we have only been staring at the CRIZ because that's all Senator Laughlin has talked about since he first announced his run for office in 2015.

All right, thank you Candidate Wertz.

We're gonna turn to you, Senator Laughlin, on the question of the CRIZ.

Are we gonna make that deadline to get the application in?

And what about what your opponent has said here about you having too much control over CRIZ authority?

Well, I find that rather amusing actually.

It's an even split between the House representatives that represent the CRIZ footprint, and an even split between the Senate that was agreed to by both the House and Senate leadership.

But let's talk economic development just for a minute.

I've brought back, I believe it's somewhere in the neighborhood of like $300 million in economic development dollars to this district over these eight years.

The eight federal opportunity zones that we have within the city of Erie are the most opportunity zones in any senate district, and I got to work on that on day one, that's why we got all eight that we applied for.

Now, the CRIZ will turbocharge those zones and the opportunity zones have already brought in $100 million in investment within the city of Erie.

Wildly successful.

My opponent supports the CRIZ so he had to try and find some little way to say it's not gonna be as great as it should be.

But I think if anybody read the article by Dr. Ken Louie, Penn State's economist, it's gonna be the greatest thing since sliced bread for this community, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the results in action.

And it's probably, in my opinion, obviously, one of the best things to happen to this city in 100 years.

Jim, a chance for a rebuttal there.

Yeah, I think it's important to address the fact that the majority of the opportunity zones are not thriving in Erie County and not driving revenue back into our community.

One is doing extremely well, the one in downtown Erie, where we now have the Erie Downtown Development Corporation, and that's primarily funded by one source, Erie Insurance.

And we are grateful for the investment that they are making in downtown Erie.

The state street corridor would be suffering without it.

But the fact that the CRIZ will somehow be the magic bullet to spur investment in all of these other opportunity zones I think is a bit of an overstatement.

Thank you, Candidate Wertz.

Our next question is for Senator Laughlin.

What are your thoughts on Three Mile Island restarting to provide electricity to Microsoft for their AI?

Well, first off, I toured Three Mile Island a few years ago.

It was a fascinating place.

At the time, it was one of the most expensive ways to create electricity and that's why it was taken offline.

However, having said that, if Microsoft sees value in restarting it and it provides the good paying union jobs that help keep that area vibrant, I'm all for it.

And quite frankly, the trades are for it.

There are hundreds of trade jobs that supply that or keep that island running.

So I think it's a great repurpose of the power plant that will keep that small rather rural area employed, and I think that's very important.

And it's obviously one of the cleanest ways we can generate electricity as it is.

So it's more jobs and it's a clean way to do it, so I'm for it.

Candidate Jim Wertz, your thoughts on restarting Three Mile Island.

I think this is an excellent opportunity.

I think it's a shame that the legislature hast invested to start this sooner.

They've left billions of dollars on the table, thousands of union jobs that would've worked to reopen it, and additionally hundreds more union jobs that would've been there to operate it up to this point.

But instead they waited for private investment to come in and help kickstart this program.

We know that Pennsylvania needs to have a diverse portfolio of energy production, and nuclear will play an important role in that.

In fact, I think we've overlooked the role of nuclear for too long here as we've offlined some of these power plants.

This is an incredible opportunity.

I hope it comes to fruition, but I hope it's not too late.

The next question is for Candidate Wertz.

Fracking is certainly a hot button issue in Pennsylvania and nationally this year.

How important, in your view, is fracking to Pennsylvania's economy in terms of jobs and in terms of energy savings?

And has Pennsylvania adequately addressed the concerns to health and the environment?

Well, I think this is a critically important question, and as I said in my last response, we need to have both a diverse and balanced energy portfolio.

Pennsylvania is one of the few states in the nation that really can tap into these variety of resources to put more energy back into the system.

I think the concern with fracking, and fracking and natural gas is certainly one of those elements to a diverse and balanced portfolio, but I think that we need greater oversight.

When the original fracking legislation was written, it gave away much too much to the natural gas industry.

As we know, there's virtually no tax on the extraction of that natural gas.

And that money, as it's done in every other state where fracking is allowed, could help fund education and other programs that are critical to the commonwealth.

We also need to have greater environmental protections around fracking because our communities, and especially right here in Erie County, right here in Erie County we have so many natural resources to protect, including our great lake, our beloved Lake Erie.

And right now we have no fracking in the Great Lake's watershed and we should never have fracking in the Great Lake's watershed or around the Great Lakes because of the importance of that natural resource and clean water, not only for us, but for a large portion of the United States.

Senator Laughlin, same question to you.

How important is fracking to Pennsylvania's economy, and has enough been done to protect the environment?

Well, Lisa, I'm glad you asked that question.

It has provided literally hundreds of thousands of good paying family sustaining jobs.

It has a very good track record on the environmental issues in Pennsylvania.

And quite frankly, the fracking boom within Pennsylvania that has fueled our power sector has reduced Pennsylvania's emissions by a full 1/3 over the last decade, thereby helping the environment, cleaning up our atmosphere, providing jobs, the good paying union jobs that my opponent likes to talk about.

And quite frankly, the Biden administration, when they put the pause on exporting our liquified natural gas has hurt Pennsylvania's economy.

And I know we're here to talk about state issues and that's a federal mandate, but it's affecting our state right now and it's affecting our natural gas producers from getting clean-burning natural gas out to the world where other countries could be burning our natural gas instead of coal.

So that was a lose-lose proposition.

For the life of me, I don't understand why they did that.

Mr. Wertz, a rebuttal?

Well, first I would say for someone who likes to share his America first feelings on X, formerly Twitter, I'm surprised he's talking about exporting all of these natural resources.

But number two, I've spent a great deal of time in Indiana County where a large portion of this fracking takes place.

And in the hotels throughout Indiana County, you see out-of-state license plates because the majority of jobs involved in this industry are folks coming from Texas and Oklahoma and other places.

Many economic studies have shown that the bulk of the local Pennsylvania jobs have been office workers and other low paid wage jobs connected to the industry.

Okay, time.

So we're gonna change gears now and talk a little bit about campaign and election issues.

And I think we're gonna switch who gets the question first from me because we are about halfway through here now.

So I'll start with you here, Senator Laughlin, political analysts and voters who watched the Vice Presidential Debate earlier this month applauded the candidates for their civility.

Some of the rhetoric in this race in TV ads and mailers would certainly not be characterized in the same way.

So use this opportunity to say which TV ad or direct mail piece from your opponent's campaign has frustrated you the most for its inaccuracy, and set the record straight.

Well, first off, virtually every mailer that has gone out from my opponent's campaign has been inaccurate about my voting record.

But the part that irritates me the most is the lawsuit that Jim and I are involved in over an article that he wrote.

The personal part of that got bled out into the press because my opponent released my wife and my deposition transcripts to the media.

Now, we did not release his deposition transcripts to the media because I believe it was a personal matter between Jim and I, and we were trying to settle it in court.

But he used it as a cheap political ploy that involved my wife and my family and some very, very personal stuff between my wife and I.

And I think that's pretty despicable.

It has wound up on mail pieces and there are things in his deposition where I could make him look pretty bad as well, but we chose to stay on the high road and I wish that my opponent had stayed there as well.

We'll get to the lawsuit a little bit more, but I'm gonna turn the same question to you.

As far as the way the campaign has gone, there've been a lot of ads, a lot of mailers.

Which one bugs you the most?

And set the record straight.

Well, I think right now there are a high volume of commercials running that have me in a clown wig.

I don't think this is what anyone would call civility in politics.

Throughout this campaign, we have tried to talk about the issues.

The mailers that have been sent and the commercials that have been produced while some people may perceive as negative are simply issues of accountability, talking about votes that Senator Laughlin has taken.

I hope we have a longer conversation about reproductive rights during the course of this debate.

But one that he's taken most offense to has been his votes on reproductive rights.

He twice voted in favor of Senate Bill 956, a constitutional amendment that would ban and criminalize abortion in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

He wants to hide that behind a final vote that he made on the floor.

But by advancing that bill on the floor to a vote at a time when the Senate had a 30-seat Republican majority, he was playing Russian roulette with women's lives.

And that's why women don't trust Dan Laughlin on this issue.

It's why Planned Parenthood has endorsed my campaign on this issue.

So these mailers are not negative, they're about telling the public how he actually votes in Harrisburg as opposed to how he speaks when he's here at home.

30 seconds for rebuttal?

Yes, absolutely.

Senate Bill 956 never left the Senate.

Those were procedural votes that had nothing to do with passing a bill, and everybody knows that the three votes that truly mattered are the floor votes on Senate Bill 3.

Senate Bill 106 is what it became, it wasn't 956 when it had taken a final vote.

And there was another bill in between there that had to deal with Down syndrome, I don't remember the bill number, but I was a no on all three of those votes and my record stands.

All right, so you mentioned the lawsuit, we'll get into that a little bit more here.

The two of you are embroiled in a liable lawsuit over an editorial that Candidate Wertz wrote for the Erie Reader after the 2020 election.

It might seem that the suit and its fallout are more embarrassing than the editorial itself.

So for voters who don't really understand what this is all about, can you explain, and are there regrets?

I'll try and explain it in short order, we only have a minute and a half.

Jim Wertz wrote a defamatory article about me.

He lied in it in multiple instances, and he did that as his opening salvo, if you will, in his Senate campaign.

It was clear at the time what its intent was, and that's why we chose to deal with it promptly.

Any regrets yourself?

Not yet.

Okay, so we'll turn to Jim Wertz.

Was this the start of a campaign when you wrote this editorial?

No, I had been following this situation for a long time.

Senator Laughlin signed a brief in the Texas v. Pennsylvania US Supreme Court case, alongside 23 of his colleagues, all of whom were explicit election deniers.

He signed that brief, and I viewed that as a attempt to overturn the election, which by the way, all the media and all the analysts have said was the intent of Texas v. Pennsylvania which the US Supreme Court decided not to hear, thankfully.

I didn't write that article for more than a year.

I don't know if Senator Laughlin fully understands what he did when he signed onto that brief in that lawsuit, but hundreds of his constituents did understand it.

They called his office in opposition to his actions.

In response, he's replied to some of them and said it was the biggest mistake of his life.

I would agree.

And I think that whether or not he didn't know what he was signing or he was complicit in the conspiracy, it disqualifies him from holding office and representing the 49th District.

Our next question is for Senator Laughlin.

And a recent attempt to settle this lawsuit failed.

How much time and money is it costing?

And how is it benefiting voters in this race?

And although PA law allows campaign funds to be used for legal matters, is this the best use of the funds?

Well, Mike, when we viewed this article that Mr. Wertz wrote, whether it was him as the candidate or him as the party chair, it was clear what the intent was.

The intent was to harm my political career for this moment in time right here.

Now, I would like to take this opportunity to point out to our viewers that the Senate Democrats also signed an amicus brief in Texas v Pennsylvania, but he has not written about that.

The brief that we signed simply had to do with the extra three days that the PA Supreme Court added to how long you could turn your mail-in ballot in.

That was clear within the brief, and we made that clear.

It had absolutely zero to do with the case itself.

So other than that, I'm not sure what to tell you, but I can tell you this, Dan Laughlin did not try and overturn your vote.

Candidate Jim Wertz?

Well, I think what Senator Laughlin failed to talk about was the question and the funding of this.

It has cost, this lawsuit would have cost me and the Erie reader more than a half a million dollars at this point, and I suspect it's cost him that much out of his campaign funds.

If you were a donor to Senator Laughlin's campaign in the last two years, you are funding a lawsuit against a small business and a journalist who chose to speak out critically about his actions.

Senator Laughlin would rather bully his critics, and when we wouldn't be bullied, he decided to sue us.

I think that the people of the 49th District want more from their elected officials and expect more from their elected officials in this case.

If that brief had been heard, if Texas v. Pennsylvania had been adopted by the United States Supreme Court, it would've overturned more than two and a half million mail ballots right here in Pennsylvania.

That would've turned the 2020 election back over to Donald Trump.

I think the connection here is clear.

He signed the amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

Congressman Kelly engaged in multiple efforts to overturn the election.

You can make the decision for yourself by reading the article at eriereader.com.

We're gonna stick with the election here.

Since Pennsylvania added mail-in ballots, election processes have been evolving and there have been numerous court rulings over whether to count ballots where voters make mistakes in their signature or their dates.

Erie County does allow voters to come in and cure their ballot, something that was upheld in the courts just this week.

Are you satisfied with the way elections are being conducted now, or have we made a simple process far more complicated for voters?

Well, I think two things are true here, Lisa.

I voted for Act 77 of 2019, it allowed mail-in ballots.

But quite frankly, in that law, it said clearly that those ballots needed to be postmarked and in by 8:00 PM on election day.

The PA Supreme Court changed that and allowed mail-in ballots to come in until Friday at 5:00 PM of election week.

That was not in the legislation.

I take great exception to the judges trying to legislate from the bench, that's the legislature's job, it's simply their job to make sure that we wrote it down right.

As far as the mail-in ballots, I still support that.

I think it's a valid, easy way to vote, and I've said that from day one.

I went on national TV and said that I support this.

So I think quite clearly that I've been very clear about this, that I support our efforts to make it easier to vote and I think we just, as legislators, we have a job to make sure that the voting public is comfortable with the process and trust it.

Candidate Wertz, is the voting public comfortable with the process?

I mean, we're on the news regularly trying to explain the inner envelope, the outer envelope, what you have to do.

So how do you think this is working?

I think the public, the voting public is getting used to the mail ballots.

Part of the problem we faced in 2020 and the reason that the Supreme Court allowed an extension to accept mail ballots was that we were in extraordinary times in the midst of the pandemic.

All of those ballots, regardless of when they were received, still had to be postmarked by election day.

That's an important fact that the senator often leaves out of the conversation.

I think what this is all about at the end of the day is that Republicans have now seen that Democrats have an expanded voter base as a result of mail ballots.

This is what happens when you give people more opportunities to vote, when you expand access to the ballot, that's what I'm in favor of.

And as your state senator, I would help to codify things like drop boxes and other opportunities for folks to vote early and to make sure that their vote is counted every time, that their votes couldn't be called into question just because someone doesn't like the outcome of an election.

And our next question is for Candidate Jim Wertz.

Do you believe there is voter suppression in Erie County or in Pennsylvania?

Is there a requirement to show ID the first time one votes after registering unreasonable?

No, I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

I'm in favor of voter ID.

You use your voter ID when you register to vote or you use your ID the first time you go to your polling place.

If you move, you'll have to show your ID again at your new polling place the first time you vote for it.

The reason that I'm cautious and skeptical about Senator Laughlin's proposed voter ID bill is because voter ID laws like this in other states have been used to suppress the vote.

I'm proud to say that here in Erie County, our election office is the gold standard for election operations, not just across Pennsylvania, but I would argue nationally as well.

So I have no concerns about how our elections here or in Pennsylvania are being administrated.

But in other states where these types of voter ID laws have been passed, in Texas, for example, they passed a restrictive voter ID law that required people to show only a government form of ID, a driver's license or another government ID, and then they closed 2/3 of their driver's license centers to make it more difficult for folks to get to those government issued IDs.

Today, some folks need to travel up to 200 miles to get to a driver's license center.

I would support a voter ID law if there were enough protections in place to make sure that no one, no one was going to be left out of the process.

Senator Dan Laughlin?

Yeah, look, 80% of my constituents want voter ID because they want to feel comfortable that citizens are voting in the elections.

The bill that I have sponsored that would require voter ID has a provision in it for free government ID for anybody that needs it.

It's simply unrealistic to think that anyone that's legally living in Pennsylvania doesn't already have ID, first off, but the handful that might not, we would certainly be willing to help provide that and make sure that they have ID.

And quite frankly, I'm trying to run Pennsylvania, not Texas, so I'm gonna stick to Pennsylvania.

Candidate Wertz?

I think Senator Laughlin takes for granted that people have a government ID.

We see poor folks all the time, regardless of race, regardless of geography, sometimes without government-issued ID because it's too difficult for them to get somewhere to get that government issued ID.

That's why here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we allow someone to bring a utility bill or other forms of ID with them as their proof of identification.

This is not an issue that we should be so cavalier about.

It is the primary right here in our American democracy.

All right, we're gonna switch now from talking about the election processes to talking about education.

Senator Laughlin, you have really made it your signature issue since you were very first elected to secure fair funding for public schools in Pennsylvania, particularly for Erie's public school that led to a permanent boost and also help some other underfunded school districts.

But I've heard you say this job isn't done, there's still more to do.

So is there more to be done on this issue, and what would it take?

Well, absolutely, Lisa.

The K through 12 funding when I took office was not, I would say, equitable.

So one of the first things I did was get to work on that.

I have advocated for more K through 12 funding.

We have put record amounts in in the last few years.

I have advocated quite successfully, I might add, for the Level Up funding, we put 300 million into that two years ago or three years ago.

We put 1.3 billion into K through 12 public schools this past budget cycle.

And I mean the proof is in the pudding.

When I took office till now, the Erie public schools are getting $83 million a year more annually than when I took office, and I don't see how anyone could look at that and say that I have not been doing my job in the K through 12 space.

But more broadly, there are districts across Pennsylvania that were at least in similar financial straits as the Erie public schools were.

And some of the work that we have done in a bipartisan fashion, I might add, with the Level Up funding has helped a lot of districts across the state, and I'm very proud of that.

Let's turn the same question to Jim Wertz.

Certainly through two Democratic governorships, education funding has really jumped, under Wolf and under Shapiro.

Do you credit your opponent with that, I guess I should ask, and what else do you think needs to be done to make funding permanently better for all school districts across the state?

Well, I think first we need to put this problem into perspective.

For the more than 30 years that Republicans have been in charge of our legislature, all but six in the house and all of the last 30 in the Senate, school funding for K through 12 education has been reduced from 52% to just 31%.

Every time they've cut school funding at the state level, it's cost you more through your property taxes and local school taxes.

It's the most regressive tax that we face here in Pennsylvania.

So thanks to a couple of Democratic governors and every time we are in an election year, folks like to step up and give a little piece back to K through 12 education.

The governor's fond of calling this year's education package historic, and it is, but not in the face of 30 years of declining funds for public education.

It's why we find ourself in the situation that we're in, and it's why the money that Senator Laughlin has gotten for the Erie School District is like fighting a forest fire with a garden hose.

It plugs a couple of holes, but it doesn't get us where we need to be, to full and fair funding.

Last year the Commonwealth Court said that our school funding model in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional.

We have the money to fix this problem in Pennsylvania, we just need the political will to get it done.

Senator Laughlin, do you wish to rebut?

Sure.

Look, I can't speak to the 30 years that I was not in the Senate, I can only speak to my time in the Senate in the last eight years.

And I have advocated vigorously for K through 12 school funding, and I have been part of the solution not part of the problem.

And I think everybody that lives in this district knows that.

As far as fully and fairly funding stuff, I mean that always seems to be a moving target.

Currently we're spending close to $25,000 per student in K through 12 public schools, and locally, for the folks that understand our region, it costs about $10,000 to go to Prep and Villa.

So there's a disconnect there for sure.

This next question is for Candidate Jim Wertz.

PennWest enrollment has dropped by more than 600 students this fall, that includes Cal-U, Edinboro and Clarion, while Slippery Rock is thriving.

What can you do to help revitalize PennWest Edinboro in your district, candidate?

Well, as you know, Mike, this is an issue that's close to my heart because I teach at PennWest Edinboro.

I see the types of students that we serve and I know how important it is to have an educational system that was designed for these working class kids.

When the state system of higher education was created in 1983, it was funded by more than 70%.

That funding was designed to help cover our infrastructure costs so we could keep tuition low for working class kids all throughout Pennsylvania.

But since the early 80s, education funding for the state system of higher education has been cut to just 21%.

This year's historic education budget did little to close the gap for the state system of higher education.

Because there's so little funding coming in for the infrastructure, not just at Edinboro, but all across the state system of higher education, tuition has been forced to go up and now it's no longer the economic choice for students.

So we face a double-edged sword.

We have declining high school populations here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but we also have a public system that's not funded well enough to make it publicly accessible.

Senator Laughlin, how would you revitalize PennWest Edinboro?

Well, the first thing I'd do is I'd send Jim back to work.

He's out on sabbatical as he campaigns, I figured that was a nice time to bring that up.

Look, we have put historic amounts of funding into our higher ed system, both the PASSHE system and the state schools.

We have plenty of opportunity to go to higher ed within Erie County, and to act like the state is not investing in education is just ludicrous.

We have put record amounts of funding into our higher ed system.

Candidate Wertz.

I think you only need to go and ask any of the students who are graduating from our state system schools what the problem is.

The lack of funding for our state system schools, and by the way, the majority of state funding from the legislature goes to our state related schools, not our state system of higher education.

I think you just have to talk to any of the students who are graduating.

The students graduating from our state schools have some of the highest college debt in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The system was designed to be just the opposite of that.

But again, there's no political will for public education at this time.

We're gonna move on now to abortion.

Abortion is legal here in Pennsylvania, this issue came up a little bit earlier, with a ban after 23 weeks and six days of pregnancy and some other restrictions.

Senator Laughlin, you have said that you wanna keep it the way it is here in Pennsylvania, while your opponent has said abortion rights are under attack in Pennsylvania and he wants to see a constitutional amendment to protect a woman's right to choose.

So which is the best path for Pennsylvania?

Look, eight years ago when I first ran for office, I made it crystal clear, and my position has not changed on that.

I want to keep Pennsylvania's abortion laws exactly as they have been for the last 50 years, as you pointed out, just shy of 24 weeks.

That's been my stance from day one.

I've been crystal clear about it, my voting record proves that I stand with that statement.

And quite frankly, if Jim Wertz is trying to indicate that somehow he's for more weeks than that, I don't know, he can explain that, I'm sure he'll get a chance to rebut.

But I think where we're at now is a good and reasonable place to be.

Governor Shapiro supports where we're at right now.

He says it on social media almost daily.

And I think there is certainly a give and take or push and pull, if you will, between the pro-choice and the pro-life groups.

And I stand in between the two of them and kind of go, this is where we're at and this is where we're going to stay.

And I don't know how much more clearer I can make it than that.

Candidate Jim Wertz, talk about this issue.

Is Pennsylvania doing it right or would you like to see something change?

Well, this issue is incredibly close to my heart because I'm the father of two young women, and I worry every day about their future.

This isn't just about abortion, and by the way, 80% of the American people or thereabouts do support access to abortion.

When Senator Laughlin says what we have here is okay, the Center for Reproductive Rights would disagree.

They call our abortion policy in Pennsylvania restrictive.

And what Governor Shapiro says is that as long as he's governor, there will always be access to abortion care here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

But the reality is is that this is much bigger, this is about a broader spectrum of reproductive rights and it's why I called for a constitutional amendment to protect and expand reproductive rights when I launched my campaign.

Where we're at is no longer the place to be, it's moving us backwards.

You can't be neutral on a moving train.

When we see legislators and members of Senator Laughlin's own party trying to roll back reproductive rights which would include all kinds of care for mothers who weren't intending to have abortions but had complications with their pregnancies, that to me is the most immoral choice we could make.

We're gonna move on and talk about workers here in our area and really broadly across the country.

At Wabtec last year, we saw one of the longest labor strikes that we have seen in this area, one that got national attention as well in what was the summer of strikes.

Should lawmakers have been able to help more in resolving this long work stoppage, or is it really up to the companies involved?

You know, Lisa, that's a really good question because as legislators, I know it's tempting to go get a photo op on a strike line.

I believe that my opponent did.

My legislative style, if you will, is to try and let the two sides work it out, I think that's what's best for both labor and the companies.

If you try to pick sides and pick winners and losers in these, you just insert yourself, quite frankly, I think where you don't belong.

U E 506 is a very powerful union and they can certainly stick up for themselves.

As a matter of fact, I contributed to their strike fund quietly, I didn't make a press release about it.

And I think that obviously they were successful in their negotiations.

But I also think that you have to be mindful of the fact that if you become too successful in your contract negotiations, we will lose jobs locally.

There's the plant in, I think it's Fort Worth, where they build trains and we need to be mindful that if we push the companies out of Pennsylvania, it's going to be pretty difficult to try and get anybody to come back to Erie County.

Jim Wertz, respond to the same question about the Wabtec strike and what the legislature should do.

Well, I think that the concerns about the plan in Fort Worth, Texas, have already showed that most of that work has been returned because nobody does it better than our guys out at U E 506 in Lawrence Park.

I stood on that strike line not for the photo op, but because I'm a lifelong union member and because I have stood with the men and women of organized labor, whether they were on strike or whether they were raising money for Christmas drives or whatever the cause because I'm with them.

Our working men and women have a right to stand up for the dignity and respect that they deserve when they're in the workplace.

When a company tells a workforce that's making $24, $25 or $30 an hour that they should be making $16 an hour instead, that doesn't really demonstrate goodwill and a strong exchange between the company and its workers.

Especially at a time when we should be talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

These are highly skilled workers, and highly skilled workers deserve to be paid appropriately for the multimillion dollar product that they create in an era when the companies are experiencing record profits.

Our next question for Senator Dan Laughlin, should there be a cost of living increase for retirees who are police officers, firefighters, teachers, first responders, is there support for that in the legislature?

I absolutely agree with that.

We've certainly had some conversations surrounding that.

The budget negotiations didn't include that this year, but there was a fair amount of talk about it.

And honestly, we're not the federal government, so when we talk about stuff within the state budget, we have to pay for it.

And I think quite frankly, this is one of those areas where I think we should have made the investment and I'm going to continue to advocate for that in the next budget cycle.

And I think it's egregious that we're letting some of these senior citizens get by on less than they should be.

MIKE: Candidate Jim Wertz?

The reality is is that our retired teachers, our retired state employees, have not had a cost of living adjustment since 2001.

Now we've all experienced the inflation and the rising cost of living just in the last four years.

Imagine if you've gone more than 20 years without an increase in your cost of living and you're on a fixed income.

There have been four bills, two in the house and two in the Senate since Senator Laughlin has been there, neither of which have gotten any traction with Senator Laughlin or his colleagues.

I'm glad that he now says he wants to support a cost of living adjustment as we get closer and closer to the Democratic majority in the state Senate that'll ultimately get it done for our retirees.

But the reality is, up until this point, as it is with so many other issues, he's left them behind.

All right, we're gonna ask that we do a little bit of a lightning round here so we can get a couple more issues in before we get to closing statements.

So candidate Wertz, let's start with you, should recreational marijuana be legalized?

Short answer.

Yes.

Yes, it should.

I'm also the co-designer of a program at Edinboro University for folks working in the cannabis industry.

And I've read all of the legislation across the country for legal recreational marijuana.

There are some great bills out there that could serve as models for us right here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Illinois do it particularly well.

The bill that Senator Laughlin has that I'm sure he's going to tell you about in a couple of seconds, is not among the best bills.

We can do better and we should on this issue because it's a critical issue of our time.

All right.

Senator Laughlin.

Well, I appreciate your support, Jim.

The bill that I have co-sponsored with Senator Sharif Street is obviously a work in progress, and quite frankly it is a bipartisan push to try and get a product that we can get across the finish line in Pennsylvania.

Because when you introduce these bills, it's not just my way or the highway, you have to work together with both the House and Senate and both Republicans and Democrats to try and move a product forward like that.

And this is a big issue, obviously.

We're about a minute away from closing statements.

Just quickly, one of our colleagues in the newsroom said her little children are asking a lot of questions about the election, the tone of candidates calling each other liars and so on from the local to state to federal.

Just quickly, are you proud of how politics is going?

I think it's obviously become a little bit more of a rough and tumble business than maybe it was 30 years ago, Lisa.

My candidate wrote, or my opponent wrote an op-ed early on in this cycle talking about, I forget how he said it, the sharp elbows of politics.

And quite frankly, I took it to heart.

We have not attacked his character, we've attacked his positions, but I can't say the same is true coming from the other side.

We're almost out of time, real quickly.

I would say we are in a low point here in politics.

My kids have grown up in politics.

My kids see Senator Laughlin's ads about me on YouTube and on TV when they're watching at night, and they see the mailers that come every single day.

I think it's time that, as I said in that op-ed, that we insert a little civility back into politics.

That's why I've chosen to talk about Senator Laughlin's actions and what it means to us, the voters of the 49th District.

All right.

All right, time now for the closing statements.

Candidate Jim Wertz, we'll start with you.

Well, I'd like to begin by thanking the broadcast team that hosted this debate here tonight, and I'd like to thank again all the viewers at home.

As we've heard tonight, we're facing a lot of challenges here in Erie County and all across Pennsylvania.

Every day, hardworking people are finding it a little harder to make ends meet, but the reality is, the truth, the simple truth is that Senator Laughlin isn't listening anymore, and he doesn't care about that because his party has been in control of the state senate for more than 30 years.

So now he's more interested in limiting reproductive rights and access to the ballot because that's what the extremists in his party want him to do.

I think it's time that we turn the tide.

Ask yourself, do you really want a state senator who bullies his critics and sues those who won't be bullied?

Do you really want a state senator who drives around stealing people's newspapers so they can't read about his hidden agenda?

After eight years in Harrisburg, I'm sad to say I think Dan Laughlin is the problem.

We need to fix this, we need to get back on track, and to do that, we need to elect someone who's always put Erie first.

I'm a lifelong union member, I'm a teacher, and I've even been a small business owner.

Our campaign is supported by working people, teachers all across Pennsylvania, and countless others who are just ready for a fresh start and a new day.

I know we're not always gonna agree on everything, but I'm pretty sure that we see eye to eye on the fundamental issues that matter most today.

And I'll always listen and work for you and with you, we'll be a team.

You can learn more about our campaign at jimwertz.org, and when you head out to vote, whether you're gonna vote early or you're gonna head to the polls on election day, I ask for your vote this year.

Thanks for being with us.

Senator Dan Laughlin.

Sure.

Folks, you sent me to the state senate eight years ago, and I've stuck to my word, I've told you the truth every single day.

I've worked on economic development really quite successfully, I might add.

I've stuck up for your rights, the woman's right to choose and also her right to own a firearm, her right to have a safe neighborhood to raise her children in when she gets home from work.

Because those issues and those rights matter too.

I've kept your taxes low.

We heard a lot out of my opponent today about how he's gonna fund this and that, and that would probably fall within those $5 billion tax increases that I know he would've voted for.

As far as our schools go, I think my opponent and I aren't that far off on what we want to do as far as the funding, but I have the proven track record already in Harrisburg on how to get things done and move the ball forward.

I've done that very successfully.

So I look forward to the election this fall.

I wanna remind everybody when I started out the opening statement that truth matters.

You heard a lot of political speak out of my opponent today.

He gave you a little polished closing statement there that sounded an awful lot like a politician.

I'm a plainspoken builder, my word is my bond.

And I can tell you this, if you send me back to the state senate, I will continue to work very hard for you.

So I ask for your vote this November.

Thank you.

Thank you to our candidates for Pennsylvania Senate in the 49th District, Republican Dan Laughlin and Democrat Jim Wertz.

And thank you to our partners at WQLN PBS for helping us bring this debate to you.

And we hope this debate helps you decide how to cast your ballot on election day, that's Tuesday, November 5th, or to fill out and return your mail-in ballots before the polls close.

On behalf of Erie News Now, I'm Mike Ruzzi.

And I'm Lisa Adams.

Thank you for watching.

Remember to get out and vote.

[lively music]