- [Announcer] Welcome as WVIA presents Decision 2022, the Pennsylvania "9th Congressional District Debate," live from the WVIA public media studios in Pittston.

Our moderator, WVIA Radio's Larry Vojtko.

(audience applauding) - Good evening, I'm Larry Vojtko, and welcome to a debate between the candidates competing to represent Pennsylvania's 9th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

We have a live audience here in the Sordoni Theater in the WVIA Public Media Studios, and they have been instructed to applaud only at the beginning, as you just heard, and at the conclusion of the debate.

Let's begin by taking a look at the 9th Congressional District.

It cuts through the Commonwealth, from the New York state border, stretching down into Lebanon County in the southeastern part of the state.

District 9 is currently represented by Republican congressman Dan Meuser, who is seeking his third term in the House.

His Democratic challenger is Ms. Amanda Waldman.

Mr. Dan Meuser was first elected to Congress in 2018, after having served as Pennsylvania's secretary of the revenue under Governor Tom Corbett.

Prior to his entering into government, Mr. Meuser was one of the owners of Pride Mobility, a company known for its motorized wheelchairs and other mobility products.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, he currently serves on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Small Business.

Congressman Meuser's Democratic challenger is Amanda Waldman.

She is a lifelong resident of Lycoming County, having been raised on her family's farm.

Ms. Waldman put herself through college and is a single mother, who often worked multiple jobs to make ends meet.

She is currently a financial representative in the Medicare industry, a board member of her local Center for Independent Living, a member of the Lycoming County Commissioners Diverse Ability Committee, and an alum of AmeriCorps.

Now, the format for this hour-long debate has been agreed to by both campaigns.

Each candidate will have two minutes for an opening statement, and two minutes for a closing statement.

Responses to the questions by our panelists will be held to 90 seconds.

However, at my discretion as moderator, an additional 30 seconds may be allotted to each candidate for rebuttal.

All times will be strictly enforced.

All the questions are devised by the individual panelist, each of whom submitted a series of questions to WVIA for review prior to tonight's debate.

I, as moderator, also have the option to ask a question.

We move now to the opening statements.

And as determined by a coin toss earlier this evening, Mr. Meuser will begin.

Mr. Meuser, you have two minutes.

- Thank you, Larry.

Thanks, everyone, for being here.

Thanks to WVIA.

Thanks to my family.

I really appreciate them being here, particularly my mom and dad, and the others, my lovely wife, my brother, and many others.

It has been an absolute honor to represent Pennsylvania's 9th Congressional District over the last four years.

When I began this journey, we promised a number of things.

One of them was that we would have the best constituent services and the best district office in the country, out of 435 districts nationwide.

You know what, folks?

I think our constituents throughout the 9th would admit that we've achieved that.

We have a great team and we run our district office like a business.

We focus first and foremost, just like a business focused on customers, on constituent services.

That comes first.

We actually perform more than three times the normal casework for our constituents than the typical office.

We focus on communications, making sure you know what we're doin', and we get the feedback from you.

It's a two-way street.

We focus on legislation that is in the interest of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania's 9th, and our country, and we're terrific at project management.

We are workin' on revitalization projects, road projects, infrastructure projects, community development projects every day, and we've gotten great at it.

In Washington, I'm your voice.

I am your consistent Conservative voice and your Conservative vote.

You can count on it.

Now, folks, I think we all can appreciate and understand our country is in a very, very dire position.

We are heading in the wrong direction, folks, from an open border that our administration and Democrats in the House continue to do nothing about to an assault on our domestic energy, to crime in the streets, to an economy that is imploding.

Inflation, gasoline prices, self-induced.

What we've gotta do, come November 8th, is we need to fire Nancy Pelosi.

With your vote, by voting Republican, we will do that.

We will take a great step forward to reversing these actions and move our country- - Thank you- - In the right direction.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms. Waldamn, your opening statement.

Two minutes.

- I'd like to thank you very much, Larry and WVIA, and our panelists for having us both here so that the people of the 9th District know that they have a choice this election, and they know what both of us stand for.

So as Larry said, I grew up on a small farm in rural Lycoming County.

I'm just east of Williamsport, a little north of the town of Montoursville.

I never had any designs on being in politics.

I did work in Harrisburg in 2008 as an intern.

I was the lead intern for the lieutenant governor's office at the time.

And when I left Harrisburg, I said I'll never go back.

I watched politicians walk down a hallway with corporate interests and lobbyists, walk into session, cast their vote while their constituents sat in their office.

I'm running now not as a politician.

I'm running as a public servant because regardless of party, you can be Green, Independent, Republican, Democrat, none of us have representation in our own government.

We pay the taxes, we pay the paychecks, but we don't actually have representation.

Our corporate special interest groups have the representation.

They own a lotta seats in our committees, especially the top two, majority and minority, so when we see great legislation going into a committee and never coming back, that's why.

That's why I'm running.

This job was meant for people like us, everyday people like myself.

I know the kitchen table struggles because I have them myself.

I have to decide if I can pay the full electric bill and the new inflated grocery bill, plus put gas in my car to get to work.

I've traveled 24,000 miles just in this campaign around the 12 counties in this district, and thank you to everyone here.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Well, we now move on to the question-and-answer period of the debate.

Each panelist will be called on in rotation.

We begin with Brian Smith, city editor of the Pottsville Republican Herald newspaper.

And Brian, your question will first be answered by Ms. Waldman.

- Ms. Waldman, two years ago, people were afraid to go to the grocery store because of the pandemic.

They were afraid of getting sick, or they're afraid of mask rules.

Now they're afraid to go there because of the prices, and households are afraid they won't be able to afford to heat their homes this winter.

There's pain at the pump, there's terrible inflation, and you referred to some things in your opening statements.

In your opinion, how did we get here?

Who is to blame?

And what should a Democratic-controlled Congress, should that be the case, and White House do?

What policies to get us out of this mess?

- So I'm not gonna focus on party, because when we focus on political party, we don't get anything done.

This is about the people.

So what should a people-led government do?

While the Inflation Reduction Act was a step in the right direction, that's going to create a net deficit of 90 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

We're going to increase the IRS, the budget, the number of people working, and that would create a federal revenue of $180.4 billion dollars over the next nine years.

And right now, our inflation, it is a cost-push inflation that has been complicated by a demand-pull inflation, so the reason that our interest rates didn't go up in the beginning is because normally, a cost-push inflation level will start to even itself out.

This happened because our production of oil had to be decreased, and it was a great move in April of 2020 by President Trump.

That had to happen to stabilize the oil market.

But we are fully open from COVID restrictions.

That price should not be as high anymore.

Our production should be back to normal.

Not to mention, the war in Ukraine.

We need to produce even more to compensate for the five million barrels a day we're missing from Russia.

So this seems to be a fix that could have been implemented.

- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

And Mr. Meuser.

- Well, inflation is hurting people, particularly low income.

We did a gas station event a couple of months back, and we offered gasoline at $2.38, the price of gasoline when Joe Biden took office.

It was about an hour-long event, or about two hours.

There were about 100 cars in line, people waiting for an hour-and-a-half to save $40.

This was done over in Sugarloaf.

I met with pretty much everyone in those cars along the way.

There were tears in their eyes, they were grateful, they were angry, and they were saving $40.

And they didn't know what was going on because gasoline was double what it was just a short two years ago.

So what's occurred is that after COVID, the Biden administration, the Biden House Democrats thought it was a wonderful idea to spend another five trillion dollars.

The spending went up.

Granted, the Fed went along with it mistakenly, but they did.

That level of spending, along with the absolute complete assault on (audio cuts out) energy, from banking to investment, to regulations, to pipelines, to no leasing.

Do you know the level of leasing of lands for oil and gas drilling is 97% less this year than it was in President Trump's last year?

97%!

That's almost complete.

So those assaults, gasoline prices up have caused the inflation.

- Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

All right, we'll move on to the second question, and that will be posed...

Yes, you- - I did want to comment.

- Okay, you have a rebuttal?

Okay.

- Yes, please.

- Sure, you have 30 seconds.

- So in an attempt to address the decreased production, President Biden had gone to Saudi Arabia back in April of 2022 this year.

I'm sure everyone remembers the fist bump photographs.

He went to try and get them to increase production, and on May 12th of 2022, this year, there was a resolution sent to the Foreign Affairs Committee, where it is still sitting, and it is the agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

It still sits there.

Why?

- [Larry] Yes, and Mr. Meuser, your rebuttal?

- Here's the best part.

Okay, along with coming into office and assaulting our American energy in the manner that was done, natural gas, which, by the way, is the cleanest form of fossil fuels, 50% less carbons than the oil that President Biden wants to buy from Saudi Arabia, along with doing those things, and the level of spending that took place, clearly, that kind of mess, this chaos that's been created, is their continued plan, okay?

They're not gonna change.

- Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

- This is the plan that they're running on.

- We'll move on to the next question, and that will be posed by WBRE's Andy Mehalshick, the lead member of the Eyewitness News I-Team, and this question will first be answered by Mr. Meuser.

- Okay, Larry, thank you.

There are still questions being raised across Pennsylvania, the 9th District, and across the nation about the so-called ghost flights that brought illegal immigrants, brought, and some say are still being brought to Northeastern Pennsylvania and the northeastern part of this country.

Some of those flights landed to Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport, and many folks say under a shroud of mystery.

What will you do to address residents' concerns about these flights coming in, who are on those flights, and where are those folks going?

- Well, it's really what I've done, Andy, and thank you for the question.

Yes, we had secret flights coming in Christmas night, several afterwards.

Through word of mouth.

I went down to the airport and talked with some folks that didn't wanna give their names.

They were afraid of losin' their jobs.

But yeah, hundreds of individuals that were illegal immigrants were being flown out of El Paso, we were able to actually track it by computer.

One response I had to this was two meetings with HHS, because HHS and DHS, they do a handoff at that point.

I was very dissatisfied with the meeting.

They basically lied to me.

They said it was a coincidence that the flights were coming in at two o'clock in the morning.

They also informed us that none of these individuals were being placed in Pennsylvania.

That turned out to be a lie.

So I met with them again.

I introduced a bill to call for, and asked to be passed, on a bipartisan basis.

I didn't get one Democrat to sign on, and all we asked for, of course the border is an outta control, unmitigated disaster where deaths and drugs are coming across.

But all I wanted to do here was gain the information, if the flights were coming in, to notify Wilkes-Barre Scranton that perhaps one of our local school districts might have eight young kids showin' up that can't even speak English at a school district, inform the governor, and inform local authorities so we can make sure that these kids were goin' to the right sponsors, that they weren't engaged in human trafficking.

No Democrat voted for that bill.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms. Waldman.

- So I'm not gonna disagree that immigration, illegal immigration, is a problem.

We do need to make our borders more secure.

I do question ghost flights of illegal aliens, or illegal immigrants, pardon me.

Are they the same type of illegal, quote unquote, immigrants that we flew into Martha's Vineyard from Florida, who actually happened to be legal immigrants?

This is an issue that together, we need to address.

We need to put forward a united front.

Illegal immigration coming into any city, any state, anywhere needs to be addressed.

But with immigration, I have a question about our policies.

Why are we requiring immigrants to cross into our country to claim political asylum?

Wouldn't it make more sense to change those rules so that they can go to their nearest embassy, combine them with the refugee status, prevent caravans from crossing our border, from traveling to our border?

There are a million and one solutions that together, we could come up with, rather than blaming a party, finger pointing, or fearmongering, because that's what it's devolving into.

- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Mr. Meuser.

- Thanks, I sit on the Problem Solvers Caucus, 29 Republicans, 29 Democrats.

I've been to the border with them, I've been there twice.

Joe Biden very famously has not ever been to the border, and frankly, Vice President Kamala Harris did a drive-by.

You could talk with the customs and border control.

They will tell you the deaths that take place, tell you the difficulties they have in actually gleaning phone numbers off of arms of, they could be 17 years old, they could be 28 years old, and finding where they live.

I'll leave it at that.

I ran outta time.

- Yes, thank you.

Ms. Waldman.

- Our immigration system, our ICE agents, our entire immigration system is overwhelmed.

They do not have enough funding, they do not have enough bodies for enforcement.

One solution that I can think of, just quickly, maybe we should put more into funding our IHS, you know?

There are so many solutions, again.

It doesn't mean we have to inhumanely treat other human beings.

We need to sit down and work on this.

- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Let's move on to the next question.

And completing the first round is Francine Schertzer, senior vice president and chief content officer at PCN, the public affairs cable television network for the Commonwealth.

Francine, you will be posing the next question, and Ms. Waldman will answer first.

- The abortion debate is reignited since Roe v. Wade was overturned over the summer.

Would you support Senator Lindsey Graham's proposed 15-week abortion ban?

Why or why not?

- I actually support codifying the rights of every American.

Our Constitution granted women equal status with the 19th Amendment.

The decision for a woman's health care remains between her, her doctor, her family, and her God.

This country was founded on religious freedom.

It was founded by immigrants who were fleeing religious persecution.

I don't know how much simpler this issue can be.

I supported Roe versus Wade.

We went ahead and put new justices in who said it was settled case law, that women have the right to privacy and to bodily autonomy, and there were limits.

And I don't disagree with limits on an abortion, but it is not up to the government to tell us how and when we can seek health care.

Do you know the medical definition of abortion is the removal of any tissue whatsoever from the uterus?

How is a ban going to affect women with uterine cancer?

How is it going to affect the diagnosis?

Because to get a biopsy, you have to remove tissue from a uterus.

That's just one of the flaws in this logic.

- I'm sorry, Ms. Waldman, you're outta time.

Mr. Meuser.

- Thank you.

Yeah, it's certainly a very sensitive issue.

I can certainly appreciate that.

The Supreme Court decision made the Supreme Court neutral on abortion rights, and they're without rights.

So I am pro-life, with exceptions.

What I'm for is trying to create more of a culture of life, adoption programs, maybe some additional assistance for new moms, low-income families.

You know, it seems that the neo-Democrat Party has largely become not the party of pro-choice, but the party of abortion.

I mean, it's all we hear about.

And you know, because the Supreme Court is now neutral on Roe versus Wade and on abortion, it's now a states issue, and I respect that, and that's what we've stated, and that's what I believe.

It should be a state issue.

Nevertheless, you know, we did issue a petition on the U.S. House floor, and only Republicans signed it.

Not one Democrat would sign it, and the petition simply said, "Let's bring to the floor "for a vote "a partial birth abortion prohibition."

Not one Democrat would sign that.

So that's an extreme position.

If the federal government stepped in and had a guardrail of infanticide, I don't think most Americans would argue with that.

- Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms. Waldman, 30 seconds.

- So the Supreme Court sending this issue back to the states actually violates the equality of women with men in this country.

We are equal.

We can make decisions for ourselves.

There's another aspect to this whole abortion thing.

It's House Resolution 8373 that my opponent did vote against, and that is the right to contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

This will increase- - Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

- Abortion.

- Sorry, you're out of time.

- She mentioned me.

I'll check on that.

I don't think that's accurate.

I don't think I would have voted against contraception unless there was many other things- - July 21st of this year.

- Well, I'll definitely check that out.

I don't think I did, but we'll check it out.

- Thank you, thank you.

Well, we'll move on to the second round now of questioning.

And it first goes to Andy Mehalshick of WBRE TV, and the question will first be answered by Congressman Meuser.

- Okay, thank you, Larry.

What is your reaction to the January 6th committee investigation findings?

Do you believe that former President Trump should be held responsible for the violence in total, or at least partially responsible for what happened on January 6th?

- January 6th was a bad day.

I was there.

I and every Republican I know denounced the violence that took place.

I had reason to believe that the day might get violent.

I had my staff not show up.

I instructed them not to show up in my congressional office in Washington that day.

There is on record that on January 4th, the Capitol Police informed the sergeant of arms, who reports to Speaker Pelosi, that they request the National Guard because they're hearing such reports.

And Nancy Pelosi informed the sergeant of arms to inform the Capitol Police that they weren't going to do that because, and I quote, it's in the record, "They didn't like the optics."

So the January 6th committee I thought would be a reasonable transparency for the American people.

That's what we should have, but that's not what it turned into.

In order to be on that committee, because Nancy Pelosi threw off the Republicans that we offered to put on, you had to have two things: one, hate the defendant, and two, believe that the defendant was guilty.

Imagine, in our jurisprudence, if that's how our court systems worked, if you set up a jury that had those conditions before they were brought on by one side.

So unfortunately< the committee turned out to be, basically, really a kangaroo court, very disappointing.

I know Liz Cheney, I'm friends with Liz Cheney, her office is right next to mine, but what they did was really a disgrace.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

I'm sorry, you're out of time.

And Ms. Waldman.

- I think, at the very least, former President Trump should answer the questions, he should respond to that subpoena, and he should testify.

I watched all of the January 6th committee hearings.

I did not see a partisan attack.

I saw evidence, and I saw a witness, and person involved after person involved, after person involved.

It is, for the past two years now, that we've heard how the election was fraudulent.

We've heard how Pennsylvania's votes should have been contested, our results overturned.

80,000 Pennsylvanians should have been silenced.

I take our right to vote, and this country and our democracy very seriously.

I wanna see increased participation in our government, not decreased participation in our government.

And so long as the cloud of January 6th hangs over our heads, and the continual lies, and the continued walking back of the lie, presenting the lie, walking back from the lie, we're never gonna get out from under this cloud.

We're not going to believe in our system of government, and we will go down the drain.

So I think if nothing else, former President Trump should at least answer the questions honestly, openly.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Okay, we'll move on to the next question.

That will be Francine Shertzer of PCN.

We'll pose the question and Ms. Waldman will answer it first.

- In light of ongoing gun violence, what, if any, gun control legislation would you support?

- I'm actually a gun owner myself.

I was taught by my dad how to shoot clean.

I don't go hunting.

That's more about personal preference and actually eating what I hunt.

Raised on a farm, you know, you don't waste.

So I know, 100%, that just because there is a Democratic legislature and a Democratic president doesn't mean anyone's coming for my guns.

I still own them.

My son still owns his.

My family still owns all theirs, so I put that to rest right now.

The Second Amendment, huge supporter right here, but it does not say unregulated ownership.

It says well-regulated militia.

So for assault weapons, I do support special training.

I support yearly training.

It's what our military men and women have to go through when they sign up to serve this country.

Why would we have an 18-year-old, who we have to put a label on a box of Tide PODS to prevent them from eating?

Why would we let them just walk into a gun shop and purchase a semiautomatic weapon or an assault rifle, or any weapon, for that matter?

I don't disagree with ownership, but the people I grew up with, where I live, we're responsible.

We believe in responsible gun ownership, safe ownership, education about our weapons, so those are simple regulations that I would support.

- Thank you so much, Ms. Waldman.

Mr. Meuser.

- Well, yeah, the Second Amendment is very important, and it's pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Pennsylvania Constitution says it much more clearly, perhaps, and it states that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned.

So now, that doesn't mean that we should live with problems of gun violence, or any sort of violence.

So first and foremost, every bill that's come across on the federal side, since I've been in Congress, has been an attack, basically, or infringement upon law-abiding citizens' rights to bear arms.

From rifle sales to if your gun jams and somebody picks up, and you lend somebody a rifle while you're hunting, I mean, that could be a federal offense.

A lotta nonsense has been passed.

You know, why don't we actually do something that works?

And that's, first and foremost, enforce the laws that exist.

I mean, we have the crime in Philadelphia that, just today, a woman was talking about how a murderer from two years ago was let out, and her daughter was shot by him in South Philadelphia.

And this is every day we're seeing these scenes.

A member of Congress was held up at gunpoint and carjacked, and they were out in two days.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

- We oughta work on solving the problem.

- Yes.

Ms. Waldman, 30 seconds for rebuttal.

- Yes, I agree with the congressman here.

We have to put more money into enforcement.

Pennsylvania, the state of Pennsylvania, has one of the highest number of gun laws on the books, but enforcement is next to nothing.

So focusing on enforcement of the laws we already have in place is a fantastic idea, it's a great place to start.

At the same time, we should have requirements on how to safely own a weapon.

- Absolutely.

May I?

- Yes, 30 seconds.

- Thank you.

I was brought up, my father was a police officer.

We weren't necessarily big hunters, but we learned gun safety, very important.

But again, enforcement on the books, as well as fortifying our police, I mean, we've got a crime problem that we haven't seen in this country, perhaps, in well over 40 years.

- And we move on now to conclude the second round.

And Brian Smith of the Pottsville Republican Herald will be issuing the question, and it'll first be answered by Mr. Meuser.

- Mr. Meuser, could the run up to the war in Ukraine perhaps have been handled differently?

There are a number of issues in contention there, and a big one is Ukraine's membership in NATO.

Is it really necessary for Ukraine to be in NATO?

Also, moving ahead, I believe that Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said he doesn't want Ukraine to have a blank check, and there's been some Republicans who wanna limit the financial and other aid that we give to Ukraine.

If the Republicans gain control of the House or Congress, what would you favor, as far as aid to Ukraine, and perhaps getting a negotiated settlement to the war?

- Great question, Brian, a very important issue.

We have a massacre taking place in the Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and I look forward to the day that he's imprisoned.

The lead up to the war was very slow and late.

I know this factually, and I read it all.

I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Much of the reasoning behind the level of weakness that was perceived, that's, frankly, straight from the State Department of the Biden administration was the debacle of Afghanistan.

So that set the stage for a rattled world, where opportunity for somebody like Vladimir Putin.

Yeah, when they rolled in, we then responded, again, slowly, but we brought on many of the NATO allies, and it really brought NATO allies together.

Germany continued to be slow, Poland stepped right up.

But the level of weapons, so far, we've allocated 52 billion dollars for the Ukraine effort.

Now, some of that is supplementing the arms that we're sending.

NATO allies themselves have allocated about, appropriated about 20 million, 20 billion, excuse me, so my fight is to assure that all of NATO allies and all of those that have a stake in this at least ante up the level of the U.S.

So I'm workin' towards that, but I will tell you this.

Know the U.S. House Republicans will continue to fortify the Ukraine- - Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

- On an accountable basis.

- Thank you, thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

- So it's good to hear the congressman say that support for Ukraine would continue.

I support the Ukrainian people.

I also support their fight for independence.

It wasn't really that long ago that our own country fought for our independence.

We had help from foreign nations to get here.

I do also agree that we cannot continue financial support indefinitely, but I believe that we need to exhaust every possible option, every option.

And if that means we send more weapons, it means we send more money, we need to do that until it gets to the point that that's just not going to continue.

I value the lives of our veterans.

I put that over the need for a war.

If there's any way to avoid it by helping the Ukrainian people win their own independence, that's what I support.

I will not agree to risk an American life until we've exhausted every possibility.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

- I'm good.

- Okay, let's move on to the next question, as now where Francine Shertzer will be posing the question, and Ms. Waldman will be the first to answer.

- Do you support an increase to the federal minimum wage, and if so, by how much?

- I absolutely support an increase to the federal minimum wage.

I know it's great that we believe that private industry will raise that wage themselves.

I'm a single mom, I have two kids.

I've worked multiple jobs, up to three at a time, just to pay the bills, one full-time, two part-time.

That was only to cover food and a roof over their head and clothes on their back.

That's not all the special things for sports at schools, that's not their lunch money, that's not everything else.

That was the bare minimum, because our wages are so incredibly low.

So yeah, I support an increase in the minimum wage, absolutely.

Families shouldn't have to struggle.

Single parents shouldn't have to lose that much time with their children.

What it should start at at this point, it should be $15 an hour.

If it had stayed with the rate of inflation since the '60s, if it was still tied, our minimum wage would be in the 20-some dollars an hour right now.

15 is the bare minimum.

I'm only making $37,000 a year.

I'm still just at that poverty level.

I'm a member of the working poor.

I still work full-time, and I'm still campaigning, and I'm still trying to make the lives of other people better.

So if the least we can do for these people is raise minimum wage above 7.25 or 7.50- - Thank you.

- We should do it.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Mr. Meuser.

- Our economy is in a tattered stage.

2-1/2 years ago, granted, during the Trump administration, our wages were up significantly.

Inflation was at 2%.

Our businesses are more competitive than China's.

Our trade deficit with China was being reduced.

We were energy independent.

Gasoline, as I mentioned, was $2.38.

The unemployment rate was about what it is today, 3.4, 3.5%, except a little bit different.

We've lost three millions workers since COVID, have not come back to the workforce, so our economy and our country and our national security, and our military, which is very important for world order, frankly, it was on a roll.

Minimum wage, just drive down Route 81, and you're seeing posters or billboards, $18 an hour, $20 an hour, $1,000 to hire.

We have workforce shortages.

Wages are way up, but unfortunately, the Biden inflation has made the effective wage increase worse, even at $15, with the inflation, it's worse than it was at 12.

My math on the CPI, I don't really have a problem with the CPI adjustments.

Let's, you know, but my math has it at about $13.

But real wages at this point in time, from back to when the federal was set, but real wages- - Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

And Ms. Waldamn, 30 seconds for a rebuttal.

- So we're back to the inflation topic, and some of the proven ways to fight inflation, the immediate result would be to increase fuel production, oil production here in the United States, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

That's the most immediate thing that we can get done.

Longer term, we need to go into more flexible energy policy to reduce our reliance on the oil markets so that we can survive just on what we produce in America.

We need to reduce transport- - Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

And Mr. Meuser?

- And that sounds great, but it's not what happens on the House floor.

Most Democrats vote with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the time, all right?

Most of them in the Pennsylvania delegation, the Democrats, vote with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the time.

Maybe at best, it's 96%, and they're voting for more taxes, they're voting for more spending, they're voting against unleashing our domestic energy.

They're voting regularly to cause these problems that we're dealing with.

- All right, I know you're out of time, but I'll exercise a little bit of flexibility here, because this is such an important subject for so many of us, is our economy, the kitchen table issues, and how we're just going to pay the bills.

So I'll give each of you another 30 seconds each on this particular subject, and first, Ms. Waldman.

- Right, so I'm not sure if I stated this in the beginning, but I'm not running for a political party.

I'm running for the people.

I'm running for all of us.

So I'm not going to fall in line with Nancy Pelosi.

If you would like to check my campaign finance reports, I will happily show you I have not taken a dime of money from our state party or our national party.

I stand with the people, and what the people need are better wages, better jobs.

These jobs that go unfilled are because they're not being paid enough.

They don't get the benefits they need, they don't have the flexibility.

- [Larry] Thank you, Mr. Meuser, 30 seconds.

- Look, again, to our economy, our exports are weakened, imports are stronger, largely, interest rates are crushing the markets.

Everything the Biden Democrats have done so far has caused these issues.

And as far as voting with Nancy Pelosi, I just have to say that, you know, you hear that a lot from Democrats when they come home, but then you check their record after a year or two, and they're 100% with- - Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Well, let's move on.

Brian Smith from the Pottsville Republican Herald will be posing the question, and first, Mr. Meuser will answer.

- It's a somewhat Pennsylvania-focused question.

You mentioned Germany before among our allies.

The Germans are gonna have a very hard time this winter, as are most European countries, because of the lack of natural gas coming from Russia.

People have said that we can make it up by the United States selling liquefied natural gas, and we are stepping up to the plate with that.

It seems to me that most of that is from other parts of the country, and that Pennsylvania is not quite positioned to take advantage of that infrastructure.

Is this something that you're aware of, and that maybe the federal government could take a look at and create an advantage, opportunity for Pennsylvania?

- You know, the new expanded 9th Congressional now includes much of the northern tier, Bradford County, Sullivan County, Wyoming County, Susquehanna County, and of course, half of Lycoming County, all Marcellus Shale regions.

We're very focused on it.

You know, you have some good players up there that have come around, the Chesapeakes and the Cabots.

I've been meeting with all of them as to what we can do.

The pipeline developments are happening, albeit slowly.

You know, we have real permit issues here on the state level.

You gotta go through about nine or 10 different levels of red tape in order to receive the intermediary pipelines that are necessary.

You know, I invited President Biden, when they went off to Venezuela, they went off to Saudi Arabia.

You know, I asked them why they were putting Venezuela over Towanda.

Why were they putting Iran, for that matter, over Tunkhannock?

You know, we do have those resources here in Pennsylvania.

Let's come up and unleash those.

But they didn't respond to my request.

- Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms Waldman.

- So I actually am a lease owner on one of these natural gas wells, and I make between 20 and $80 every three months off of our lease, because out of our royalties, we also pay their taxes.

Our wells don't produce consistently.

They're constantly shut down, they're not used.

The gas company is off focusing on drilling new wells while they're not producing what's already in our wells.

I think part of the issue here in Pennsylvania is that we're not enforcing these companies who already have wells to produce.

We have multiple ways of transport right now.

A pipeline is not the only answer.

So there really isn't an excuse as to why we can't already be a leader.

Pennsylvania does have a huge Marcellus Shale deposit.

And the new 9th District, as he said, which is my old 12th District, why aren't we already leading?

Why aren't our wells already producing?

They're drilled, they're ready to go, they're operating.

Why are we so far behind?

It's a great question.

I'm glad that you asked it.

I'm sorry that there wasn't an answer.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman, and you have 30 seconds, Mr. Meuser.

- Thank you.

I mentioned earlier on the permits, I think the Biden administration has issued somewhere in the neighborhood of four permits.

President Obama, in his first two years, issued about 400, right?

They continue to have an assault, President Biden said they were gonna shut down fossil fuels.

They pretend that they're not, yet all their actions are in that line.

LNG exports, the banking industry is under regular threat, and I talk to CEOs of Coterra and others, they'll tell you the same.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms. Waldman, 30 seconds.

- What I hear a lot of is that the Democrats are shutting down the pipeline, and that it's costing hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I'm gonna quote that from Senator Gene Yaw in Williamsport.

But the reality of the situation is, again, we already transport this.

Truck drivers, we transport this by rail.

We'll kill those jobs by putting in the pipeline.

It still doesn't answer why we have so many wells that are up and running, and we're not leaders.

- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Well, the third round of questions will come to a conclusion.

Ms. Waldman will answer first.

And to pose the question will be Andy Mehalshick of WBRE.

- Okay, thank you, Larry.

There's been discussion across the nation that comes about every couple of years about the possibility of lowering the age of eligibility to obtain Medicare to 62 or 63.

Supporters of the move say it would open up employment opportunities for younger workers by allowing mature workers to retire earlier.

What are your thoughts?

- I agree with that.

I know it was rather heartbreaking for me to find out and hear the rumors and the fearmongering when I was 18, 21, that I was no longer gonna be able to retire at 65, I'd have to stay and work till 67 or 70, and that same line has continued.

I can't fill some of these positions, and some of our older people right now, who were already laid off, they can't get rehired because they're too old.

So yes, lowering the age at which they can receive their benefits is great, and it does open up positions for the younger generations.

Problem is is that right now, the largest group of workers is still our baby boomers.

Gen X, we don't have enough people.

Gen Z, still too young, millennials.

We're still going to have to increase our workforce.

We're gonna have to bring in, maybe increasing the legal immigration levels to fill some of these jobs.

I do definitely support lowering that retirement age.

I support lowering the eligibility age for your Social Security as well.

These are programs we have paid right out of our paychecks into.

- Thank you, thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Mr. Meuser.

- Andy, would you mind asking that question again?

- Yes.

There's been discussion across the nation about the possibility of lowering the eligibility for Medicare, basically health benefits to 62 or 63, not 65, 66, the way it is now, which would open up job opportunities for younger workers by allowing the mature workers to maybe retire earlier.

What are your thoughts on that?

- Well, you know, our mandatory spending budget, 'cause we really have two budgets, discretionary and non-discretionary, is very excessive.

Medicare is very important, and it will be protected.

People pay in to it.

Medicaid's not going anywhere.

Social Security, absolutely, I think that's a bipartisan agreement.

Social Security will be fortified, will be available, no questions asked.

People put 6.2% of their income, sometimes over a 40-year period, matched by 6.2% from their employer over a 40-year period.

That adds up to nearly $300,000 with any growth.

So for a 20-year period, people should be able to, or 15-year period, receive those funds.

So there's no reason that those areas, and that becomes political, right?

They like sayin' somebody wants to shut it down.

I've had conversation with Steny Hoyer, the current majority leader, and he said, "Hey, Dan, one of these days, "we just gotta hold hands and jump and work on this."

Now, we gotta look at some things.

Possibly raising the cap.

I don't like the idea of lowering it.

I mean, that's going to make the situation worse.

Now, there might be some long-term structural changes to it, I mean, very long term, but we're gonna have to work with Social Security, Medicare.

We're gonna have to pay into it.

There may have to be some that... My father, for instance, wanted to not accept Social Security, and it's very, very difficult to actually be able to remit it back.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Ms. Waldman, 30 seconds for a rebuttal.

- Again, Social Security, Medicare, there is a line item on all of our paychecks, please look for it.

This is our money.

This isn't a government handout.

This doesn't belong into the budget.

So there's also been talk of sunsetting Social Security and Medicare, meaning it comes up every five years for a vote to reenact.

If we don't learn our lesson right now and start working together, what's gonna happen to these in five years?

And when they don't pass to be reenacted, are we getting every cent we paid in back?

- All right, well, we're quickly running out of time, and we really don't have enough time to go through an entire series of questions with 90 seconds and 90 seconds and the rebuttal.

So this is where I get to exercise my right to ask a question, and I will give you each 30 seconds to answer this about what we have.

Okay, so given the controversy surrounding the validity of the 2020 election, what can you say to voters to address concerns and allay fears about the integrity of Pennsylvania elections?

Is voting in Pennsylvania safe, secure, and reliable?

And first, Ms. Waldman.

- Yes, our voting system is safe, secure, and reliable.

Is that to say that we don't need to continue improving election security?

We will always need to focus on election security.

We will always need to look for the next cyber attack, look for the next weakness, and focus on it, put the money into it, make sure our elections stay fair and free.

It is the most important thing we can do as American citizens, is to be heard and vote.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Mr. Meuser.

- It will be if we follow the rules, if we follow the Constitutional rule that says the state legislators sets the time, place, and manner of elections, and it will be if we don't have an appointed secretary of state that changes rules, changes election rules.

That's like changing rules at a football game in the fourth quarter, and when you actually think that one team's gonna benefit by it, because they said that signature matches would not need to matter on mail-in ballots.

They allowed curing of ballots in certain counties.

The dating didn't matter.

There's a controversy right now taking place.

- Thank you- - Let's follow the law.

Then everything's fine.

- Thank you, thank you, Mr. Meuser.

Well, that concludes.

We're going to go on to the final statements, the closing statements, and each of you have two minutes.

So Mr. Meuser, you go first.

- Well, certainly wanna thank everyone.

It's been a pleasure, an honor working for you.

We'll continue to do our best and make ourselves very present, and problem solve on a regular basis for you.

We've gotta get our country on the right track.

Republicans do have a plan.

We call it the commitment to America, and it's about making our country stronger, safer, more accountable, and free.

Okay, that's just not words.

We are the land of the free, if we can keep it.

So what we've got to do, as we move in, and what I can assure you I'll be working on, again, our district work, and it's really making a difference, our district work, folks.

I mean, we are seeing some cities revitalized, just in the last year, two years, three years, four years, from Shamokin to Tamaqua to Pottsville, and it's gonna happen more so.

Tunkhannock's actually looking pretty good these days.

But wherever we need to lean in and work with our state legislative partners, we're going to do so.

But in Washington, the important issues to get our country back on the right track, is, first and foremost, national security, right?

We've gotta become energy independent, we've gotta vote Republicans in in order to force the Biden administration in this direction.

It will cut the inflation rate in half.

We've got to secure our border.

Our border is a complete unmitigated disaster.

There's drugs coming through.

Ladies and gentlemen, fentanyl, when was the last time we heard Biden or most Democrats in the House, unfortunately, speak about the deaths, the 70,000 deaths just from fentanyl?

Over 100,000 from other illegal drugs.

We've got to get our economy moving in the right direction.

People are hurting.

We're losing opportunity.

Right now, China's shut down.

What are we gonna do, continue to tax businesses so they become less competitive against China, and when they do revitalize, we start buying from them?

We can do this, we've done it before.

America's great, God bless America.

Thank you.

- Thank you, Mr. Meuser.

And Ms. Waldman, you have the last word.

- I am an un-bought, un-bossed candidate.

The money that I have taken in this race has been less than $30,000.

The money that my opponent has taken in came from corporate PACs and lobbyists, and some people.

He's raised nearly a million and spent a huge chunk of that on political consulting firms to tell him what the people need.

I am one of you.

I grew up on a farm, I live in a rural area.

I work multiple jobs.

I still wonder how I'm gonna meet the grocery bill, the electric bill, the car payment, the mortgage payment.

I am one of the people.

I wanna serve the people.

I don't wanna get in this back and forth, party this, party that, they're bad, no, they are.

That's how we got into this mess, and we need to stop doing that.

I wanna focus on our veterans.

There will never come a day that I vote against the veterans health care bill for any reason.

There will never come a day where I'm gonna risk the lives of our men and women in uniform.

It's not gonna happen.

There are bills sitting in committees that have huge bipartisan support.

I'm gonna name just one of the farming bills, it's the Prime Act.

The Prime Act has been brought up for four sessions in a row, and it sits in the Agricultural Committee, where it will never be brought up and never return to the floor.

That's what I wanna do on day one, is change those committee rules so every piece of legislation gets returned to the House or the Senate, and can be voted on on its merits.

I wanna focus on education.

We have unfunded mandates.

We put a burden on our states and we put a burden on our school districts, and the only way for these school districts to make up these unfunded mandates is to tax you and I.

That's why our property taxes keep going through the roof.

I'm not looking at huge government spending.

I'm looking at taking care of the bills we created, just like we would in our own home.

- Thank you, Ms. Waldman.

Well, that concludes this debate between the candidates for the 9th Congressional District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Thanks to Mr. Meuser and Ms. Waldman for participating, and thanks to our panel, and we hope that you found this program informative and useful.

This and the District 8 debate will be available on demand online at WVIA.org, and through the WVIA app.

It's Pennsylvania Decision 2022 on WVIA.

Tuesday, November 8th is Election Day.

Make sure you vote.

I'm Larry Vojtko, thanks so much for watching.

(audience applauding) (soft warm music)