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

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

The candidates are Rick Telesz, a soybean, corn, and dairy farmer from Volant in Lawrence County, and Dan Pastore, a businessman, co-founder and chairman of FishUSA from Fairview in Erie County.

Each of these candidates is hoping to win the Democratic Party nomination in the May 17th Pennsylvania primary election, and then move on to face incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Kelly of Butler in the general election in November.

We will begin with a one minute opening statement from each candidate.

I will then ask a series of questions on the issues concerning voters here in the 16th District.

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

The candidates will each have two minutes for a closing statement.

Now, based on a dice roll beforehand, Rick Telesz will give the first opening statement.

Dan Pastore will take the first question.

Rick will then give the first closing statement at the end of our debate.

So we'll begin now with the first opening statement from Rick Telesz.

Hello, first, I'd like to thank the people hosting us for this opportunity to speak to you, the voters.

I am a farmer, I am a father, I am a husband, and I'm a grandfather right here from Lawrence County in the southern part of the district.

Just like every one of you, I've sat at the same kitchen table with the same issues, the same bills, whether they're buying school clothes, whether it's medical bills, whether it was school tuition, whether it was utility bills, taxes, and that is why I'm running for Congress.

It's time that the people of this district are represented by somebody who actually knows these issues, unlike our Congressman Mike Kelly, who for so long has sat at the kitchen table and only had to worry about what side to order with his steak.

It is time that people in this district are represented by a strong, working class, middle, hardworking country voice, and that is why I promise to be that voice for you in DC when I get there.

Thank you.

And now, an opening statement from Dan Pastore.

Well, thank you, Lisa.

It's my pleasure to be here.

I grew up swinging a hammer, working alongside my father at Pastore Builders, our family's construction business.

I went on to earn a degree in economics at IUP, then a law degree at Pitt.

I worked as a partner in a law firm in Erie, handling a wide range of cases throughout western Pennsylvania.

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

And then, in 2000, I founded in my current business, FishUSA.

Today, we're one of the nation's leading e-commerce retailers, selling fishing tackle across the country and across the world.

We employ over 60 people today at our facility in Fairview Township in Erie County.

I also serve on the Pennsylvania Fish Commission as the commissioner for this district.

I'm an avid outdoorsman and hunter and angler, proud to be married 36 years.

My wife and I have three children.

My wife is a school teacher in the public school system here in Erie County, and I look forward to discussing the issues that are important to the people of the district.

Thank you for the opening statements.

And so, now I will direct the first question to Dan Pastore.

So let's begin with foreign policy.

President Joe Biden recently asked Congress for $33 billion in additional funding to aid Ukraine.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, just there over the weekend, promised President Zelenskyy that the U.S. would be there for him.

So if you were in Congress now, would you approve that spending and why?

Well, thank you, Lisa.

I think my heart goes out to the people of Ukraine.

It is a tragedy what's unfolding there.

This was an unprovoked attack by Russia, challenging the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

And Ukraine is our ally, and we've committed to support them in this war, this unjustified war by Russia.

And so, yes, I would support that funding package to Ukraine.

The president said we will be there for Ukraine, and I agree we need to be there for them.

Russia is disturbing the world order as it existed in Europe since World War II.

We can't allow Russia to get territorial gains by simply attacking its neighbor and using force to take that land.

We are also showing to the world what it means to have the United States as its ally.

If you attack Ukraine and they are our ally, we will defend them and provide the resources that they need to repel that attack.

It's also commendable how we've worked together with our NATO allies and many other western countries to work in a unified way to push back against Russia's aggression.

We need to show Russia and other dictators around the world that they cannot attack their neighbors and challenge the territorial integrity of other countries in the region.

Thank you.

The same question, Mr. Telesz, that $33 billion in additional aid to Ukraine that the president is proposing, would you support that if you were in Congress?

You know, nobody wins in a war, and what Putin is doing is just a plain criminal act.

And I truly support this administration and how we are supplying military and humanitarian aid to the people of Ukraine.

Putin has shown the world that he is a threat to civil rights, and I fully support everything this administration's done to this point.

So there has been a lot of spending already.

That 33 billion, you think the U.S. can afford to continue helping in this way?

We cannot afford not to.

There's too much at stake.

Democracy and people, human rights around the world.

It's part of a, like I said, it's a shame.

Nobody wins in war, but this atrocities cannot go on.

So the next question is for you as well, Mr. Telesz, so Russian president Putin just cut off natural gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria.

What role do you think that the U.S. and Pennsylvania play in ensuring stable energy supplies?

That process is already in play, and it's because of what's actually under our feet, the natural gas, being the Marcellus Shale, and it's being taken out, and there's a pipeline across the southern part of the state that's operated by Sunco, and there's a refinery on the east coast, and they're actually liquefying the gas and it's being transported overseas to Europe.

And I'm sure that they'll probably up the production and transportation of that.

The same question for you, Mr. Pastore, so Pennsylvania does have these supplies.

With what Putin has done for some of the other neighbors there in Europe, as far as cutting up off supplies, what role do you think the U.S. can and should play in stabilizing energy supplies, and Pennsylvania in particular?

It is unfortunate that Russia has done this, and that Europe has been so dependent on Russian oil, and we have an obligation to help our NATO allies and others in Europe to respond to this crisis that Russia has created.

So we do have an opportunity to help these countries by providing to them natural gas.

We have those resources here in our state, and we are developing them and continuing to expand them, and this is an opportunity for us to continue to produce and do what we can to supply the countries in Europe with natural resources like liquified natural gas and whatever other resources we can provide to them to help them get through this attack by Russia and Russia's attack on their supply of gas and oil.

So there is, we need to push back, and we have the opportunity to help them today, and I think that is what we're doing.

And I think we're taking the right approach in Ukraine.

So a recent headline said that Russia has recast the Ukraine invasion as a war against the west.

So, in your view, which country poses the bigger existential threat to the U.S. now, Russia or China, and why?

I think today, the biggest existential threat is Russia.

They are attacking on the borders of our NATO allies, and so, under Article V, we have a commitment to defend our NATO allies.

And what exactly Russia is gonna do has yet to be seen.

They don't seem to be rational, and we can't predict what will happen next, and so we need to prevent this war from escalating and getting beyond the borders where it is now.

There are NATO allies all around Ukraine.

It's in our national interest and in our immediate interest to stop Russia's advances and push them back.

On a long term basis, China is still a significant issue for us, and it's very unfortunate that China has tried to stay neutral in this.

And it really shows us where they stand.

There is really no neutral position in this war between Russia and Ukraine.

It was an unprovoked attack by Russia, and China's simply sitting on the sidelines, seeing how it will play out, and there may be some economic advantage to them.

So I think we should, that just is further evidence of where China's interests are and how we differ in our approach.

So, I think, on a long term basis, China is still an existential threat to us, but the immediate threat is really with Russia and its attack on Ukraine.

Same question to you, Mr. Telesz, so, again, this idea that this is now not just between Russia and Ukraine, but it's against the west.

So is Russia or China the bigger threat to the U.S.?

Oh, it's obvious, it's Putin.

It's Russia.

He seems to be so unrational with his threats of retaliation or basically a first strike, and his threats of a new weapon.

And so, without a doubt, it's Russia.

I mean, the possibility of a third world war invoking nuclear weapons is unthinkable.

But then again, China, basically, them staying neutral is probably a good thing.

They're not picking a side.

If they had to pick a side one way or the other, it would provoke the other one, so not to say that China's not a threat, but the immediate threat right now is Russia.

China's threat to us is an economic threat.

It's basically trade, but we should not underestimate their military forces either.

So, without a doubt, it's purely Putin.

Well, let's kind of transition into domestic issues.

The Biden administration has maintained most of the border restrictions that were enacted by the Trump administration, but he wants to end Title 42, and that's a COVID-era rule that allowed the quick deportation of hundreds of thousands of migrants.

So, if lifted, migrant arrivals are expected to really increase dramatically again, so is the border ready for that?

Is lifting Title 42 the right decision and why?

You know, Title 42 is a result of the World Health Organization.

COVID was classified as a real pandemic.

And so, the prior administration actually had that fall into their lap as a reason for closing the border, but I truly agree with the World Health Organization, as far as having a highly transmittable disease, and requiring somebody to be either vaccinated or tested to come in the country.

I totally agree with that.

An open border, would that affect us in Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania's largest industry is agriculture, and it depends on the migrant workers, and they're a necessity.

In fact, our entire economy depends on immigrants and migrant workers, so what would the influx of an open border?

As long as it's legal immigration, I have no issues with it.

It's the illegal part.

If you look around a room and you're asked questions about immigration, how many Native Americans do you see?

We're all ancestors, basically, from immigration, migrants at one point in time, whether it was our great grandparents.

But I'm not sure that they all came in this country the legal way, so as far as coming across the border, open it up, but do it the legal way.

Mr. Pastore, the same question to you.

Should Title 42 be lifted at this point in time, and what would the impact of that be?

So our fundamental obligation is to secure our borders.

That is one of the responsibilities of our federal government, and our borders must be secure.

Title 42 is enacted as part of the COVID regulations, because of the concern about people coming across the border infected by COVID, so, eventually, we have to end Title 42.

The pandemic is winding down and we will not be able to continue to rely on that.

The Biden administration has talked about plans to address the anticipated surge of migrants that will come across the border, but the details have not really been provided yet.

And I would be of the opinion that, until we have a clear plan on dealing with the expected surge of migrants, that we should hold Title 42 in place, try to develop that plan as quickly as we can, because, ultimately, we have to wind down Title 42.

It's also causing problems, because people are coming across the border without being adjudicated, and we just send them back and we don't know whether they've tried to cross more than once.

So once we lift Title 42, we will be in a position to process people, and if they come back a second time, they will be violating the law again, and we can process them at that time.

So the ultimate solution is we need to reform our immigration laws instead of just fighting these culture wars over the immigration and not having real solutions to the problem.

Well, thank you.

So we'll move into COVID-19 now, so the COVID 19 pandemic has really impacted every aspect of life, from health to schools to jobs to the economy.

Do you believe that we're moving out of the pandemic phase and into the endemic phase, as Dr. Fauci has said?

Do you think we are at that point?

I think we have to rely on the science on this.

We have a Centers for Disease Control that are the best scientists in the world, and we need to follow what their advice is.

I'm not an expert, I'm not a medical doctor, I'm not a infectious disease expert, so we have to rely on the experts, and we have a great center in place to provide that advice.

I have no reason to disagree with Dr. Fauci that we are reaching the endemic stage, and I think we're seeing it play out here in the region, and people are ready to move on.

It's gonna be around, it's gonna be like the flu.

We have ways to address it now, we have vaccines, we have boosters, we now have pills that you can take, and what we need to do is move to the stage of encouraging everyone to get vaccinated, to get boosted.

And I think we can expect that it will be an annual thing, like the flu, and it's just something we're gonna have to live with.

No one knows what the future holds.

It could get worse again, but, hopefully, it is behind us.

We've reached the endemic stage and we can manage it.

We know how to manage diseases like this.

It's like the flu that happens every year.

So I would agree, I think we've reached the endemic stage of COVID-19 at this point.

Mr. Telesz, the same question for you.

Are we still in a pandemic?

Are we at the endemic stage?

Oh, we've reached, I feel, the end of it, but if we would've listened to science at the very beginning, we may not have felt the effects that we felt from the pandemic, But we still have to be vigilant.

This is something that's only happened once in our lifetimes, and there's never been a playbook for it.

And listen to the experts, listen to the people that know the science, that do the research, and we just have to be vigilant.

If something comes up again, another outbreak, we have to make sure we know that we have the tools and the resources and the information to handle it, and the government has to gain to public's trust and trust what their recommendations are.

During the pandemic, Congress passed major relief packages, more than $5 trillion altogether.

So did the federal government get its response right, in your view?

Was that money well spent, and was the American Rescue Plan, the last one, was it really needed?

Like I said, this pandemic was a real pandemic.

There was no playbook.

There was no past experience to draw on.

So were there mistakes made?

I'm sure there were, but what they gave out was well needed.

It not only kept the people in their houses, kept the lights on, kept the food flowing.

Was it justified?

Sure it was.

Were there mistakes made?

I'm sure there were, but going forward, this administration's aid, it went to the people.

Unlike the prior administrations where it went to CEOs, it actually helped the people in the communities.

It went to schools, it went to individuals, it went to the hospitals, went to the workers.

So yes, it was vital, it was necessary.

It may have been blamed for some of the shortages in a workforce, but I'll take a complaint about somebody not coming to work if they were able to keep their house.

That's not an issue for me.

Okay, and I'll direct that to you, Dan Pastore, so all those relief packages, more than $5 trillion spent by the federal government, some of it still being spent now in communities, was that the right response and was the American Rescue Plan itself needed?

I think, at the time, it was the right response, and only history will tell us in the end, as we look back.

So we were really reacting at the time things were happening.

We were in a global pandemic and we were trying to support our economy.

This is exactly when we need to inject money into our economy, when we're facing an unprecedented challenge.

Businesses were shut down.

People couldn't go to work.

Students couldn't go to school.

And we were trying to provide economic relief to the middle class, and so I think the response was appropriate and that we will see, as time moves on, what the impact of that was.

But I think it was the right response at the time that we did it.

Just a little follow up there, were there enough purse strings, I guess, on the spending to make sure that it was really going for COVID relief?

We know, here in our community, there's disagreement about how the county planned to spend its funding.

Again, I think we're gonna, only time will tell where that pans out, but I think you have to strike a balance between getting the money out as quickly as you can and putting in place a regulatory structure that makes it so hard that, by the time the money's coming out, it's too late.

So I think we tried to strike the right balance and get it out.

I'm sure there will be some instances where the money was not used the way we intended, but I think, overall, it was the right approach.

Sticking with COVID here for a minute, Mr. Pastore, a federal judge recently ruled against mask mandates on public transportation.

Still, some cities are reinstating mask mandates.

So should we still be masking on planes, trains, and buses?

Why or why not?

I think we're at a point now where I can't imagine our federal government implementing mask mandates again.

I think the public has moved beyond that, and there's nothing wrong with, it's now a personal choice.

If you want to wear a mask out in public, that's your choice, but I think we've moved beyond the phase where we should be mandating masks or closing down businesses.

As you asked earlier, we've passed the pandemic stage.

We're now at the endemic stage and we have boosters, we have immunization, so we have the tools in place, and it should really be, at this point, a matter of personal choice.

If you want to wear a mask, fine.

If you don't want to, we shouldn't be forcing people to do it at this stage.

As long as you have a little more time, I'll just ask a follow up.

Why do you think there was so much vitriol over these personal choices?

I mean, this was really a hot button issue.

Yeah, it's unfortunate.

I think it really should have never become a political issue.

This is really a question of science and health.

There was a global pandemic, and it's a matter of both your personal health, but how you could affect other people.

And it's really unfortunate that it became a political issue.

We've been vaccinating people for years.

Our children get vaccinated to go to school.

It's really not been a political hot button issue, but somehow this got turned that type of issue, and, hopefully, that won't happen again.

Mr. Telesz, so did the judge get it right when he ruled against mask mandates on public transportation, planes, trains, buses?

Do you think we should still be masking in public transit?

I believe the judge got it right, but it's a personal choice, and, to me, it's a common sense choice.

Personally, in a crowded atmosphere like that, I'd prefer to wear one.

But then again, going forward, the future's gonna tell us if it was the right choice or not.

And as to the vitriol, I mean, this became a really ugly thing at some schools or some businesses, masking, not masking, people distrustful of these kinds of instructions from the government, so any thoughts on that?

No, it's a shame it became me against you.

It became a hot topic political item, and there was no common sense or logic in that argument whatsoever.

It was a public health safety issue.

It was proven that masks did help from preventing the spread of COVID.

And it's just a shame that they took it to the public schools and made such a national issue out of it.

Our children, the health of our children, why would you not be concerned about them?

And then, the fact that they could possibly have brought something back to the household, whether it affect their grandparents or parents or other siblings?

So we need to bring just the common sense back into this country.

All right, the next question is for you, Rick, for the first time in 2020, and this information just came out a couple of weeks ago, firearms were the leading cause of death for U.S. teens and children, rising by 29% in a single year, mainly because of a jump in homicides.

So what should the federal government do to change that trend?

How would you go about keeping guns out of the hands of children and teens?

First of all, we gotta stop the flow of these guns getting into the hands of our children.

We gotta go after the so-called gun traffickers.

We gotta prosecute them, we gotta make sure they're held extremely liable for their trade.

Then we gotta look at the other aspect of it, from the mental aspect of it.

We have to reach out to some of these individuals and make sure that their problems are maybe dealt with before they decide to become a violent issue.

So we've had a school shooting here in Erie in recent days.

We've had a seven-year-old shot in the head and killed.

What, specifically, would you do?

You have to hold people accountable for their actions.

You have to hold the people that own those firearms accountable.

It's a tragedy that a child gets shot, especially if it's your own, because of your own neglect of what you did with your firearm.

But as far as the school shooting, there again, we have to go after, how are these kids getting supplied with these guns?

We have to go after the gun traffickers, the people that are bringing these guns and selling them to these kids.

And then again, like I said, from the mental aspect, whether it's counseling, we have to reach out to these individuals and get them counseling to where they can talk about their problems and get them resolved without extreme violence.

All right, I'll turn that question now to you, Mr. Pastore.

Again, 2020, a new stat, firearms the leading cause of death for teens and children.

It had been accidents before that, but now it's firearms.

Does that surprise you?

And what should the federal government do to change that trend?

What would you do to keep guns out of the hands of teens and kids?

I think it is a tragedy that we're still experiencing such gun violence, and as you said, we saw it play out here in Erie just last month, when there was a shooting in one of our high schools, and that is something we have to prevent.

So people in the United States, we have the Second Amendment.

They have the right to lawfully own a gun, whether for sporting purposes or for personal protection, but we need to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

So I would support universal background checks.

We need that as a method to ensure that people who shouldn't own a gun don't get one.

We also have to look at the root cause of gun violence, especially amongst young people.

The violence is happening mostly in our economically depressed areas, in our inner cities, and so we have to address the challenges, what is causing that?

So the gun violence has risen as the pandemic hit and economic conditions worsened, and we are hopefully coming out of that now, but I think we can support programs that help divert children, young people, from taking on a life of crime, giving them alternatives and options, giving them some thing to do, a job, an activity, and steer them away from a lifestyle that will get them involved with guns and gun violence.

So staying with schools now, then, let's talk about school funding.

Money is flowing, but teachers, you mentioned your wife was a teacher, teachers are quitting.

School boards are at odds with parents about who controls the curriculum, so what should Congress do to ensure student success from low income to wealthy school districts?

The federal government has a limited role in the education at the local level, so my opinion is that the decision about what the curriculum should be really needs to be dictated by parents and the school administration and the teachers in the local school district.

The federal government shouldn't be involved in setting that curriculum, but what we can do, Pennsylvania is a great example where our school systems are funded primarily with property taxes, and that creates tremendous disparity in the funding of education, where school districts that don't have the property tax base don't have the resources that others do.

So the federal government can play a role here in leveling the playing field and providing additional resources to those schools, districts, and they're typically either in the inner city or in our rural communities that need additional support from the federal government to level the playing field, as I said, and support what they need to provide a good education So, with respect to the school teachers, one thing we can do is encourage more people to get into teaching, and, for example, provide a path to student debt forgiveness if people will enter the field of teaching.

We need them critically.

We need to support our public school system and the teachers who work in it.

All right, thank you.

The same question for you.

Mr. Telesz.

A lot of money flowing, but teachers are quitting, and this curriculum issue has come up between parents and school boards about critical race theory and all of those things.

So what would you do?

What should Congress be doing to ensure student success from low income to wealthy districts?

Well, as pointed out, the schools are basically funded through state taxes.

It's basically the responsibility of the states to set the standards in their own schools for their own areas for education.

What can federal government do?

It gives incentives to get more people interested in education, teaching.

The federal government, I think, their hands are really tied as far as what you can do in our public schools.

The curriculum should be set by the local school boards and the parents.

You take the funding as tax based funding.

so if Congress could do anything, they would have to change the entire structure on how schools are funded, whether they take that responsibility away from the states and assume it and then spread the wealth equally among the schools.

That would be the only thing I could see Congress could do.

No Child Left Behind, though, was an example of a federal initiative that did make a difference in schools.

I don't know if it really did make a difference.

No Child Left Behind, to me, may have increased the enrollment in charter schools, so No Child Left Behind may have been also no child can get ahead.

So I'm not sure that was the correct way to approach that problem.

I think the public school system, and in rural communities versus the inner city, a big thing that's gonna equal the playing field is the introduction of broadband, where we can bring the classrooms up on an equal par as far as ability to reach different things, whether it's through education or research.

Mr. Pastore, I know that you're on a charter school board, so I thought I might ask you if you wanted to rebut there?

The only other thing I would add is that we can also expand access to pre-K and make childcare more affordable.

That also gives our youngest students a step up, and ultimately work our way to universal pre-K. That is something the federal government can help with, and that will really lift up our communities and be good for economic development and for the wellbeing of the people in our district.

Thank you.

All right, so the next question for you, Mr. Telesz, we're gonna kind of move into the economy here, the U.S. economy contracted during the first quarter of 2022 a really significant drop in the GDP, and that's after the appeared to be rebounding from COVID-19 at the end of last year.

On top of this, we see dramatic inflation.

Are we heading into a recession?

How concerned are you about the economy?

Hey, inflation is, it's real.

It hurts, and I've only heard that term when it's associated with wages increasing.

My life on a farm, my inputs go up yearly, annually, but you never hear inflation unless it's tied to wages.

You take, interest rates are gonna go up and that's gonna slow the economy down, and that will tend to put us into recession, and recession is not good either.

I think the federal government has their hands on it with the federal treasury, I'm sorry, the U.S. Treasury.

I do believe that they have their hands on trying to regulate inflation, trying to keep things under control, but it's a tough subject, and it's a supply and demand issue, too, inflation.

And the real pandemic shut the whole world down, so once the supply chain gets reestablished, I believe the inflation parts will start to settle out and correct itself.

But in the meantime, we do have to be careful about a recession.

What we don't need is a slowdown after having this pandemic.

We need to keep things flowing, and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates, hopefully, they don't go too crazy.

To me, that would be devastating to people who have got these mortgages, when they start seeing two, three points go up on a mortgage.

That's a tremendous bind on families.

Thank you.

Mr. Pastore, same question, a big drop in the GDP in the first quarter here of 2022, and inflation is out of control here, so are we heading to a recession?

How worried are you about the economy?

I'm certainly worried about the economy.

The inflation is really a top of mind issue for people in our district.

If you drive past the gas station, you go to the grocery store, you can see it, and it's really putting a strain on the middle class here in western Pennsylvania.

I think we have to be a little careful of looking at a simply one month's number.

Actually, if you look back, if you're looking at a year over year number, we were surging a year ago, and so, declining based on that statistic is somewhat misleading, so I think we have to take a broader look at where we stand, but we're certainly, there's a legitimate concern that we're heading towards a recession if we don't do something to stop it.

So the Federal Reserve is looking at that, and they're moving up the interest rates even faster than they had anticipated to try to head off a recession.

But I think, I'll also point out that the federal deficit is also falling, and it's continuing on a downward trend, which is positive and helpful to the economy.

So I think we have to see where the trajectory is here, but, certainly, it is a concern.

Last month's numbers, we should see the April numbers coming out any day now, and that'll give us a clearer picture of where we stand.

If the April numbers are bad, then I think we may need to adjust even further to head off for recession.

All right, the next question is for you, Dan Pastore, and interestingly, it's the agriculture question.

So agriculture is very important in Pennsylvania.

We've heard that already here today.

Family farms were struggling to compete against some corporate giants already, and now facing this inflation problem for things like fertilizer, diesel fuel, seed, feed.

Are those things gonna be the death knell for family farmers?

What solutions would you propose because of the importance of agriculture here in our state?

I agree that the agricultural sector and the family farms are really the backbone of our community, and I've watched them.

I grew up in McKean in Erie County, in the heart of dairy country.

When I was young, there were dairy farms all around us, and they have all closed.

And these economic conditions are putting even greater pressure on the family farm, so there are no easy solutions, but I think the federal government can help to stabilize the prices of commodities in our marketplace.

We also need to adopt trade policies that support our family farms, not only in western Pennsylvania, but across the country.

There are also other opportunities markets, so, for example, we talked about it earlier, that the war in Ukraine is causing a shortage.

Ukraine's the bread basket of Europe, so there is an opportunity for us to fill that void with our farms, and we need to do what we can to support the farmers here in our district, of this is an opportunity for them to export additional crops that they weren't able to do before.

On the dairy farm side, I think I would consider looking at the policies that we've adopted, especially around milk in schools, and loosen up the regulations to allow school districts to make choices about what type of milk they will make available to students in the public school system.

All right, Rick Telesz, we'll turn to you with the agriculture question.

You said yourself how important it is here in Pennsylvania.

Family farms, a lot of them have closed in recent years, corporate giants getting involved in the process.

You're very successful, though, so what about this inflation impacting farmers for fertilizer and diesel fuel and so on?

Will this kill more family farms, and what would your solutions be?

The solution?

That's a good question.

The impact, yes, it's real.

It's devastating, and the only card in the hole that hasn't been shown is what Mother Nature's gonna do.

If there is a climate issue, whether it's a drought or a monsoon, where yields are gonna be affected, it'll be devastating for farming, no matter what your size is.

These inputs, to me, they're price gouging, plain and simple, and it's a shame.

But as far as real trade, we have great trade markets.

I was never one who thought trade deals would be good, especially for the American farmers.

I knew they would be, or I'm sorry, they would not be good for American manufacturing, it was jobs leaving, but every trade deal we've ever made has nothing been positive for farming, because these other underdeveloped countries were able to buy food that we grew.

Get an industry, raise their standard of living, be able to buy higher sources of protein.

But how do you save the family farm?

First of all, Congress has to define what a family farm is.

Farms have been subsidized for decades and they'll continue to be subsidized, but we've gotta quit subsidizing the large corporate size farms.

That it's the only hope for family farm.

Well, thank you.

Well, sticking with the economy here, employers have been having a hard time.

Many companies are paying much higher entry level wages in order to try to attract and keep workers.

Do we need to raise the minimum wage, or should these economic forces dictate that?

And will more small businesses have to fold because they can't sustain these higher wages they're now offering with the inflationary forces on their bottom line?

Wages, minimum wage is not a livable wage.

You talk about strong communities trying to do something about crime.

Well, it starts with somebody having a good job and having a strong family structure.

Will small business be forced out with having to pay higher wages?

No, I don't believe so, because any business like that passes on its costs to the consumer.

So the consumer, in the end, will be subsidizing or paying more for those wages.

And bigger isn't always better.

Look what Walmart did to the neighborhoods.

How many family stores went out of business because Walmart came in?

It wasn't because of wages.

It was, you know, so, no, I do not believe that raising the minimum wage would put a small business out of business.

Dan Pastore, the same question for you.

People are having trouble hiring.

You see signs everywhere that businesses are hiring, and some of them are raising their wages on their own, many companies, to deal with this and try and attract workers.

It's becoming rather competitive now to do so, so do we need to raise the minimum wage at the federal level, or the state level, for that matter?

Do you think the economic forces will work this out?

And are you worried that small businesses are gonna fold because they just can't navigate the higher wages they need to attract workers, at the same time they're dealing with inflation for their supplies and other costs?

So, as a business owner today, I understand this.

We are having trouble getting workers ourselves and continue to raise wages to try to attract workers.

We see that playing out across the district.

I would support an ultimate path to a $15 an hour minimum wage at the federal level.

We can't implement it immediately, but we need to implement a path to get there.

The federal minimum wage has been static for way too long now.

We need to raise it and then index it to inflation, so it's not a political football every time we need to do it.

And whether we can get to $15 or how that plan would look, I would work in a bipartisan way to try to get that accomplished, try to build a consensus.

Clearly, where it stands today is inadequate.

The cost of living has gone up dramatically since it was set at where it is.

And so, I think these two can work hand in hand.

You're correct that the market forces are moving the wages up without the need to raise the minimum wage, but we don't know where it's gonna end up.

And if the marketplace pushes the wages higher than where the minimum wage is, then that's great.

It's great for the American worker, but if we're gonna have a minimum wage, we need to have it at a living wage.

And where it is today is way too low and we need to raise it up, and then, I believe, index it to inflation so we don't have to fight this battle every year.

Sticking with the economy and maybe moving into your planet a little bit here, retail and retail jobs are suffering after the pandemic.

Is online commerce killing retail, and should we care?

I think you're correct, retail jobs are suffering, but they're really, it's really across the sectors.

It's not only retail, it's, for example, restaurants.

We see it here, restaurants are closed because they don't have the staff to open the way they would like to.

So I don't think we can stop the market forces, and people love online shopping.

I don't know what the plan would be to scale it back, and it is a choice.

Actually, the statistics just came out that Amazon's sales are actually declining and that the percentage of people shopping online has started to decline.

People, during the pandemic, it was a tremendous boom to everybody, because they were able to buy things online when stores were closed.

Now that we've reached the endemic stage, all the brick and mortar stores have opened.

People are going back, so I think we have to be realistic of where we are.

These two can coexist and will continue to coexist.

We will have brick and mortar stores.

We will have online stores, just like we had catalog stores before.

We can't stop technology.

And they're also a tremendous benefit to people who don't have stores close to them, so I don't think we can stop the market force, and we just have to let it play out in the market.

And I think it's like across other sectors, we'll see where it ends up.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

Same question for you.

Mr. Telesz, so retail and retail jobs are suffering after the pandemic.

Is it online commerce's fault, and should we care?

Sure, they get credit for some of that blame.

Everybody goes online.

In my own driveway, I see the Amazon truck or UPS truck travel it quite often, and so, sure, it's affecting my local stores.

Will it self correct?

I don't know what a self correction would be, but I do believe that they will, the small stores are starting to come back on a smaller scale, but look at all the dollar stores that have popped up on every corner.

But then again, you know, you can't truly blame Amazon for what's happened to the retail market as far as employment in businesses.

Part of that blame has also go to these large stores, like I said, like Walmart.

Look how many family businesses they put out business.

So do you regulate the sales online?

No.

To me, it's a great way to shop.

It gives a consumer an easy path to seeing different choices, but they have definitely had a negative effect on the small retails.

So the next question, was President Biden's Build Back Better plan a good idea?

Should it be resurrected, or were Senators Manchin and Sinema right to hold back?

You know, I don't know all the details of every single thing that Senator Manchin didn't like about it, but yes, I think we need to bring it back and go back through it.

There's some great programs that have been left out, and there's an opportunity in front of us to do things like pre-K childcare and to address student loans and to work on the climate.

This is a once in lifetime opportunity that we'll get a chance to do something right for the working class.

And so, yeah, we need to bring it back to the table, but I'm sure there's some issues in there that need to be addressed and looked at for a second time.

Same question for you.

Mr. Pastore, was Build Back Better a good idea, or did Manchin and Sinema get it right when they held back?

And, obviously, we didn't know about the spending we'd be doing for Ukraine when we were looking at that as well.

Well, I think history is behind us and that opportunity has passed.

I think there were legitimate concerns about what that would do to the federal deficit at the time it was happening.

And today, should we bring it back?

We're really in a different situation today than we were at the time that it was proposed.

I think it would've been helpful if there could have been more negotiation over what the sticking points were at the time that it got held up, and there didn't seem to be a lot of transparency in what was holding it up.

And so, it's unfortunate that nothing got passed, because there was an opportunity to do something.

So, today, I think we are at a different point.

There is discussions to bring back some pieces of that, but it's essentially happening behind closed doors, and I don't know where the proposals are today.

And so, there's really, I can't take a position on it until I know what it is that is under consideration today.

President Biden's approval ratings have ticked up a bit in very recent polls, but they're still not great, so how would you rate the Biden presidency so far?

I think the president, the current administration has done many things that I would agree with and some things that I wouldn't agree with, and I think some of the criticism is unfair.

I think it's a difficult situation.

We're really in an unprecedented era, and trying to come out of this pandemic, we have all this funding, many of the criticisms that are leveled against him are really beyond our control.

We talked about inflation.

It is a global problem, and so the federal government has only so much control over what can happen.

And the war in Ukraine, same thing, that nobody expected that, and it's easy to blame the current administration for circumstances that are beyond their control.

But I do think we have to look at the positive things that they've done and where we are today, and there's many good things that have been accomplished.

And I'm optimistic that his approval rating will continue to get better as we move through this pandemic and as our economy stabilizes.

Same question for you.

Mr. Telesz, how would you rate the Biden presidency so far?

I'd give this administration an A-minus.

I think they've done a great job as trying to bring the issues of the working man and the family out to the forefront and addressing them.

Sure, there's been a misfortune of a war, but probably the biggest mistake made was the big tax cuts that was given in the prior administration.

When you talk about deficits and spending in taxes, when you have a business and you have a cash flow and you stop some of the revenue coming in, you put a burden on your bottom line, and that's exactly what happened in the prior administration.

I think this administration has got it right, and we need to stand behind it.

This is an opportunity for trying to level the playing field with corporations, if we can only get them to pay their fair share of taxes.

And the social issues, he wants to address Medicare, Medicaid, social security.

You want to protect those.

Prescription drug costs, it's a shame that, as a developed country, we pay the most for our drugs than any other developed country.

Taking care of our children, education wise, pre-K, childcare tax credits, these are all really good programs that are out there just to help the common guy for a chance.

And, no, I applaud this administration.

So share your thoughts about the events of January 6th, 2021.

How did divided political rhetoric lead to a violent attack on our nation's capital?

And how, if elected, would you take steps toward political cooperation today?

It's a shame, because that's probably the issue that made me decide to run for this position, and when I seen it unfold, I don't believe my children seen what was gonna happen or what could have happened.

And it was out of that fear that I decided to run for the future of my kids and our kids.

It was wrong, and you have to blame media.

There has to be truth in the news.

People want to trust the news, but to trust the news, you have to tell the truth.

And social media played a big part, as far as spreading the lies.

People have gotta be held accountable for their actions when they provoke things like this.

Somebody goes out there and constantly tells you a lie or gives you misinformation that results in a negative effect, you should be held accountable for that.

So I don't believe in censorship, but the freedom of speech I back at 100%, but people have to be held accountable for doing things like this insurrection.

It was wrong.

To me, it was an act of treason.

Those individuals that were there, they should be prosecuted.

There shouldn't be no slaps on the hands.

There should be examples set to where this doesn't happen again.

Dan, same question, your thoughts on January 6th?

It was hard to believe, when I was sitting in my office, watching on my computer screen, that this was actually unfolding in our own country.

It was really one of the darkest days in our history, and we really need to never let that happen again.

It really started with a false narrative that began even before the election happened, and that false narrative continued to get pushed through after the election results came in.

There were challenges to the election integrity, and there were case after case, all of them determined that the election was fair, that our voting was secure, and not withstanding that, other people continued to push this false narrative, stoking this division and getting people to the point that they were attacking our capitol building.

We also have to remember that our current representative, Mike Kelly, following the last presidential election, himself brought a lawsuit, trying to take away the votes of his own constituents and actually change the results of the election in our state, which I find just so contrary to the interests of his own constituents.

It's really, it's an attack on our fundamental rights, so I think, as leaders in Congress, we need to push back against these false narratives.

We need to stand up for our voting rights and stand up against any of these false narratives about the insecurity of our election or who our president is today.

Well, I thank you both for your answers to my questions, and now it's time that we will move to your two-minute closing statements.

And we will start with the first closing statement with Rick Telesz.

Again, I'd like to thank everybody who gave us this opportunity to speak here tonight to you, the voters.

As we know what the issues are at our kitchen tables, we've all experienced them.

We all live them every day, and the problem with those issues is we don't have somebody in Congress to represent us, somebody that truly understands those issues.

And unlike everybody that works in, every hard working person in this district, I take my shower at the end of the day.

And I look forward to, and I am proud to say that I am the only candidate running that has the backing of the state AFL CIO, the state building and trade unions and contractors trades, and also a lot of the locals up and down the district, along with the FOP.

Now, there are several issues, and all these issues need to be met with a strong voice, and this voice has to come from somebody that actually lives and works in the district, that actually understands.

It has to come from the middle class, and I am in that middle class voice for you.

I'm the guy that has a common sense voice to bring change and represent you in Congress, and I look forward and I want to thank you for an opportunity to reach you here tonight.

And I also have to thank my family, especially my wife.

She's the one that's had to put up with the conversations driving me from place to place.

And, again, thank you.

Your closing statement, Dan Pastore?

Thank you very much, and thanks for having us here today.

I'm running for Congress because I'm concerned about the partisanship and division in Washington and the impact that it's having on people around us.

People I talk to tell me they can't even listen to politicians anymore, because they're so disillusioned with what they hear.

I agree that the system is broken, but we need to, I'm running because I want to change the course that we're on.

So I'm also running because I believe our current representative is the wrong person for the job.

He's stoking division and fighting the culture wars.

He won't even meet with his own people.

He's voted time and again against the interests of his own constituents, from trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act to voting against the bipartisan infrastructure law.

He's facing an ethics investigation for insider trading, and as we talked about earlier, he even tried to take away the votes of his own constituents.

So I think we deserve something better.

To me, the biggest issue facing our region is our economy.

We continue to lose population as people move away, looking for better jobs elsewhere, so retaining the jobs we have and expanding opportunities for good paying jobs in both existing and new and emerging industries will be my top priority.

Ensuring access to affordable healthcare, childcare, and prescription drugs are also top priorities for me.

With my common sense solutions, my diverse background, and the strong campaign team we have today, I'm in the best position to take on and ultimately defeat Mike Kelly in the November election.

I'd humbly ask for your support and your vote in this primary election.

Thank you very much.

Well, I would like to say now thank you to both of our candidates, Democrats Dan Pastore and Rick Telesz.

The winner in this race will be joining us in the fall to debate incumbent Congressman Mike Kelly, who is unopposed in the primary election.

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

Primary Election Day is coming up on May 17th.

Remember to get out and vote or send in your ballots.

On behalf of "Erie News Now", I'm Lisa Adams.

Thank you so much for watching.

[dynamic music]