The Dispatch Podcast - Rep. Newhouse on Voting Rights Push

Episode Date: January 14, 2022

Rep. Dan Newhouse, one of the 10 House Republicans to impeach Trump, joins Sarah and Steve on today’s podcast. They discuss why he is against Biden’s new voting rights legislation and how much influence the federal government should have over elections. Plus, the congressman talks about his view of the filibuster, and the rightward shift of rural America.   Show Notes: -Rep. Newhouse's statement against new voting rights legislation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the dispatch podcast. I'm your host, Sarah Isger, joined by Steve Hayes. And this week, we are talking to Congressman Dan Newhouse. He represents Washington State's fourth district. It's kind of in the middle there, not Seattle, not the eastern side. And he has been one of the Republicans to vote for the article of impeachment after January 6th, but also has put out a pretty stark statement against the Biden administration's voting rights legislation, and we wanted to talk about some of that. Let's dive right in. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you very much. And let me just say it's not only a pleasure to be with you,

but I very much appreciate the distinction you make. Whenever I introduced myself and say I'm from Washington, of course, Washington State, you usually follow that up by saying not Seattle. So thanks for making that. I think I've known enough people from Washington, not from Seattle, that they really like to Heisman that part of the state sometimes.

I want to talk really right away about the voting rights legislation that's being proposed, and why, I mean, let's talk big picture, why is this something you don't support big picture? Oh, my gosh. So I hope they have a lot of time to talk about this. First of all, I think this is, it's unconstitutional for one thing. And that's a very basic thing. The Constitution leaves elections up to the states. This is a... an effort by the Democrats to nationalize federal elections. And that's, you know, that anybody that, you know,

takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, just goes against that basic premise. The Democrats continue to say that they're trying to fix a system that, you know, we are at risk of losing our democracy and lots of dramatic words like that that you hear over and over and over. I'm asking, okay, where is this problem that they're trying to fix? If you talk to Americans, and I've seen polls taken over the last year,

94% of Americans, Republicans, independents, even Democrats, will tell you that it's easy to vote. There's no voter suppression going on in this country. So what are we trying to fix here? So there's not only is it, doesn't make sense on its face. But like I said, the constitutional question is very, very concerning. I can't warn people enough about the overreach of the federal government as it gets into the responsibilities and rights of individual states. Well, and let's set aside the constitutionality for a second, which I don't do lightly, by the way, but just from a policy perspective,

there's lots of things that we have federalized in this country, if not with a precision that you must do X, at least a floor. You must do no less than X. The federal government sets all sorts of stuff like that. So why not set a floor for voting? Because you mentioned, for instance, that voter suppression wasn't one of the top problems facing the country. I tend to agree with you there. But at the same time, voter fraud isn't one of the top problems facing the country. And a lot of the laws, Democrats say, being passed in Republican states right now, are driven, A, by people who think that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and B, by this idea that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election, and there's no real support for that either. Either way, yeah. So let me first

respond, Sarah, by saying that I support voting rights. I think that it's very important for us to make sure that every person it wants to and is eligible to vote has that ability to do that. I think that's probably something that both Democrats and Republicans share. And one of the things that came out of the 2020 election, I guess, that we should be paying attention to is that there is a concern on the part of many people that the election wasn't fair. There was something that shouldn't have happened. as you said, many of those accusations were never, there was never founding for any of them, but still that perception exists. So I think it behooves us to make sure that we have in place

systems that protect the rights of individuals to vote and don't go take any steps that would suppress those abilities to vote. By setting minimums, sure, that's fine, but by what this legislation purports to do, any changes to voting in individual states has to go through a newly created position of an election czar, which interestingly will be borrowing a word

from the Russian language, but that to me goes way beyond setting minimums. That is taking total control over the election system, and I just have a very basic problem with that. Well, Washington has been a place where we've seen the kind of experimentation that federalism is supposed to allow to flourish with widespread mail-in balloting. This has been going on for a long time. There were reforms after the 2004 gubernatorial race, which was decided in favor of Christine Gregor by 133 votes. There was voter ID.

How is Washington's voting process working today? And are there specific changes you would make to that and to make the question longer and more difficult for you to answer? How do you feel about mail-in balloting generally? So you're right, Washington State has been really a leader in some of these things. And over the last 20 or so years, we've been making a lot, even longer than that, we've been making a lot of changes and adjustments. And over time, I think we have a very, very good system.

In fact, we had the distinction of the only statewide elected officials. on the West Coast, was in the state of Washington, was our Secretary of State, who's, as you know, the responsibility of the elections. I think there's been widespread confidence in our system, but it didn't happen overnight. We did have some growing pains over the last couple of decades, and that was one of the things that I warned people about over the last couple of years is you can't institute all-mail balloting, all-mail voting in one election. It takes time to make sure that all of the precautions and necessary systems are in place to ensure that the election is secure. But we've been able to do that. And we've been able to do that because we have the ability to and the constitutional right that we exercise to be able to decide what works best in our state. is it perfect? Probably not. Is any system perfect? You know, there are, as you ask,

are there some things that I would like to see change? I think the ideas around the voter ID, making sure that people can prove they are who they say they are makes basic sense to me. I mean, you can't even check out a library book or buy a bottle of beer or name any easy function that people do every single day without some kind of identification. I don't think voting should be any less secure than that. And so that's one area that I think that we could put more strength into, and that's one thing that I would say around the country makes a lot of sense to me. But I have total confidence in our system in the state of Washington.

And I think that over the rest of the country, could, could, if they want, use the model of the state of Washington and follow along as well. But I don't think, going back to the constitutional issues, I don't think that that should be required through legislation by the U.S. Congress that every state will use the exact same system because it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. States are different, they have different needs, different situations. And so I think we need to leave the decisions up to the state with some of those minimums. Absolutely.

I don't have a problem with that, but not the full total control of the federal government. The Republican candidate for governor in 2020, Lauren Culp claimed that mail-in balloting was rife with fraud, you know, raised all sorts of objections to the outcome of that election. I wonder what you think of his objections, whether you think there's any merit to the claims that he made, particularly against the Republican Secretary of State. And I understand he's sort of interested in your seat these days. What do you think about him as an opponent? So, yeah, he made, in fact, I think there was a lawsuit filed off in the results of the election, which you withdrew. Like I said, I think our, the election was held fairly.

We can have confidence in the outcomes. Public and Secretary of State, and that we've had, I think that's the, gosh, third or fourth Republican Secretary State we've had in a row. And that's been our Republican stronghold for many, many years. We have a lot of Republican counties. officials who oversee elections that will tell you that we have a very strong, secure system. And so I think the election was fair.

I think the outcome we can have confidence in, and I would hold up our system against anybody else's in the country. Mr. Culp has announced his intentions to run for Congress, which is an interesting thing. He doesn't live in the 4th District, but that's not a requirement, as you know. So I'm looking forward to a spirited campaign, and we'll see how things go.

But I don't have any comments otherwise other than just looking forward to a strong campaign. Let me put you a little bit and see if I can get you to comment generally on this phenomenon that we've seen. I think we've seen it at the national level, certainly I think you could argue that we've seen it at the state level with Mr. Culp,

where you have politicians who are elected officials who make these extravagant claims of fraud, I think many of them untrue or exaggerated, and then ride that to more political fundraising, greater political power. It sure seems like that's, what Donald Trump is doing today at the national level, despite the fact that, you know, almost literally every one of his claims has been either laughed out of court or dismissed

after a serious assessment by, um, by state and local election officials. And it seems like that's what, uh, Mr. Culp is trying to do in Washington. He lost by more than half a million votes. And yet he's, he's, yeah, wasn't close. And yet he's used that to, help consolidate the conservative base in his favor. And unfortunately, too many people are believing these things. What do you do, you know, as a candidate, as an elected official to push back on claims like that? Yeah, I think that's a, frankly, a disservice. If you continue to pound that drum, they were election fraud. The system was rigged. That undermines people's confidence in our whole process. And, yeah.

And if we don't have confidence in our voting, then what have we got? You know, there's the whole foundation of our system begins to fall apart. So I have faith in the system in the state of Washington. Were there problems in other states that would cause people to think that there was something that was happening that shouldn't be? That's why I supported President Trump's efforts in the courtroom. I think he needed to have available to him every legal option that we have in order to prove otherwise. There was almost 60, I think, or maybe over 60 cases that one way or another found that there was no basis for the complaints being made.

We had to make a decision in Congress, as you recall, whether or not to certify the electoral votes. I voted to certify because every single state has to tell Congress whether or not they had confidence in their own system. And guess what? They all did one way or the other. Every state told us that no, what we sent to you, Congress, the electoral votes we sent to you were legitimate. And so I think that what we need to do going forward is make sure that we can't. say with confidence that these systems that we have in our country are something that we can depend on. And that's why I'm concerned about the Democrats' efforts here to change the system that we have to make it more federalized, to make the, at least what they say, their talking points don't necessarily match what's in the legislation. And I don't know if you've noticed that or not, but the, you know, they talk.

about Obama in all of their speeches invoking John Lewis and Martin Luther King in 1965 and all of the things that it's hard to argue against that yes we want to make sure that people have access and can exercise their right to vote but if you look at the language of the bill it doesn't necessarily match with what they're trying to tell us and I ask the question where is the problem if like I said there's confidence in this country, 94% of the people surveyed say it's easy to vote. I think we had the highest turnout in something like 130 years in the 2020 election. So obviously, people aren't being stopped from exercising their right to vote.

I'm just asking where are the issues that they're trying to fix. and by increasing the requirements that we have for people to make sure that they are who they say they are, that when they go into the voting booth or to the voting place, that they can prove beyond a shadow of doubt who they are, I think that's totally legitimate. Otherwise, if you can't guarantee that, then people can go down to the next. district or the next precinct and vote again. So we've got to be able to make sure that that's the case.

And I don't see anything that is going on in this country that would make our system less able to have confidence in it. So I hate to sound cynical here, but let me just tell you, I think, what's going on, I mean. If you look throughout this last year, now we're going over a year, almost a year into the Biden administration, if you look around, there's so many different things happening that are, you could call crises, look at the border, look at the COVID issue, look at inflation, look at the international issues that we are staring us in the face, just so many things, a supply chain, you know, the list is long. but we're not focusing on that we're focusing on or at least they are trying to make us focus on something else to divert attention away from the true issues that we should be trying to solve and I think that that that right there says a lot and you know they're faced in 2022 with the

midterm election that by all all prognosticators are saying does not live look good for them. Well, I think, and not to sound too cynical, but I think realistically, they're trying to change the potential outcome of this upcoming election by getting people to think about other things. I think you're in a unique position. It's why I mentioned it in the introduction. When we think about the president's speech that he delivered in Atlanta on Tuesday about this legislation. It was a, it was a fiery speech. I would describe it as a very partisan speech. Mitch McConnell obviously gave his reaction saying that it was unpresidential. Even Dick Durbin, the number two ranking Democrat in the Senate said that it probably went too

far. A lot of the speech was attacking Republicans, which first of all was kind of interesting, given that the problem at least most immediate to the president is Democrats in his own party before you get to Republicans being the roadblock here. But he was attacking Republicans, comparing them obviously to being on the side of Bull Connor, George Wallace, Jefferson Davis, and really lumping all Republicans in with those who stood with President Trump's claims about the election in the wake of November 2020. You're one of the few Republicans who voted to certify the election results. You're also one of only 10 Republicans who voted in favor of the article of impeachment

against a member, a sitting president of your own party in the wake of January 6th. you don't seem that into the partisan stuff on the Republican side, and yet you still don't support this legislation. And I'm wondering where you think your role is in speaking to the administration or Democrats in Congress to maybe explain what the problem is because they think the only problem that you could have with this legislation, at least according to. to the president's speech is that you think the election was stolen. But you don't, and yet you still oppose this legislation. Well, many of the reasons that I've already talked about, the constitutionality of the legislation. But what can you do to lower the temperature, I guess? It feels like the president raised the temperature, despite his inaugural address, by the way, and that this is really turning into a good versus evil fight?

So I wish I could do that, Sarah. I don't sure that I can, though, because of just what I was talking about, the political atmosphere dynamic that we're in with a 22 election, 2020 election coming up very soon and the reading of the tea leaves on the part of the Democrats

that it doesn't look good for them. These are issues, voting rights issues, are something that truly energizes the base, right? And I think this is an effort, not to sound too cynical, but I think there's absolutely a big part of what's going on, is that this is an effort on the part of Mr. Biden and others to do exactly that so that they can minimize the damage

that they potentially are going to feel coming up next November. Because like I said, the rhetoric that we hear, the floor speeches, the speech in Atlanta, all of those things do not match the substance of the bill. So what happens in 2022, in the wake of 2022, if Democrats then lose a bunch of house seats, lose control of the Senate, and say, see, we told you, the election rules were rigged, this wasn't a fair election. And then what happens in 2024 when either party, whichever party, doesn't win the presidency, says, no, see, the other side was trying to raid the election? Where does this go? I'm not feeling great about our direction here.

So you're asking that as a concerned American citizen. I am. Basics of our system. So, yeah, it's on a course that is not particularly productive. So I think. If we can do this, and this is a challenge, not just for this particular issue, but for many things that we face in Washington, D.C., in our country, and in the states, we've got to get back to working together on both sides of the aisle. And I don't mean to sound it so naive that I think that this is easy. It isn't. But I think that in order to instill confidence in our system,

There's got to be an ability for both sides to be able to contribute to the solution. You've probably watched the process that we went through this week on getting this legislation to the Senate. The bill that we voted on just yesterday, the voting rights legislation, was an issue or the bill itself had to do with leasing. provisions for NASA, the space agency, nothing to do with voting rights. All of the language that pertained to NASA was stricken in over 700 pages of the cobbled together three or at least three different bills that had to do with voting rights were shoved into this bill and we voted on it. It went to rules on, let's see, on Wednesday and we voted on on Thursday morning. I bet you not a single member of Congress knew exactly what was in that

bill. Certainly generalities, but there's a lot of things. What made it and what didn't from those three different bills? Nobody really knows. I'm not even sure leadership knows. There's probably some staff members that do. But that doesn't matter. Like I said, the speeches that you heard, like Republicans are all for Jim Crow and Democrats are all for mom and apple pie. And that's, Oh my gosh, nothing could be further from the truth. And that's really unfortunate. If the goal is only to fire up your base so you don't get shellacked in the next election or that you're victorious in the next election, then God help us. We can't continue to do that because this is too important.

So I think I'm starting to see some things happen in the Senate. There's a group of bipartisan, a bipartisan group of members that are starting to look at things. Okay, what could we together agree on that may improve voting in this country that would give confidence to the American people? Those conversations are starting to happen. And I think that that's a really important thing. But the current process, well, I was just reading this morning in some of the clips. you know, Senator Schumer is going to go forward with the vote. He's going to force the vote.

He doesn't have enough Democrat assets. So they're going to, okay, then they're going to tear down the filibusters. And he doesn't have enough votes to do that. So it's a really interesting dynamic we have going here that they're going to intentionally put up two things that are destined to fail to prove what? I'm not sure that Joe Biden is the weakest president we've had in 40 years. I'm not sure exactly what the goal is here, but this is not the way to do things. Not long ago, I saw someone go through a sudden loss, and it was a stark reminder of how quickly life can change and why protecting the people you love is so important.

Knowing you can take steps to help protect your loved ones and give them that extra layer of security brings real peace of mind. The truth is the consequences of not having life insurance can be serious. That kind of financial strain on top of everything else is why life insurance indeed matters. Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance fast and easy to protect your family's future in minutes, not months. Ethos keeps it simple. It's 100% online, no medical exam, just a few health questions. You can get a quote in as little as 10 minutes, same-day coverage, and policies starting at about two bucks a day, build monthly, with options up to $3 million in coverage. With a 4.8 out of five-star rating on Trust Pilot and thousands of

families already applying through Ethos, it builds trust. Protect your family with life insurance from ethos. Get your free quote at ethos.com slash dispatch. That's ethos.com slash dispatch. Application times may vary. Rates may vary. Since we're talking about the Senate, I want to ask about the filibuster just briefly. Obviously, you're a member of the House of Representatives.

Y'all don't have a filibuster. And yet the body is still standing. It is functional to the extent we'll call Congress functional. Comparatively. Do you think the filibuster is actually important in the Senate? Is unlimited debate continuing to serve a real purpose, a positive purpose for the American people? I am becoming less convinced.

You're becoming what? I'm becoming less convinced because what it just turns into is an ability for each side to showcase their hypocrisy on, like, lights and billboards each time the Senate switches, you know, parties. you know, parties. You know, I'm starting to wonder about that too, but I remember when we were in the majority and we didn't, you know, we passed all kinds of legislation from the House over to the Senate and they're just sat because same thing. They didn't have 60 votes. So many of my colleagues in the House Republicans are saying, yeah, we got to get rid of that

stupid rule in the Senate. You know, we bet the majority we should be able to pass. say, guess what? Democrats today are saying we need to get rid of the filibuster at that time, just three or four years ago, we're saying, no, no, no, this is so important that protects the rights of the minority and we've got to continue to, you know, it's a tradition and it's constitutional, which I'm not sure that it is, and all of those things, it just flip-lops. The arguments are being made on both sides. So you wonder, exactly, you can't, you, I think the one thing we have to remember here. Joe Biden was not given a mandate in 2020. The House of Representatives

where you're separated by, what, four or five votes. The Senate is a dead heat, 50-50. The only reason that Democrats are running the shows because of the vice president can break the tie. So they get, they are chairing all the committees and are in leadership. The American people have spoken. I think that they want this to be a there's no mandate given for all of the things that the Democrats are trying to do. So they're trying to force things through that I don't think they should be. I think they're overreaching what their perceived

message was from the American people. So whether the Senate gets rid of it or not okay, you're still going to have the same dynamic. Right? It's still going to one senator is still going to be able to control things. Joe Manchin is the most powerful man in Washington, D.C., arguably. Who's the president? President Manchin, is that what we should be calling him, maybe?

I don't know if it's going to, you know, in the immediate future, they'll be able to maybe pass some of the things that they want to. But I think when the dust settles, you're going to end up with a very similar. water dynamic. I want to talk about the politics of some of the political changes that we've seen in the past, really in the past couple of years, but going back a lot further. We've seen this pronounced shift in rural voters toward the Republican Party. Reed Wilson writes for the Hill wrote that in 2016, 592 counties shifted at least 20 points toward the Republican presidential nominee. And of those counties, 387 had populations under 25,000. You chair, the Congressional

Western Caucus described as the voice for rural America. What do you think accounts for this shift? I was just thinking the other day when I was much younger, I came to President Reagan's inauguration, which was not my first visit to Washington, D.C., but one of my first visits. And at that time, or in that period of time, if you looked at all the state legislatures in the country, there was one point in time where the number of Democrats and the number of Republicans is exactly the same. That's changed dramatically since then. but I only say that to illustrate that we have changed.

Things are changing this country, and there's a lot of us in rural America are becoming increasingly concerned about the direction of the federal government and the growth of the federal government. Maybe there's a commonality to people that live in rural areas. You know, there's not that we're trying to get

off the grid and all that kind of things, although there may be some, but sometimes we joke from the state of Washington that there's good things and bad things about being 3,000 miles away from Washington, D.C. But I think there's truly a concern about overreach, about a centralized authority, less local control, you know, decisions made by bureaucrats 3,000 miles away don't always match with what people in, who are on the ground that live in the area understand need to happen or what the solution should be. There's a sense, a growing sense, that people in Washington, D.C. are not connected to. the people in the rest of the country.

So, and that's something I think that we need to listen to. We need to, we need to hear that message. We need to be much more responsive as a whole. I'm not saying that I haven't been responsive, I think I have been, but

as a whole, the institutions don't have a lot of confidence by the American people. Every institution you elect, I think I just heard the other day, the The one in this country institution that has the most confidence is the military. And that's only at about 50%. You know, members of Congress are somewhere down there with, I don't know, head lice

and hemorrhoids. And still above journalists. I wasn't going to say that. It's all right. We can take it. We can take it. Let me follow up because I'm struck by, I mean, as I think about that, I wonder how often you see the issues that are sort of most hotly discussed and debated

in Washington and in the national media, how often those issues overlap with the primary concerns of your constituents and of the other members of the Western Caucus. If you look, I was on the website just preparing to talk to you today. And if you look at the issues that you have listed on the Congressional Western Caucus website, I'm struck by how many of them get no discussion, get no debate in the national media. I mean, I think really two have been getting any coverage at all. You have agriculture, American energy security, Congressional Review Act, economy and jobs. Of course, that gets attention, Endangered Species Act and Wildlife, Federal Land Management,

Green New Deal, okay, we've had a debate about that. Healthy forests, local control and states' rights, property rights, multiple use. All of these things that are sort of the lifeblood, the things that matter most to your constituents, aren't even getting discussed in the broader national debate. Yeah, and that's a really frustrating thing. Like I said earlier, the, here we are with so many things facing a serious. issues that we face in this country, right? The supply chain issue, which is not going away anytime soon, unfortunately. Inflation, highest it's been in 40 years. Oh, my gosh, the COVID issues

that we continue to struggle with. Our border crisis, which hasn't been in the news guys lately, just saying, but it's ongoing. It continues. Thousands of people continue to come over our border, bringing, you know, drugs and all kinds of things. But all of these things happening. And what are we talking about? Voting rights. And in a way that is, I'm not sure, is the most productive. So that's a that's a very frustrating thing. What can I say about that? I'm not in the majority party. So I don't determine the agenda. I, you know, I wish I could tell you. I could tell you. You know, I'm not, you know, I wish I could you that, yeah, we're going to hear my priorities or Republican priorities. We're going to be hearing those in committees and voting on those things on the floor. But that's, you know, that's not

the case. I don't, we're not in charge and we're not driving the train here. That's going to change in November. I have confidence in it. You know, I've, I've often said that a divided government actually works better than one when you have one party in control. And what do we have today? The White House, the Senate, and the House are all controlled by one party. And what can you really look at over the last 12 months of things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can say they've accomplished? I think there's a very compelling case that divided government, at least in the modern era, has been more productive. But speaking of that, If Republicans take back the House in 2022, what are things that you actually think Congress,

a Republican Congress can get done with the Biden administration because just hearing what, you know, want to be future speaker Kevin McCarthy says, it kind of sounds like Republicans in Congress just want to investigate the Biden administration if they take back the House. Is there actual legislation that you think can get buy in from Republicans and from a Joe Biden White House? Well, I certainly hope so. And I saw those comments and I need to have a conversation with Mr. McCarthy. But I do believe that we can get some things done with the Biden's at least I hope so because he told us in his inaugural address, many things that would lead us to believe that he's looking forward to, or at least at that time, to solve

problems that the country faces in a bipartisan way. He gets into office and he's led the other direction by those around him. I think Mr. Biden is a pragmatic enough person to see if he wants to accomplish anything, he's going to have to work with both parties. That was his senatorial record. We have yet to see that in his presidential career. But I think if that is the reality, We have ample opportunities to get things done when we take over.

It seems like there's another problem facing Republicans, one that Democrats are dealing with right now, as you alluded to, which is intra-party fighting. Republicans have been given a gift, it seems to me, a respite over the last year to allow, you know, Democrats in chaos to dominate the headlines, if you will. But if Republicans take over the House, I think we're going to put Republican infighting back

at the fore. There are a lot of different factions of the Republican Party might be the most generous way to put it. Are the different parts of the Republican Party going to be able to work together? Do they even still consider themselves? Are you in the same political party as a Marjorie Taylor Green, a Matt Gates, Lauren Bobert? So I think I think Republicans, you know, we've been through this before, right? When we took control the last time, and honestly, we did have some issues of trying to get together within our conference on the directions we wanted to take. I think we're smarter because of that.

We understand the challenges. I think there's a lot of things that we can accomplish together because of the, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past, just like you're talking about. So I think we will be able to absolutely come together and focus on those things that we can't agree. You know, we're a big tent party. There's a lot of different ideas, a lot of opinions on different things. But there's an awful lot of things that we do agree on. And I think it feels like there's people in the corner of your tent lighting small fires and then pouring gasoline on it, though.

Well, that'll be, and that's the case in the Democrat side too. But I think we, I'm optimistic enough to think that we can, we can manage the ideas and the priorities of everyone to a point where we can move forward on those things that we do agree on. And I was just going to say, I can point to the Western Caucus, which thank you for bringing that, that up. It's a great group of individuals in Congress that work towards a common goal, all Republican this year. and we are able to come together on many, many things that we all agree on. Ms. Bober is a part of that, and we work together very well on many of these things that we have in common. And I think leadership in a Republican conference understands that. I hope they do.

That certainly we have differences, but there's a lot of things that we have in common, and that we owe it to the American people to focus on those things so that we can move forward on with solutions. Would you support stripping committee positions from Democrats that you find objectionable? As the Democrats have done to Republicans that they find objectionable to be clear to listeners. I'm very concerned about the precedent that's been set here recently, about leadership from one party dictating to another party who's going to be sitting on committees.

I did not support that. Ms. Pelosi taking those actions. And I think that the danger is real for us to spiral down that same path because of what has happened. So I'm going to look very, very carefully at that. If there are situations and there have been in the past, not just in the past year, but over the several decades where there, sometimes there are individuals that certainly have, through their actions and words would merit removing

committee from committees, even from the body itself. So I think each case has to be looked at individually and on its own merits. But I truly think that that is a very dangerous, rest of the tent to have been set and not very concerned about that. You know, the obvious obvious sort of exit question for you, Congressman, is your vote to impeach the president. I've seen you talk about it before. I've heard what you said. I guess I'm interested rather than just rehashing that in an understanding of a couple different things. One, just on a personal level, what the reaction has been like for you, what you've heard from

constituents. You were, you know, you were censured by a county party. You've been criticized by other county parties in your district. So I'd be interested in your sort of personal reflection on what that vote brought on, number one, and number two, how much of how you voted is a reflection of how you think about representation. You know, in those critiques that you got from these county parties, many of them said in effect, hey, that's not where your voters are. You can't defy the will of the voters. And it seems pretty clear that you had a different idea about what representation means, that I'd just like to get your thoughts about that. So, gosh, it's been across the board. Certainly there are those that disagree with my vote

100% and feel I betrayed the president and likely they're you know they'll probably never be in my column going forward but I but I also have a lot of people who have come up to me and said you know didn't agree with the vote not something I probably would have done but you know what you've taken thousands of votes that I do agree with I you know I you know still supports you, I think you've done a good job. And then there are others, and it's kind of three different camps. There are others that come up to me and almost with tears in their eyes, thank me for voting the way I did.

So I guess it remains to be seeing the numbers in each of those camps. We'll find out that in November. So that's been a very, it's been a difficult year to tell you the truth in a lot of ways. But because of, you know, I came to the point where I couldn't vote any other way. I didn't know what necessarily a vote of conscience was up until last year. And I've certainly heard the term for a long time and maybe had some ideas about it. But there are sometimes that the decision is put in front of you that it may, you know, how, How do you know what the will of the people?

I cannot have, none of us have the luxury of taking a straw pole of every single constituent and asking them what you, what would you like me to do on this? I knew full well that I was going to upset some people by that vote. But in the end, I had to do what I felt was the right thing to do and what, what standing up for the Constitution, in my estimation, was way more important than Dan Newhouse's individual political future. And so, you know, voters will tell us, but I've got to tell you the reaction overall, although I get a lot of negative still, overall has been positive.

And can I just ask real quick follow-up on that? We've talked to some of your colleagues who cast the same vote. that you did. And one of the thing that struck us is there reports that a number of colleagues who didn't vote the same way have come up and sort of quietly said, I'd love to have been with you. But I couldn't either because they don't put their conscience ahead of their electoral prospects or in some cases I think genuinely were afraid about the reaction. Have you had that similar experience where you've had colleagues come up and say, I wish I could have done what you did?

I absolutely have immediately after the vote. And that's been several days following. Numerous people come up to me and say, yeah, I was almost there. I just couldn't do it. And I'm not judging anybody. Everybody has to vote the way that they see fit. But you got to know that this decision on my part and the other nine people that did the same thing, was not made in a vacuum.

I fully understood the reaction I could anticipate from this vote. I've got to think that those of those people that said they wish they could have voted that way, made that same calculation and decided they didn't want to face the reaction from angry constituents. But like I said, it balances somewhat. On the other hand, I have not just Democrats or true, you would expect to be appreciative, but a lot of Republican people have come up to me and thanked me for my vote.

So, and I, you know, I understand, I understand the anger and the disagreement. Like, can I respect that? But, you know, we were there. We were there that day. it was a very personal thing and even more important than that we witnessed firsthand the threat to the center of our government and like I said I needed to make a vote of conscience it's this face that I have to look at every day and Like I said, it was a way more important vote than my political future.

I think the standing up for the Constitution has to take precedence over other considerations that go into our determination of how we're going to vote. All right. Last question. Your bio says that you are a third generation, Yakima Valley, Farmer. I'm wondering if you can share with us your favorite recipe that you use for something that you grow yourself. So just for a little context there, I'm a hop farmer. And as you know, 99.9% of hops go into one product and that's beer.

But are you making your own beer? Well, interestingly, my son and I have done. some of that. So I guess the answer would be yes. I am gotta support the industry yet, so I do enjoy a glass of beer now and then. So that would probably have to be the answer to that question that using hops and beer. But we also raised fruit. We raise wine grapes, cherries, bears, different things, not to make this all about alcohol because that's a lot of the products that are produced from those things. But, you know, we used to raise a lot of apples, too.

I enjoy apples all the time every day. We can make those alcoholic also. I love cider. I can see where you're headed with all. Sure, you certainly can. And like I was joking about earlier, best use of cherries, I think, or at least one of the better ones is in a great Manhattan. So there you go.

This is how my husband and I have really found each other in marriage, is that he likes ordering Manhattan's, and I will always steal the cherry and eat it because it's delicious, and I feel like that's my contribution. Very symbiotic relationship. Yeah, exactly. Well, thank you, Congressman, so much for your time for sharing your thoughts on this, what's going on in Congress, and maybe what we have to look forward to or not look forward to. depending on the topic and perspective. I appreciate it. I appreciate that. And don't give up hope. I

can sense that in your voice sometime. I'm a very optimistic person. It's going to take a lot of work on the part of all of us. It really will. But I think if we do that work, we still, as a country, as the United States of America, we do have a bright future. But it's not a time where we can, anybody can afford to sit on the sidelines. We have to be engaged. And part of the discussion, and I appreciate you guys helping to make that happen. I love ending on that note. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you.

With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Presale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at MX.ca. slash YNX.