Former Congressman Peter Roskam, who leads BakerHostetler's Federal Policy team, provides listeners with a front-row seat to the most important policy and political debates in Congress. In this episode of "The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam," Peter interviews Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, a Republican from Iowa. First elected to the House in 2020, Hinson is a former television news anchor. Today, she serves on the Appropriations Committee.
Peter and Hinson talk about how Congress differs from state legislatures – where Hinson previously served – and how Congress can become more functional. She also forecasts Congress' post-election, year-end spending fight.
Podcast Transcript
Rubenking Welcome to The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam. Former Congressman Peter Roskam leads BakerHostetler's Federal Policy team. Through interviews with leading members of Congress, Peter provides an insightful first-hand view into the latest policy and political debates on Capitol Hill.
In today's episode of The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam, Peter interviews Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, a Republican from Iowa. First elected in the middle of the COVID pandemic in 2020, Congresswoman Hinson serves on the Appropriations Committee, which approves spending for federal departments and agencies. They talk about ways of easing the partisanship in Congress and the coming year-end spending battle that lawmakers will face after the November elections. Let's listen in to The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam.
Roskam: Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, thank you very much for taking the time. We're here in your office on the 7th floor of the Longworth building, and you've been in an appropriations hearing this morning and have a lot of moving parts. I've had a foreshadowing of your life, your future, and this is the foreshadowing, my friend. You, at some point, like me, are going to be known as your, by your children, because that is how you and I got acquainted.
Hinson: Yeah, I know, Gracie.
Roskam: Yeah, I remember talking to my daughter, Gracie, about who are the new members, who are people that are interesting. She is like, oh, dad, you got to meet Ashley Hinson. And so, she is the one who introduced us. And your day is coming when you will be known as your...
Hinson: I'm just Max and Jax's mom. That is right.
Roskam: I'm telling you; it is coming. It is coming. So, you've got an interesting background in that you've been in public life before you were in elected public life and going to the University of Southern California and studying journalism and then coming home into Iowa and getting on television. What was that like or what was that, did you always know you wanted to be on TV?
Hinson: Yeah. No, actually, I started on a path of becoming a professional musician. So, I'm a violinist and pianist.
Roskam: No kidding.
Hinson: So, I'm a hit at parties now. But I like to play, and I was really good in high school, and my parents were taking me to look at music schools like the New England Conservatory and Boston and Julliard, right. I looked at some of these major music conservatories to go to school there, but then I got the journalism bug. I was involved with radio at our high school. We had a radio station there and our radio teacher said to me, hey, Ashley, have you thought about doing TV? And he actually reached out to one of his local contacts. I got a job at our local TV station.
Roskam: In high school?
Hinson: In high school I was running cameras and teleprompters and editing tape...
Roskam: Unbelievable.
Hinson: ... while playing in the Des Moines Symphony. And then, so I was doing both. And then when I was looking at schools, I decided on USC. They had a great broadcast journalism program, and I was still able to play in their orchestra through college.
Hinson: So, I still got to do both things...
Roskam: I had no idea.
Hinson: ...that I loved and so that was awesome. And so, I graduated and then got back to Cedar Rapids, where I'm so proud to be now. It is fun. I've been there almost, gosh, it'll be 20 years next year. Grew up in Des Moines, but now I'm in Cedar Rapids. And it is funny because I still get to play a lot, and after I moved back and I was on TV, right, I'm a local TV anchor, somebody reached out to me and said, oh, would you mind coming to help us raise some money? We're raising money for a kids' organization. Would you play with this house band that we have? So, it was the Cedar Island Band, Jimmy Buffett cover band.
Roskam: Whoa.
Hinson: So, then I ended up playing with them for a while. So, anything from Mozart to Margaritaville, I can play.
Roskam: What a blast.
Hinson: Yeah. So yeah, it's been a fun ride, and I still play. I just played last week out here. They had an event with the Kennedy Center. And so, I keep a violin out here in DC...
Roskam: I had no idea.
Hinson: ...and one at home in Iowa.
Roskam: So, what was it that prompted you where you said television is the thing for me? I mean, when you were encouraged, etc., you got around it in high school and then you said I want to be on the other side of the camera.
Hinson: Well, for me it was about getting the opportunity to ask those questions, right. I love getting resolution on questions and just digging a little deeper. And so that was something that, that is what I really loved about journalism. And I think it is why I also really like this job, right. There is a lot of synergy between being a journalist, asking those questions, putting together a story, and making a case for something or telling a story in your community about, hey, here is a really good thing that happened, or a really bad thing that happened and really showcasing that. And then now you just ask for, instead of putting together a story, maybe I'm helping to author a bill to fix a problem, right? So, I think that that's been a fun transition for me and the skill set is very applicable to both, and I think, here, being no stranger to a camera, it is a very solid skill set to have.
Roskam: Oh, I would think.
Hinson: I'm not afraid of going after anybody. I used to ask, it is funny because I used to interview Joni and Chuck, our Senators, right ,before I had this job and I'm still very proud nobody knew my political affiliation when I was on the air, right. I was at the time a registered independent. I thought that was important. I've always been a Republican. I've made calls for Bush in high school.
Roskam: Sure.
Hinson: I've always been a Republican, but I thought it was really important as a journalist, which seems to have gone missing now, but that people didn't know where I was on the political spectrum.
Roskam: So, storytelling is a big part of what you were doing as a journalist and, like you just said, it is a big part, really, of what you're doing now as a member of Congress. So, you just came out of this hearing with the Appropriations Committee. Can you give us just a little detail? It was an idea that you had that now has gotten some attention.
Hinson: Yeah. Well, and election integrity is a big priority for so many of our constituents back home, and when I talk with people, they just want to know that their vote counts and that there is no cheating involved, right. I think that is what people at the heart of when they're exercising their right to vote, that is what they want. So, I think we've done a great job with our election integrity laws in Iowa. But I saw a story a couple of weeks ago about, well, it is one thing if you have state laws that are strong, but those ballots have to get from A to B and who is transporting them? It is the Postal Service. And so, we need to make sure that people have faith in the Postal Service that their ballots are going to arrive on time. And so, those, that was the impetus for the hearing.
I saw that article and I asked our chairman, I said, it would be great, as appropriators, we're trying to flex our muscles a little more on oversight. These are the tax dollars, right? We need to make sure that they're being properly spent, and we need to put people's feet to the fire. And so, when the opportunity came to ask the Postmaster General, DeJoy, to come before the committee and answer some of these questions, he said yes.
And so, we had that hearing today. And I think it is great, he stressed, and I think people need to know, hey, you just need to get your ballot in the mail, right? It takes some time. Don't wait until the last minute. And I asked him on follow up, is there a change that needs to happen at the state level that actually jives with what you can execute because he told us today get your ballot in the mail at least seven days before it needs to be back. Well, if you're doing that back-time math, that may be, some states have really late absentee request dates. So, it may not even work for it to get back and forth in time and then be there to be counted in time. So, I think that was a good outcome to put that out there. We need to be doing work at the state level to make sure that those laws, which I respect, that those are state laws, right.
Roskam: Right.
Hinson: That they can actually be executed by the postal service also.
Roskam: It is so interesting because you just gave a great example of the power of an appropriator to drive the conversation because it is really about the money that you can appropriate. As a member of Congress, too, you've got two other powers, in a way, or two other abilities. One is the ability to draw attention to things, which you just described, and the other is the ability to convene, to bring people together. And I think that is, as I've reflected about my time in Congress, that is one of the secrets of this place, using those abilities. And it may be, yeah, it may be voting, it may be directing money and so forth. But bringing attention to something and the ability then using your own background to drive a story to an ultimate resolution. Let me ask you, what was it like? You spent two terms in, which when I describe it like that, it almost sounds like a prison term, but you spent two terms in the Iowa House of Representatives.
Hinson: Yeah.
Roskam: What was the transition like? What is the Iowa house like compared to the U.S. house?
Hinson: Yeah. The Iowa house is a lot more functional. So, I'll start there. I appreciate that I earned my chops and got some good sea legs for this place in the Iowa house. I learned how to legislate. I learned how to build coalitions and relationships there. I think I saw the best of getting things done, right. There was great compromise between the House and the Senate there. We, I came in, luckily, we had a Republican trifecta in 2016, and so, we were able to get a lot of really good things done. But just because we had control of both chambers and the governor's office didn't mean everybody agreed on everything.
Roskam: Oh, that is right.
Hinson: And so that was a really good lesson for me on, hey, you know, just because somebody thinks one thing is a good idea doesn't mean your colleagues are going to. And so, that is where it is really building that consensus. That is also where storytelling comes in, because especially here, where you might only get somebody's attention for just a couple of moments, you need to have a really compelling case to make for why either your provision is good or why someone else's is bad, right? So, I think that that is a lesson that I certainly learned. Just the volume of legislation is very different from here to there, but ultimately, it is funny because it is same people, different location. We have the same caucus-type makeups, it is just a smaller scale...
Roskam: Right.
Hinson: ...as we do here ,and you just, you learn a lot about people by serving in Congress and in the state legislature. And I was very proud to have that opportunity before I came here.
Roskam: For me, it was Congress was so big compared to the state legislature. And part of it, too, was physical proximity with one another.
Hinson: Oh, yeah.
Roskam: So, I came out of the, I was in the Illinois House, shortly in the Illinois Senate. The Illinois Senate was 59 members ,and you're together all the time. Many times, you're contemplating things on as a committee of the whole, and you're just physically around one another, and the net effect of that, in my view, it has a restraining influence about what you'll say about one another. And I long for that in a way. So, I think size can explain things.
Hinson: I agree with that because I, my first term, I wasn't a committee chair yet. I actually chaired a committee in my second term there. But we didn't have an office, right? So, for us in Iowa, our office...
Roskam: You're just sitting on the floor.
Hinson: Yeah, our General Assembly office was on our desk. So, you literally are with, you talk about being with everyone. We had 100 in our General Assembly and then, or in our House, and then 50 in our Senate. So, when you're literally sitting next to your colleagues all the time, it is really easy to go walk over their desk, track them down and have a conversation.
Roskam: Yeah. Yeah.
Hinson: People would come visit us. They, you send a note in and you literally, you don't have an office, you go out to the rotunda and talk to them. So that was how it was in the State House, and I think what is unfortunate and challenging about this place is, you're right, our offices are so big, physical proximity is a challenge. There is huge office buildings. It is tough to get from A to B. And frankly, we've been insulated through, I came in during COVID.
Roskam: Oh, right.
Hinson: So, I had this added challenge of trying to develop relationships and meet people, figure out where people's priorities were. And that was really hard to do in 2021 and 2022 in my first term because, first of all, everybody had a mask on. So, you're looking at their eyes and trying to introduce yourself. Then they had proxy voting and virtual hearings and all that. So, it was really hard to get to know people on that personal level.
Roskam: Oh, I would think so. You've come from a state which is the center the political universe every four years, and so you would have covered the Iowa caucuses as a journalist, and then you've been active in it. What was it like this last time around? It was cold. I remember that.
Hinson: Yeah. It was very cold. But what was fun for me, and actually this came full circle because as a journalist I'd had a chance to interview many of these candidates and cover the caucuses, but I remembered I had sat down with Rick Santorum when he was running, I think back in maybe 2014, 2012, that cycle, and then I ended up at convention this year doing an interview with him oh his...
Roskam: Where he is interviewing you?
Hinson: No, no. We were together.
Roskam: Oh, fun.
Hinson: We were both the interview subjects. And so, I reminded him, oh, by the way, Senator, when you were in Iowa and you were running, I interviewed you back then.
Roskam: That's so good.
Hinson: So, it is a little odd to me now to be a part of the caucus process. But what I thought was really neat, in 2020 was President Trump and there were a couple of challengers. But this time there were a lot more people running. And I think what was really neat is I used my, you talk about our ability to bring people together and drive that conversation. I used that as an aggregator to help elevate the messages coming out of our Republican candidates. And what I thought about that, I think it makes every nominee stronger, having to go through that process. You're having to answer tough questions, and Iowa voters ask a lot of tough questions.
Roskam: Oh, I'm sure.
Hinson: I've done 42 in-person town halls since I took office. So, at this point, I'm like, just ask me anything you want. But I think that process was, is such a unique experience. You can be sitting in your basement. I remind people of this all the time. Joe Biden was sitting in someone's basement watching basketball during March Madness, and then he, having a beer in Iowa and then he became the president, right? So, anybody can have that kind of one-on-one conversation with someone who might be elected...
Roskam: Yeah.
Hinson: ...to the highest office in the land.
Roskam: So, serving on the Appropriations Committee, it is a committee that is storied and has an incredible background, and at the same time, it is based on other factors. It is not able to produce a product that the House is willing to take up. Where do you think it is going? And you're a new appropriator, comparatively, and you're serving with Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Tom Cole, good friend of yours, good friend of mine, just an incredible leader ,and yet probably incredibly frustrated. Where did this, what is the future of the appropriations process?
Hinson: First of all, we need a bigger majority, that is what I'll say. What I think is important here is...
Roskam: Well, and the point is a bigger majority so that you can have five or 10 members walk off a roll call...
Hinson: Right.
Roskam: ...and still be able to pass a bill.
Hinson: And still be able to move forward. Yeah. And you look at the appropriations process and I do think it's been broken for a while, but what I will point to is that on our committee, we have members across the ideological spectrum, right. You've got Andy Harris, who is the chair of our Freedom Caucus now, and he is our ag, FDA Appropriations Chair, and then you've got members like David Valadao who are in a very, very competitive district in California, who is chairing Legislative Branch, right? So, we've got members on the entire spectrum, and we all supported these packages to get them out of committee and move the ball forward so that we could have a strong hand. So, the problem is not with our committee, right.
Roskam: No, I know.
Hinson: It is, we have good people who are willing to say, yep, you know what, this is a good product. Maybe I didn't get everything I wanted. And that is what I think is tough about this place is we got a whole crop of people who, that will never be good enough for them. And I have been of the vein, I will fight to get the best deal possible for my district, but we are here to legislate. We are here to govern and move things forward. There are red lines, but you have to be willing to work together and say you know what, I can accommodate that. I'm still getting this for home. That is important. And so, that is where I think Tom will be helpful in communicating some of that to the rest of our conference, but it has been immensely frustrating. We passed all 12 out of committee and here we are with another CR.
Roskam: Yeah. So, talk about red lines. One of the places where you were able to really stand up for your district was during the debt ceiling drama earlier in the year. Can you describe that because it is really interesting to see somebody, in my mind, you were like Gandalf saying boom, this will not pass, and you...
Hinson: It felt a little like that at the time.
Roskam: ...you prevailed. And I think it is part of how you were you were charming. You were delightful. But you were clear and firm. And so, give a little color commentary, would you on that, because it is a real interesting thing.
Hinson: Yeah, that was not on my bingo card to pick a fight with the Speaker last year, but I learned a lot in that process also, and what I also learned, you talk about the value of coalition building and where that comes from, right. We had what we affectionately called ourselves, or people were calling us the Great Eight because there were about eight of us, and we learned that you know what, it is time for us to stand up for what we have to fight for our districts. We all came from ag districts. Our ag economy is paramount in Iowa and if we don't stand up for that and we let it get railroaded, we're not doing our job. And so, that was one of those cases where we saw what I think was an easy target because tax credits are, for many of our members, a red line for them, but what we said was, look, we're supporting a lot of the provisions that we have to swallow a pill we don't love. But these, for us, are vital to our economy and what I think came out of that was there was a lot of back and forth and at the end of the day, what I went to the speaker with was real evidence that these programs are working. They're spurring great economic investment and the return on investment for the taxpayer makes them worth continuing to support.
So, it was really about having a well-reasoned argument. We went to all of the producer groups in our state and said, hey, give us the receipts. Let's go back with a well-reasoned and backed-up-with-facts argument. And at the end of the day, that is what we did. We went and had those sit down meetings with the Speaker and his team and then there was some movement, right. And I think that was important that we said, look, we don't want to be responsible for tanking the bill, but this got to go right?
Roskam: Right.
Hinson: And I think we were very successful because we did it in a, not only a group manner, but we did it with reason and fact.
Roskam: The reason I'm smiling so much when I'm thinking about this, your success and the story was, it was presented as this is a done deal, it is not going to be opened up, there is no negotiating because if we negotiate on anything, we're going to negotiate on everything. And so, that is just the way it is. And you said, well, except that...
Hinson: About that, yeah. About that. Well, and I think what is important and I think everyone in leadership will probably say the same thing. Never say what you'll never do. And that is good advice that I have always tried to...
Roskam: Very good advice:
Hinson: ...to follow here as well because things happen, right, around here. You have to move the ball forward and sometimes things move very fast, and you just have to make the best decision you can at that time with the information you have. So, I've tried to follow that mantra, but I think when it comes down to that, the bill was crafted and nobody asked, well, what could this do to these districts? What could this do to these members back home? And we were able to finally fill in that color and say, you take this away, we're, we can't go home and be taken seriously.
Roskam: These were energy tax credits?
Hinson: Yeah. And supporting of our ethanol industry and biofuels in Iowa. That is a huge driver of our industry, and not just for Iowa, right. It is Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, right. So, when you look at, and Illinois, when you look at the coalition that we had of members who were at the table having this conversation, it was like, here is the farm belt but you wouldn't be in the Republican majority without us.
Roskam: Right.
Hinson: So, you've got to think about what the impact of these policies is on our districts too. And I think we were able to come to a balance that still moved the ball forward. The Fiscal Responsibility Act that we ended up passing, and it reduced government spending while still respecting, hey, these programs, maybe not everybody likes them, but they're spurring great investment in states like ours.
Roskam: And I think part of it, the way that you approached it was, you have a disposition of somebody who is trying to get to yes. You know what I mean? It is like, look, I I'm not here being, governing by bumper stickers. I really want to try and come up with a solution, but this is not it.
Hinson: Yeah. And, with that, we went in and said these five have got to go. Well, at the end of the day, it was really only three and a half that went, but we came to the table and said, okay, well, these are really, what, we said well, what is the priority in ranked order, right? What do we need to make sure we produce and fight for, and that is how we approached that. And it was really, when I say it was facts-driven and on a case-by-case basis, it was not emotional and that was how I chose to approach, well, any negotiation. It is not an emotional negotiation, it is, this is the fact.
Roskam: Right.
Hinson: I think this place would be better served if more people operated that way.
Roskam: And yeah, and you were able to tell a story because you linked it back to your local economy.
Hinson: Yeah.
Roskam: So, walk, can you give me a sense of the general trade debate today and increase mercantilism, that notion? Nobody knows better than you do how inextricably linked trade is to the ag economy, and where is this going and how is this feeling on the ground and the ag interests that are in your district, what are you hearing from them?
Hinson: So I'm going to answer your question with the China Select Committee hat on because a lot of our work has been focused on that this Congress because global competitiveness and global markets are what our producers want. And they want a level, fair playing field and I think one of the things I really appreciated about President Trump when he was in office is he was saying to China that is not going to fly. Now China because, and this administration has not had trade be a priority, has continued to push and ship transnationally to get around tariffs and existing trade laws. And frankly, they're undermining our economy and our ag economy every single day. They're not fulfilling their end of the trade deal because nobody is holding them accountable. So, a lot of our focus here has been, are there ways where we can move the ball forward. I don't love tariffs. I want a level playing field though.
So, I think our producers a few years ago, the ag economy was in a different place than it is now. We're saying, yeah, let's stick their feet to the fire. I think what is important going forward is, we may be able to counter some of that, maybe not with necessarily tariffs, but with more market access. And so that is going to be our priority is number one, are there places where we can continue to enhance and build out those relationships, countries maybe that are eager and open, and we maybe haven't gotten there yet, but we will.
The other side of it is on trade enforcement, and I actually just had a bill make it through Judiciary Committee yesterday, bipartisan, which is rare around here, right. But we want to have the DOJ specifically have a trade crimes task force to be able to go after these bad actors who continually circumvent our trade laws and protections. So that is how I'm trying to focus on making sure not only do we have good systems to make sure our guys have a place to sell their products, whether it is corn or soybeans or John Deere tractors...
Roskam: Yeah.
Hinson: ...but also that we're fair and we're going after the bad guys.
Roskam: So, the China Select Committee on which you serve, I think is one of those really stellar efforts of bipartisan product and it is due to good leadership and good members from what I can tell and the people who ended up on that committee struck me as very serious people and understanding this, the unique strategic season that we're in vis-à-vis China. What has, what do you think the fruit of the committee is going to be and will it be an ongoing effort, you think, in the next Congress? Will you urge it to be reconstituted? What is your view?
Hinson: Yeah, I hope, I certainly hope it is. We have a lot more work to do. I think we've just scratched the surface on many of these policies. And I think one thing that I've learned in the last two years of serving on this committee is that some things are very black and white. China is a malign actor. They are perpetrating human rights abuses every day. They are enabling fentanyl to get into our country that is killing Americans every single day. Those are pretty black and white things.
What is not as black and white, it is more gray is, guess what? There is a lot of trade that happens with China. There is a lot of products that are going in. There is a lot of American capital flowing in and out of China. And so, some of those issues dealing more with the financial services lane are a lot more nuanced and we have to take time to get it right. So, I think that there is definitely a lane for our committee going forward and I think from the investigative side, I don't think we're done there either. And when I talk about some of the reports that our committee has put out, we had one last year on a bio lab that was discovered in California, right, that had mice that were genetically engineered to transmit COVID. That was set up by an illegal Chinese immigrant into our country, and the only reason that was even discovered was because a local code worker flagged it for the CDC and FBI. It, crazy stuff that keeps us up at night, right. And so, I think that our committee serves a very valuable purpose and can make really solid recommendations to committees of jurisdiction to pass these bills. The trade crimes bill that had support from our chairman, John Molinar, and our ranking member, Raja Krishnamoorthi, and many other members too. And so, I think you've seen a unique bipartisan effort here to work together on these priorities and I, again, I think there is a lot more to do there.
Roskam: Ashley, I feel like I've got a front row seat to your incredibly bright future. You've got great gifts that lend themselves to being able to navigate through, to persuade people, bring them along, and lead them. And you've been really generous with your time, and we hope you have a good time running through the tape back in Iowa, and thank you for coming on The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam.
Hinson: I'm excited to get back with Max and Jax again. Max and Jax's mom. That is what I'll be known as.
Roskam: Amen to that. Thanks, Ashley.
Thanks for listening. If you've got a suggestion or a comment for me, shoot me an e-mail. And to get the latest episode, please subscribe and share it with your friends.
Rubenking Thank you, Peter and Congresswoman Hinson. If you have any questions for Peter, his full contact information is in the show notes. As always, thanks for listening to BakerHosts and The Cloakroom with Peter Roskam.
Comments heard on BakerHosts are for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice regarding any specific facts or circumstances. Listeners should not act upon the information provided on BakerHosts without first consulting with a lawyer directly. The opinions expressed on BakerHosts are those of participants appearing on the program and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. For more information about our practices and experience, please visit bakerlaw.com.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
