����vlog

LANDOWNERS THAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY PROTECT SHOULD BE EXPOSED TO LIABILITY ISSUES CAUSED BY A MULTIBILLION DOLLAR PIPELINE. AN OUTCRY OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS. LANDOWNERS OUTRAGED AFTER GOVERNOR KIM REYNOLDS VETOES A CONTROVERSIAL EMINENT DOMAIN BILL. WHY SOME IOWANS SAY THAT PUTS THEIR LIVELIHOODS AT RISK. WE WILL SUFFER THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON’T STAY ON THE CUTTING EDGE. SOME SAY THE VETO BRINGS A FLOOD OF RELIEF. WHY THE BIOFUELS INDUSTRY IS CELEBRATING THE DECISION, AND HOW THE ISSUE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS WILL INFLUENCE THE 2026 ELECTION. THIS IS IOWA’S NEWS LEADER. THIS IS ����vlog EIGHT NEWS. CLOSE UP. GOOD MORNING AND THANKS FOR JOINING US FOR ����vlog EIGHT NEWS CLOSE UP. I’M CHIEF POLITICAL REPORTER AMANDA ROOKER. LAST WEEK, GOVERNOR KIM REYNOLDS SPARKED A FLOOD OF REACTION WHEN SHE VETOED A CONTROVERSIAL EMINENT DOMAIN BILL. THIS BILL WAS YEARS IN THE MAKING, AND IT STALLED THE END OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION. SOME REPUBLICAN SENATORS DEFIED THEIR OWN GOP LEADERSHIP, REFUSING TO VOTE ON BUDGETS UNTIL THIS BILL WAS BROUGHT UP FOR A VOTE, AND IT BARELY PASSED THE SENATE. IT WOULD HAVE PUT NEW RESTRICTIONS ON HOW COMPANIES CAN TAKE PEOPLE’S LAND THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN TO BUILD THEIR PIPELINE PROJECTS. IT CAME AFTER YEARS OF TENSION OVER A PROPOSED $8.9 BILLION CARBON CAPTURE PIPELINE THAT SUMMIT CARBON SOLUTIONS WANTS TO BUILD THROUGH IOWA AND OTHER STATES. THE GOVERNOR TOOK ISSUE WITH PORTIONS OF THE BILL THAT ADDED INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AND A 25 YEAR LIMIT ON A PIPELINE’S PERMIT. IN A LETTER EXPLAINING HER DECISION, SHE SAYS IT SETS A TROUBLING PRECEDENT THAT THREATENS IOWA’S ENERGY RELIABILITY AND ECONOMY. REPUBLICAN HOUSE SPEAKER PAT GRASSLEY IS NOW ASKING STATE LAWMAKERS TO RECONVENE FOR A SPECIAL SESSION TO OVERRIDE THE GOVERNOR’S VETO ON THIS BILL. NOW, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY IN BOTH CHAMBERS. THAT’S UNLIKELY. WITHOUT ENOUGH SUPPORT IN THE SENATE. STILL, MANY IOWA LANDOWNERS SAY THEIR FIGHT IS NOT OVER. I FEEL LIKE SHE’S THROWN US UNDER THE BUS AND HAS SIDED WITH WEALTHY CORPORATE INTERESTS IN THE STATE OF IOWA FOR YEARS. LANDOWNERS LIKE JULIE GLADE HAVE BEEN ASKING STATE LAWMAKERS TO STOP PRIVATE PIPELINE COMPANIES FROM TAKING THEIR LAND WITHOUT CONSENT. THEY THOUGHT THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION WOULD FINALLY BRING THAT CHANGE UNTIL THE GOVERNOR STEPPED IN. GOVERNOR REYNOLDS, YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOT THAT THE PURPOSE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IS THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT, NOT A PRIVATE ENTITY, TO TAKE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE, FOR PUBLIC USE. THE BILL WOULD HAVE ADDED NEW INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, A 25 YEAR PERMIT LIMIT FOR CARBON CAPTURE PIPELINES, AND STRICTER RULES AROUND THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN. AFTER GOVERNOR REYNOLDS VETOED THE BILL, THE GOVERNOR SAID SHE DOES SUPPORT PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT HAS TO PROTECT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. IOWA LANDOWNERS SAY THAT JUSTIFICATION FALLS FLAT. GOVERNOR REYNOLDS, EXACTLY. HAVE YOU DONE IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS TO PROTECT A SINGLE LANDOWNER AFFECTED BY SUMMIT CARBON SOLUTIONS PROPOSED PROJECT? A TRUE LEADER STEPS IN WHEN A PROBLEM ARISES. AND YOU, GOVERNOR REYNOLDS, DID NOTHING. THE LEGACY YOU LEAVE BEHIND IS ONE OF BOWING DOWN TO BIG BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE OF IOWANS. MANY SAY THE VETO PUTS THEIR LIVELIHOODS AT RISK WITHOUT HF. 639 AND THE LIABILITY PROTECTIONS IT WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IF A RUPTURE WOULD OCCUR ON OUR PROPERTY AND SOMEONE WOULD BE HURT, WE COULD BE SUED FOR DAMAGES. WE COULD LOSE OUR ENTIRE FARM. EMOTIONS RAN HIGH AT THURSDAY’S PRESS CONFERENCE, WHERE SOME SPEAKERS ACCUSED THE GOVERNOR OF SIDING WITH CORPORATE INTERESTS OVER EVERYDAY IOWANS. GOVERNOR REYNOLDS STATES. WE ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF TURNING CORN INTO LOW CARBON ENERGY. BUT AT WHAT COST, GOVERNOR? THE COST OF THE LOSS OF INSURABILITY, THE COST OF LOWERED LAND VALUES, THE COST OF SAFETY TO HUMANS, ANIMALS AND OUR ECOSYSTEM. I PERSONALLY FIND IT INSULTING THAT GOVERNOR REYNOLDS CONTINUES TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT IOWA FARMERS ARE BUSINESSES. BUSINESSES THAT THE IOWA ECONOMY HAS RELIED ON FOR A COUPLE OF CENTURIES. STATE REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN HOLT HELPED LEAD THE BILL. THIS FIGHT IS FAR FROM OVER, AND IT HAS EXPOSED, UNFORTUNATELY, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT I WILL CALL COUNTRY CLUB REPUBLICANS AND GRASSROOTS REPUBLICANS WHO RESPECT LANDOWNER RIGHTS. HE’S NOT HOLDING BACK ON HIS FRUSTRATION WITH THE GOVERNOR. HE CALLS THE VETO A DISINGENUOUS BETRAYAL OF THE IOWA CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PLATFORM OF IOWA AND OF THE LANDOWNERS OF IOWA WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR FOUR YEARS TO TRY TO PROTECT THEIR BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. HOLT SAYS HE ALERTED GOVERNOR REYNOLDS TO THE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE YEARS AGO. HE SAYS WHEN HOUSE FILE 639 WAS SENT TO HER DESK, HE ASKED HER TO SHARE HER CONCERNS AND OFFERED TO DISCUSS CHANGES IN FUTURE SESSIONS. WHEN WE WERE RUNNING A HOUSE. FILE 639 THIS SPECIFIC BILL THROUGH SUBCOMMITTEE, THROUGH COMMITTEE AND THROUGH FLOOR DEBATE. NEVER ONE TIME DID I HEAR FROM HER OFFICE OVER THE CONCERNS THAT SHE EXPRESSED IN HER VETO STATEMENT, WHERE WERE HER BILLS? WHERE WERE HER IDEAS? IF SHE SHARES THE GOAL OF PROTECTING LANDOWNERS, LANDOWNERS SAY THE VETO DOES NOT END THEIR FIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO BE A HIGH PRIORITY ISSUE ELECTION ISSUE FROM HERE ON OUT. THE FIGHT FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WILL CONTINUE. I WILL LEGISLATORS AND GOVERNOR REYNOLDS WILL SEE YOU AT THE CAPITOL IN 2026. NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE, THE IOWA RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION IS CELEBRATING REYNOLDS DECISION, SAYING THAT THIS LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE HURT IOWANS AND OUR STATE’S ECONOMY. OUR BEAU BOWMAN SAT DOWN WITH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MONTE SHAW TO START OFF VERY BROADLY, I GUESS. WHY WERE YOU OPPOSED TO THIS BILL THAT GOVERNOR REYNOLDS ENDED UP VETOING? IRFA MEMBERS ARE, YOU KNOW, DEEPLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE GOVERNOR FOR VETOING THIS. THERE’S A LOT OF NOISE ON THIS ISSUE. BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL BILL ITSELF AND READ THE BILL AND PUT ASIDE THE RHETORIC, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE VETOED. AND SO WE’RE GLAD SHE DID THAT. THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WAS TO KILL THE CARBON CAPTURE PIPELINE PROJECTS. AND THERE WERE TWO PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT WERE PRETTY MUCH KIND OF LIKE RIFLE SHOTS TRYING TO TAKE THOSE OUT. BUT THERE WERE TWO OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WE HIGHLIGHT. ONE WAS WHAT WE CALL THE LAWSUIT BONANZA. IT REALLY OPENED UP THAT ANYBODY COULD INTERVENE IN THE IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ANY REASON. AND THE KEY TO THAT IS NOT ONLY DOES THAT SLOW DOWN AND MAKE THE PERMITTING PROCESS MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT IF YOU CAN INTERVENE, YOU CAN FILE A LAWSUIT. ALSO, SOMETHING THAT APPLIED TO ALL PROJECTS WAS A NEW INSURANCE REQUIREMENT. AND I KNOW IT’S HARD TO COVER EVERYTHING IN DETAIL, BUT I READ THESE STORIES AND IT REQUIRED SOME MORE INSURANCE. NO, IT’S NOT LIKE THEY SAID, HEY, YOU GOT TO HAVE $10 MILLION OF COVERAGE INSTEAD OF FIVE. THEY LITERALLY SAID, YOU HAVE TO GET INSURANCE. THAT COVERS INTENTIONAL ACTS OF SABOTAGE. NO INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE WORLD COVERS INTENTIONAL ACTS OF SABOTAGE. THAT’D BE LIKE SAYING YOU HAVE TO GO. YOU WANT TO GO GET A HOMEOWNER’S POLICY THAT WILL REBUILD YOUR HOUSE IF YOU DECIDE TO BURN IT DOWN. I MEAN, THAT’S NOT HOW INSURANCE WORKS. SO WE’RE JUST WORRIED THAT, LIKE, YOU CAN’T DO THAT AND THAT WOULD APPLY TO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, PIPELINES. SO YOUR PRICE OF GAS IS GOING TO GO UP. YOUR PRICE OF DIESEL IS GOING TO GO UP. NATURAL GAS TO HEAT YOUR HOME GOES THROUGH THESE PERMITS. THE ELECTRICITY THAT TURNS ON THE LIGHT WHEN YOU FLIP THE SWITCH GOES THROUGH THESE PERMITS. SO THIS WOULD HAVE MADE EVERY SINGLE THING FORM OF ENERGY IN IOWA MORE EXPENSIVE. I KNOW THIS THE CONTROVERSY WITH THIS BILL HAS TURNED INTO A PROPERTY RIGHTS VERSUS THE PIPELINE. THAT’S WHAT THEY SAY. ORDEAL. I GUESS. HOW HOW WOULD YOU SAY THE PIPELINE QUALIFIES FOR EMINENT DOMAIN SINCE IT’S NOT PUBLIC USE? WELL, IT IS PUBLIC USE. SO PEOPLE HEAR PUBLIC USE AND THEY THINK LIKE, WELL, LIKE A HIGHWAY OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? THE ELECTRICITY THAT COMES TO YOUR HOUSE COMES THROUGH A PRIVATELY OWNED TRANSMISSION LINE. THE NATURAL GAS THAT HEATS YOUR HOME COMES THROUGH A PRIVATELY OWNED. PIPELINE. THE GASOLINE THAT YOU PUT IN YOUR CAR CAME UP FROM THE GULF COAST OR DOWN FROM THE NORTH ON A PRIVATELY OWNED PIPELINE. THOSE ARE ALL CONSIDERED PUBLIC USE AND HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES AND DECADES AND DECADES. SO TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMITTING CO2 TO SEQUESTER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ENVIRONMENT HAS BEEN DEEMED A PUBLIC USE BY THE US CONGRESS. AND IT’S ACTUALLY IN IOWA CODE AS WELL. LIKE YOU MENTIONED, ELECTRICITY AND GAS THERE. THEY ALL HAVE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC, THOUGH, LIKE YOU HAVE ELECTRICITY GOING TO YOUR HOUSE, YOU HAVE GAS GOING TO YOUR CAR. I’M JUST SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND HERE, BUT I GUESS WHERE CAN IOWANS SEE THE BENEFIT OR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FROM THE PIPELINE? THERE’S TWO WAYS. AND THEN I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SO-CALLED BENEFIT OF THESE OTHER THINGS. OKAY. SO FIRST OF ALL, YOU KNOW, CONGRESS, WHICH IS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IN THIS DEBATE. UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, CONGRESS IS THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. AND THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE SAID THAT SEQUESTERING CARBON IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO YOU MIGHT DISAGREE WITH CONGRESS, BUT THAT’S THE LAW OF THE LAND AS FORMULATED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. SECONDLY, WE BENEFIT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT UNLOCKS THESE NEW MARKETS. WE HAVE AIRLINES ALL OVER THE PLACE. EVERY SINGLE AIRLINE THAT’S THAT YOU’VE HEARD OF IN THE UNITED STATES, AND HALF OF THEM FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE COME IN AND TALKED TO US AND SAID, WE NEED LOW CARBON AVIATION FUELS. HOW CAN YOU HELP US DO THIS? THESE ARE CUSTOMERS THAT WANT THIS PRODUCT. WE’RE NOT FORCING ANYBODY TO TAKE THIS STUFF. THESE ARE CUSTOMERS THAT WANT THIS. WE JUST NEED THE TOOL TO GET IT DONE. WE NEED NEW MARKETS. WE’RE PRODUCING MORE CORN THAN THERE IS DEMAND FOR TODAY. AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW NEAR-TERM MARKETS, ALL OF THE BIG LONG TERM MARKETS FOR NEW ETHANOL DEMAND, NEW CORN DEMAND, WANT ULTRA LOW CARBON ETHANOL, THE GIANT RED EASY BUTTON TO GET ULTRA LOW CARBON ETHANOL IS TO DO CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION. AND THIS BILL WOULD HAVE MADE THAT BASICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. AND SO AS WE’RE OUT HERE AND LOOKING AT CORN GROWERS PRODUCING MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE CORN YEAR AFTER YEAR ON THE SAME ACRES, IF WE DON’T HAVE DEMAND, THEN PRICES GO DOWN. OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS, FARMERS WITNESSED THE LARGEST TWO YEAR DROP IN INCOME EVER, EVER. FARM INCOME WENT DOWN ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS. YOU HAD TO GO BACK TO THE 1930S DUST BOWL ERA TO FIND AN INCOME DROP. AS BIG AS WE’VE SUFFERED THE LAST TWO YEARS. BASICALLY, YOU’VE GOT E15, WHICH IS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER BLEND THAT WE COULD GET HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH SOME HELP FROM CONGRESS. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT NEAR-TERM DEMAND BOOST. AFTER THAT, ALL THE NEW MARKETS WANT ULTRA LOW CARBON ETHANOL. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME VIEWERS WHO ARE PROBABLY LIKE, OH, GREAT, LOWER CARBON. THAT’S AWESOME. YOU PROBABLY HAVE OTHERS THAT ROLL THEIR EYES AND DON’T CARE. I’M HERE TO SAY WE DON’T CARE. OUR CUSTOMERS ARE SAYING THEY WANT ULTRA LOW CARBON ETHANOL. IT’S OUR JOB TO EITHER PROVIDE THAT PRODUCT TO THEM OR THEY’RE GOING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. I WAS ROLE AS THE NUMBER ONE ETHANOL PRODUCER, AND ALL THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS THAT COME FROM THAT IS NOT GUARANTEED, AND WE WILL LOSE THAT AND WE WILL SUFFER THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON’T STAY ON THE CUTTING EDGE. WHEN WE COME BACK. THE DEEP DIVIDE AMONG IOWA LAWMAKERS AFTER THE GOVERNOR’S DECISION TO VETO THIS BILL, AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN IOWA MOVING FORWARD. WELCOME BACK TO CLOSE UP ����vlog POLITICAL ANALYST DENNIS GOLDFORD IS HERE THIS MORNING BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS DECISION. DENNIS, OBVIOUSLY, THERE’S SOME INFIGHTING WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OVER THIS ISSUE. REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN HOLT WENT AS FAR TO SAY THIS IS SPARKED A CIVIL WAR ON ON THE SENATE SIDE OF THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME PUBLIC DISAGREEMENT. SO HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MOVING FORWARD? WELL, YOU KNOW, NONE OF US LIKES TO BE CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. AND ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS GENERALLY. EVERYBODY’S IN FAVOR OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. EVERYBODY’S IN FAVOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THE PROBLEM FOR AN OFFICEHOLDER IS WHAT DO YOU DO IF THEY CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER? AND WE HAVE A CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH WE HAVE, IN A SENSE, A LAME DUCK GOVERNOR, ALTHOUGH SHE CONTINUES TO WANT TO PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN THINGS, BUT SHE’S GENERATED BECAUSE SHE OPTED MORE ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SIDE. A LOT OF OPPOSITION WITHIN HER OWN PARTY, AND SHE CAN’T BE THREATENED WITH NOT BEING REELECTED BECAUSE SHE’S ALREADY SAID SHE’S NOT RUNNING AGAIN. THE ONLY THREAT, IF YOU WILL, IF THAT’S NOT TOO HARSH A WORD FROM REPUBLICANS IS OBSTRUCTING WHATEVER AGENDA SHE MIGHT HAVE FOR THE NEXT SESSION. AND WE’VE ALREADY HEARD SOME HOUSE REPUBLICANS SAY THAT THEY MAY NOT VOTE FOR, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIES OR PIECES THAT SHE PUMPS OUT NEXT SESSION. RIGHT. I’M ALSO CURIOUS FOR YOUR TAKE ON HOW THIS COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE RACE OF REPUBLICANS WHO WANT TO FILL REYNOLDS SHOES. SURE. WHAT THIS HAS DONE, OF COURSE, IS PUT AN ISSUE FRONT AND CENTER THAT WILL BE, IN A SENSE, ON THE BALLOT, NOT OFFICIALLY, BUT IT WILL BE TALKED ABOUT AND OF CONCERN TO REPUBLICANS IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY IN JUNE OF 2026. SO WHOEVER IS RUNNING FOR THAT REPUBLICAN NOMINATION IS CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. THE PROBLEM IS FINDING A WAY TO NAVIGATE IT SO THAT YOU CAN DO SO WITHOUT ALIENATING ANYBODY, OR AT LEAST MANY PEOPLE. DOES THE DECISION THAT REYNOLDS MADE ON THIS IMPACT HER LEGACY, AND HOW IOWANS VIEW HER? IT MAY. AGAIN, IT DEPENDS WHAT HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD THIS NEXT SESSION AND THIS NEXT YEAR WITH THE PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION. WHEN YOU SAY YOU’RE NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION, GENERALLY, OTHER THAN PEOPLE QUESTIONING WHETHER THEY’LL SUPPORT YOUR REMAINING AGENDA, YOU MIGHT HAVE AN EYE TOWARD THE HISTORY BOOKS, HOW YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED. AND THIS RIGHT NOW IS IS A STRONG CONTROVERSY. WILL IT BE SO DOWN THE ROAD? THAT REMAINS TO BE SEEN? REALLY QUICKLY, BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT. BUT SOME PEOPLE SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME BIG DONORS THAT ARE BEHIND THIS PIPELINE. BRUCE RASTETTER, YOU KNOW, REYNOLDS ISN’T RUNNING FOR REELECTION. AND SO MANY SAID, IS IT A SIGNAL THAT SHE MAY BE CONSIDERING SOME HIGHER OFFICE TO, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, NO. NONE OF US ARE ABLE TO LOOK BEHIND THE SCENES. BUT WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF OF THAT CONVERSATION? WE DON’T REALLY KNOW AT THIS POINT. THAT’S THE BEST I CAN SAY. I THINK THE GOVERNOR, BY ALL APPEARANCES, SEEMS READY TO RETIRE FROM POLITICAL LIFE. SHE MAY WANT TO REMAIN AN INFLUENCER, BUT AGAIN, THERE’S THIS THIS CONTROVERSY THAT’S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHATEVER SHE CHOOSES TO DO IN THE FUTURE. WELL, DENNIS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. WE APPRECIATE IT. SURE. WELL, NEXT CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR VOW TO TAKE ACTION. WHY? SOME REPUBLICANS SAY PROPERTY RIGHTS IS THE CENTRAL ISSUE IN THEIR CAMPAIGN TO LEAD THE STATE. AFTER GOVERNOR REYNOLDS DECISION TO VETO A CONTROVERSIAL EMINENT DOMAIN BILL. TWO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR SPOKE OUT AGAINST REYNOLDS DECISION. I TALKED WITH BOTH EDDIE ANDREWS AND BRAD SHERMAN ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNOR’S DECISION CHANGES THEIR CAMPAIGN TO LEAD THE STATE. WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION? SEEING THAT THE GOVERNOR VETOED HOUSE FILE? 639. WELL, I HAVE TO SAY I WASN’T TOTALLY SURPRISED BECAUSE ALL THE WAY BACK IN 23, WHEN I WENT INTO THE STATEHOUSE, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER ABOUT THIS AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN HER STATEMENT REFLECTED PRETTY MUCH WHAT I HEARD BACK THEN. AND SO BUT WE WERE HOPING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REASON THROUGH A LOT OF THESE ISSUES. AND IT DOESN’T APPEAR THAT THAT HAPPENED. WHY IS THIS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TO YOU? WELL, EMINENT DOMAIN. EVERYBODY SAYS THE RIGHT THING WHEN IT COMES TO EMINENT DOMAIN. BUT THIS IS A PRIVATE COMPANY WHO’S NOT A COMMON CARRIER FOR A PRODUCT THAT’S NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY. AND THAT JUST DOESN’T FIT WHAT EMINENT DOMAIN IS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR. AND SO PROPERTY RIGHTS IS IS ONE OF OUR MOST FOUNDATIONAL RIGHTS. YOU KNOW, LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THE FOUNDERS WERE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY WHEN THEY SAID PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. A LOT OF LANDOWNERS, IN THE WAKE OF THE DECISION THE GOVERNOR MADE, SAID, THIS IS GOING TO COME UP IN 2026. THEY SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE THAT PEOPLE ARE VOTING ON. HOW WILL THIS PLAY A ROLE IN YOUR CAMPAIGN FOR GOVERNOR? WELL, I’VE BEEN ALREADY CAMPAIGNING. WE’VE BEEN TO 29 COUNTIES, SOME MORE THAN ONCE. WE’RE GETTING GOOD SUPPORT, AND THIS HAS BEEN ONE OF MY MAIN POINTS THE WHOLE TIME. SO IT’S ALREADY IN OUR CAMPAIGN. AND SO NOW IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE BECAUSE WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP FIGHTING THIS BECAUSE I WILL I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS. YOU KNOW, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE SAYS THESE RIGHTS COME FROM OUR CREATOR, AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT THEN IS TO PROTECT THESE RIGHTS. IF YOU WERE GOVERNOR, HOW WOULD YOU BALANCE PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT ALSO ENSURING THAT THERE’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE? OF COURSE, THERE’S OPINIONS ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I DON’T THINK THIS STOPPING THE THE WHOLE IDEA OF CAPTURING CARBON DIOXIDE, I DON’T THINK THAT’S GOING TO HURT OUR ECONOMY AT ALL. THERE’S THERE’S WAYS WE CAN USE CARBON DIOXIDE TO CREATE A MORE PROFITABLE ENVIRONMENT IN YOUR RELEASE, AFTER THE GOVERNOR’S DECISION ON SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU WROTE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, CONSTITUTIONAL OR CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS IN YOUR HEAD. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO? AND WHERE DO YOU FALL IN THAT SPECTRUM? WELL, FIRST OFF, THIS I BELIEVE THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE. I THINK OUR CONSTITUTION IS CLEAR THAT THIS SHOULD NOT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE EMINENT DOMAIN IN THIS SITUATION IN 22 AND ALSO IN 24, THERE WAS A REALLY AN INCREASE IN THE WHAT I WOULD CALL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES. AND THAT DIDN’T IN THE HOUSE, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE I SERVED. I THINK THE LEADERSHIP REALLY RESPONDED. THEY SAW THIS WAS A RESULT OF THE GRASSROOTS AND THEY RESPONDED AND THEY PUT BILLS FORWARD THAT THE PEOPLE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVES WANTED TO PUT FORWARD. HOWEVER, I DON’T THINK THAT HAPPENED IN THE SENATE. THEY HAD AN INCREASE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVES, BUT THE THE ESTABLISHED, ESTABLISHED LEADERSHIP DIDN’T RESPOND TO IT THE WAY THE HOUSE DID. AND SO AND, AND THE GOVERNOR SEEMS TO BE ON BOARD WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SENATE ON THAT. I’M JOINED NOW BY REPUBLICAN STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR, EDDIE ANDREWS. THANKS FOR BEING HERE. IT IS AN HONOR. HOW ARE YOU DOING? WELL, WELL, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR REACTION WHEN THE GOVERNOR VETOED HOUSE FILE 639. YOU HAD BEEN A STAUNCH ADVOCATE FOR THIS LEGISLATION. ABSOLUTELY. OF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNOR’S RACE RIGHT NOW, I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS THERE FROM THE VERY, VERY BEGINNING, STANDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER WITH THE LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE COME DOWN TO THE CAPITOL EVERY WEEK, EVERY TUESDAY, SPENDING THEIR OWN GAS MONEY, SPENDING TIME AND EFFORT WORKING ON LEGISLATION. I’VE ACTUALLY WRITTEN LEGISLATION AND WORKED WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE WRITTEN LEGISLATION TO TO PROTECT THEIR LANDS. AND SO WHEN I HEARD THE THE GOVERNOR VETOED THIS, I IT WAS LIKE A A GUT PUNCH. AND ALL OF THE EFFORT THAT WAS GIVEN BY THE LANDOWNERS, BY US AND THE LEGISLATURE TO HELP THEM AND FINALLY GETTING IT THROUGH THE SENATE AFTER FOUR YEARS, AND THEN JUST TO HAVE IT VETOED IS IT’S IT WAS I GOT TO TELL YOU KIND OF LOOKED LIKE A BETRAYAL OF OF ALL THE LANDOWNERS. AND YOU HAVE CALLED ALONG WITH OTHER HOUSE REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS FOR A SPECIAL SESSION TO CONVENE AND TO POTENTIALLY OVERRIDE THIS VETO. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE’S NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT IN THE SENATE FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HOUSE LAWMAKERS CAN DO TO CONTINUE FIGHTING FOR THIS? WELL, WE’RE NOT DONE WITH THAT. I MEAN, WE WE DO KNOW THAT. SPEAKER GRASSLEY CALLED FOR A SPECIAL SESSION. THE HOUSE WAS CERTAINLY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. AND TO YOUR POINT, DOESN’T LOOK LIKE SENATE LEADERSHIP WILL DO THAT. BUT IT’S POSSIBLE. MAYBE WE CAN CALL A SPECIAL SESSION TO CRAFT NEW LEGISLATION. WHO KNOWS? THERE ARE STILL OPTIONS. AND WE’RE EVERYTHING’S ON THE TABLE. I GUARANTEE YOU THOUGH, THIS IS NOT OVER. AND I’VE HEARD FROM LANDOWNERS THAT THIS WILL BE AN ISSUE FOR THEM IN THE 2026 ELECTION. YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOUR CANDIDACY AS GOVERNOR? WELL, I THINK THEY KNOW THAT I HAVE BEEN THERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. AND SO THEY KNOW THAT I HAVE THEIR BACK. AND AS GOVERNOR, THIS WILL BE A HIGH PRIORITY, THAT ON DAY ONE, WE WILL SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS CENTRAL TO YOUR. ABSOLUTELY, 100%. YOU KNOW, AND IT’S NOT JUST THE COMMON SENSE, RIGHT, OF BEING ABLE TO PROTECT YOUR LAND AND NOT HAVING TO SUBMIT TO EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE YOUR LAND FOR THINGS THAT YOU DON’T WANT THEM TO DO. BUT IT GETS BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE THAT IT’S GOVERNMENT’S JOB TO PROTECT YOUR LANDOWNER RIGHTS. WELL, EDDIE ANDREWS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. WE APPRECIATE IT. ALWAYS A PLEASURE. THANK YOU. AMANDA. WELL, CLOSE UP WILL BE RIGHT BACK AFTER THIS BREAK. STAY WITH US. BEFORE WE GO TODAY, WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THE OTHER BILLS THAT GOVERNOR REYNOLDS SIGNED INTO LAW LAST WEEK. SHE SIGNED A BILL ALLOWING THE STATE TO CHARGE LOCAL 911 BOARDS A FEE FOR TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES. LOCAL 911 OPERATORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT GROUPS SAY THE CHANGES COULD IMPACT EMERGENCY SERVICES. THEY SAY THEY’RE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH THE STATE WILL BUILD THEM FOR. THE GOVERNOR ALSO SIGNED NEW RESTRICTIONS ON PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS OR PBMS. NOW, BEFORE YOU PICK UP YOUR PRESCRIPTION, PBMS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE NEGOTIATING DRUG PRICES BETWEEN MANUFACTURERS, HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND PHARMACIES. NOW, THE LAW REQUIRES PHARMACIES TO BE PAID REIMBURSED AT THE AVERAGE COST OF A DRUG. ANOTHER BILL THE GOVERNOR VETOED WOULD HAVE ALLOWED DOCTORS TO PRESCRIBE A SYNTHETIC VERSION OF PSILOCYBIN, OR MAGIC MUSHROOMS. THREE STATES IN THE U.S. HAVE LEGALIZED ACCESS TO TREAT PTSD IN VETERANS. REYNOLDS SAYS SHE WANTS MORE TIME FOR THE STATE TO REVIEW CLINICAL STUDIES, AND THAT PSILOCYBIN SHOULD BE FIRST APPROVED BY THE FDA. WELL, THANKS FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. HAVE A GREAT DAY.