This is a KSPS PBS election special.

From the Bing Crosby Theater in Spokane.

Eastern Washington's fifth district Congressman Michael Baumgartner, joins his challenger, Democrat Carmela Conroy, for a candidate Conversation and debate Produced in cooperation with the Spokesman-Review.

Northwest Passages.

Here now is host Emry DInman.

My name is Emry Dinman.

I am a politics and government reporter with the Spokesman-Review.

I am thrilled to be able to present tonight, the first live candidate forum, of the 2026 election season, between Republican Congressman Michael Baumgartner and his Democratic challenger, former diplomat Carmela Conroy.

we are splitting this event into two different segments.

The back half is going to be a standard debate.

this first half.

Our first 45 minutes or so, it's going to be a little bit like that, but with none of the guardrails, there's going to be no time limits.

There's no limits on rebuttals.

I can ask the candidates follow up questions.

The candidates can ask each other questions.

This is supposed to be a free flowing conversation, about issues pertaining to America's relationship, with other countries.

I'd like to start with a topic, that affects how the U.S., has relationship relations with every country around the world, and that's tariffs.

Both of you have been staunchly opposed to the president's, tariff policies.

Very early into your first term, you wrote a letter to you, co-wrote a letter to the editor, to the Spokesman-Review, expressing your opposition to tariffs.

So I'd like to just open by having you explain your your position on these.

Well, You know, the tariff issue and trade is really, really important for Eastern Washington.

We are one of the most trade dependent, states in the country.

Whether it is, are we two going down to our vital, snake River dams and out to the Pacific Rim or, the aerospace industry and aluminum, it's all mixed together.

In fact, just today, I hosted the Canadian consul general from Seattle, meeting with Greater Spokane incorporated to talk about, tariffs and trade, and its importance, you know, in what we want to do and understand these tariff issues.

And you to understand as well, too, is about the geopolitical makeup of where America is now in the world, to kind of understand where we are with tariffs.

So in a lot of it has to do with China.

So at the end of, the 90s, there was this idea that we could bring China into the global economy, treat them as responsible actor put them in the World Trade Organization, and that we would foster them to becoming more like us.

And unfortunately, what we've seen happen over the last 25 years, instead of China being a responsible actor, they've taken some critical industries away.

From the U.S., and they really seek to both dominate Asia and, a lesser extent, the globe in general, supplant America.

So what, you know, the Trump administration is trying to do, in a lot of us in Congress, actually, both sides are trying to do is make sure that we have the necessary critical industries and industrial base, to make sure that if we ever get into a conflict with China, which we certainly don't want.

But you know, the old saying, if you want to prepare, if you want peace, prepare for war.

I certainly don't want us in a war with China.

But if we have prepared for that, we need to look at critical industries, and like critical minerals in our industrial base.

So essentially, the goal is to move everything that it's critical back to the Western Hemisphere.

And to make sure that we have resilience, redundant sustainability, sustainability in that.

So what you're going to see across the board is essentially lower tariff rates, for countries that are geographically closer, to the United States.

And that's kind of the strategic interests, of the U.S.. And so, you know, the discussion with the Canadian consul general and the various business folks today.

And I had, had the ability to have lunch last week with U.S.

trade rep Jamison Greer.

And I told him I was going to be having that meeting.

And I said, you know, what would you like to say to these businessmen in, in Eastern Washington that have concerns like I do with the current, you know, the trade, scuffle with Canada at the moment, you know, and what he said to convey is that, look, we offered, the U.S.

offered Canada the best trade deal out of any country in the world.

And I'm very optimistic about the future of trade between the US and Canada because of the geopolitical realities.

It is unfortunate right now that, you know, there's some of this sideshow stuff with, Lake America.

You know, I don't think the 51st state stuff has been helpful, at all.

But, you know, bottom line is what we want from countries is predictable, stable, and fair trade rules, between all countries.

What do you think about that.

I think that's flimflam.

And I and I have to take issue and I'm sorry with with your initial introduction, that Mr.

Baumgartner and I both are opposed to tariffs because you can't go by letters to the editor or op eds.

If you've got somebody who's in Congress, you got to go by how they vote.

And Mr.

Baumgartner has voted seven times to continue chaos in the trade regime, to surrender congressional power over all income, which includes tariffs to the executive.

And the executive is used that tariff, the tariff power that that was surrendered by Mr.

Baumgartner and other Republicans in the House of Representatives in wildly chaotic ways that have harmed producers, consumers in Eastern Washington and that I'm opposed to.

And let me say, I mean, I was working I joined the State Department in, in 1996.

And I do remember when we brought China into the house and I worked with Bob Zelick, because I worked on trade related intellectual property and antitrust issues in the early 2000 and made a couple of trips to China to try to get them to protect intellectual property, to make sure that American artists and creatives were paid what they were entitled for, for their products.

But we did that in consultation with Congress, and there wasn't any way that we were going to force something through without Congress saying yes to it.

And so it's absurd to me for the congressman in an extremely trade benefited district in a very trade benefited state to co-write an opposition an op ed piece one month saying that tariffs are bad for farmers, they're bad for consumers, they're bad for other producers.

And then the next month, vote to give away the power over the tariff, the power of the purse to the executive and and that includes in February, when there was an opportunity to restore to normalcy our trade relationship with Canada.

Our nearest and I would argue our best neighbor that there was a bipartisan bill to return trade relations with Canada to the norm, to the North American Trade Agreement that President Trump negotiated and signed in his first term, when I was still with the State Department.

And that had some benefits for American manufacturing, that had some benefits for American labor even, to make sure that our partners in North America met some of the same labor standards that we require here of our manufacturers.

And so the the terrible irony of our representative telling a reporter from the Spokesman, and Emry I can't remember whether it was you or another Spokesman-Review reporter, Mr.

Baumgartner said, well, I know that tariffs are generally bad for trade.

And I asked speaker Mike Johnson what to do.

He asked me to vote against the bill, so I did.

That's a pretty remarkable pivot.

In a single question from a reporter.

Now, I do believe that there needs to be fair trade.

And I worked on a number of bilateral trade agreements during the Bush administration, because we do want to make sure that counterfeit drugs don't make it into our supply, that illegal drugs don't make it into our supply.

We want to make sure that there's nothing that's manufactured by slave labor, for example.

So I do believe in a fair trading system, but that system has to be negotiated and that the tariffs themselves have to be agreed to by Congress, not handed or wholesale to the executive, which just two weeks ago started what the Wall Street Journal called the stupidest trade war in history with Canada.

Mr.

Baumgartner I want to pitch this back to you, because I do remember that comment that you had said that you wanted to make sure that the president had leverage in negotiations.

What do you think the president has done with that leverage in the last two years?

You know, should, Miss Conroy get into the business You know, she would find out that, you know, there are real issues with Canada if you produce softwood lumber, you have concerns about, lumber getting dumped, into eastern Washington that cost us jobs here.

If you're somebody that's a dairy farmer, you have a lot of concerns about the fact that dairy products aren't allowed to be sold in Canada.

Like they should be.

Aluminum.

There are issues with.

So, again, everybody should have fair trade.

It should be predictable.

But there are real reasons for America to negotiate these, these trade deals, and make sure that, our industries are protected and our strategic interests are protected.

And I and I certainly support that.

But just to be clear, how do you, you had said at the time that you had made those votes against these resolutions, against the tariffs, because you wanted to provide the president leverage for negotiations?

Do you think that they have been successful?

Yeah, I primarily I think look, everybody knows President Trump, now from the 2015 cycle, people know who he is.

You know, he campaigned for office the first time, is a big fan of tariffs.

He didn't hide that from the American people.

He campaigned for office a second time, is a big fan of tariffs.

He didn't hide that from American people.

You know I think where the difference was between Trump one and Trump II was he came out with that Liberation Day, statements of this maximalist demands that he wanted to negotiate under.

And, and a lot of those things have now been reduced.

You would also say that, something that you should give the president a lot of credit for is using that threat of tariffs, in terms of both America's national security and the global security.

So, you know, these issues are complex.

And certainly giving President Trump the leverage to do that while still advocating underneath to get to the right policy.

I'm always going to fight for people in Eastern Washington, folks like the Vaagan brothers and Duane Vaagen and timber jobs up north, or Alex McGregor and farmers here.

Those are the people I work for.

And I'm going to do that to the best of my ability to get real outcomes.

I'm not running against Donald Trump.

I'm running against you, Michael Baumgartner.

Donald Trump is president and the Constitution gives the executive branch Article two powers, but it gives Article one powers to the House of Representatives and to the U.S.

Senate.

And in the vast apparatus of the federal government, there's only one person whose primary job is looking after the people, the businesses, everybody in Eastern Washington.

And that person is our congressman.

And so, before handing over to the president, all the tools that he claims to need, the first question ought to be, is this what is right for eastern Washington, eastern Washington winemakers lost 40% of their sales when Canada closed its doors to American wine and spirits all the way back in 2025.

And you were joking about not wanting Canada to be a US state.

But that's no way for somebody to be acting.

The president was claiming that Canada should be made another U.S.

state, and at the town hall meeting up at Whitworth, you said you wouldn't want that because they'd vote like Californians, which is hilarious.

But I think we need to take seriously the fact that that made Canadian Broadcast Corporation they were not happy about one of the congressional representatives of a border state joking about whether or not you wanted to be, you know, be in a relationship with them.

That's pretty rude, but I appreciated that.

I don't want me to relationship Canada.

I don't like Canada as a 51st state.

That was what I was saying.

But I was very happy to see that the point of the international coverage in Canada was that when the audience erupted in anger at that sort of mockery of our nearest and best neighbor, the Canadian Broadcasting Company noticed that the people of Washington state, the people of Eastern Washington, very much value our relationship with Canada.

And as we approach the 25th anniversary of September 11th, I think that it's important that we remember on September 11th, when we realized the horror that was unfolding in those terrorist attacks, Canada opened its airspace, and thousands and thousands of America found safe haven in America.

In Canada, they didn't ask for passports.

They didn't ask for anything.

They let people land safely.

While that terrible terrorist attack was unfolding.

We do have a tricky trade relationship with Canada, and I know that it always struck me.

It always struck me as odd that our trade leads the people who could focus specifically on trade were always mad at Canada.

It was like an episode of South Park.

Blame Canada, but they are our nearest and best neighbors.

We want to be able to visit them.

We want to be able to sell our products to them.

We had $1 billion a day trading relationship with Canada nationwide along the world's longest peaceful border.

And I want us to get back to that again, because that is what is in U.S.

interests.

I'd like to move on now.

We are now in the sixth month of the United States, and Israel is armed conflict in Iran.

I'd like to start with a question of definition, whether or not this should be considered a war.

Vice president JD Vance recently argued that we are not at war, and President Trump last week called the conflict, quote, small potatoes.

Are we at war?

Is this small potatoes?

I'd like to kick it to you first Miss Conroy If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

We are at war.

Ladies and gentlemen, whether we like it or not.

It's gone on for six months.

It's costing us about $1 billion a day.

We are on our third aircraft carrier battlegroup in the region to to prosecute this war.

And even if it isn't, as expansive as some previous wars have been, I hope to God it doesn't expand any further.

We are shooting.

We are finding targets.

We are sending men and women in uniform into harm's way.

It's a war.

Mr.

Baumgartner, Well, you know, the war has been going on for 47 years.

The Iranians have been chanting death to America since the revolution, you know the rules of Iran, have a jihadi mindset.

And, you know, their view is that their version of Shia Islam is going to sweep across, across not just Middle East, but across the entire globe.

And it's a messianic view.

It's extremely dangerous.

They have been chanting Death to America and they mean it, for 47 years, they have killed upwards of 2000 Americans during that time where it was bombing Marines in the barracks in Lebanon, in the 1980s, bombing the USS Cole or Khobar Towers, in the 90s, or, the roughly 1000 Americans, that their insurgent supported groups, killed in America and so are killed in when we were in Iraq.

So it's an extremely dangerous situation, you know, the question of whether it meets the congressional definition of war.

It still seems like it should, you know, but I would note to everyone that, when, Barack Obama attacked Libya in 2011, and drop bombs, American forces dropped bombs on Libya, for more than seven months.

Nancy Pelosi said it's not a war.

He doesn't need congressional authorization.

Now, Congress has authorized, the use of force, into something called an AuMf authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iran, as support for in any actors that support terrorism.

So they do fit under that definition.

That's an older definition.

I think it should be updated.

But I think what's more important than whether we get in the definitions is the policy that we're implementing.

There is so what how are we going to protect America?

You know, in the idea that Iran would having a nuclear weapon and it's not all the Iranian people.

There's about 90 million people in Iran.

We estimate between 80 to 85% of them are quite compatible with the West and would like to have a different government.

Any of you that no Iranian Americans here, in, in the U.S.

know that they're wonderful neighbors.

And and we definitely want a better future.

But that's not the guys, running the country.

And so for them to have a nuclear weapon would be like Osama bin laden or Hitler having a nuclear weapon.

That's extremely dangerous.

you know, we took this action, it's been very, very important that we've set their nuclear program back.

And I think we have a good strategy to keep them from getting nuclear weapons.

And then finally, I'll just say on this topic, these are nuclear weapons.

This is hundreds of millions of people dying.

This is as serious as it can get.

And not only is it dangerous to have jihadis like the Iranian leadership getting nuclear weapons, it would mean that Saudi Arabia would get nukes, Turkey would get nukes, UAE would get nukes.

Egypt we get nukes.

That is already a dangerous enough place without it being fully nuclear guys.

So this is really one of the most important foreign policy decisions that we could take.

And it's important that that it be successful.

How long are you willing, for us to be there.

What does success look like?

Is there a timeline?

How long does it go?

Well, how long is it worth to make sure that a bunch of jihadists that want to take us over and kill us don't get a nuclear weapon?

It's a top tier thing as long as it takes.

I do want to move on.

But first, Miss Conroy if you have anything to the follow up.

Well, that was a lot.

But one of the things I took out of it is, I think you're saying that Pete Hegseth lied last year when he said we had destroyed all of Iran's nuclear capacities.

And I think, again, please, no applause.

Thank you.

I also think that it is a mischaracterization to say that Iran has been at war on the United States for 47 years.

want to turn now to the question of the United States relationship with the nation of Israel, which has proven controversial for both political parties.

Mr.

Baumgartner, I've heard from some of your voter base, that argue that we entered into this conflict that has cost American lives on behalf of Israel.

You've been an unwavering supporter of both Israel and the Iran war.

Why are those members of your party wrong?

Look, we need to have policies in the Middle East that are in America's interest.

That should be our guiding principle.

Now, America, Israel as a democracy, Western leaning that backs America, that shares technology with us, that has a rich cultural tradition with many Jewish Americans.

It is in America's interest to have a strong relationship there.

Israel is still also still recovering from these horrific attacks of October 7th and the Hamas attacks, Hamas, supported by Iran.

And and so, yeah, the American Israeli relationship is strong.

You know, one of the things that we're actually benefiting from, from the Israelis, they have had so many missiles and drones shot at them.

They have better missile defense technology in some specific areas than we do.

So we're learning from them.

We're building on that.

So, you know, I don't think at this time of, of, of challenging situation in the Middle East, that we should be walking back from relationship with Israel because it's in America's interest.

But there's also this very vile, very vile threat of anti-Semitism running through both some aspects of the Democratic Party and some aspects of my own Republican Party, you know, and it needs to be called out.

And so if you're against, if you're against U.S., involvement in Israel, sure.

Advocate for that.

You know, that's your right to do that.

I would say it's in the U.S.

interest because it has to do so.

But if you're trafficking in conspiracy theories like Tucker Carlson or some of the vile stuff, on the left from Hassan Piker in these people, that promote Hamas and say America deserve nine over 11.

You know, you should be ashamed.

And we're not going to stand up for that either.

Miss Conroy, your views on Israel and Palestine appear to have changed significantly in the last couple of years and 2024, when I asked you whether the U.S.

should recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation, you said no, or you didn't have a stable central government during this campaign, you've said the Palestine should be recognized in 2024.

You said the U.S.

should not cut off military funding to Israel this summer.

You said that they should and that Israel is no longer our partner.

What's changed?

The facts on the ground have changed.

Now.

On October 7th, 2023, I was in New York at a sort of a political salon, and there were a lot of Jewish American people in the room.

And when those attacks started happening, there were people in the room who were in real time, getting updates from loved ones in Israel who were under attack.

And it was horrifying.

And having been a career diplomat through six presidential administrations, Republican as well as Democrat, United States support for Israel in the defense of Israel has been unwavering.

And in early 2024, within the first six months after that attack, I was still very sympathetic to Israel's right of defense, and that if the United States did not continue to extend its defense umbrella over Israel, it ran the risk of a broader Middle Eastern war, which I would not want to see.

We're now getting close to the third anniversary of those attacks, and it appears that we are seeing ethnic cleansing and war crimes that are being conducted by the State of Israel against its own citizens.

And we cannot allow our long standing relationship with Israel, our defense of Israel, to become a shield behind which Israel can hide.

If the administration in charge is committing crimes against humanity.

I do want to clarify now.

Sorry.

So I'm going to go to the recognition of the Palestinian state, if I could.

I do want to clarify something you just said there.

Ethnic cleansing.

You were recently heckled by left wing voters because he refused to say that Israel was committing a genocide, though you have said in this in other settings that the nation is engaged in an ethnic cleansing, what exactly is the difference?

Well, the difference is the impact in the diplomatic world.

And if because of the two tools that are available, in international relations, if I go into a room, as a member of a national government and use the word genocide, that means that I am laying the the verbal groundwork for an invasion, a review change, war crimes, trials and executions, that is the import of that specific word.

And that's why I personally avoid using it, although I understand why, activists and advocates for the Palestinian cause might want to use that.

The president has captured Nicolas Maduro, the leader of a sovereign nation, and destroyed disabled boats that were allegedly smuggling drugs off their shore, killing everyone on board.

Do you believe that the US has acted appropriately and legally when it comes to Venezuela?

And I'm going to start again with you, Miss Conroy.

Using military personnel and military weapons to execute people suspected of crimes is called extrajudicial killings.

That violates international law, that violates American law.

And I do not think that we should be doing that.

Mr.

Baumgartner.

Well, I used to do some work in Venezuela.

I know the country, fairly well.

You know, Venezuela used to be the richest country in South America.

It was taken over by a socialist, radical, left wing dictator, Hugo Chavez, who then passed his terrible regime on to Francisco Maduro.

Under those, those radical socialist, Venezuela had become a hotbed of, not just radical leftism, but it was a hotbed of, Cuba, Russia, China and Iran.

The Venezuelan government was actually granting Venezuelan passports to Hezbollah, a terrorist group backed by Iran.

And if you compare what we did in Iran to our strategy in Iraq, we were there for over ten years, 4500 Americans died.

We were spending $12 billion a month.

If you'd have told me that we could have done the same strategy in Venezuela, or the same strategy in Iraq that we just did in Venezuela to knock out the top leader, get out those, those nefarious foreign elements that are anti-American, and now open it up to American investment.

It is absolutely in the U.S.

interest.

What is happening, then again, to secure the Western Hemisphere and to take, Venezuela from a hotbed of anti-Americanism because security threats to us now, to a country that could potentially be an ally.

Yeah.

It's something every American should support.

We should be very grateful what happened in Venezuela.

Are there any other foreign leaders we should arrest?

Can I respond, please, Emry?

Sure.

Well, we'll end with, we'll end with your response.

So, I'm very distressed to hear you cover for the corruption of what appears to be happening to the oil industry in Israel or in Venezuela.

Sorry.

It is not appropriate for the United States to go in and knock over weak governments and put, put, people in charge and run their industries into the ground.

We don't know what's happening with that money.

There have been investigations, there have been questions, and there's apparently some sort of an offshore fund that's been set up.

Instead of it coming into the United States and being properly accounted for.

And that's all a very fancy way of saying we're a big and powerful country, and we can knock over weak countries because we can “might makes right” is not the American way.

It's not what our founding fathers had in mind.

And I think it's terrible that you're providing that sort of cover to our administrations, toppling another country in our hemisphere and the impact that that is having on other countries in how they view the United States is not building our prestige.

It's draining it.

Every time we do something that violates international laws and norms, which we helped establish following World War two, because we could see that powerful nations conquering other ones was a way to destruction and world wars and a way to peace and prosperity, which we have overwhelmingly benefited from as a nation, is what we helped established following World War Two, which the Greatest Generation fought on our behalf.

I appreciate you all for taking the For the second half of our event, we're going to be kicking it into the standard debate format.

Now, as the result of the coin flip in the back, the first question is going to be pitch to Mr.

Baumgartner first.

some of these questions are going to be kicks to both of the candidates.

They are going to, get 60s each to answer them and then 30s each to rebut, follow up, elaborate, what have you.

First, Mr.

Baumgartner, the American West has been continually and increasingly devastated by wildfires in recent years, most recently on August 1st, when three fires ripped through communities in and around Spokane.

What role, if any, does Congress have in helping to prepare or protect the West for future fires?

Well thank you.

Yeah, we've all experienced, fires in eastern Washington, but now nothing like we experienced, in these terrible, attacks, of, of last month.

And I really appreciate our community coming together.

And, you know, the work that we've done in Congress, working with, Governor Ferguson, Senator Cantwell, Mayor Lisa Brown, you know, and and we're doing that, you know, we're not Republicans or Democrats.

We're just folks trying to do what's right .

We need to bring our fuel loads down, in our western forests.

You know, I'm the son of a forestry professor and the nephew of a smokejumper.

And I worked for the forest services, in the summers when I was in college.

And we have an unbalanced forest.

And so we have some important legislation that would help bring down fuel loads.

And then, of course, we're going to do everything we can to support, FEMA recovery, support.

I was pleased when President Trump, gave, FEMA support to the floods in western Washington.

I was actually in the white House, the Christmas party, when that was going on, advocated for that.

And, also just want to give a quick shout out to Walt Worthy about that generous donation he has made.

And it's just been great for our Community.

Be super important to restore funding to FEMA.

And I will note that Mr.

Baumgartner voted well, voted twice to keep FEMA from getting money that should have been available for emergency services, and allowed that money to instead be redirected to Ice so that they could put that in to funding, detention centers for immigrants.

That money needed to be available for emergency services.

The El Nino, was forecast well in advance.

We've seen about every three years.

We don't get summer, we get smog season.

And unfortunately, about 800 of our neighbors lost their homes here in Spokane.

And it wasn't just here in Spokane.

In Rosalia, there were fires in Walla Walla.

There's a fire this ongoing that's threatening their watershed.

We have got to restore funding for, for climate change.

We've got to do what we can to stop our our worsening climate and weather, and we've got to restore funding for FEMA, Mr.

Baumgartner and 30s.

Well, I'll finish my shout out to Walt Worthy for his very generous donation.

To our community.

We know a lot of folks are suffering, right now from those fires.

Yeah.

You know, our office is doing a lot of work on it and just really appreciate everybody in the community for stepping out, you know, the toughest times on Eastern Washington.

Bring out the best of this, folks.

And this is going to be an and ongoing issue.

Certainly, I'll do everything I can do, to support, folks suffering from these fires.

And, but, but really, I just appreciate the community, Miss Conroy.

30s.

So just again, the previous Congresses, put forth money, authorized money for FEMA's use to respond to emergency situations.

Mr.

Baumgartner used his article one powers to hand that money back to DHS, to use it in law enforcement and detention, basically creating concentration camps rather than being able to respond to emergencies.

And that is a crying shame Miss Conroy you're going to be answering, this next question first, and it's a question tailored to you.

You've suggested raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap to address the funding gap for Social Security.

By 2032, the Social Security fund is expected to no longer have enough money to pay out full benefits, resulting in a projected 22% cut in payments.

For those that don't know, the Social Security payroll tax rate of 6.2% is only paid on the first $184,500 of earned income annually.

I apologize, folks, it's complicated.

And if you earn more money beyond that, you don't pay more in taxes.

You have suggested raising or eliminating that tax cap, but that would only eliminate even if you got rid of the cap entirely.

Two thirds of that gap.

Would you raise taxes on working class Americans to cover the rest?

Wow.

I don't see that as a tax raise.

What I see that is, tax fairness.

My nieces and nephews are firefighters, corrections officers, public school teachers, and they pay a 6.2% Social Security tax on 100% of their incomes.

But that means that an attorney.

I got nothing against attorneys.

I used to be one, but that means that an attorney who makes three quarters of $1 million a year pays less than 2% of his income toward Social Security.

I would scrap the cap so that very high income wage earners are paying the same percentage of their income into Social Security as low income wage earners.

The other thing that I would do is note that Mr.

Baumgartner twice voted to do things that undercut the Social Security trust fund.

One of the things that he did was vote to give a tax breaks to high income Social Security recipients, and those tax breaks take up to $6,000 per person out of the Social Security trust fund.

The other thing is kind of like that for right now, Mr.

Baumgartner and 30s.

Yeah, one of the the really great things we did in Congress this year is we gave 88% of seniors about a $6,000, deduction on, on Social Security.

You know, you heard President Trump talk about no taxes on Social Security.

It's not exactly that.

It's about 88% of folks.

So I don't, support, increasing, taxes on Social Security recipients, like my opponent apparently does.

You know, I do think we may need to look not at current members because it's, for current folks, Social Security to take a promise, but for new folks, we may need to look at the age, eligibility.

People are living longer, but not raising taxes in this country.

I do want to follow up.

Your answer addressed that.

The the tax cap, but that would only if you eliminated that cover two thirds of the funding gap.

How would you cover the last third?

I'm not sure that's right.

But one of the things that I would do would be to, take the people who are currently being held in concentration camps for immigrants, aside from the people who've been accused of crimes, everybody else should be returned to their communities and the jobs that they were working, if they had jobs to return to and had work permits because immigrants never take out of Social Security.

But if they're working, they all contribute to it.

And the the group that the calculation has gone right.

That's time.

Mr.

Baumgartner, would you like another 30s?

Well, Social Security is extremely important, you know, as a safety net, to folks have been working to have that sense of security.

We need to protect it again.

Maybe looking at the age for for new folks going out of the program while maintaining the promise to folks there.

And then, you know, while Social Security does have this described fund, it also is just a line over in the budget.

So, you know, we need to make sure it's a priority, to find and I'm sure Congress will it will take a bipartisan approach, to do that.

But I'm confident Congress will be able to do so.

I do want to ask Mr.

Baumgartner, you have run ads this year saying, quote, no matter what scary stories politicians try to tell, Social Security and Medicare and not getting cut, Social Security and Medicare are sacred promises to our seniors, and I'll defend them always again.

By 2032, Social security is headed towards a funding gap.

What have you done in the last two years to defend that sacred promise?

So, again Social Security Very important.

Well, again, it's described as a trust fund.

It is just a line item in the budget.

So as Congress is building budgets in bipartisan fashion, that's something that they will have to fund.

You know, one of things we've done this year that I think is extremely important is we've actually strengthened Medicaid and food stamps, by saving money, by making sure that illegal.

So who shouldn't be in the country or off those programs and then putting work requirements on those programs.

Excuse me.

So, you know, the American people are very generous, but they don't like to be bamboozled and scammed.

And if you have seen what's gone on in Minnesota and some of these places around, there's been rampant waste, fraud and abuse, in some of our social safety net programs, you know, people are rightly, rightfully outraged.

So, again, work requirements for folks, to be on, to be on assistance to something that saves money is very popular with American people.

Again, we're generous, but we we want to make sure that people are putting forth an effort in both those measures we've taken to strengthen those programs and ultimately, the kind of steps we need to make sure that to make sure that these programs are around.

It's not just a line item in a budget.

It's something that every working person pays into and deserves to have the benefit of for a dignified retirement at the end of their working lives.

And, Mr.

Baumgartner is I believe, intentionally mixing different pots of money and different sorts of benefits to try to confuse people about what he's done to undercut access to Social Security.

And we'll deal with more in the next question.

Mr.

Baumgartner, you have on several occasions expressed support for Haitian asylum seekers living in your district, saying that they are important, contributing members of our community.

And while you believe that the president should have the authority to revoke their protective status, you hope that he wouldn't at this time.

What have you done in Congress to try to keep these people in the country?

And what would you say to members of your own party here in Spokane who are disappointed that they haven't been deported more quickly?

Well, we need to have, thank you for the important question.

And, you know, there's a lot of folks that are important, parts of our community that are immigrants.

My wife and I have done extensive work, with, some of the Afghan folks that we worked with, in Helmand province, to try to support them, coming to the U.S.

and we have a lot of, folks here from the Ukrainian community and others.

The important thing is we need to get Congress making laws on these issues.

And one of the challenges of every time there's an executive action, like when President Obama did DACA or when there's a, asylum.

granted, then it takes a part, one part of the forcing function to try to get Congress to work together on what's a very complex set of policies.

And so, you know, when it comes to immigration, one of the challenges there have been, while you haven't had to have comprehensive immigration reform, is that it has taken, some of the key ingredients and stakeholders out of it.

So I want to see Congress, make these rules not have been done by, executive order.

And that's where we need, need to be on these projects, Miss Conroy.

30 seconds.

Which is very nice in theory, but the way that Mr.

Baumgartner has used his votes is that he, after these executive orders have dropped, he goes running around after them to turn them into legislation.

That is not what article one is supposed to do.

What we should be doing in Congress is making sure that the executive acts, according to the law.

And so instead of bragging at a Rippon group event that you've had a secret lunch with former A.G., Pam Bondi and the white House to support their immigration policies in this country, you ought to be holding them accountable.

Miss Conroy.

In 2024, you supported a bill that would have significantly increased funding for border security, made it possible to more quickly deport migrants, and give the Department of Homeland Security more authority over asylum cases.

In a forum this summer, you said Congress needs to dismantle and behead the Department of Homeland Security.

What changed?

I don't remember supporting that bill.

The bipartisan immigration bill Okay.

Senator Langford's bill, which President Trump said that encouraged Republican members of Congress to oppose.

Okay.

Yeah.

The difference would have been then that, had Congress funded and allowed DHS to actually reform immigration so that there was a speedier process for people to get through the system.

That would have been great.

What happened instead is that, the Republican members of Congress and decided that they were not going to solve the problem, even though there was a there was bipartisan support for that law.

But I do not believe that that included making DHS the largest law enforcement agency in the country, that it would have required all of our border security assets to be pulled away from the border to terrorize members of our communities who've lived here for decades.

I oppose that.

Mr.

Baumgartner.

30 seconds.

Well, there was absolute, debacle and lawlessness at the border.

A lot of that has been fixed.

I always haven't liked the way that, ICE is carried out, some of their operations.

I was concerned with what happened in Minnesota, but by and large, we went from 15 to 20 million people entering the country unlawfully to now zero, getaways, the last 16 months.

So the main reason that Republicans were put in charge was to clean up the border issue and all the fentanyl and child trafficking that was going on.

And I think largely it's been successful.

Again, we need to have compassion when we deal with these cases.

We need to be a country of laws.

This country, the cost of living has only gotten more expensive compared to real wages in the last two years.

What should Congress do to help Americans who are struggling to make ends meet?

Stop the trade chaos?

That would be a big one right then and there.

It would also boost incomes because our farmers could potentially regain the markets that they've lost in this chaos that's happened over the last almost two years.

We could also stop the war in Iran.

That has choked off a couple of important trade routes, especially for oil, and boosted prices for oil, gas, groceries, fertilizer.

I was out in Ritzville this last weekend, and diesel was $7.20 a gallon.

There was a guy behind me, in the grocery store lot who admired my hybrid pickup truck, and I told him I got almost 50 miles to the gallon.

He said, oh, I'm getting 18.

I haven't been able to fill my 30 gallon tank in months.

So those prices are hitting people hard.

Congress has the power to stop it by using the power of the purse and taking back power over tariffs, restoring the the tariff regime that that was in place when Mr.

Baumgartner took office.

Mr.

Baumgartner a minute.

Well thank you.

You know, this Congress has done a lot to try to make life more affordable, particularly for working families.

You know, we passed legislation on no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on interest on American made cars.

We talked about the support we gave for seniors for the $6,000 on average for, for folks on Social Security.

One of my favorite things we did was create child investment accounts for every new child born in America, gets seated with $1,000 or equivalent of a Roth IRA.

And even if you aren't going to have a newborn or a child under four that's eligible for that, you should look at establishing that for your child under under age 18.

Another great thing we did to make life more affordable is we actually passed the $1,700, essentially education voucher credit that, every student in America could use for public school, private school, charter schools, home schools, or tutoring.

The challenge with that is that the governor of each state has stopped in, Democrat governors like Polis and the governor of New York have opted in.

And so far, Bob Ferguson has not I encourage you to call Bob and get him opt into that program, because every family could use that.

Miss Conroy?

Yeah, the tips on And over time, those are not eliminating taxes.

Those are temporary deductions that are going to expire in two years.

The application for the $1,000, child child grant by filling out form 4547, you've got to apply for it specifically.

That's not automatically granted.

And those voucher credits will absolutely undercut funding for especially rural public school districts.

But public school education for all, all children.

And we cannot afford that in our largely working class district.

Mr.

Baumgartner Another issue I touch on, you know, everybody that, lives on the Idaho border like we does is how much cheaper gas is in Idaho.

In part, that's because a very a very foolish law passed called the Climate Commitment Act, out of Olympia, when things that, that Olympia could do right now is to rescind that act.

And that would help our gas prices, here considerably.

But in general, for Congress Im very proud of what we've done for those tax cuts, and then also for the investments we've made and again, for our farmers, very pleased the support we gave and proud to be supported by the Farm Bureau and farmers all across eastern Washington.

Miss Conroy Forgive me if I missed something, but I mostly heard answers that talked about rolling back something from the Trump era.

Is there something new that you would do to improve affordability for Americans other than to undo something?

The main thing I would do is it is, pass a federal minimum wage that is actually a living minimum wage.

We know that we pay we as taxpayers pay about $2 billion a year towards, supporting full time workers at Amazon and Walmart, the two largest private sector employers in the country, because they don't pay people enough for them to live and they play states against each other.

So a worker in Idaho makes about $10 an hour less than a worker in Washington state this quarter.

I apologize, the timer should be 30s Mr.

Baumgartner 30s.

Yeah, just one of the really cool thing we did.

There was a really foolish requirement that every manufactured home had to have a physical chassis under it.

That's why a lot of manufactured homes have to be like up.

And that cost increases the cost about $15,000 on an average home.

It's not needed.

So we remove that that chassis requirement.

So that's going to allow more manufactured housing, to bring costs down.

Also in, we passed, we extended permanently low income tax credit, which will create about a million, new low income housing units across the country is another thing to help affordability.

Mr.

Baumgartner, should Congress restrict access to gender transitioning medical medical interventions, otherwise known as gender affirming care for minors?

I think we certainly should.

You know, I don't think anybody should have, having that being done to their body, under the age of 18, you know, as they get into adulthood and they want to make those decisions.

But, you know, the teenage years can be so confusing, for folks as they're going through puberty and these things and, you know, some of the stories we've heard out from folks or survivors that have gone through this process and they've had, you know, important body parts, you know, physically removed by, by doctors, it's extremely, extremely concerning.

So, no, I do not think any child, should go through, physical gender transitioning with the drugs or, you know, God forbid, getting something cut off, at that young age.

Miss Conroy, a minute, could you repeat the question?

Should Congress restrict access to gender transitioning medical interventions, otherwise known as gender affirming care for minors?

Yeah.

It should stop Pete Hegseth from injecting minors in the military with testosterone.

I think that's a bad idea.

I don't really believe that.

That it is none of Congress's business, to get between doctors and patients.

And I do remember that the last time around, Mr.

Baumgartner promised to let Washington state law stand with respect to reproductive rights, with respect to we didn't talk about gender care, but since that's the question, that should be up to the to local decision makers.

But really, it ought to be up to patients and their doctors.

And with respect to minors, I do think that parents should have a say in that.

And typically they are, and it would be only by a court order that parents were harming their children that that would prevent that from happening.

So, you know, we're just came out that ectopic pregnancy deaths are have doubled over the last four years.

It's tragic.

Mr.

Baumgartner.

30s.

Yeah.

If you meet with some of the survivors that have gone through these processes where they feel like, you know, in their teenage years that they were duped or coerced or just made a bad decision.

You know, it's impact them for the rest of their lives.

So, yeah, I, you know, in response to question, I fully support, Congress taking steps.

I voted that way to make sure that, no child goes through, coerced sexual transition.

So, you know, if they want to do that in their adulthood, that's up to them.

But for kids should be left alone.

Miss Conroy.

30s.

Well, I meant you heard him.

He he doesn't want parents and their kids and their doctors to make decisions.

I'm not a doctor.

I don't play one on TV.

Neither does he.

Those decisions should be left to the people closest to close to that child, closest to that family, and to the medical experts who know how to deal with gender affirming care.

And I'm guessing that many of us in this room are using some sort of gender affirming care, with hormone therapy or whatever else we need to feel fully ourselves.

Has gone right.

Our next question is about data centers.

Both the city of Spokane and Spokane County have approved moratoriums on the development of data centers amid community concerns about their impacts on the environment, people's pocketbooks and public health.

Do you think this caution is merited and should Congress get involved?

I do think that that the caution is merited.

The the a stretch of the Spokane River, where I used to enter tube when I was a kid was dry this summer, over a mile of the Spokane River.

Out in the valley.

It's terrifying.

And I'm grateful that Avista let us all know that there was a potential user that was going to use more electricity and more water than everybody who already lives here.

And shame on Commissioner Al French, who apparently knew that as well and hid that from us.

So I do think that the the government, the the city counties, local state governments closest to the issues should be free to make the decisions that they need to protect the well-being of their citizens.

And Congress should not get involved in that.

And if I remember correctly, Mr.

Baumgartner proposed a bill that would have prevented local governments from making those decisions themselves and would have forced us to wait for Congress to act.

Mr.

Baumgartner a minute.

So the legislation I proposed would make sure that no community has a data center forced into it that doesn't want it.

You know, these need to be community led discussions, and no one should have their electricity rates or water rates increased, to subsidize, you know, a data center, you know, and that's where the industry needs to get to go.

I think a lot of people have a lot of well-founded concerns about the future of artificial intelligence, what it means for our workforce, what it means for our ethics, and what it means for our security.

None of us want to be living under robot warlords.

Also, we have to recognize that we are in a race with China where they have, a they're rapidly developing supercomputer technology.

And there are some benefits from this technology.

You know, last week I was reading about, earlier diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, through the ability to use supercomputing to bring data together and look at these things.

So these need to be community led conversations, you know?

But right now, I think voters and taxpayers have a lot of well-founded concern.

And it is appropriate for people to take a bit of a pause to make sure that they understand these issues.

And the industry needs to step forward to explain how it's going to happen.

Miss Conroy 30 seconds I think that they're good uses for AI and and medical diagnostics is definitely one of them.

But I also know that I open up my computer and I no longer get a choice of whether my information goes to a cloud or it stays right on my computer.

I open up my phone and I don't have a choice that I can figure out myself for whether AI gets between me and the email that I want to send or not.

So the the tech pros who stood behind the president as inauguration are running things their way.

We need to be able to take a stand against them.

Mr.

Baumgartner 30s just that, you know, this issue of AI, and particularly the ethics and morals behind it, is just going to be extremely important, not just for members of Congress, you know, but for our society.

I am very concerned right now that political campaigns are using AI to run essentially a campaigns putting words the people mouth or doing a recreation of that.

I think that should be banned, and outlawed.

And so there's a lot of things, there's a lot of benefits, but also a lot of concerns.

And ultimately, you know, Americans are moral and ethical and fair people.

And we need to understand that, make sure these technologies are used in that way as well.

Mr.

Baumgartner, that's time.

I do want to ask, as a follow up, you recently shared a political cartoon that was made by AI one of your, primary opponents, Nate Powell.

How does that match your your statements here?

Well, yes, I used a static cartoon that was very similar to how you would use a cartoon in a Sunday newspaper.

Well, the videos I'm talking about is if you were to make a video of an opponent and have them saying things, there are some videos about James Talarico in, in Texas up on the air right now, which I, I don't think should be running, where they're taking things, he said.

But recreating him, in a voice.

So, yeah.

Look, a static cartoon that's black and white made it in satire.

You know, I don't have a problem with that, but actually making it look like, someone is, is doing something.

This again, should have been a :30 clock.

Miss Conroy, do you do you have a follow up?

Yeah.

I It's hurtful to have people using AI to make you look uglier, look worse, say things that you would never say.

And, that should that should not be permitted.

I don't think that should be permitted in political or any other kind of advertising.

People ought to be able to trust what they see, and there's less and less confidence in that now.

Unfortunately, it looks like we are running out of time.

So, we're going to turn to closing statements.

If I remember correctly, Miss Conroy, you won the coin toss, so you're going to go second.

So that means, Mr.

Baumgartner, you have 60s.

Look, I love getting to be your member of Congress.

It's a lot of work.

But I love eastern Washington.

You know, I was born in Pullman, raised in Colton, had the privilege of going to school here in Spokane and, went to WSU, called to do something bigger, spent a year doing volunteer work with the Jesuits in Mozambique, and then went to Harvard, for my masters and, spent a lot of time in the Middle East.

But this is home.

Eleanor and I, met in Afghanistan, roughly 17 years ago, and, never knew I met the love of my life there.

But, we now have five beautiful children, and, we love Eastern Washington.

You know, as you do this job, I would just ask everybody, you know, to think that, you know, we're all Americans at the end of the day.

And the only thing that I can stop, this wonderful country of ours, is if we get so politically divided.

So, you know, Carmela Conroy, we have differences.

Some of you have difference with me.

But we're not enemies.

We're not enemies.

We're all Americans at the end of the day.

And it is a privilege to get to be a member of Congress.

And I ask for your vote, and hopefully I'll be lucky enough to get to continue to do it for another two years.

Miss Conroy, I agree that we're not enemies, but I also believe that we've got very different ideas about what we would do in Congress.

And we've had two years to watch you raise our prices, cut our cost, our farmers, their markets, put our 11 rural critical access hospitals at risk by cuts to Medicaid, tying people up with in red tape so that students can't get access to loans.

And that is not what we need.

I'm a third generation Eastern Washingtonian.

My parents met.

My grandparents met at a Palouse wheat harvest.

My grandpa worked on the Grand Coulee Dam.

My parents raised us kids here in Spokane and in the Spokane Valley.

Dad worked for the railroad, and I was the first person in my family to go to college.

I put myself through school, and then I came back, and I was a deputy prosecutor here in Spokane County in the last of my four years there at that office, I prosecuted people who sexually abused children.

So they've got a real tough spot in my heart for people who defend people who violate children.

I apologize.

That's and I hope to have your vote.

Miss Conroy.

Mr.

Baumgartner, I thank you for taking the time tonight.

Thank you all for coming out.

And that's our show.

(audience applause)