In January, she'll begin her second term in Congress, this time representing Iowa's second District.

We'll sit down with Republican Congresswoman Ashley Hinson on this edition of Iowa Press.

Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation, the Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Small businesses are the backbone of Iowa's communities, and they are backed by Iowa banks with advice, loans and financial services.

Banks across Iowa are committed to showing small businesses the way to a stronger tomorrow.

Learn more at Iowa bankers dot com.

Our guest on this edition of Iowa Press was first elected to the United States House of Representatives and to 2020.

She was reelected this past November.

She will be representing the second congressional district.

She'll be sworn into office on January 3rd.

Ashley Hinson, welcome back to Iowa Press.

Thanks for having me, Kay.

Joining the conversation, Clay Masters from Iowa Public Radio and Erin Murphy of the Gazette in Cedar Rapids.

Congresswoman, the Senate and House this week voted on legislation that essentially codifies states that recognize same sex and interracial marriages.

You voted for that, but also criticized the vote more broadly because you were hoping you could kind of explain why you kind of had two minds about that issue, sort of.

Well, Erin, this bill preserves current law and that's the way I thought about it.

It's the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution where you look at birth certificates, death certificates, I believe concealed carry permits apply to this same standard.

So I think that same standard should apply to marriage certificates in all states, and that's why I supported it.

You know, I think my constituents are very concerned about other things.

So that's why I think, you know, right now we're up against a lot of deadlines.

We should be focusing on fixing the solutions that Iowans clearly told me they want fixed.

And that's why I issued the statement I did.

We need to be focusing on fixing inflation.

We need to be focusing on energy independence, securing our border.

So, you know, I supported it, but that's where I stand on on these issues.

And I you could understand, given the atmosphere, surely you had some constituents who did want to see this happen.

And especially for whoever you fall on that particular issue, the Supreme Court's ruling and how that's affected abortion regulations now.

Surely there were people in your district who wanted to see some kind of legislation that protected this issue.

I mean, it's important to some of those folks, too, isn't it?

And I understand it's important and on both sides.

Right.

I've heard from people on both sides of this issue, obviously.

But again, the issues that I continue to hear most about are the economy.

That's what I think this election was about, was about the economy and about wanting someone who is going to go to Washington and be a check on the administration and all the spending that's been happening in Congress.

So, you know, I don't want to discount where people are on this issue.

But at the same time, I think that our focus in Washington, D.C. needs to be on those issues that people are contacting us about.

One of the things that needs to be done next week for Congress is set a budget moving forward.

It's been a while since there's been split control in Congress and we haven't seen these kinds of games of chicken when it comes to keeping the government open, avoiding shutdowns.

Some of those are become inevitable, it seems, when there split control.

How are Iowans going to be impacted when Republicans do take control of the House?

And we might see looks like we'll see more of these kinds of games of chicken as to whether or not the government will stay open.

Well, right now, Democrats control everything and I'm the only I went on the Appropriations Committee.

So I have been a part of this process both on the the spending side and on the Budget Committee as well.

So I've witnessed kind of that chaos and dysfunction through the process.

We were able to get to a deal that I think was targeted for Iowans back in the spring, and that's why I supported those appropriations bills in the spring.

I'm hopeful we can come to an agreement in the next couple of weeks here so that we can, number one, fund the government responsibly, but also make sure that some of Iowans priorities are included.

And so that's what I'm going to continue to fight for.

And as we enter this next Congress, I think what's really important is I've tried really hard to build relationships in both on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers, because I think it is really important that I've been in the minority for two years.

I wanted to make sure that Iowans priorities were included and that I have respect from fellow members of the committee and so that's my main goal, is to make sure we're doing that in a responsible way while still pushing back on things that I see as going too far, spending too much money, etc..

So do you, as in your fellow Republicans in the House, intend to sort of weaponized the debt ceiling vote, which will be looming in 2023?

I think what we're focused on as a Republican conference is just making sure we're we're putting our country on a better fiscal path.

We have seen out of control spending.

The Democrats raise the debt ceiling with no account for trillions and trillions of dollars in spending and what that would do to our economy.

So in my mind, the conversation next year needs to be about how are we more responsible?

It's why I introduced bills to help make sure Congress actually knew what the impact of inflation was on a bill before we actually pass it.

I think Congress has been incredibly irresponsible in how it's been passing legislation without understanding the real impact on the economy.

So that's where our focus is going to be.

Obviously, we're going to have to have the conversation around the debt ceiling next year.

In my mind, it's how do we make sure we're leveraging things going forward?

So we put our country on a better fiscal path so we don't have to continue to have this conversation every year.

So should there be a debt ceiling?

I think there has to be or Congress won't control itself.

I think that ultimately you look at the state of Iowa and how we do things here.

I've served on the Appropriations Committee here.

Right.

We live within our means here in Iowa.

And if you don't have leverage is of control there.

Congress will not control itself.

And so I think it's really important that we start to be more responsible.

And those are the policies that I'll continue to advocate for as a member of the Appropriations Committee.

One of the important bills that passed Congress this past week was a military bill, but it also included a proposal that Republicans had been out of advocating for, which removes the vaccine mandate, the COVID vaccine mandate for members of the armed forces.

Are there other vaccine mandates that you would like to eliminate that the military currently imposes on its soldiers?

Well, I can tell you that the COVID 19 mandate is the one that we have heard about.

And that's why I think it was so important that that conversation happened, because it came down to a point where this is impacting our readiness.

This is impacting our ability to be safe and secure in this country, which is why Republicans and Leader McCarthy fought for that provision in the NDAA, the authorization bill for defense this week.

Many members of the military have left because they felt strongly about that.

And I think it's important to know we've been missing our recruiting goals as well, because people feel very strongly about that.

So I think this is this is about making sure our military can continue to be strong and be ready to go.

Understanding that many I mean, I, I got my kids vaccinated with their childhood vaccines.

I think vaccines are safe and effective.

But I think especially when it came to the COVID vaccine, it should be people's choice, whether they get it and that dramatically affected our military.

One of the first things you'll be doing coming up soon is electing new leadership for your conference.

You have said you support.

You mentioned Leader McCarthy, Kevin McCarthy from California to be the House speaker.

But there are reports that he's not quite.

Doesn't quite have enough votes to confirm that yet.

I'm curious, are you talking to your other members to to to try and, you know, swing some votes and get enough support for Representative McCarthy?

And and are you comfortable with him maybe having to make deals with some members in order to get enough votes to be the next House speaker?

Well, I have supported Kevin McCarthy.

I think he's going to be a really good speaker.

He has done an incredible job of helping our conference unite.

Not only to be the check on the Biden administration and fire Nancy Pelosi, but unite behind an agenda that we want to deliver and execute on starting on January 3rd.

So I'm hopeful we're able to get moving on that as quickly as possible and get through some of the drama of the leadership elections and get down to business.

And, you know, honestly, the one thing Leader McCarthy has been very good at is building coalitions.

We have a wide variety of viewpoints in our in our conference, and that's okay.

Right.

And I think having those conversations and making sure that we unite behind the things that matter, the agenda that Iowans and Americans sent us to Congress to execute on.

That's what's going to be really important.

And I think he's the right person to do that.

And I was going to ask you that because whether you feel he he should be the leader, obviously you do.

You've said that.

But if given the the recent election and obviously Republicans did well in Iowa, but nationally, while Republicans took over the House, the margins maybe weren't as big as history might have suggested they could have been.

But you feel despite that performance, Kevin McCarthy has done enough, that he should be leader despite that?

Yeah.

Kevin McCarthy helped us get the majority and we have the majority and I think that's really critical.

It is that check and balance that we have been advocating for.

So going forward, we're going to execute on the priorities that I heard about on the campaign trail, firing the 87,000 new IRS agents.

I hope that's the first thing that we do before lunch, after electing Kevin.

Making sure that we're controlling our spending as we've discussed, how important that is, how out of control that's gotten.

So I think it's about making sure that we deliver on those priorities no matter if our majorities to 22 or to 40.

That's what people expect us to do.

And that's why they sent me back to Congress.

And we have a red wave.

I think that happened here in Iowa.

I joke it's between the Mississippi and the Missouri.

We got it done here in Iowa.

And I think Iowans very clearly rejected the D.C. way and they want us to double down on the Iowa way.

Speaking of leadership, how about yourself?

When we when we do our reporting, we hear that maybe Ashley Hinson could be in line for moving up the ladder within the House Republican caucus and being in a leadership position.

Should we expect to see you among the House Republican leaders any time soon?

Well, I am focused on being a really good member and a really good legislator.

I'm a member of the Appropriations Committee, as I've mentioned, and I think that's going to be a really critical committee.

So that's where I'm focusing all of my efforts.

My bosses are the taxpayers of this state, not leadership in Washington, D.C. And I am focused on doing that job really well.

But if presented with that opportunity, is that something you would welcome or accept?

My biggest focus is on where can I make the most impact for Iowa?

So where can I make sure Iowa has the biggest voice and the biggest seat at the table?

So if those opportunities arise where I can make sure Iowa is heard, that's what I'm going to focus on.

So let's dive in a little bit into what that voice would be when Republicans during the Trump administration, they're pretty critical about investigations, impeachment proceedings.

How much are we going to see investigations from the House versus problem solving and bipartisan work among members of Republicans and maybe some Democrats, too, to try to get deals done?

Yeah, well, I'm always going to try to get the best deal for Iowa.

I think I've made that very clear in how I have done my job the first two years, but I think what's also important is Iowans expect accountability.

I think that's where, again, as a member of the Approach Committee, I'm going to be able to execute that oversight because they do have to come to us and ask us for those hard earned taxpayer resources.

So I think asking questions is what people would expect us to do.

They would expect us to say, for instance, I'm on Homeland Security.

Secretary Mayorkas has to come before our committee.

I've asked for him to resign because I think he has failed at doing his job.

So we're going to ask questions.

We're going to make sure that he's held accountable.

And I think that does have an impact not only on spending, but on policy.

So I think we need to be judicious in any questions that we're asking.

I think where people got tired of this in this entire country is investigations.

Just because asking questions and making our case in the right way, I think is going to be incredibly important.

And I think that's how you'll see the Republican majority focus on accountability.

We've seen such a partizan split.

And I'm curious, do you feel like there's room for bipartisan work anymore in Congress, especially in the House?

And as Republicans take over in the House and there is a Democratically controlled Senate?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, our our work didn't stop when I was reelected.

We kept going with priorities I've been working on for the last two years.

And many of those priorities I'm the lead Republican on now.

And we have a lead Democrat on and we're going to continue those bills.

Our roles overlap and I'll be the lead Republican and we'll have a lead Democrat.

So I think that the way we get things done is balance and bipartisanship.

And that's absolutely critical.

I've worked across the aisle and gotten many priorities for Iowa, done worked with our entire Iowa delegation and Cindy Axne, who's not coming back.

But we did work together a lot.

We worked together to get the sergeant ketchum bill passed.

That helps with veterans mental health.

I worked with Cheri Bustos in Illinois.

She's retiring so I'm going to try to develop new relationships there, but to help get additional investment for our lock and dam system.

So I think there are a lot of places that we do agree and you'll continue to see a lot of bipartisan work happen.

Maybe it doesn't leave the 5:00 news because it's not as exciting, but you can count on us to continue to say, hey, here's the story we're hearing from people.

Here's how we're actually going to Washington, D.C. and executing on those bipartisan priorities.

And we'll just make sure everybody knows the work that we're doing.

And not to put too fine a point on that.

But as Clay mentioned, that we'll have split control now, a Republican led House and a Democrat.

Can we expect I mean, will the House send bills to the Senate that the Senate will actually, you know, actually consider and vice versa, although you're in the House, I'll ask you there.

And, you know, can Kevin McCarthy work with Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, to get things to the president's desk?

Can we expect that kind of work or is that that's happening now?

I mean, I think it's important to note that we get Republican bills in the Senate all the time.

If it's good policy.

I think our leadership understands people expect you to get work done.

You're going to have your very public fights.

But, you know, many of the bills that we we pass under a suspension where we are mostly in agreement as both conferences in both caucuses, that was passed without a whole lot of fanfare.

And we get the work done right.

And so I think you'll continue to see that happen.

And again, this is where I think it's really important to operate like I've operated that I could be in the minority, I could be in the majority.

And for me, it's about who can I work with and what relationships can I develop on those shared priorities.

So Biofuels Caucus, for example, that's a great place where we've been able to do a lot of work together, fight for Iowa's priorities.

But you've got bipartisan members from Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri.

I mean, so there are a lot of places where we can find some really good alliances to get stuff done.

The farm bill is coming up in the coming year.

How are you going to convince Republicans who are skittish about providing healthy subsidies to America's farmers?

Well, it comes down to a whole bunch of conversations here.

And again, this is where developing relationships and understanding priorities for districts all over the country are going to be really important to making sure we have a strong farm bill that helps support Iowa agriculture.

There are a lot of provisions in that bill.

Food bank and food security is a huge part of that bill.

It's a passionate area of mine.

I visited a lot of food banks in the district.

I want to make sure that they have resources going forward.

A lot of the programs that our farmers know and trust, not only for crop insurance and things like that, but for but for conservation, which is alive and very well here in Iowa.

The demand is great for those programs, too.

So we're listening to all of the commodity groups and all farmer groups and every stakeholder, and that's what we're going to continue to do is say, hey, these are all the priorities that need to be included in that bill, and here's why.

And so it's my job to go out and make the case that, you know, people who might not traditionally support a farm bill, why they should.

I just remember covering Rand Paul, Kentucky senator, Republican, when he ran for president, who argued that the subsidy situation for farmers is unfair to other businesses.

How do you convince reluctant Republicans that you should continue these subsidies?

Well, feeding and fueling the world is of absolute public interest.

And our Iowa farmers work very hard to do that every day.

And it is a very volatile industry.

Right.

I mean, we've seen.

So let's talk about crop insurance.

And, you know, that's an area that has helped to make sure the food supply was stable long term.

Our farmers had incredible damage during the trade show.

They needed that that certainty to make sure that they could recover and come back and continue to farm.

So that's where my argument to Senator Paul would be.

We need to make sure that we have a stable food supply.

We absolutely need to make sure we're doing that in a targeted way and that there's oversight and programs.

There are many places where we're now saying, okay, there's a duplicative program over here.

Let's combine those or let's have that conversation about how we're more efficient.

So you're going to find us looking at ways to do that in the next Congress as we look at this next farm bill.

But that's going to be our approach to the negotiation there.

And you kind of alluded to it early on in the response to this question.

But, I mean, a large portion of the farm bill, I mean, people think of agriculture, but is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly referred to as food stamps, as inflation has gone up and pre pandemic relief funding has kind of gone by the wayside or help for people that need that.

You're seeing a change in the way that people can afford food and things have changed for the SNAP program as far as what people, families can afford.

How do you take that into consideration when you're drafting a farm bill, when that's not kind of top of mind?

I guess just how the general public might think of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance.

Program and just had a conversation in our office this week about it, actually.

But, you know, it's it's challenging because you're facing not only that, increased inflation they gave obviously for other programs, cost of living increases.

This bill is interesting.

It sets the kind of the price and it isn't reviewed again for another couple of years in terms of like reimbursements and things like that.

So we're having conversations about what that looks like so it can be more reactive while at the same time looking at mandatory spending is what's driving a lot of the debt in this country.

You know, there's a lot of focus on discretionary spending, but mandatory is the out of control train that's left the station that nobody's really checking.

So making sure that we're being thoughtful in looking at those formulas and how they how they react when they leverage is going to be absolutely critical because this is a bill that we don't review every year.

Right.

A lot of the programs are pilot programs that are designed to be reviewed every 3 to 5 years.

But programs like that, you know, when we set it and then we have an incredible circumstance like what we've had, it makes it hard to to be able to adjust some of your Republican colleagues have talked about making changes to Social Security.

Is that something you support?

Well, here's the situation with Social Security, is that if we do nothing on social security and I was here two years ago talking about this same issue, and if we do nothing, the benefits will automatically cut in 2034.

And that's not what I want to see happen.

So I'm willing to have conversations with anybody about serious solutions, if serious for our seniors.

We need to be serious about the longevity of the program.

And at the same time talking about how do we encourage people to start saving earlier.

Right.

Social Security is, you know, people are living longer.

People need to have more resources for longer, for a longer life.

And so I'm focused on secure 2.0 is a bill that I would like to see passed, for instance, that's encouraging more people to sign up for employer sponsored retirement plans.

Getting younger people, millennials who are not saving money so that we can make sure we're not ending up in a situation where we have people who don't have benefits and have to retire.

So does that mean that you would have sort of a George W Bush system that he proposed back in the early part of the century, whereby some people would opt for this savings plan instead of being part of the Social Security system?

Well, first of all, let me say anybody who proposes cuts to the benefits, that's going to be a no for me.

I think what we need to be talking about is think about retirement as a three legged stool.

All of the the ways you save for retirement, the things you need to plan on.

I hope people think about having other resources to help supplement their Social Security.

I'm not sure.

I hope we are able to get something done where it's going to be preserved long term.

And those benefits are there for seniors who've worked hard and expect to have them.

So I'm hopeful we can find some bipartisan work there and get that done.

I think it should be bipartisan because this is an issue that Congress needs to address.

But again, there are, I think, all these other conversations that need to happen about making sure we make it easier for people to save money, making sure we make it easier for employers to offer that as a benefit, and making sure that we are serious about that conversation long term, because otherwise we're going to have this epidemic of people who haven't saved money in 20, 30 years.

I think another question that I have that I'm definitely looking into, you know, with with the pandemic, we had a bunch of people who weren't working and weren't paying into the system.

And then you had this incredible inflation hit and a big cost of living increase.

So that's going to change things a lot in terms of the mechanisms of evaluating the long term viability of the program as well.

So we have some work to do there.

But again, I'm hopeful that we can do it in a bipartisan way.

I wanted to move on to education policy.

Some House Republicans have in recent past introduced a patient's bill of rights regarding to what parents of school children can know about what's going on in their schools, whether it's curriculum, finances, etc.

This was also a central theme in your reelection campaign, so it's safe to assume that you would support that.

And I also wanted to ask, why do Republicans feel this has become an issue for Congress when traditionally, for the most part, education is something that's handled at the local level by school boards?

Yeah.

Well, and I do support the Parents Bill of Rights.

I'm one of the co-sponsors on that.

I think for me, as a as a mom to two school age kids, soon to be ten and 12, I can't believe I'm saying that.

I think it's really important that we just have good dialog as parents with with our teachers and with school boards.

I think people have woken up to the process a little bit more, which is another part of why I focused on that as a conversation.

I want healthy dialog.

I want good civics engagement.

Parents have felt like they were being shut out.

I think it also goes without saying.

We had an administration that was working with a teachers union and the Department of Education to, you know, to make changes to policy.

And they were shutting other people out.

That's where the federal nexus comes in.

It's making sure that those things are transparent.

So that's why I pushed for that policy.

What I think parents really want is just to know that they have a say in their kids education.

Parents.

Kids belong to parents, not the government.

I think I made that position very clear, and I think that's where a lot of the conversation and a lot of that intent lies.

Former President Donald Trump endorsed you ahead of the 2022 election.

He has announced he's going to run for a third time.

Iowa's kicking off the calendar for the Republicans anyway ahead of the next cycle.

Do you think it's good for him to be the nominee in 2024, especially as he's called for the termination of the Constitution?

Well, let me say this.

First and foremost, I started off in Congress taking that oath and swearing that I would protect the Constitution.

And that is my job is to protect the Constitution.

So any talk of undermining the Constitution is a nonstarter for me.

What I will say about the presidential nominating process, I'm glad Iowa is still going to be first for Republicans.

I think it was a mistake for Democrats to make that move.

And I think that Iowans know how to vet our candidates.

We know how to ask tough questions.

President Trump's going to have to come to Iowa and ask tough questions.

And the other candidate will see in Iowa, too.

And that's my perspective on anyone who wants to be the president.

They should come and go through that same process and answer those tough questions.

But is it good for the Republicans to win back the White House if he's the nominee?

Well, I can tell you that I heard from a lot of people who do want President Biden to be the president.

So I think in my mind, it's about making sure we have the right person in the White House who can move this country forward, but can also focus on policies that are not going to spend trillions of dollars and not take our country in the wrong direction.

So I will support who is the best person to do that.

And again, all these candidates are coming to Iowa.

So we'll see you here.

And I'll ask those same tough questions.

Of, are you going to bolster, endorse?

Well, I'll probably do both.

So.

Well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

I want to make sure that I see what the field is and get a chance to ask questions of people, too, because ultimately we want the best person.

I want someone who I'm going to be able to work with as a member of Congress, but I also want the right person to move our country forward.

We are done with this conversation.

Thanks for joining us on this edition of Iowa Press.

Thanks, Kay.

You can watch every edition of Iowa Press online at Iowapbs.org for everyone here at the network.

Thanks for watching.

Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation, the Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Small businesses are the backbone of Iowa's communities, and they are backed by Iowa banks with advice, loans and financial services.

Banks across Iowa are committed to showing small businesses the way to a stronger tomorrow.

Learn more at Iowa Bankers dot com.