- Welcome to the PA-7 primary conversations with the Republican candidates from Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District.

From the newsroom of the Univest Public Media Center in Bethlehem, here's LehighValleyNews.com politics reporter Tom Shortell.

- Good evening.

Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District is one of the most competitive in the nation.

That's the case again this year with the presidential race and all US House seats on the ballot.

Democratic incumbent Susan Wild is in her third term in Congress representing the Lehigh Valley.

It's a precarious position.

Pundits call it a swing seat, a battleground that could determine control of the US House.

Wild won by a slim margin in 2022.

Now three Republicans are competing for the party's nomination to challenge her once again.

Tonight, we'll hear from them.

Kevin Dellicker, Ryan Mackenzie and Maria Montero are no strangers to politics, nor to what's at stake.

This presidential election year, the attention of the nation will be on Pennsylvania, and we're right in the thick of it.

The 7th Congressional District covers Lehigh and Northampton Counties, Carbon County and a sliver of Monroe County.

I had a chance to interview all three of the GOP candidates as we head into next week's primary election.

Republican voters will decide which one of them will face Wild in the November general election.

Over the next 90 minutes, we'll meet each of the candidates.

My interviews touch on their experience, their policy positions, and their perspectives on a host of issues.

First up is Kevin Dellicker, who's run for this office before.

He lost a close race in the 2022 Republican primary.

Mr Dellicker, thank you so much for joining us here at the PBS studios.

to our viewers?

Right over here.

- Of course.

Thank you, Tom.

Thanks for having me.

I'm Kevin Dellicker from northwestern Lehigh County, where I've lived for 40 years.

I live with my wife, Susan, who's a schoolteacher from Palmerton, and my three sons who are now moved out of the house.

I'm a 28-year military veteran.

I've owned my own company for almost the past 20 years in broadband, infrastructure and cybersecurity, and I'm very involved with my local community.

Like many of you, I got tired with what I was seeing in our country and was worried about the direction that we were headed.

So I decided to run for office.

And I bring years of relevant experience in some of the most important issues that affect us today.

And I'm not asking for people to support me because I'm a veteran or because I'm a small business owner or because I'm a family man.

I'm asking for people to support me because I have relevant experience in some of the most pressing matters that are affecting our country.

So I hope you enjoyed this interview today, and thank you for your support.

- Mr Dellicker, thank you.

We're going to get started.

We're going to start discussing foreign affairs.

And so my first question is that the next Congress will be tasked with charting a path through hot and cold wars across the globe.

Should the US be playing an active role in assisting Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan?

- So I think foreign affairs and military issues are probably the area where I have the most experience and the most different types of experiences compared to the other people that are in this race.

I started out in the Infantry in the United States Army, and then I became a United States Air Force intelligence officer.

And I did four tours overseas fighting the global war on terrorism.

And today, I'm the commander of an International Guard unit that flies the MQ-9 Reaper, which is the hunter/killer drones that operate all around the world.

So I have relevant real world current operational experience in fighting overseas, but I've also done the Homeland Security Mission.

So protecting our borders, making sure that we're safe and sound right here in Pennsylvania is a big part of what I've done as well with the National Guard.

And I also have extensive experience doing military support to law enforcement.

So fighting crime and law and order is also something that I know about.

So there's a trend in the country right now towards isolationism, and I think that's the wrong approach.

The United States needs to make sure that we protect our interests around the world, that we protect our freedom here at home, and we can't withdraw from the rest of the world in order to make that happen.

I think there's a lot of people out there that throw out slogans like we want to stop forever wars, or we want to pull our troops out of all these places.

But, you know, when the Houthis are attacking shipping in the Red Sea, which is 20% of the world's commerce, somebody has to step in and intervene.

And we have bases over there.

We have interests over there.

And, you know, this is one of the roles that the United States plays, especially when they're attacking our own interests.

We have to fight back.

We have to defend ourselves.

We have to make sure that our military is a deterrent again, because right now, I think that's one of the big problems that we've seen from the Susan Wild and Joe Biden administration.

Our military needs more resources to do the job all around the world.

I do not support sending additional cash to Ukraine right now because I don't think the Ukrainian war objectives are aligned with American vital interests.

I think it's in the best interests of the United States to make sure that Russia doesn't roll in and take all of Ukraine and captured Kiev and take over the entire country.

And we have time to monitor the situation and make sure that doesn't happen.

But unless and until we can align our interests with Ukraine, I think sending more cash over there right now could actually prolong the war.

I am a stalwart supporter of Israel.

I think we need to let them prosecute this war, you know, do their operations in Rafah and make sure that they can take care of business with Hamas.

Because we know that if Israel stops fighting in Gaza before they're able to take out Hamas's war fighting capabilities, then as soon as they pause and stop fighting, then they're going to be attacked again.

And yes, they need to get the hostages home.

But I think the United States needs to give Israel the benefit of the doubt so they can prosecute this war and win it and have a lasting peace in that region.

Finally, you asked about Taiwan.

The Chinese Communist Party is the most formidable threat we face.

They are our enemy and we need to make sure that we defend our interests and our allies against the Chinese Communist Party.

And part of that means making sure that China can't go in there and take over all of that chip-making capacity that Taiwan has right now.

It's in our vital interests.

You hear about the stock market soaring with companies like Nvidia designing CHIPS in Silicon Valley, but they still make them in Taiwan.

And if we allow China to take over that capacity, it doesn't just affect us militarily, it will affect us in the pocketbook and at our kitchen tables right here in the Lehigh Valley.

- Real quick, because I think you sort of answered this question already, but there's been a lot of talk about the role of NATO and the US's role in NATO moving forward.

What should the US...?

What should the US's role in NATO look like?

Should it be looking to change the status quo there?

- So I think one of the things that Donald Trump is right on is putting pressure on the countries of NATO to really pay their fair share in European defenses.

When you look at the countries of NATO, the ones that are doing that right now, meeting that 2% threshold or more are the countries that are feeling the most threatened by Russia right now.

Romania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, our new countries like Sweden and Finland that have come on board.

They're all spending well over that 2% threshold to defend themselves.

But then you have countries like France and Germany who are very wealthy and should be defending much, much more of Europe that aren't.

And I think a lot of the rhetoric that you're seeing out of Trump is really just a negotiating ploy to try to get them to step it up.

In fact, I think if the House of Representatives had gone ahead and passed that cash bill for Ukraine that President Biden wanted last year, right away, we might not have seen the Europeans step up and give the big aid package to the Ukrainians that we just saw them do.

Same thing with Japan.

So you have to make sure that you put pressure on the Europeans to step up and help shoulder the load.

It's just wrong that the United States has to pay all these bills for defending Europe.

But it's also in our best and vital interest to make sure that we have a stable Europe that isn't overrun by Russia, and that is a safe place for people to live and for us to conduct our commerce.

- OK.

Thank you.

We're going to move on to our next topic, which is reproductive rights.

Yes.

Would you vote in favor of federal legislation that would ban abortions after a certain point in a fetus's development?

If so, what is that point?

And would you support exceptions to these rules?

- So during the congressional debate in 2022, I said that if there was a bill that could help protect human life, that contained exceptions for rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother, then I would vote for that bill.

I think my position when it comes to abortion is pretty clear.

I think that an unborn child is a living human being worthy of protection.

And I think that most people agree.

And where they disagree is on limits and exceptions and all the specifics about what that would entail.

I think there are three things right away that we could tackle at the federal level that have support from the overwhelming majority of people.

When I've seen polling right here in Pennsylvania, it's 60% or more for these three issues.

Number one is we shouldn't be using taxpayer money to support abortions.

This used to be something that was supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Now it seems that the Democrats are just trying to jam through federal and state funding for abortion providers.

It's a very divisive issue.

It violates people's conscience to have their taxpayer money go to that.

And I just think it's wrong.

So we should end that practice and make sure that doesn't occur any more.

I also think it's really important that we make sure that minor children cannot have major medical procedures without their parents' knowledge and consent.

And today, in many states around the country, including right over the border in New Jersey, it's very easy for a child to get an abortion without the parents even knowing about it.

So I strongly support parental consent laws, and most people I know, even if they're very strongly pro-choice, don't want the idea of their minor children getting abortions without them knowing about it.

And I do think that there are...

I do think that we should be passing limits on the most extreme abortions right now and that we could get some of these things through Congress.

For example, I would support legislation that would help protect unborn children that can feel pain and survive outside the womb.

I think most people support that.

The polling I've seen is at least 60% in Pennsylvania, and these are all provisions that are opposed by Susan Wild.

And, you know, the people that don't want to have any restrictions on abortion and are really pushing it all the time.

There's room for compromise on the issue.

We have to be realistic about what we can and can't pass.

But, you know, for me, I hope we get to the point someday soon in our country where there's no women that choose to have an abortion because they're scared, because they're lonely, or because they don't think that they have any better options.

- And just to be clear, you're talking...you said that once the fetus is able to feel pain, that should be the cutoff, in your view.

What is the timeline on that?

For people at home who aren't as familiar.

- So I think that there's some debate in the science right now about what that timeframe is.

You've seen President Trump talking about 16 weeks, says one of the examples where the scientific consensus really starts talking about women, I'm sorry, babies being able to feel pain in the womb.

They can't survive at that time.

But, you know, I think that's a threshold to be considered.

But I'd be willing to see what the science says and what the consensus would be to try to get a bill through Congress.

- And since...and the topic was reproductive rights, so this kind of feeds into this.

We've seen abortion rulings recently that have affected operations at fertility clinics.

Would you support legislation that guarantees access to fertility procedures such as IVF at the national level?

- So I think you can talk about protecting unborn children in a completely separate category than you're talking about IVF and you're talking about contraception.

And I think one of the things that the Democrats keep trying to do is every time something pops up related to reproductive rights, and IVF is just the latest thing because of that court case down in Alabama, you know, they try to paint a broad brush to make it seem like Republicans oppose all of these things, which is never true.

That legislation that was recently pushed in Congress had an awful lot of flaws in it, Tom.

For example, one of the things it said is that IVF is a right, whether you can pay for it or not.

So I don't think anybody in the federal government is prepared to try to say that we're going to have federal funding for IVF treatments across the board.

So I can talk about limits on abortions and we can talk about protecting unborn children without having to try to pin people down on IVF.

I think you can support IVF and contraception and still support restrictions on some of the most difficult types of abortions.

- OK, thank you.

Moving on, let's talk the budget.

Obviously, it's a big issue.

National debt has reached a total of $34.4 trillion.

Debt payments now make up 17% of all national spending.

How can the US meaningfully get its spending under control?

What would it mean for programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for about a third of all spending?

- Yeah, when I get to Congress, the two committees that I would like to be on is the Armed Services Committee, because I have so much experience working on military affairs and we need to increase our deterrent capability and retool our military to make sure that it can focus on China.

But I'd also like to be on the Budget Committee, and the Budget Committee is a committee that most congressmen don't want to be on because it's very difficult and very controversial.

And it's not one of those committees that you go on to raise money for your re-election and to, you know, do other things to perpetuate your career.

The Budget Committee is where serious people go to try to figure out how to solve the problem that you just described.

34 trillion and counting with no end in sight.

We're approaching $2 trillion deficits every year with no end in sight.

And, Tom, we're going to fall off a fiscal cliff imminently if we don't fix this problem.

We cannot continue to spend at the level we're spending now and can tend to expect our dollar to be strong and inflation to remain under control if we run these deficits.

In fact, I think it's extremely clear that the reason why we have persistent inflation and high interest rates is because of the excessive spending that we saw from Joe Biden and Susan Wild as we emerge from COVID and as they continue to propose.

So what do we have to do?

I do think that we have to tackle entitlement spending.

You can't talk about the budget if you're only talking about discretionary spending and little bits and pieces.

We should start by taking a look at all the spending that's just been authorized that hasn't been delivered yet and recoup some of that.

For example?

Let's talk about the CHIPS Act as a perfect example of wasteful government spending that's affecting people right here in the Lehigh Valley.

The CHIPS Act is one of those big infrastructure bills that was passed after COVID that's highly touted by Joe Biden and Susan Wild.

- Bipartisan support.

Lot of Republican votes.

- Well, it had a few Republican votes.

It didn't have that many Republican votes.

It was almost entirely Democratic votes.

But the CHIPS Act, what it does is it gives money to manufacturing companies to build chips.

Well, we used to call that corporate welfare when you're handing cash to big companies.

And it touts all these different benefits that are going to occur to Lehigh Valley and other places for this money.

But that CHIPS Act costs $1,600 per taxpayer right here in the Lehigh Valley, and it's been two years into the program, and we've only seen one project announced by the Biden administration and Susan Wild for benefitting the Lehigh Valley, and it was helping to subsidize a warehouse in Palmer Township.

Now, the act was supposed to provide and stimulate the production of high-tech semiconductors and advanced computer chip manufacturing.

And that's not what this is.

And I think your viewers would probably agree that we don't need to be subsidizing with our federal taxpayer money warehouses to get more of them around the Lehigh Valley.

But that's exactly where the money's gone.

It's a perfect example of wasteful spending, and it's just one of the things that we can do to try to make government more effective and stop wasting our money on all these pet projects that are really socialism in disguise.

- So the last time that we balanced the budget back in the '90s, it came with...

There were spending cuts, but there were also tax increases.

They were able to balance it through... Kind of approaching it from both ends.

Would that be necessary to cut into a deficit at this point?

- The main problem that we have, Tom, is we spend too much money.

And I think that that's where we have to focus and that's where we have to start.

One of the things that Donald Trump has proposed, and I do support this, is I think that we should be increasing tariffs on imports from China.

The Chinese Communist Party is working against our best interests.

They are our enemy.

So why are we continuing to engage with that country and that organization to allow them to dump products on the United States, to put our manufacturers out of work and to gain advantage because they manipulate their currency and use slave labor and do all sorts of other horrible things to gain an economic advantage over us?

So when Donald Trump was the president, he increased tariffs on China.

He used those tariffs to do things like help farmers and finance other priorities.

So that's an example of how you can increase some revenues.

But, in the end, this is going to take a lot of work with a lot of people.

I think it's going to have to be a bipartisan solution.

But my goodness, Tom, there is so much fat to cut in the federal government and we don't have a choice.

We can't just continue to borrow $2 trillion a year and expect that we're going to have an economy, and it crowds everything else out.

Here's a fact that I think should really scare your viewers.

Next year, we are going to be spending more on interest payments than we do on our national defense.

We can't long sustain our budget or our economy if that's going to be the case.

- Thank you for that.

You talked about...about the... ..some of the Trump measures with China.

Let's kind of build... Let's kind of take a swing away a little bit from that and talk about the economy.

Inflation has fallen about 3%... ..to about 3%, but prices for everyday essentials still remain high.

What, if anything, should Congress be doing about that to help everyday Americans struggling to pay for basics?

- So I went to McDonald's the other day to buy an Egg McMuffin and a cup of coffee, and it cost $8.99.

This is why people are upset with the economy.

This is why people hate Biden-omics.

People can't afford to buy homes.

People can't afford to put gas in their cars.

The price of food, whether it's groceries in your home or going out to dinner, is stifling.

There was just an article last week in the newspaper talking about the struggles that the restaurant industry continues to have all around the Lehigh Valley because people are struggling with the wages that they have to pay their workers now.

They're struggling with the prices of food and all the other inputs.

Cooking oil, everything that they have to do to manage and run a restaurant is more expensive these days, and you simply just can't jack up the prices of a hamburger and expect that working men and women whose wages haven't kept pace are going to be able to come in and still engage in that same kind of lifestyle.

I do think, and I think your readers would agree, that the single most important reason why we have this runaway inflation and why the prices persist high is because the federal government can't get its federal spending under control.

What we did, Tom, is we basically printed money.

We didn't get all that $4 to $5 trillion that was borrowed at the beginning of the Biden administration by taxing people and using it for government spending.

We just created it.

We borrowed it, which is essentially the same as printing money.

So when you add to your money supply without producing anything, that's how you get inflation.

And that's what we're dealing with right now.

So you've seen this big, huge leap forward in the cost of everything, and it's like a hidden tax on working men and women, the most vulnerable and our senior citizens, because they're the ones that have to pay it.

- Well, I appreciate all those points you make, but what does Congress do now?

What does the next Congress do?

What would you do if you're elected?

- You need a balanced budget amendment so that you don't end up in this situation again.

You need to tackle your spending so that the United States Congress can't continue to spend like they're a bunch of drunken sailors.

And let's face it, this is not just a Democrat problem.

This is a bipartisan problem.

And this is one of the reasons why it's so dangerous to send career politicians down to Washington.

If your motivation for being a professional in Washington is to continue to get elected and your job in Washington is your livelihood, meaning that you don't have a regular job to return to when you're done and you didn't come from a regular job when you went there, then you're going to be very careful about the votes that you make so that you don't get voted out of office.

You're going to be noncontroversial, you're going to be risk averse, and you're going to be working for yourself instead of your constituents.

Right now, we need to get our budget under control or it's going to crash our economy, and we're already seeing that happen.

So the most important and dire economic plan that we need to do is figure out a way to stop this excessive spending, get it under control.

Because of my work in business, because of my almost 20-year career of managing my own company and understanding how to use technology to make things more efficient, understanding how to create jobs and build infrastructure, leveraging the private sector and making government more efficient, I have skills that I can apply to balancing our federal budget, just like I balanced my business's budget for all of these years.

And we need more people with real-world experience like that to be able to go tackle these problems.

- OK. For our final topic, I'd like to talk about the border.

Earlier this year, the Senate hammered out the terms for a bipartisan $20 billion border deal.

It would have hired more Border Patrol agents, built more detention centers, shut down the border during periods of high crossings, assisted communities dealing with high levels of migration, and provided extra funding to crack down on fentanyl.

Republicans have since abandoned the deal and I believe you had said that you opposed it as well.

So what would you support instead?

What would it... What type of... What are you looking for at the border, if not those things?

- Well, Tom, that bill had a poison pill in it.

That was the main reason why most of those Republicans and why I would have opposed it.

And what it said is that until you hit between 4,000 and 5,000 illegal immigrants crossing the border, it didn't trigger these provisions to be able to secure it.

It normalized well over 1.5 million illegal immigrants crossing into the country before they were going to act at all.

Now, one of the arguments that the Republicans in Congress and I keep making is that when Joe Biden took over, he issued a barrage of executive orders that repealed all the things that Donald Trump had done to secure the border.

And Donald Trump had gotten the border under control, and Biden reversed all those policies.

So he didn't do it by a change in congressional action.

He did it by a series of executive orders.

So what I maintain, and what most congressional Republicans maintain, and what Donald Trump maintains is that if Joe Biden simply had the will and the wherewithal to reverse those executive orders, start applying existing federal laws that are already going to give him the tools he needs to stem this influx of illegal immigration, then we could stop the crisis.

But this crisis is completely manufactured by the Biden administration and Susan Wild, who support open borders and who support asylum rules that allow people to come in here and claim asylum for just about any reason.

They support parole where somebody can come in here and then get released into the interior of our country for years and years and years before they even have a court date.

And they oppose the physical barriers and the electronic barriers that keep people out.

So you're not enforcing the physical security.

You're letting people come in and stay without enforcing the existing laws.

And you're doing everything that you possibly can to make it easy for criminals, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and the Mexican drug cartels to make a lucrative business for smuggling people across the border.

Again, this is a Democratic crisis that they've manufactured that they could stop right now.

I think if we see a new president come in, like Donald Trump, he could stem the tide very, very quickly with a series of lawful executive orders without even the need to have congressional oversight.

Now, there are bills out there that would tighten up some of these procedures that the House has passed that weren't included in that legislation that I would support.

But, no, for a number of reasons, I didn't support that legislation.

- So how about... What are some of those bills that you would support?

- So I think one thing that we could do legislatively would be to tighten up our asylum process.

Right now, when somebody comes into the country, they know exactly what words to say to the border control agent, whoever apprehends them, to talk about why they are in trouble in their own country and why they need to be released and considered for asylum in the United States.

What I've read is that nine out of ten people that claim asylum are released.

They're allowed to come into the border.

That needs to be tightened up.

So that asylum used to require that you would claim asylum in the next country that you came from.

So if you are coming from a South American country entering Mexico, you would claim asylum in Mexico.

You wouldn't go through Mexico and then claim asylum in the United States because it's better to live in the United States than Mexico.

That's what the remain in Mexico problem is all about.

And that's what we need to re-establish as well.

These cases should be heard before people come in our country, not once they come into our country and then are released into the interior of our country where they can really do whatever they want.

And, Tom, I think it's really important to understand that I am not anti-immigration.

In fact, I am pro-immigration, but I'm pro legal immigration.

I'm pro legal immigration that puts America first.

I'm pro legal immigration on our terms for the benefit of the United States and in a way that respects law and order.

That's not what's happening right now.

And this border crisis that we're dealing with right now, I think, is the most critical and urgent national security threat that we face.

- Very good.

Mr Dellicker, thank you so much for your time.

It's a pleasure having you here with us today.

- Absolutely.

Thank you very much.

- Thank you.

Thanks again to Mr Dellicker.

We move on to my next interview with Ryan Mackenzie.

He's a state representative in the 187th District who served 12 years in Harrisburg.

Representative Mackenzie, thank you so much for joining us today in studio for our interview.

I'd like to give you this opportunity for a one-minute introduction for our viewers to tell us a little bit about yourself.

- All right.

Well, thank you, Tom, for joining us.

And to all the viewers watching at home.

I want to say thank you for tuning in.

We have a very important congressional race ahead of us here in the Lehigh Valley.

And I'm Ryan Mackenzie.

I'm a candidate for Congress and I'm running because we are losing our country.

As a ninth generation resident of the Lehigh Valley, I'm somebody that has been born and raised here.

I love our community dearly.

I'm also newly married and we have our first child on our way.

And as excited as we are about that opportunity for the birth of our new son, I'm very scared for the future of our country.

We see a wide open southern border with crime and drugs coming through.

We see massive overspending in Washington, D.C., which is driving inflation and the prices of things like housing, food and energy, which make it very hard for families across our area to make ends meet.

As a state representative for the past 12 years, I have a proven conservative track record of fighting things like illegal immigration and cracking down on wasteful spending.

I look forward to discussing those issues and many more this evening, and I want to say thank you again for joining us and enjoy the conversation.

Look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail.

Thanks again, Tom.

- Of course.

Thank you for joining us.

So let's get down to brass tacks and start off discussing foreign affairs.

The next Congress will be tasked with charting a path through hot and cold wars across the globe.

Should the US be playing an active role in assisting Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan?

- So absolutely a great question to start off with, and what we see is that there are simmering tensions all over the world, and that's something that we need to address with leadership in our government, both in the Congress and in the executive branch.

And so what we saw during the time that Donald Trump was in office, we didn't see many of these escalations, whether it be in Ukraine and between them in Russia or in the Middle East tensions were much lower.

So we do need to have a stronger executive in office.

At the same time, as a representative in Congress, I think we need to show restraint in these situations.

We also need to make sure that when we are acting, we are acting in the nation's best interests and really what is the most important thing for our country?

And so, as an America first conservative, I'm very concerned that we've been engaging ourselves in too many forever wars over the past 20 years, spending trillions of dollars and getting entangled into these conflicts needlessly.

We really need to be much more cautious, and I think that we need to, again, show a lot more restraint from our government when it comes to foreign affairs.

And we need to make sure that we're putting America first.

We need to make sure that we are...

The first priority should be, again, protecting our own citizens and our country.

We have our own border that is not secure right now.

We need to be cracking down on illegal immigration and closing that border before we start sending billions of dollars overseas to these foreign engagements.

- So does that go for all three of those examples, like should we be assisting Ukraine?

Should we...?

What about Israel?

Or are any of these on the table for you?

- So every situation is unique.

You have to look at every situation, not only what's occurring on the ground, what America's interests are in those situations and assess the situation.

So, you know, I am an America first conservative.

And so in the instance of Ukraine, we've already sent over $113 billion there.

That war is raging now for over two years.

It does not look like it's going to come to a peaceful resolution if we continue to fund this war and this aggression in that region.

And really what I think we need to do is we need to try to find a peaceful solution to wind this down, because all that is occurring is if we continue to fund war and we really want to help our Ukrainian friends and allies, continuing war is not the answer.

I mean, there are thousands of people that are dying in that country in this war.

They are going to have significant demographic challenges going forward.

And ultimately, Russia is able to just fight out a war of attrition.

And they will they will win that war if that's the battle and the game that you want to play.

So in that situation, we should not be continuing to fund it.

We should be looking for a peaceful resolution there.

- And for Israel?

We've sold them a great deal of arms.

- Yeah, absolutely.

So every year there are weapons and arms that are sold to Israel, typically, again, in a defensive posture for things like the Iron Dome in their situation.

And so what happened on October 7th is horrific.

It was an act of terrorism.

We need to recognize that.

We need to call that out.

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

So Israel is going to need to sort that out.

But until there is a return of hostages, I don't see how you can have a peaceful cessation of hostilities there.

And so I think it's incumbent, first and foremost, that we should be, again, looking for a path towards peace in the Middle East.

And one way to do that is by requiring and demanding that those hostages be returned.

- And at the same time, we've been selling arms to Taiwan for quite a while.

President Biden has sent...

The Biden administration has sent very mixed signals on whether we would or would not defend the event of Chinese hostility.

How do you think that situation should be resolved?

- So, you know, that is a situation where I think our government for far too long has sent mixed signals.

And I think we need to be more clear that, again, Taiwan is a friend.

We support them in their efforts for... ...to have democracy, independence, if that's what they so choose.

But ultimately, that aggression that is coming from China is a direct threat to America.

In terms of semi-conductors, for instance, we rely very heavily on semiconductors, which are manufactured in Taiwan.

We should be bringing a lot of that manufacturing home.

We want to make sure that we're less dependent on anybody, whether they're friend or foe.

But certainly in that situation, we have a heavy reliance that would affect all of our economy.

So again, it is in America's interest to maintain peace there and make sure that that tension that is already simmering doesn't explode.

- And real quick... We're just kind of shifting gears slightly.

There's been a lot of talk about NATO and America's involvement in it.

Should there be a change to the status quo when it comes to NATO?

- Yeah.

So I think that we want to stay engaged in NATO.

But what we do need to see is we need to see our allies stepping up their contributions.

And so again, this is something that Donald Trump pushed, and I think rightfully so.

They have a commitment that 2% of their GDP will go towards military and defense spending.

Most countries, if not all, but most certainly are not meeting that obligation.

And so, unfortunately, America has been carrying a lot more of that burden, and we still are.

And so we should be demanding of our allies saying, we want to help you, we want to be a part of NATO.

But at the same time, you guys need to carry your own weight.

You need to be contributing.

And again, that is the obligation that has been laid out and agreed to.

So they're not fulfilling their commitment at this time.

- OK. Let's shift gears to our next topic, which is reproductive rights.

Would a vote... Would you vote in favor of federal legislation that would ban abortions after a certain point in a fetus's development?

If so, what is that point?

And would you support exceptions to these rules?

- Yeah.

So, look, I think that's an issue.

As a state legislator, I've dealt with and we've had a number of pieces of legislation that we voted on in that space.

Obviously, the landscape has changed with the passage of Roe versus Wade.

I would say this, when it comes to federal, we should not be doing a federal ban, which has been talked about by some candidates not only in this race, but nationally, with no exceptions.

I do not support that.

So I'm somebody that supports exceptions, certainly.

At the state level, I have also supported reasonable restrictions, and I think that's appropriate for health and safety of women involved.

We also need to be presenting alternative options.

And it's been disappointing here in Pennsylvania to see Governor Shapiro eliminating the real alternatives funding, which was an alternative opportunity for women to learn about either carrying that child to term if they chose not to go forward with an abortion, learn about adoption services.

So I think that we need to be presenting those choices to women at all levels.

And also, we do need to be much more compassionate towards women who are in these situations.

So extenuating circumstances or certain situations do require those exceptions that we talked about for rape, incest, life of the mother, certainly.

But we just have to really consider those and make sure that they're included because, again, every situation is different.

Now, also, I would like to say that as a member of the State House, I've actually been an advocate and champion for maternal health and women's health.

So it was a number of years ago when I authored legislation that created the Maternal Mortality Review Committee.

So again, this is not a topic that's new for me.

I think in that particular instance, we saw that the rise of women's deaths, both in pregnancy and postpartum, was going up really in a way that was not acceptable here in Pennsylvania.

So we created this commission to look at these deaths, come up with, you know, ways that we can actually implement solutions to reduce that, improve women's health for both the women and ultimately the child as well.

And I'm glad to say that that was passed with unanimous support.

We've now been building on that in a bipartisan fashion, and that's the type of thing that we should be looking at.

At the federal level, I think you need to be looking at things like we should be maintaining the Hyde Amendment.

So having that prohibition on federal funding, because as much as there are going to be different opinions and different choices out there, that is something that has been a long-established precedent that we should maintain and hold on to.

- And just for clarity, so are you are saying that choices on bans at a certain point of development should that be left up to the states?

Should that be federally legislated?

- Yeah, I think that that is something that is much better left up to the states.

I just don't see us being able to find consensus or agreement on that point.

I know that there are different proposals that get floated around out there.

Nothing, obviously, to date has actually even gotten to a vote.

And I think it's going to be very hard on such a sensitive but also controversial topic to find that resolution at the federal government.

And so, again, I think you're going to see states, and you are seeing states, take the lead.

- Shifting gears slightly, because, like I said, this was reproductive rights, We've seen abortion rulings affect operations at fertility clinics in some instances recently.

I was curious if you would support legislation that guarantees access to facilities... ..to for fertility procedures such as IVF?

- Yeah, absolutely.

You know, again, I think we want to, you know, promote life in these opportunities and situations that are very difficult for some families.

And again, going to be a new parent myself, as you know, Tom, and I know that that's something that we're very grateful for, but a lot of other families don't have that opportunity.

And so we want to make sure that that's available for them.

- Great.

Thank you.

Let's talk about the budget.

National debt has reached a total of $34.4 trillion.

Debt payments are now about 17% of all national spending.

How can the US meaningfully get its spending under control?

What would it mean for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which account for about a third of all that spending?

- Yeah, so we have a couple of problems that result in the deficit that we have annually and also the $34 trillion of debt that we have accrued.

And then that interest on the debt is what you're talking about.

So the two main drivers that I see is that, one, there is a structural deficit every single year in our budget.

It's usually about a trillion and a half dollars or so.

So that needs to be reined in.

We need to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Those are programs that we have made commitments to our seniors for.

They have paid into those programs.

There should not be changes to those programs.

So I think that needs to be very clear.

At the same time, we're going to have to figure out how do you manage a budget and get on a track towards a balanced budget?

It's not something that you're going to be able to do overnight.

I've seen in state government, getting out of these messy situations.

We had a situation in Harrisburg where after a number of years of overspending, coming out of a decline in the economy in the earlier part of the 2000s, we had very shaky finances.

And so it took a long time to unwind some of those bad policy decisions and get us back onto a stable footing.

And the growth of the economy certainly helped us do that.

So we need to find pro-growth solutions to help us grow out and, again, head on a track towards a balanced budget.

The second thing is that there are these supplemental funding bills that come up every single year, trillions of dollars.

And just in the past couple of years, we've seen that massive pumping of money into the economy, which has been a big contributing factor to inflation.

And this is done on an ad hoc basis.

You see it for all kinds of different things.

But going back to what we started with, these foreign wars, over $8 trillion has been spent just on those foreign wars in the past 20 years.

That's about 20 or 25% of that total deficit and debt that we see.

And so that is something that we really need to address and rein in, because, again, there are lots of things that sound nice, but what we should be doing is what we've done in state government, which is we are required to have a balanced budget that you put forward every single year.

You can look at your priorities, determine what you actually want to fund, and that's what gets funded that year.

You can't keep going back to the well and saying, "Well, we need additional funding for that."

So there are a lot of things that sound nice or you would like to do in an ideal world, but you just simply don't have the money for.

And that that debt is going to catch up to us, as you talked about in the interest payments crowding out all of these other programs and ultimately leads to inflation, tax hikes, all kinds of bad scenarios down the road.

So that is a top priority of something that needs to be addressed.

- Well, since you just mentioned tax hikes, last time, we did balance the budget back in the '90s, it came after two presidents raised taxes along with spending cuts.

Is that the track that you see is necessary to address this?

- So, I don't.

So we have revenues that are at some historic highs in many years.

And so we are seeing that the tax rate is not the problem.

People are paying a lot in taxes.

In fact, I would like to see tax decreases for working families.

I think that if we're going to do anything to reform the tax code, we need to help working families and seniors as well who are really struggling to make ends meet.

And so, as a state legislator, I've introduced a package of bills that would do all kinds of reforms to help bring down energy bills, to bring down monthly cellphone bills, to bring down the cost of raising children.

I was glad to see that an increased child care tax credit that I had proposed was included in this recent annual budget.

But those are the people that are hurting most, our families and those that are on fixed incomes.

So, again, I think that in a pro-growth economy, if you actually help those people out, they're going to be more likely to go out and have a meaningful job that they can raise their family on, contribute, and then they're going to be able to actually be buying and being a part of the economy and help facilitate our economic activity in this country.

So that's something that I think actually we should be looking at instead of raising taxes.

- And just for clarity's sake, the child tax credit you're talking about, that's at the state level.

- That's correct.

- Matching the federal.

Yep, yep, OK.

Since you were talking about people struggling with kind of the essentials, let's talk about the economy.

Inflation has fallen to about 3%, but prices for everyday essentials still remain high.

What, if anything, should Congress be doing at this point to help Americans struggling to pay for the basics?

- Yeah.

So, again, what we've seen is the massive overspending from Susan Wild, Joe Biden, those in Washington, D.C. now, is that that is the largest contributing factor to inflation.

Inflation then has compounded over a series of years.

There was a year where it was 9%, then it came down.

And, you know, inflation when it comes down does not mean that prices go down, the rate of growth is decreasing.

And so that's what we're seeing.

But at the same time, people are seeing that compounding effect of price increases over a series of years.

And so, again, that has been driven by bad fiscal policy coming out of Washington, D.C. and the massive overspending.

So you really need to rein that in.

That will go a long way in terms of slowing down and getting the economy back on the right track.

And then at the same time, again, we need to look at figuring out how to balance our budget.

If you don't do that, you're going to continue to drive this this overspending every single year.

And so we talked about it.

But I think there are opportunities where if you can actually decrease for families, for individuals and families, the tax rate, you are going to see economic growth.

- And just... And so for you, it's all about taxes.

It's about lessening the burden there as opposed to any other policy shifts or anything.

- Absolutely.

Because if, you know, for an individual family, what can the government do to help you out is we can reduce your tax burden, we can reduce the overspending, which will bring down inflation.

Those are things that should be done.

Unfortunately, they're not right now.

So myself and a lot of other people, we see the high prices when we go to fill up at the gas station.

We should be doing more energy exploration here in the United States.

It's simple supply and demand when it comes to energy, but we also have significant taxes that are a component of that.

So we can help on two fronts when it comes to energy.

When it comes to food, again, inflation.

Everybody, myself and my wife, see it when we go to the grocery store.

Unfortunately, you look at some of the prices and you have to put things back that you were accustomed to buying in previous years.

That actually leads to a slow-down in economic activity when you are not making that purchase because it's just simply too expensive as a one-off item.

Now that business is feeling that impact, they're going to be reducing their workforce.

They're going to be reducing their hours of production.

And so all of these things are tied together.

And so, again, in a big way, what government can do is help by reducing taxes.

Absolutely.

- OK.

So last topic, I want to talk about the border.

Earlier this year, the Senate hammered out terms of a bipartisan $20 billion border deal.

It would have hired more Border Patrol agents, built more detention centers, shut down the border during periods of high crossings, provided extra funding to crack down on fentanyl.

This plan has since been abandoned.

Would you support a package like that that was negotiated?

And if not, what's needed at the border?

- Yeah.

So you talked about all the positives that were in the bill.

- Fair enough, yeah.

- Or a lot of the positives that people involved want to sell with that legislation.

And so, in many of those areas, yes, we would agree on those things.

And if it were just those items, then we would be happy to move forward.

We need to build the wall.

We need to fund properly our Border Patrol agents and ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

We also need to make sure that we are turning off the magnets that are drawing illegal immigrants here, in terms of increased benefits that they're receiving that are coming from American taxpayers.

We also need to be expanding the use of E-Verify to make sure that jobs are not being given to illegal immigrants.

And then what that does is, when illegal immigrants, oftentimes low-educated individuals, come into the economy, they are actually taking jobs away from those who are in the lowest rungs of society, the most vulnerable, and they are driving down wages in those situations.

So, again, hurting Americans in the process.

So we should be doing those things that we agree on.

What is in that bill that is problematic is that you mention shutting down the border once there are too many crossings.

It shouldn't be that we have to wait until 5,000 people a day are coming across the border illegally before we take action and we shut down the border.

We should be shutting down the border now, immediately.

Zero should be the number of illegal crossings coming into our country.

If you extrapolate out what's in that bill of allowing for 5,000 illegal crossings a day before you actually shut down the border, that's 1.8 million people coming into this country illegally.

So the advocates of this bill don't want to talk about that part because that's maybe not so palatable politically.

But those things that we agree on, the things that you rattled off, absolutely, we should be doing those.

But it shouldn't be that we are held hostage to get those things that would secure America in exchange for the open borders crowd and their policies that they want to advocate and actually codify in this legislation.

- So how do we get to that point?

How are we able to talk about the things that we agree on and get to a point where we can pass legislation, meaningful legislation?

- Yeah.

So, look, I think, myself as a state legislator, I have a track record of doing that.

I've passed legislation in difficult spaces and particularly in the immigration space.

And so I was the author of E-Verify legislation for the construction industry.

That was something that was advocated for by both union and non-union stakeholders.

So there was consensus and agreement in that space that they were getting crowded out by illegal immigrants who are coming in from out of state, taking their jobs away, driving down wages, not paying taxes to things like the unemployment compensation system.

And so there was agreement on something needed to be done.

Myself and those other stakeholders that I mentioned got together and said that E-Verify, making it mandatory for the construction industry, would be one possible way to address that.

I put out that legislation.

We ended up getting unanimous support from Republicans and over half of the Democrats voted for the legislation as well.

Governor Tom Wolf was opposed.

He was part of that open border crowd.

He actually advocated against the legislation, which is shocking to me that somebody would say that we're OK with an illegal immigrant taking an American job away.

But he did.

And thankfully, the legislature, in a bipartisan fashion, passed my legislation with veto-proof majorities through the House and Senate, and the Governor was unable to actually stop that legislation.

So it became law here in Pennsylvania, helping protect American workers and American jobs.

And so that is a path where we found agreement.

It's narrow.

It's not everything I would like it to be.

I would much prefer that we expand E-Verify to other industries as well.

But that's what we were able to get done.

And it was progress that helped American and American workers.

And so I'm willing to take that kind of progress every single day if we can get it.

And I think that's what we should be focused on, those areas of agreement, we should find those and actually advance legislation in those spaces.

- What are the odds of that happening in the Congress, like the Congresses...what we've seen in the last few years?

- Look, I can tell you, I mean, on immigration, the public is demanding that we actually crack down on illegal immigration.

When you poll it now, every single category, every single political party says that this is a problem.

Over 80% of people are looking for solutions to illegal immigration.

So I think the appetite is there from the American public.

And what you're starting to see is even places like New York City with a far-left mayor, Chicago with a far-left mayor are saying, "We cannot handle this strain.

"Something needs to be done."

So, again, you have bipartisan agreement, I think, of a problem and something that needs to be addressed.

We heard it from John Fetterman, who said that you can't have an open border where close to 300,000 people - I think his analogy was that it's the size of Pittsburgh - coming across the border illegally every single month.

And he said we need to find reasonable solutions in a bipartisan fashion.

I agree with him on that point.

And so I think that you will find some willing allies who actually will be able to cross the aisle to come up with solutions to crack down on illegal immigration.

- Senator, thank you so much for joining us.

- Absolutely.

Thanks for having me.

- We appreciate Mr Mackenzie for sitting down with us.

Moving on to the last of the interviews, Maria Montero is an attorney who served in the administration of former Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett.

Ms Montero, thank you so much for joining us today here in studio.

We're going to be getting started with your interview shortly, but I wanted to give you an opportunity first to introduce yourself to our viewers.

- Sure, thank you so much.

Hi, family, friends and neighbors.

I'm Maria Montero, and I'm running for Congress and Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District.

And it is such a diverse and beautiful district, including Carbon and Northampton, Lehigh and parts of Monroe County.

And my entire life, whether it's working as an attorney, advocating for those who have major issues that are going on in their life, and I'm fighting for them, or if it's as a mom, or as a public servant, or even working in the hospitality sector, my life has been focused on service and trying to help those that are in need.

And right now in our country, and especially here in the 7th Congressional District, we're in great need.

Our country has changed so much in these next four years... ..in these last four years.

And I wanted to make sure in running that I give our voters an opportunity to vote for someone who reflects their values, cares about their community, and most of all is going to fight for that American dream.

And if you'd like to learn more, my website is MariaMontero.org.

Thank you.

- Ms Montero, thank you.

Thank you for that.

Let's get down to brass tacks.

The first topic that we're going to be discussing is foreign affairs.

The next Congress will be tasked with charting a path through hot and cold wars across the globe.

Should the US be playing an active role in assisting Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan?

- It's interesting.

I almost feel like the question presupposes that we are going to be in those conflicts, and I take a different approach.

I have been able to serve on the United States Global Leadership Coalition and we work closely with the Department of State because our first approach in any conflicts is diplomacy.

And in taking that approach, we want to avoid those types of conflicts.

When we think about all of our men and women that are stationed all over the world, the first question, if the great people of the 7th Congressional District vote for me, is number one, is what we're doing constitutional?

And number two, is it in America's best interest?

And that's what I'm going to take with every legislation.

And so to a certain extent, when we're talking about that, I'd like to analyze each conflict on one, is it in America's best interest?

You know, do we have the resources?

What can we do from a diplomacy perspective to avoid the conflict overall?

And what type of areas can we use for our allies, that we may be able to help with our technology, with our intelligence, to avoid any boots on the ground from American troops?

And the other concern is really about our finances because, you know, you and I, you know, we have families, and most of the folks in our audience have budgets.

And when we think about what our top priorities are, a lot of it comes down to like, how much do we have to spend?

And right now, the United States has a $34 trillion deficit.

And when we think about where we're going to be investing our resources, Tom, it's so important to me that we invest it right here in the United States.

If you even look about what's going on right here in the Lehigh Valley, we're a drug corridor.

Fentanyl has caused the loss of life of our brothers, our sisters, our family members.

And there are so many ways that we can help invest in helping stop drug addictions and securing our border so that Lehigh County, which then spills over to the rest of our district, isn't, you know, at the mercy of drug dealers whose only goal is to push their drugs, and they don't care about the aftermath and the effect that it has.

- I'm glad that you brought a lot of those topics, and we will be getting to them a little later.

You brought up word for word, some things I want to talk about later.

But specifically focusing back on some of these ongoing... ..ongoing conflicts, it's possible that they'll be addressed in the next six months or so.

But there's a very good chance that regardless of any efforts right now, that they'll still be ongoing by the time the next Congress takes office.

So I guess the question is, do you see it as...?

The conflict in Ukraine, is it in America's best interest to assist there?

- Mm-hm.

Thanks for asking it in that way.

And so when I think about how we as Americans can help the Ukraine, I have a family member that works for an organization, Rocky Mountain Aid Foundation.

He travels once a quarter to go to Ukraine and to help from a humanitarian perspective.

And that's a great need.

And I hope that more Americans understand that we as individuals can make a big difference across the world.

We're the most generous country in the world.

You know, I don't know how often you hear humanitarian aid coming from other countries to the United States.

It's always, how is the United States going to help?

And so in that perspective from our federal government, we've already invested billions of dollars in the Ukraine.

And I think right now, number one, we're hearing from individuals is, where is the accountability?

Where is the money going now?

And I will go far as to argue that the leadership matters, and it matters also from our presidential leadership.

I do believe that if Donald Trump was president, this conflict would not have played out like it is right now.

I believe that the way that Joe Biden trickled the funding for Ukraine, it caused a prolonged war.

I think that if the United States went in strong and committed, it would have been a different effect.

But right now, here we are.

- Does that mean...?

Is putting in American troops going in strong?

- No.

- No.

It means instead of having a trickle investment, which happened in the beginning under the Biden administration, that it trickled resources rather than an investment to help end the conflict immediately.

But I will also presuppose because, you know, I'm not a prognosticator.

I don't know what would have happened, but I know that under Donald Trump's leadership, we had the greatest time of peace that we've had in many years.

And so I do believe that leadership matters.

I believe that how we diplomatically approach conflicts matters.

And that's the type of experience I've brought in through the United States Global Leadership Coalition.

- And very briefly, what about...?

We've been selling arms to Israel and Taiwan.

Do you see an issue with that, or is that acceptable according to the standards that you would seek?

- Well, I look at Israel in that prism of what's in America's best interest.

We need reliable allies in the Middle East, and Israel is that.

And, you know ,what happened in October to Israel, that was not something that they begged for.

Like, what happened was one of the most horrific events in the history of Israel.

And I believe it's so important for us, as our ally and partner, that we help support them with our intelligence, that we help support them in protecting their individuals and their citizens.

But, you know, there's always that balance of the humanitarian effect and what can we do to help those that are suffering?

Because people are suffering on both sides.

And you can't deny that.

- And very briefly, Taiwan?

- Yes.

So when it comes to Taiwan, I believe it's really important that we support democracy.

I think it's really important that we understand that communism is not in America's best interest.

And we have always taken a strong stance when it comes to communism.

That started with Ronald Reagan.

You know, the way that we can help export American values is by making sure that we can secure independence and freedom for individuals against tyrannical governments.

- So does that mean...?

What does that mean for Taiwan in terms of actual policy?

- So for Taiwan, I think it's important that we help support them and their investment as a capitalistic society.

- OK. Moving on for our next topic, I was hoping we could talk about reproductive rights.

Would you vote in favor of federal legislation that would ban abortions after a certain point in a fetus's development?

And if so, what is that point?

And should there be...?

Would you support exceptions for any of these rules?

- Yeah, so I am a constitutionalist.

You know, being an attorney, I have studied and have put so much time and understanding what the goals of the Founding Fathers are.

And I know there is probably women who are part of that, too.

So I say that term generally.

But our Constitution guarantees rights to us and protections from the federal government.

And I do believe that whatever's not written in the Constitution are rights that are delegated and given to the states.

And so to answer your question, for so long, Roe v Wade was part of our nomenclature and part of our law.

But, you know, our recent Supreme Court decisions, which has now re-delegated the issue to where it should be, which is to the people and at a very local level to women and their health care professionals.

So at a federal level, I do not think that we as legislators should be involved in dictating abortion, period.

I will say, however, that, you know, I've been very blessed that, when I had my son at 18 years old, I had the support of my family and something that... Because I do believe that life is precious, and I want to be able to help empower more women that are in situations that they didn't plan their pregnancy or they're scared, that they can choose, from a position of strength, on what happens.

And I think that by helping empower women, whether that means through women's health care, pregnancy resource centers, making sure that we have hospitals that have good prenatal care is vital.

And I know that we can help at the federal level and the state level empower women.

So at the state level, we used to have a program called Real Alternatives.

What that program would do is it would give women real options, so that if someone did choose to have their baby... For example, right here in Bethlehem, we have a life house.

Those women... And I don't know if you've ever been there or visited, but some of the nonprofits that I work with, not only do we donate our resources, but we donate our time to be with the women and to help the children and to help them in their process of choosing life.

And I want to help empower women to do that.

And so, you know, for me, at whatever level, at the federal or state level, that we can help empower women to have real options.

That's really important to me, because I do believe life is precious.

I had real options when I was 18, and I want that for other women also.

- Thank you.

Staying on reproductive rights, we've seen abortion rulings affect operations at fertility clinics recently.

Would you support federal legislation that guarantees access to fertility procedures such as IVF?

- Oh, got it.

And so that, as you've seen, have played out on the national level, state legislators have responded immediately.

And so I think that's the course of action.

Like when I was talking before about being a constitutionalist, I really believe that the federal government's role should be focused on our borders, which we're not focusing on right now.

I think that we should focus on infrastructure, making sure that we have a national plan and developing energy.

And I think that we should delegate to the states, what is the states.

And I do believe that the way Alabama handled that and having Supreme Court, they made a decision, and then the state legislature stepped in.

That's the way that our Constitution is meant and designed to work.

- OK. Moving on, you were talking about the $34 trillion deficit earlier.

And so let's talk about that.

Debt payments right now, the interest payments are 17% of all national spending.

How can the US meaningfully get its spending under control?

And what would that mean for programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for about a third of US spending?

- Yeah.

So it's interesting.

Our budget that we already have, federal government, 70% is already spent, and that includes necessary programs like Social Security.

But when I'm talking to everyday people, like since the time I was, I don't know, like 18, we've heard and have been told that Social Security is going to run out of money.

You know, it's almost like Chicken Little and the sky is falling.

But, Tom, like, what Social Security is based on is our payroll taxes.

And so as someone who is a conservative, as a capitalist, what I think to myself is that we want to have strong and secure Social Security.

Let's invest to make sure that we have a robust economy, because the more people that we have working with great paying jobs and wages and also jobs that reflect the necessary skills that we need right now in the United States, like energy development, our trades.

I am a big advocate of trade schools.

That is half of the solution to the problem, to overspending is making sure that we have a robust economy.

But more directly when we're talking about overspending...

I have a budget, we just talked about this before.

You probably have a budget.

Like, let's say your kids come up and they ask for, you know, you name it, a new bike.

Well, you know what?

Money's tight right now.

Like, that's a real conversation we have every day with our kids and may even be conversations that we have with family members because, you know, we're generous people.

But at the federal level, why is it always a blank check and it's our tax money?

I propose that we have a balanced budget amendment.

I think it's important that we as legislators understand that it's not a blank check.

It really is my money.

It's your money.

And that we should act with it responsibly.

And so balanced budget amendment is one way, like I said, making sure that we have a robust economy.

And something really important here, which is particular to Pennsylvania, is our amazing natural gas industry.

We have 87,000 people who are a part of our natural gas industry and most recently there is now a moratorium on the export of our liquid natural gas.

And that's coming straight from the Biden administration.

There is legislation that was in the House to repeal that.

And unfortunately, though it passed our local legislature, our congresswoman did not vote for that.

And in my mind, I'm like, "Why?"

Like, why not support Pennsylvania business?

Why not?

And let's think about how it affects it, affects the world at a global level.

Because Pennsylvania has such an amazing amount of natural gas, if we were our own country, let's just say, you know, the great country of Pennsylvania, we would be the fourth largest producer of natural gas.

That's an amazing gift.

And what if Pennsylvania was allowed to really capture that amazing commodity we have and then be able to export it to the world?

Right now, Europe is desperate for energy sources, and they're relying on people who do not... ..countries that don't have our best interests, like Russia and China.

Pennsylvania could play a role in that solution.

And I want to help develop that.

I want to help advocate for Pennsylvania's great resources, not only for our economy, but for our national security.

- So are you proposing to tax those exports to help balance the budget?

- No.

It's, once again, like, I don't think of taxes as the solution.

I look it as, when individuals are making more money, that is a natural increase to what the budget is.

I mean, the United States government does not make money.

Like, when they say, like, this is what our receipts were, it's from our tax money.

And so if people are more prosperous, more people are working, that means that we have an increase of tax revenue.

- OK.

The last time that we did see a balanced budget, it came on the backs of tax increases approved by a Republican president and a Democratic president, as well as spending cuts.

Is that...do you think that's necessary in this case?

Would it be necessary to both cut spending and raise taxes to achieve that goal?

- I think that, because I'm not the inside baseball, you know, I am not in Washington.

I don't have the briefs.

I don't see all the budgets in front of me.

So this is me from reading the same information that you do, whether it's, you know, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, you know, or, you know, LehighValleyNews.com, you know.

So the way I look at it and the way I see it is it's really important for us when we're thinking about how we're going to move forward is to make sure that we're really cautious with all of our resources and how we spend them.

Are there agencies that are wasting money?

I'm going to say yeah, because even in private sector, you know, I've been in private sector over 20 years of my life.

I know there are certain departments that you would have to make trims and you'd have to make hard decisions because you need to make the bottom line.

But when you're in the federal government, I don't think anyone ever says to an agency, "Well, we're going to do cuts now.

"We're going to have to make some sacrifices."

I don't think that's part of the nomenclature because you're not coming from that private sector experience.

Like, when I was young and our family business, which was a Spanish newspaper, had a good year, sometimes I would be excited like, "Oh, my gosh, maybe I'll get a better Christmas present."

That never happened.

Do you know what happened, Tom?

It got reinvested back into our business.

So what if the United States was like that?

What if we took those resources and reinvested back into education or reinvested back into developing, you know, our robust energy potential?

What if we reinvested back into our...?

You talked about this before, like broadband infrastructure or just, you know, our bridges.

Like, let's talk about taking those resources and reinvesting back in the American people, back into our infrastructure, you know, back into making the United States the top producer of energy in the world.

I want that for the United States.

- OK.

Thank you.

You were talking before about people, families making do with less these days, just the economy the way it is.

So let's talk about that.

Inflation has fallen to about 3%, but prices for many essentials are still higher than they used to be.

What, if anything, should Congress be doing at this point to help Americans pay for the basics, the essentials?

- So I take a little bit of a challenge to the position that interest is at 3.4%, because let's just say the price of something goes up 20% from four years ago.

And now you're saying, "Oh, inflation is only at 3.4%."

Well, let's take to account what has happened over the last several years.

And so it could be as simple as the price of gas or the price of rent right here in the Lehigh Valley, which is astronomical.

Like I remember when you could get a one-bedroom in downtown Allentown for like 600 bucks and now it's like 1,200 bucks.

Or, you know, I live in Easton.

The market has changed so much.

So I will challenge the contention that we're at 3.4%, because arguably Pennsylvania, out of all of the states in the Commonwealth has had the highest inflation and we are suffering the most.

And so a lot of that has to do with, one, government overspending and, you know, increasing interest rates to a certain extent that we're competing with federal government on spending.

I also think part of the issue is the lack of investment in jobs that individuals could keep up with the pace of inflation.

I mean, you think about how much, and I'm going to go back to energy independence, like how much Pennsylvania could be part of that solution and providing great-paying jobs.

And I think that when we're not looking at developing our energy resources, we're missing out on those high potentials.

I also believe it's really important for us, and we think about how we can help everyday people, is that we could just think about like what the federal government's role.

And lowering taxes means that we have to be fiscally responsible.

But lowering taxes and also deregulation is important.

When I talk to businesses about, "Hey, how's everything going?"

whether it's a hair salon or if I'm talking to a garage or if I'm talking to developers who want to bring in manufacturing here to the Lehigh Valley, the biggest challenges they face is the regulatory environment.

In law school, my focus was long government.

I had an opportunity to really understand that when we pass legislation, at times we are giving agencies runaway authority to create such hot-mess webs that businesses need to go through just to make a dollar.

And it happens, like I said, from anywhere from a car dealership or a garage to a land developer.

And that's a major issue.

If you have people who want to invest on having good-paying jobs right here in Pennsylvania, but at the federal government or at the state level, we're creating legislation that makes it onerous and burdensome, there's some people that literally just wash their hands of it and they're like, "Number one, "I can't afford the lawfare," to a certain extent, in fighting the regulations, or the time takes so long, the project loses its robust response.

And so that is a major issue, is how government should not be standing in the way of business but should be able to help support innovation here.

- We need to move on.

But I did have one quick question.

- Sure.

- When you're talking about deregulation, are there particular industries that you are looking to deregulate, or are there specific things that you think the government needs to get out of?

- Mm-hm.

Well, yeah.

I mean, I think that when we're looking at, you know, for example, with land development, there needs to be a balance of... Because I'm also, you know, I care about our environment.

But when you look at land development, I think we need to really think about, OK, let's just say there are certain DEP or EPA regulations, you know, that are cumbersome.

Like let's think about a business-friendly approach that also balances the interests of the environment.

- OK. Moving on, the last topic I was hoping to discuss - with you is the border.

- OK. - Earlier this year, the Senate hammered out terms for a bipartisan $20 billion border deal that would have included money for more Border Patrol agents, build more detention centers, shut down the border during periods of high crossings, and provide extra funding to crack down on fentanyl.

The plan has since been abandoned.

I was curious if the package, as it was, was something that you would support, and if not, what's needed at the border to get it where it needs to be?

- Mm-hm.

So, you know, I think about the border.

I think about America being the land of opportunity.

And I think about my family who came here from all over the world.

I'm Italian, I'm Irish.

And, you know, my family were Peruvian, and they came here legally.

So whenever I think about the border, I first think about how we could streamline our immigration system, that individuals that are offering these great skill sets could be matched to jobs that are here in the United States, because that exists.

But I do not support individuals that are coming here illegally.

And I'm not talking about amnesty because it's very different and it's separate, in that individuals that are fleeing despotism, like, we are that beacon of hope, but individuals that are coming to the United States illegally, that's a problem.

I mean, Tom, the rule of law is something that separates the United States from banana republics.

And so, number one, you know, making sure that we give the tools to our ICE agents and border agents, using technology, making sure that we help protect against gaps within the border wall.

I do believe that building a border wall in certain locations makes sense.

And then also using different technology to identify breaches is also important.

I'm also concerned about the human effect, because there are bad actors that are using the border as an opportunity to not only do illegal and bring over illegal substances.

Like fentanyl, which we talked about, is the number-one killer of Pennsylvanians under 40.

And that has to stop.

Like we need someone who says, hey, my family came here illegally.

I believe in legal immigration.

But what's happening right now with fentanyl flowing over our border, the effect that it has on our local kids and our communities and our brothers and sisters and, you know, the down effect that it has too...

Societies have been broken apart by drug abuse.

You know, there's homeless... ..communes now because of individuals that are addicted to these substances.

And, you know, a lot of these drugs are coming from bad actors.

And, you know, whether it's xylene or the mixture that's added to fentanyl, that's coming from China, and where are the ramifications, like where is the accountability for that happening?

I've also read of situations where hostile agents from the Middle East have been able and taking advantage of the southern border to come over.

And I'm very concerned about the effect that China is having here in the United States as well.

And it could be anywhere from purchasing United States farmland, TikTok is a hot topic or, you know, things as simple as like... ..investment in our universities.

You know, there was a recent legislation that the House passed which required...

It was called the Deterrent Act, and it required any foreign institution that donated or gave more than $50,000 to a educational university or scholastic school was required.

The school was required to disclose.

To me, it's crazy that we don't know who these donors are and we don't know who is influencing us here in our own country.

And we deserve to know that.

That's something that, unfortunately, Susan Wild voted against.

And it's kind of just like common sense, pr- America things.

- So for the... Those were all great points.

When it comes to legislating solutions, what is it that you think are...?

What is it that needs to be done in terms of the border control elements there?

- Yeah.

So, number one, I think it's important that we continue to build a wall, that we invest in technologies which identify border breaches, that individuals that are seeking asylum into the United States, that seek asylum from the point of the country which they are coming from.

I think it's important that, when individuals commit crimes that are here illegally, that there is deportation.

We've seen what's happened all over our country, including New York.

There is an absolute disregard for our law enforcement.

Growing up in a law enforcement family, my stepdad, third generation Estonian, in law enforcement.

I grew up with that type of just culture and respect for our law enforcement.

I'm baffled.

I'm baffled how someone could attack and beat up our police officers and then they're just let go like nothing happened.

There needs to be accountability.

And I think individuals that are coming here illegally and committing these crimes, they need to be...

They need to be held accountable for that action, and that means they're deported.

- Very good.

Ms Montero, thank you so much for joining us today.

- I really appreciate it.

- Thanks.

-Good luck on the campaign.

- Thanks so much.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

-Thanks again to Ms Montero.

That will do it for our PA-7 primary interviews.

Remember, the election is Tuesday, April 23rd.

You can find all the results and previews of the contested races on the only free, nonprofit local news website in the region, LehighValleyNews.com.

I'm Tom Shortell.

From all of us at PBS 39, 91.3 WLVR Radio and LehighValleyNews.com, thanks for watching.

Goodnight.