Congressional Candidate Profile: Marty Young Running For House In PA's 6th District

All U.S. House district are up for election this fall, including Pennsylvania's 6th Congressional District.

The race pits U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan — the Democratic incumbent — against Republican challenger Marty Young.

Patch sent identical questions to both candidates and will publish responses as they're received. All candidate profiles will be re-shared closer to Election Day, which is Nov. 3.

Pennsylvania's 6th Congressional District includes Chester County and southeastern Berks County. To check which district you live in, you can visit the U.S. House's "Find Your Representative" tool and enter your ZIP code.

Young submitted the following responses:

• Age: 55
• Previous or current elected or appointed office: I have not held elected office. I was appointed to West Point by Sen. John Heinz and Rep. Dick Schulze. I served as a U.S. Army Infantry Officer, returned after 9/11 as an Army Chaplain, and currently serve as a Lieutenant Colonel (Chaplain) in the Army National Guard.
• Education: West Chester East High School (1989); B.S. Physics, U.S. Military Academy at West Point (1993); M.S. Operations Research, Georgia Tech (2001); MBA, NYU Stern (2007); graduate and doctoral theological/ethics/leadership study including Gordon Conwell and Harvard coursework; U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. Certified Turnaround Professional (CTP) and Certified Insolvency and Restructuring Advisor (CIRA).
• Occupation outside of elected office: Senior Managing Director at M3 Partners. For 25+ years I have led corporate restructurings and turnarounds—more than 100 engagements across defense, aerospace, manufacturing, and technology to restructure over $100 billion in debt and other liabilities.
• Campaign website: VoteYoung.com
• Family in politics or government: No. My wife Sandy is a community volunteer and PTO leader. I serve in the National Guard. Our four children are students and young adults in Chester County, not in politics.

What are the key differences between you and your opponent when it comes to policy and experience?

Congresswoman Houlahan is a four-term incumbent. I am a first-time candidate. That is the structural difference. The practical difference is how we approach cost, competence, and accountability.

She has been in Washington while housing, healthcare premiums, and energy costs rose for PA-6 families. I have spent my career stabilizing companies that were losing millions a day and putting people back to work—including neighbors in this district. I will not treat Congress as a career. I support term limits and real ethics rules so members live under the same pressures families do.

On policy: I will not defend a healthcare status quo that consumes nearly a fifth of GDP and still produces medical bankruptcies for people and hospitals alike. My Young Americans Healthcare Plan uses a TRICARE-style model to provide universal coverage for children, young adults, and expectant mothers and to take the most unpredictable costs off family and employer budgets. On housing, I support policies that let working families build equity—including zero-interest, 15-year amortizing loans for qualified buyers—rather than more subsidies that inflate prices. On energy and data centers, I want generation and grid investment with local guardrails, not unfunded load dumped onto ratepayers – and I want the US Government, the largest user of data center power here in PA to pay its fair share. Experience without results is just tenure. I am running to produce results.

How have you helped improve the lives of your constituents or people in your community?

I grew up in the West Chester Area School District and came home with Sandy to raise our four children in Unionville-Chadds Ford. That is not a slogan; it is where we live, worship, volunteer, and send our kids to school. I currently serve in the National Guard, supporting our local warfighters and their families, as well as covering down on the Dover Mission to greet our Fallen with their families when they return home.

In business I helped turn around operations that saved thousands of jobs, including work that kept people employed in the District. As a father I have seen TRICARE work when a child is in the hospital. As a neighbor I show up—veterans events, police memorials, town halls, schools, churches, temples—because the people asking for help should not have to hire a lobbyist first.

What will it take to make the cost of living more affordable, and what will you do to help make that happen?

Affordability is not one bill. It is housing, healthcare, energy, and wages moving in the same direction

• Housing: Increase supply and cut the financing penalty on working families. I support GSE and Fed reforms that stop treating starter homes as Wall Street inventory, zoning that allows families to stay in Chester and Berks, and zero-interest 15-year loans so payments build equity instead of interest, reducing the household debt that low rates encouraged.
• Healthcare: Cover kids, young adults, and expectant mothers first (YAHP), attack PBM and vertical-integration markups, and stop medical bankruptcy from being a normal American outcome. That is the largest broken liability on the national, small business and family balance sheet.
• Energy and taxes: Build generation, modernize the grid, and stop policies that raise household electric bills to subsidize everyone else's priorities. Cut waste before you ask families for another dollar.
• Wages and work: Growth comes from solvent employers, not slogans. I have spent 25 years keeping payrolls alive. That is the skill I would take to the Budget and energy fights.

Washington cannot inflate asset prices, restrict supply, and then act surprised that young families cannot form households. I am going to Congress to restructure the debt - not just the $40+ trillion of federal debt, but the mortgages, student loans, municipal bonds and other liabilities that we cannot possibly repay under the current system.

Restructuring means publishing the true liabilities, stopping the practices that add to them, and renegotiating or reforming the obligations that cannot be serviced—starting with the federal balance sheet and the healthcare system that drives medical bankruptcy—under clear statutory rules. It does not mean walking away from value-added contracts or inflating the debt away.

How should AI-powered technology (including data centers) be regulated? And what should Congress and the federal government do to help residents amid the growing threat of job loss due to automation?

Trillions in debt are funding the AI and data-center buildout. That capital is real, and so is the load on land, water, transmission, and rates. It is also a bubble. When it bursts, a lot of people will be left holding the bag—investors, ratepayers, and communities that gave away tax and power deals—while AI and automation leave many young people and families carrying student loans for degrees the market no longer needs. The pattern is predictable. It is on the order of the dot-com bubble and the housing crisis combined. We should deal with it now rather than act surprised later.

Congress should not pretend the assets are free or that the debt financing them is riskless. Regulate for transparency and local protection, not for a veto on technology. Communities should know the power, water, and tax deal before a project is rubber-stamped. Ratepayers should not silently finance hyperscale load. Pennsylvania should capture the jobs and tax base without giving away the county.

On job loss: automation will displace tasks and obsolete some credentials. The honest federal response is portable skills, faster credentialing, and a bankruptcy and fresh-start system that does not trap people in old student debt when the job disappears. I will not promise to freeze old employment charts. I will fight for workers who get displaced to re-enter quickly, and I will oppose “transition” programs that become permanent agencies. Energy abundance is part of the answer: if AI needs power, build the power here under rules that protect farms, streams, and household bills.

I have restructured over $100 billion of debt and other liabilities. The same discipline applies here—recognize the bubble, protect households from being the residual claimants, and restructure the obligations that cannot be repaid under the current system before the break.

Which law, policy decision, or court ruling has negatively impacted Americans’ lives the most in the 21st century, and what are your plans to reverse or mitigate those impacts?

The most damaging decision was the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing combined with its dual mandate of high employment and low inflation. That policy produced years of artificially low rates. People, families, companies, and government loaded up on debt because the cost of borrowing looked free. The result is a system now suffocating under the weight of those liabilities—mortgages, student loans, corporate borrowing, and federal obligations that cannot be serviced without higher inflation or slower growth.

We cannot get off the treadmill under the current rules. The only way to create a dollar is to issue a dollar of debt. The only way to destroy debt is to repay it—and thereby destroy a dollar—or to restructure it. Repayment at this scale is no longer realistic for households or for the federal balance sheet. It is time to restructure, as I have done with over $100 billion in debt and other liabilities.

I would approach it the same way I have restructured over $100 billion of debt and other liabilities: stop digging, publish the true cost, and change the incentives. That means term limits and ethics reform so career members stop writing rules they never live under; healthcare structured around patients and kids rather than PBMs and medical bankruptcy; housing finance that rewards work and savings instead of treating starter homes as Wall Street inventory; and a serious restructuring of the federal apparatus that has grown on make-work and open-ended deficits. Courts and agencies should not substitute for Congress doing the hard legislating. Where a ruling or statute locked in higher costs or unpayable obligations, I will vote to rewrite the statute.

The pattern is clear. Low rates loaded the system. The dual mandate and QE kept it going. Restructuring is how we get off the treadmill before the weight of the debt does it for us.

What would you like to change when it comes to immigration policy, including enforcement from federal agencies such as ICE?

I am a federalist. All law enforcement inside the country must start with local police, then state police, then federal authorities. The federal government should not solve problems that local and state police are supposed to solve. I know this as a National Guardsman who has supported local law enforcement on multiple missions over two decades. Federal agencies have a role at the border and on clearly federal offenses; they should not become the default interior police force.

A country that cannot control who enters cannot protect wages, hospitals, schools, or wildlife. I support legal immigration—my own family story includes Pennsylvania’s early Chinese community and a Portuguese immigrant mother who taught in our schools. That is not the same as an unmanaged border.

Enforcement should be lawful, targeted, and consistent, and it should respect that order of responsibility. Interior enforcement against criminal offenses and recent illegal entry belongs first with local and state authorities where they have the capacity and the will; federal agencies step in for border security, interstate crime, and cases local and state forces are not equipped or authorized to handle. E-Verify should carry real consequences for employers who undercut legal workers. Asylum should be processed quickly so credible claims are granted and the rest are removed.

ICE is a federal law-enforcement agency. It should follow the law, be accountable for misconduct, and not be abolished or kneecapped by sanctuary politics. Local police should not be turned into immigration agents by default, and cities should not nullify federal statutes. Congress should fund the border, the courts, and the removals—not performative fights that leave the actual work undone.